Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract with Brüel & Kjaer EMS, Inc., a Delaware corporation, including any necessary amendments thereto, for the maintenance, upgrade and support of the Long Beach Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), in the amount of $232,873, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods; authorize an annual contingency in the amount of $50,000 for additional services, plus a 3.5 percent annual CPI increase, for a total amount not to exceed $873,356 for the proposed three-year term. (Districts 3,4,5,7,8)

LongBeachCC_11012016_16-0992

Motion carries. Next Item 22 Report from Long Beach Airport Recommendation to adopt resolution to execute a contract with Berlin Care EMS for the maintenance upgrade and support of the Long Beach Noise and Operations Monitoring System for total amount not to exceed $880,000 for the proposed three year term District five. I think you want to take your motion off. Okay. Okay. I will get in your motion in a second on that. Okay. Can I get a second on that, please? Give us a motion or take any public comment saying none, please. We do. Yes, actually. So let me go to Councilman Superhot and then we're going to go to our public comment. Councilmember Thank you. This is kind of a housekeeping item. I'd like to address just the language in this item. It's listed as a District five item. And generally speaking, this kind of perpetuates perpetuates the philosophy that the airport is a District five entity when it affects our entire city. This specifically involves noise monitors, which are located in districts three, five, four, seven and eight. So I just like the language of this item to be changed to reflect all five council districts. Mr. WEST Yes, we certainly will do that. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. I think I second that motion. Okay. Councilman Mongo. I would not only like it to be reflected in this, but in future noise related items. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this? I think there was one. Yes, please. Hi again. Laurie Smith, Third District. This I just want to be clear, this also is regarding the web track. Okay. As a Ron Reeves. The noise or the noise? Guru. Guru. Buddha. The Buddha that that deals with her constituents concerns and issues and keeps us updated on things. He gets a lot of emails from those of us who use web track. We're not exactly. Pleased with their service. So I was just talking to. To one of the staffers of the councilman. I just want it to be built in that there is a way that the community who uses this service could. Be able to interact with them rather than it be Ron Reeves and take up his. Time. We've asked for contact information from them and be able to speak to them because there's wide. Swaths of sways swathes of. Information that are missing. And when you look at a Web track website, they also provide the information for Alex Torrance. You can go to any of them. It's very easy to do on their website. And it's funny because our airport, our Long Beach Airport Web track system misses all the information. But if you go to the other airports, you could see it there. So it's it's been something that's going on for a year that we've been talking to them about. Unfortunately, the person that we were speaking to before is no longer there. So I don't have a new contact person. It's just a little frustrating when it's the constituents or people that that are that they're providing the service for so that we could be able to get to get the information if there's people that are not flying correctly or flying too low or dangerously over the neighborhood. So I would just ask that we be able to to put that in to. The contract that they provide. That or have a community outreach person or have bi monthly or quarterly meetings that they meet with with community members to look into. Issues that we're having with their system. Considering that they provide the service to all the other airports. And that information is on there. But it's not an airport. It's something that you would think, you know, you would want to do as a business, that you're providing the service for, you know, 8 to 10 other airports. And yet the one that you then there's this one airport that doesn't have that information. So please include in there. I appreciate you allowing me to talk and. And complain about this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. West or Mr. Marker. Can you make sure that our system is if we have a system, it's got to be, like the best, obviously, as far as the data. So if ours isn't up to up to speed or I've heard this complaint multiple times. So, Mr. Romo, can we just look into it and we're spending money to do this thing? It should be working. We'll certainly have that conversation with the vendor and see what other departments are doing and make sure that we're doing better, if not exactly what they're doing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just had a couple of quick clarifying questions for the airport director regarding this. Obviously, I support this agenda item. As we spoke about earlier, the noise ordinance is very, very important to us. And so monitoring noise accurately is is extremely important for our city. And so this this this contract is something that I will support. But I wanted to clarify the noise monitors. Are they specific to the main runway when we 30. Councilmember Austin of the 18 monitors that are deployed. I. 12 are dedicated to runway 1230 or main runway. The other six are dedicated to the shorter two five runways. So we actually have noise monitoring capabilities for the other two runways. We do that. And the purpose for those is not part of the noise budget, if you will, that's tied to runway 11230, the the noise monitors for the short runways or for single event violations. So we monitor that. If somebody exceeds the allowable single event, that's that's used for that purpose. And do you know, I guess the question, if we have 18 monitors and you said 12 were dedicated to one, two, three zero. That's correct. And so would that mean that three are dedicated to the other two. Three, three. Each? And you know what the the scope of that noise actually is or geographics in terms of where they they're located. Well, I can I'll give you some general information on it and our noise, officer, if you want to get more pinpoint information. But each of the short runways has a one monitor on the approach side and two monitors on the departure side. Specific locations. I'd have to have Mr. Reeves come up here if you want that information. Which I can get with him. Outside of that, I'm just trying to get some orientation as to. Okay. Our noise monitoring capabilities on the other runways. Yes. Thanks. Thank you. I we have a I'm sorry, Councilman. You know. Just one last point of clarification. This item is primarily software, as I understand it now with the noise monitoring system. There's a physical component. I think web track calls them emus. Ron Reis refers to them Raptis, I believe. But it's the pickup device, the microphone that that measures the sound. Does this item. Well, I mean, a better question would be, is there a single point of responsibility if a noise monitor goes down? I know our airport staff does a great job, but Web track is not responsible for their not being sound monitored. They're they're responsible for a component of that. Would that be correct? That's correct. Okay. So what we really need to do as as the mayor said, if we want a top notch system, it's got to be both the physical component and the software component. So I just like to add that that. If that makes sense. Yes. All right. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. We had public comment. Please cast your votes.

A proclamation celebrating the 50th anniversary of Denver Health’s Bernard F. Gipson Eastside Family Health Center and Denver Community Health Services.

DenverCityCouncil_03072016_16-0157

Whereas Denver's Denver Health Bernard F Gibson Eastside Family Health Center opened in March 1966 as the third Community Health Center in the United States and the first west of the Mississippi River. And. WHEREAS, The East Side Family Health Center is named for Bernard F Gibson, Colorado's first board certified African-American surgeon. And. WHEREAS, Denver Community Health Services now has eight community health centers and 17 school based health centers, with the mission of providing primary and preventative health care services to the residents of the city and county of Denver and acts as a safety net to the medically underserved of Denver. And. Whereas, the community and school based health centers are located in high need areas, provide comprehensive primary health care services to their patients, and provide services to all residents of their service area with fees based on ability to pay. And. Whereas, Denver Community Health Services is the leading primary health care system for low income Denver residents providing health care services to 60% of Denver's uninsured population and over half of the city's Medicaid patients. And. WHEREAS, Denver Community Health Services provides high quality health care, as evidenced by indicators such as childhood and adolescence, immunization rates, well-child visit rates, adult hypertension control and diabetes management. And. WHEREAS, Denver Health will be opening its newest community health center, the Southwest Family Health Center, at 1339 South Federal Boulevard on April 18, 2016, providing urgent care, full spectrum primary care, dental services, behavioral health services, and more. And. WHEREAS, the Bernadette Gibson Eastside Family Health Center will have provided 50 years of continuous service to the citizens of Denver on March seven, 2016, now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver applaud the tireless commitment and work of the Bernadette Gibson Eastside Family Health Center. 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 Dr. Art Gonzalez, CEO Denver Health and Dr. Simon Hambrick, Chief Ambulatory Officer, Denver Health. So I move the proclamation. 157 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Anyone who want to start off with comments on proclamation 157. Councilman Ortega. I'd be happy to make some comments. So first of all, I want to congratulate Denver Health for just the outstanding work they've done across this city. I can remember when this body had to play a role in approving the school based clinics being allowed accepting the grant funds that allowed the first school based clinics in our high schools. I think it was east and west and North High School, I think were the first three that were started out. And it was it was a political football because there were a lot of concerns about what kind of services were going to be provided and, you know, making sure that contraceptives were distributed to students and all of those kinds of concerns. But really, those clinics have played such a vital role in ensuring that uninsured students are able to have access to, you know, if they play in sports, they have to have their what do you call it, physicals, their physicals, so that they, you know, have that sign off before they can play the sports. And in in many cases, you know, they didn't have a doctor or they didn't have insurance. And so the clinics played such a vital role, and I'm very familiar with this particular clinic, have had an opportunity to step in there and and be in that general complex where we have a number of city buildings. And I just want to commend Denver Health for just the outstanding work that's been done across this city. I can remember when the clinic in the Globeville neighborhood closed and, you know, we worked really hard to get the LA Clinic up there to ensure that that community still has access. And in that case, they're serving a large number of people. But to know that we have the new clinic that's going to be opening in southwest Denver, that will have a number of services. And just so you know, that's in addition to Sam Sanders clinic, the demand in that quadrant of the city has grown so much that there was a need to build a new facility. And so I'm just pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill tonight and just grateful for the incredible work that Denver helped us in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, sir. President. Councilwoman Ortega, with her last remarks, took the words out of my mouth. I wanted to thank Denver Health and Denver Community Health Services for the 50 years in the East Side. And I wanted to take the opportunity to point out, as Councilwoman Ortega has, about the new Southwest Clinic, which is an extension of this vital service coming down to to our neck of the woods. And it will open on April 18th. I just wanted to mention the date, April 18th that clinic will open and we welcome it with open arms. The services that have been provided for 50 years in eastern Denver are coming down to Southwest. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman. So, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe the Eastside Mental Health Center used to be the Malcolm X Mental Health Center. Is that correct? At least that's my recollection. That's how long I have been in Denver. And it was a good idea. What? It's a good idea. It was. And it and they I was a graduate student, a dude studying psychology. And they I guess they needed somebody under 25 or something to sit on the board. And I remember we were all very proud of that name, Malcolm X. And we had we had been encouraged for years to change it because of the controversial aspect of the name. But we held on to it for quite a while because it had so much meaning to that community. And so I feel particularly connected to this mental health center. But more than that, I not more than that. But in addition, it's so funny how life has so many coincidences. My telephone number was one different from Doctor Gibson's, and I would get Dr. Gibson's phone calls all the time until I got to kind of know him and, you know, and they'd say, and I would have his phone number and say, No, you don't have Dr. Gibson's office. And I remember that very well and thought it's fun to be connected to some of the history in Denver. And congratulations to you. Thank you, Councilman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to just congratulate Denver Health and the folks who make Denver Health happen and those of all the employees that work to make these these clinics work. I remember a day where you walk into a clinic and you were there all day, and I didn't have health insurance until I was well into my twenties. But I remember having to walk in the Mariposa and having to be there all day before you got even to sign up for an I mean, you had to be there all day and it didn't guarantee that you got seen the next day or that you're first in line. You just told you to go home and come back tomorrow. And if you can get if you can just get back in line, you can. But they didn't hold it. But it's changed in such a revolutionary way. The way Denver health delivers health care to our communities, care for the indigent, but also for everybody. And Councilman Ortega is absolutely right. It'll 219 and 80204, which are the two zip codes in Southwest and West Denver, the highest number of patients in the area, largest underserved area. And that new in Southwest uh, uh, clinic. I would if you want to go to it and it is amazing what they've done over there that these these neighborhood clinics, these community clinics, it's important that we honor them, but it's important to know that we've fought for them to stay open. And the fact that this one for celebrating its its 50th is just remarkable. And it's a great feat for Denver Health. And you know what? If it's not a clinic, maybe it's a library or some shape or form, I do think and let me go on record in saying we do have to honor Malcolm X and the way and what he contributed, not just to African-American, um, African-American history, but all of us and that memory and that network that does have to be commemorated. And it shouldn't be controversial. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 157. I would simply ask that you cannot understate the impact that these clinics have had to the communities that they have served. And I'm familiar with the Gibson Family Health Clinic. Not as much as I'm familiar with the one in my district in Montevallo, but I just think about how vital that is to the community. And not only does it provide health care services, but quality health care services. So no matter where your income level is in the city, there's a place for you to receive that quality and health care. And I just have to give kudos for the Denver health team for putting all this together, because it is it is vital for those communities that they serve. And congratulations for 50 years and continued success. Seeing the comments on 157. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Clerk I Espinosa Flynn I Gilmore I Cashman. I can each Lopez. I knew Ortega assessment. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting out the results. 1212 eyes 157 has been adopted. I would like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation. Richard Castro, Ambulatory Health Service Administrator. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Council President Herman. I'm Richard Kallstrom, clinical administrator for the Family Health Center. Along with the other East Side clinics are Parkhill, Montebello and Lowry have another administrator, and she's oversees the other clinics on behalf of Denver Health and the behalf of Simon Hemorrhage. And Dr. Gonzalez, just want to say thank you very much for recognizing Denver Health Community Health Services. Denver health. I just want to say, on behalf of 606,500 employees at Denver Health, I accept this recognition, proudly accept it for 50 years of service to Denver City and County. As we began our work back in March 7th, 1966, in a dilapidated bakery in a five points neighborhood that was transformed into the side family health center and later renamed a Gibson Eastside Family Health Center in 2000, in honor of Denver's first African-American surgeon, minority F Gibson Senior. Then those first days or first weeks of operation at Denver Health at East Side, they served 1200 patients and 14 the first 14 days at 14,000 visits. So we have a here a couple of people who've been this in this journey from the beginning and very. Carlos, could you stand up? I want to recognize Colonel Sam to Steve. And he he was one of the pioneers in guiding East Side Family Health Center and West Side Family Health Center started. He was president of the city council. Actually opened it on March 7th, 1966. You don't look like it, but we got the pictures. Okay. Thank you, Carlos. Without. Without you and sitting down. Without pioneers like Carlos and the City Council, we don't have community health in Denver. We've grown from 14,000 patient visits in the first few days, first two weeks to over a half a million annually. That's a lot for Denver. A half a million visits? Yeah. I have just recognized another person. I can recognize everybody but Sherry Stevens. Just stand up and I know you're so shy. Or Sherry Johnson. I'm sorry. Sherry Stevens is. No, Sherry's mom was. She started at 50 years ago at Eastside Family Health Center, and she retired. And Sherry. She's been with us for 31 years. So they've seen the 50 year journey. Journey this family has. Thank you. Sharing. And that's important because in all of our clinics, especially at the Eastside Clinic, which is the oldest one, we're in our fourth generation of patients. And there's a good reason for that is because we do give darn good care. We have doctors that can work anywhere, but they don't. They can work anywhere for more money, but they don't. They work at Eastside and or other clinics because that's what that's where the reward is. In 1966, the promise of community health was a simple one go where the need is. We remain committed to going where the need is and for caring for Denver's most vulnerable regardless of their ability to pay for the next 50 years, for that last 50 years and the next 50 years and beyond. We plan to be here. Thank you. Thank you. We are moving on to our last proclamation, proclamation 158. I am not reading that one. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 158?

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, to work with the Long Beach Health Officer and the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to conduct outreach, draft safety protocols, and discuss and enact related strategic planning initiatives with youth sports leagues in preparation for reopening our parks to youth sports activities as allowable by the State and City health orders within 60 days.

LongBeachCC_06162020_20-0554

Thank you. Item number six, please. Communication from Council on Mango Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilman super novice Mary Andrews recommendation to discuss and enact related strategic planning initiatives with youth sports leagues in preparation for re-opening our parks to youth sports activities. Thank you. I appreciate everyone who signed on to this item. As many know, our youth sports programs are many nonprofit organizations and some are many businesses. They employ people who are coaches or referees, and they also have many, many volunteers and parents that participate in keeping the kids out and about and engaged in athletics, which keeps them healthy and strong. So we need to have a focus on ensuring that we are prepared to take on the challenge ahead of allowing multiple sports who are typically spread over a year to really prepare to come back and potentially play simultaneously. An example of this is some of our sports fields overlap each other and we wouldn't be able to in some facilities throughout the city, host both soccer and baseball at the same time. But there are adjustments that can be made throughout the city to make those types of things possible. So when and if sports can come back, we are prepared to give all youth the opportunity to get out there and practice their skills so as they move through and participate in their school sports, they have those knowledge, skills and abilities and talents to really help them through and keep them engaged in their schoolwork. So I really appreciate the youth sports directors that have reached out with you on better understanding your goals. And I think it's important to have a formal process where Parks and Rec really sits with the directors and casting directors that know and understand the complexities that can come about as we roll out the new requirements, which organizations are really prepared to do to meet that challenge and for them to be able to share ideas with people that aren't yet getting that kind of guidance from their national association? Councilman Supernormal. Thank you. And if that was the motion, I'd like to second the motion and just add to it that I fully support this and thank Councilmember Mongo for bringing it forward. We have the good fortune of having some baseball leagues in the fourth district, Durant Park Post, Long Beach League, Whaley Post, Long Beach Pro Baseball, and then where the North has a number of volleyball teams. Our council district has invested a lot into these facilities. We support them tremendously, and we'd really like to see them get going once again. Also to reiterate what Councilman Mungo stated, and that is these organizations can bring their own protocols to the table. So let's make sure we we listen to them as we move forward. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you so much. I appreciate I appreciate bringing this item forward. And I have kids who are in their youth programs in the city, both the city sponsored ones and also club ones. And I really do think we need to sit down and figure out how to work on protocols that make participation in these activities safe and feasible for our youth. I can say that as a parent of two children who have been out of school now for since March and entering into the summer, there is a lot of downtime for them. And I think team sports and sports activities that we're able to reintegrate into our daily lives will assist them tremendously in getting outdoors, exercising, staying healthy, making good choices, interacting with people outside of the technology world that they're most of them are operating in. And so anything that we can do as a city to help partner with these organizations to allow for safe reopening and participation, I would support and I appreciate Cassell and Mongo bringing this item forward. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. I just want to add my my my support to this item. Obviously, youth sports are extremely important and I really think it's part of the DNA of this city. So when we get back to functionality, we should have a plan to ensure that that our youth are safe, their parents are safe, and that they are having an enriched activity, whatever sport they are playing, either super active sports or not. And so I think there are also a lot of national organizations that are connected to many of these sports organizations that they can draw upon information as well. Our staff can draw upon information as well. But I do like the idea of working with local youth organizations, sports organizations throughout the city to to be engaged in the process, at least as as important stakeholders in the process. So congratulations. I really like this item and plan on supporting it. Council member Adam Quirk. Any public comment? Yes. We do have public comment on this item. Joel Davis. Um, you have 3 minutes. I may regret not to thank you for hearing this agenda item and allow it. My name is Joel. There's a current president of one of our youth organizations. We provide baseball to our youth athletes. I'm here speaking on behalf of multiple youth, baseball and softball leagues in the city limits. First, I'd like to acknowledge and show my sincere appreciation for the city Long Beach, the Health Department, and Parks and Rec Department. The magnitude of handling a pandemic, it's incalculable, and I believe we are all doing a great job at that. So thank you. I would also like to specifically acknowledge our Parks and Rec staff. They've done a tremendous job keeping us informed and prepared to get back to the field and the kids given. Recently, a task force of Long Beach baseball and softball presidents developed a plan that would allow for baseball and softball to resume and operate safely within all current published city health guidelines. Additionally, each league has submitted site specific safety resumption plans for each park and facility plan. Our reports show that baseball and softball, by its nature, along with these guidelines, is the ultimate social distancing sport. We also recognize that there are priorities to the reopening of the economy. We unfortunately do the necessary way to reopen slowly to provide for safety. We are having this conversation at the end of our traditional seasons. We are asking that a definitive decision is made for our traditional spring sports who are still holding on. In fact, based on polling, 75% of our parents who were surveyed that they would have their youth athletes play over the summer and or the fall. If it is not until the fall, the parks will see a significant impact. We ask that IT solutions develop that provides all athletes of all sports in Long Beach the opportunity to play the game they love as soon as the UK is granted. We are aware that this will cause not only a large impact on our parks, but the staff to oversee them. The park's facilities are already highly utilized and this will cause further complications. For example, Hartwell Park is home to five baseball leagues and three soccer leagues, one of which is an adult league. We believe there are ways to decrease the impact and are willing to be a part of that discussion. These leagues serve youth from all over the city. We hope that as a city we can work together to find solutions. We are ready and willing to participate in preparing a strategic plan that will get our youth back to the sport they love and are willing to work collaboratively between the youth sports organizations and the Parks and Rec staff to find creative ways to make that happen. We were at that point. A hard decision needs to be made regarding the remaining time over the summer. We could play before fall. Sports are set to begin. If the decision is no, then we are ready to work towards a plan for the fall and the future season . We do hope there is time to play and we are ready and willing and we do have a plan set in place to prove that. Thank you again for your time and thank you for your service. Thank you. Next we have Victor Boosie. You have 3. Minutes. Oh, I get it. So right now. I keep saying to do find from the Long Beach Police Department that means policing is not the answer to our schools and communities pressing needs, including jobs, housing, homelessness, health and immigration. We want to divest from the police and redirect the resources so that black, indigenous and people of color can live successful lives, reimagine community safety without police terror, and grounded in restorative justice and black empowerment. Idea of my time. Thank you. That's the end of public comment for this item. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I wanted to thank Councilmember Longo for bringing this item. I think it's incredibly important that our kids have much safe, much needed safe access to these recreational opportunities as possible, especially right now. I also think that it's very important for us to consider how impactful this could be for so many families that have limited access to childcare due to COVID 19. I'm so happy to support this item that has the chance to improve the lives of so many residents in this way. In addition to what my colleagues have said, I think it's also important that when city staff is working with with the leagues to create this opportunity, that they really consider equity and how this impacts the kids across our city. I'm thinking specifically of the neighborhoods on the West Side and the downtown and central Long Beach that could really benefit from this kind of programing. So I'd just like to ask staff to please keep those residents in mind when you're working on items like this. I'd also like to just really quickly use this opportunity to remind our community that as we continue to reopen in ways that are safe, we are still seeing a lot of COVID 19 transmission in Long Beach. Our hospitalizations especially have increased over the last four weeks. While we feel comfortable taking these steps safely. This is this is all dependent on each one of us continuing to take all the precautions we need to in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. Thank you again, Councilmember, for bringing this item forward, and I am happy to support this item. Thank you. I have Councilwoman Mango. Let me let me go first, then I'll go back. Go ahead, Councilman. Councilman Mongo. Okay. I don't hear Councilwoman Mongo. Let me let me make a comment and then I'll go back to Councilwoman Mongo. She can need her phone there. Maybe. I'm Mr. Modica. Are you there? I want to. I want to make sure also, because I think a lot of us have heard about youth sports and about obviously the enormous need for them city wide, but also just the unknown for parents. It's so hard to kind of plan. Obviously, summers and leagues and and schedules without knowing and having kind of definitive answers. The right. Now, as of today, the decision on whether a kind of organized sport league is going to happen is up to the state of California. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And so I know I've had a couple of questions and folks reach out and say, hey, Long Beach should allow some of these leagues like soccer or baseball or others. And what we've shared is what we know, obviously, with the health department has shared with us, which is they are not legally permissible right now under the state's health orders. And that doesn't mean, by the way, that that can change. You know, we've been we've been advocating for the state to give us clarity so that we would get an idea about what's ahead. Because there hasn't there has been very little clarity on kind of on on sports and youth sports. Is that right, Mr. Modica? Yes. So under the current stay at home order from the governor, team sports of any kind is not allowed. So they're still prohibiting gatherings which include team sports. Just last week, they released some guidance on camps in summer camps. So if there are very small group camps, we just got some clarity that those can operate as long as they're small staff ratios, small groups that don't interact with other groups. You know, these are things like four two, one, 621 and in some cases up to 10 to 1. So that's currently allowed, but not youth sports. And we think this item is going to be helpful so that we have a chance to talk to all of our youth sports so that if and when we get that, go ahead and and we can do it safely with our health officers direction, we would be able to move forward. Great. Thanks so much for that. That's great. Thank you. And Councilman Mongo on yet? Yes, I was here in my speaking just so I could hear you, but you couldn't hear me. Thank you. I just want to again thank my cosigners. I appreciate Rosalind Sunday House's comments. And in preparing the item, we were thinking about the whole city and preparing the city wide. We're really fortunate to have such a collaboration among our leaders. And then I also just wanted to give a big thank you to everyone on the city team who did what I believe to be a remarkable job in blending our summer engagement programs from the drop in and the standard camp. For this to be a blended program where more of our our our participants citywide can be involved on a more reasonable basis. So bringing the the melding and merging of those two programs, I really think was innovative. And I know that it's hard to find a silver lining in such difficult times of COVID. And so these are these ideas that are coming in from the staff and the community and can really change the way we provide government. And I think that this is a great example of that. Also encourage our team sports to think through that. And again, I think my cosigners and all my councilmembers are supporting. Thank you, Councilwoman. We're going to go ahead and go to a vote. Roll Call. District one. I district to. At District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. High ocean carries. Thank you. Moving on to the next item that motion carries, that was item. Now we're going to go to item ten. Madam Kirk, did you have an announcement before we go? Item ten.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $23,156.50, offset by the Fourth Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide funds to the California Dental Association who will host CDA Cares Long Beach in July 2020. Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $23,156.50 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_11122019_19-1124

. And so thank you. And much work ahead of us. But thank you very much for all of you for being here. I want to I want to briefly do item number 12, which I know is also related to the convention center. Please please read the item. Communication from Council Member Super or Not recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $23,156.50 to provide funds to the California Dental Association who will host Cares Long Beach in July 2020. So we're superannuation to do public comment first or. Actually I would like to ask Steve Goodling not to leave. I don't think he got enough praise on the last item. So we'd like you to stay here for for this one. I'll go ahead and make my comments first. And that is I'm asking for my council colleagues support to allow our office to spend $23,158.50 to bring the Cedar Cares event to the Long Beach Convention Center. Kate Carer's Allowance Volunteer. Dennis With the assistance of other health professionals and community volunteers to provide dental services at no charge to an estimated 2000 people at the event from July 17 through 18th, 2020. We have a couple of guests here tonight. Dr. Gary Glass Band is here and along with Steve Goodling, Dr. Glass Band brought this idea to me a couple of years ago. So what you're seeing tonight is the fruition of a project that has been very long in the making. And so, Dr. Glassman, if you would like to come up and say a few words about this, it it looks like Gary Glassman is ready to go to work right now. So thank you for being here. Thank you very much. Not very professional clearing my throat. No, actually, I know. I know. I know that some excited folks in the back as well. If we can kind of just exit quietly and speak in the in the foyer, that would be great. Going to my Harbor Dental Society hat for just a moment. First of all, I want to thank the the city council, the honorable mayor, the vice mayor and Mr. Goodling, who we've actually never met, but we know each other. And speaking to the mike, please. Thank you. Briefly speaking. What I'm representing is the chair of the California Dental Association Foundation. In just from a housekeeping standpoint, if in your agenda item, the funds are not going to the California Dental Association, they're going to the California Dental Association Foundation. CDA CARES is a two day charitable event where we will treat approximately 2000 patients. There's no means testing, no questions asked. Anybody that shows up can receive care. We will provide $1.5 million in two days, 800 to 850 volunteers. Professionals such as myself, physicians, nurses, dental assistants, lab technicians will all volunteer their time. No one is being paid for this event. 1200 volunteers from the community will show up and volunteer their time as translators, providing food, doing maintenance on the line, anything that needs to be done, it's a it's a great coming together of the community . I've participated in this particular event all over California for the last seven years. We've provided over $26 million worth of dental care for free for anybody that shows up. And I have a slide deck at some point I'd like to share with the full council, but a city of the gravitas of Long Beach, of the presentation of Long Beach. Unfortunately, like any other city anywhere in the United States, it's said you can walk ten blocks in one direction from any major city and see what's going on with the rest of the community. And this is a community that we want to help serve. It's the homeless, it's the working poor, it's the uninsured families, it's the uninsured mothers, it's the uninsured children. They'll all receive treatment at this event. And to Long Beach is a unique venue in that it has a convention center where we could hold an event. We need 100,000 square feet to put an event like this on. And there's there's suitors all over the state of California that are interested in this. And because of our limited budget of the California Dental Association Foundation, there's only going to be one event next year. It's the first time in seven years that we've gone from two events to one, and the city of Long Beach was vetted and it's the appropriate venue. And because of your largesse, we've secured the convention center for July 17th and 18th, but this free dental clinic costs $500,000 to put on. We have to rent dental equipment to be here. It comes from the American Dental Cares Foundation. It's brought in on larger. 18 wheelers. We have to provide food, set up, tear down. We have to provide security, insurance. All the things, plus the dental supplies, all of this. And so I, as the chair of the Local Arrangements Committee, is tasked with raising $300,000 of this money, which is something that's new to me. We've had a quite a generous support from our supervisor. Janice Hahn has announced a couple of weeks ago that she was going to put $100,000 into this event. And she is our flagship sponsor at this point. And to date, we've raised over 153. Three. And we probably have commitments for another $80,000 from various dental entities. Anyways, I come before you to thank you and to clarify something. Why I'm here tonight. So. In addition to the money that needs to be raised for this event on, I appointed someone to chair what's called an in-kind donations, things like food, and we feed all the people in line. The 1200 or so patients. We feed all our volunteers. And so this person was in charge of bringing together in-kind donations. And I was told by the foundation in Sacramento that Councilman Super and I had managed to commit or wanted to commit $23,000 that goes towards the labor at the Convention Center as an in-kind donation. And I was just floored. So I called him up to thank him and he says, well, come down and speak to this a little bit. There may be other people on the council that are interested in supporting this cause to some extent. So I'm halfway there. I guarantee you will be there in force. We'll have everybody. I'll have all the the workforce will be in place. But right now, it's the rolling up the sleeves and raising the money time. So like I tell people, I want your time and I want your treasure, but right now, I want your treasure . So that's why I'm here. Thank you very much. Councilor. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Dr. Glass Ban. And thank you for your perseverance and staying after me for so long. And I just wanted to say that that the services go citywide. The fourth district is supporting this, but the participants will come citywide. And I also have to mention Steve Goodling. I had no idea how he would react to this idea when I brought it to him and he did not bat an eye. He was he was into it from the very beginning. So. Well, thank you for that. And also acting city manager Tom Modica, you helped us do an and it was just a pleasant surprise to see how everyone was on board from the get go. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Austin. Okay. Before I go to counseling customer Pierce. Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to Councilmember Supernova. I know you and I had a conversation about this. My aunt is a pediatric dentist, so I spent six years working in her office. She very much tried to get me to buy to be a hygienist. Your work is very difficult, and I recognize what a labor of love it is that dentists come out and really do great service. So I'm not sure what our budget has right now, but I'm going to have Carla come out and speak with you and we definitely want to support and thank you, Steve. You always really do step up for organizations like this. So thank you. Thank you. And I have two members of the public that want to speak and control and learn. Goodhew Knope and control? Nope. Okay. There's motion in a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We have three hearings to do and then we're going to do we have a time certain 630 and then we have public comment as well and we have a very long agenda after that. So let me begin with here, and we're going to we're going to go a little backwards.

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29 Located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2495

Six C introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement implement the terms of a five year lease with Dreyfus Capital Partners, a California limited liability company for Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point, the site of requires for affirmative coaching. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette Mchunu in the hire. Thank you for. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette Mchunu in the community development and based we use departments. What you have in front of you today is a five year lease for Building 1701 mana of Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street. This is an existing tenant who's been in the building since 2009. Currently, there are about 15 employees in the building. There are ten existing sub tenants. The building is used. It's one of our last remaining multi tenanted shop office spaces buildings at Alameda Point. We are in the process. As you know, you've recently approved two large buildings that will be multi tenanted, but those are for the food and beverage industries. And so this is one of the. We also have navigator systems, which has art spaces and other kind of some craftsmen. But this is this building specific to metalworkers and artisans and that and that. Medium. So at our last council meeting, when you approve or the last council meeting, I was that you approved a lease for Google. And many members of the community kind of said that you guys were only interested in those high tech, high educated jobs . And this this tenant provides skilled workers, the steel metal craftsmen, artisans. And so it is consistent with trying to develop a diverse workforce in Alameda. And we believe that the five year term is consistent with the development plans at Alameda Point. And I hope that you will consider approving this lease tonight. The the tenant is here. And if you had questions directly of him, he's open to answering your questions. And we do have public speakers. Okay. Oh, this is excellent. Yeah. The. All right. So I'm going to go ahead in any clarifying questions right now, but I'm going to go ahead and call the public speakers. Tim looks like L.A. I asked Tycho and then Wolfgang Brink and then Peter Dreyfuss. You can go ahead and line up and come on up and speak for 3 minutes. You can have up to 3 minutes. The. I'm in order. Good evening, Adam. Mayor Spencer and esteemed council members. My name is Tim. Likes to go and I'm a my day job. I'm a construction manager for the Oakland Housing Authority. I have a small workspace shop at building B29. I'm here for the sole purpose of. Of supporting Peter Dreyfus. And and your in proving his five year lease. Emma Griffiths helped partners with Peter Dreyfus supports small artisans. Craftsman. Metal workers and doing their work. That's something that doesn't go on. I have a shop out there just to keep me sane. As I said, I am a professional construction manager for Oakland Housing Authority. As my day job and I go out there in the evenings and weekends and practice woodwork and other metalworking machinery restoration. You know. I can say a lot and I won't. But again, Peter Dreyfus, I don't think anybody out there is getting rich, but they do provide a lot of resources for the community and artists and and artwork and craftsman style work and ask. Another thing I want to point out, Dreyfus Capital Partners provide provides for a reasonable and affordable rent. And I think if you look at the facts, you'll see why he should be given a five year lease. Thanks. Thank you. Wolfgang Brink. Hmm. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Wolfgang Brink. I'm a tenant building 29, and I've been Alameda resident for. 16 years and I've been out at the point. With Peter Dreyfus for the last ten years and we've. Been sort of hopscotching around. Because, you know, the clean up and things were going on. With me. We started out on one end of the seaplane lagoon, and we came to the other side and. Having having to move is very disruptive. I remember the last big move we had. We had huge machinery lathes and all kinds of stuff. And for for a small business person that's very expensive and disruptive. You know, if you make a move, if you don't do anything for two months. So set up again. So having a five year lease. You know, it's very critical to us that, you know, and and as Tim said. Lot of our small. Artists and artisans and craftspeople and. Small businesses operate on pretty narrow margins and having reasonable rents which rivals. Company provides us with is very critical to us and. And if. We have to move in two years or you know, it's it's there aren't a whole lot of places to go. And we have a. Wonderful community out there. And I think we do make a contribution even though we're a small group. Yes. Yeah. Just so what do you do? What I'm involved in. I'm a I'm a builder and. Of traditional Arctic kayaks. And I also teach kayak building. And one of the reasons one of the things that attracted me to the location out there is the proximity to water. So. And I've gone up to Alaska to teach kayak building at native culture camps. So yeah. So I just appreciate the opportunity to be out there. In this beautiful environment. Thank you. Hope you approve. Thank you very much. Our next speaker, Peter Dreyfus. Now, did you. You could wait and be the last speaker you could go. Now it's up to you. And we may very well be calling you back later. All right. Go ahead. Madame Mayor. Council people. Wolfgang Brink is just way too modest. If you Google him, you'll find 86 pages. World famous man who wrote the book on Illusion Native Arts. Thanks for this hearing. I signed a lease for a five year renewal out there at Building 29 about two and a half months ago. And I. Thought I would show up tonight. And just see a rather pro-forma signature by the city attorney. But as it turned out, about 28 hours ago, I got a letter. From The Net saying that the Sierra Club was a little bothered by our continued presence there for longer than two years. Now I could go on and on and tell you how great the building is and what we all do there. I personally am a steel sculptor. If you come out and I invite you all out there, you'll see my sculptures out in the sculpture garden, etc., etc.. But most of the guys there actually make a living doing high tech, very precise cad cam engineered machining work. And in the letter that I distributed, you'll find a list of the clients who go from MoMA to the new Giant Stadium in Santa Clara to Clorox, etc., etc.. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If you still haven't. Visited. Oh, terrible. So I just want to rebut the letter that the Sierra Club issued, and I assume you all have a copy of it. It makes an argument that the Raptors. Our crouched on our roof and gobbling up the valuable birds. But if you follow that line of reasoning. Because of our location next to the wetlands. We must then demolish all the buildings on monarch that face that way. And that's not going to happen. My biggest regret is that the early master planners of the future development out here, the redevelopment of the point. Just erased our building. We can't redraw our self into the map. Unfortunately. I accept that. But I would beg your indulgence for five, seven, ten more years. And why? This is a unique building that the Navy left. It costs 18 or $19 million. It is a deluxe facility with. A lot of beeps and overhead cranes. And it's a it's a wonderful machining building. And a few of my colleagues will tell you a bit more. Thank you for your probably have speakers for you and you know so if you could hang around. We will be asking you. Thank you. Questions of thanks. All right. Andrea, Joe Hansen and then Thomas Bianco and then John Bouchet. Hello. My name is Andrew Johansen and I represent a business that is in Building 29. It's called Alameda. Of Wooden Trailers. What we do is we create small recreational vehicles. They're actually teardrop trailers in that traditional woody sense, and they are small enough and light enough to be towed behind a motorcycle. I'm an Alameda resident. My kids are here earlier, but. Unfortunately, bedtime hit. My father is, uh, Thomas Bianco. Merlin. He's the other half of the business. I'm the business side. He's the engineering side. And we love Building 29. It's been a wonderful opportunity to meet other artisans to hand our steel off to another part for specialty work, to look at the techniques that other woodworkers are doing. And it's been a wonderful environment. So I just would encourage you to do let us keep that amazing collaborative environment. Thank you. Mr. Bianco. Council members. I'm Thomas Bianco. I am the other half of element of wooden trailers. Peter Dreyfus. And I bumped into because somebody said the only thing we might have would be 5000 square feet of shop space. And we don't have any of that. We need 40,000. No, we build a trailer that will literally fit on top of that table. I'm building three of them right now in about 400 square feet. The ability for Peter to say, You know what, I like where you're going. And this looked like fun to me. We found a real home in 29 in the community. It's out there. Peter Dreyfus made it very easy for us to do what we hoped to do. If we're going to do this, we do it in Alameda, we create a business in Alameda. We go by all of the rules, all the numbers. I've been aerospace, manufacturing and engineering for 40 years. I have worked on or engineered. Just about everything you can think of somebody uses in a military. This is what I'm having a really fun time doing. I came off of a five year, five and a half year road trip. I had retired and we decided to do this here because we both love Alameda. I don't know if I'd have done it anywhere else if we had to go off island, because when we expand, we would hope to expand it. Not a whole lot. We don't want to be a major. We build a very custom product. We are artisans. I never thought of myself as that before, but I've got a particular way I want to do it and I sell a product. We try to sell a product that's the best we can because that's what we're proud of and that's one of the things we hope to continue. And when I start to bring in artisans to finish that work because I want to go play on the road, they're going to be in and out of this community, not just building 29, but the island. Thank you very much. Thank you. Joan Bouchet, Kris here and I son. And then Sean Cronin. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. City Council Member. City Staff. I'm John Boucher. You met my. Husband earlier, Wolfgang, and I love going to building 29 because there's a rich craftsman culture there. And people who have. A reason to visit there. Experience something wonderful and rare in our Urban Bay Area 2016 world. They get to be with the makers. They get to hang out with the people who are proud of what they're making. Potentially for the. Visitor. Hmm. Our building. 29 craftsmen like their neighbors in. Spirit Alley. Offers something meaningful to our Alameda community culturally and economically. And as someone who supports slow and well. Contemplated growth for Alameda. I am here to request that unless you have. A specific plan in progress. For developing that site. Please don't hasten to close down Building 29. If the question tonight is whether. To give them two or five years more. Make it five. Thank you. Chris. In the evening. Mayor Council members. My name is Christian Eisen and I have a company called Vector Pickle and I'm one of the tenants of Building 29. I am I don't consider myself an artist, but I am a craftsman and a manufacturer. I've been involved with industrial design and building things for pretty much all my life, and I run a business that out of Building 29 that is my livelihood and also employs other people, mostly on a part time basis at this time. But as as I need them. My clients include many names that you guys have heard, both locally and nationally, from Artemus Racing to Facebook to Old Navy. A lot of large and small customers and also a lot of local designers that are doing cutting edge work in furniture design and product design. My location in our building allows me kind of a unique perspective on the nature that goes around behind Building 29, which the Sierra Club is referring to. It has allowed me to observe the abundant and ever growing amount of wildlife out there. And I'm I've never ceased to be and may be amazed by how many animals are out there. We have geese, pelicans, hawks, even owls I've been startled by at night out there. Just the other day there were 20 herons standing next to the pond behind our building. Also out there are squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, occasional house cat, even some stray dogs. And they all seem to be thriving very well. There are raptors out there which the Sierra Club has referenced, and they do do what raptors do. And because of all the wildlife out there, that's why they're there. They they do go after most of the things they see them go after are the rabbits and the squirrels occasionally pigeons. I have not seen them do too many of the other birds, but it does happen, I'm sure, and that's kind of the natural way of things. Removing our building is not going to remove that. This is what this is what wildlife is. It's a natural occurrence. These birds nest our perch on our building. They perch on building 25, which is just down from us on the control tower, rock wall winery all down the row. It's it's a virtual smorgasbord for them out there. I mean, I hate to be blunt about it, but and removing our building is not going to change that. And I almost think that, you know, it's it's something that would allow people in Alameda to observe natural things going on. But I also want to say that this is not just a building full of people exploring their lives and doing pursuing their hobbies. This is viable businesses that employ people, that manufacture things for for companies in the Bay Area and beyond that desire our products. And I would urge you guys to please approve the five year lease and and let us stay there at least that long, if not longer. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. And then Irene Deeter and then Richard Baer. And then there are final speakers on this item. If you would like to speak on this, please submit your slip. Good evening. Their council members. Thank you very much. You pronounce my name wonderfully, Sean Cronin. I am a tenant of Building 29, part of the community. It's it's been a pleasure being out there. I moved in five years ago when we when they moved over from the other space after being relocated. I had recently graduated from the California College of the Arts, sculpture and furniture major, destined to be a full time artist. That's my dream. And I've I have sacrificed a lot to do that as my my community, my friends, my fellow tenants. The building is my my livelihood. That space, that studio space, I make my living out of that space. The point they made earlier, Wolfgang made about relocating. Sounds easy for a big business. It's almost a killer for a small business if you're not prepared for it. Moving at this point, moving two years from now even is daunting. Five years is even scary, frankly. And we've moved into this space knowing that the the the redevelopment plan was in action. And I'm excited to see what's happening and the changes that have already been made. But knowing that my time in Alameda might come to an end, because that's kind of the first thing to go in a big redeveloped redevelopment plan. When I heard the news that that Google was renting the big space right over from us, I was equally as excited as I was concerned that all of a sudden these big companies are coming in and that my MySpace. The days were numbered. So seeing this letter yesterday was a was a surprise. Recently, I've just reconfigured my studio space, which is a small part in the front of the building to have a a clean area, a space where I can actually have regular open studios, as I've had a number of over the years. I'm now encouraging more people to come and see my space and see my practice and the fact that the fact that now, you know, I'm nearly done. I'm nearly going to paint the walls white. And we are looking at a termination or an early termination of this lease. It's just it's just scary. So I invite you all out to see my work, to see what we do in the space and see the community that's out there. That, again, the low rent that Peter's provided in the space has really kept me in the Bay Area, frankly. West Oakland, there's still some spots here and there were small scale artists is the starving artist. I hate to say that, but that's that's what I'm doing. You know, I know a few that can survive right now in West Oakland, but it's happening over the Bay Area that artists are getting pushed out as as as what happens. So. I just encourage you guys to. Extend our time there. Five years, as Peter said, seven years. Ten years. I mean, really, I think the. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Irene Dieter, and I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the Sierra Club. We've sent you a letter which obviously the audience is aware of, too, which asks for us to shorten the term of the lease, to work with the tenant to find another location, and to set aside lease revenues from the building for demolition. And why did we ask for this? It's so that we're not here five years from now going through this exact same exercise. It's one thing for Dave Park to be on a planning map. It's another thing to follow that up with some action to actually make it happen. These tenants will eventually have to move if the city is serious about creating a wetland park there. So taking action tonight in some capacity to send a message to the environmental community that you are serious. It will. It will also show movement in that direction, and it will show funding agencies that Alameda is indeed ready to move forward with getting some grant funding. The timeframe of two years is not carved in stone. It was something that the Sierra Club did talk about very closely. We actually had the tenants in mind. We did it out of support to them because we felt that we wanted to give them first dibs on any available buildings out at Alameda Point before they're leased to somebody else. And we did not want them to be displaced should funding transpire in the meantime? Because I know that the lease, you can pull it at any time within five years. I think that's what it says in the least, that it's can be retractable at any time. And I was assuming that was because of in case funding is available for the to create the park. So we certainly wouldn't want to displace the tenants in a hurry and we definitely do not want to lose these tenants from Alameda Point. So the timeframe that we came up with was strictly in support of the tenants. And we it's unfortunate that it has come out that the Sierra Club is put in an animosity position because that was not our intention at all. It was to be supportive. So that counts if the council has another idea to make the deep Dave Park plans solidified tonight that coincides with this lease. We are of course, open to hear something else. But. But. To continue the status quo without any action tonight will just show that nothing is going to change on the ground . So we encourage you to do something tonight to show that you support De Pave Park. Thank you. Thank you. And Richard Banger. And he's our last speaker. I just have a clarifying question was, um, we're not considering Dave Park tonight. Correct. Okay. Just the lease for building 29. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council and city staff. This area on the west side of the seaplane lagoon. Currently there's a what I would call a conflict of interests. We have an approved plan, but we also have existing tenants. And. I want these tenants to stay at Alameda Point. Small businesses like like theirs. They need help. They need help more than Google does. Google Mcconney. Is gambling with stockholders money that they may have something to sell. The artisans at Building 29 are actually producing products. If people buy their viable business, they're not speculating that they might sell something. So I want them to stay. But the conflict here is that. The plan that was approved in 2014 for the waterfront at Alameda Point. That wasn't. Created by the Sierra Club or by any other single individual or group. It was created by a consultant that the city hired and paid a quarter of $1,000,000 to. So the plan was approved. Building 29 was not part of the long range plan. Now, I sympathize with with the the tenants and the landlord. It's not fun to move. But this, whether it's lease is two years, three years, four years or five years. It doesn't guarantee that they're going to be there five years from now, four years from now or three years from now. Because, number one, there's a clause in the lease that says either party can cancel the lease without cause. Running in tandem with that is if the city is successful in getting grant money to build the park. The approved plans say that the buildings can be torn down when funding is available for the park. So this lease will you if you approve, two years, three years, four years or five years? It's not guaranteeing that these businesses are going to be here in three, four or five years. In fact, if you don't start looking now, five years from now, they may be moving to Oakland, Hayward or Union City or who knows where . So you can't package all this into this lease. But I think it is a good time right now to start thinking about how are you going to make a positive step to start implementing Deep Park? And some people may say, well, just. Focusing on this one building. You're doing it piecemeal. Well, that hasn't stopped us from starting piecemeal with the sports complex. We're not going to wait till we have another $15 million to start sports complex. You know, there's $5 million coming from the developer side, and we're going to start that very soon. So we can take a small step here. And I hope you would figure out something that would get us on that path. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. So he's our last speaker on this item, council members and vice mayor. I think the. Two things that I want out out of this is one as I want the businesses to stay in Alameda point. And two is I want the park. And the park is in. The plan is a plan that was approved by this city after numerous public hearings and council approval. And it doesn't include Building 29. So one of the things that I'd like this council to consider is and I think the five year leases is appropriate for what might have to be done to accomplish both of these goals. When I was looking at the revenues that this lease would generate. It's about $250,000, give or take, over those five years of the cost of demolishing. Building 29 is about $300,000, give or take. And that's a key step in getting grants and paving paving the way for the park, the park opening the opening the process up to establish the park. That being said, I don't want to lose these businesses or this community from Alameda Point and there are other buildings at Alameda Point that could take this, but it's not an insignificant effort to move an operation like this. And that won't happen two years. So I think two years is an unrealistic time timeline. I think the five year lease gives us time to do a comp to do take steps to accomplish both of those goals. So I'm asking staff, oh, what would be the appropriate vehicles to to accomplish both of those goals with the goal number one, of moving the community to another location? Number two is removing Building 29. Setting the stage for expanding the wetlands and working on that southwest section of of this Pave Park. Can I just ask a question that follows along with that? We've been talking a lot about or hearing a lot about Dave Park, and as I understand from Ms. Wooldridge, who is both interim assistant city manager, but also the director of Recreation Parks. That's a park that is under her department's jurisdiction. Could we just hear a little bit from her about the funding and just to enlighten all of us in making her decision. A good that. Until you hear the. Answer, I think it's appropriate to let the vice me. Go. Okay. I think it's all related, but sure. But I would like to take this in steps. And one of the things that I'd like to to understand is because one of the thoughts that occurred to me is, is the lease revenues that come from this building and be set aside for the demolition of the building. So I'd like to focus first on Mike Tyson shares comments. I think it's important to let the. Yes. Okay. So two questions. One, about relocation of existing tenants. And I'm going to refer that question to Ms.. Marcano about what is available out there. And I'm sure she's been thinking about this, the removal of Building 29 and the proceeds. I would like to speak to that. I'll let her talk first. But I think it is related to vice mayor or excuse me, Councilmember Ashcraft question about other things we have in our list of priorities on parks. But I'll reserve that until Mr. McConnell is done. And I really want us to focus on the vice mayor's comments. Questions first. We can take them in order. Thank you. Good evening, Annette Mchunu from the Community Development Based Fees Department. So relocating the existing tenants, that's always a priority for staff because it's the best economic strategy is to retain businesses versus going to try to recruit new businesses. I'm. They're currently in our stock. There probably isn't a building that would meet the this this use. However, we are negotiating with a tenant a a developer who does exactly what these leases creates these creative spaces. It's not a food and beverage focus. And so there might be opportunity to do some sort of transition from building 29 to this new tenant if that lease is approved by the council. That would be the only thing that could potentially, I think, meet the needs. I mean, the thing that most people think about allow me to point is that, oh, we got all those buildings. But we are actually in the process of moving people out of buildings to make way for development. So. So our our stock is shrinking. And also these these tenants need they have a specialized need with overhead cranes and and also the ability to locate these uses next to each other. The requirement of the structure has to be just right. So because building 29 is this big concrete thing, it works for them. And so it is a priority for us to think about trying to relocate these tenants. Vice Mayor. And it is something that we will we will continue to make a priority and. There's some other things that we're trying to do to create more spaces at Alameda Point, more creative spaces, but I don't know quite the horizon for that. It's not it's not next year. It might be in the next five years. Vice Mayor, did you have. No, I think Ms.. McConnell's last comment about the five year time frame. Is is two years is not enough to accomplish what? It would take to meet that goal. It would take something more perhaps in the next five years. Thank you. Okay. And then you had questions for. Right. So the second question, which is about removing Building 29 and and taking the proceeds over over the five year period to demolish Building 29. So I'm sure those proceeds are spoken for and I'm looking at Miss Ott. But I think the larger question is really for us on staff, and I think this is where Ms. Wooldridge can chime in here, which is we have some already some significant priorities in the area of parks and just to name a few, Jean Sweeney Cruise Park, which has been on the drawing board for a very long time . We have estuary park, we have internal boat ramp. Those are all things that are already have we've already been directed to make sure those things are happening. Adding on to that now is Deep Park. Now does it mean that we are not permitted to be D Pave Park? But there's only so much that we can do in the time that we have and with our limited resources. So I'm just putting that out there to this council. So you recognize we have a very serious plight not only to construct parks, but then to maintain them there. Yes, and I understand that. And I think the horizon for executing D Pave Park in the Wetlands is a long one and we have to take steps to it. And I don't want to I would rather apply the logic that we did when we. I spent $1,000,000 to buy the Beltline and invest the million plus in the legal costs to get us in the position to buy that. Even though we were strapped then because having 22 acres of park in the middle of the city was worth it and it's a long horizon. We're also it's not a question of whether staff is committed or this council's committed. Our plan commits us to this park. And unless this council or a future council changes that plan, we're committed. So I'd like to get the ball rolling and. Make sure that we've got real milestones that that put us along the path to get us to the park and the time that it will take to provide the time that it will be needed to provide money to maintain the park. It's quite a ways out. But unless we start putting the pieces together, just like the acquisition of the Beltline property that sets up Jane Sweeney Park, the act was the execution of this plan depends on that building going away. So what I would recommend, because we're talking money and money does come into your conversation soon because we're going to be doing, starting in March, our mid-cycle review for our next fiscal year, $250,000 is a significant amount of money. And so I think what we can do is I can ask Ms.. Ott and Ms.. Marcano to take a look at that. But I mean, that means that now that money is not going into the base reuse department. And so there are other things that will have to come off the table. So that's something that this council has to decide if that's a priority, and we can bring it back at that time. All right. Any other council members member. Did you want to speak now? I'm just not sure if we're ready to have that discussion today as part of the lease. I mean, I think I'm happy we should consider the lease, you know, on its own, within the four corners of the lease, and then kind of defer that that discussion to another time without making any commitment. I mean. The exact number is 258 to 4708. Just because I did add it up. Tony sorry to do it, if that's okay. But, you know, I see nothing that I've heard today that would make me want to vote against this lease. I mean, I think these are the type of jobs that we want to not only create in Alameda with our maker spaces and our incubator spaces, but these are the jobs we want to keep in Alameda. And I haven't I have yet to hear a plan. Mr. McConnell. You said we don't have a space for for these businesses now. So I mean. I'm perfectly happy with going with the five year lease and ready to vote to approve it. Member de. SAC. Thank you. The question before us tonight is whether to move forward with the lease or not, whether to move forward it as is or or not. And in a modified or in a modified fashion, I think the answer to that question stands on its own. I think this is a valuable project. I think the type of activity that's there is the type of activity that not just here in Alameda Point, but in the United States that we want to encourage in order to encourage small, artisanal craft manufacturing. You need to build the appropriate space for for such activities. It's very difficult. And fortunately, at Building 29, a number of like minded entrepreneurs found a place where they can work with each other and as indicated by the homemaker, you know, work with nature as well. So I think for me, the answer to the question is that we should move forward. I would encourage vice mayor, Battery City or I don't know if you or council member Ashcraft, if they're so interested on a parallel track separate from this, to move forward with some kind of council community referral as to how to begin to implement the DE Pave Park. But at least, you know, we would have started this. So. I'm ready to move forward. Remember Ashcroft? Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Thank you for all the speakers. Whenever I'm out and about and this week, I've had an opportunity to visit some other job sites in our city and the main island. Not at all made a point, but it was really intriguing hearing from all of you. And I am going to Google you, Mr. Brink, but the we have a lot of talent here in Alameda. And I do think that added Alameda point, we have a rather unique situation when you just think of all the creativity that's going on from the high tech to the Spirit Valley and the food and beverage purveyors and these artisans and craftspeople. And we I know a number of us on the council are concerned about the loss of jobs in the face of development. This is a little bit different because, yes, this is the future site of a park, but I don't see the D paved park plan and a five year lease for Building 29 is mutually exclusive propositions. I spent a little time talking with Jeannot this week is the zero added Alameda point and and I also talked from to Ms. Wooldridge from time to time. We, we definitely have this park and many others on the horizon. It's another conversation for this council to make if we're going to take away money from the parts that are already in the queue. But Ms. Wooldridge is also quite a genius at getting us grant funding and perhaps the Sierra Club can be out there beating the bushes too. I don't know what all the opportunities are for funding, but the point is that the work will most likely be done in phases when it comes to doing the park and there's nothing that says the first phases can't take place farthest out from the building. And so at this point in time, I, I prefer to follow the recommendations of our staff. They're out there on a daily basis. They know the situation. And yes, our lease revenues are spoken for. If we decide to defer divert them for some years, that's a council decision, just not before us tonight. But at this point in time, I could not support eliminating jobs and lease revenue. And again, these are unique uses that are have found their their way to Alameda point it's it's recycling it's free use of existing buildings and so I'm going to support this ordinance in the five year term. And then I just want to add a little footnote. This is directed to you, Ms.. And Ms.. Mercado. You know, you've done a couple of really cool tours out to Alameda Point. We did a bicycle tour one time and we did a walking tour maybe a year ago. So maybe the next time we do a tour, if we could. And if you all would be willing, it sounds like you'd be willing to open your doors and have the public come in, because I don't want you to be the best kept secret in town. I think not only our local residents, I think folks in the in the surrounding Bay Area would be very interested to see see what you're doing out there and maybe become your customers. So that's that's my ask. Thank you. But I'm prepared to support this. So when you look at Deep Park, I have a question. So I think it was last council meeting, we had the speaker come and say that I think this is the area where they want to drive back. This is the area where you cut through the. Was it here it is right here. Okay. So this so personally, I would like us to try to take steps. While the building is there to make this area more accessible to the public. We're in the process of removing the pedestrian gate to allow cars to go through. Okay. So I think that's a big step. So I appreciate that. And then we'll be able to take pictures to that because that was another complaint that we've heard periodically. Currently, people can walk through there and this was the area that we put the fencing in to try to prevent vandalism, car shows, things like that. But we hear the public and we hear from you. We want to make it more accessible. So we are going to to make it car accessible. Okay. So I appreciate that. And that's important to me and I think it's important to our public. And so stop thinking that we have to demolish this building in order for the public to have access to this area. Is is not true. We are working on giving this area more accessibility, you know, giving the public more accessibility to this area. And I think that is a big step in regards to this building. I've never been inside this building. I appreciate Member Ashcroft's idea. Maybe it could be like an open house or something. I don't even know that the city has to be involved in it, but I know that I've been there are open, you know, open studios throughout town, different artists have. So maybe it's more like just like an open studio or something like that. That doesn't necessarily have to involve staff in regards to staff's plan of our steps moving forward with this park. I think that that's. Separate issue, and I don't know when that will circle back. But I do know that and I that we have many other parks, that we have a lot of work to do, significant work and. This is just one of them. So I think maybe it would be appropriate at some point to show us what the plan is. But there really is a plan. And not only is it limited money, it's also limited staff time. And we really do want the parks to be done well. And so I don't think you can doing all of them at once, as much as we'd like to have that done. But that doesn't mean that we won't get to this just like it doesn't mean that we're never going to get to cruise the park even then, I think, which is where I live near. We've been waiting since my kids were little and now they're, you know, in their twenties. So sometimes it takes a while to get to these parks. It doesn't mean that we're giving up on our parks. It just means that for us in this manner, you know, we have so much staff and so much money. So I do plan to support this and I appreciate trying to open up this area so that the public can have access in the meantime. And I'm confident that this doesn't that moving forward with this lease doesn't mean that we're not committed as a city to Deep Pave Park. And I am concerned about trying to find new space or these tenants. I think it's very important, as you've heard from other council members and I'm sure you'll hear from our community, we like having these craftsmen here. And so that to me has to be part of moving, trying, trying our hardest as a staff to accommodate them somewhere so that we don't lose that part of who Alameda is. But I do think that's real important. So I appreciate staff's effort, too, and trying to help them figure out how to relocate. And then I think it I think that they can stay there until we need them to move. I don't think we need to demolish the building way ahead to being able to do anything else. And I think we can. Get access and improve access while the building is there operating supporting our craftspeople. Yes. So a question to staff, maybe the city attorneys. How do we get that? That sentiment, the sentiment that that building is not going to be there forever. And at some point people are going to have to leave people who we want to have at Alameda Point. How do we get that high on the priority list so that there's a report back so that there's progress toward that goal? We have a five year window with this lease. So I personally am asking the question if we have this five year window with this lease. How do we. And I and from Mitch McConnell said it's going to take five plus years. How do we get that so that it's it's not just something that slips to the bottom of the pile, but is something that we actually accomplish as a goal. I think you do counsel referral because at this point I'm not. Asking the staff. To give direction. Yeah, I'm sorry. Would that be in the form of a council referral? But because I don't think you really I don't think there's necessarily three councilmembers that want to prioritize demolishing the building ahead of being able to help it with the paperwork. It doesn't sound like that's what the vice mayor is suggesting. I think he's just suggesting he wants to make sure that the tenant he just wants to make sure that the tenants recognize that at some point, you know, we won't be renewing their lease. Is that. That's correct. Right. I think that's just want to moralize that. But I think that's already in the plan. No, I don't know. Let me just. A comment was made about being able to terminate the lease. There is a provision in the lease that either party on 12 months notice can terminate the lease. But so that I understand. But I think the point is that they have heard you. They've clearly heard you. They're all here nervous and telling you how nervous they are. So I think the tenants understand you've heard this Mchunu tell you how she's working with trying to come up with a plan on where to move these people. So my recommendation would be not to try to do anything different to the lease, but go forward in approvals and that you will hear back from staff. And I think what the city manager was suggesting is we don't necessarily need a council referral. We heard you will come back and report in leasing, leasing program and projects how we're. Moving forward with that. Oh, okay. I, I understand that. And I think the five year lease is something I support. It's though I want the parallel track to be a little bit more than coming back and reporting to us. I'd like to. I'm asking you what it's going to take to make it a priority and a priority, among other priorities that's ranked somewhere. And just for clarification, that the priority you're speaking about is the paved park. It's related to the paved park. It's more directly related to Building 29. That is demolishing the building or is it figuring out where a deep park is in relation to other parks? We know. That's what I'm not sure what you're speaking. About. It's demolishing the building. Okay, so that's what I thought they might get about. But let me. So that's the first I want to clarify. You're really asking, how do we prioritize demolishing the building? Mm hmm. Okay. So that's why I said earlier that I don't think that we necessarily have three votes to prioritize demolishing a building ahead of coming up with when we're actually going to need the building demolished. In regards to how does that fit in with the building of the paved park? Because I personally would not want to demolish a building just to have it be demolished when we haven't figured out when we're going to be able to do bigger improvements that require that. I think there are things that we can do to make that area more accessible. And we have a lot of other park work we're doing. So so that's why I was saying that. I don't know if that's the ask, how do we prioritize that? I would think it does need to be a referral. It backs it back up a little bit from that because. If we have five years of five year lease and at the end of that five years we have no plan for what happens, then it kind of rolls out and the part gets rolled out with it because. That that building is right next to the wetland. And part of the removal of that building is a key in getting outside funding to expand that wetland. So I think that it's not as simple as I just want the building torn down. That's its that's not it. I want to make sure that when the building is ready to be taken down, we don't have a problem with losing tenants. So Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C.. I think the mayor is actually right. We are now veering too far off of what we have on the agenda. And there'll be a council referral. That made that yes member. I'd like to move approval of the ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a five year lease for the Dreyfus Capital Partners of California LLC for Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point second grade. Any Council comments? All those in favor. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. And it's just this is require a second reading. I'll come back, right? Yes. To second reading. Now settle. Come back. All right. We are moving through this agenda. We've made it to item six tonight. By. Regulation recommendation to approve the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan, Buena Vista Avenue Line 19.

Recommendation to approve the nomination of Councilman Al Austin to represent the City of Long Beach on the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group.

LongBeachCC_04192016_16-0335

And that is our last speaker for this time of public comment. There'll be another opportunity at the end of the meeting for, again, items not on the agenda going to our regular agenda if we can take up item 19. Madam Clerk. Communication from Mayor Garcia recommendation to approve the nomination of Councilman Austin to represent the City of Light of the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group. Thank you. There's been a motion by Councilman Price and second by Councilman Gonzales. Councilman Price. Good luck. Thank you. Gentlemen. Both My congratulations. This is exciting and a really good person to be representing us, so. Great job. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on hearing on item 19? Councilman Austin. So first of all, I'd like to thank Mayor Garcia for the nominations. And thanks to our California Resource Secretary, John Laird, for the appointment. I'd also like to recognize our Assembly Speaker, Anthony Rendon, for his vision in creating the Lower Elwha River Working Group through his legislation 8530 last year. This working group will develop over the next year a revitalization plan for the L.A. Lower L.A. Working Group and the communities that it runs through. And that includes the District nine, districts eight, District seven, and, I believe District one. And I look forward to working with each and every one of my colleagues and communities and getting their input. The revitalization plan was prepared. A revitalization the initial revitalization plan was prepared in 2007 for the upper 32 miles of the L.A. River. However, the lower 19 miles of the river have no such plan. And through my work on the Gateway Cities Council of Government, we're working to identify and address the needs of communities along the lower L.A. River. This working group will be an important step in fully incorporating the river into recreational open space, educational, cultural and artistic opportunities . And I look forward to working with the mayor and other members of the working group over the next year. I'm honored to have this appointment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Yes, my name is Richard Gutman. I live at 602 West 37th Street in the Wrigley Heights area of Long Beach. Anyway, I know of only two large parcels of undeveloped land along the Los Angeles River in Long Beach that would be suitable for creation of a park or open space. One is the former Boy Scout Park at North Long Beach. The other is the oil operators site in my neighborhood, Wrigley Heights. Councilmember Austin has been a big supporter of the community's development, developing that project and the Boy Scout camp. He spoke to the development glowing terms just before this council unanimously approved that project. The same developer now plans a very similar project, pardon me, on the oil apparatus property and that already and he already has that property in escrow for purchase. To expect Councilman Austin to now act on behalf of residents in obtaining this property for open space or parkland when he is clearly a big supporter of this kind of residential development by the same developer, it's too much to ask of him. It's a ready made conflict of interest. I would therefore ask Councilman Austin to recuse himself and allow somebody else to be appointed. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Regina Taylor. I live at 3206 Oregon Avenue and feeding off of Richard Guzman's comments. I would like to say to that I think. That he should recuse. Himself because of an. Apparent conflict of interest. I would also like to point out. That Abe FiveThirtyEight. Created the Lower L.A. River Working Group. This group is statutorily responsible for developing through watershed based planning methods, a revitalization plan. And I would think that the considerable amount of expertize to do. There are many people. In the community who attended the first meeting at Assembly Member Attendance Group in Lynwood. They had, they have vital direct interests in the river. And what happens to it? I would hope. That if you do. Not recuse yourself, that you would at least make use of this vital resources. That you have in the community. Who would love to participate. When we showed up at that meeting, I think there was about ten or 11 of us compared to. Any other city. We want to be represented. The people do. Thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 21 Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to Increase Appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund in the Economic and Property Development Department by $1.7 million for a transfer of Queen Mary lease revenue to the Queen Mary Fund District two

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund (TF 401) in the Economic and Property Development Department (EP) by $1,702,448 for a transfer of Queen Mary lease revenue to the Queen Mary Fund (TF 410); and Increase appropriations in the Queen Mary Fund (TF 410) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $1,702,448 for various capital and historic preservation projects, offset by the transfer of Queen Mary lease revenue. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_04192016_16-0337

Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 21 Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to Increase Appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund in the Economic and Property Development Department by $1.7 million for a transfer of Queen Mary lease revenue to the Queen Mary Fund District two . Thank you. Councilman Price. Too many. I have no comment. Thank you, sir. Mr. Marco Staff Report. Mr. Mike Gove. The Staff Report. Vice Mayor, Members of the City Council. This item relates to ongoing funding for the Queen Mary Historic Preservation and Capital Improvement Program. You may recall in November. Of last year, City Council authorized the. Preparation of a restated and amended lease with Urban Commons LLC under certain terms and conditions. One of the terms was to direct funds equivalent to the passenger fees collected. From Carnival Corporation by. Urban Commons into the Historic Preservation and Capital Improvement. Program Fund. Rather than relying on percentage rent. This mechanism creates a reliable, ongoing source of funding to continue to preserve, restore and maintain the Queen Mary. Because the restated lease has not yet been executed. Staff believes it is appropriate to capture a percentage rent for Flight 14. Into the Historic Preservation and Capital. Improvement Program Fund. In lieu of the passenger fee equivalent until such time as the restated and amended lease is executed and the alternate funding source is established. These funds will be critical to continue to repair and restoration of the Queen Mary. Recently, certain expansion joints had been discovered to. Be severely rusted, affecting the structural. Integrity of the ship and resulting in the temporary closure of the Promenade Cafe until repairs can be made. These repairs are estimated at $625,000. Remaining funds will be used for other anticipated emergency repairs or to fund repairs of items identified on the approved capital improvement program list. So staff request. City Council approved the. Recommended action and this concludes my report. Thank you. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 21. CNN members cast your vote. Motion carries. Item 22 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to Cape Toyota for the purchase of 32 Toyota RAV4 hybrid utility vehicles in a total amount not to exceed $1 million citywide.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the acceptance of the Statutory Warranty Deed for the “Glacier View Ranch Property” in Skagit County, Washington; placing said land under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_01252021_CB 119980

People are the Transportation and Utilities Committee tonight on one constable 119980 related to the city department. Authorizing the. Acceptance of the statutory authority deed for the Glacier View Ranch property in Skagit County, Washington, facing said land under the jurisdiction of the city department and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee, and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee report. Thank you. Council President. As with all of the legislation before us this afternoon from the Transportation and Utilities Committee, this council bill passed unanimously. This council bill authorizes the head of Seattle City satellite to accept a statutory warranty deed for the Glacier View Ranch property in Skagit County, Washington, for wildlife habitat mitigation purposes. Seattle City Light received a long term license from the Federal Government for the Skagit Hydroelectric Project in one of the settlement settlement agreements incorporated into that license. City Light agreed to purchase wildlife mitigation lands. The Glacier View Ranch is located on the Skagit River, a few miles upstream of Rockport. It contains a salmon stream and will be managed to conserve and improve habitat. Again, it was passed unanimously by our committee. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for that report. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will Kripke's call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119980. Lewis. I. Morales as macheda. I. Ederson. Yes. Sir. I want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. President Gonzalez. I h in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the car please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Items two and three. Will the clerk please read items two and three into the record?

Recommendation to direct City Manager to give an updated report on the December 2014 memo, and the process for submitting a grant request, which City projects are being considered, research what other cities and counties are doing, how local community partners are being included, what kind of staff resources and structure are needed for the City to be competitive for the funding, and any other factors pertaining to the "Cap and Trade" program.

LongBeachCC_05052015_15-0400

Item number 18. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez, Council Member Oranga and Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to direct City Manager to give an updated report on the process for submitting a grant request. What staff, resources and structure are needed for the city to be competitive for the funding and any other factors pertaining to the cap and trade program? Councilwoman Gonzalez. So I want to thank my colleagues, Council Member Ranga and Rex Richardson tonight for helping me bring this item up. This agenda items intent is for the city manager as I mentioned, to come back to the council with an updated report on cap and trade. I also want to thank Diana Tang. I don't know if she's here tonight, but I want to thank her for her December 2014 memo, in which she did a lot of hard work, and which also included a letter from the Mayor to the Strategic Strategic Growth Council on their draft guidelines on the disadvantaged communities scoring and the need to change that. In addition, I'd like to thank our community partners Renee Castro, Dean and Giselle, as well as the BBC, for always being on top of these issues and ensuring that this stays on the city's radar. And what the intention for this is to certainly look into working together collaboratively as a city and as a community to allow us to have the biggest impact and best proposals to this and offer the best proposals to the Strategic Growth Council. We also need to clearly understand the process and be in front of this versus chasing after it and make sure, making sure that we are making as, as I mentioned, the best impact as it relates also to public health, transportation, housing sustainability and overall investment in our disadvantaged communities. So I look forward to. Making the motion and then we did that already and thank you for your support. Council member Gordon Gunn seconding that. Yes. Mr. Elanga. I also want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for bringing this forward and and to our community partners to keeping that keeping us on tap. What's going on with the issues that are important to the community? This is important public policy and strong support. Thank you. The only public comment. Excuse me right after this. Mr. Councilman Alston. I want a public comment to too long, but just to let you know that this is a high priority and it's something that we are looking at on our state land committee. We we do talk to our legislators about this. We have talked about this and as well as with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, we have raised these issues. The methodology in which how these funds are going to be delivered back to communities is so important. And I want to echo your your applause of our government relations manager, Diana, actually, because she has kept us completely briefed and on point on this issue. And so I'm glad to see the council is engaged in talking about this behind the rail. As a council, this is extremely important to to the entire city of Long Beach. I mean, it's going to how this methodology works will determine, you know, how we are able to to apply those funds and if we have the funds to to work with in the near future. So I applaud you for bringing this forward and recommended unanimous support. Yes. Spencer and I failed to mention in our agenda item the timing. So I would like to ask for staff to come back in 45 days, if possible. And Diana, I don't know if you have any information you'd like to share any a small report. I know we're getting full information back in that time, but do you would you like to share anything at this time? Sure. Councilmember members of the city council, this is an incredibly complex program. As you know, there are multiple different grants, programs that are being administered as a part of cap and trade. So cap and trade in and of itself is a source of revenue. But underneath that revenue source, there are about 11 different grant programs, the majority of which is the high speed rail project. So that takes up a large chunk of the cap and trade revenues that are out there. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant Program that is administered by the State Strategic Growth Council is the primary program for which cities are eligible for funding. And in this year there was about $130 million that were available to cities. However, staff did do an extensive review of the grant guidelines, as you noted, and that December 2014 memo and discovered that the window of funding or the scope of funding, I should say, was quite limited. And so for that reason we did not apply. But based on what we know this year, the grant guidelines for next year haven't been released yet. But based on what we know this year, staff is strategizing between several departments Public Works, Health, our Department of Sustainability to put together a proposal development services. Sorry for that omission earlier to put together a proposal that does meet the criteria of the existing proposal. And if things change in the next year, then we will adapt as needed. But there are a number of programs, one of which the city is most eligible to apply for. The majority of the funds, I would say, is for high speed rail and transit. And so we are working and and will see what we can do to bring some of these funds to Long Beach. Thank you. You know, we're probably coming. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Members of the council. Thank you so much. My name is Rene Castro. Live at 616 Grand Avenue, proud resident of the third district. And I want to congratulate new councilmember supernova. Congratulations, your victory. And we are looking forward to working with you. First of all, I'd like to thank, of course, Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Ranga and Councilmember Richardson for putting us on the agenda tonight. As Councilmember Gonzalez stated, this is a really unique time. This is trance transformative legislation at the state level, cap and trade. What's happening? And tonight, we just have three speakers. We just want to illustrate what we see as an opportunity, as Dana Tang mentioned. Of course there is. There are dollars available through the Strategic Growth Council, but there are so many other programs where the city can access necessary funding. So I just want to take a minute or so just to illustrate illustrate some of that. I see I have 2 minutes left. So there are many programs. There's lots of money. And most of Long Beach is eligible for a cap and trade dollars. Finally, we can do a lot of work by working together. So just really quickly, in terms of programs, of course, rail and bus capital, improvements in service expansion, affordable housing, as Tania stated. Electric and hybrid vehicles, busses and trucks. In fact, I just applied for a $2.3 million grant to bring electric vehicle employee shuttles to Long Beach to purchase eight shuttles for three of our largest nonprofits, reduced emissions from diesel trucks, weatherization and renewable energy for low income households, energy efficiency and state owned public buildings. Water, energy efficiency projects. Wetlands and watershed restoration. Waste diversion just to name a few. So the Strategic Growth Council is one agency, but there are many other agencies. For example, the $2.3 million grant I just wrote was to the California Air Resources Board. So the main objective of cap and trade in SB 535 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So anything related to that at Long Beach and our partners, we can we can actually say that we're reducing pollution. Greenhouse gas emissions will be eligible for funding. So just some numbers here really quickly. The cap and trade program will get at least 1 billion this year and possibly more. The program is projected to bring a total of between 12 to 45 billion through 2020. And 10% of the revenues must be invested in projects located in disadvantaged communities. These are communities, as you know, and this is why we're so thankful that the councilmembers along the 17 corridor partnered with us, because you represent the most vulnerable and pollution burdened communities in the city, and there are ways for us to rectify years and . Years and years of. Marginalization there. Thank you so much. Yes, thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Sylvia. I'm the project manager with the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma and also a steering committee member with the Building Healthy Communities Hub based here in Long Beach. I wanted to speak on this item tonight to establish for you the need, because we work with families whose children asthma is out of control. Oftentimes we find that many of those triggers are from triggers within the home, but also those are also triggers from living near roadways or being exposed to diesel pollution. USC conducted a study and over 20 years following children from elementary school through high school. Some of those children were based right here in Long Beach, and they found that children who were growing and whose lungs were developing and being exposed to near roadway diesel pollution that their lungs actually did did not fully develop. There were also higher numbers of asthma. And when the U.S. followed up that study more recently and their their study there, their findings were published recently. They found that as air pollution was as air quality had improved, that the children living in these areas, their health had also improved. So what I wanted to establish for you is a support for for this item this evening. Because as we invest in some of these other transportation projects and affordable housing, we're also we would also receive a co benefit for families whose children are experiencing asthma and other also other kinds of health conditions that are caused by diesel pollution. So I wanted to share with you some of the statistics that were found in some in some of the journals. They found that 9% of all childhood asthma cases in Long Beach were attributed to traffic proximity. In other words, the closer you are to the source of pollution, the the higher that that risk. This cost was actually $18 million per year. They also found in 30 to 40 studies of long term effects of exposure to diesel, that studies of workers like truckers, railroad workers, miners showed an elevated risk for lung cancer among these exposed workers. They've also found that there was a higher rate of death and for cardiovascular disease or COPD. So as we invest in these projects, we would find that there would be a co benefit to children, to our workers and our families in the city of Long Beach. So I would encourage that support for a shared, collaborate, collaborative table that could further explore opportunities for partnership and benefit to the city of Long Beach. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Thanks, Speaker. Good evening, everyone. My name is Giselle Fong and I am a resident of the seventh District. And chair of the Building Healthy Communities, Long Beach Environmental Health Work Group. I'm commenting on this item tonight because we believe that Long Beach can be more competitive in accessing cap and trade and SB five through five funds by working with building healthy communities, Long Beach and our partner organizations. As mentioned previously, Long Beach is very, very competitive based on the indicators that are laid out in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, grant guidelines, leverage, leveraging our expertize of our environment, of our environmental health partners and the resources of our broader collaborative will help the City of Long Beach move its current plans and priorities forward plans like the mobility and health elements, the West Long Beach Livability Plan, the Healthy Communities Policy and many, many more hold important potential for Long Beach residents who are burdened by pollution. We realize that the city staff currently have an internal table to discuss the the opportunity of cap and trade program. But a quick review of the guiding document reveals that the state of California is looking for applications that demonstrate holistic approaches to maximizing the opportunity of cap and trade and SB 535. This will require local partners, partnership with local assets, partnership like Building Healthy Communities, Long Beach City Fabric, Green Education Inc and our environmental health work group , the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma, East Yard, Communities for Environmental Justice and many, many other partners. In fact, PHC and our partners have already applied. For 3.2 million in grants, but we could apply for much more and have projects that are that are comprehensively connected if we partner with the city. Our hope is that from today's motion that the city manager comes back with a recommendation to establish a collaborative table to share learning, resources, design and planning with grant writing skills. There's evidence of our partner history of partnership. For example, the partnership between city city fabric, the city of Long Beach and the Terminal Island Freeway, for example. We support the recommendation for a shared collaborative table and we are building healthy communities. Long Beach want to extend ourselves as a resource to the city and are excited about working with the city. We appreciate the leadership of the City Council for bringing this forward and also recognize the Mayor and the Council for their leadership and vision on sustainability. Thank you so much. Thank you. In public comment. That 19. Okay. Now, would you please take a vote? Motion carries seven zero. Item number 19. Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau. Councilman Austin and Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 88. California Legislature 2015 2016. Regular Session.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept a non-exclusive easement within the Shilshole Bay Waterway, previously known as the Salmon Bay Waterway of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for a City-owned sanitary sewer line; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06142022_CB 120322

The report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee, an ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the general manager CEO of SPU to accept a non-exclusive easement within the schedule shall be waterway. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Casper Peterson. Thank you. Council President. U.S. Council Bill 120322 accepts an easement from the State Department of Natural Resources to install a replacement sanitary sewer line within the Salmon Day waterway. The legislation was unanimously recommended by our committee. There any comments or concerns for Councilmember Peterson? Not seeing any men. Please call the roll. Councilmember Moralez. Yes. Councilman Ramos. Gather i. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. And Council President Hart is in favor and unopposed. Thank you. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation? Moving on to item number six. This is also Councilmember Peterson. Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record?

AN ORDINANCE creating an Indigenous Advisory Council for tribal and urban Indian engagement; adding a new Chapter 3.75 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 3.35.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120188

Agenda Item 24 Council Bill 120188 An ordinance creating an Indigenous Advisory Council for Tribal and Urban Indian Engagement. Adding a new Chapter 3.75 to the Seattle Missile Code and amending Section 3.35.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Juarez to address this item. Thank you. Council President. This is actually a great day, a big day for the city of Seattle for the creation of the Indigenous Advisory Council. We've never done this and we did it. Thank you, colleagues. This bill creates a nine member Indigenous Advisory Council for the important purpose of providing direction, guidance and subject matter expertize to advise Seattle elected officials and city departments on policy issues pertaining to urban native populations. Tribal communities. Tribal Government. The Advisory Council will not only work closely with the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, but with other Seattle City Council members, the mayor and the city departments to coordinate overall policy development. This legislation is a long time coming and I'm very proud of this council for working with me to get it done. This legislation builds upon the work of this Council from two years ago when we created a new staffing position to support the work of the Council. Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Budget Chair. This budget action passed and the position has since been filled under the Department of Neighborhoods. We engage with tribal councils, tribal leadership, community organizations, urban Indian organizations and subject matter experts in the drafting of this legislation. We researched what other jurisdictions had created, particularly by Portland and San Francisco. I envision a council structure to recruit and empower community leaders, elders, youth professionals and tribal council elected leaders to bring forward their perspective and direct public policy here at the city of Seattle. I'm also committed to empowering our Indigenous Advisory Council staff leaders on our new Stafford neighborhoods, Francesca Murnane, to allow this body to organically grow and expand as the community deems and sees fit. The city needs Indigenous knowledge at the table to allow accurate representation and greater ideas in our public policies and debate. The city is committed to building that trust with tribal governments and learning more. The passage of this bill would make this a reality, and I'm very proud of this historic moment. The Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends that City Council pass this bill. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you so much, consumers. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120188? Agenda item 24. I'm Carlsberg Strauss, please. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Juarez. I know we've been tracking this from afar because I don't want to get in the way of your leadership just knowing that your your staff has been incredible on this work. So I just want to thank you and your staff for this work. Thank you. Right. Any other comments? Right. Hearing none. Will Kirk, let's go ahead and make history, shall we? Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120188 Agenda Item 24 Lewis. Denise Morales. As. Was it a? Yes. Petersen Yes. Strauss Yes. You're bold. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I didn't favor. And unopposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the person please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations, Council, Lawrence. Thank you. All right, let's keep going here. Will the clerk please read item 25 into the record?

Recommendation to approve the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing or the period of October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2022, in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Final Rule, and authorize City Manager, or designee, to take actions to further the goals identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12132016_16-1113

Motion carries. Okay. Next item. And I just I think I also want to make a comment about consent to having someone who spoke to an earlier consent was done at the beginning of the agenda. And so I just want to make sure that we're clear the consent calendar. Not have a chance. Actually, actually. Let me. Let me be sad, actually. I don't believe that's correct. Mr. City Attorney, what happened was. Is asked for consent calendar. I no one pulled any items except for item number seven. We pulled item seven and we did public comment for every any item besides item number seven. I don't think there was any public comment or maybe there was one. And then we did put out a number seven. I think that's I believe that's exactly what we did. That's correct. Now. Okay. Ma'am, I think that that's exactly how we did. We can go back and look at look at the it's all recorded. We asked for public comment during the consent and we'll even take a look at it right now just to make sure we'll go on to the next item. Okay. Item 22 is a report from Development Services. Recommendations to approve the city's assessment of fair housing for the period of Tober first 2017 through September 30th, 2022. City. Is there any public comment on this item? CNN. Please cast your votes. Councilwoman Gonzalez.

Approves a loan agreement with Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. (NDHC) in the amount of $785,000 from HOME funds (HUD) to support the construction of 84 affordable housing units at the Northfield at Stapleton Apartments project at 7955 Northfield Boulevard in Council District 8 (OEDEV – 201524304). (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Approves a loan agreement with Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. (NDHC) in the amount of $785,000 from HOME funds (HUD) to support the construction of 84 affordable housing units at the Northfield at Stapleton Apartments project at 7955 Northfield Boulevard in Council District 8 (OEDEV – 201524304). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-8-15.

DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0874

Espinosa Abstain. Flynn, I. Gillmor. I Cashman. Can each new Ortega. Sussman Black. Brooks Clark. All right, Mr. President. All right. Can you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting announce results. Lebanese one abstention. 11 I as council bill 874 has been adopted. Let's move on to 896. That's you. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. ShotSpotter is a technical assistance program that works with the Safety Department, specifically the police department, to identify the location of gun guns being fired. And, you know, we have seen that this has been highly successful in the city. And I just had a question if there's someone from the Department of Safety. Once you get that question. So my question is, is this resolution? So let me ask this first. So what we had in our neighborhoods with ShotSpotter to begin with, do we not have an agreement with ShotSpotter? And now, is this a resolution to set forth a formal agreement? Thank you, Councilman. And for the record, I'm Captain Steven. Carter with the Denver Police Department. I'm also program manager for ShotSpotter. No, we did not have a prior agreement with ShotSpotter. The program was purchased on behalf of the city and county of Denver by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They provided first year funding. We wanted to see if there was an efficiency and effectiveness to it that we would then adopt it within our budget. Okay, great. I just want to just make a comment. I have personally sat with victims that we have caught because of this technology. Just want to thank you and your team for working so hard on this. And I hope that we can expand this to other hot spots within the city and county in Denver. Thank you. That's our hope. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you called out 843 on page six. What would you like to do with that? I guess I just have a question for parks. Go ahead, Scott. Probably that question. Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Scott. Hello, Councilman. Are you good? As you know on in this agreement with Denver water, the saiga one of the provisions in my page just flipped on me. Hold on. At 5.2.2.5, we are agreeing to update the scope and scale of the program through which we're converting some of our turf in our parks, our green longs to natural areas. And as you know, that's been a source of a sore spot in my district in some of those smaller parks where the conversions look more like we just forgot to mow them. And I want to make sure that as we do this through 2017, I think it says here, April 30th, 2017, to complete this update that we include a pretty robust neighborhood outreach around any of the parks where we are considering making this fundamental change in how they look and that we get neighborhood input. Do you know if that will be part of the plan? Yes, that's Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Planning. Yes, that will be something that we will definitely do. I actually was talking to staff today about just, you know, we're doing these conversions. And, you know, last week we just had this huge sustainability conference. And a lot of this the next point is 5.2.2.6. And it talks about sustainable park systems. And, you know, a lot of these conversions are really to try to make sure our park system is at a sustainable level.

Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders During Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May. Councilor Arroyo in the Chair. On motion of Councilor Flynn, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_05042022_2022-0593

05930593. Counsel of Flynn offer the following resolution Recognizing the contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The chair now recognizes. Councilor Flynn. Councilor Flynn, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel. Royal counsel, royal counselor Fernando Fernandez Anderson as an original co-sponsor. Seeing no objection, she is now added. Thank you. Many, many know that I represent the largest AAPI community in Boston. Mostly in Chinatown, but also in the South End in itself, Boston as well. Outside of my district, we have a vibrant Vietnamese community that's in council, a baker's district. Um, and Councilor Braden also has a large Korean community as well. And council has a large AAPI community, as do other councilors. There's a large Cambodian community outside of Boston, up and up in Lowell. Um, over the weekend, I had the opportunity to attend. The Asian Jade Banquet, which is a celebration of Asian police officers throughout New England. And they came together and talked about the important role of Asian and Asian-American police officers that play in our cities and towns. And they do an exceptional job. But I always come back to. A story that I have said several times. But when the Chinese community first came to the United States. They helped build the United States, literally with the transcontinental railroad. And Chinese laborers along with Irish laborers. Connected the East Coast and in the West Coast, and they connected up a bit outside of Salt Lake City. And there's this there's a famous photo of kind of a ribbon cutting ceremony completing completing the railroad. And there's about 200 people in one of these old photos. And of the 200 people, there's not one Asian person in the photo, even though they practically built and built the railroad. And after that, after completing the railroad, what did the U.S. government do? We enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act. What Chip scored in Chinese from coming to the United States was the first time that the United States intentionally excluded an ethnic an ethnic group from coming in here. We also during the during World War Two, we imprisoned Japanese Americans, mostly out in the West Coast, in California, in some other some other states as well, even though they were born here. Um. During this pandemic. We actually held the first public town hall meeting on COVID 19 in the country. And there was a Josiah Quincy School, and there was a young woman. She was a student at the Boston Latin at Boston Latin Academy. And this was in January 2020. And. COVID really didn't hit this part of the United States yet. But we we knew it was coming. And this student got on the train heading to school when she got on the train. She walked into the train and all the other people on the train got off the train. Because they associated her with with COVID 19. She was a young kid, probably 16 to 17 years old, telling telling me that story at this at this town hall. And then I thought to myself, you know, we're going to see a lot of anti-Asian racism in this country. anti-Asian hate hate crimes. That have happened here in the city of Boston, not just with the AAPI community, with immigrants, with communities of color as well, LGBTQ as Council of Clarity, as I mentioned also, um, and these, these hate crimes against immigrants continue to this day. I was at a hearing the other night and an elderly Asian woman was visiting Boston. I think she lived in Somerville. She was probably 80 years old. She got punched in the head by a young guy, probably, probably 20 years old, just just because she was Asian. But what I but what I want to do as we celebrate AAPI. Certainly we have to deal with the discrimination and the hate crimes, but also to celebrate the important role the Asian community has played in the United States, the contributions and the sacrifices that they made for our city and for our country. So I'm proud to partner with Counselor Fernandez Anderson. But I also want to say to my colleagues, I know you, you have also supported the AAPI community, not just today or this month, but for all of the year. So I want to recognize my colleagues for the tremendous work they do in this field. And I also want to recognize our first mayor of the city of Boston, Mayor Malveaux, who with have partnered on this resolution many times before. But I just want to say thank you to the mayor for her important work as well. So thank you. Mr.. Thank you also for giving me the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Councilor Flynn. The Chair now recognizes Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Thank you. Uh, Councilor. Sorry, President Flynn, for filing this resolution. And I just wanted to take a moment to just, you know, sort of now go by the formalities and just express my sentiment around this. When I arrived to the United States and did not and I was looking for a job to save money so that I can bring my brother or sister. And I would save every little bit. And I didn't have a green card, so I would I found a way and there was a few friends in Cambridge that I met some Bengalis and and other Nepalese friends that had hooked me up with some jobs and we would all work together. And of course, the joke was that immigrants that we work two or three jobs and sometimes we're called, you know, people would say, are you Jamaican if you work more than three jobs, right. So we all share this culture of working hard and being disciplined and putting out, you know, a lot of work because of our, you know, ethics or work ethics in terms of being disciplined in putting out work. But I a lot of my friends also share the sentiment. And as you know, Muslims being highly Asian or Asian Pacific Islanders share this expression that or the sentiment that. Because where because they work very hard and because they are disciplined or humble in the way that they ask for recognition that they are not recognized as human beings for the work that they put out. And not to repeat everything that often has said. But I was really happy that you mentioned all of the different historic contributions to the United States and building this country, but also all of the hardships that people have gone through. And I think that a lot of the times we human as human beings, we're not very good with the unknown. So we wait for this paradigm shift to take us to, oh, wait, it's wrong to discriminate against LGBTQ. Ah, oh, wait, it's wrong to be. To discriminate against blacks. Oh, it's wrong to be this way or that way. So I think that we should try to get into the culture of being open and understanding that there are nuances. As and as Counselor Laura has mentioned, we're not a monolith. So that's not to any and that's to every group. Everybody. There's nuances and culture and differences and music and food and everybody's different. And I think what happens is we we tend to clump up people in one category or one bucket Asians, that's it. But there's so much beauty and diversity and language and culture that comes with the different type that different Asians and Asian Pacific Islanders . I'm so happy to partner with you in this and thank you so much, so much for your work. But not just because you're not just because you represent a lot of Asians, but because you're you are a very kind man. Castle Flynn. And I really just appreciate you for taking the time and not it's not about faults for you. It's like this. These are people I represent and I'm going to do that to the best of my ability with heart and passion. And I appreciate you for that. Thank you. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing no one. Would anyone else like to add their name? Mr. Clarke. Please add. Councilor Baker. Councilor. Councilor Braden. Councilor Flaherty. Councilor Lara. Councilor. Legion. Councilor here. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Allen. Please add my name. Councilor Flynn seeks suspension of the rules and passage of docket 0593. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say the ayes have it. Docket 0593 has been adopted. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Royal. Mr. Clarke, will you please read 20594 police. Numbers 059 for council and me here or for the following resolution in support of Senate 2671 An act relative to forfeiture reform and Senate 2105 enact relative to civil asset forfeiture data reporting.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Capital Improvement and Capital Maintenance Fund. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a $2 million supplemental appropriation request from the General Fund 2015 Contingency Fund for the acquisition of property to support the proposed master plan area of the National Western Stock Show redevelopment in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-17-15.

DenverCityCouncil_09282015_15-0651

Sorry. Okay. I saw some some pausing. So the question is that the stock show is a really important project. You voted for the referral to the voters and we have several funding sources that we hope will be approved, both if the voters approve an extension of the lodgers tax, if the state approves a tax increment financing incentive of state sales taxes. And for me, those are really appropriate sources to use to fund the stock show. But the general fund is not, you know, that source. And so the case was made for my colleagues. You may remember that we had budget hearings. So so committees were canceled in this. This was something we were briefed by email. We did not have a chance to have a committee discussion. But I just wanted to ask whether there was a plan for paying the general fund back for any any funds used and how over time, we plan to keep track of purchases that really are for the stock show or expenditures for the stock show. So that at the end of the day, we can honestly very clearly contain and state what we have spent on that project without it kind of getting hidden in a bunch of individual transactions along the way. Right. I want to be able to kind of have a neat package. So so if you can address either or both of those questions. Sure. Happy to. Skye Stewart Mayor's Office. As Council Councilwoman Canete said, we did a lot of this via email and thanks for allowing us to move forward quickly. This will be paid back with assuming the ballot measure passes with the bond proceeds. So the general fund will be paid back in 2016. Per your request, we are going to memorialize that. So I know Budget and the DCC team are working on a memorandum of understanding between the two for that payback that we'll be happy to provide a copy of to you as well. And then to your second point, Kelly is not here tonight, but he is presenting Wednesday on his budget. And I had asked him flagged for him to talk about project tracking. He and Todd, when Scott, his deputy, have a whole system for the six different projects of the NBCC and how they match up the funds they're using with that correct projects that we're staying on top of it. And I believe he will discuss that in budget hearings Wednesday. Excellent. Thank you very much. And I do appreciate the responsiveness to to document the kind of debt, if you will, owed from one city fund to another. And I think that is appropriate. So I am very supportive of this moving forward. And I look forward to kind of the more details on on tracking over time. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Councilman Brooks, you have a question or comment? Yeah. You know, this is just a comment and I'll let Jeff Steinberg answer if I if I if I fell on this. But I just wanted since councilwoman can each brought it up, you know, obviously we pass the master plan. I just want to catch up to public real quick. We we passed the master plan of the National Western Center and it talked about acquiring some property. And this particular this particular parcel came up a little bit quicker than we when we all saw it. And we saw it as a great opportunity. And that's why we are taking advantage of it now, not trying to rush anything through council, but this is a great opportunity for us to commence on a project that received full support of this council. So just want to kind of catch everybody up on that. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. You know, the questions are comments. Six 5116 Imam Secretary, you go on to the next one. 625 Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this? I just had a comment. Go right ahead. So we can say, even though a motion at committee failed to encourage mediation, I'm happy to say that the applicant has voluntarily entered into mediation. That begins October 5th. So I'm encouraged and I wish them the best of luck in that process. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, we've got one more. I believe, Madam Secretary, 614. Councilman Flynn, what would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have this called out for a separate vote so that I can abstain. Certainly. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you make the motions for us this evening? Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Would you please have 614 placed on final consideration and do pass? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that. Council bill 614 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is an intergovernmental agreement with urban drainage and flood control district. It is a very worthwhile project and partnership that will do flood control up around 56th and Tower and Pena Boulevard. My former employer, Regional Transportation District, is a funding partner to it. So under the city's ethics code, I. I'm abstaining from voting on it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Any other comments on 614? Scene nine Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn Gilmore I Cashman. I. Can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye. Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Mr. President. I am Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting results. 12 eyes, one abstention. 12 eyes, one. Attention. 614 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that all the bills that were called out so we were ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Gilmore, were you pleased with their resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in block.

AN ORDINANCE relating to renovating KeyArena at the Seattle Center; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designees to execute an Agreement with Seattle Arena Company, LLC, to establish roles and responsibilities for coordinating the design and constructing the transit-only lanes on Queen Anne Avenue North and 1st Avenue North, a transit queue jump at 1st Avenue North and Republican Street, design upgrades for the Protected Bicycle Lanes, and additional improvements to Thomas Street.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119881

The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Capital 119881 relating to renovating key arena at the sale center operate from the mayor or the mayor says he needs to execute an agreement with the Seattle Arena Company LLC to establish roles and responsibilities for coordinating the design and constructing the transit only lanes on Queen Anne. Up north at first north, a transit queue jump at 470 north Andrew Pelican Street Design upgrades for the protection bicycle lane and additional improvements to Thomas Street. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass the council bill. 1219881. Is there a second? I think it's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember was a sponsor. You are recognized in order to address this item. Nike Council President Anthony Clarke stated, I'll just be a little bit more brief. This legislative legislation, as I share this morning, does authorize the mayor to execute an agreement with Arena CO to coordinate design and construction of street improvements and pedestrian and bike improvements. Arena CO, as I shared this morning, is responsible for contributing $594,000 of the estimated total cost of 990,000. For the improvement the Seattle Department of Transportation would fund the balance of the cost of the project's approximately 396,000 to a credit to the street use that arena CO would otherwise owe for the redevelopment project. Arena CO is expected to owe a total of approximately 3.5 million in street use fees associated with the project, and the MTA requires that the credited fee only be used for the design and construction of the transit improvements. Additionally, the Memorandum of Agreement specifies that Arena Comb would install a set of additional improvements for escort. The additional improvements include, and I just have five of them here, briefly raised driveways and concrete barriers for protected bicycle lanes, green bicycle boxes, new signage at signalized intersections, comma, street bicycle and signal improvements, and a curb extension on the northwest corner of Thomas Street and First Avenue North. In total restaurant staff estimate the combined street use of the credits of $841,000 resulting from the proposed MLA for installation of both the transit improvements and the additional. Improvement. Field. This code assumes the 15 zero four 100 allows for the escort director to credit up to 300,000 and use fees from an individual project in exchange for voluntary transportation. Improvement of equal value credits above this amount must be approved by Seattle City Council and Council authorization would be granted through passage. Of this bill. Council Bill. 119881. Therefore, I would recommend Council pass this legislation. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for those remarks and those comments on the bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none that will please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Petersen. Yes. The want? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbal? Yes. Juarez. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item two Will the clerk please read Agenda Item two into the record?

A MOTION calling on Governor Inslee to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments.

KingCountyCC_04212020_2020-0165

Sounds great. Any other parting thoughts from colleagues? All right. The next two items on our agenda today concern legislation related to the pandemic response. The first is a motion that would call on the governor to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose a similar moratorium on rent and mortgage payments. We have April Sanders from the council, several staff to hear here to provide a brief overview to Sanders. Hello is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record. April Sanders Council central staff controls for this item begin on page 77 of your packet. The proposed motion, as the chair indicated, and we call on Governor Inslee, federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments. For a bit of background, on March 18th, Governor Inslee issued emergency proclamation 2019, which prohibits evictions based on a tenant's nonpayment of rent through at least April 17. On April 16th, under increased terms that were hearing through the 4th of June and added some additional tenant protections. However, rent payments during this time are still due to the landlord and who lawful detainer actions may be initiated after the emergency proclamation expires. If rent payments are not up to date. Similarly, mortgage payments continue to be due on the regular schedule. When additional tenant protection and. Gov. Any please. Extension of the emergency proclamation is the prohibition that landlords hate unpaid rent and charges as an enforceable debt. Unless the landlord demonstrates to a court that the resident was offered and refused or failed to comply with a reasonable repayment plan. To date, the federal government has not imposed a rent relief program, though Freddie Mac has issued mortgage forbearance guidance for single family homeowners, and that guidance remains subject to individual being decide if and how to implement. On March 30th, the City Council passed a resolution calling on Governor Inslee to impose a similar moratorium, as is proposed here . Calling on Inslee, the federal legislators and the Trump administration. And that brings me to the end of my staff report and happy to answer any questions. And there are amendment. On policy questions for Ms.. Sanders. Hearing none. Ms. Sanders and me and customers council members. Hello. Would you prefer to speak to it now? I'm ask April to speak to the striking amendment. What would be your preference amendment? First, please, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. Case, speak to respect an amendment that was emailed out earlier today as well. So striking amendment act one would add an additional whereas statement to reflect Governor Inslee's extension of the moratorium on evictions that I spoke to earlier. It would also add that the moratorium on rent and mortgage payments would be for low income individuals, specifically who have lost their employment or a significant portion of their income stream due to government closures and orders related to COVID 19. And it would also add language asking Congress and the Trump administration to direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish and fund a rental property relief fund for residential landlords. And that is it for the striking amendment. Questions on the Second Amendment. All right, members, what you have to. I'll give a little bit of context first. So March 15 was one of the hardest days of my professional life. That was the day the governor announced expanded limitations on large gatherings and closures of certain small businesses to slow the spread of COVID 19. Immediately after this order came down, my email inbox and social media channels were flooded with the messages of terrified King County residents. We heard from some of them in public comment today, and I actually get choked up just talking about it. I heard from restaurant owners saying the restaurants they had operated for generations were in jeopardy. Beauty salon owner is wondering how they could continue paying their commercial rent. Uber drivers facing imminent financial demise. In the ensuing weeks, their fears became reality. Hundreds of thousands of people were laid off across our state. People were now telling me that the loss of income had upended everything they had ever worked. Work. Renters were on the verge of eviction and homelessness. Small landlords, whose tenants had been laid off, lost the income stream they relied on to make their mortgage payments. Small business owners who had lost months of revenue were closing shop forever. I want to emphasize that none of the messages I've received across the past several weeks have been critical of the shut downs or stay at home orders themselves. Despite the sudden uncertainty in their own lives, people have been fully supportive of the actions taken by our governor. They know he and our public health officials have been some of the most effective leaders around the nation. I share that faith. From a public health standpoint, it's clear that our state and local government have been second to none. We should all be grateful for the thousands of lives their decisions have saved. It's also clear that our solutions to the widespread economic hardship resulting from these affected public health decisions have been insufficient. The eviction moratorium, small business loans and federal stimulus checks do not go nearly far enough to keep Americans from financial ruin. Furthermore, as eviction moratoriums are eventually lifted, thousands of Washingtonians with middle income and no savings will lose their homes and small businesses. Deepening our preexisting homelessness crisis and widening our extreme wealth inequality. Every issue we have ever faced in King County will intensify if more people become unhoused and small businesses go under. With that being said, one of the most powerful steps we can take to secure our collective well-being is to freeze residential rent, commercial rent and mortgage payments during the coronavirus emergency. King County Council does not have the authority to do this. We cannot halt mortgage payments during the months of this emergency. But we believe our state and federal governments really have the authority. That is why Councilmember Jeanie Caldwell and I have introduced today's non-binding resolution calling on our highest levels of government to enact resolutions to pause rent payments, pause mortgage payments and establish a relief fund for small landlords to cover losses from canceled payments. This act would ensure people stay housed during this public health crisis while saving thousands of small businesses. Small landlords who depend on rental income would benefit from actions to pause mortgage payments, delay property taxes, and enacting the private rental property relief fund. We know that some of our colleagues are opposed to this resolution and they have very valid concerns. There are no easy solutions here when we're trying to prevent total economic collapse, collapse. But we hear those concerns. And Council member Cal Wells will speak to the some of the language in this resolution that may ease these fears. Councilmember Caldwell. Councilmember. Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, you recognize the council member? I'm sorry about that, Colonel. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one end of people have questions of council members right before I speak. Oh. No. Okay. So I'm very pleased to be co-sponsoring this legislation with council members. Hello. And I think we all know that it is of no help to individuals, that they are not able to stay in their homes because of not being able to afford their rental payments. The last thing they need and the last thing we as a country needs need is to have more people enter homelessness. We know that low income individuals pay a much higher proportion of amount of their income to rent. I've always heard that one should not pay more than 20% or maybe even 30% at best for their housing costs. Yet we know that a large number, very large number of low income individuals and families pay 50% of their income to rent if they don't have income. How are they able to pay the rent if they also have no savings? And I remember vividly that during the Great Recession and the very large amount of foreclosures that took place for homeowners because they were unable to keep up with their mortgage payments. I think we all remember that. So what we're doing here is to, first of all, in our striking amendment, acknowledge the concerns we've heard from our constituents, from others, from some of our council colleagues here, that people who earn high salaries should not be able to access this provision. And we don't believe that our concern workers who are the high paying ones or any workers who make a lot of salary should be eligible. We are referring to low income individuals and families who are really unable to pay for their rent. We're also talking about landlords who are maybe the small mom and pop type of landlords, the seniors who count on the rental income in the duplex they own and the small apartment building that they own for revenue that they depend upon. We've added language qualifying the scope to people who lost their jobs or lost significant income through no fault of their own if they've been laid off, for example, from a restaurant, from a non essential business, and they have not the means to be able to pay for their rent. We know that unemployment insurance will be covering a lot of the people, but in many cases that amount will be inadequate. As small landlords, again, who depend on rental income would benefit from the actions that the US Congress and the President could take, as well as the Governor of our state being able to order. So we're talking about pausing mortgage payments, delaying property taxes and being able to access a rental property relief fund, as proposed by the federal legislation co-sponsored by Congressman Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and others that would provide qualifying landlords the resources to cover lost payments. Let's face it, if any landlord has a tenant who is unable to make the rent, then their landlord is not benefiting at all. So this is something that we encourage and we thank you for your consideration. Thank you, colleagues, for the questions of the co-sponsors. I don't think. Councilmember McDermott. Oh, Councilmember Dunn. Thank you. I got cut off a little bit when April was discussing those amendments. Sounds like it was limited down to low income and also those who lost their jobs. That is correct. Are there any other amendments there? So it also adaware as statement to reflect the moratorium extension and add language asking Congress and the Trump administration to direct HUD to establish and fund the rental property relief fund for residential landlords. Okay. All right. So has there been any analysis on whether there's a Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution takings class or the comparable state constitution clause has been analyzed? And if so, is there a fiscal note on it terms of one? Because the government. Because this is a motion, it didn't go through legal analysis and we'd be calling on a different jurisdiction to make these make this decision. So the underlying constitutional problem here hasn't really been addressed. We're just pushing it up to the state government and the federal government to determine whether there is, in fact, a constitutional challenge. Yes, that is correct. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Dombrowski related question for member Dombrowski And the answer may be the same, but I wondered about with respect to the state constitution for a rent and a farmer or a contract or a lease, some contract or mortgages or contracts. You know, we have in our state constitution a contract impairment clause. And I wonder if that if any consideration has been to whether that would be a trigger or prevent the relief that is requested in this motion, which is to cancel the obligations. Same answer to that one councilmember. No legal analysis has been was done in the drafting of this. However, I'm more than happy to follow up on on both questions with our legal team. Cole Wells. Councilmember Calvo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a reminder, this is a non-binding resolution. It is a request to the governor and a request to Congress from the United States president. We're not taking any action ourselves to freeze or, as we said, pause rental payments and mortgage payments. Thank you. WG Councilmember Balaji. Thank you, Mr. Chair, on the same topic. So what we're being asked to do today is to vote on a non-binding motion that calls upon a different government to do something. I would like to know, before I take that vote, whether what we're asking them to do is possible for them to do, because if it's not possible for them to do because it's against the state and federal constitutions, I think all we're doing potentially is giving people some false hope or making ourselves look good at the expense of other levels of government. And that that troubles me a little bit. So I'd love to know if we have any attorneys around who could give us their read on this before we have to take a vote on it. That would be helpful to me. I see Mr. Cohen. I see Mr. Cohen in the room mood cut in the call. I don't know. Can you hear me? Mr. Chair. Please. This is morning. COHEN So temporary suspension of rent or mortgage payment may might be constitutional. However, there are issues addressed by the council members. There could be issues with the US Constitution's contract clause which prevents the state from breaking private contracts. There could be interference with those contracts or else also with the takings clause, which would prevent the state from depriving a property owner from all economically beneficial or productive use of their land. And then there's also the issue of whether or not who would pay for it in the end. So we haven't looked into it in complete depth. These are some of the legal issues and consequences that could occur. However, as also mentioned, this is a motion which is non-binding and does not have the legal effect. May I follow up, Mr. Chair, please? Yes. So, just to be clear, the question is framed as if, you know, and so this is why this is not an executive session, because we're speculating on the legal advice that one would give to a different government, not us. But what? What would your assessment be of this proposal if it were adopted by the state or the feds? You've identified some questions, but is the analysis that it would more likely than not be unconstitutional? Very almost certainly unconstitutional. Probably not unconstitutional. I mean, where do you land on? It's important to my vote, honestly, to know whether we're just making a statement or whether we are advocating for something that could really happen. If it's a full suspension of rent and not a suspension, but a complete just saying that people do not have to ever pay for their rent or mortgage, that would likely be unconstitutional. Allowing people or allowing the government to suspend rent with the intention that it will be paid in the end. May not have the same constitutional challenges. That is helpful. Thank you. Caldwell Council Member for Wales. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, council members who are in close and I have discussed this, but the thing that really is important to emphasize here is we're talking about pausing, not an outright forgiveness. We're talking about people having the opportunity. If Congress were to enact the legislation that was identified, that would provide grants. Now almost all of what is coming out of Congress is in the form of either grants or loans to help out people to get by. I think it's especially important to emphasize that we're talking about people who do not have the means to pay their rent. And what are they supposed to do? So we're proposing, again, a request to Congress, a request to the president, a request to the governor to pause rental payments, pause mortgage payments, establish a relief fund. And I believe that at this level, this is something that is really needed. It is really necessary. People are frantic, especially those individuals who have been laid off because of the COVID crisis that we are experiencing and who, through no fault of their own, are not able to work. And have the means to pay for their rent or pay for their mortgage. It's a very scary, even terrifying situation that people are in. And to make this request to our governor and to Congress and the president is something that I think is very reasonable to do. We're not asking the council to do any of this ourselves. It's simply a matter of a request and something that is very, very, very urgent to so many of our constituents. Again, Apollo. Thank members. Hello. Thank you all. And I'll speak. This will be the final time I speak. So I'll address some of the things I've heard, which, again, as I mentioned before, these are valid concerns we're hearing from our colleagues and I thank them for their input. So in just in case to hammer at home to the public was hearing because I think some people may not have gotten it before of the public this is a non-binding resolution that means this proposal would have no legal effect even if our council passes it today. Our goal with a resolution that has no legal effect is to uplift and amplify the voices of our constituents who are struggling the most in an economy that has grinding to a halt. Also, this non-binding resolution allows King County the opportunity to join a larger national movement, a movement of local governments around the country who have been asking their respective states and the federal government to provide the greatest form of economic relief possible, which is to keep people housed and to keep small businesses alive. Council members have called for this in Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, St Paul, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, as well as unanimously by our largest city of Seattle. We have also seen complementary proposals at the federal level, co-sponsored by Congresswoman Jayapal, which shows that there is an appetite for this at higher levels of government. The last thing I want to address in the concerns, the valid concerns from people around the economic impact of these actions and the constitutionality. My response to these valid concerns is the following. Number one, we heard some of the mitigating strategies that Councilmember Caldwell's with said, and we hope he addressed some of your concerns. And number two, government actions like the shut downs and stay at home orders have also had major economic health consequences. And by the way, they have also deprived people of the economic value of their property and their labor, which are the main constitutional concerns that we're talking about. Our government actions, our shutdowns are limitations on gathering. These have deprived countless small businesses of their income and led to major layoffs. But we universally support these actions because of the cost of these shutdowns. The cost of lost revenues, the cost of lost income pales in comparison to the cost of inaction. That's what we're saying here with this resolution. We're making a similar argument. We're asking for bold government action because the cost of inaction is monumental. And we hope our state and federal government will take the bold action is required to help people stay housed and to keep small businesses alive. Thank you. On on bar. So to move on. Right. Thank you, Mr. Sharon. And I want to thank both of the co-sponsors for the intention of what they want to accomplish. We say it's a non-binding. No solution. But in fact, if I vote for it, I bring my name to a resolution that we have not vetted. I can't put a I guess the expression. I heard Jay talk about putting a pause. I can't put a pause in the due process that I usually do to find out if something I vote for is legal. So I'm going to vote against it until it's been vetted by a legal counsel because I bind my name to the intention here not knowing. Not getting confirmation from a legal counsel, and I can't put a pause in my conscience to vote for something that feels good but doesn't do good. Never. Remember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate the evaluation that council members Ocala did, because that's exactly what we're hearing in my district, too. And I think probably everybody in the entire county is hearing very similar things from their constituents. My interest here is to know what is different that is in this ordinance, because originally in one of the statements that we read, it talked about the forbearance. As I'm looking through that, the title doesn't say anything about forbearance. The conversation hasn't said anything about that. So there's some uncertainty here as to not being all in sync. So are we saying that this would have forbearance or not forbearance? Will they be responsible for their debts after the pandemic is over or not? That's a legal question going. If they are asking for it to be paused. And there's an expectation, according to Councilmember Corrales, that there would be programs in place for it to be paid. Then that would be not a it would be a moratorium, but the fund would still be would be paid in the end. So there's. Potential that the temporary suspension may be constitutional. However, if it was to. For Bear and not have any responsible for payments, then that would likely bring a further constitutional problem, an issue. I'm done. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to commend Councilman Rizal and D.A. Wells for the intense spirit of what they're bringing forth today. Clearly, a lot of compassion and a lot of thought going into the fact that people are hurting out there right now and that the quick disappearance of jobs and the expensive nature of the rent in our area are leaving people with a lot without a lot of answers. I want to I'm going to oppose this motion, but I want to suggest that there are ways, legal ways, constitutional ways that we can help a subset of the folks out, that this motion is attempting to help lower income people who have lost their jobs, that also, after in good faith, negotiating with their landlords, are unable to come to a resolution and also have debt piling up in ways that are are deeply troubling that could force bankruptcy. I think there are ways, including creating a subsidy with some of that federal money or partnership with the state to provide some rent rental assistance. Expanding Section eight vouchers is another way a landlord incentive program is yet a third way. I think those are all constitutional ways we can get to a very similar outcome. But the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property should not be taken for public use without providing compensation that the US Supreme Court extended that also to include personal property. The state quashed the state constitution over 100 pages and I read it once when I was getting ready to run for attorney general is much more prescriptive and challenging, and the issue with the constitutional challenges are that it's government action. And if government takes the action and then it turns out later on that it is unconstitutional action, whether it's the county, the state or the feds, it is government that is on the hook to pay the damages. And so that is the concern that I have here. I would point out to legal counsel that this motion says very specifically that no debt shall be accrued during the time of the enactment of this or of this legislation, whether it be at the state of the federal level. So right there, you're saying they don't have to they would get rent free and they also would not have to pay any of it back. They're either taking real property from folks or you're taking personal property in the form of cash payments. You're also potentially tortuously interfering with contractual rights. Those are big ticket items that cause me concern legally. I think there are other ways to get to an answer here, and as a result of all those factors, I'm going to be voting no. Thank you. For further discussion before I ask the sponsor to place the motion before us. Oh, well. Can someone recall? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to give one reminder that this is a motion. It is perfectly legal and within our charter to be able to make motions to the federal government and to the state government, to the president, Congress and our governor. And that's what this is about. We have listed we have included concepts that we would like to have dealt with. They in no way would anticipate that the governor or the president or Congress would follow our recommendation to the letter that they would work within the constraints of our state and federal constitution. But we think this is very important to be able to communicate, as is happening in many jurisdictions around the country and apparently a growing number of jurisdictions. That is one way that we can communicate to federal and state leaders about our values and our priorities and what we believe needs to be done in this tremendous national, state and county local emergency. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Council members. Hello. Would you like to make a motion? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of my colleagues for hearing this and voicing really valid concerns and for also allowing public testimony and hearing directly from people who are struggling during this crisis. I move to take a vote on the proposed motion. Council members all those moved. We give it a do pass recommendation the motion 2020 166 other amendments. Mr. Chair sounds. A member of the world. So I move the striking amendment. Council member Cole Wells has moved adoption of striking amendment S1 and discussion. And said that it is motion 0165. I think you said 0166. So the notes I'm working for, say six six, I'll go with six five and S1 is before us discussion on this one up the Grove Councilmember of the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for clarifying. I apologize. I don't have the document in front of me. And the conversation got confusing in the striking amendment. Does it. Continue to. Say that we support the federal government not requiring folks to ever pay the rent? The thing that our attorney said was likely unconstitutional. Is that still what we're asking for in the. In the striking amendments. So don't move the language around. That does not change, but it is fairly vague. It says that such that no Washington resident should be required to pay rent during this health emergency or accumulate debt for that unpaid rent. So it is left somewhat ambiguous. But I believe Councilmember Caldwell's articulated the intent that it would be sort of deferred until later on. Paul Wells in council member call Wells You're right, I actually have been notes all over my desk and was reading the wrong number. Rest assured that all records are the same as most in 2020 165, and please proceed. Thank you. I do that to say understand. Yes. And I think that well, as we were developing a striking amendment and as we went back and forth on a lot of the language, this is the committee of the whole. If this legislation were to get a majority report out, we could certainly have another striking amendment at the full council meeting next Tuesday that would achieve the language that would be able to be perfected to meet the concerns that both council me. All those in favor of Amendment One, please signify by saying I, my people, those opposed me. Yeah, I. I'm going to ask the clerk to please take an oral vote. According to Jim Council member Lucy High. As a member, Bishop was a councilmember in Boston. No. But then basketball? No. As a member? Dunn No. As a member, Dunn was not council member. Cowell High Council member. Cowell was a councilmember. A number. Council member, Lambert was not council member of the role. I don't I'm. Not. A voting council member from Darwin. No. Councilmember Bongiovi was not councilmember for. Hello. Hi. Councilmember Farhat. I was a researcher by. Thank you. The Second Amendment has one Kerrys. It goes by one of five, eight and four, not count. Councilmember Zollo, for a total amendment. But what is it that I'm member? Council members are. Hello. Would you be kind enough to just move adoption of a total amendment to one? So sorry about that. I was on mute. I move for the title amendment. Thank you. Title amendment to what is before us. See no discussion of those in favor. Please signify by saying I. I oppose me. The title amendment is adopted. This is Motion 2020 165 as amended and final passage. Comments. How did she? Councilmember Balducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a really this is a hard one for me. This is the hardest non-binding statement of intent I think I have had to vote on. It's. On the one hand, I agree with absolutely everything that has been said by the sponsor and the co-sponsor about the urgency and just the the fear , the the very real challenges that our communities are facing, as so many people in our communities are facing. I am very empathetic with the public comment that says, you know, we should stand up for renters and we need to stand up for keeping roofs over people's heads. And we should we absolutely should. We should help people to keep a roof over their heads. We should do everything we can in the middle of a once in over 100 years crisis to keep people who live in our jurisdiction from spiraling downwards and all the outcomes that will that will land the most heavily on the people who can least afford to bear them. I feel all of that and I want to say yes to that. I want to say yes. I want to side with the people who need me to side with them. But the concerns I have had since the beginning with this proposal remain, and that is I don't know that it ever does anything other than act as a statement of encouragement or support. I think that I have been very concerned that we could actually do harm with this proposal because people will hear it and read about it and get and just hear here wind of it somehow and assume that because we took this vote, they can start paying their rent and they can actually make decisions that will harm them in the long run. Because this isn't rent relief. We're not voting on rent relief. The state has got nothing teed up to vote on rent relief any time soon. The feds have got a proposal, but I. I am not hearing that it is actually constitutional, not in the way that we're asking here in this motion. And so I really don't want to harm people. I wish we were voting on a proposal to pay rent subsidies for people or to help them out in some way, that that would make it more likely they would be able to keep their roof for real as hard as it is. I just am concerned about the fact that this is a it's a statement. It's a statement that can't actually result in any good and could actually result in harm. And I want to really thank council members. I particularly have been so generous with understanding the concerns of, you know, myself and others who have concerns with this proposal while also being extraordinarily right and passionate about the need to support the people in our community. And so I just appreciate that attitude that you bring to this proposal very much. And I actually want to support Councilmember Sala and I. But but I am just very concerned that by voting yes to something that can not make a difference or or it is very unlikely to be able to make a difference. We are sending the wrong message. I mean, we heard from the people who testified that Seattle restaurants are having trouble paying their rent and they're walking away from their rent could permanently damage their ability to do business, that people could lose their homes because they have mortgaged their homes to pay for their businesses and they could lose those mortgages that people are unable to pay their rent. And we need a county, city and statewide approach. We need to put the needs of people in poverty first. And I heard quite frighteningly somebody say, implement this. What we do today will do nothing for any of that. It will not help those people. And I don't know that it will actually force another level of government or encourage them to be able to help those people. I think we should get to work doing something that will really make a difference. And so I am just it breaks my heart, but I am reluctantly going to vote no at committee. If it passes out of committee and comes to full council, I will gladly work with my colleagues to try to do something that I think makes it more meaningful. But I'm a very painful, reluctant no, because I just think it doesn't work for folks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And by asking Councilmember Dombrowski, he was chair in listening to the dialog today, I believe that there is a consensus around expressing some support for those who are struggling to make mortgage payments and. And the intent behind that is maybe not entirely reflected in the language of this motion. Mr. Chair, we are operating with limited opportunities for interaction and dialog among members, and I would now like to make a privileged motion to lay this on the table or to continue it in our terms to a definite time. And a definite time would be the next meeting of the committee of the whole. The reason for the motion is to perhaps allow an opportunity for better language to come forward that could garner consensus and support those who are struggling financially. Councilmember Dombrowski has moved to table two, a date certain to be in the town meeting two weeks from today. Ms.. Cohen, can you confirm that the motion is debatable? It was. I think it's debatable. It's not debatable. Then I will ask the court to call the wrong Mr. Chair. Council Member COLWELL. I have a. 20 point to point of information. Yes, the point of enforcement. I was there too. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was actually going to provide a comment on what Councilmember Bell do, Chin said, and then Councilmember Dombroski made his motion here. So am I correct that I am unable to comment any further on the motion that was already before us? That's correct. We have a motion before us. I would, out of courtesy to my colleague, hold if possible, hold that motion in abeyance and take it up pending completion of her comment in response to our well duty. Councilmember Dombroski, I heard you withdraw your your motion more. Suspend it. Make it a contingent motion. Mr. Chair, I heard you. I heard you withdraw your motion that you may offer again in a moment. Councilmember Colwell So that was. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There may be others who wish to speak, too. I appreciate the remarks of Councilmember Balducci, although I think it's really it's not a zero sum game. There are obviously other things that we can do, because this is an enormous issue for so many of our constituents, so many residents and business owners and property owners and our council in our county. But we do have a situation in which there is some urgency. But this is a symbolic motion. It is not going to change anything here, and it would be up to us in how we communicate the passage of this legislation if indeed the parts are were to pass. And I don't believe that are going forward with this today with would signify that people are going to misconstrue what we're doing and have their hopes up and think that they aren't going to be paying rent. But apart from the motion that will be made momentarily by Council member Ken Barsky, we don't have the opportunity to go forward with this, to improve it, to protect it. If we do not have five votes. So apart from Councilmember Dunbar's motion, I just encourage people to think about that, that we can always percept if we keep this alive. And I think the goal, the objectives are very worthy of being able to have this continue, even for a symbolic measure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This is Councilmember McDermott speaking for myself with the motion before us at the moment. And I would say I would point out that this motion there greatly improved by the striker continues to be flawed. And I do want to emphasize how much improvement I think the striking amendment that we've adopted today does bring. However, it still, as we've discussed, does not suspend rents and mortgages. We don't have the actual authority imposed on federal and state officials to do so. And we've heard some discussion of the legal and constitutional concerns, but I would vote in favor of this motion today because of the larger system's fatal flaws that are that far outweigh the flaws in this motion itself. There is no social safety net in our county and our state and our country that measures up to the need in the current pandemic that we're responding to. We heard today in public testimony I've seen in my email and I've seen in conversations with constituents, people have a real concern and we've seen that recently in the unemployment figures. The most recent unemployment figures I can find are that 22 million people nationally have filed unemployment claims. That's a level not seen since the Great Depression. And in Washington state alone, 585,983. Let me say that again. 585,983 people have applied for unemployment in the state of Washington. That's twice the number of the peak of the Great Recession. And when additional federal benefits for self-employed people went live on Saturday, the state system crashed. So that number isn't reflective of any increase since then. The county numbers. We don't have to come up monthly. They'll be out in about ten more days. But we know that the rental assistance program that's been sponsored by United Way of King County has been suspended because the applications have outweighed the funds raised to date. And at the same time, I've heard direct pleas from the Interfaith Council on on trying to respond to homelessness, who had gathered money in April to it to assist with rent and are now concerned about their lack of IT ability to raise even a matching amount for yet another month of rent. The need is real that we've heard the while this motion might have its flaws. The system, the overall system it's we're trying to respond to is fatally flawed. And that's why I'm supporting the motion today. Mr. Chair. Caldwell Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe this would be appropriate to do. I'd like to move that. The striking amendment as amended, the motion as amended to go to full council without recommendation. That would give us the opportunity to process the language without having to delay until we have another committee of the whole meeting in two weeks. Council member Col Wells has asked that we amend the motion to without recommendation. I be willing to accept that as a friendly amendment of the makeup of the original motion would accept it. Mr. Chair. I accept it. Then barring objection, I'm going to accept that as a friendly amendment and have the motion as amended before us to go to full council without recommendation. Further discussion or perhaps emotion. So we have a motion on the table, Mr. Chair, and it was just amended with a striker title amendment and then a friendly amendment. So at some point you to vote on the underlying right. We have we have a motion now. We have the original motion that was introduced. We've adopted a striking amendment and a total amendment. And by friendly amendment, we have just changed the recommendation. So it would be without recommendation to full council. And I am pausing to see if there is a motion that was withdrawn earlier. I don't want to for to. The maker of that motion from having the opportunity to do so again after allowing conversation to continue. Mr. Chair, I'm just ready to cast my vote. Thank you. And so I would ask council members. Otherwise, anything too close. Oh, that's all for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much to everybody for your comments. Madam, first I'd ask you to please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By voting no. Yeah. Doesn't I wish it was not Councilmember DEMBOSKY. No councilmember than basketball? No. Councilmember Dunn. No. Councilmember Dunn But not Councilmember Colwell. Right. Councilmember Colwell Both. Councilmember Lambert. Yeah, yeah. As a member of both. No. Councilmember Article. II. Councilmember Abigail. Okay. And of Bandido. No. Council member Van de Boer was not. Council member Sally. I can't remember. Starlight. Both I. It's a chair. I. Executive Orders for ICE finals in most years. The motion is not adopted. That Texas item on today's agenda. This is the second piece of legislation that would request the executive create a blue ribbon panel of experts to address issues related to the economic recovery. We have Cliff Cory from Council Central South to provide a brief high level overview.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the City to (i) approve the issuance of bonds by the California Community Housing Agency to finance the development of the Civic Center Mid-Block, and (ii) authorize the execution of all documents necessary to effectuate the issuance of the bonds and the development of the Civic Center Mid-Block as described below, including a Public Benefits Agreement with California Community Housing Agency. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_02012022_22-0112

Thank you. Now we'll be going up to a request to have 25, I believe, up next by councilwoman. And they have them on the item, right? Councilwoman. Yes. Let's go ahead and do it. And 25. Report from Development Services and Financial. Management Recommendation to adopt a resolution, approve the issuance of bonds by the California Community Housing Agency of the. Civic Center, Mid-Block District one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, this is a really significant project that we want to make sure that you understand the components and how it works. It's a really complex tool. We talked about some of this last week as we talked about middle income and this is a ground up construction of 580 brand new units , which will be 100% affordable. And when it's complete, we will have completed the public private partnership that is the Civic Center. This is the last component that we've in that arrangement. And we found an innovative way to build the project and also bring you some additional affordable units. So I will turn it over to Oscar Orsi, who will walk through the project for us. Thank you, Mr. Modica. And thank you. Mayor and City Council Members. The Development Services Department is happy to present the recommended financing structure for the development and operation of the Civic Center. Mid-Block mixed use development for the city is considered consideration. Next slide, please. In 2015, the City Council approved the Civic Civic Center project. Since then, the new City Hall, the port headquarters and the main library have been completed. With Lincoln Park nearing its completion. The approval also includes the Mid-Block mixed use residential development to replace the Old City Hall, which is currently under demolition. Plenary The owner and the sponsor is requesting that the City Council authorize the issuance of a tax exempt bonds to finance the construction and operation of the development. Next slide, please. As Mr. Modica indicated, the project will include 580 moderate income housing units and two eight story buildings with subterranean parking, retail, restaurant space and more importantly, a grocery store. The buildings will feature amenity spaces including but not limited to courtyards pool in an eighth floor skydeck. The Mid-Block conveyance agreement between the city and the plenary group required that 10% or 58 of the total units be restricted to moderate income households. This proposed financing structure for the project includes a significant increase in the number of affordable housing units. In fact, the project will bring 100% affordable housing units. And with that, I'd like to turn this over to Mr. Yaw Patrick Bua, who will provide you a brief description of the actual financing structure. Mr. YORK, Next slide, please. Thank you, Oscar. And good evening, Mayor and City Council Plenary will partner with the California Community Housing Agency, our Kelsey H.J., a Joint Powers Authority that will issue the tax exempt bonds that Oscar mentioned. A regulatory agreement will impose income and rent restrictions on the lower tier moderate income housing units. There will also be a project administration agreement between Plenary and Kelsey H.A., under which plenary will serve as the project administrator, an asset manager and a property management agreement with Greystar Property Management. A public benefit agreement will guide the relationship between the city and Kelsey. It also grants the city the option to purchase or forced the sale of the property at 15 and provides a variety of transaction terms that the JPA must follow and makes the JPA responsible for property management and overall property condition affordability, compliance reporting and payment of a host fee and affordable housing monitoring fee. Next slide, please. The project will be financed with 240 year series A bonds and a subordinate series B bonds. The total development costs for the project are estimated at over $493 million. These bonds are repaid through project cash flow. Project. Cash flow in the city has no obligation to repay the bonds. Next slide, please. Project affordability will be governed by two income structures to state income limits prepared by the State Department of Housing and Community Development or CD and the Tax Credit. Income limits prepared by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The state, income limits are lower. For example, a two person moderate income household can earn up to 70,400 under the state limits, while that same household can earn up to 113,528 under the HUD income limits. Next slide, please. The units have a meaningful affordability restriction with rents based on 30% of the state or HUD income limits or a 5% discount from market rates, whichever market rate rents, whichever is less. So if 30% of someone's income means that their rent is not 5% or less from the market rate rent, then the rent will be reduced even further by that 5% margin. As you can see from the chart, the current market rate rent for a two bedroom unit in the area is about 30 $600. A plenary average rent for that unit will be approximately 3037, which is about a 16% discount to the market rate rent. I also want to just briefly talk about the difference between the HUD rents and the city rents. So I'm going to look at a one bedroom units and this is coming from figure eight on page 13 of the attached HRA report. Market rate rent for a one bedroom unit in the area is estimated at 20 $700. The HUD unit rent for a one bedroom is estimated at 20 $460, which is about a 9% reduction from market rate rents. And then the state rents for that same unit would be 1650 $5, which is a 30 almost a 39% reduction over the market rate rent, which is significant. Next slide, please. A total of 120 units will be restricted to the lower state income limits and 460 will be restricted to the HUD income limits. 120 state income units will be secured by a 54 five or deed restriction. Next slide, please. Annual city property tax losses are estimated at 650,000, but the developer will pay the city an annual host fee equal to that figure to compensate for the lost property tax revenues. Next slide, please. The city will receive regional housing needs assessment, arena credit for 520 units, all of the units in the project, 120 of them will be counted as moderate income units, and the remaining 460 will be counted as market rate units for rent purposes. This is due to the higher income levels imposed by the HUD income units and the deeper affordability of 120 state units. The project will also promote housing for teachers in new commercial retail space, including a grocery store and active site security. It will also create jobs both during construction and after completion, and construction workers will be paid prevailing wages. Also, it's estimated the project may generate approximately 2.2 million in retail property tax and up to $14 million in retail sales tax annually. Next slide, please. There are some risks, you know. One being the foregone public benefits to the other taxing entities. Although this site has been the site of the Civic Center for decades, and so those taxing entities have not seen property taxes on the site in the past. Something to think about. Complicated financial structure. Although as someone who works in the affordable housing industry, I can I can attest to the fact that all affordable housing projects have complicated financing structures, and then there are risks from lack of enforcement of the public benefit or regulatory agreements, although those will be mitigated by the city's annual monitoring of the project. Again, the recommendation is to adopt a resolution authorizing this. I'm sorry. Next slide, please. I'm sorry. Again, the recommendation is to adopt a resolution authorizing the city to approve the issuance of bonds by the California Community Housing Agency to finance the development of the Civic Center Mid-Block, and to authorize the execution of all documents necessary to effectuate the issuance of the bonds and the development of the Civic Center. Mid-Block, as described herein, including the Public Benefits Agreement with California Community Housing Agency District one. That concludes the presentation. Thank you. Mr. Modica, did you have any additional comments which go to the county? Just thanks to the opportunity to present that. We just want to make sure that the deal is just and something the council understands. It is something new for us. But we think a lot of due diligence has been performed. We brought on third party groups to also tell us and inform us on making sure that this deal is is as good as possible for the city and for the development community. And we really appreciate our partners plenary for bringing this deal forward and working very collaboratively with the city to address a lot of the questions that we had and put a good proposal in front of you. So we're available for questions. I have a motion by a company that they have secondary company, first customers, and they are. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Actually, at this time, if you don't mind, can we go to public comment before I give my comments? I mean. Do we have public comment on this? Adam Okay. If they go over, I think the mayor stepped away and we have public comment here. Yes. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please press star nine or use the raise hand function. Alex. See your first speaker. Your time starts. Now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of City Council Alex Charron, representing Waterford Development, sent a letter earlier today memorializing our support for the site. And we think staff has done a great job in embracing, as we talked about last week, when the policy was first brought forward, this concept of workforce housing and I think it's much needed and obviously checks a lot of the housing boxes from a policy perspective. We did send a letter voicing the support for raise some concerns with some of the specific analysis done by H.R. and a consistent with our comments last week. I think there's more of a distinction needed to be made by staff in these ground up affordable housing or moderate housing projects as opposed to conversions. We appreciate staff's amenability in the Council's direction to work with Waterford over the next 60 days, to come back with some further refinements reflecting that and hopefully have before you in that time. The final strokes on the Cal State Long Beach teacher step housing proposal, which also fits in this moderate income program. So again, Waterford is very supportive of the item tonight with those caveats and look forward to discussing our Cal State project specifically with staff in the next few weeks. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Ann Cantrell. Good evening, Council and mayor. Wherever you may be, I send a letter. Stating my concerns about this project. One of the first red flags is in the staff report where it says previous efforts by Flannery to secure a developer have not been successful. I do not understand why you think that putting up a bond is going to make this project any more successful. I think the reason that they have not been able to find a developer is that. Most people would say this is not a project that's going to succeed. This is not. Geared to providing affordable housing. You have to make at least $70,000 a year. I'm more interested in providing low cost housing, which I think is really needed in the city. And there's no mention of what happens if this project fails and the. Thank you. Our next speaker telephone number ending in 3319. Your time starts now. You may begin. Yeah. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Yeah. My name is Gus Torres, and I represent your local 255 fitters, welders and apprentices. And we're 5500 strong, and we're in full support of this project. This project could be a great opportunity for good wages and benefits for everybody involved and having highly skilled and trained workers. The building FU provides is a plus. Not to mention all the much needed living spaces. That it will create out there as well. So we urge you to approve this project. Thank you for your time and God bless. Thank you. Our next speaker is tonight campaign. Somebody needs some vitamin A, A, B, C and d. Sounds like what respect to do this project. Um. My only concern. Well, I have several concerns. For one, this is. Publicly owned land, and I don't think that the. Public is getting a fair deal. 290802 as a zip code. Um, you know, we have an overrepresentation of single adults. Uh, I am a single adult at this present time. But. I am with the mindset of one day having a family. And I think that communities and neighborhoods foundationally start from that. That that concept and premise and these types of developments do not emphasize or reiterate what a neighborhood looks like. You know, Long Beach, the beauty of Long Beach is that our downtown center has always had a family presence. And these types of developments not secure that for the future. You know, this area is represented by one Benitez. And as the most recent recent redistrict redistricting effort showed, his district lost over 3000 children. Jennie Oropeza Elementary School is at a deficit. Stevenson Elementary School is at a deficit. We continue to fixate on properties that are raising what the costs are in this area. We are not encouraging families to stay in the city. And thank you. Our next speaker is Ann Marie Otto. Good evening. This is. I'm representing the Los Angeles Orange County's Building and Construction Trades Council. We are strongly in support of the city moving forward with the development of the Civic Center. Mid-Block. The ambitious makeover of the Civic Center is almost complete. We at the building trades are very proud that thousands of our highly skilled and trained men and women are building these projects. And this really includes more than several hundred Long Beach residents who have started their lifelong careers in the building trades. Speaking in particular to what the previous speaker just said, we think it's important and relevant that the new project does provide middle income, affordable housing, which would help many of our building trades union members and their families, enabling our members who grew up in Long Beach and joined a trades union to stay here, raise their families here , and send their kids to the local school. When I wrote that before the last comment, or this is the missing middle class housing that every area desperately needs. And we're glad that Long Beach is taking the lead, promoting the well-being of hardworking middle class families. According to the development agreement, this is a prevailing wage project. We do urge the authority and the City Council to include a full project labor agreement on this project, which will enable us to continue to target Long Beach residents for hiring. It's a formula that's been successful to build the new library, city hall, court headquarters and courthouse and park. We do urge you to include it on the Civic Center, Mid-Block as well. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Francisco Guerrero. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Francisco Riddle. I live in the seventh district. I am speaking on behalf of the Long Beach Union Carpenters Local 516. I'm a lifelong Long Beach resident. I have been a member of the Union for 25 years. We are in support of the item 25 and in favor of moving this project forward. We're also supporting the developer that believes in using state approved, skilled and trained apprentices from our community. They will also use responsible contractors at a livable wage to its workers. They will have the local hire requirements for the city Long Beach. That will include the hiring of veterans. The members of Long Beach, Virginia, Local five six who are eager to start and keep working near their home in their town, Long Beach. We are local five six. Thank you and thank you for your time. Our next speaker is Corey Leslie. Okay. Hi, this is courtesy of my greatest concern when I look at this is the complexity of it that having a consultant come in and put something like that together, I don't think this should be a hasty decision. I would think that we should go out and get Ernst and Young and at the very least, we should have our own city auditor be weighing in on this. I didn't see a report from her and we pay her to do that. So. You know, we've had a number of financial boondoggles here lately with the Queen Mary and Community Hospital and and now this situation. And I would just caution everyone to please don't be in a hurry and get all the information you can before you vote. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rae Lawson. Ray Lawson. Dear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Good evening. City Council. Mayor Garcia. Oh, hey. My brothers and sisters, they said it best. I don't want to repeat their their points, but we got a thing called community will. Where we are, we encourage young people to build in trades, to be able to work in the city that they live. And with this affordable housing component that's in here, and also our skilled and training workforce that once they graduate from a state approved apprenticeship program, they'll be able to actually live in the city and say, Hey, I built this project and I live here. They can have a career is not just a job, but it's a career where they can raise their families and a new park is being built. You know, we talk about recreate and coming out of COVID, reimagining some of the future. And this is one of the things that we're doing here. We imagine a future council. The mayor has taken the first step. The developer has taken the first step in doing it and reimagining the future and actually putting action into words and not just talking. They're actually doing something here. So we believe that we support and we approve the issuance of these bonds, that this will be the first step of looking at a new Long Beach. And we can be an example for the rest of the state, rest of the country in how we create jobs and careers and also a place to live for young people for the upcoming decades. So thank you for your time, and thank you for your time, Mayor Garcia. Our next speaker is Ian Payne. Oh, Council. I find this item to be quite disheartening, to be honest. I would really encourage you to slow this down and look at it more carefully and get some additional analysis. I'm not saying that the HRT analysis was lacking, but this is a $500 million deal to basically bail out $1,000,000,000 worth of construction loans on the original project. And we need to have a second opinion on this. We need to go out and see if there are other options. Plenary has not succeeded at finding a private developer for this site, which was supposed to pay for the whole project. And so I understand we're in a bind now and there's no easy way out. But considering the history of this, where we signed a 700 plate, 700 plus page contract for the Civic Center. And there was literally no financial model. There was a blank page. It's you can check out the contract in the appendix. It's like buying a house with no HUD statement. And now we're doing it all over again to try to paper over the fact that the private end of the public private partnership. Is not succeeding here. So I think we need some more help with this. So thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Donohue. Good evening, Mayor and Council Member. Can you hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Yes. Good evening. My name is Steven Donahue and I'm a member of the Carpenters Local 562. I just want to express my. I just want to express that I support this project, that it provides our skilled and trained workforce and our state approved apprenticeship program the opportunity to to live and and work here in the city of Long Beach. And it also provides great jobs for our veterans. And the local hiring component is a just an added benefit. Thank you for listening to me and have a great evening. Can I please have counsel turn on their cameras. Before we proceed. In that? Speaker can counsel please turn on. Thank you very. Much. Our next speaker is Paul Marino. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name's Colm Raynham with the Ironworkers Local 433 and I just wanted to let you know that we're in full support of this project. We have many men and women who reside in the beautiful city of Long Beach and they love working in Long Beach. So we're hoping to keep them working in Long Beach. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is telephone number ends in nine, seven, four, three. Time begins now. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and fellow council members. My name is Tommy Provi. I represent IBEW Electrical Workers Local 11, and we're in full support of the item that's in front of you tonight. Item number 25. This project, Cranberries Culinary Group's project, has come a long way through the process. They've stepped up with the city to pursue of the government bonds so they can have access to issuance of these bonds for this project. We appreciate primary group on committing project labor agreement with Chris Hammond in the building trades and also housing prevailing wage included in this process. We look forward to the city council on your on urging you to support this project moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. All right. So I don't have the Q system. I'm going to go to Councilwoman DeHart and Councilwoman Allen. I'll give my comments and then just raise your hand on the screen and we'll go in that order. Councilman, the detox. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Really excited about this project. I know it's been a long time coming, but I know that this is going to be so good as an affordable housing, as a housing advocate for for the city and for many, many years. I am so excited to see one so many units coming to this location, but I'm especially excited to see it go from 10% affordable house help affordable units to 100% affordable units. And that's a big deal. And that doesn't happen too often. So that's something that I'm really, really excited about. Also, parking is always an issue. So the fact that it's going to bring over 800, almost 900 stores with this project, I think is also very important because parking continues to be an issue. It's really amazing to be able to support projects like this. And, you know, especially when we all work together to make something really good, come forward. So thank you very much. Very supportive of this project. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. Thank you. Vice Mayor I just wanted to say I'm just really impressed by this project and at the Downtown Resident, I just think this has so much potential to transform that Mid-Block Civic Center even further. And I also think the project will meet our a lot of our housing goals as well as add more retail and commercial space. And I'm really impressed by the developer. I think he's done a lot of great projects and particularly this one has a lot of community benefits that we've all that they've agreed to provide, including workforce housing for educators and promoting public transit, building community space. And also which is really important to that area, is just enhanced me enhancing security around the area. So I'm just very supportive of this project as well as any middle income housing programs. I know they're new, but I do think that there'll be a good fit, that it increases the affordable housing units from 10% to 100% middle income, which I think will provide a lot of benefit to that community, particularly to our workforce housing goals. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. I'll have my comments here. Thank you all at my comments here. And Councilwoman Allen Esther second, correct. Okay. I yes. Yesterday, Vice Mayor Richardson, I had already seconded it. I think the mayor mentioned that before. Okay. I didn't hear that. Okay. You can go speak emotionally. I'm sorry. I just know it was Councilwoman Allen's district and transferred to. And they is one to respect that. I totally want to respect that. I totally want to respect it, too. But since you don't have the Q system, I did try to text Councilwoman Allen to let her know that I had cued up. So I was just trying to. It's not an issue of respect. It's just I didn't want to get lost in the queue. So I'm know after you, if you'd like. You can go now. Thank you. Okay. So thank you very much to the staff for the presentation. I really appreciate it. You know, I'm mindful that these particular projects that we're doing with this kind of financing come with some risks. And I just want to hear from city staff a little bit more about the risk and have you really articulate for us what those are before we embark on this partnership. Thank you. Will have us, Rosie, try to answer that question. Thank you, Councilmember. So, as was indicated in the PowerPoint presentation, there are some risk. It is a complicated, uh, financial structure. There is not much history on the long term viability of these structures. But the way this deal is structured, it's first of all, it's consistent with the policy document that was brought to you at the previous meeting and what they've done in order for as an example, to reduce the risk of the foregone property taxes, they are providing a host fee that will make the city whole for its property tax revenues, number one. Number two, the bonds, as an example, will be amortized at the end of the life of the program, meaning that the the principal and interest will be paid off that way when it does come to selling the property, if that's what the city elects to do. You are capturing or reducing the the large level of debt that that that hopefully at the sale of the property you'll be able to capture and use elsewhere, including but not limited to the extension of the buildings into middle income housing units. Also as as was discussed here, the the the property the buildings will will have the affordability requirements and covenants to provide for some meaningful middle income reductions or inclusions, including rental qualified units, which is something that is, I think, meaningful for the program. So we staff believe that with these efforts, including reporting requirements and other factors, a requirement to have reserves, in other words, savings accounts, to be able to take on any maintenance requirements for the life of the bonds with the appropriate escalators. We feel that these provisions not only allow us to move forward and reduce the risk, but also provide, again, meaningful middle income units for the city. Thank you. I appreciate that. And in terms of meeting for middle income, how many middle income units have we built in recent history in the city. Councilmember prior to the Ocean Air Project, we, I believe, had built somewhere in the neighborhood of 39 units, and that's under the old cycle housing element cycle, which was, I believe, 3% of our requirements. With this next cycle that you were familiar with, we are required to provide over 4100 middle income units. That's not an issue for debate. It's a state requirement. It's not whether or not we believe in middle income in the in the the funding or the income requirements or for the the households. It is something that the state has indicated that they that we, the city of Long Beach, need to provide. And so of the 580 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but of those units, will they all qualify as middle income? Potentially, yes. All not only just 120, but there's a bill that was approved that will allow us to be able to consider the extended units as middle income units. We do have the measures, the monetary measures, the restrictions that we could potentially deploy for arena eligibility. But we need to look into that further. Would this type of financing structure impact the city's current credit rating in any negative way? I'm going to defer with others. But but at this point, my you know, you know what? I'm just going to defer to either Kevin or our or our consultants that are online and available to answer questions. This financing structure to the California Community Housing Agency will have no impact on the city of Long Beach's credit rating. I'm sorry. Did you say we'll have no impact? No impact, zero impact? We're not responsible for the debt or the debt service, the principal or the interest. It's all on the JPA, the joint powers, the third. Okay, I got it. And then one final question, actually, to the skilled and trained workforce that we've been talking about. That's not part of the play, but that's an agreement that the developers agreed to correct. Right. That is an agreement between bind between the developer and the and the the in the plan the labor unions. Got it. Yeah. So similar to what we did at Second and PCH. I think in terms of this with this project, this financing structure, I know it's dependent on a number of variables like property values. What happens if this project were to fail? What is the risk that the city is taking? There is no risk to the city. Again, the owners of the property will be the Joint Powers Authority. They are the owners. They're responsible. They carry on the liability for the payment of the bonds, the repayment of the bonds. Okay. So it's a JPA read. Correct. Councilwoman, your time is up. Thank you so much for the question. Thank you. I'll just add my, my my comments here. Good job to the development team to staff to for getting this project off the ground. I know there were some significant delays. We weren't originally planning to have affordable housing component on the project. Originally with the market rate, housing and a hotel was the concept. I know with inclusionary housing this would have required the 11% or whatever it is. And so I'm glad to see that we're using this new tool to ensure that there's significant significantly more units that are available at an affordable rate. The Middle Income Housing Program. I'm also glad that we conducted the pilot program first and learned a lot from that and has put a policy on board over the past few weeks to make sure that we've thought through all of these questions that council is asking around risk. I'm certainly happy to see that the city is being made whole on property taxes, that there's no no loss to the city in that regard. If anything, we're going to see see some increases in terms of overall growth for the area, because it's been significantly depressed in the years since the city hall has been being closed. And so we'll see some economic progress there. You know, this does help us with Rina. We still have a lot to do with other tiers of affordability. So we have to build more housing at different income levels. That's the way the arena works. So I'm glad to see that we are taking a step forward here, but there's still significantly more to do. And, you know, I'm certainly glad to see, you know, construction and pave the way for for jobs. And, you know, I'm glad to see that we have so many people interested and invested in this project. I think, you know, that was something really important to the council when we approved the Civic Center project was ensure that there was a project, local project, labor agreement with local hire since it didn't automatically fall into the city's project labor agreement. That was something intentionally that we called out. The last thing I'll say is it's a question. Originally, when we designed this, there was a lot of connectivity between City Hall and Lincoln Park and the library. What have we done in the new design to ensure that we still have that connectivity through that walkway and that we have we still have some level of engagement or retail on the ground floor. Can we speak to that? Yes, Councilmember. And we can if others can weigh in on it, that's great. But we do have the Meet the Paseo still included in the design that will allow for folks to connect not only within the Civic Center complex, but also to our downtown area. And in the in the Mid-Block project, we will have opportunities for restaurant space, commercial space, and my personal preference is a grocery store within walking distance. So these items will still be included in this entitled project. Well, that's great to hear. Certainly happy to hear that. I think the grocery store would be fantastic. I always hear that about lack of grocery in downtown, so that would be huge available in that. Thanks a lot. I see. Christopher Coombs, your hand is up. Councilman, just on. The design that we can. Follow up tomorrow with your office. But for those of you, when you're at city hall and you look down that sort of broad open spectrum open courtyard, that courtyard will continue through the Mid-Block project. And then there's a few corridor through Lincoln Park. So you'll actually see all the way over into the light rail and sort of the greater downtown area. And that's meant to provide just visual transparency. So there you see the exciting, you know, the grocery store, the park, the places you want to go. But it's also meant to provide symbolic transparency because the city hall and the park complex are open to the public. And we're visually demonstrating that through the landscape architecture that tie all these different projects together. So we have some great exhibits that we can share with you, and I can follow up with your office tomorrow. That's great. And I know we talked about actually doing some monuments and some other, like, landmarking here. And, you know, from the park to the city halls. Any words, any of that preserved? There's a history walk, local history walk with art produced by local artists. It's not quite ready. To show you. So we're polishing that up. And it's if you give us another 30 days, I think myself and Public Works would be glad to share that with you, Councilman. Absolutely. That was one of the things like all the neighbors across the city wanted to see some part of their local community pride in our civic center . And that's the way we want. We represented the compliment Cubano. Thank you. I just want to take a moment to thank staff for the presentation and in particular for answering some very complex and detailed questions from the fourth District. And I want to mention Christopher Coons is answering those questions right up to the council meeting and during the council meeting. So thank you for that, because the questions are so detailed inside baseball, if you will. I didn't want to read all of them, but I just wanted to mention one which I thought was very pertinent, and that is if your staff can address this. So saying something should happen to the property in 15 years, what would happen to that covenant of of non-market rate housing? My understanding that it stays with the project for 55 years. Can you comment on that? Council Member That is correct. The the units are restricted for 55 years. So if the project is sold at the 15 year or later mark, those units will be retained for qualified. Middle income units. Okay. Thank you for that. And just what the answer to all the questions. It's very apparent to me that staff has done all their due diligence and so I'll be supporting the project. Thank you. Miles, any other hands up and we don't public comment so we can go ahead and go through all of this . District one. District two. High District three. High district for. I. District five. II District six. I. District seven. By District eight. By District nine. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to adopt resolution redeclaring a shelter crisis; suspending applicable provisions of local law, including those contained in the City's zoning ordinances and regulations; and, authorizing the operation of a winter shelter, for the period of December 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019, inclusive; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Lease, including any necessary documents and amendments, with the United States Veterans Initiative (Lessee), for approximately 7,318 rentable square feet of space at 5571 Orange Avenue for use as a winter shelter. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_11202018_18-1036

Okay. Thank you. Moving on now to where we're going to be doing. Uh, of course, there was a request to hear 16. Right. Is that right? 16. Mm hmm. And of course. Item 16 is a report from Health and Human Services and Economic Development. Recommendation to adopt resolution read declaring a shelter crisis and authorize the operations of a winter shelter for a period of December 1st, 2018 through March 31st, 2019, and authorize City Manager to execute a lease with the United States Veterans Initiative, District eight. Thank you, Councilmember. Yes. I'd like to get a staff report, please. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmembers. I'm going to introduce Theresa Chandler, the bureau manager for Health and Human Services or Homeless Services Program. Teresa. Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor and council members. We are happy to support the winter shelter again for the service planning area eight. In Long Beach here. And our provider uSwitch is also here today. We have been a provider for several years. The city of Long Beach has hosted. The winter shelter. It's actually a program of last year, which is the combination of homeless services with the city and county of Los Angeles and the contract to provider us UCITS. For these years we have always supported the. The excuse me. Getting a building, getting a building and making sure that services are provided outside of the winter shelter. The Multi-Service Center has been a pick up. Location, along with a location in San Pedro, and we help orchestrate that. This year, the winter shelter will be at the old. Library. In the eighth District as it was last year, and this building is currently in the process of being sold. So this will be the. Last year that the winner shelter will take place at this location. Thank you very much. Contrasted. Thank you very much. And I'd like to just encourage our unanimous support for this item. Obviously, we are facing the winter months where the weather gets a lot colder. And this is an opportunity for us to provide shelter for for those who are living on the street, but also with that shelter providing access to opportunities and services that are that that our health department and U.S. vets can provide to hopefully get them off the streets and get them into services and the help they need. This is a multi-pronged approach supported by the County of Los Angeles, Lahsa, our our our health department, as well as our partner U.S. vets. And I can't say enough about the great work the U.S. vets did last year as the provider for the service in partnership with our city. It was amazing to watch them in action. The the the winter shelter, I think, was went without incident. Most of the residents who I had an opportunity to talk to, many were uneasy and unsettled by having the winter shelter in the neighborhood. I have told me that, you know, they didn't even really notice that it was there. So, again, hats off to U.S. vets. I'm glad that they are returning as a partner to to run this this program again and again. Council, I would ask for your unanimous support of sign. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. Public comment. You know, Councilman Gonzales, the Councilman Gonzales said. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, and thank you also Councilman Austin and the Council of Long Beach. I just wanted to add that us vets and our staff is here. There are some of us that are members of the California National Guard. Our job is to protect and to serve. And the winter shelter gives us the opportunity to protect and to serve the citizens of Long Beach and also for us to find military persons. Last year we were able to serve 815 and duplicated persons, and out of that we found 82 veterans. The Winter Shelter is a program that's designed to keep people off the street and to save their lives in the most critical weather conditions, which is cold and it's only a four month program. And we are gladly to be there even though we we work at US vets during the day. This is at night and we do it at night and we do it to save lives. And we thank you for. Encouraging everyone that. The homeless population and the homeless condition is going to be solved with all of our help. So thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much. Let me do let me do Mr. Good. Here, then I'll go to Councilman Gonzalez. Obviously we fully supported this. And I want to suggest something also that can be done and I referenced this before are there are some small pods and I gave the council a few weeks ago, I think, pictures of them and I'll bring them down again that have been developed. And my thinking is what we could do is not just for winter but on a permanent basis, have three or four of those pods down. Next on on boathouse lane next to where the new eight end is going to be and which will have a complete can be a complete restroom and so forth. Then I research it and I think it's completely in concert with the basics of the Monroe Doctrine, which is the overall governing paradigm for that, and it would be specifically for people that are now being treated. At on a continuing basis at the VA hospital. And I have reached the stage where there are just a night circuit 60 to 90 days away from being released out into the wild, if you will, into their own home. And it's an excellent location for that, because with the motorized scooters people have, they could scoot down to either one of the two bus stops and be up at the seventh and the VA hospital and so forth. So I think I support this in concept. And again, I'll get the pictures out of the the pod. I have never personally seen them. I've seen the pictures of them and so forth. But I think there is ideal for that location and anything to support the vets. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes with a comment. Councilman Gonzalez. Theresa, thank you for this staff report. Are the two pickup locations going to remain the same? I don't know if I miss that. San Pedro and the Multi-Service Center, for the most part, yeah. For the most part, San Pedro, definitely. And the Multi-Service Center definitely in there could potentially be a third pickup site, but it has not been located yet and we'll be discussing that further. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes. And I would like to just take this opportunity before we vote in advance. Thank the Council for your support of this item, but also invite my colleagues to come and check out the winter shelter. I think if you haven't been to one or anybody in the community for that fact that wants to volunteer and help and do some benevolent good, good goodwill in the community, I think it will go a long way to dispel myths about who we're serving and the services that are actually being provided. Because I say once you go there and see it, you'll find it. There's powerful work actually happening. So thank you. And I would be happy to come along with you if you want to want to do that. Get you through the eight district personal tour. Thank you. And before we vote, I wanted to just say just one thing. I think I shared this with the staff, but that this doesn't happen often. I was I was at a restaurant here in Long Beach, and a very lovely couple came up to me and they said, hey, we know we've never met. We live in the eighth District and we're the two that were the loudest in opposition to this winter shelter the last time it was in front of the council. You may remember us, and I did remember them because they were pretty vocal and upset and they said, you know, we live a couple of houses down. And I just want to tell you that we were absolutely wrong and we're sorry that we came in opposition. It was we didn't even know the winter shelter was there. And we lived just a couple of houses down from the site. They complimented Councilman Austin and his office and they complimented the staff. And they they just said that it was just it was amazing and that they would be supportive of continuing. And so I just want to thank them for comfort, for stopping me and in saying those kind of words and thankful to the staff for their work . So with that members, please cast your votes.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund in the City Manager Department (20) by $3,000, offset by the Seventh Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department (70) for a contribution to Fix Long Beach, who, in partnership with Friends of Long Beach Animals, will be hosting a Spay and Neuter Event in the Seventh Council District; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund in the Citywide Activities Department (70) by $3,000 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department (20).

LongBeachCC_05072019_19-0444

We please have a vote on our place in public. Okay, fine. Now we're going to move on to item 27 seven District Money. Would you please read the item. Communication from Council Member Your UNGA recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund in the City Manager Department by 3000, offset by the seventh Council District one time district priority funds for a contribution to fix to fix Long Beach who will be hosting a spay and neuter event in the seventh Council District. Thank you, Councilman Young. Thank you, Mayor. And that is an item that actually I read. I didn't say anything during the the last discussion without baggage because I had an item on the agenda that specifically addresses spay neuter. So I hope that I could get the support of my colleagues to make this transfer so we could have the spay neuter activity coming up in July eight. You know? Yeah. Yeah. That is a. June, sir. Okay, fine. Conspiracy. You got it. Okay. I got him right here. You also got it. But just thank you. And I know that you've worked hard for animals and so I really appreciate it, even though you didn't make comments earlier. I know it's in your actions and I appreciate it. Fine. Do have any public comment on this item? CNN, would you please cast your vote? Now we're going to move to item 31, if you please, with the item.

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2018 and approving a Mill Levy. Approves the 2018 Work Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-7-17.

DenverCityCouncil_11202017_17-1240

And speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to members of Council as a whole. Remain from profane and obscene speech and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. All right. Council is now convened as the board of directors for the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council. When we get more where you please put Resolution 1240 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Resolution 1240 be adopted. All right. It has been moved in second at a public hearing for resolution 1240 is open. May we have staff report. Michael Carrigan. Yes, good evening. Board members. Michael Kerrigan from Department of Finance, Special District Team. I'm here to give you the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2018 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located in north in the northeast section of the city, northwest of I-70 and Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello. It is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities include maintaining the landscape in parks within the District City Council approve the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The creation of the ordinance also created the District Advisory Board made up of property owners within the guide. The ordinance specified that such District Advisory Board should conduct and manage all affairs of the district, as has the authorized agent of the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs. Pursuant to Resolution Number 32 Series 1995, the City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village Guide 2018 Budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,764,200, with total revenues of $602,643. The district will assess 20 bills on real property within the district during 2018. The district plans to undertake a major landscaping beautification project. Landscape improvements are anticipated to include tree lines and tree monuments and improvements to the detention and drainage channels. The district expects to spend up to $750,000 for the improvements. Construction is expected to start during 2018, with the possibility of continuing through 2019. City staff has reviewed the 2018 Budget and Work Plan and recommends it for approval. All right. Thank you. We have one speaker this evening. Jeffrey Earp. Yes. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Erb. I'm general counsel for The Guide, and I'm here to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr.. Thanks for being here. You can have a seat. Now, any questions by members of council? Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Seeing none. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Black. Hi, Clark. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon, Cashman Canete. Lopez Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I please. I was worried as a result. Ten eyes. Ten eyes. I'm sorry. This toll for you. Tonight's counsel bill 1240 is passed. Congratulations. All right. We are now a city council convening as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1241 on the floor.

A Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 10, 2019

DenverCityCouncil_08052019_19-0570

Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And just to be clear to all the new members who might want to join us, the four mile all downhill leg is mine. All right. That concludes our presentations. There are no communications this evening, but we do have one proclamation. Councilman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 570? I would be happy to. Proclamation number 570. Is that right? Yep. Sorry, the number was not on my copy in front of me. This is recognizing the annual Brothers redevelopment and Denver employee volunteer opportunity, otherwise known as Devo Paint Athon Day in the city and county of Denver on Saturday, August the 10th. Whereas, through a partnership with Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities, Devo and Brothers Redevelopment Inc 100 plus Denver city employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior homeowners. Four Brothers Redevelopment Inc's 41st paint a thon. And. Whereas, all painting will be completed free of charge for homeowners saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance cost. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. Whereas, The Paint Athon is a great way to show the city employees that city employees take pride in the community and care about its residents. And. WHEREAS, the paint a thon truly makes a difference in the lives of many Denver residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes the day of August ten, 2019, as brothers redevelopment paint a thon day in the city and county of Denver . Number two, that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Devoe board. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 570. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council of Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. We are very lucky to have this nonprofit who has been doing this community service for the last 40, now 41st year. I have gone out on several occasions and participated in this alongside my city employee colleagues. And the homeowners are just so, so gracious. And we are so grateful for the city. So we. I see. Yeah, I. So we. Go ahead, Councilwoman Ortega. So, Mr. President, I just wanted to acknowledge some of the city agencies that participate in this annual event with employees who, you know, recognize the importance of stepping out and doing this volunteer work for seniors in the Denver community who really otherwise would not be able to get this work done on their own because most of them cannot afford the costs to do some of these repairs. So our Denver County Courts, Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver International Airport, Parks and Recreation. The Denver Police Department. Human Services Office of Human Resources, City Attorney's Office, members of Council have have participated in this. And so, as I said, over 100 employees from these various departments have stepped out to recognize the importance of of helping seniors in our community and to the staff and the other volunteers from Brothers Redevelopment. I just want to say thank you for continuing to do this year after year and really making a difference in people's lives . Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And thank you so much for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega i. Black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Can each. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President. I. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 days 11 is proclamation. 570 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes set aside for proclamation acceptance. Councilwoman Ortega, do you have someone you'd like to invite up? Yes. The executive director or president, as he's known Jeff Martinez with brother's redevelopment. And then I believe that's Chad with you. Chad Nibley, who is the program manager with Brother's Redevelopment Payment Fund. And I believe Derek Hoyt might be here with the DEVO program. That's you. Okay, so would you all please come forward? Well, good evening. Thank you. Council President. Members of council. Thank you so much, Councilmember Ortega, for those kind words. I'm Jeff Martinez, president brother's redevelopment. And on behalf of our team, we're really excited and honored to be here again to share our excitement as we team with Denver employee volunteer opportunities or DEVO to paint the homes as part of the 41st season of our annual paint a thon. And as many of you know, the paint a thon is brother's redevelopment signature event. Each year, we recruit teams of volunteers to paint the homes of income, qualified senior and disabled homeowners across the city. And Deveau is one of our longest serving volunteer teams. Since this partnership, I think, formally launched with the city in 2005, the devotees, as we like to call them, have painted more than 113 homes, donated 13,000 volunteer hours in getting there. And it's just such a tremendous gift for our homeowners in the city. And through their efforts, they've also added luster and value to the seniors. Most important investment their home. To date, Divo volunteers have saved clients more than 285,000 during that period in home maintenance expenses and preserved property values along the way. Volunteers also restore hope in the process. As one Denver senior whose home was painted this year as part of our event, they shared with us in a letter. My home is now beautiful. I feel a new sense of pride and home ownership. I no longer feel that I rundown my neighborhood. I've always tried to give anything and everything I could. Now I have been given back tenfold. I can't put into words what your volunteers who painted my home have done for me. We volunteer, we make a difference. And each year, Deveaux helps us all paint the picture of a caring city, showcasing the value of volunteerism to our neighbors, our elders and others. So this Saturday will see city employees up on those ladders, not too high liability issues, and we'll also see them bearing brushes once again in the Globeville , Elyria, Swansea and Park Hill neighborhoods, volunteering their time to show our seniors how much the city in this community cares for them. So we hope you'll be there. We have Precious for you. We're going to put them out. But now we can give you some. We hope to see you there this Saturday. Painting smiles at a paint a thon site near you. So we welcome you to join us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all your great work. Before we move on to our bills for introduction, I missed I believe we have State Senator Robert Rodriguez still here in the House. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. And Representative Paul Rosenthal, former Representative Paul Rosenthal is also in the honorable. Thank you very much for being in our chamber with us this evening. All right. That brings us to our bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement with Centro CHA, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, to occupy Room 112 at the Jenny Oropeza Community Center at Cesar E. Chavez Park, at 104 Golden Avenue, from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2026, with the option to renew for two five-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement with Centro CHA, Inc., to occupy Suite 104A, B, C, D, and E, at the Long Beach Senior Center, at 1150 East 4th Street, from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023, with the option to renew for an additional one-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_10192021_21-1103

Adam 19. Report from. Perth. There's been a request on item 19 for a short presentation. Please report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to execute agreements with Central Asia to occupy Room 112 at the General Officer Community Center at Cesar Chavez Park and Suite one, or for A, B, C, D and E at the Long Beach Senior Center Districts one and two. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We're very excited to be here today with these two agreements that support a wonderful partner in our nonprofit community center. And I'll give it to Brant to talk a little bit about what these two items are. Thank you, city manager. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and council members. I think on the coattails of last Tuesday's significant community support for the Latino Cultural Center and also naming Central Cha as the lead not for profit to move that project forward. I think our department and citywide are continuing that partnership in a very supportive way. We have two operational agreements before you this evening. One is within Cesar Chavez Park at the center. Basically giving center some office space and underutilized corner of that facility. It is for a period of five years with the possibility to add two additional five year periods. And I think long term the purpose of that was once the Latino Cultural Center is identified, that a more permanent home would be located within that facility. The other realization is Central CHA continues to provide significant community services and they do utilize the Jennifer Payson Center as a home base for a lot of the programs they deliver. The accompanying agreement, operational agreement, is again realizing that Central Cha, a new headquarters building on Atlantic Avenue, probably to be completed within the next 12 to 18 months. They'll be utilizing some office space at the Fourth Street Senior Center that's recently been vacated with the relocation of Partners of Parks over to the Recreation and Parks Administrative Building in Eldorado Park. So and that again, is of a more temporary nature, realizing that probably within the next year to two years that they would be relocating back over to the Atlantic facility. So with that, I'm available for any questions that you might have. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor. I'm so excited for Central to having a space in our Jenny Oropeza Community Center at our beloved Cesar Chavez Park Central Chantelle's amazing work in the community. And that is a big, big thing for our community and for our residents. They really thrive off of being able to have central trust so close to them. So I really think central time for all the amazing work that you do and that you provide for for our communities, especially for our communities that are hard to reach, especially for those communities that are the most in need. So thank you from the bottom of my heart. And I'm just so glad that we were able to work together as a city. I really want to thank city staff for all their amazing work and their willingness to collaborate and make this make this agreement possible for Central Time. I also want to give a huge thanks to our Parks and Rec and Marine staff, especially to Director Denis, who was able to see the need that central chair had for for space and was able to to provide this space and work with them. And your willingness to always provide for the community is just amazing. So thank you very much for your collaboration with this and for realizing that this is a community that really, really, truly needs these services. And that tenure piece is the journey out of business center is the right place for them. So thank you again to everybody who made this possible. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. Just completely support this item. It's just great to have a partner with Central try and with just this great community organization. And I also look forward to having your offices in the second District, at least for a little while. Congrats. I thank you. I look at my comments here. I think every time we're able to figure out partnerships with community based organizations to provide services, it's a great outcome. We see that in North Long Beach with what's happening with Camp Fire. We lost our after school program services. Camp Fire was able to come in and help out. Conservation Corps has moved in and has reactivated that space, and I have no doubt that central charge is going to have a tremendous impact on the park and the broader community. So congratulations to everyone. Councilwoman Zoro. Yes, thank you. I wanted to express my support on this item and that I know that when center to finish building their facility in the sixth district, they'll be circling, spreading their resources in this variety of areas and then coming back home to the sixth district. So thank you very much. Thank you. We have one public comment, Jessica Quintana. Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone. On behalf of Center Child, this is just truly an exciting time, a moment for us to demonstrate this, this partnership with the city of Long Beach. Once again, I know we were here last week and I lost all my colleagues and crew because tonight's the Dodger game. And so they're all here in spirit and they should just get you go. We'll be here in spirit. But you know, this this truly really solidifies and advances, you know what we're all saying in our community and to promote and expand public benefits for our community members. You know, prior to the pandemic and currently now with the economic recovery, we've seen more of a higher need within our community to have access to benefits and services. And so we just want to thank our partner, Brant Dennis and the city manager and the city council member team and everybody at Parks and Recreation for being so supportive and welcoming us to the space. We truly appreciate that. You know, it's a lot of people don't know the story, but I moved to Long Beach in 1964. We moved on fourth and main. And so I grew up here in the city. And, you know, I have three folks who who inspired me throughout my life. One was also Travis. I had the opportunity to march with him when I was only 15 years old. He came to Long Beach and we marched to Wilmington. And we all know he's a labor leader and a civil rights activist. And so through working at the center of Back in the Day with Professor Armando Vasquez, who was here last week, we were boycotting grapes up and down Anaheim market, you know, and we had the opportunity to march with Cesar. Then the next inspiration of my life, who inspired me to do the work that I do, is the three folks who are memorialized. Associate Chavez Park is Jenny Oropeza. So Jenny, as you know, was the first Latina on city council and then went on to be our state senator who fought and championed for the quality of life for women, children in our communities. And then maybe a lot of folks may not know him, but there is a bench that's memorialized for John Northmoor. And John Northmoor was an advocate on behalf of youth. He's the one that brought things post to our city, into our community. And so I was a youth growing up in Long Beach with the first team post that was in West Long Beach. So I have the honor and privilege to go back to the area and really, you know, inspire my community and provide community benefits with three of the most influential leaders who made a difference in my life in the work that I do to provide services. And our community center, Chuck, for years have been in the city for over 25 years. We have an infrastructure that has brought many, many, much needed services to the community and bringing millions of dollars to the city of Long Beach and we're going to provide legal services were a part of Immigrations Appeals Agency and we'll be providing immigration, legal services, business development and workforce development services. And then we come with so many partnerships. We focus on job training and workforce development and have contracts with the Long Beach City College and other institutions for certified training. So we're just so ecstatic for the the excitement for this partnership and to provide services to Cesar Chavez Park and at the senior center. So it benefits so much. I know I'm over my time, but thank you, everybody. It's truly privilege. An exciting day for for center time for myself. Fantastic. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to Approve the Draft Project List for the Alameda County Transportation Commission Call for Projects. (Transportation 287)

AlamedaCC_10182016_2016-3452

This list was approved by the Transportation Commission and recommended. There's also a named project and that an AC Transit lead project that we've participated as a partnership with AC Transit on. So these are the main projects. The question came up as to whether or not we should also be submitting a planning grant application related to a bike pedestrian bridge on the West End staff. Is not recommending that, did not recommend that to the Transportation Commission. And so why don't I go through why that is the larger issue. And I think everyone agrees and I think actually bike walk Alameda and staff now agree on a path forward and so you'll hear from them and from us and but we're in agreement now on how to proceed forward. We've been talking a lot over the last couple of weeks, but in general, we staff absolutely agrees that there's a strong need for better bike and pedestrian access on the West End and that the tubes and the small space that there is there is really not adequate and not inviting and conducive to bike and pedestrian access. And everyone agrees we have a history of studying this issue. There was a 29 asteroid crossing study that was done, hired a very prominent bridge, you know, engineering firm that specializes even in bridges, that looked at a number of different options. We'll talk about that. But it looked at a whole spectrum of different options that could try to improve this x ray crossing issue. The primary obstacle really is the Coast Guard navigational clearances that they need to come through this area. Solution, we believe, is a phased, multifaceted approach. And hopefully I'm not misspeaking, but I think bike walk, Aluminum City, we agree on that solution. Now, the 2009 estuary crossing study looked at 17 different options, including five different bridge options, including tube improvements, bus water shuttles. It was multijurisdictional included Caltrans, Coast Guard, Oakland, Alameda County Transportation Commission. It looked at near mid long term options that were study very comprehensive report in my opinion. The Council accepted that study in September 2009 estuary crossing recommendations that there was a top bridge option, a movable bike pad bridge, $75 million to construct a million and a half to operate annually. But the determination was made that it was practically infeasible. We've looked at this sense. Staff has we've talked with experts. We still believe, given the clearances of the Coast Guard, have determined that it is still practically infeasible, really significant technical challenges because of how tall you'd have to make it, how long you'd have to make it. Ultimately, if we built it to accommodate the clearances, the way that those clearances are defined now by the Coast Guard, it could be one of the longest movable bridges in the world. There'd be it would be very unpredictable. During peak hour, there'd be closure. Times would be unpredictable, causing significant crossing delays during peak hours, making an investment of $75 million and a million and a half to operate annually. Very questionable is whether or not, while we believe not practically and feasible to spend that kind of money and having that unpredictability and that type of engineering and technical bridge, and that was the termination of the study, but it was kind of practically infeasible. So it said only move forward. If you can address this Coast Guard navigational clearance issue city keep working with stakeholders. This discernment determine if we can change these restrictions, that we can adapt them. Can we move them in the short term, improve the posi tube? There have been some minor improvements made. We don't believe we agree with by Quoc Almeida. They are not. We don't see that is going to have much of an impact at all in terms of bike access and pedestrian access. But then some mid-term next steps, really the preferred kind of feasible mid-term option of developing a water shuttle taxi alternative. You'll see that that is one of the planning grants that we are wanting to submit to Ekedc. We have matching funds available from the developers or part of a real discussion to to look at that. And so we really would love to move that forward. We see that as a mid-term option, not not the ultimate solution that's going to solve all these problems and create, but a good mid-term option that has the potential of increasing bike access, not to where we'd ultimately like it to be, but a good next step. Since 2009. We did have an asteroid crossing shuttle that's established. It accommodates ten bicycles. Again, these aren't solutions that are saving the day, but they are incremental access. The Posey two walkway improvements were just finished. We've already talked about that. We have had discussions and the mayor has had discussions with the Coast Guard as well about navigational clearance is what they have told us is all those same criteria from 2009 are still in place. And we want you to know this is what they've said to us, that there is increased traffic. So not only do you have those same clearance issues, but we have more traffic coming through here which would make a bridge design the way, you know, what the the constraints would make it more unpredictable because there would be more closures and it would make it less predictable. So essentially, that issue is gotten worse in some ways. We have sent a letter to Senator Boxer. I know there's folks that have come and spoke to the council about that. We were already working on that letter to Senator Boxer, a draft of that with our lobbyists before that meeting. But we're actively trying to seek our help from the delegation and our congressional delegation to help us, because we believe this Coast Guard issue is beyond we've talked to them a number of times. We do believe we need to bring that larger political involvement to help kind of try to see if there are solutions, creative solutions to this issue. So City's actions near term apply for the grant for funding for the water shuttle feasibility study. Encourage Caltrans to submit a planning grant application to AC DC. We do not believe they're going to do that. They have some detail that they've put together, but they our understanding is that they're not going to be submitting an application for this. They have not. They are still we've talked with staff. They're still committed to being involved and potentially seeking other funding to help move this issue along and explore positive improvements that actually open up the other side of on the other side of the walkway, we have some potential funding that we're looking at for that . Again, it wouldn't be the final solution, but you'd have maybe one way bike access and bike ped access on both sides. So it would double the space. Still certainly not the ultimate solution that we'd like out there, but it would make it better again, taking this kind of phased approach to the solution. Develop informational materials, describing all of these options. This would really be for kind of almost like a marketing piece so that we work with Bike Walk Alameda, developing something similar to what we actually did for at the Harbor Bay. Related to ferry access is starting to create a brochure almost of here are your. Options. And see if we could start to really educate folks about the options that do exist even if they're not perfect. So we are starting to do more of this informational marketing, part of transportation planning, and then a significant enhancement to the estuary crossing on the West End is going to be one of our long term solutions in the citywide transit. And TVM plan really is part of the team part. How do you get folks out of their car? Will you provide them with really easy ways to do that by allowing them to bike? And we believe you see this some of the data from the citywide tram plan, the number we believe one of the major issues there is that people commute to downtown Oakland by car. It's like 75% in drive alone trips to downtown Oakland. It's the number one and it's right across the estuary. So we believe that that is one of our major issues. If we're going to get people out of the tubes, it's going to be trying to get people out of their cars into other modes of travel to get to downtown Oakland for work or for BART. And so we absolutely agree there's a problem and that we need to try to solve it made it long term establish the water shuttle. We have developers on both sides of the estuary that are interested in doing that, willing to commit funds to working through this. The study that we would be going to act for would help us really plan where would the routes be, how would we phase those routes really work with the city of Oakland and with the developers on the other side to figure out how we would organize that, redesign the posi tube and approaches to better serve people walking, biking on both sides were actively doing this now with the city of Oakland and Ictsi. Once all the constraints are addressed and funding found, build a new put up bike, bicycle and pedestrian bridge. We're absolutely we believe that if it's not in our long term plans, then it's absolutely not going to get done. So we should have it as a vision and part of our plans, even if we don't have all the answers to how that's going to happen, because if we don't have it in our plans, it certainly is never going to happen. Advocate for a miller Sweeney Bridge replacement. We know this is not on the West End where we really want it, but it is. We think we should have dedicated bike lanes on a rebuilt Miller Sweeney Bridge. The county has some funding available for that already. That is more likely to get funded faster. Granted, it doesn't solve the West End and then keep those long term vision with if there is a potential BART station. Are there ways to create dual access between army to Oakland that could potentially also solve this bike pedestrian? So there's a lot of potential actions here. We're looking at all of them. The Transportation Commission recommendations some more this summer, sorry, supported the submittal of the seven grant projects. They asked us to send a letter to Caltrans to prioritize estuary crossing. They actually gave us explicit direction and discouraged us to include a bike ped bridge in the letter due to in feasibility, they felt very strongly and unanimously discouraged us from that. I think stuff we believe there there is this phase solution that we should be working with bike walk Alameda on and with all these other stakeholders and continue to work with Caltrans on that. But I wanted we wanted to be transparent with you about the Transportation Commission recommendation as well. And then send a letter to the county to prioritize the multimodal lifeline Miller Sweeney retrofit. So what are we recommending tonight? Certainly we want to move forward with our grant list that's in there. That's our priority. Those grants are due the end of this month. We want to continue to work with collaborating with Caltrans on them, taking the lead to further evaluate the feasibility of the bike PED Bridge crossing. Potentially. There's some other sources of funds we've identified that we might be able to help support that effort, engage a consultant, either a bridge engineer, probably. I think what bike walk Alameda would like is a maritime engineer that really looks more closely because there were some kind of doors left open in the study about if you could look at the way the clearances get structured and the depth of the estuary that there might be a. Way to interpret some of the clearances that would give us some other options. We are prepared to move if the Council's direction is to do that is to move forward with contracting with a maritime engineer, to review those potential options, and then working with a bridge engineer to evaluate that and see if that would change dramatically or, you know, create a feasible option that we could continue to pursue. We don't think this is a big expenditure. We think we can do this relatively inexpensively without a lot of staff or time or financial time. So we're happy to do that. Continue to engage the Coast Guard on a political level with support from the congressional delegation, and then develop that next step, the next steps document, which is was kind of built off the white paper that was attached to your to your council report and kind of bring that back and parcel this informational item as well. I think Bike Walk Alameda had sent you a letter and an email. We are applying with all of their recommendations. I think you'll see that they're very similar. We're happy to just adopt the bike walk Alameda recommendations. If that's the council's direction. We certainly want to move forward with our grant lists and that's how we're going get the money. But in addition to that, to adopt those recommendations from Bike Walk, we're happy to do that. So just to be clear. So if we move forward on some kind of additional study, that would be outside of the money that we're seeking through the grants? That's correct. Basically, general fund money or maybe something. I don't think we would recommend general fund money. I think we would I think bike walk. I mean, the sources we've looked at, I mean, given the amount of it, there's some potential sources that we're reviewing. Caltrans might have some other ideas. So our hope is you know, and you'll see in the bike walk Alameda email what they say is we should do all these other kind of smaller things and then only then should we engage the Coast Guard when we have a we have a better proposal to them that we can really instead of just asking them the same question again, which we honestly think is going to get the exact same answer as let's do a little homework, let's hire some engineers, see if we can find a creative solution or some other ideas. Once we have that information, then let's go back. Then let's all approach them with Caltrans support. We think Caltrans honestly should play a more prominent role as the lead. They've demonstrated an interest in doing that because we think as at the state level, they'll have a better chance of working with the federal government than little Alameda will be there kind of behind the scenes, pushing it along. And then we would go back to the Coast Guard with some proposal, a proposal that, hey, look, we actually have experts here have looked at this. We think we can work with your clearances or if you tweak it a little, you know, I don't know what that will say. And to be honest, it could say that there's nothing we can do. I mean, we have to be honest about that, too, that that we might not come up with a solution where our hope is that we will, and then we would approach the Coast Guard. And if they're at that point, we feel like there's a real need and desire and we think it makes sense, then we would we would look for those other funding sources to potentially do a much broader, bigger technical study on those options. That's good. Well, thank you. I mean, thank you for taking the time to find that path. Yes, we're happy to do it. So clarifying questions. Council member Odie. I said one question. It's kind of tangentially related in exhibit to one of the input from the community was bike sharing. And I mean, is there going to be an update on that? Because I think we had a discussion on that a few months ago and I didn't see anything. Yeah, we we can have an update on that. Yes, we we are there. The bike share. We are doing a loner bike program in Alameda Point. It's not part of the regional bike share. There was a grant recently. We can come back and kind of do a report at some point on that. It was very the amount of grant was like a minimum of $500,000 is a huge program. And one of the real issues is even if we got the capital dollars to do that, there's actually operating expenses related to bike share. And that was really actually where we got tripped up was are we ready for a $500,000 program where we're not sure where the operating dollars are going to come from? We're still looking at it. I'm not say and but we kind of we think that a better a little more a little smaller more incremental approach might be better. But we're still evaluating that and we can come back to you. In fact, we could even do it as part of our TDM plan. When we come back to you later this year as part of that and talk about it a. Little bit, that'll be fine then. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Thank you for your report. I missed that. And is there a meeting tomorrow night that some people might be interested in attending? Thank you. Tell us a little bit about it. Yes, absolutely. Sure. So we are this is the NEC. We are doing a community holding a community workshop. As for the Trans Citywide Transit and TDM plans, we're calling it transportation options. Makes it sounds a little better than transit and team plans is. Not everyone knows what that means but transportation options plan where we're actually getting into a lot of detailed strategies. So this is really the meet, you know, before we were doing existing conditions, this is our proposed solutions to some of these issues and that is a committee workshop starting at 630. Mastic Senior Spastic Senior Center. Thank you. Sorry. And so it's a really great opportunity to come and talk about some transportation solutions and what we do. And we've broken them down by problem. So how do we address this downtown Oakland problem? How do we address the commute to San Francisco? How do we address the issues within Alameda and then a whole host of prioritized projects for each of those problems? So I think it's very common sense in my mind. So we'd love to get feedback from folks tomorrow. Thank you. All right. So clarifying questions I have. I wanted you to clarify the navigational uses. There has been some discussion in regards to the Coast Guard island where it's located, but it's my understanding that their recommendation is actually in regards to all vessels that use the estuary, not just their vessels. Can you clarify? But the the specs are based on. They are recommending. You know, I don't have the I can look at that. I don't have them right in front of me. But my understanding is the primary issue is the Coast Guard vehicles or, you know, fleet, but that they have other specifications for other. Boats, but. That their main issue is their own Coast Guard vehicles. But I don't have that right in front of me. What about crane barges? That was one of the one of the things in there. So we can look at that more closely. I just want to clarify and I can speak to that later. For the committee to understand but but it's based on a letter to regional leaders. There's a letter to Barbara Boxer. Is there a reason why we're not actually seeking to persuade and get assistance from other regional leaders? We will. We will and we can yes, we can talk. I think that's a great idea. And we can talk with Congresswoman Barbara Lee and we could look at Feinstein as well. Thank you. Okay. Now I'll call our speakers, Lucy, Julie, Denise Trapani, and then Barbara Bryant McGuire. You guys can go in any order you want. Thank you, councilmembers and mayor, for hearing my comments this evening. I want to start by saying thank you to staff for being so open to our input. For those of us advocating for active transportation choices, as you all know, the West End will soon be seeing a significant increase in residents, with the tubes being the only option we have for 24 seven on and off the island. The traffic and congestion issues are only going to get worse. We fully understand that the obstacles, specifically the Coast Guard requirements to building a bicycle pedestrian bridge are very large and that this is not an easy or short term fix. But it's also not something that Alameda Alameda needs to fix on its own. This is a regional transit issue. We appreciate that staff and hopefully council recognize that we have to start doing something now to solve our West End egress. Egress issues, especially for those of us choosing active transportation options. We just don't have anything right now. The white paper presented by staff and the actions recommended in it are an excellent first step towards working through the nitty gritty details of the technical requirements provided by the Coast Guard in the 2009 feasibility study. That study noted and specifically stated that the horizontal clearance constraint essentially is essentially what made the bridge and a bridge infeasible. But the study also noted that further investigation was needed, and I'm quoting here that if the channel were too shallow to navigate across the entire estuary, the Coast Guard would consider reducing the horizontal clearance. And that's on page 69 of the study. So I'm just going to keep it short. I'm here to respectfully ask council to please continue to support staff's work on this critical infrastructure project and to prioritize it to address the not only the traffic but the health and safety and the environment of the West end by addressing the Coast Guard requirements. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lucy G. I'm with Bike Walk Alameda. 1700 people have signed a petition asking for. A West End estuary crossing that's safe and convenient for biking and walking walk. Oakland Bike. Oakland Bike. East Bay Assembly Member Bond Oakland Council members. Those are just a very initial list of supporters. So now is the time that. We are asking. The city to take. The next steps. That. Have been mentioned in the. 2009. Estuary crossing feasibility. Study. We know that it's a regional issue. And we know that little Alameda. Isn't going to solve it on. On. Its own. So we're. Asking. The city council because we've been asked to recommit. To taking the next steps to. Prioritize the asteroid crossing study and recommit. To saying that. Yes, stakeholders come together with us and. Try and solve. The problem. And we really. Appreciate the diligence of staff and working. Through and creating a. Next step plan. And working with Caltrans and the Transportation Alameda County Transportation. Commission. To find a leading agency and funding sources to keep taking those. Next steps. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'll just kind of follow up and reiterate some of what Denise and Lucy said. We appreciate council members and staff who have been helping us and been working on with us on on moving this forward. We also had a very productive meeting with our Assembly member last week who I think it's safe to say, supportive and ready to help us find the best way forward. We think this is the best option. To address this gap and will have a transformative effect for residents and businesses on both sides of the estuary. We know there are significant hurdles to achieving this, which is why we're not asking you to spend $50 million tonight on a bike and pad bridge. But we do want to pick up where the 2009 estuary crossing study left off. It identified four areas that might make a bridge infeasible. And I know Ms.. Spoke about this. But the bottom line, not surprisingly, is it comes down to horizontal clearance. Horizontal clearance, if we can make progress on that, would greatly mitigate the other three issues listed as problems vertical clearance. If you have a drawbridge as opposed to a lift, vertical clearance goes to infinity or a swing bridge, etc. Costs come down and I forget what the other item was. But anyway, so the horizontal clearance is the big one there. The 2008 study didn't 29 study did not evaluate any bridge options with a span of less than 600 feet, a movable span. So when Ms.. Art speaks about the weaknesses in the, quote, top bridge option, she's not really referring to what we think. And what, you know, practically speaking, is the bridge that we would have in mind if and when we get to that point. We agree with staff that we need political support to make headway if we keep working on the issue, building political support and making the small investments needed to flesh out what the bridge would look like and cost if we succeeded in reducing those horizontal clearances. I think we can, you know, build that political pressure to hopefully make progress with the Coast Guard. And I think it's easier when we have a a more developed project to sort of aim at as opposed to just sort of knocking on the door with very little detail . So, you know, we'd like the city to pass a resolution renewing that this is almeida's preference for resolution, regardless of the fact that we know there's hurdles. This is the best solution, and we want Alameda to show commitment for that. And we also think you should give clear direction to staff to continue working with us and other stakeholders to fund and find a lead agency to conduct the engineering feasibility study proposed by Caltrans. And just one other kind of side note. No offense to the Transportation Commission, but I think they were focusing on this on the, you know, call for projects list and this kind of got put in front of them and they weren't necessarily all the way up to speed, I would say, on on some of this stuff. And I think they got a little out over their skis when they were given some of their direction that night. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Counsel, comments. Questions. I wanted to ask real quick about the prioritized order, but that means on this draft grants list on page two does. And where I see estuary water shuttle feasibility study is number two. But in regards to where is the what we're speaking about, trying to figure out how to ride a bike across the estuary. At all hours. When will that happen? But that's not on the priority list at all. Right. So will that be worked on independently? Yes. But it is being worked on. It's not as though we have to get through all these other items before we start focusing on that. So I want to clarify that. And I think I defer to the city attorney. But, you know, we don't obviously have a resolution attached, but it seems like by motion, in addition to hopefully moving forward with the grant lists, we could, you know, give direction to staff by motion to continue to work with the michoacana meat on the items specified in their email . We're happy to do that. We agree with that and and are supportive of that. And what I heard was to work with Bike Walk, Alameda and all stakeholders. Absolutely. So that the list of items that they had in their email that they sent to council, we could just essentially adopt that by motion to direct staff. And I'd also like to include that we increase the advocacy to all regional leaders. Great number, Ashcraft. Yeah, I was just going to say that some of us have already been doing that and by bike, Alameda is doing a commendable job and working with staff and this, you know, it's you want things to be done right now this is a big project, this proposal and it's going to take time to get it right into as I told them, sometimes you pick the low hanging fruit first. In this one, we better pick the high hanging fruit because we do need to clear some of those hurdles with the Coast Guard. But it's right. It it's been said this is not just falling on Alameda shoulders. It's a regional issue. And we do have regional partners that we're already talking with. So I would support the idea of also including a resolution of support for the bike walk Alameda email direction. And I really commend staff for for working with this important advocacy group to like a motion so we can kick things. Yes, that's what I thought you were going to be make well. So I would first move that we. Are sorry to interrupt. We had another speaker that apparently had the wrong item listed so we could have that speaker. So. Oh. It's okay. Come on up. Helen, it's Helen's. US. I'll change this to five. The steps that the city is making to address our island mentality is really exciting. Alameda Home Team has been talking for some time about the fact that the developments on either side of the estuary, their drawings end at the water's edge and it doesn't take in what each of us are doing across the channel. So we've developed a. Proposed Cross channel. Panel. Discussion with the developer between the developers on either side of the estuary, which will be held December 1st. It'll be free. It'll be open to anyone that wishes to attend. I must say Auckland has been rather excited about the idea of talking just informally about how the developers might work together, how they might jointly apply for grants that would benefit both of our projects. And the city has its planning staff, which will participate participate in the panel as well. And so we'll be getting a notice out, inviting everybody to come. And. Attend this discussion and the steps that Jennifer and the staff are taking to develop issues that will address our problems. It's just really remarkable. It's delightful to see how far ahead you all are. Thank you. Can you clarify real quick the time that it's December? The meeting is December 1st. You know the time and place at this point. Oh, we'll get back to it. All right. Thank you. It's going to be in Alameda. Okay. And it will be where we can see the water. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Right. So she's our last speaker. So remember Ashcraft. Okay, so I move the recommendation to approve the draft project list for the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Call for projects. As well as direction to staff. To continue to pursue the items. Listed in the backpack Alameda correspondence dated October 13, 2016. And I would say including but not limited to because we don't want to foreclose any options and this is a regional issue communicating with Caltrans. This is a bicycle pedestrian bridge that staff hire a maritime engineer to get more information and to work with a coalition of federal, state, county, local partners, engage the Coast Guard. And again, all that and more toward the goal of a bike walk excuse me, a bicycle pedestrian bridge on the west end of Alameda. I have a. Second. I have a question in regards to item number three, to hire a maritime engineer. Is that that's something that would come back to us where we would. Only if it's over 75,000. Oh, okay. Diane, so. Are you over to. No, we don't. Okay. So any other questions or comments? I'm ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick comment. Thank you to staff and Mike walk alameda for all your hard work on this. As you did say, it is a regional transit issue. And I think it's important that as we asked to spend money on this, that we seek out regional partners to share the cost to this. I mean, I'm all for it. And if we can also make sure that in our motion, as you go forward with this, we try to identify funding sources. I know ARM three is something that they're debating in the next year, and that may be a good funding source, whether there's a baseball stadium at Jack London or whether we do some type of enhanced retail on our waterfront. I mean, just to add, examining potential funding sources and making sure that if it is, say, item three, that we're in on the ground floor and in the beginning to try and pursue those those sources of a friendly amendment. Well, yeah. And I think that was that's it's good to identify those. I think that was also subsumed in including but not limited to in the room three. You're referring to Ms. Gerrity, would that be regional measure three, an additional bridge toll? Yes, that might be on the 2018 ballot. We're hoping. It is. Yes. Okay. Vice Mayor. I do think it needs to be explicit that the funding needs to be identified because whatever the $45 million price tag and I think given. Bridge construction that we've seen on on the east bay span. It's going to be expensive and there is no way that Alameda and shoulder this. No way. Right. And I think that's the practical side that I want to make sure is explicit in here. And I also don't want it to suck funds away from Central Avenue the Cross. So I think that that has to be clear, because that's the real bottom line. Practical. Right. Can I. Finish. The practical impracticality? And it also makes the case better with the Coast Guard is if we've got funding in hand to construct the bridge some commitment, then there's I think there's more room to negotiate. And if we don't. We I want to make sure that our clerk is keeping track of this. That's not an amendment. That's a comment. That's a. Comment. Okay. Part of the discussion of a moved and seconded and yours. Was also just which is. Well, it was to include. Right. Yes, include. Potential funding sources in pursuing those. So he has a friendly amendment and you're accepting that. I need to make sure that we're all seeing the. Same position, put in an explanation and underline on it, because. However. He did have a friendly amendment, so I want to make sure that that's confirmed as part of the motion. Councilmember De Soto. Member Ashcroft it's your motion, right? It is. So procedurally, he makes a friendly amendment. You need to accept it or not, you need to weigh in. And I would just note for the record, cities don't build bridges anyway. That comes from Caltrans, it comes from the feds. It comes from things like arms. Three. I don't think the hang up with the Coast Guard was over us wanting them to pay for it. But gosh, if they have funds, I would take them. But I think it's you know, we've got good direction to staff. And yes, I mean, the more the merrier as far as this goes. I just but that wasn't the point. I mean. I'm sorry. I mean, the point was to make sure that we we started the ground floor. It was not to ask the Coast Guard to pay for it. But I. In my. Mind that we make that we, in addition to doing the study that we share with others, the county, Oakland, others, that we also start identifying ways to pay for it. I mean. And that's a friendly amendment. What I've heard is that you do accept that. MEMBER Well, absolutely. All right, then I'm going to read the email. I think it's I think it's we're. Making a motion. You know, there's a way we need to do it. Unfortunately, we've had a problem in the past where we all thought we understood. And I want to make sure we do this correctly at this point. I'm going to circle now to please member de sog. Thank you. Thank you. I think there will be plenty enough time for our inner Scrooge to come out, but I think for tonight, it definitely is time to dream. It's time to dream not just about the ski bike bridge, but also the fact that, you know, we're moving ahead with the citywide transit strategy. And that's why the decision tonight is absolutely critical to move forward. The list that with special thank you to the Transportation Commission that the Transportation Commission had helped put us put together for us. So for that we are definitely thankful and for it to the bike walk Alameda we are also doubly thankful for you know, encouraging us to keep dreaming. You know, there's plenty of times to, you know, put those accountant's hats on, but but not tonight. So let's move forward. All right. So we have a motion with two friendly amendments that were accepted. I also want to thank staff our transportation commission bike walk Alameda and I looked for I pulled this item intentionally because this is very important to our community. It's critical that we do come up with a better way to cross the estuary. And actually, I would say it's a bit bicycling and for pedestrians. So I appreciate all of this effort. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Our next item. Is six d. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to enter into a citywide project stabilization agreement on public works or improvement contracts valued at over $1,000,000 awarded by the City of Alameda with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County. Hello. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Jeremy Mayor, council members. Jennifer Basri is transportation planning director. Okay, I can I'll just start. We're here to start recommending a citywide project stabilization agreement on city. Let projects over $1,000,000. I'm not alone here tonight. We have a lead negotiator to the city attorney's office, Mike Fleming, who specializes in negotiating these agreements that we worked as a team very closely on this. And then we also have members of the Building Trades Council, Carpenters Union, a number of different union representatives here as well that we have worked with over a number of months to bring this to you tonight. There is a lot of history. I actually have, you know, gone back and over a number of times actually to kind of see there's been a lot of history of multiple city council referrals, hearings and direction over the last six years to negotiate a project stabilization agreement starting, I'm sure, probably even before this. But the ones I could find were starting September 2010. There were also efforts in September 2013, September and December 2013, and then more recently, September 2015. So we're here really all of that direction and those hearings and ultimately negotiated an agreement.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Transportation; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of The City of Seattle a Quit Claim Deed from King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, located in a portion of Block B, Supplementary Plat of Edes and Knight’s Addition to the City of Seattle, a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, a portion of Block 1, Ross Home Addition, and a portion of Block 48, Yesler’s 2nd Addition (Supplemental) to the City of Seattle; designating the property for street purposes and laying it off as right-of-way; placing the property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119850

Agenda Item three 314 Capital 119 815. The Department Transportation Authority and the director of the Department Transportation to acquire a second record on behalf of the City of Seattle. A quick claim deed from King County Capital 119851364. City for streets or alley for Capital 119852. Accepting 21 ticket purchase easements for public sidewalks and emergency vehicles. Street or alley turn around 4%. Flexible 119853. Accepting variances for street or alley purposes. Capital 119854. Accepting various street deeds for street or alley purposes. Capital 119855. Accepting 21 property easements for public sidewalks, walkway, pedestrian alley, utility, bicycle and bridge purposes taxable 119856. Accepting variances for street or alley purposes. Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading those items into the record. The clerk has read items eight through 14 into the record. Each bill will be moved for a separate vote. And Councilmember Peterson, I understand, is prepared to address all seven items at once and then answer questions related to all seven in order to help move us through these agenda items. So we will begin with item eight. So again, we're going to move each item separately, but Councilmember Peterson is going to address all of all of the items in his remarks. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119850. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, as a sponsor of these bills, you are recognized in order to address items eight through 14. Things you can do as the president. So the first one Council Bill 119850 accepts for small parcels from King County. These are remnant parcels located across the city and have generally functioned as rights of way both state and central staff recommend approval of Council Bill 119840350. Excuse me. Now for the next few items council bills 119851 through 119856. These items nine through 14 on today's agenda, allow me to just read from the central staff memo, which sums it up perfectly from Calvin Chao. So these council bills are packages of property deeds and easements acquired by the city as a result of permitting decisions on private development activity. Typically, these transactions are bundled into legislation throughout the year and transmitted to council on a rolling basis due to the reduced city council schedule during COVID 19. These six counts have been transmitted together and would authorize several property transactions at once. Eastern and central staff recommend approval of this legislation. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any questions on any of the eight excuse me, seven, seven items read into the agenda? Okay. Hearing none. We're going to go through each one of these if there are no comments on items eight through 14. So last call any any comments on items eight through 14? Hearing. Anon will go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119850. Strauss. Yes. Herbals. Yes. SUAREZ Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Petersen Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affects my signature to the legislation. Hey, item nine has already been read into the record, so I will move to pass Council Bill 119851. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing on will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss? Yes. Herbals? Yes. Whereas death. Luis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor. None oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item number ten has already been read into the record and described. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119852. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Strauss Yes. Purple, yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Petersen Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will declare the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Agenda item 11 likewise has been read into the record and described by Councilmember Petersen. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119853. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss? Yes. Verbal. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. S. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 12 has been read into the record and described by Councilmember Peterson, so I will move that past council. Bill 119854. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments, any additional comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Strauss? Yes. Herbals. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. S seven in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item 13 has likewise been read into the record and described by Council member Peterson. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119855. Is there a second. That. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill? Are there any additional comments on the bill hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor. Nine oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Last property and easement bill here. Item number 14. Again, this bill has been read into the record and already described by Councilmember Peterson. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119856. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Strauss. Yes. Verbal. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzales. Yes. Seven in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item 15. Madam Clerk, this is still in my script, but I believe it might have been removed.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute the necessary documents to amend Contract No. 34242 with Plenary Properties Long Beach, LLC, of Los Angeles, CA, for Civic Center technology infrastructure, in an amount not to exceed $7,050,000; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute multiple lease-purchase agreements, and related financing documents, with Banc of America Public Capital Corporation, of Scottsdale, AZ, for the financing of Civic Center technology infrastructure, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $8,476,000 including principal, interest, and escrow fees, payable over a term not to exceed 15 years; and Increase appropriations in the General Services Fund (IS 385) in the Technology and Innovation Department (TI) by $454,000, offset by charges to user departments and funds. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0276

Motion case. Thank you. I don't. Number 19, please. Item 19 is a report from Technology and Innovation, Financial Management and Public Works recommendation to amend contract with 20 properties, Long Beach to Civic Center technology, infrastructure and in an amount not to exceed 7 million and authorize city manager to execute multiple lease purchase agreements and financing documents with Bank of America Public Capital Corporation for the Financing of Civic Center Technology in an aggregated amount not to exceed 8.4 million citywide. Is there a public comment on this item saying No members, please cast your vote? Councilmember I mean. Vice Mayor Can we get a brief staff report on this? Councilman Alston I just outline with processes. As soon as we as soon as the item comes up, I'm going to look for the left or the right signal. If you requested, I'm trying to be respectful and get folks out of here. I'm being respectful. We'll do it. There were other people that actually motion to seconded. So. So that's fine. We'll go through a staff report if staff could be brief and then moving forward, I'm going to go through and ask everyone if they want comment before we move forward. Staff was going to have a presentation. Lyrics and. Good evening. A mayor and members of City Council or vice mayor. This on December 5th, technology innovation presented that $67 million of critical technology infrastructure needs to the city. And on that night council authorized city major submit these purchase transactions for these technology needs at future council meetings. So last week we started with those and this week we continue again with the item that you just passed and this item. And I'm going to turn it over to Jason Lee, our Infrastructure Services Bureau manager for the Staff Report. Vice Mayor and members of the City Council before use a recommendation to authorize city manager to amend a contract with plenary properties for purchase and installation of civic center technology infrastructure at a cost of $7 million and execute a lease purchase agreement with Bank of America Public Corporation for the Financing of Civic Center Technology Infrastructure. As background, the Civic Center Technology Infrastructure will include foundational components for the following areas the council chambers, the conference rooms, access controls, cameras, wireless and wired networks, the data center and cellular distributed antenna systems. In December 2014, City Council selected plenary to construct, operate and maintain the new Civic Center plenary is is in the best position to purchase install the identify technology infrastructure that did the design equipment costs were and equipment costs were extensively evaluated by a team of construction, engineering, design and technology consultants to ensure the solutions were consistent with the Civic Center design and were competitively priced. The need for plenary to provide these foundational systems was identified and included in the equipment category of the critical technology infrastructure needs. Presentation to the City Council on December 5th, 2017. The the source of the Civic Center technology costs of $7 million is is the proceeds of lease purchase financing for term of up to 15 years. The annual estimated lease payments and lifecycle costs of 1.1.8 $9 million will be recovered from client operations or client departments via the Technology MRU. We will be coming back for the $7 million appropriation during the second budget adjustment. With that, I conclude my report and would be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Please cast your vote. Councilmember Pearce motion case. Thank you. So we're going to go through the rest of these items. If I don't see the maker of the motion or someone cued up, we are going to continue through these items. So the appropriate thing to do would be to queue up if you have something to say.

Adoption of Resolution Supporting a Conveyance of the Surplus Federal Property on McKay Avenue for Park and Open-Space Purposes and Approve the Work Plan pursuant to City Council’s Direction on January 21, 2015. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_02172015_2015-1335

We have a staff report. We do have speakers. I appreciate the speakers at this point. Sure. All right. The speakers will be Richard Banker, Irene Dieter, Doug Seiden. And then Gretchen LeBeau. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council, city staff for bringing this forward. I'd like to take my 3 minutes to just get in my digs against the GSA. I hope at the end of this process, we not only have expansion of a regional park, but an expansion of oversight over a federal agency, and possibly the ending of a loophole which not even the Pentagon has a loophole in federal land disposal that allowed the GSA to arbitrarily bypass the normal public benefit conveyance option and go straight to an auction. Not even the Pentagon could do that, as the Pentagon never said anything about recovering relocation costs for moving their military base. No, they haven't. But of course, the GSA wants to recover the, quote, relocation costs for moving the Department of Agribusiness down the street from offices they weren't using. And they spent $3 million doing that. And now they won't even tell the public how they spent that $3 million. But in the Freedom of Information Act, request and see if you get the file. They won't release it. I can tell you what they spent part of the money on. They put in a new parking lot. You can see it. But what did they spend the rest of the money on? We don't know. We don't know. Maybe the Department of Agribusiness saw an opportunity here to include some new equipment in this reshuffle. Outside the congressional. Budget authorization process. And maybe that's what they want to keep secret. We don't know. And now inexplicably, after this property has been zoned open space with only two possible owners, the federal GSA or the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The GSA is continuing to pursue eminent domain to take Mackay Avenue, which is owned by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, so that they, the GSA, can assume easement rights, that they can then in turn, assign to the state of California Department of Parks and Recreation. Now, I would call that cuckoo. And to quote Judge Judy. When something doesn't make any sense, someone is lying. In this case, I would say someone is hiding something. So I would suggest this. When your liaison committee is listening, I suggest that you liaison with our congressional representative and offer some personal encouragement to look into this. That is, if she's up to it. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Mayor and council. My name is Irene Deeter, and tonight I speak on behalf of the Sierra Club. We urge you to support this resolution. And thank you for bringing it forward. By doing so, you'll not only join the Sierra Club in actively opposing the federal government's eminent domain action and working to secure the highest and best use for the property. You will also join the California League of Conservation Voters, the California State Park Foundation, Clean Water Action, Citizens for East Bay Parks, the Golden Gate, Audubon Society's Friends of the Alameda Life Refuge. Citizens for a Better Environment. National Parks Conservation Association. Save Mount Diablo. Save the Bay. Not to mention the city's own Rex and Parks Commission, our Regional Park District, the Friends of Crown Beach, and of course, our State Attorney General. This resolution, at long last, would send the right message to the GSA and to our state and federal representative. We urge you to pass this resolution. Thank you. Doug cited. And then it'll be Gretchen Lipo. Wait a minute. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members, city staff. For the record, I'm Doug Satan Florida Direction Regional Park District and I want to thank you for this consideration because I think this carries out the will of the people and that 28 people voted for Proposition WW and it was very specific and included when it became available. The property that we're talking about tonight across the Crab Cove or part of Crown Park, and then you and your colleagues on the council previously approved setting that aside that the citizens petition so you set it aside is open space but is threatened now. And let me if you have seen the from the GSA dated January 15 of this year saying that the property is available and then they go on to tell you the things that if you are a federal agency and they're required to make it known, other federal agencies, they could be my translation. I'll call it a junkyard, a storage area, a place to put down construction equipment, a youth detention facility. Of not saying anything about me staying at a spoke as open space. So I want to show you the smoke, the choking point and what I think we need to do. Thank you. Okay. Looking at the K Street coming down and then the state, the Crown Beach, part of the state park and then the GSA property where they propose saying the federal agency, you could do all these things where they don't tell them is you can't get there. Now, I don't know if you're a realtor in town and you try to sell property and you didn't tell them you couldn't get there. I think you were in trouble with the federal agencies doing that. But what they say at the checking court talking point is, well, the GSA will get the federal government to sue the state of California so that we can get to that piece of property. And this is where I think we need to be together to say to to Congresswoman Lee, to our senators of the city and the park district are together. And you heard the support of the previous speaker that this maintain is that they stop this lawsuit using our tax money in order to get to that piece of property. So I would encourage the adoption of this proposed resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. Mayor, staff. The word Crab Cove, I can tell you, resonates. With everybody now. It's a magic word. And so I speak. You heard the background and you heard Irene, dear, talk about all the organizations that support this. Well, I'm talking about all the people in. Alameda that signed the. Petitions. And when you say. Crab Cove, basically Crab Cove, I mean, grandparents go back to Crab Cove. All kinds of activities have taken place in this area. This spot is sacred with the citizens of Alameda. So I'm here to cheerlead this issue on and I certainly support this resolution. And I hope you get in there. Fight for Crab Cove. Thank you. Thank you. She was our last speaker on that item. Staff, do you have did you want to make any comments? Now, this this resolution was drafted with the assistance of the staff. From the East Bay Regional Park District and then worked over a little by our staff. They're fine. We just made a couple of tweaks to it so that it worked within our our formatting. And this is basically what they've asked for and this is what we're presenting to the Council tonight. Thank you. Yes. I'm proud of you. Thank you. And thank you to all the speakers who spoke and good staff report. And I just want to say that since this item was last introduced and I certainly expressed my concern and opposition and yes, stemming largely from my feelings about entities who sue our city and the six figure legal bills that we have as a result. However, I've had a chance to rethink the issue. At the time I said that I didn't think that a large public agency like the East Bay Regional Parks District should need the. The city's, ah, little city's help in its dealings with the Federal Government. But after speaking, thinking more about this, speaking to our East Bay Regional Parks District Representative Doug Seiden, and trying to look at the issue from the park district's perspective, I realized that the Park District does need our help, the city of Alameda, because as the Board of East Bay Regional Parks District was told, the objective of the lawsuit that it brought against the city was to acquire the Crab Cove property. But that didn't happen. The lawsuit has been settled. Fortunately, the city, as it was noted, has enacted the ordinance to rezone the property open space, and yet it still is not in the hands of the Park District. So now the Park District has to pursue other avenues. And and I understand that. And I will say that there does seem to be some hard feelings, to say the least, between the Park District and GSA. I'm not a party to those transactions, and I'm not going to begin to speculate. I'm also not sure how much the city can do to help the Park District and the federal government mend fences between them. But a statement of support from the city and as outlined in this this staff report, certainly can't hurt and it just might help. And I so I said that in my notes that I will support taking the high road in this case. I think that's what the city's doing. We can say, okay, let's put the past behind us. I think what the Park District does best is run parks. It's negotiating with other parties. Might might not be as great as stellar as its operation of parks. But we would like them to get back to the business of running parks. And certainly the city of Alameda would benefit from that property at Crab Crab Cove being in the hands of the Park District. So there's a change of position on my part. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Any other council member comments like madam? I just want to say briefly, I think it's important for for all of us here on council and also our city staff to basically roll up our sleeves and join with the Park East Bay Regional Parks and the people of Alameda and the other nonprofits and community based organizations who want to see Crab Cove be what everyone so desires. So, you know, there's a lot of tough work ahead of us, but, you know, we've got to roll up our sleeves and get going. As one echoed Councilmember De Sung said. And then just add to it a thanks to the vice mayor for bringing this forward. We talked about this all last fall, how it's important that we're all on the same page. So the city and the East Bay Regional Parties took fighting on the same side. I just want to thank the city manager or negotiating and putting together this resolution and as he always does, the most professional of ways. And I'm ready to support this, and I'm glad that we're taking this step as a city. I just want to acknowledge the mayor's role in working through this with both parties. I also wanted to ask whether it would be appropriate at this time to have the city clerk give a brief report. Because at the time of the time I wrote this report, the city clerk was researching the matter of whether there had been a liaison committee in the past, and I let her tell you what she found. I did find that the city council and the Park District held several joint meetings together in the eighties long ago. And there was discussion, other discussions in the moment about the council referring to meetings between the city manager and the mayor meeting with ECB Regional Park District. But there was never the formation of a subcommittee that actually met and had an ongoing relationship, so I could not find anything that supported. That in the. Record. And if I may, Madam Mayor, and therefore, I think it's important at this time to get instruction, to get confirmation or other instruction from the council about the proposal, from the staff in number three, which is. And it's the report says, you know, with council's concurrence, we would propose to speed the creation of a liaison committee with two members from each board to meet quarterly. The other alternative would be to have a joint meeting of the two boards. I don't recommend that their joint board meetings are unwieldy and difficult and usually don't get a whole lot of work done. But that is a potential option, given there was a clear desire at the time this referral came forward to look at the historic relationship. And the historic relationship going back 30 years is that they did meet jointly. Again, it's not the staff's recommendation or recommendation is two from each body and meeting quarterly, and we would propose that to the regional park district this week. So yes. Vice Mayor Yeah, I, I think that the formation of a liaison committee was clear in the referral. It's a method that's been used with the school district here. It's been a method that's been used with AC Transit District to much success. And those the members of that liaison committee would bring the recommendations jointly worked out in in those meetings to the respective bodies for action. And my question is, let's let's get started on this and let's do it now. I'm as is of the essence, I think. And we also part of this of this referral was to help rebuild a good working relationship between the city and the park district, because this is not the only project out there, $6.5 million of East Bay Regional Park money slated for Alameda Point. And I think a liaison committee would be very helpful in sifting through the pieces and bringing a recommendation to the respective boards on how to move forward on spending that money. So I'm in favor of getting this resolution on the board. I agree with the city manager. That joint meeting of the two boards, the council and the East Bay Regional Parks Board is difficult to schedule and unwieldy. And the liaison committee is the shortest distance between two points. Okay. If that's the will of the council, the. If possible, I'd like to address the adopt the resolution first of those one motion and then the second motion as to the liaison committee. Madam Chair, I'd like to move stats recommendation as to the resolution. Second. And then comments. So I'd like to share. I want to thank Robert Doyle, who is the general manager of East Bay Parks, as well as our board member, Doug Seiden, for their continual good work to protect our parks and and offer Crab Cove to our community. And as a school board member, when I was on the school board and worked with these gentlemen and the Park District to bring a resolution in front of the school district, and I'm very proud to have been able to work with East Bay Parks again, to be part of bringing this to our city to to approve. And I agree and I appreciate member Ashcraft stepping up on this and her explanation. She's absolutely right. It is imperative that the East Bay parks have a resolution like this so then they can do their work and have the best possibility of being successful. So thank you very much. And again, so I also want to thank staff for their work on this. So keeping having that stated all those in favor. I oppose motion the resolution as approved unanimously. Thank you. And now in regards to the liaison committee. To make a motion to establish a liaison committee as stated two members from each board and make that overture to East Bay Regional Parks to be seated at the earliest possible convenience. Second. And so I have a question. Would we select members at a future meeting or do we do that at this point? But to come back? Protocol would be you have to wait for them to formally accept. You can bring it back at another meeting. Thank you. It's it'll. You could bring it back. I mean, you could even put it on the agenda. I don't think it requires a report, a written report. You could put it on the agenda for the March three, the March three meeting. And then go into, you know, go and do that as you choose. But that's up to you. And I don't buy most. How you do that is up to you. Not if you. Want to amend your motion by saying it. Well, Matt. Yeah, I was just going to make the suggestion that perhaps because it seems like it's been sufficiently publicly noticed, perhaps the council could actually decide who are two committee members would be. And then certainly pending acceptance of our offer to the the acceptance of the park district's reciprocal agreement, this could then come back perhaps just on the consent calendar for approval. I'm going to defer to the city attorney. I just want to be sure, because there's not an item that says appointment of I just don't want to run afoul of sunshine and it's not going to change how quickly you would be able to get a meeting. Sure. Because we're going to be speaking with them about a meeting date. So this week. So, I mean, not the meeting this week, but we'll be talking with them this week. If we could put it on. And as John was. Speaking, I was reading the heading to see how it was noticed. And I agree, I don't think it's sufficiently noticed to be able to take that action. It was mentioned in the staff report, but I think it's safer to wait. Thank you. The next. Meeting. But we could express an interest in being part of that liaison committee today. So I. Think. Does it matter to Wade? However, Council is a first of all, let's get a motion. Would you like to amend your motion? I'll amend the motion to add that follow the city manager suggestion to attendees. This item for the March 3rd meeting. And until second. And now for a conversation. Any comments? Yes. So I'm Madam City attorney. Acting city attorney. So on the title of the the staff report here. So it's adoption of a resolution supporting a conveyance of the surplus federal property on McKay Avenue. We've done that and approved the work plan. Pursuant to City Council's directions. So the work plan, is it not these four specific actions under discussion. What is the work plan that we're discussing? Well, if I may just I understood the workplan to be the four items that are under discussion. The only issue is whether somebody's looking at the agenda with no one appointment. What's happening? So, I mean, the council the council can take the decision it wants to take, but. Why not cross your ts would be my advice. And there are four points that are specified on staff's report. And it says number three is establish a council, East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee. It does not include language and appoint members. And I think that's the issue being raised. Up to the body. It's. That's fine. It's not that I'm over the anxious that we have to do it tonight. It's just that we sent. We tend to have a lot of agenda items coming back to us. And I was just thinking, if your economy is fine, but maybe it's time to stop discussing this one and move on. Thank you. Perhaps we could bring it back as a consent calendar item as John. All right, so do we. If we want to discuss who would be on, we don't have to vote on that tonight. You want to have the discussion and then it could come back on consent, if that's the council's desire. Were you to bring it back on consent, then you'd have to have the names, which means you'd have to discuss it tonight. Which means it doesn't talk about appointment here. I would. I think you should just have it as a regular agenda item at your next meeting so you can decide. Then going back to appointments. Going back to the motion. The motion is to set up the liaison committee and to agenda is on the third. After hearing back from East Bay regional parks that they're agreeing to it and to sit the committee. Right. Thank you. Remember Ashcroft. Isn't it broader than that? Because it proves the work plan would be all four of those items, right. Or is that just assumed in proving this? We're asking for you to approve the work plan. I mean, just. Okay. Yeah. You approve the work plan is the appointment that I'm advising you not to actually do. Yeah. Okay. And you can't do it by consent. Or you would have almost certainly violated the Brown Act by having a chain meeting to decide whose name was going to be in there to consent to. So you don't want to do that either. Thank you. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor. I oppose none. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now we're on item six be. Introduction of ordinance, approving and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of the lease with complete coach works. The California Corporation for a lease for two years and nine months and a portion of building 24 located at 2301 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.

Approves a rezoning of 5141 Chambers Road from PUD #561 to S-CC-3 in Council District 11. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 5141 Chambers Road from PUD #561 to Suburban Commercial Corridor three stories (S-CC-3) in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-6-14.

DenverCityCouncil_06162014_14-0371

Yes, ma'am. Check one. Yeah. Yes, Madam President. I put Council Bill 371 on the floor to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 371 is open. Mr. Nelly with this report. All right, Stephen, Ali, once again, CPD, this is an official zone map amendment at 5141 North Chambers Road. The proposal is to rezone from 561 to SCC three. This is a legislative rezoning process. This may look familiar to you all. Back in February, you did initiate the motion and adopt a resolution to rezone this site. We you charged or directed CPD to come up with the zone district and process of rezoning as if this was applicant driven. And we have done that. Went to a planning board on April 16th where the planning board unanimously recommended approval to Ludie on the 6th of May. Your council on the 13th. First reading on the 19th. Then we're here tonight. Public outreach notification was sent to Arnaud's. Throughout the process, signs were posted on the property for planning board and for this public hearing. And because this was a legislative rezoning, we did do a direct mailing to all affected property owners. And an example or a sample of that letter is in your packet but went to one of the property owners. So this rezoning is in East Denver in Council District 11, located in the Montebello neighborhood, getting down on to the site. It's on the corner of Gateway Avenue and Chambers Road. It's over 14 acres. There are five property owners on the site. The proposal is to rezone from Denver 561 to seek three SCC three as a suburban commercial corridor, allowing up to three stories zone district. The property 561 was adopted in 2004. That PD replaced PD 370, which was originally adopted in 1993. And the reason for that change in 2004 was just to allow one use which was appropriate on the site and in order to have the site evolve over time. It doesn't seem appropriate to rezone the site every time a new user comes in. Dispute is broken up into multiple sub areas. One of those sub areas allows basically two uses and rezoning to SCC. Three would have a consistent useless across the entire site. So the existing context zoning in the surrounding area is former Chapter 59, R one and R two. Those are low density residential zoned districts. Both have a weaver's and it's surrounded also by. So the building form and scale is consistent with the general and the urban house. Suburban house zoning forms in the zoning code heights range from 1 to 2 stories. These are very large setbacks that you would find in the suburban context. Typically, there's parking between the primary structure and the street. Here's an existing land use map. As you can see, it's commercial and retail on the site, surrounded by single family homes. And then across chambers is more commercial and retail. So top left is a photo of the site. Top right is the first left photos from Gateway Avenue. The photo on the right is from Chambers Road and then the photo on the bottom left is the surrounding single family. So because this is a legislative rezoning, there are only three review criteria. First is consistency with adopted plans for plans that apply to the site complete in 2000. Again, promoting infill development and mixed use communities. Blueprint Denver The land use concept is neighborhood center, and the goal of that land use concept is to serve the many every day shopping service or entertainment needs of one or more neighborhoods. A mix of land uses includes those for convenience, shopping, personal services and restaurants. As you see for FCC three excuse me, will accommodate those uses. This is an area of stability, and a goal is to maintain the character of that of that area, but still accommodating some new development and redevelopment. And SCC three will maintain that character and allow some development, some new development to occur over time. Features Classifications. Gateway is a residential collector and Chambers is a residential arterial. The Gateway Concept Plan was adopted in 1990 and it calls this site out as that should be neighborhood retail parks, open space and a town center. De Montebello Green Valley Ranch neighborhood plan adopted in 1991, also calls this site out as a as the chambers. Place shopping center or town square. So CBD finds rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. CBD finds the development of the subject site under ac3. Zoning will result in the uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations and CBD finds it will further the public health, safety and welfare of the city through the implementation of the city's adaptive plan. So based on the criteria for review, CBD recommends approval. Thank you very much personally. There are no speakers signed up for this bill. Are there questions by counsel? And seeing now, I'm going to close the hearing and ask for comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon, did you want to make comment? I did. Thank you, Madam President. Steve did a great job of explaining this and communities such as Mom Bell, established communities. We do want to bring businesses to those communities and it would help if the zoning was less restrictive. And in this case, this is a perfect example where we can do that, maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, as well as bring possibility for more opportunities in the community. So I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seeing no other comments, madam secretary. Raquel Herndon. I can eat lemon lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. I got robbed by Shepard Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi. Hi, Madam President. I am Councilman Brooks. Councilman Brooks. He got it. Oh, he did it. Oh, good. Sorry. I'm looking at you and not my screen. So sorry. Madam Secretary, close of voting. Announced results. 13, nine, 13 eyes. The zoning is passed. Okay, we move on to the next hearing. Councilman Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 398 on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I put Council Bill 398 on the floor and be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute contracts with various One-Stop Career Center Service Providers, in support of strategies that provide training and employment services to residents, for a total amount not to exceed $2,115,000; and to execute any needed subsequent amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1149

Okay. Thank you. Next item, please, which is number. Is it ten? Yes. Techweez. Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to execute contracts with various One-Stop Career Centers service providers for a total amount not to exceed 2.1 million citywide. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second council member, Richard Wood. Would you like to comment? Councilmember Austin. Thank you. So any member of the public that was to address the Council on item ten. CNN members cast your vote. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Yes. Motion carries. Yeah. Adam 11. Report from Economic and property development. Recommendation to execute contracts with various One-Stop Career Center service providers for a total amount not to exceed 2.5 million citywide.

A RESOLUTION relating to transit funding; declaring The City of Seattle’s resolve to work with King County on a future countywide transit measure, pursue progressive revenue options to replace the sales and use tax, and focus on equity and sustainability concerns.

SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_Res 31960

Will the clerk please read item two into the record? The clerk might be on mute. Thank you. Every part of the City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 31960 relating to transit funding to the City of Seattle resolved to work with King County on a future countywide transit measure. Pursue progressive revenue options to replace the sales and use tax. I focus on equity and sustainability. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to adopt resolution 319860. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded. And I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilman Mosqueda, you're as the prime sponsor of the resolution. You are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. In order to put the resolution as amended in front of us, I'd like to move to amend Resolution 31960 by substituting version four for version three. Second, it's been moved and seconded. Thank you to adopt the substitute councilmember Mosqueda. You are recognized in order to address the substitute. Thank you very much. And again, colleagues, I think this is a very exciting vote that we just took. So the resolution here today is coupled with the important piece of legislation that we just voted on to send to the ballots. It's complex in its nature that we're facing economic crisis at the same time that our lower wage households and most vulnerable families will need government services even more so, given the uncertainty that's created due to COVID and the impacts of Initiative 976 on the economic downturn. The proposal that will be on the ballot will be critical to making sure that people can access needed services. But the resolution calls for us to continue to do more. We know that there is uncertainty in economic recovery in front of us. We know that it is important for us to continue to invest in the resiliency of our community and that we can do so as we couple and work together with our county partners. Particularly, it's important for us as a region to continue to invest in our lowest income communities who are disproportionately people of color and disproportionately impacted by COVID and the economic recession and frankly, the inequitable economy that we had prior to COVID. Transit is a lifeline for all of our communities as we try to promote the use of transit and non car modes of transportation. It's important for us to continue to invest in those systems, especially for making sure that lower income folks and all Seattleites are able to access transit in this downturn in spite of lower ridership over the last several months due to COVID since estimate was approved in 2014. Transit ridership has increased significantly in Seattle. We needed the measure that we just passed, and we also need our county partners to continue investing with us to create a progressive system that will directly benefit our entire region, including low income communities. So the resolution that's been put forward in front of us is really a partnership, a partnership with King County, the jurisdictional partners, community advocates, transit advocates to re regionalize transit spending and create a future that is planning for a county wide transit measure. This resolution works towards replacing regressive sales tax and uses taxes in a more progressive way to fund transit services in Seattle with other progressive revenue sources. We've spent a lot of time over the last few weeks talking about the regressive nature of the tools in our tool belt, and we just talked about it this afternoon. The resolution in front of us puts forward our commitment to making sure that future transit packages are moving towards more progressive nature of transit sources, revenue sources for these important transit needs. And we'll also be raising revenues so that we can have a more robust investment in transit services around our region. The resolution, as I mentioned this morning, follows a letter sent by council president council by King County Council President Councilmember Bellucci and signed by Executive Constantine and King County members Coles and Bousquet and the group who affirmed their intention to engage in conversations around regional transportation benefit district conversations. Part of their letter reads Transit has provided much needed mobility options for essential workers and first responders and has helped to ensure that the people throughout King County have had a way to get to essential services, including grocery stores and medical treatment. Even with transit services significantly reduced in response to COVID, the network has continued to function, currently providing more than 125,000 trips a day. During the last few months of the pandemic closures, for instance, we've seen that the routes with the least reduction in ridership have primarily been from those in South Seattle and South King County. Those communities are using transit still to make sure that they can access key, essential trips to workplaces, to shopping, to childcare and other critical services like health care. I'd like to thank Councilmember Peterson for co-sponsoring this resolution and Mayor Durkin for concurring on it, as our understanding is that they will concur. I also want to thank advocates who spent time on both the legislation that we just passed and specifically the resolution in front of us from transportation choices rooted in rights, MLK, Labor and Puget Sound sage also to Blake Trask from Councilmember Paul Duties Office and my office. Thank you to Sigal, Perry and Aaron House for all of their work, both on the resolution and on the previous STB package that we just approved. Really appreciate your work. Thanks to Councilmember Peterson for helping shepherd us to this. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the resolution? How's Mercyone? Thank you. I will be voting in favor of this resolution for regional funding for Metro because working class people need transit service beyond Seattle's city limits, and especially as the cost of housing has pushed more and more working people, especially working people of color outside city limits. However, it is also important that we not allow the idea of regional funding to be used. As an excuse by any any any body in the city council to be used as an excuse for opposition to local progressive transit funding options. I'm not implying that this resolution is doing that, but I'm just saying that in general, I think we have to be aware of that because I recall when we started fighting for the Amazon Act in our movement, the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce immediately responded by saying the issues of housing and homelessness were regional problems, which we don't disagree with. The regional problems, in fact, this is a nation wide problem. And but they said that therefore the city of Seattle should not tax big business to address them. I support the county or state enacting progressive taxes on big business or super rich to fund transit. In fact, I will warmly welcome any such development, but I don't think that given the past decades trajectory, we can we can just wait for them to do so. We will have to continue fighting to implement progressive developer impact fees. And I certainly in my office will be continuing that to fund transit and to use developer impact these funds transit in 2021. And I urge the ordinary people in the movement that we not be sidetracked by the vain hope that we have heard many, many times of progressive county funding or regional funding in general. There any additional comments? Customer referral, please. Thank you. So just real quickly, I want to just speak as a councilmember who represents a district at the southern edge of Seattle that we've really taken a deep, deep dove in our discussions around the Seattle Transportation Benefit District about how bus service doesn't stop at the city limits and the logic for designing routes doesn't necessarily fit with city boundaries. In fact, some of the bus service that very large numbers of people depend on have more stops outside of the city limits than within the city limits. So it's really important in designing this levy and in future levies that we struggle with how to provide service and what level of service for routes that go across the city limits but that our constituents desperately rely on. And this resolution or regional approach to transit funding is really important for that reason and many others as well. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Any other comments on the resolution? Hearing none at the Clark. Please call the role on the adoption of the substitute Morales. Yes. Macheda? Yes. Petersen. Yes. Sarwan. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas. Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor, nine opposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries the substitute as adopted in version four of the resolution is before the council. Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? Okay. Hearing man, I'd ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended. Morales. Yes. To. Sorry. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Slant? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor and opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution, as amended, is adopted in the chair, will sign it as the clerk sees it. Fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Colleagues, really quickly, if there is no objection, Councilmember Juarez will be excused from the remainder of the July 27 city council meeting. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Suarez is excused from the remainder of today's city council meeting. Thank you so much. I'd now ask that the clerk please read agenda item three into the record.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Redgwick Construction Co. for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements, No. PW 02-20-12 in an Amount, Including Contingency, Not to Exceed $406,471.50; OR In The Alternative to Reject All Bids for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements, No. PW 02-20-12 and Provide Direction for a Lease Amendment with Greenway Golf for a Rent Reduction and Requirement to Fund and Construct the Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot and Sewer Line. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8109

You have two options before you. Regarding the improvement of the parking lot at the temporary golf complex, the city is required to renovate the parking lot for the current lease agreement with Greenway Golf, and we have funds that were allocated to do so last fiscal year. This renovation also includes the striping and improvements for storm drainage and the American Disabilities Act compliance. So the two options before you a one is to execute a contract with Red Hook construction as the lowest responsive bidder for a public bid process in the amount of $368,471.50 plus contingency for a total of just over 406,000. This is within our budget. The second option is to reject all bids and direct staff to negotiate a lease amendment with Greenway Golf. That would include a rent reduction, and in turn, Greenway would be responsible for all costs, financial risks and project management for the parking lot renovation, as well as responsible for installing a required new sewer line that's not currently part of the other project. Greenway Management has requested this expanded scope of work for the parking lot with the higher level of asphalt that would provide a longer, useful life as well as a better surface drainage. Greenway is also proposed to red earth asphalt or turn alternative. That's more environmentally friendly option as it reflects more sunlight than black asphalt and thus reduces the urban heat island effect the ambient temperature. So with that, I'm open. Any questions? And that concludes my report. Thank you. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE Thank you. And let's see that, Madam Clerk, there were, I think she told me there is one submitted is a comment, a written comments. Yes. Yes. Okay. Can you read that or. Yes, I can. All right. Good evening. Honorable bearing city council members and hardworking city staff. My name is Michael Gardiner, and I am here representing the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. I am here to represent the 16,000 men and women of the most highly skilled and highly trained workforce in the construction industry. The diverse workforce from Alameda County, many of whom live in the city of Alameda. They are proud of the work they have done and the work they are going to continue to do in the city and in the county. The jobs have allowed them to live in this county and provide for their families. Oops. Réduit construction. Sorry, it's hard to zoom because it's a picture. Um. It's really hard. Um. Pardon me. Uh. Let's see. Oh, it's just jumping all over the place. Read your construction. Have training agreements with the State of California, DHS, Department of Apprenticeship Standards. These programs are part of the largest privately funded educational system in the U.S.. Individuals enrolled in the many programs that have successfully completed these courses have received the greatest training for construction workers. By completing this program, if individuals have completed, at the minimum, 2500 hours and up to 8000 hours of on the job training and classroom training, this makes them the most productive construction workers. This ensures that the future workforce is trained to build these fine projects. They pride themselves on doing the job right. The first time on time and on budget. By moving forward tonight with regular construction, the City Council will be providing more good job paying jobs with benefits for our members and their families. They were also clear and need to pass for the city of Alameda and the Bay Area to continue adding to the parts needed that make this region one of the most innovative places for ideas on the planet. Thank you. Okay. And that was our only public comment on this item, correct? Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay, so very public comment. We should have staff report, council discussion, comments. Wave at me. Madam Councilor CAFARELLA, I think your hand was upright. Madam Mayor, this has been a long process. I think it started with the past council talking about this parking lot, and I'm satisfied with the policy and willing to move forward . I know that there's additional work that we'll have to do in the future. We're going to have to find those funds, and I'm confident that we'll be able to do that. Okay. So the when you say RFP, I think awarding it and having the next award in the contract to work. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? For the second by Councilmember O'Day Council discussion. CNN. Then we have a conservative suggestion that conservative? Yeah. Um, I think there's some good reasons why we might look at the Greenway approach. And mind you, I haven't talked with anyone at Greenway. Okay, so or indirectly. Um, I, I see this. I think there's some logic in terms of coordinating the parking with the, improving the other infrastructure at the same time. Um, but maybe rather than either not going with reg work or, or, and, and not and not going with Greenway, maybe what we ought to do is take a time out and look at the possibilities of how we might do the parking lot in a coordinated fashion. So in other words. Redo the RFP. So are you offering a substitute motion? Councilmember de Saxe. Uh, I am. And uh, of course, you know, there will be the question of from where would the funds come to pay for the sewer, the, the other infrastructure improvements. Right before we could do a discussion. But we we need to see if there's a second to your motion. Okay. So we have a substitute motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Guess not. Okay. So, um, we, we don't have a second for that motion, so it it's off the table. And we go back to the original motion that was made by oh, my goodness, Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Odie. Okay, it's getting late. Um, any further discussion? Mayor. Councilmember Vela. Yeah. If I can recall back, part of the reason for the timing of doing the parking lot now was some of our previous negotiations and conversations with Greenway about the scheduling of that. And so that's part of our agreement was to complete the repaving of the parking lot by a certain time, which is why we went out to our P, I think there was an attempt to try to coordinate. But, you know, there's additional funds that we need to find and some other things. And I think they want the parking lot repaid. So I'm fine moving forward. I think we have a lot of different infrastructures, infrastructure issues we need to look at all over the city. Okay. Thank you for that. Vice Mayor, does your hand go up or was it just now? Okay. Any further discussion from council? Okay, ma'am, we have a roll call vote count. Uh, no. Next week. I. Photo by. Bella. Hi there. Is the Ashcroft high that carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you. Okay, Counsel. With that, we have completed the items, the business items that we agreed to complete today. And the items nine and ten will be continued to a special meeting at 701. And there's one other item that we do need to agree to continue, and that is the evaluation of the city attorney. So what I would suggest, if you're amenable, is we have a closed session happening before the special meeting. And I would just add this as a second closed session item. Councilmember Bell is not in her head. Okay. Councilmember Avella, a second ballot. That's in motion. Okay. Well, I. The mayor doesn't usually make motions. Would you like to make it? I'll make a motion that we continue the city attorney's evaluation to the closed. Session. On 45 or whatever it is or whatever time. And Vice Mayor, you had your hand up. I was just going to say at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you. And Councilor Brody, I say your hand up. I was just pointing to Mr. Shadow at his end. Mr. Chan? Yes. Does that work for you? Yes. Madam Chair. Just like the last time when we continued. So we cannot continue into a special meeting because that's a separate closed session. But you can do it. I think. 559 But because that one started so far as the continuation of this special meeting that we're working. Thank you. So what he said as the motion and seconded. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. It's for the discussion. Okay. Maybe we have a counselor. So are we hearing based public comments on item eight still? Yeah. Yeah, we're gonna, um. I just wanted to before we finish our business items, we're, we will hear the city manager communication and then we have some oral communications, and then we're still trying to get out of here before midnight. Yes. Okay. But we need to do a roll call vote. Any further discussion on this item? Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please? Council members based on. Yes. Odie. Um, not quite. Sorry, I also. Odie. Hi, Bella. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft high, that count carries by five eyes. All right. Thank you. So then we moved to, I don't know, seven city manager communications. Mr. Leavitt. You just have to admit. There we go. Of course, Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. I'm just going to give a brief say Madripoor. And it's actually going to be to address a little bit about the investigation and just to clear clear up or at least try to clarify a couple of things.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10353 East Mississippi Avenue in Windsor. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from B-1 with Conditions to S-MX-3 (business district in the former chapter 59 code to suburban mixed-use), located at 10353 East Mississippi Avenue in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 26.6%, respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0404

Council Member Flynn Will you please put Council Bill four or four on the floor for final passage? Yes, I will think about present. I move the council bill 20 1-20404 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 404 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have it here. Yes. Hello? Can you hear me all right? Mm hmm. All right. I will pull up. My presentation. All right. Thank you very much. I'm Ellis TV, and I am here to present the proposed rezoning at 1035 three East Mississippi Avenue. All right. So we are in Council District five in the Windsor neighborhood. The subject property is on Mississippi Avenue between Geneva and Havana, just north of Arapahoe County. It's a little less than two acres and has a vacant drive thru ATM. The proposed rezoning is to annex three, so the suburban neighborhood contact's mixed use up to three stories and that is to facilitate redevelopment of the site as an x three allows a mix of users including light automobile services with limitations. So before we jump into existing context, I want to touch on a little background on rezoning requests on this site. So this application is the third rezoning application that CPD has received on this site. The first was in 2018. At that time, the previous version of Blueprint was the adopted plan. Guidance Staff recommended approval and planning board recommended denial. The applicant withdrew. The second was in 2019. This time, under the current version of Blueprint, staff, recommended approval and planning board had a split vote of 3 to 3, meaning that the board made no recommendation. The applicant withdrew shortly before the city council hearing. After withdrawing that second time, the applicant, the property owner and the neighbors began mediation, which I'll touch on again later in this presentation. So the current zoning is B one with a condition which I'll talk about on the next slide. Be one is a former Chapter 59 Limited Office district intended to form a transition between more intense commercial and lower intensity residential land uses. Other than banking and financial services, retail uses are not permitted. It's adjacent to Sue I and Max five and then Arapahoe County to the south. So the condition of the zoning is to adhere to the 1993 site plan, which allows for eight drive thru ATM stalls surrounded by surface parking and landscaping. So that means that without a rezoning on this site, the only allowed use is the auto oriented ATM service that is no longer needed by the adjacent bank and therefore vacant . So the land use map here says commercial. But as I just said, it is vacant and it's adjacent to a single unit, residential and commercial uses. So the third image down outlined in red shows the subject property on Mississippi Avenue. And the other three images are some residential and commercial buildings nearby. The Planning Board voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval of this rezoning on April seven. So the applicant, the property owner and the neighbors were in mediation from May 2020 through March 2021. While all parties were able to come to agreement on almost all issues, they were not able to reach agreement on operating hours. This impasse in the discussion effectively ended the mediation with no agreement in place, and the mediation summary is included as an attachment to the staff report. So on the application is before you. Today we received 16 letters to and support from Holland and Hart attorneys representing Belco Credit Union and 14 letters in opposition to from attorneys representing the neighborhood organization and the remaining 12 from neighboring residents. We also received a letter from the Range View Neighborhood Association with 97 signatures in opposition to the rezoning and the proposed redevelopment, stating that the request is not consistent with adopted plans and the site should become residential. These issues raised focus on the impact of on the residential character of the surrounding area traffic and environmental and health , concern over a gas station and a convenience store next to a residential area. We know that it is hard to separate the rezoning from a potential project, but that's exactly what our analysis calls for. We're not looking at a specific development proposal. We're looking at whether the proposed zone district meets the review criteria. So as the staff report detailed, our analysis found that the proposed max three zone district is consistent with the review criteria as a mixed tourism mixed use district that is intended to provide a transition to lower intensity uses such as single unit, residential traffic and environmental issues are addressed through different processes separate from rezoning. We also heard concerns over questions whether there were other zoned districts that would be more appropriate on the site. But as part of the official rezoning application, staff evaluate only the zone district that an applicant lists on their application. Okay, so now we can jump into the review criteria. So we have just the two citywide plans to to review in this location. So the proposed map amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and detailed in the staff report. In Blueprint 2019. The future neighborhood context is Suburban, which has the most varied development in Denver's neighborhoods. It is largely single unit, but also higher intensity residential and then commercial development focused along main corridors and centers bordering these residential areas. The future place of this area is called Community Corridor, which typically provides some mix of office, commercial and residential in heights of generally up to five stories. Mississippi Avenue is a residential arterial, so arterials are designed for the highest amount of three movement blueprint lists, small retail nodes and other similar uses as appropriate uses adjacent to residential arterials. According to the Blueprint Growth Strategy, the site is within community centers and corridors. These areas are anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth in 20% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to S-Max three will focus low scale, mixed use growth in a community corridor in an appropriate context, which blueprint identifies as an AI done as a intended location for this kind of growth. Blueprint also has policy language around rezoning properties from the former Chapter 59 zoning code and out of custom zoning such as the site plan specific condition on the subject property. Therefore, staff found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. Their proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations, and it furthers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. The current zoning allows only a drive thru ATM and proposed ATM. X-ray facilitates increased density in a variety of building forms. This analysis considers the proposed as an three district not a specific development proposal. That said, we have heard residents concerned about the location of gas tanks as permitted by some x three. Those tanks are regulated by the Department of Public Health and Environment and the Fire Department rules to ensure public safety. This rezoning would bring the property out of a former Chapter 59 zoning into the Denver zoning code. And such a change is listed in the zoning code as an appropriate, justifying circumstance. Be requested secretary is consistent with your neighborhood contacts description the under strict purpose and intent. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval. Thank you and I will stop sharing my screen, but I am happy to reshare later on if it would be helpful to have some visual. But first I have to get my computer to let me do that. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Tonight, counsel has received six written comments on Council Bill 404. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and six submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submitted written comments. Do members do any members need more time to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? Scene one. Council Secretary, please let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 404 has been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. And this evening on Council Bill 21, Dash 404, it looks like we have 19 folks signed up to speak this evening, and so we will go ahead and get started here. And our first speaker is Bethany Gravel. Hello. I'm here on behalf of Belco credit union. I am available for questions. All right. Thank you, Bethany. Our next speaker this evening is Jim Irwin Sobotka. Same as Bethany. I'm here on the Belco team and available for questions as well. All right. Very good. Thank you, Jim. Our next speaker is David or Mancini. Or I'll let you go ahead and correct me, David, on your last name spelling. Your last name pronunciation. You can go ahead with your comments, David. All right. We'll get David into the queue here. Call them on the phone. It seems like. There you go, David. I also. Go ahead. With your phone. Yes, my name. My name is David Maroney, and when I signed up, I also hit. The box that I'm available to answer questions for the Belco team. And the speaker for us is actually Doug Kirby with Belco. If he should be on your list. Okay. All right. Yep, he is. Thank you, David. All right. Our next speaker this evening is Jeff Wieder. I'm going to stay with that same trend. I'm with Delko here to answer any. Questions you may have. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Terrell. Coral. Thank you. This is Terrell Gural. I'm the attorney for BALCO here. Ready to answer questions. All right. Thank you for being here with us. The next speaker is Doug Kirby. If you want to. Go ahead, Doug. Oh, there you go. There we go. Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm. We can. We can. Just. Good evening. I'm Doug Kirby, vice. President, business, technology and Administration at Belco Credit Union. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. Belco was founded in Denver in 1936. Today we have over 345,000 members with the majority living and working in the Denver metro area. Giving back to our community is top priority for Belco, which is showcased through our partnerships with the Latino Leadership Institute, the Denver Art Museum and Denver St Patrick's Day Parade. Our property of 10353 Mississippi has sat unused for the past five years because our current zoning only allows us to build and operate a 24 hour, eight lane drive thru banking facility, which is now an obsolete use for the site. Without rezoning, this location would remain unused and unproductive. Our application strictly adhere to the direction of Blueprint Denver 2019 and the Comprehensive Plan 2040, and we have the support. Of planning, board. And city staff. In pursuing estimates three zoning. We're simply asking for the same zoning regulation and opportunity afforded other commercial properties across the city. We've been engaged in. Mediation with the range. Of your community for over a year, and we're successful in finding numerous areas of agreement. For example, the neighborhood asked and we agreed that there be no access to the site from Geneva. The neighborhood asked, and we also agreed to use neutral colors on the building exterior facing north and west neighborhood, asked for substantial and important buffers for the neighboring properties. We agreed to maintain 50% of the property as landscaped open space. We agreed to plant mature trees, install landscaping berms and screening walls. And we committed to maintain our high standards for site site maintenance and landscaping. After Planning Board vote to recommend approval of the application before you tonight at the recommendation of Planning, board members Belko and Murphy, USA reach back out to arrange you. In an earnest effort to find agreement on hours of Operation Range, you had requested operating hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., which Murphy could not commit to. However, Murphy did agree. To greatly shorten. Their original request to 4 a.m. to 1 p.m. by 3 hours per day, now offering 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.. Similar to various businesses. Operating within. This community. Please know that Belco is also a neighbor to this site. We've been in business at this location for over 25 years. We chose to partner with Murphy because of their outstanding record of safety and security. Like Belco, they're committed to giving back to our community through their partnerships with Boys and Girls Club and United Way . We ask for your fair consideration of this rezoning request on the merits of compliance with all plan guidance consistent with six lane are through your corridor staff and planning board recommendations for approval. I sincerely thank you for this time this evening. Thank you, Doug. Our next speaker this evening is Lawless Jackson. And if I mispronounce your first name, go ahead and correct me. It's okay. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. My name is Lawless, A.C. Jackson, and I'm here with my husband, James Allen Jackson. We live at 920 South Elmira Street in Denver, Colorado, 80247. We live I mean, we're against the rezoning request for 21 404 before you this evening because we felt this would not be the best and highest use of the property. It would, number one, it would adversely affect the property values it immediately abutting the property in our name and our neighborhood. Number two, we suspect there to be potential for harm to the water supply in our area. We, as do many of the neighbors, in fact, have wells which we rely on for our domestic water and irrigation use. I do not want to see any increases in toxins in the water table in this area. Number three, there's no need for an additional gas station at the site as there are at least three within one block radius. And we already have a new Murphy station, in fact, at Parker and Iliff, which is perfect. It does not abut any residential properties. Number four added exhaust fumes will generate in such a concentrated location, such as ours will adversely impact the quality of the air we breathe and may lead to increased disease and sickness due to carcinogens in our air. Additional emissions in our air are not what we need. The intersection of Mississippi Avenue and Havana expr extremely congested with traffic and we simply do not need high traffic business at this location. The traffic levels would increase unnecessarily, leading to increased speed through our neighborhood, which is already horrendous. There are plenty of locations where a new gas station can be built. This is not one of them. I do also want to speak directly to the rezoning request. I know that this is a rezoning request, but we but we believe that if this rezoning request is approved, then it opens the door for the intended purpose. Of the sale from. Belco to Murphys of a gas station. And so that's what we are here to prevent. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is an architect. And please, Aaron. Hi there. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. My name is Aaron Atkinson. I represent the Range View Estates Association, which is a registered R.A. directly adjacent to this particular property. I just wanted to touch on a few of the points that I made in my correspondence, which you sent in on behalf of the association who objects to this particular application and urges the Council to deny it. The reason is that the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence that this, should the use of this parcel, should be dramatically increased in intensity and the two tenants from the zoning code that should be particularly noteworthy to council or division 3.3 of the different zoning code, which states that the development application must improve the compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The second is Article three that states stating that the development application should improve the transition from commercial to residential. Given what you have seen in the protest petition and you will hear in the testimony tonight, this these two elements have been failed by the application. Regarding compatibility. The existing use is simply a more compatible use given the situation in the location of this parcel. This parcel abuts range view. Single user homes on two sides. Which means that it is essentially the last gate between the more intense uses at Mississippi and Alabama to the very residential single user homes to the west of this parcel. So to allow this the zoning of this particular parcel to be dramatically increased in intensity to S-Max three is incompatible with those residential uses directly to the West. The fact is that to change from be one with conditions as it had been used by belco to a a use that can be 24 hours in nature is simply too much on this adjacent neighborhood and it does not improve the transition between those two uses. In fact, it defeats it. At this point, you would only highlight the stark differences between the highly intense commercial uses of the East Side with the highly residential uses to the West. And it would serve it would be a disservice to that community greatly. The existing application has to show they meet the Blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan and it has failed that both the authenticity of neighborhoods point regarding the modes of transportation as well as the climate aspects of the comprehensive planning blueprint. Denver The applicant can't simply rely on the fact that this was governed by Chapter 59. To succeed, they have to prove that they meet these other criteria, but they fail to do so. So on behalf of my client ranch, you request that you deny this application. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is James Jackson. Okay. This is James Jackson. I'm at 920 South Elmira Street. I listen to Aaron and I listen to my wife and they pretty much made my same point. So I don't think I need to add anything to it. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. Have a good day. All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Appreciate it. Our next speaker this evening is Peggy Stall. Can you hear me? Hello. You can go ahead. Taking. Okay. I'd just like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. And, um, I live directly behind this area where they want to rezone it to fmx3. And I have a few reasons why. I'm a nurse. I work at night. And for this a busy of an area. Because Murphy Gas Station wants to buy purchases. Gas stations are known for not being quiet and we have to sleep during the day, which leads to challenges on the sound. And the noise of a gas station would be very make it very difficult to sleeping. Another thing that really bothers me about having a gas station in my backyard, basically, is the odors that it would bring. And there's nothing you can do that can take the stench away like trees or a fence or a wall or anything. The stench of the gas station is bad, and Geneva Street is not set up for extra traffic. That would come with busy business. Such as a gas station or the S-Max three. There's no continuous sidewalk on this street and we see many people walking and riding bikes in which heavy traffic would put these people at risk for accidents. And I urge you to vote against this at and sorry, x three. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Peggy. Our next speaker this evening is Maria AusLink. Go ahead. My name's Mia. My name's Maria Aisling. I live on Geneva Street. My husband built our home in 1986. I'm in Aurora, but where the sidewalk. Ends. In front of my house starts Denver. This proposed gas station will literally be in people in my neighbor's backyards. We have residents. From Windsor Gardens. That come through on in. Wheelchairs, scooters, bicycles and walking to. Pick up their groceries from King Soopers. We have no sidewalks continuing on Geneva, and it would put their lives at risk. We lost a senior citizen earlier this year on Havana and exposition. He was on a bicycle. And yeah, there's no. No sidewalks past my house. That's where it stops. This would put them at risk because. This will bring more vehicle. Traffic to our neighborhood. Please, if you wouldn't put a gas station in your backyard. Please don't put one in our. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Pamela EADS. We're going to have to have you go ahead and meet yourself, Pamela. All right. There you go. Can you hear me now? Yeah, we can. Go ahead. Thanks, Pamela. Thank you. My name is Pamela EADS, and I live in a wonderful, unique and diverse neighborhood called Range View States, which encompasses both Denver and Aurora. I want to let you know that I am not against development and I would support a compatible use for this property. However, this particular s-max rezoning and gas station use is not a compatible use next to a neighborhood which this property abuts on two sides. Nor does it promote our quality of life in any way. I do not understand why this business use has been repeatedly suggested for this property. This is the third time we've been faced with this type of development, which would not be something anyone would deem a desirable neighbor. I urge you to vote as if you're living right next door to this property. Vote no on this particular development and rezoning change. There must be a better use so we can all figure out for this redevelopment one that would be beneficial for both business and residents. Please keep range view a place where people want to live and enjoy their lives. This incredible neighborhood is one of the most unique places in Denver. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this issue, which is very important to your neighbors. Thank you. Our next speaker is Keith Singer. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Thank you. Cohen Murphy In the process, I'm the vice president of the R.A. I also live at 923 South Geneva Street and the range view neighborhood in the Aurora side. Perfectly clear we are not opposed or ever have been opposed to development. That's never been the issue with us. We've had a great relationship with Murphy and all we're looking for is something that would act as a transition. Why they put the bank on the corner, which is where the gas station should go and why we have the busy thing by the residents. I don't know. It doesn't matter. That's the way it is. I'm going to go off roading here and I may be a little bit weird in talking and I apologize, but my mother died last night and I'm here. But one of the things that happened in the process of that was over the last six months, we wanted to keep my mom at home. Why? Quality of life. What did we do? We had to fight with hospice. We had to fight with nurses. We had to fight with a bunch of people in order to have quality of life. And what does that mean? That means being at home. That means being able to. Celebrate the moments that you have every day, whether it's barbecues, kids playing and so forth. And. Putting a gas station next to your house. I sent pictures over and I hope you've got them. We're talking of there's a house. That their backyard is 15 feet from the property. Line. That's not quality of life. And quite frankly. Tonight is what you're voting on is our quality of life. Yeah. There's a statement and I'm going to say it's a quote. Nobody likes to or wants to live next to a gas station. Now, you would expect us to say that. The truth is, it came from your board, your planning board member during taken from the transcripts of the public hearing. The same board member continues. Maybe we should take a hard look at our zoning districts and how they defined areas like that. Another board member said, quote, There's no part of me that would want to see a gas station in this location, unquote. And continues with, quote, I really hope that that that there will be a different use on the site period. Another board member also said in the same meeting and these are from the transcripts. Does there need to be a change to the zone district's question mark? We think there does. This is not right. You shouldn't have to do this. We should be able to do something that works for everyone and we're willing and, you know, stepping up, we will work with Belco to come up with something that works. Okay. Our future is in your hands. Vote like you live here. Vote like your family lives here. Vote for quality of life. Vote no. And give us an opportunity to do something that is much better for all parties. Thank you. Thank you, Keith. Our next speaker this evening is Joni Larimer. Hello. My name is Johnny Lerma. I live at. 1010 South Geneva Street. I am right behind the bank. One thing I. Didn't like about the. Proposal was the the pictures. If they took accurate pictures for the proposal, you would have seen my trampoline and playground in the backyard there right next to the fence, because it's a safe place right now. And as a good neighbor. I look out for my neighbors, kids. When they come over and play, which happens multiple times a week. And I don't feel that. Close actually caring for the children in our community because they want to do this X and x three. And really, there is. The gas station and you could. Talk about it being other things that there is the. Gas station and that's their goal. If it was maybe a five story building, I would say the same thing. I appreciate what he was. Saying about the quality of life. I want my son to be able to play. Without worries of having someone come over to this fence and talk to him. Right now we know like the bank is pretty secure their security there. I'm not worried about my child safety right now and I don't want to have to be. And then just it. Has been touched on. Our neighborhood doesn't have continuous sidewalks. I know my son will go out, will go out bike riding and stuff and take walks or just really walk just really walk on the street and are relying on people's goodness in their driving. But when you bring in like other people. From not in the neighborhood. That won't be the case. And so it's really a safety issue, too, about bringing people about safety of this poor man dying. So that is all I have to say. All right. Thank you, Johnny. Our next speaker this evening is William Friedman. Hi. Can everybody hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. All right, great. So I believe I'm the. Newest member in the neighborhood. I actually purchased our. Home at 1051 South Geneva on April 15th of this. Year and. Moved in on May 15th of. This year. Shortly thereafter, a one of my neighbors came to our. Door and told me, you. Know, the lot directly across Geneva from your property, across your front lawn, there are plans to turn it into three zone it. And they had insight that I did not have previously. They're planning on putting in a gas station in there. Had we known that that was the plan, we would have significantly offered a different amount of money. We would have significantly looked at the area a little bit more. And I you know, I'm speaking incredibly informally. I was not as prepared as everyone else. I would like to echo what. Keith Singer said. What the Jacksons said. And I would just like to read. A couple of statistics I did in one hour of research about the health. Concerns. Of living within 500 feet of a gas station. Mind you, I'd live less than 50 feet from gas station. I'm sitting in my home office right now. Which overlooks my front lawn. There's the street, and then there's the lot. There's nothing in the way right now. If there is a gas station across the street, my family has an eight times increased risk of developing cancer. According to the Colorado School of Public Health, a study done in 2018, there's ten times the amount of benzene is released compared to previous estimates. That was. These estimates were used to create EPA guidelines. On where gas stations can. Be. Let's see. And I'm sorry if I'm kind of rambling. I was not as. Prepared as everyone else. Leaking fuel tanks. Incredibly common. And the venting of these fuel tanks happens at night. When I'm at home, my fiancee is at home. We would be breathing this air. It is incredibly, incredibly problematic to our health. Gosh, I just you know, I'm I'm incredibly concerned about the opportunity or the potential of a gas station going in directly across the street from my first home that we bought together. I urge you and beg you to really consider and vote as though you live in this neighborhood because it is you know, our lives are at risk and we're not against development, as everybody said. I would love for there to be stores, shops, whatever over there. Just not something that impacts my health negatively. Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you. Our next speaker is Don Stal. We'll have you. Go ahead and McDonald. There you go. Ahead. Yes, I'm at 1010 South Geneva Street. We live right next to the proposal that they want that they want to put the gas station in. When we bought this property, it was fine. It was great because they used it for free for the bank. This change that they are proposing is a dramatic change from what it would have been when we moved here. It was quiet. And there's no way that they that a gas station or anything like that would be the type that you would want to live by, or that is something that's right by your house. We already have a gas station in our little community here just down the block. That was the and and we have you would have two of them now within a quarter mile of each other in the same subdivision. If you look around the town of Aurora and Denver, you just don't see that it's hard to find a gas station that is by a community like that. The only one I know of is here one way down on Cherry Street and then over by Colfax. I see another one. It seems like that that Belco would be better served to look at other zoning proposals or to add a different venue to to to make it so that there's some other use of that property than a gas station. And we've urged them for three years now look for something else. Use your energy to look for another type of development from this. And they're stuck on this gas station. And I don't see why they cannot change and go say no, let's use this for something that would be more in line, that you wouldn't have these petitions and other people who would who are saying, no, we do not want this. And so I urge you, this is not right that we'd have such a dramatic change right next to it. I could smell I'd be able to smell the fumes from that gas station in my yard. If there were fumes there, I'd smell. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Daniel Grossman. I would. Huh? And I'll go ahead. And, Daniel, you'll have to. A new place. Good evening, counsel Daniel Brotman. I live at 1001 South Geneva Street, immediately adjacent to the proposed gas station. Again, as I mentioned earlier, your own planning board said, we don't want to look behind a gas station. No one does, and they shouldn't have to. And we are talking about a gas station for a very specific reason. Estimates three allows fast food restaurants and they allow the proposed gas station. It hits close to four years ago, Belco came to the neighborhood with the idea of a gas station with a fast food drive through. The neighborhood was adamant in saying, No, we don't want that. You heard earlier staff talking about how many times this has come to planning. The planning board and was rejected prior to this. They finally got past that. It was rejected prior to this at at the council's subcommittee level. Somehow it got through this time and now we're to cancel council and council needs to send a firm message of no a gas station if it's allowed, underestimates it. Three So it's fast food. Those are not appropriate uses for the residential neighborhoods to the west and to the north of this property. So on two sides you have residences. This is the corner of our neighborhood and it's just not appropriate. There was a conversation about immediate the failed mediation. And I have to tell you that what that was about was a whitewash on what was going on at all points. We have ask that, you know, we we maintain the burning. We maintain the landscaping. We don't want access onto the residential street, which is Geneva. Those are all conditions of B1, B1 as great. And the conditions that are on the current zoning takes care of the residents through the B1 and the conditions. Now they said those are great. We would have agreed to those. They haven't agreed to those. That's not before you tonight. That's not what's before this board. What's before this board is zoning that could back up to a six foot privacy fence. They can take out the vermin. They can take out the landscaping. They can put through an access to Geneva over the current Denver public school bus stop. All of those are being reserved. That's inappropriate. Again, I submitted a written piece on. They don't meet the conditions. Clearly, they don't meet health, safety and welfare. That is the primary condition that they don't meet again. The request is denied this and do more than deny. Tell the tell BALCO. Come to the table. Talk about real zoning. That should be allowed. Thank you, Daniel. Time. We have a lot of. All right. Our next speaker our last speaker this evening on this topic is Roger Miller. Oh. Oh, oh. Roger, I. Hi. Around here. I think something's going on with your audio, perhaps. No. We were having trouble hearing you. Okay. We're having some trouble. Hearing from Roger. So we'll go ahead and. Oh, there you go. Roger, are you there? I'm. I'm here. Are you there? Very like they are. Yes. I don't know what exactly happened there, but go ahead, please. Well, thanks. I just wanted to address you on the rezoning issue, as other people have talked about from being one to X three. I'm the current president of the Range, the R.A., and I've been in that position since before Belco proposed the first rezoning several years ago, and I kind of want to reaffirm some of that historical perspective. The parcel was originally residential and approved would be one of the limitations, so that business could be inserted with a very minimal impact to the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood at large. That first request from a Dallas developer that wanted to have a 24 hour fast food restaurant as part of the property. We met with them and said that we would greatly oppose their plan because the R.A. felt that any 24 hour operation abutting single family homes was just inappropriate. But they moved forward to the planning board phase and it was approved. However, as you heard earlier from LRO, a short time after that, they pulled the application and didn't pursue that. The further rezoning efforts the second time was again with this developer for a multi pump gas station convenience store and a separate drive thru coffee shop. They were looking for extended hours that were not appropriate for the proximity for our residents. Again, only a few feet would separate the businesses from working families, some with small children. Once again, the plan went to the planning board and was forwarded, but this time with a tie vote 3 to 3. Yet another zoning request was pulled and we thought this seller finally saw that the proper zoning was not going to be smacked through. Several months passed and we were informed that the gas station rezoning was back on the table, but this time without the separate drive thru coffee operation. Even though the small outbuilding was not going to be there, we still believe that any zoning should not include a 24 hour operation, which estimates 3 hours. A good neighbor like Belco shouldn't continue to try and force this issue over several years. We have a gas station and convenience store, as we mentioned earlier, on our east boundary, thanks to the city of Aurora. We were told we would not see negative impacts, but how wrong they were. Increased traffic, including multiple large delivery trucks, are daily occurrences through the neighborhood. It is Force One neighbor immediately next to it to uproot his family and move after several years. He said it was just way too noisy with all the cars and could not get restful sleep and could not enjoy his yard outside. Please, I implore you, don't be like Aurora. Don't force us to have another 24 hour operation across the back fence from our homes. We're not opposed to commercial development, but make it an appropriate zone. Not so much story as they suggested. Would you like to have a 24 hour operation outside your back yard? We don't either. Please help. Us. That's the time we have available. Thank you for joining us this evening. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of council. On Council Bill 404. Council member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. So before I get started, I also just quickly want to send my condolences to Mr. Singer on the loss of his mother. Our thoughts are with you and your family during this time. And we really appreciate your willingness to be here tonight to give testimony anyway. So a couple of questions or I guess probably start with for Ella. You is a protected district. So what is that? What? What exactly does that mean? Oh, yes. Few the adjacent single unit residential districts are protected districts. So that means that a mixed use district, like a smack three being adjacent to those, has some slightly more restrictive building form standards around that. Um, so I can, I can pull up the exact specifics, but I think in the case of us, Annex three, the side and rear set backs are a little bit higher when that property is adjacent to a protected district. Okay. So in this example, the adjacent properties are, as you see, I think there's a. Yeah. Yeah. And those are all a few are protected district. So so the the proposed rezoning would have different standards. It would have higher setbacks on the sides that were abutting those few properties than it would on the Belco side, which is not a protected district. Okay. But so the. You mean the Belco side that is currently the bank still. Correct. So what if it's a little it's the protected districts are the adjacent districts, but the impact is on the the proposed rezoning site. So the they would have the higher setbacks on the sides that face the two protected districts, and that wouldn't apply on the side that faces the Belco side because the Belco site is at that next five. Okay. Got it. So then it's safe to say that there's a in order to have mixed use there, there needs to be a transition. And we heard a couple of people talk about that in their testimony. Is that is that right? Um, yeah. I mean, the transition is that kind of situation is contemplated by the zoning code. But in its inclusion of things like protected district setbacks, where it says you have to be farther away from something because it is a low density residential. Okay. Got it. So what were the other potential zoned districts that were appropriate? I know that there was some testimony. I know you said CPD only looks at the the zone district that is applied for, which is obviously understandable. But there were a couple of other zone districts that have been considered. This has come through before. So what what were those other zone districts and why did they not work out? Well, I think it's a hard, hard question to answer if we say considered. But I would want to take that over to the applicant team just because I actually went through all the notes for all the pre APS and all you know, for all of the times that we've seen this case. And each time the conversation was at least what I could find detailed in the record was already landed on the slate. So I'm not sure whether or not the property owner really considered other zone districts, and I just don't want to speak for them because those were conversations had without me from CPD side. I think just I mean what we do is look through the, you know, the plan guidance is we kind of the the biggest tells you point in the right direction. So we would look through what the language of community corridor in the suburban district what what ten zone districts align with that. And there would probably be other annex districts that you know, there are the two to a2x, there are some other options there that I think and again, having as you as you noted, not having done that analysis here, because that's not what the application was. But I think it's probably likely that you could make an argument that some of those other ones are are consistent as well. One, just to share one kind of conversation around this, that planning board and planning board member to ask like would six five meet the plan direction? And it does say up to five storeys. But we also are looking at context. So I think there are as with many, many sites in Denver, there isn't just one district that makes sense. But in terms of what was contemplated and what worked and didn't work, I would want to defer to the applicant and not not speak for them on that one. Okay. Does the applicant want to jump. In here and respond? We can go ahead. And I believe we need to get Jim Irwin back in. So there we go. Sabella. Go ahead, Jim. Or Doug, whichever wants to respond. I'll have Jim and I can speak. Okay. Jim, did you want to respond to Councilwoman Sawyer's question? Sure I can start it. Just let me rejoined. I came in right when you were talking. Sorry to cut you off there, but yet. Councilman Sawyer. So when you look at when we were looking at the as you know, the suburban zone districts, you know, we really kind of landed on and obviously the residential ones out the window. And so we're looking at the, you know, the commercial ones here. So we have the SCC, which is the commercial corridor and the S-MAX. And then also there's the M.S., which is the main street. So, you know, the main street one, we we didn't feel like we met the intent and the purpose of those of of that zoned district. So then it kind of boiled down to looking at the snacks in the SCC zoned districts. And so that commercial corridor district, you know, it's very it has much less restrictive standards as far as setbacks, you know, building flexibility in the building circulation, the parking lot layout, the building form. And so the most restrictive suburban zoned district ended up being s-max. And then when we looked at the transition with the properties along Havana there, there S-Max five, and then we kind of stepped down in building height and went to the S-Max three and then you get into the residential. So if you look at the residential, the SS, you next steps in the S-Max three building heights, they're very close to within a I believe about five feet apart from each other. And so we felt that the step down from the S-Max five to the SS, you know, it landed on the estimates three was the most restrictive zone restrictive that's at least. Okay. Great. And I think maybe back to a question for Ella then, is if this is some x three, the surrounding ones are some x five in blueprint s and x three is not appropriate for arterials, right? Um, I think the language around, um, let me just pull up the, um, the language around what is appropriate along arterials. Um, that section doesn't, it doesn't give specific guidance on the street type, doesn't give specific guidance on building heights because it is meant to go hand in hand with the future place type, which does. So it's kind of looking at a combination of the two, but it does talk about, um, arterial streets, um, tend to support a higher level of adjacent development intensity than collector or local streets and that, that this particular type. Um, let's see. Sorry, I'm trying to pick out the, the right language here that can help. Uh, yeah, it says typically contains commercial uses, including shopping centers, auto services and offices. So, um, yeah, I think that the S-Max three is one of the zone districts that we found to be appropriate around in arterial, in this location. Okay, great. Really appreciate that clarification. Um, I know that in other rezonings where we've had some, some a lot of contention, sometimes the property owner has gone to host and executed an agreement for affordable housing, a commitment for affordable housing on that land, even if affordable housing is not meant to be built there. Did that happen in this situation? That did it. And I honestly, I'm trying to remember the timeline of when that became kind of standard this this pre up might have been before that and that is that is voluntary and yeah, so I, I can't remember because I actually didn't do the pre-op for this one, but I'm not sure if that came up. But that is the applicant's choice. Always. It's always voluntary. Okay. Yeah, absolutely voluntary. I was just curious whether it had happened here or not. And then finally, what what issues caused the mediation to fail? I know that there was the talk of the hours of operation. Were there other things or was that really kind of the sticking point? So my understanding and I am limited to the the summary that's in the staff guide, you know, that it was important. That was, um, it was important for me to stay neutral and for that to stay neutral. So I was not part of those conversations. But I think there were a lot of very difficult topics that that were slowly worked through over time. So I think there was a lot of there was a lot of challenge, but my understanding was that the rest of them were eventually worked through. And there was some agreement and it was in writing, but then it was the hours of operation that they just finally, after, you know, ten months of actively, officially in mediation, were able to reach an agreement on it. Okay. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next step, we have Councilmember Sandoval. And I am pregnant and can give you different. Can I go in December? Yes, we can. Go ahead and come back to you. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Ella, and everyone who is here tonight. This is a great example of why customized zoning is a problem. I think if I recall, this is from 1994 and our city has changed a lot since then. I have some questions for Nate Lucero, who is the city attorney, who is our zoning expert. Nate, are you here tonight? We can bring Nate up into the queue here. Okay. There you go. Councilwoman Black, you can. Nate's in the queue. Go ahead with your pick. Nate. Nate, I have a few questions for you, so I think every person who is opposed to this zoning is actually opposed to a gas station. And either almost everyone or everyone who's opposed to it mentioned that someone on the planning board said that no one wants to live next to a gas station. So can you please remind us what Planning Board's role is? And do they evaluate the same criteria as Council? Good afternoon. Members of Council Nate Research Assistant City Attorney. Councilwoman Black, thank you for the question. So the Planning Board's role is to evaluate and make a recommendation on these rezoning applications. The recommendation to this body, whether or not to approve or deny rezonings. And and they evaluate the exact same criteria that this council does. And they do not evaluate particular projects. But I realize that there was some commentary by some of the planning board members. But ultimately the reason that this particular application garnered a recommendation of approval was because of the fact that the board, in its opinion, felt like this application for this particular zoned district met the criteria that you are reviewing this evening. Okay. So to be clear, neither the planning board nor council approves actual development projects like whether it would be a gas station or a coffee shop. It's just the zone district. And if we meet the criteria to approve that zone district. Yes, ma'am. That's correct. And what about the Good Neighbor Agreement? I know that a lot of time was spent trying to negotiate a good neighbor agreement. Is that one of the criteria for either planning board or council's criteria approval? No, it is not good. Neighbor agreements are private agreements between property owners and in this case it might be between the property owner of the proposed rezoning and the existing neighborhood. But there is no role for the city to play in good neighbor agreements, whether it comes to the negotiation of those agreements or more so the enforcement of those ingredients, the enforcement would be up to the individuals that are parties to that agreement. So is there any situation that would get this city to get involved to further regulate what might go on that property? So if CPD felt like Smoke three was the appropriate zone district, is there a waiver or something that could be attached to that that might somehow further restrict what would be? What could go on that property. There are opportunities for customizing zoning, whether that's through a waiver or condition or APD, which is what exists currently on the property. But. Under today's code, you have to meet very strict criteria in order to have a PD on property and you want to come forward with an application with waivers and conditions. The the policy of CPD is that we we ought to try and look for standard zone districts that work opposed to customizing zoning districts. And, you know, for the reason that you pointed out earlier, which is, you know, it's difficult to administer these things over time. And so if this story was approved by council, does that guarantee that a gas station would go there or does it just mean it's that zoned district and there's any variety of things that could go there? It would be the latter. S-Max three has different uses that could potentially go into that zone district. So no, you're an approval of this zoning request tonight would not would not mean that 100% a gas station is going to be erected there. Okay. Thank you, Nate. Council President Gilmore. I had a few more questions that I can continue to ask. That's fine, if you prefer. No, that's fine. Go ahead. Okay. I have a question for I think his name is Mr. Bronson or Botsman. Sorry if I didn't write your name down. Right. Mm. Daniel Botsman I believe so. Will try to get Mr. Botsman back in the queue here. All right. We've got him here. Go ahead, Councilwoman. Thank you. Thanks for being here, Mr. Brotman. You talked a lot about mediation and your desire to work with Belco. Did you attend those mediation sessions over those many months? Absolutely. I actually from four years back, we've we've been we've been talking with Belco and requesting a zoning other than one that allows a gas station. There's no guarantee that there's a gas station. However, this zoning that's being requested allows a gas station. So if you don't approve it, they can't have a gas station. They can't have fast food. They can't have a five storey building. So if you if you say no tonight, it denies a gas station. Yeah. Think the reverse is not true. They don't have to build a gas station, but for four years, they have pushed a gas station on this site. Okay. Thank you. All right. I understand that. But my question is for you. You said you attended all of the mediation sessions. Or the other one? Yes. In the past, you attended all of them but one. Yes. And again, this is not about just the time that's talking about. We've been. Asking. People on the request of the the gas to push away from as. As my friend Councilwoman Sandoval sometimes says, this is our opportunity. Okay. And and how many homes are adjacent to this property that we're discussing? Are you asking Ella? A back door batsman. Oh. Go ahead, Mr. Brodtmann. We'll have to have you go ahead and unmute, Mr. Brosnan, to answer Councilwoman Black's question. There you go. Immediately touching this property there, seven, eight. The residential district, as you saw from the petition, has hundreds of. My question was, how many how many houses are adjacent to this property? Again, seven or eight. Okay. So I'm looking at a map and I think there's two. So I can tell you I'm across the street. There are two houses. Across the street to the south. It's not adjacent. But there are numerous people tonight said that they were adjacent to the property. And I just don't quite understand it. When I look at the map, there's actually two that abut it and then there are two across the street. So that would. So so the ones across the street are still within, as you heard the testimony earlier, within that zone of gas station fumes. That's going to cause. They're not just the way they're not adjacent. Directly across the street. I mean, the only the only barrier is a street that. That's fine, Mr. Botsman, but could you please answer the question? How many homes are directly adjacent next to the property in question? Okay, the back fence has like about four or five houses, but again adjacent to meaning four adjacent. Sorry, my legal mind gets going and adjacent, certainly across the street. My house is adjacent. I'm sorry, it's, it's across the street, but. But I'm going to have the full view of this gas station. Okay. Well, I. I hope that all my council colleagues are looking at a map because there's two houses that are adjacent to the property and there are two there across the street. And how many homes are in the neighborhood. And I believe the president of the association would be better answer to answer that. Obviously, more than 97 out there are at least 97 that have opposed this. So all of those. Okay. And then I think the neighborhood president is named Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, can I ask you a couple questions, please? All right, we'll need to get Mr. Miller back into the queue. So we'll have the staff do that. All right. Mr. Miller, did you hear Council Member Black's question or would you like her to repose it? Re posted if you would, please. Thank you, Mr. Miller. How many houses are in your neighborhood organization? We have approximately 142. And our assumption. Preventative. Are some of them in Denver and some of them are in Aurora. Is that correct? Yes, we have 66% in Denver and 33%, 34% in Aurora. And how many signatures did you have to get to get a protest petition? According to the instructions, we had to obtain those signatures from the properties that were listed in an approximate distance from the proposed plot, which would be the two, three houses across the street and. What for? Houses. I think there are four houses that are to the north of that proposed property. And so how many signatures did you have to get? For the protest petition. We got one, two, three, four, five, six. We had to get seven and we got all seven. Uh huh. And I think you were the person who talked about noise in the neighborhood. I live west of you, but I live very close to Hampton and I hear Hampton roaring every night. And I know a lot about Hampton and I know in my neck of the woods, there's about 90,000 cars a day. How far away is your neighborhood from Havana, which for those of you who know south, the southeast part of our metro area. Hampton turns into Havana. We are one building lot away from Havana. Mm hmm. So I think had even. Yeah. Hampton or Havana in Mississippi? At Havana. At Mississippi, I think is nine or ten miles wide. Okay. Those are all the questions I have for now. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we have Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you and thank you, Councilwoman Black. Some of the questions that I also had, I do have an additional one, I think, for Ella, just so I can understand arterials and connectors. Is there any distinction when it comes to those of gas stations drive thru services? Do those speak to those street types at all? Is there any language that intersects them? You Blue Blueprint doesn't get that specific, but generally it does. Talk about arterials are a little more intense than collectors, so they have more through traffic. And the way that blueprint talks about that is how that informs the appropriate level of adjacent development intensity. So by that measure, arterials would support the would be adjacent to higher levels of development intensity than other than than collectors or local. Okay. Who who can speak to the the good neighbor agreement that was attempted. Well, the the applicants and then the the the neighbors and the R.A. were all all part of that. Let me start with the applicant. Wherever that might be. Doug. Doug. Hi, Doug. Hi. Can you tell me just a little bit more about the hours of operation where you are sticking to a 24 hour operation and no movement off that? No. When it started that, we actually started with we we didn't request a 24 hour operation at all. What happened initially when we we talked about it, the initial of operation that we we requested was four in the morning, two one in the morning. So 4 to 1. After we had some more discussion, we came back. And I want to make sure I tell you this correctly. We had during the actual meeting, we looked at. Going from. That. Time period to. Offering opening at 530 in the morning or setting a time at 530 in the morning and then closing by 1030 that same or I'm sorry, 1130 that same day. So like, like I said in my Talk to you, that was a three hour difference within the day period that we compromised even further. So but we never did. To your question, we never did push for a 24 hour operation. Okay. Got it. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you. Madam President, let me follow up on Council Torres's line, because we heard a lot of talk about how this zone district allows 24 hour operation, but there apparently is an agreement. And the agreement was supposed to go from, I think, 3 a.m. to 1 a.m., but it was then pulled back to 530 to 1130 because someone clarified that for me. Would that be done? Can do that? Yes, absolutely. First of all, we were not able to reach an agreement. So there's not a per se agreement in place. But what we attempted to do was, like I said, four in the morning, two that one, four in the morning, two one in the morning. And then we moved it again to 530 to 1130. That's what I heard. But that's just a voluntary commitment that you've made to no one in particular in any agreement, but just a publicly stated commitment. Yeah, we. Yes, sir. We attempted to go to a good neighbor agreement through our mediation, and that was definitely a part of the mediation discussions. I think that answers your question. Yes, it does. Thank you. So absolutely there's nothing to hold you to that. There's no written agreement and there's no waiver or condition, certainly in your application, that would commit you to that as part of the resolving. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Ellen, would that would that have been an appropriate thing to include in the the rezoning the as MH three with waiver of operating hours. Well. So the the use limitations for all of our youth. I mean, it's a whole chapter in the zoning code. They vary based on the youth. So I think it's a little bit tricky to assign a blanket limitations that would apply to all uses if they were really created for a specific one, because the code already builds in more, more flexibility than that. So we you know, we do. There you could pursue a waiver or conditions. In this case, it would be waivers, conditions to limit that. We tend to you know, as we're talking about the beginning of this hearing, we we tried to do custom zoning for good reasons because they they leave us stuck in the future. So CPD does try to explore other options first, but we do, as you guys know, you see cases come through with waivers and conditions. They do happen and they do need to be initiated by by the applicant. So we don't ever imposed them on them. Maybe this this might be slightly unfair. If you can't do it, just let me just tell me. But there were three members of the planning board who who voted not to recommend this. And I know we discussed it briefly in some other questioning, but do you recall any of their specific citations to any of the criteria by which they on which they based their vote? Yeah. So in the conversation, it was a long hearing with a lot of a lot of different topics covered. And it wasn't. The three people who voted against it weren't didn't very explicitly say, you know, I'm sure they had their their criteria based reasons, but they didn't explicitly state that. So I am reading a little between the lines. I think that there was a lot of discussion around the public health, safety and welfare criteria. And and I think just a little on the questions that we had earlier on about the the adjacency and how the zoning code deals with that. So basically the same thing we're hearing tonight, and I and I did read that in the staff report, at a high level, they talk about health, safety and welfare. It almost makes me wonder whether we ought to be looking at the at the permitted uses that allow gas stations as a use by. Right. Maybe have that with with some some other restrictions, because that seems to be the basic problem here. But apparently the planning board made its recommendation not on the criteria, but they were considering the actual project that was going to be done. A gas station is what I'm hearing you say. I didn't mean to communicate that. I'm sorry if I said that. I mean, I don't I think that they the conversation was, you know, it's with the testimony like gas station came up. But the people who were I think the people who were more uncomfortable with it were more along the lines of a zone district that allowed a gas station. Exactly. And that's my point, is that they were they were judging it based on the specific project, the specific use that was being proposed by the applicant. If it were just, hey, I'd like to come in and come into the Denver zoning code out of Chapter 59, former Chapter 49. I'd like to do some x three and I'll decide what I want to do later. This probably would have sailed through through the planning board, but because the gas station was mentioned. That seems to be what the whole discussion was around. And that's precisely where we're not supposed to be making our decision on what the project is. Right. So this this merits a lot a lot more discussion. I have just one more question. L I don't know if you can answer this or, or maybe me, but since this is on the future place under Blueprint, which is the only plan that guides us here other than 2040, the future place type is commercial quarter, correct. And so where other districts considered that are in the CC category rather than mix. So it's the community corridor and blueprint, and I think that The Notebook has a lot of alliteration. The applicant, Jim Aaron Sabato, was talking earlier about that. He mentioned the C.C. district option when when we adopted this blueprint, there is a lot about improving the the urban design and the pedestrian realm. And given that kind of whole of the guidance from Blueprint, it's a little harder to find consistency with the CC districts, especially as there are some kind of from from those perspective, some better options with the M.S. and X. So we don't see a lot of CC rezoning for that. For that reason, just because they're they were they were intended to provide a Denver zoning code version of a lot of what we were seeing on the ground. But they're not really aspirational. And that's kind of confusing, though, given because if blueprints that are says that the future place type here is community corridor. But but we have a hard time finding consistency with any of the CC zone districts. That seems like a disconnect and it seems like there could be a reason to say that this is not consistent with the with the planning for the area that that particular criteria. So it is very confusing for me. Thank you. I'm happy to listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you all. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Next step, we have Councilmember Hines. At the council president. I want to thank CBD and applicants for all this. This has been going on and the neighbors that's been going on for a long time. So thank you for your for your patience tonight and over the last numerous years. I one of the neighbors testified that that they used well water is I don't know I heard or at least that's what I heard. And I want to verify if if that is actually what I heard. Is is there are there addresses immediately adjacent to this proposed rezoning that uses that use? Well, water. I don't I don't really know who to ask. I don't know. Ella, do you know the the answer to that question? I don't, unfortunately. And I also don't know who might have said that to help you figure out who to promote, but maybe someone. Yeah, we have the the Jacksons, James and Lawless Jackson. And so we can see if either one of them are. There we go. Go ahead and. Yes, welcome back. Uh huh. Go ahead. Hi. We are not adjacent. We are two streets over. But yes, we do use well water. And there's several homeowners in the neighborhood who use well, water for domestic and irrigation. Okay. Thank you. I think that's the only question that I have. But thank you for confirming that that you and other neighbors use. Well, water for for your own use and for irrigation use. Correct. So it's both or some use one of the three. Some use it for both. Yeah. It's something that some use it for both. Some use it for. One or the other. But there's several of us. Yes. Okay. Thank you for both. All right. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. Council president. Sure. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask someone associated with the ownership of the property. I don't know if that's Mr. Kirby or who that should be, but my question is. Is is there currently an option contract on the property that is contingent on the rezoning passage? Yes. We're looking to sell the property. Murphy Oil. Okay. So I think that's I believe that's your question. Yeah. Yeah, that that was. And is it intended to be a convenience gas, a convenience store, gas station, or is it just simply a gas station? It's against gas station and convenience. But we can let somebody from Murphy or another group talk if they want to answer that differently. That would be great if you've got someone from Murphy that can answer the question. All right. And Doug, who would that be that we want to bring up into the queue? I think either Jim or David. Okay. We've got Jim here in the meeting already, so. Go ahead, Jim. Yeah. There was the question just is there a convenience store aspect with the fuel station? Yes. And then I was going to ask a question about the the size, because I heard in earlier testimony that half of the property would be made available. That would include green space and. Those such users on this are not users, but improvements on the site. Is that accurate? Yeah. Generally speaking. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. So generally speaking on the green space comment, there's a shared detention pond between this parcel in the Belco parcel to the east. And so if you look at it, you know, an aerial view, your view on the west side, you'll see that a third of the property is is currently a detention pond with adjacent landscaping around it. So, you know, when you look at just this property in itself and take that existing greenspace into consideration, you're left with about 50% of that. That parcel will be, you know, strictly. Building and parking. You know, uses it. You need degrees. You know, you're required to have detention for both sides. So you must use it, modify it. I mean, that would stay that was. The remainder would just be building in parking. Do you can you just sort of give an idea of the number of parking spaces that would be anticipated? Typically for for a fuel state, you know, a property of this size, it's probably in the realm of, you know, 8 to 10, I believe is is the number of installs. And that is that pretty consistent with the same size convenience store gas station. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I'd say that's pretty consistent when you when you look around Denver proper for this size parcel and in the in the building that they're looking at. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you so much for answering them. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We've got Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Mr. Kirby or Kirby. So when Denver resigned in 2010, part of your parcel was reason to miss five or S Amex flights, and the other portion was left as the B-1. Can you explain why that was done? Yeah. We ended up only using the front half of that piece of property to build our full service branch. So the rezoning occurred to do that full service branch. Really interesting. When was the property reason to expire? Do you know the history of that? I do. It's going to take a second to pull that up. Bear with me. I'm sorry. No problem. Take your time. And I don't know if Ella maybe has that answer. I'm. I'm also trying to cover it up. Okay. It was loads. All right. It was round. 2016. So in 2016 you re zoned in the front portion of the property to modify, then you left that other portion to be won. Is that what I'm hearing correctly? Correct. And it's what it is today. Can you explain to me why you didn't resign your whole entire parcel? Because you're if I if I understand correctly, you're the you were the property owner of the entire parcel, is that correct? Correct. So what was the what was the why would and I'm a bit confused if this was old zoning and it's the whole entire parcel that you own. And one of our justifying circumstances is to get full zoning into new zoning. Why was this allowed when Castle allowed to stay in the Old Zone District? How is that decision made? I don't know that answer. I just know that what we did was we zoned the front part of the property. And I don't believe and if this is false, I apologize. But I don't believe anybody asked us that question or pushed us on that. So any thoughts? Yeah. So I pulled up our our zoning map and also our rezoning map, and I'm actually not seeing a rezoning on that site. So I'm wondering, Doug, and this might be a limitation of the data that, you know, how far back our data goes, but I believe this had all the rezoning. So that leads me to think that maybe what happened in I think you said 2016 was such a different like a building permit or some other city process. I know there are a lot of them and they are confusing. And so I'm wondering if perhaps the the Belco credit union site, the other building was just in the old code and it got re zoned as part of the 2010 rezoning. And this one got left behind in that citywide process because it had a condition because when the the parcels that were left behind were because they had some kind of custom zoning attached to them. So that and from what I can see, might, might be the history. And that's only possible. I'm, I'm more than willing to research that for you. Um, so, but I, however, we were able to build our building. We were I mean, that's but I apologize for not only. The question for you. Can you talk to me about who hired Galloway in your who put together your application. It's it looks like on the public record it's by Galloway did you pay for that or did the petroleum. I can't remember the name. So it had a major regulator. It's Murphy. Murphy USA. Murphy USA, who paid for Galloway to put together this rezoning application. Murphy, USA. So you did not have the owner of the property. You had the person who's currently under contract. They paid for Galloway to put together this particular application for your property. Is that correct? Correct. And we we were involved from all of the mediation, I mean, from start to finish. So we worked directly with Galloway throughout the process. So how come you haven't in the years that you own this property and you haven't been working, how come you, as Belco didn't pay for someone to assess and do a rehab application and instead had the person under contract do that? Can you explain that to me? And I mean, I don't know, I guess maybe not following your question, but we work directly with Galloway to. Breeze on the property along with Murphy Oil Main. It was it was a joint endeavor. I and we we did. Okay, let me rephrase my question so I can ask it in a different way at any time since you run the property, since you had the ability to reason on your property. Correct? Correct. Correct. And so you only are interested in rezoning the property once you had it under contract and you allowed the person who you have it under contract to lead the rezoning and pay for the consulting group to put together the rezoning package. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So my question for you is, why is a property owner in a business? Why did you not re zone the property prior to having it under contract? I'm not sure there was a requirement to do that. There is. I just find it interesting that I find it interesting. It happens often, but I find it interesting that you have been paid for this, that someone who has your property under contract is paying for all of this. So that's my question. So, Ella, I have a question for you about the Annex three Eastern District. So in the intent of the in section 3.2.4 of the zoning code under a suburban neighborhood context criteria three says the mixed zone district standards are also intended to ensure you develop contributes positively to established residential neighborhood and character and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. So my question for you is, in Blueprint Denver, it talks about low, low density, like, you know, how you have the scales. Of. And it talks about low, right? Which low can be 1 to 3, 1 to 3 stories. My question is, why does CPD not analyze these sites more? I know. I know we're probably going to get into this more in this Thursday. Why doesn't CPD take a more active approach and and and do analysis when these kind of rezonings come through? Why is it property driven? Right. If we are the experts in the planning department are the experts I really believe you are who have led all of these neighborhood plans you've read, led the comp plan, you led Blueprint , Denver. How come more analysis doesn't go into these sites to figure out what the Zone District would fit best in that area? I think it's really it's really just responding to the the structure of rezonings in the zoning code and that they are applicant led. So in those which we try to do as much filtering and redirecting in the pre-op stage as possible. And and perhaps can just go a couple different ways. Sometimes people come in and they're like, Hey, I've got this weird old zoning and I want to do something else. And that that's when we'll kind of talk through how to think about it and point people in the right direction and be like, Hey, these are these are some zoning districts that are likely to meet the criteria. And sometimes people come in with very specific here, I want to build X, Y, Z, so then we'll talk about, all right, well, here are some options that meet planning criteria and also would allow that. And then sometimes people come in and they're like, I want to build X, Y, Z, and I want this zone district to do it. So then the conversation does tend to be around how that might go. And I mean, not surprisingly, in the preoperative conversation for this third time, there was caution around like we don't see a lot of a difference in the conversation from the previous time, but we did urge, urge the applicant to at least let the mediation play out. And so they they did continue to think they were supposed to have a planning board in February, but we're still in conversations and opted to push it out to let those wrap up . Unfortunately, they wrapped up without an agreement, but they were, at least at that time, final. So that is kind of been the bumpers that we have. And so but in short, it is really to just respond to the fact that it is an applicant led process. And we tried to insert our our guidance where we can. Thank you. I have one more question for the property owners. So in 2018 that you or whoever, whether you or it was someone who had the property under contract, applied for some X three in 2019, you or whoever, whoever led the application applied for msmx3. When you put this property up for sale again, did you talk to whoever you had it under contract with and tell them that this type, this exact zone district has failed twice and that you might want to go through the drawing board and you might want to sit down with CPD and do a charrette and figure out a different zone district that might be more compatible with the neighborhood. Is that something that you, you and whoever have you have this under contract, had those discussions. Yes. And we actually sat down with Councilwoman Sawyer and did have discussions about what we were talking about doing and and through talking to l.a. Councilman sawyer. And we felt mediation was the best direction we could go with that and have more conversations around it. The first time that it fell through, the buyer removed themselves. And and so the second time it came through was with the group we're talking to today. So if I'm hearing you correctly. This same buyer has. This is the second time that they're trying to rezone the property. And I guess we withdrew to further mediation. So that gave us more time to chat with the homeowner's association. And David, if you want to talk to that, and I think you can do it and I'm not giving you all the information. And I apologize if I'm not. So then who? Who hired Holland and Hart? That would be Belko. So Belko hired. When did you hire him? In part. I don't know the exact date, but we've had them for roughly the last 6 to 8 months and I could I don't know the date. So. And were they part of the relay part of the mediation process? They were in the last. Were they in the last mediation? Maybe not. I don't remember if they were in on that or not. Kerry may have an idea of that. I can I can chime in. They were in Holland. Holland and Hart was not involved in the pre. Thank you. There were a lot of people involved. I apologize. And I'll just. Get another question. I'll go ahead. Jim and Claire, I was. Just going to add that, you know, a big reason back in October of 2019 that it was withdrawn was because of, you know, obviously the public outrage. Right. And so a big thing we focused on in early 2020 was reaching out to a the public and via the council staff, specifically, Councilman Sawyer. But we did I think we met with almost all of the council members or at least whoever we could. It was during the beginning of the pandemic. And I believe we did meet with you, Councilman Sandoval, back in March of 2020. Just to go through it, because there is history on this that's it's not a normal site. You know, it has a lot of a lot of hair and obviously 100 topics every. Okay. I just have one more question. Thank you. And I know I'm talking super slow. So I'm so sorry about that. And if I talk any faster, I won't be able to. You're good. Thank you. So to the owner. How long have you had the property up for sale and how many potential buyers have you worked with? So the property's been up for sale. I believe since around 2016. As far as potential buyers, I can't tell you how many. People made offers on the property or put in bids on the property. But to my knowledge to. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And seeing no other questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 404. Councilmember Sawyer. Thinks that I'm president. There's clearly a lot of history on this site. I want to thank the residents of Range View and Belco and Murphys, as well as our mediator Steve Charbonneau, for the hard work and the attempts to find a resolution on what to do with this property. You all worked really hard and I'm sorry that you couldn't come to some sort of positive conclusion on that. I do have a number of concerning concerns about this rezoning. So let's talk a little bit about the criteria to start. I don't believe it's consistent with adopted plans. Councilman Flynn touched on this a little bit in his questioning. There is no neighborhood plan for the area, so you have to look at blueprints and the whole lot in question. Is designing this community corridor suburban context? The description in blueprint of a community corridor clearly states and I'm quoting here, buildings have a distinctly linear orientation along the street with narrow setbacks and give active ground floors along community corridor to create interest and engage patrons as they walk by, end quote. Most importantly, another quote here Transitions between corridors and low scale residential are important and quote here There is no transition between the community corridor and the single family homes immediately adjacent to this parcel, which are designated residential low in blueprint. This parcel is being turned into that transition. Additionally by their very title drive thru services do not create interests and engage patrons as they walk by their automobile heavy users and they discourage walkability and ground floor activation, which blueprint Denver specifically calls for in this area. On this cell lines, I know we're considering zoned district and not the use in this situation. But this zone. District allows all sorts of potential forms, including drive thrus and gas stations. In short, it's not consistent with blueprint. Additionally, the proposed district does not promote the uniformity that's required. So Councilwoman, seeing the ball brought this subsection three point, 2.4.1 of the Denver zoning code says, and I'm quoting here, Section A The mixed use zone districts are intended to promote safe, active, pedestrian, scaled, diverse areas and enhance the convenience and ease of walking, shopping and public gathering within and around the city's neighborhoods. And Section D, the mixed use zone district standards are also intended to ensure new development contributes positively to established residential neighborhoods and character, and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. End quote. Again, I know we're considering the zoning district and not the use in this situation. This zone districts allows potential forms like drive thrus and gas stations by possibly, possibly allowing a gas station on this parcel, which is allowed under the S-Max three zoning. We are not being consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and the zone district purpose required by criteria is again, a car centered use doesn't promote walkability or public gathering, and a gas station certainly doesn't contribute positively to the established residential neighborhood right next door. Other zoning would look better into the context of this neighborhood and would have made sense with regards to the transition to low density residential in the adjacent neighborhood. But this isn't it. Finally, and I think most importantly, this rezoning doesn't further health, safety and welfare. Again, I know we're considering this own district and not the use in this situation. But this zone district allows all kinds of potential forms, including drive thrus and gas stations. And the potential for these uses on this property is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community members. It's the causal link between benzene emissions from gas stations and health impacts such as cancer has been debated historically, but many cities have recognized the significant concern to residents on this issue and taken steps to address it. We heard testimony earlier this evening. Many of these residents are using well water, according to the 2015 front porch article quotes examples in other cities where zoning mandated spacing exists to protect homeowners from the negative health impacts of gas stations are Milford, Connecticut, where gas station cannot be within 300 feet of housing. Raleigh, North Carolina, where a city level approval must be obtained if a gas station will be within 400 feet of housing. And Chicago, Illinois, where neighbors within 150 feet must give approval before a gas station can be built within that distance. Denver doesn't have any language in our zoning code that would require setbacks of any distance between a gas station and housing. And frankly, I think what we've identified here is an opportunity to correct that issue. Nevertheless, we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that any infill development we approve will not adversely harm the health of our residents . And I don't believe that we can affirmatively say that in this case. Additionally, the hours of operation of any potential drive thru or gas station facility would adversely affect this community. We heard testimony that most of the residents concerns in mediation could be overcome, but the gas station hours can't be shortened enough to fit the applicant's business model and work for the neighbors. It's not unreasonable for the community to ask for more than a few hours without the noise and pollution coming from a gas station. I can name at least one other site in District five where there is a vehicle oriented service adjacent to housing, and my office regularly receives noise complaints on that property. Those residents have been able to clearly show that the use has negatively impacted their quality of life. And the same thing will happen here. By approving this rezoning, we are asking residents to take on potential health and quality of life burdens that they never imagined and never agreed to when they purchased their homes. It's also something city planners specifically designed against in our adopted plans and in our zoning code. So, Madam President, I don't support this rezoning. I'll be a no tonight, and I would urge my fellow council members to do so as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have council member Black. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. I know a protest petition was filed and in controversial rezonings. It's really difficult to overcome those. I do have some issues with the protest petitions that I will bring up at another time, but all I can say that this is a really great example of why spot zoning is a problem. No fault of the property owner. The current zoning basically prohibits any use of that property. They don't need it to be there for a drive thru. They have no need for that and so there actually is no use to it, which actually makes it without value. And so there. Put in a terrible position again at no fault of their own. And so there the area sits, just unused asphalt radiating heat, which is not a good thing and is definitely not good for our climate or for our health and safety and welfare. I'll again say that council does not approve development plans and we don't decide whether a gas station or a coffee shop or a dental office is built. We approve zoned districts and our job is to make sure an application meets the criteria. And I think CPD did a great job showing us that some x three does meet the criteria. Of course, I do understand why neighbors care what goes on this parcel. But what I heard loud and clear is that they're opposed to the use, not to the zone district. But again, neither neighbors nor council get to decide what a private property owner does with their property. As long as the laws are met. We've had in my time on council quite a few rezonings similar to this that are on a commercial street but adjacent to a residential neighborhood. And the neighbors objected because they didn't want, you know, higher intensity use or any use adjacent to their neighborhood. But in many of the cases I'm thinking of, and in this case, the parcel wasn't actually in the neighborhood, it's adjacent to the neighborhood. And this, I guess, part of the good neighbor discussions was that they weren't even going to have any access to the residential street was owned only on Mississippi. As I said earlier, I live near Hampton and I also live near Colorado Boulevard. And while commercial development is not appropriate in my neighborhood, I do think that commercial development is appropriate on those streets that are adjacent to the neighborhood. And our plans do encourage that. As a next three is recommended by CPD and is a lower intensity use. And again, we are not being asked to approve a gas station but a zone district. So adhering to the role that council has, which is to evaluate the criteria, I do believe that the criteria has been met. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I. Councilman Sawyer pretty much said exactly what was on my mind. Recognizing that our job is not to assess a particular project, to assess the appropriateness of the zone district. I think a zone district. That. Includes allowance for uses. That are a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the adjoining neighborhoods. Is not the appropriate zone district. Unfortunately for the applicant. That's the case with this zone district. And so. I will. Also. Be voting against this evening. Thank you, Councilman Cashman Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you so much. So it's been interesting to kind of layer some of what we're talking about with blueprint and community corridors as they are experienced in this part of Denver versus how they're experienced in in the west side in West Denver. Federal Boulevard is the community corridor. Alameda, Colfax, Sheridan are community corridors. These are not local corridors, which I think of when I when I think of 32nd and Lowell, where you do have much lower intensity kind of shop at districts kind of boutique locations. When I think of Federal Boulevard, I'm a little envious that this might be the only circumstance that folks kind of speak to when they talk about possibly living next to a gas station or an auto service location. That is all we have on Federal Boulevard. So that brings up for me some of the health and safety issues that I think some of the residents rightly mention. Maybe we don't need more new gas stations and we've got to regulate that out, but we don't have those kinds of regulations in place just now. And it's definitely something that I think if we are serious about climate goals, it could be something that we look to in and starting to eliminate kind of our proclivity to approving rezonings that allow for drive thrus for gas stations, for a variety of different things within context where you can get a lot of other things like a mixed use development. But I am swayed, I think, by the strict criteria and what this is looking like and the zone district itself, and we'll be voting in favor of it. All right. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the time we have taken to go through these conversations. I do feel that the criteria has been met and so I will be supporting vote in support. I just I'm bothered by the language that has been used by some of the applicants. And I just really feel the need to just to state this, you know, we don't need to. Exaggerate. Your case just in a state the reasons why you in support an opposition and that's fine. Everyone can't be adjacent to the gas station next to. And I, I just feel the need to say that. And, you know, my son is in kindergarten. Lucy is one of his classmates. She lives across the street from our house. That's not a Jason. Just just state the case. I just wish we wouldn't do those things. And hearing things about property values and crime, about who you think is going to use this gas station, I think gets to the conversations about privilege that we're having. And I just want I want people to hear what they're saying. And I don't know if my other colleagues were struggling with some of the things that people were saying. It just really didn't sit well with me, has nothing to do with why I believe I'm in support. I do believe that criteria has been met, but I just I want to encourage people to hear what they are saying. Sometimes we have conversations. And then lastly, just on a side note, I appreciate Councilwoman Sawyer bringing up the front porch article because we had an exhaustive conversation in the Central Park neighborhood about gas stations. And I know so much more about benzene than I ever thought I would want to know or should, because there was a question about where they should be built in Central Park. And I felt and not not felt, but all my conversations with Didi, because they did build a gas station off of North Shore Boulevard and then one an East Bridge that were across the street, not adjacent to household residents. And there was no reason to believe that there were additional health concerns. And so I'm very familiar with that. And so hearing about health concerns, I from my conversations with the health experts, that was not an issue. Just a sidebar. I want to bring that up since Councilwoman. So I referenced the front porch from Central Park, so I will be in support. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, we have Councilmember Ortega up. And just a quick reminder, we have two more public hearings after this one as well. Go ahead, Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. Many of my comments have been made on both sides on this issue, and I just wanted to highlight that we've been having a conversation about health, safety and welfare with many projects that have come in and been resolved and are built next to railroad tracks. That store in many cases because there are cars that sit on those tracks, many types of hazardous or hazardous materials slash flammable liquids. We're getting really close to bringing something before council. We've been doing extensive research from the only place where standards actually exist, and it's in cities in Canada. So where we're talking about real potential for impact from proximity to genuine hazardous materials. We have no standards and it is our responsibility under homeland security. There is an expectation not just not just a responsibility, but an expectation of local government leaders to address where our vulnerabilities are and to have things in place. And so I'm bringing that up because when we talk about comparisons of how we look at how zoning is applied across our city, it's it's almost as though at times we have a double standard. And I believe on this particular application, the criteria has been met and I will be supporting it tonight. But I just want to give you a heads up to be looking forward to the draft ordinance that we'll be bringing. We're going to be meeting with a couple key city agencies before we bring that forward. But this is. A long overdue issue that will help address part of the inequities that often exist when we deal with our rezoning applications. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, and appreciate the time that we had community members here and that we had our discussion as well and really looking at the criteria that we need to evaluate this on. It is the zoned district and I do believe that the criteria has been met and I agree with Councilmember Ortega. Sometimes it does seem like we live in two different cities. Quick example from my home in Montebello, where I live. I did a quick Google search. I have over 25 7-Eleven. In the surrounding area right from my house in Montebello. So I am concerned about the equity that we are actually talking about when we talk about the end use versus the zoned district. And so given that I believe all the criteria has been met, I will be voting in favor of this tonight as well. And a quick reminder, council members, since community planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill. And so we are going to go ahead and. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black I. See tobacco. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Now. Cashman No. Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Nine eyes, three days. Nine Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0404 has failed. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item here. We need to do a point of clarification. Tonight, council voted to postpone final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-0516 and it looks like a motion was inadvertently skipped and so is a point of clarification.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with the Department of Health and Human Services and local mental health providers to explore the feasibility of establishing a more robust infrastructure for mental health services in collaboration and alignment with local mental health providers in Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles.

LongBeachCC_11092021_21-1167

So, yes, we can do that. Try remember the year do we do that in 2010? 2010. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have next item that was asked to be moved up was item 45. And this is also by Tommy Richardson. I am 45 is a communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Sunday has Councilwoman Allen recommendation to direct city manager to work with the Department of Health and Human Services and local mental health provider to explore the feasibility of establishing a more robust infrastructure for mental health services. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight, I want to introduce a proposal about localizing Long Beach's mental health services. It's an important issue impacting our community. Thanks to my co-sponsors, council members Mary's and De Has and Cindy Allen and thanks to our outstanding city staff, particularly in the Health Department and Kelly Kelly Collopy, Paul Duncan and our senior manager Teresa Chandler for their help in the background and helping to shape this proposal. Cities have dealt with a number of issues over the course of the past year. And as we normalize, we have to acknowledge that things have changed. We have a real opportunity to build back and prepare to face new challenges. I want to lead with this quote from our U.S. attorney general. As things start to get normal. The full brunt of the trauma people, people have been through starts to surface in their lives and they have to deal with that. So that's why I think this is the right time for our country to have a conversation about mental health. So in addition to COVID 19 that we've all dealt with over the course of the past year, Long Beach has been dealing with another, less acknowledged epidemic for quite some time. A mental health epidemic is manifested in many ways elevated suicide rates and drug overdose rates. Our rate of E.R. visits due to mental health crisis was was a full 1%, one in 100 residents from 2017 to 2019. Our rate of visits due to mental health crisis. Excuse me? Our rates of hospitalizations due to self-harm and alcohol abuse are well over the L.A. County average. 2000 of our neighbors are homeless, the majority of whom suffer with mental health issues. The COVID 19 pandemic has only made the situation worse by placing our system under additional stress. The percentage of adults. Suffering from anxiety or depression has quadrupled during the pandemic. This still remains three times higher than normal. One in three of us suffers from anxiety or depression. Here in Long Beach. The impacts of this pandemic have also been very unequal. According to the CDC, the mental health impacts of the pandemic have fallen hardest on our youth, and particularly our youth of color. One in 500 children lost a parent during this pandemic, 65% of whom were youth of color. That's why our Racial Equity Reconciliation Initiative under goal for strategy one of advancing health equity calls on the city to increase investment in mental health and trauma services, including facilities, professionals, community responses and culturally tailored resources. As we acknowledge, communities of color face especially high rates of mental illness and psychological trauma. Moving toward a more locally tailored outreach and service provision can help reduce these inequities. So as Long Beach recovers from the trauma of COVID 19, we have a responsibility to deal with the effects of mental health and well being on our residents. It's time to reevaluate our capacity to evaluate, to address mental health, mental and behavioral health crises. And despite all of the challenges I just listed, there's hope. Many of the difficulties in Long Beach mental health care system stem from the lack of a venue for a local collaboration between L.A. County Department of Mental Health, who runs our mental health services. The city and local providers who influence over policymaking, whose influence over policymaking is limited in this area. This slippage makes program navigation more difficult, which falls especially hard on patients who already have a difficult time. Navigation system is. If you're a local resident, it's hard to know where to go for help. According to Long Beach's homeless management system, just 26%. One in four of people experiencing homelessness who have a disability receive disability benefits just one one out of four. These benefits could help them buy food, help them buy clothes, secure housing. But the system is difficult to navigate since it allows too many cracks to slip through. I take a local approach. Collaboratively working more closely with the county and possibly taking some of those services in our own hands. We can reduce redundancy and increase access to the services our residents so badly need in this moment. Now, this is not a pipe dream. Many cities in California and other cities around the country operate different ways than we do. The city, the cities of Berkeley, Claremont, Pomona, Pomona, Laverne all handle mental health services exclusively at the local level, receiving direct funding from the state of California. That option, they enacted that in the past. That option is not available to Long Beach today. But these cities built their mental health departments before California built theirs. But we can learn from their examples and see that this kind of local provision is not just possible. It's practical. Long Beach has also shown that we have the ability to take on a myriad of services independently under our own portfolio. We already have our own local health department, the largest independent health department in the state. In addition to our own continuum of care, our own dispatch center, a rich network of hospitals, local mental health service providers, standout educational institutions, our own prosecutor's office and our own police and fire departments. Our local infrastructure is strong and we can build upon that to tackle these new challenges. In preparation for this proposal, I brought together local providers, hospitals and our health department, together with Tri-Cities Mental Health, Mental Health, the municipal agency that covers Claremont, Pomona and Laverne for Mental Health Services for a roundtable discussion and brainstorm, try. Cities have had a great deal of success in addressing its dual crisis of COVID 19 homelessness. During 2020, there homeless population dropped by 37%. Tri-Cities was able to share a number of his innovative service models with our panel, including their packed themes and nonviolence response model similar to the REACH teams currently in development here in Long Beach . Thanks to all of our attendees that day. Thanks to the Health Department. Cal State. Long Beach. The LGBTQ Center in Long Beach. The Guidance Center. St Mary's Hospital, United Way, Los Angeles Memorial Care and Star Behavioral Group for participating. Since that meeting, we've also engaged with L.A. County Department of Mental Health Supervisor Janice Hahn. Long Beach. City College. Long Beach, Forward Century Villages, Cabrillo, the Black Health Equity Collaborative, MH L.A. and others. We've received letters support from a number of these groups and also from Juan Benitez, chair of the Long Beach Unified School District, our chair of our Equity and Human Relations Commission, Aliza Gutierrez, and Chair of Long Beach City College Board Woodward, Joe Winter. Thanks to all of you for your help and support on this important issue. So the opportunity before us is that this, you know, the stakeholder group highlighted many needs to fill opportunities that we have in the city, on our local on our local level. We can add additional residential mental health facilities by looking at partnerships with Major L.A. and our local planning department, including including hospital stepdown beds. We can add more opportunities for trained social workers and nurses in our own community through expanded internship programs, helping to address the crisis right here on front. We can add opportunities excuse me? We can localize our direct response and improve response times. We can streamline program navigation to make sure patients don't slip through the cracks. We can provide for more robust and localized strategies to address drug addiction in our community. We can improve coordination between existing programs to prevent redundant care and increase access. So I move that we accept this recommendation, ensure that the Health Department identifies the resources needed to engage with local stakeholders and stakeholders and begin this, this study and this process. Cities are already taking on today more than they've ever taken on. And and and the truth is, things have changed. There's no going back to the basics. The definition of what we consider a basic need has fundamentally changed. Local government has to evolve to meet that need, and that's what's required to have a modern, resilient city. In Long Beach is ready for that discussion. And I can't wait to see what we come up with. Thank you. Well, thank you. Bye. Actually, that coming into the next story, that being Comair. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman Allen, for bringing forward this item and for letting me join you on this item. First off, I want to thank our Health and Human Services Department for the amazing work that they've been doing to help us and support our families during these devastating times. Our health department is key to helping us move towards a more equitable, healthier and safer city all together. So thank you for all that you do for our city. The topic of mental health has for so long been a taboo in many communities a topic you could not discuss, and therefore a topic and concern you would not address. I'm happy to see a new generation that prioritizes maintaining good health and that encourages addressing mental health issues. This item seeks to make it easier for our residents to access services and for our city to be able to respond. This is especially important to discuss now, since issues such as domestic violence and other mental health issues have been referred to as a pandemic within a pandemic. During COVID era, Long Beach song over a thousand more mental health related nine month long calls in 2020 than in previous years. That is why I fully support this move toward streamlining all of our local mental health resources to make it easy, easier for our residents to be able to be informed of all the resources that that can be accessible to them. What I love most about this item is that it strives to encompass as much as possible. It seeks to find a system in which every individual in need, whether at home, at school, in prison or in jail, can be easily connected with mental health services. And it tailors also to include and blend expansion of social work and nurse training and work opportunities for youth. So again, in it is our investment in our youth that will lead us on the right path. One additional thing I'd like to start to consider, and I'm pretty sure you guys are probably already considering this, but I want to make sure that we stream all these services and to make it in an equitable way so that we have all the residents have access to them in not only English, but Spanish combined and Tagalog. So thank you very much again, Vice Mayor Richardson, for this item. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. And I appreciate this item and the opportunity to talk about mental health and some of the issues and challenges that we're facing as a city. This is a conversation that we've been talking about for many years. And so some of the challenges that our health department faces as a result of the necessary coordination with L.A. County have really presented or manifested themselves in some serious quality of life type challenges that we see in the community. But, you know, I would love for us to get to a point where we have a model that similar to the Orange County model that the cities are able to take advantage of with facilities like the Bidwell campus where . Mental health. Immediate acute care is available, that that process has been very, I think, very beneficial for that community. When the report comes back, there are a couple of things that I would love to see included in the report in terms of what our capacity is now and what it could be with more streamlined and direct access to funding. And so I just want to kind of go through them. So in September of 2016, I brought an item to have us look at social impact bonds. And while the response that came back was that it wasn't feasible at the time to initiate, I'm wondering if there's been any movement in that with the creativity of the additional funding that's been infused into local governments. I'd love to see whether or not that's something that the city can perhaps take on independently in 2017. I brought an item that had a lot of possible options for us to consider in terms of some of the issues that we were seeing with substance abuse and mental health education. And specifically, one of the things that I had asked for on there was the feasibility of having our health department staff funds. 24 seven. I'm wondering if there's something that we can do in working with the county that perhaps allows us more direct access to funding to be able to have that staffing available for 24 seven in. In December of 2018, I brought an item asking for an audit of the rehab, medical detox and sobriety beds that we have available in the city and within the region. And I looked for it. But I'm not sure if ATF ever came back, but it may have been a report to counsel at some point that came back. But I would love to see, you know, while we're talking about taking more direct control over mental health services to know what what resources we have available to us, what what natural partners are already out there that would allow us to not be able to to have to do it on our own. And then in 2019, I brought an item that I requested the city do really well, actually was a partnership with CSC Welby to talk about some of our homeless outreach efforts. And they did a lot of analysis on some of the mental health services that we offer that the county offers. And I'm just wondering if some of those proposals specifically could be incorporated into the report that comes back, because I agree with council with Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman, and they have said it would be fantastic for the city to be able to have the capacity to take some of these things on ourselves, because I think we would be a lot more efficient just simply because we'd have a more targeted and limited scope. And I think that would be beneficial for the city. So I appreciate this item and we've been doing we've been talking about this topic for a long time, and the Health Department's been great partners to us, and it would be wonderful for us to be able to have a little bit more control and streamline processes for implementation of these policies. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Allen. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm very proud to sponsor this and thank you for for bringing this forward. I also want to say thank you to all the residents who regularly share their advocacy for a stronger, more holistic mental health services ecosystem with me. It's also important that we strengthen the entire pipeline of service delivery, coordination and and job training. And I know we're working on making this system stronger. And this will be this would be a good, solid start. So I'd love to see us be able to take more control of our mental health services that we offer to our community and so desperately need it. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. Thank you. Councilwoman Zoro. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this forward, Vice Mayor. I think it's just so important that we center mental health in this conversation, not just only in the midst of the pandemic pandemic, but just right after our acknowledgment of Veterans Day is making sure that we also dig in a little deeper to serve our community who've experienced trauma, whether it's as a veteran through war, also as refugees who experience war. And I think that it's sometimes treated as an afterthought after people have gone through either physical health care services to even social services. It's that it's a last minute thing that we don't think is important. And I think that we need to center this is a piece in that's connected to a variety of health care issue, to service social services. So I really think it's important that we also include more nonprofits because a lot of the burden falls on their shoulder, even to social service organizations, especially those who are serving in other languages, because there's very little agencies that have the linguistic also the cultural competency to understand the community and their needs and even how to ensure that we're reducing stigma so that people even feel comfortable even acknowledging that they need services. So this has been a constant reoccurring issue when we talk about mental health is how do we reduce the stigma around it in general? And I think that we need to obviously continue to make sure that it's centered and is in the forefront in that that we show that it's important and that we care about it. And I think that doing this feasibility study will allow us to engage in that conversation, especially after the pandemic and where so many of us are experiencing things but is invisible and we're not really talking about it. So that's kind of where I'm supportive of this for that reason, and love to be able to ensure that we have a robust conversation, engagement with all those who are service providers, to those even who have had experience in getting mental health services as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. I would like the city manager to let me know or let us know what he thinks is being asked for tonight in terms of the feasibility studies that that we're bringing in a consultant. Is it that you're having current city staff bring together subject matter experts? I, I know that this conversation has happened in some prioritization ideas of supervising, and I'm supporting you as the city manager. But I think this also brings to light that over the last. Five or six years. Lots of different ideas continue to come forward to solve critical issues and to from flaws or feasibility of these other ideas that have come forward. I know come from on price listed a few and I've brought forward a few as well. They were just told to be not feasible. And so as times change, I'm not clear if we look back at those or how we recycle. And then another component of this is prioritization. Mental health is huge and it is an amazing opportunity. It is also a huge undertaking. Having worked in a county department that has taken on MHC funds in the past, it is a heavy lift, the RFP process, the federal drawdown and our city has done great in some cases of drawing down those federal and state funds. But we need to make sure that if we're going to do this, it needs to be something that has the staffing and the long term support and the financial support both from the feds or the states in terms of these grants have very, very little admin and they are very heavy on costs associated with the city taking them on. And we as a body maybe need to even kind of enroll our Fed Ledge committee and our state large committee on discussing that side of it, to advocate for what it really takes to take on some of these programs in the current society and environment. And then I want to close in stating that we often take on major projects that at the time seem manageable. And I would say that there's many cities throughout throughout our region when you purchase your home, the sidewalk in front of your house and the tree in front of your house, the one city property was your responsibility . And somewhere along the line, cities took on these responsibilities but did not have the long term capacity to make sure it was done and done well. And so I want to make sure that this is such a critical service. I really would love to hear from you how you plan to put your arms around the bigger side of it. I recognize that we've closed out a lot of other ideas along the way, and I think it's also time to really talk about how, within the scope of authority that we have in both our PD and our our firefighters and the new model that we're bringing through through racial equity and inclusion for responding to needs. How our mental health services. Transitioning and or being more approachable. So I look forward any comment you have at this time? Mr. MODICA Yes. So those are good questions. A couple of things. We will certainly be building on work that we've done in the past. A lot of this work is going on. Our team knows that mental health is one of the biggest issues that we face as we deal with populations experiencing homelessness. We have department heads coming together to talk about that, about what else we can get access to. I will say we're also looking at some other opportunities with the new community hospital coming on board. That's been a big thing the council have talked about, too, is are there additional services as they go through their transition that they can assist with? We've got additional facilities that have been brought into Long Beach. There's the with the acronym Bump on the Bucket The Buck. The Buck, the behavioral health center that is currently in Long Beach. And so we engage with some of those services already. In terms of doing this, we would certainly go back and look at anything that we've done in the past. So. Consumer prices, right. There's been several items that have explored aspects of this. So we will go look at that. So some of our staff can be pulling together those things. We will be of next step and basically putting together what it would cost to do this feasibility and where are we going to get the resources from. We think we may have some federal stimulus money as well that is coming that may be able to help. But then we believe we'd also need some consulting resources as well to really take this on. So next step is really to understand tonight that the council wants to proceed with this. And then we would put together that feasibility report of how we would address it and then get the funding and then move ahead. Thank you, Councilman Austin. And I think the city manager answered one of the questions that I actually had. I think this is a worthwhile endeavor for us to look at. Obviously, mental health is a crisis that affected our city, but the entire region. I love the fact that, you know, there's an example of of collaboration or model to to look at. I'll just tell you, I went to college in Laverne. I lived in Pomona. We in Claremont as well. This is a very different area than the north areas as well and with different needs, I think. But it's good to have a model. Um, um, and I think it's great to always look at ways to enhance our mission, the mission of our health department. Right. And build upon the work that they do and the great work that they do. I do. I think, you know, something that was said earlier that that jumped out at me. It was talk was mentioned that that, you know, people don't know where to go to get help. And I think we can start there. Our Hope Department should be a clearinghouse of information on mental health. Poor, poor, poor residents to look to opportunities. And I know we have a number of community based organizations and nonprofits that are providing those resources in our in our city as well. And I think they need to be included in that partnership and coordination that we're discussing here. Obviously, funding is an issue, and I want to learn more about where that access and those opportunities are. This sounds like a in a lot of our our goals here at the city council are aspirational. But, you know, if the funding is there, it can be achievable. And so I'm supporting the the item and I look forward to coming back with the feasibility and opportunities to actually act. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. And just to provide a little bit of context, Councilmember Alston, you asked about funding the MHC funds in the county of Los Angeles in a ten year period, not very recently, but enough to be reasonable. During my tenure with the 15 years, the county went from 700 million a year to their budget went from 700 million to 1.9 billion. So, I mean, the amount of funding is remarkable. The challenge is that these agencies are never given. There's two levels of admin, right? You have the admin from the city side and then you out, you contract that service and then there's the admin within those agencies and the very, very strenuous restrictions. And so I know you're on the state led committee, and I'd ask that almost immediately we start advocating or at least discussing with the. The stakeholders, what does it really take and how do we change that at the state and federal level immediately? Because that's impacting our ability to get services from local providers who are currently contractors through L.A. County. And their ability. The number of people who want to apply to provide these services is also a struggle because they they can't run the agency at the level that are necessary. And then you add in the last two years of inflation, I can only imagine what the challenges are. So I'm not on state ledge, but I'm happy to partner with anyone. That is, I'm not on Fed ledge, but I'm happy to partner with anyone that is, and I'm happy to go to any of the roundtables. This is something that's been a passion of mine for almost a decade, and I really feel strongly that there's so many solutions, but the legislative restrictions on the funding has been challenging. So thank you for your insights. Thank you. And you know, I would just add at that point that, you know, what I envisioned was something similar to what we have in our continuum of care at a local table. We don't even have a local table to bring everybody together. And that table can help, you know, help identify where the gaps are and where the opportunities are. And in terms of funding, there is more funding at this point than there's ever been to address this issue. And, you know, we've been in recovery for so long. Our health department is just now getting back to normal operations. If there's any time to talk about any shifts in how we operate, I think is now. And so I just think it's an incredibly timely conversation. Councilman Austin. Again. Councilmember Mungo always brings up some of the challenges with with just governance and implementing pro programs. The the funding of the I've mentioned may be there. Oftentimes bureaucracy is in the way in terms of implementation. I'm always concerned about staff capacity to be able to study the feasibility of this and what gets put aside and prioritizing , you know, what's important to us. I think it's very, very important that this council really engage in terms of understanding where our priorities are in economics and mental health will probably be a high priority for this council, no doubt, and someone who works with our mental health providers on an everyday basis for several years. I can tell you that there is a shortage of mental health providers and so some of these plans are that are great in terms of theory, but in terms of execution, it may be very difficult to actually find the providers to actually provide this unless we almost really tweak the system. There are shortages of of life, of clinical social workers and psychologists all across the state at this point. And I think in a lot of ways that's going to be part of the crisis that we face, as well as in terms of just making sure that we have the the human resources and capacity to deliver the mental health services that we need. So, again, I'm supportive of this right on my back. Thank you, Mayor, for bringing the vision item before us. Thank you so much to the Council for their conversations. And I see this as in alignment with all the priorities that people have brought forward. I think everyone's contributed. We've talked about homelessness as a top priority. Everyone home identify chronic homelessness and mental health as a significant driver of homelessness. We talked about racial equity and it's in our plan as the number one strategy under advancing health equity. And so these are, in my opinion, they're in alignment. Is there any public comment on this item? Yes, we have three sign up for this item. Well, Desiree Ruth, Mario Ramirez and Rene Castro, please come to the podium. Thank you. Go ahead and state your name and. Yeah, sure. Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council. I am Deborah Ray Rue. I am a licensed clinical social worker and clinical supervisor with century villages of Curio Oasis Residential Services. As Vice Mayor Richardson did. State. Century villages of Cabrillo is in support of this agenda item. Imagine that CVC is a community partner. We provide low income, permanent supportive housing to individuals, families and veterans in Long Beach. Many of our families receive case management and mental health support and other life changing services. So we see firsthand the impact of mental health services and the impact that they have in addressing the behavioral health needs . They show up as hurdles for housing stability. Likewise, we know sex services increase positive physical and emotional outcomes. So we support this proposal because it will serve as a starting point for which to build strong mental health infrastructure in Long Beach. Please vote yes on this very important agenda item. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mario Ramirez. Good evening, council members. My name is Mario Ramirez and I am a current MSW graduate student at Cal State Long Beach, and I thought it was important to comment. Lynn My support voiced my support for this item agenda. I am currently doing an applied project and doing a community assessment and the community that my group is doing is assessing is here in Long Beach District one, the 908 13 zip code and through interviews with residents and stakeholders. One of their main concerns was barriers to access and lack of access for services, specifically mental health services. And some of the barriers could be language, fear of public charge or just not enough services out there. And so I think it's this agenda, this item is if it comes at a perfect time and hopefully everyone votes on it. And I think it's only fitting that that that a couple of days before Veterans Day, a group that, you know, faces mental health challenges, that the council votes on it. And also speaking of Cal State, Long Beach, they have an outstanding social work program, which I'm proud to be a part of. And they have future social workers who are eager to serve their community, specifically Long Beach, and where a lot of individuals can fall through the cracks. Those social workers can fill those gaps. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Members of the council, my name is Rene Castro. Nice to see you all. It's been a long time since I've been up here. I'm a proud resident of the third district, a social worker, faculty member at California State University in Berkeley, Long Beach, for the past 26 years. I'm totally in support of this item, given all the reasons that really can add more than what the council members have added. Mental health, as you all know, is extremely important to our community. We have the resources and capacity to serve our community. We do recognize that there are numerous challenges. This is a huge undertaking. But I will say, as the former chair for Mental Health America, Los Angeles, one of the things that I recognize. It took us four years to get reimbursed by L.A. County, donate on our services. And if we didn't have a $26 million budget at the time, there's no way. I don't know how agencies survive with four years waiting to be paid. So it's an enormous undertaking. But in Long Beach, with the leadership and diligence of our health department and our partners, as we've seen throughout the pandemic, we had the capacity to build a tailored system to address the needs of our local population. Thank you so much for your support of this item. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Karen Riverside and I live at 714 Pacific Avenue in a senior building with 200 other seniors. And one of the things that's missing is the attention to older adults. Older adults are still under the stay at home order, and they've been under a stay at home order for almost two years. I literally have people in my building, particularly those that are mobility, impaired or disabled, that have not left their apartment in months. And I was almost punched in the face by a six foot two man because I asked him to put a mask on as I was exiting my building and he was sitting in the lobby of my building. There's so much pent up rage and fury at people having to be so restricted. I really want to suggest that we do something like men's sheds where it's a safe environment for men to talk about this frustration and rage that they have so that people don't get hurt. And it was very traumatizing. Thank goodness I was able to talk to the police and the police were very, very helpful. So I commend them for being sensitive and handling the method. The problem really well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Members, please cast your vote. In price. Emotions carry.

AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to update the charter, clarify terms and bring the charter into compliance with state law, as it pertains to referendum, initiative and charter ballot measure timelines; amending Sections 230.40, 230.50, 230.50.10, 230.60, 230.70, 230.75 and 800 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the November 2, 2021, general election.

KingCountyCC_06022021_2021-0185

Then, unless there's objection, we will expedite, which means that it will be on the June 15th Council agenda. Hearing no objection. That's what we will do. And that takes us to item six in today's agenda, proposed ordinance 2021 185 would also send a proposed charter amendment to the November ballot. This would. This deals with the timelines for referendums and initiatives, which was also briefed at our last meeting. We have Jake Treacy from council staff here to reorient us as we want us to this legislation and its amendment. Jake. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jake Treacy Council Staff The materials for 2020 10185 begin on page 14 of your packet. The work for this item was done by Miranda less than ten council staff. I'm just filling in for her today. So, as you'll recall from the last meeting, this item would place on the next general election ballot a proposed charter amendment that would update the charter by making changes pertaining to referendum and initiative timelines and clarifying terms and bringing the charter into compliance with state law. With regards to such timelines, Table one on page 16 of your packet provides a summary of the proposed changes as compared to the current charter language. In addition to technical changes and changes intended to align with state law, the ordinance proposed would specify that initiatives and referenda should appear on the next general election ballot after the respective petition filing timelines have been completed unless the Council specifies an earlier time. Currently, the code says it could go on the next general or a special election ballot. So this will default to general unless council made other arrangements. It would clarify that it is the intent to file a referendum that must be submitted before the original effective date of the ordinance, not the signed petitions themselves. Those will need to be filed with council no later than 45 days after enactment of the ordinance. It would also specify that council cannot adopt an initiative by ordinance and thereby therefore thereby avoid a vote by the public only to immediately adopt the new ordinance amending that language. Any ordinance adopted in response to an initiative petition would not be allowed to be amended or repealed by the Council for two years following the effective date of that ordinance, except by an ordinance adopted by a minimum two thirds vote of all members of the Council. There's also a proposed striking amendment that would make technical and clarifying changes and would make a change so that if a valid referendum petition is submitted to the court from the County Council, the effective date of the ordinance would be 90 days after its enactment, rather than 60 days as proposed in the underlying ordinance and 45 days as is the case currently. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Mr. Chair, council member. DUNN Thank you, Mr. Chair. What was the genesis of all this? I missed that. How did this whole process to revise and update these rules relating to the referendum process come to pass was initiated by the Charter Review Commission or someone else? A Yes, that's correct. It was a recommendation of the Charter Review Commission, and I believe the ordinance, as is before you, is in the form that the Charter Commission Review Commission recommended. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Gallucci. Thank you. Just to add a little more context to Councilmember Dunn's question. You may recall, Councilmember Dunn, there was an attempt by a group of citizens to put a measure, an initiative on the ballot on a for an initiative seeking county on the ballot of 2 to 3 years ago. And one of the things that came out during that process was that our rules were contradictory and hard to understand. And in fact, although those residents submitted the requisite number of signatures by the date, they were told they still were too late to make the ballot they were aiming for because our rules did not allow for all of the process steps that were required. And so after that happened, you know, regardless of the substance of that, our process was clearly not working. And so after that, my office and I took it upon ourselves to try to fix the rules which required a change to ordinance and charter. We've already adopted changes to the ordinances, our ordinances to put them in line with state law and each other. This change to the charter would kind of complete the circle of process improvement here so that there is a clear, stepwise path to take to do either an initiative or a referendum in King County. You know, by the way, not a huge fan of this way of legislating, but if we're going to have this is available to people, we should be upfront and honest with them about how long it really takes so that if they put the effort in, they're not told at the end of the day, oops, sorry, you can't go on the ballot anyway. So that that's a little bit more of the flavor of it. Thanks for that clarification. That's helpful. Lambert because remember Lambert. Real quick questions. Why do we move from 45 days for it to become effective to 90 days? My understanding is that that was requested by the executive side or it was it was so that there was enough time on staff's part in order to do the processing. But the sponsor might have more information on that. Because it seems that when people are doing this, they want to do it as quickly as possible. And so that seems like an awfully long time. And then when we're talking about notifying the clerk and writing a we defined writing. I know we talked about this before, but I do writing to include by email. I would have to follow up with you on that. I believe that they accept it by email, but I can confirm that. Okay. And then my last question is on page seven. It's. Because he's 17. They find it where they were talking about it real quick again are. You have to go on. Only the general ballot. Yes. The last part under 30.50 on page 17. The last bullet specified in Mississippi are only a general election unless the council specifies an earlier date. So. It seems a little redundant in some ways because it is a target, but we could pick any date we want. So explain why that's called out so clearly. And do we have authority? Supposing a city says, I really want this done quickly and I want it on April ballot. And for some reason we don't like whatever that is. We're sorry we had to wait till the November ballot. Is that a possibility that they could create? So I can say that the the existing rules say it goes on either the next special or the next general election ballot, whichever one comes first. So and this would go to just the next general election ballot, unless the council unless the council said, yes, it's going to go into a special election prior to that. So it would be up to the council to decide if it can go on an earlier date or if it defaults to the general election ballot. I think that was a recommendation that came out of the Charter Review Commission. All right. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. See no further questions. Council member Banducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move that. We approve a proposed motion 2020 10185 with a do pass recommendation. Councilor Reason is House. Member Bill Duty has moved it. We give it to pass. Recommendation to propose motion ordinance 2021 185. Councilmember Balducci. I understand there is also an amendment. I don't know if would like to brief that first or have me move it first. I believe Jake spoke to it. You know, it just it is striking the amendment S1 on page 31. Yes. Moving on to S1. S1 is before us. See no discussion. All those in favor of approving amendment S1 please signify by saying. Ii1i. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted for the discussion on ordinance 2021 185 as amended. Mr. Charles, speak to a. Council member about duty. Thank you. As I said earlier, this is really the end of a kind of a journey of legislative cleanup we've been on to make sure that these processes are clear and implementable so that if and when groups of residents go to the effort to either run a referendum or initiative in King County, our rules make sense and they can be understood. We created a Gantt chart, which I will gladly share with anybody that shows sort of when all the steps have to happen in order. The elections is very much on board with clarifying these processes, so it's really clear what they have to do and when. Sometimes in these processes, the council has a role. It's clear what we have to do and when it just makes it possible for residents to access their government in this way. In response to one of Councilmember Lambert's questions, what the the amended ordinance would do if adopted into the charter by the voters is it would extend the entire process to a total of 90 days instead of a total of 60 days. So it's long, but it's not really ridiculously long. And the reason is to allow election 40 days to verify signatures. That sounded like a lot to me too, when election proposed it. But when I thought about it and listening to what they were saying, often the need to verify very large stacks of many, many thousands of signatures hits around the same time as they're working on an election, and they don't have people hanging around just to sit down and do this work. So to make sure that they were allowed ample time and could always meet their deadlines, this was what they thought was was required. And because the goal of this whole change is to make sure that we can meet our marks and that if we tell somebody who comes in with a petition, if you do everything you're supposed to in 90 days, you will be able to get on the November ballot. We want to be able to make that statement and make it true. And so this allows ample time so that we can always feel confident that we can do that. And that's the entire purpose of the change. I really appreciate the charter commission taking this up and looking at it very closely and passing it on to us because it does complete a path that we were already on to really fix one of our one of our one of our operating processes that we have here at King County Government. And I urge everyone support. For the discussion. Just a quick. Question, if I might, Mr.. Councilmember, about. This touches on an inquiry that Councilmember Lambert raised, and that is that kind of default to the next general election. And I wondered if there was kind of a pro and con assessment of that. I think of that initiative and referendum was kind of coming out of the populist movement. If my memory if my history serves me correctly, it's kind of a Western states thing and it's kind of it's designed as the ultimate testing of power in the people when their elected representatives maybe get a little sidetracked from what the majority wants on on a key issue. And, and, and I when I think about that, I it seems like that that a defaulting to the next general election could really lengthen the process for the people's voice to be heard on an issue of of major importance. And I understand that that there's a counter to that in this legislation where we could we could put it on a special ballot or a primary, for example. But that kind of seems to be counter to the general thrust of the initiative and referendum power. And so I'm wondering what the discussion was in the Charter Review Commission about that issue of defaulting to the to the next general, which is different than what we do today, as I understand it goes on the next election ballot. Unfortunately, Councilmember, I do not have that information in front of me. I'm sure if Miranda was here today, she would be able to give you a thorough background on that. But I'll be happy to follow up with you on that. Okay, Jeff, maybe it was chiming in there perhaps or wanting to. I was just going to say the exact same magnitude. All right. I guess I would say I'd be supportive today, but I'm interested in that angle as we take it up at full council and make sure that we're comfortable with that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski. And not knowing the thinking of the charter review commission at all. It occurs to me that with the turnout in the general election, there's certainly more of the electorate, more of the public participating in that decision than in a primary and certainly than in a special election. But that's my own thinking at this moment, not at all representing what the term review commission may have been thinking. Fair point. Thank you, Joe. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert. I'm glad you're at least talking about this, because sometimes the November ballot can be very long, very complicated, and people are working on big ticket items and this might be a down ticket item and not get the scrutiny that it might get a smaller election and that the cost of elections, you know, people are pretty clear about , well, I don't want to be the only thing like Councilmember DEMBOSKY asked earlier on, what does it cost? Because if you're going to go on, say, a primary election date, you have most likely other people just to share the costs with you. You don't have more people as a general, but you may have less scrutiny because there'll be more attention on other things. So it could be good and it could be bad. And so I think having the flexibility of the citizens being able to decide, is it better for me to be able to have more bandwidth or is that better for me? Not so. I think it's a good thing to at least think about. Thank you. Councilmember Mel Duchin, anything to close? I appreciate the discussion, and I think these are issues that we can take up on final passage. If that anyone has any amendments. I just urge them to really think ahead and make sure, because there's a number of hands that have to touch these processes, including elections, our own clerk's office, etc.. So if we're going to make changes to this, I really encourage that people check with those folks in-depth as early as possible, because I find that with any like with any process, if you pull the string here, things might happen over here that you're not thinking about. And as I said, the goal of this entire thing is to make the process manageable, clear and doable so that it is a reliable thing for anybody who undertakes this, which is a significant amount of effort. So, yeah, I appreciate the discussion and everyone support I urge yes. Vote here today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And quickly, please call the roll. Was there a vote on this breaking amendment? I may have missed that. Pardon me. I have it documented that there was a vote on my amendment. Great. Would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi, I. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilmember Caldwell's i. Councilmember Lambert, i. Councilmember of the ground. Councilmember the girl. Councilmember Yvonne Recover. I. Council members. Hello? I. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is eight zero now. Council member of the group. Excused. Thank you. Councilmember at the Grove. Are you able to unmute? Not at the moment. Then we will be in touch with his office if he wants to follow up before the end of the day as our procedures for remote meetings allow. And without having no other business before us, I guess I should be clear. The motion is adopted and will be expedited to the June 15th Council meeting. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department in the amount of $10,300, offset by the Second Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department to purchase and deploy four new portable basketball hoops in the Second District; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $10,300 to offset a transfer to the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department.

LongBeachCC_05182021_21-0453

Thank you. All right. We're going to do all the funds transfer items together, which is item 24, 25, 26 and 32. So if I can have you please read all those, please. Adam, 24, is communications from Councilwoman Ellen recommendation to increase appropriations in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department in the amount of 10,300 to purchase and deploy four new portable basketball hoops in the second District. Item 25 is a communication from Council Women's and they have Councilwoman Sara recommendation to increase appropriations in the city manager's department by 1000 to provide a contribution to Long Beach, home living and work sense to support flavors of Long Beach. Item 26 is a communication from council members and has Council Member Rangel recommendation to increase appropriations in the city manager's department by 1000. To provide donations to Elmore City Heritage Association to support the 2021 Will Moore slam season of Live Arts and Music, Virtual Addition and item 32. Is a communication from Councilwoman Price recommendation to increase appropriation in the City Manager Department by 700 to provide a contribution to the Wilson Instrumental Music Booster Organization. Thank you. Can I get a motion in a second, please, on this? I have a most of my councilman allen is thinking about Councilmember Ringa. I don't believe we have met him for public comment for any of these. Is that right? We had no public comment. Okay. Great. Unless somebody wants to say any remarks from from from those. Councilman, our Councilman Allen do have any remarks. A Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to real quickly and briefly, I just want to thank the man with 2/1 names, Director Brant Dennis, for his just for his partnership in this mobile basketball program. And, you know, these outdoor activities for kids are super important to me. And it brings me so much joy when I see the kids and the parents all at the one two year old beach, you know, shooting the hoops. And I go down there and I check that out over the weekends. And I love seeing just people waiting. Sitting on the ball are just waiting for a pickup game. And I love bringing my nephews down there. But one of the things that we were missing, there's just not enough of them. So I think that these hoops will be, you know, just real important for they you know, they can go on in and play with each other and just give them things to do. Plus, I want to say that the portable hips will be beneficial for years to come and it will add, you know, major flexibility to our recreation staff to deploy them around the the second district. So my staff did tour at different areas and the potential sites for these kids who will be possibly at Pierpoint Landing Promenade Square Park in Bixby Park. So just want to thank Brant enough and I can't wait to get this set up. And. And Brant, we're going to do a pickup game together. Thank you so much. That's right. I've been practicing, so I got to keep up with you. Good victory. Thank you. Customer Orangutan. Do you have any comments? No. I will defer to custodians and that. Consumers in the House. Thank you and thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Dunga, I just wanted to say thank you to the lovely flavor of Long Beach programs. I'm so excited about giving and supporting this, this or this program and this organization. This Saturday, we will be having a taco festival at our very own and wonderful, wonderful Scottish. Right. And so I want to I want to invite everybody. It's going to be from ten. I'm sorry. It's going to be from 12 to 6 at the Scottish Rite Event Center here in the First District. And I couldn't be more happy to partner with with flavors of Long Beach and Long Beach, home and living. And of course, rock sounds big shout out to Robert. And so come join us this Sunday, May 23rd, from 12 2 to 1. I also want to congratulate, well, more for their continued hard work in in giving to and and providing space for the arts. I think that the arts has. Been. Extremely, extremely impacted by COVID. And so I'm just incredibly grateful to be able to support this kind of event for our Willmore Neighborhood Association. Keep doing the great work that you're doing. So very, very thankful for that. Thank you. With that, we'll take a roll call. Vote for all items, please. 24, 25, 26, 32. Councilwoman Sandy has. I have a woman I own. I can't woman price. I have been all kinds of women. Mango. I can travel men. Sara. I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Alston. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. Bush and Kerry. Thank you, madam. Cookies. I am 31. The item that we postponed from last week was at a different one. Well, let's hear 31.

Recommendation to Approve Sending a Letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Endorsing Implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 1421 (Laura’s Law). (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_06112015_2015-1750

Recommendation to approve sending a letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors endorsing Implementation of Assembly Bill 1421. Laura's Law. We have a speaker on this. Okay. Doug Fix. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm here tonight as president of the Social Service Human Relations Board. The Social Service Human Relations Board did meet and consider an endorsement of implementing Laura's Law in Alameda County. And we we did choose to support that. And we're requesting that the city council also endorse implementing Laura's Law in a pilot phase here in Alameda County. As Mr. Wet pointed out, there's a great need for this law here. The police at this time have a really blunt instrument to use in 5150, which are mandatory holdings up to 72 hours. I checked before I came here in the last seven days. There's been over two dozen 5150s in Alameda alone. A lot of those are repeat fliers, frequent fliers. I every day, not every day, but every week I witness, you know, the impacts of 51, 50 out where I work. And I could tell you that sometimes those folks that are taking in get back to Alameda before the police do. The police that took them up there, 5150 is not a treatment option. It's an imprisonment option. Laura's Law provides for assisted outpatient treatment, which is a process that allows courts to compel individuals with mental illness and a past history of arrest or violence to stay in treatment as a condition for living in the community. Assisted outpatient treatment is a proven evidence based treatment by SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration of the federal government. Laura's Law was passed in California, but it's left to the local counties to implement it in counties where it has been implemented, both in California and other states, because 42 other states have shown leadership on this and have already implemented it and are seeing results in California, hospitalization in counties where it was, it was implemented, hospitalization was reduced by 46%, incarceration reduced by 65%. In New York, where it's also been implemented, reducing physical harm to others was reduced by 47%. This is treatment we're talking about. This is an outpatient treatment where where the person can still have some connection with their community. It's not imprisonment. It's a proven practice. It's in our best interest as a community that has to deal with 5150 on a constant basis to find not an imprisonment solution, but a treatment solution. And this is what it is. I do hope you move forward tonight and endorse implementation of Laura's Law in Alameda County and that you urge the Board of Supervisors to act on that as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do you have any other speakers on this item? And Brody. Thank you. I have a question. The staff who are the supervisors in favor and who seem to be against? We know that. Supervisor Chan is in favor and permits to it. Supervisor Smiley answers in favor. Thank you. Any discussions? Well. Rushkoff Yeah. I pulled this from the consent calendar because I read the the staff report and then I emailed Miss Wooldridge because she'd written the staff report and I had a number of questions among them, you know, why if this piece of legislation that was implemented in was enacted in 2000 to have only ten or maybe 12 of 58 California counties chosen to enact it. And I would have liked a little more information about. Numbers and what results have actually been seen. So I did reach out to some staff from the County Board of Supervisors. And what I learned and this is what concerns me, first of all, there is no dispute that there is a need for more mental illness. And to Mr. Witt, I knew your father in law well, and it was a very sad situation that I don't think any of us can really imagine unless we've experienced it yourself. But if you're a parent, you can only imagine the pain that you would feel for your child in a situation like that , as well as anyone harmed by your child. And but I wanted to know, why was the board of Supervisors not not passing this? Because it came before them two years ago. And what I was told is that this was a very controversial measure from the start among the mental health provider community, even among the families. But it's not unusual for a a difficult situation to not have, you know, 100% buy in. But the what the board of Supervisors asked to have done when this issue came before them two years ago, was for there to be a study group. So it was chaired by the behavioral health care services of the county, and they came up late last year with this report re-envisioning engagement AB 1421 Stakeholder Planning Response and Implementation Plan. And what the 11 different points that are, are or suggestions that are made do is the summary is that it focuses on increasing capacity across the system and expanding programs with a sharp focus on creating intentional linkages for consumers and families with these who need these services and community supports. This was presented to the supervisors earlier this year. It was pulled from the agenda by one of the supervisors and it hasn't come back before them. And at the very least, I and I was told that this implementation doesn't have a chance of passing at the Board of Supervisors. I don't pretend to get into those weeds, but what I would at least like the council to consider and you know, maybe if this were to come back that we could somehow supplement it with . I just would like the council to know what the Board of Supervisors has actually seen as a way to supplement this implementation, because at some point this may get back before the the supervisors and I was told that what Alameda County among these 11 steps that are recommended is envisioning doing is more akin to what the city of San Francisco is doing. They have a community conservatorship. And there's also the mental health court and the judge there, I'm told, Judge Brosnahan, has said that we can do what needs to be done through the mental health courts. So at least I think we should be endorsing all possible avenues because we you know, we certainly have these kinds of cases in our community, as does the rest of the county. But anyway, I. I want to see something done. I want to see it done effectively using the resources in the most efficient manner. So I think we should also encourage the the supervisors to consider this stakeholder report that they ordered that was done over the course of, I think, four or five months. And it was a facilitated process involving mental health providers, family members, the representatives of the sheriff's department and the public defender, family members, service providers, as well as consumers, the actual people who are in need of these services. So if there was a way that we could somehow amend this recommendation to consider both implementing AB 1421 and or this stakeholder planning response and implement implementation plan, I could certainly support that. The other council members comments or motion. In America? Yes, Vice Mayor. I think the gist of our letter is that the laws on the books and we'd like it to be implemented. We're not telling them how to implement it. I think they've already started that process. And this is our urging them to. They basically follow the state law and we have examples of this in our community. And I want to make the motion that. Support or approve the recommendation to send the letter on behalf of the city endorsing. AB 1421. And just for clarity, the law actually leaves it to each county to decide whether to implement. And that's why, you know, only a handful of counties. Have a motion. I'll second that motion. Any other discussion? Yes. I'd like to offer a quick comment. In reviewing the information that's presented to us. It looks like there is a number of credible leaders in this, particularly on this matter, who want to see action done. It seems, though, I think the necessity of the law is well understood, like no other city other than Berkeley. I think we here in Alameda feel special desire to see, at least speaking for myself, feel special desire to see this implemented sooner rather than later. And I have to believe that the process has been place where a variety of issues and a variety and a number of stakeholders have been involved. Can we involve even more stakeholders to get even greater consensus? That's possible, but I think we're at a point now where we're we're ready for action. We don't want to see something that happened, not just to the Cougar family in Berkeley, but also to the dimwit family whose family we hold in high esteem. With the contributions, especially of former council member Abdi Witt, father in law and of misty wit, as well as father of Mr. Wit and grandfather. Young Mr.. So I'm ready to vote and moving this forward. I'd like to speak real quick, if that's all right. Could you clarify, was this passed by the people in 2002 that. I think was passed by the legislature? In 2002. That. Was passed by the California state legislature in. 2002. Thank you very much. All right. So I'd like to speak to that 2002. We are now in 2015. It's my understanding Alameda County has one of the highest, if not the highest rate of 5150s. The current system. Based upon that, at least in Alameda County not working. We need to step up. We got to try something different. And and this is a I'm ready. I plan to support this. I think it's extremely unfortunate. And I would actually say wrong that counties have not stepped up. I think this actually should have been not opt in, but mandatory. When you are failing society, action must be taken. You can change it if it if it's not working. But you got to try something. We can tell you what's happening now is not working. So I plan to support this. And Mayor, I'm actually going to join you in supporting it with the caveat that it might not pass the supervisors. And then I hope that at least the the other implementation plan will and you know, like so many things, it's not simple and it's not black and white, because what was explained to me is that even though this is involuntary, the once the person is brought in, they can't be made to stay in the treatment. They can't be made to take their medications. And so this other one is not no one was saying, oh, this law is, you know, wrong headed. They're just saying, let's look at the processes we already have in place and strengthen them. But this is at the supervisors level. I mean, I don't it's not a bad thing to support, but it may come down to. I requested to be put on the agenda. I understood the imperative that we step up. I think it's imperative that this go that our supervisors step up. 13 years is too long. Any other comment? All those in favor I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next agenda item. Six eight. Présentation on the City of Alameda Homeless survey by the Social Service Human Relations Board. This point is the point. This. And we solve all the problems. Yeah, that's the magic moment. You want to push a button to? I know, I. And you're now. Time for an update on the score. Yeah. Anybody have the score? Who's watching? Do you want to score and still up 5442 at halftime. I just kind of that came to me. For those of you that don't know. The Warriors playoff game is going on as we're sitting here and say the score again. Member Ashcraft. What did they just say? 5442 at the half. Warriors are leading. Yes. And I'm clairvoyant city attorney that. Thought I could make it. Do folks have a personal screen? Yeah. Okay. And on the projector, I. To the fans on our screen. You don't know that. Is it too late to add that to the budget? No, I. Can't. But is this, like, keep coming down and if I go too long, I know. And. It's going to. So we're waiting for the projector to help us out. China is going to save us. Those of you that are watching us from home. Yeah. It's happening. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to make this as fast as I can to get out. But you have to start, right? Well, if you have a printed format, I suppose you can put it there then. You borrow it? You want to do that? Oh, well. No. Well, I don't think I can protect acting at all and project from the table. Like no light. Coming out of the. Projector. Right. Oh, regardless. Okay. You have it in your screen to life. It is. Only used. But it means it is. On our screens. But if the audience can't see, it is correct. Something's coming up. Here we go. Up the. Oak area. Okay. All right. Please proceed, Mr. Biggs. That's the first time I've been cheered, and I don't think that was. Good evening. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm president of the Social Service Human Relations Board. And I'm delighted tonight to present results of a homeless survey that the board led the effort on. That was conducted on September 24th, 2014. And I guess I have to work this thing going, okay. So the goals of the count were to kind of begin understanding the breadth and diversity of homelessness in Alameda and to begin looking at gaps in services for the homeless in Alameda. And I really have to thank member Ashcraft who led the effort on really bringing this together to begin with. There was some question she had around the condition of homeless and the the breadth of homelessness in Alameda that prompted us to take a look at it. So the process was that we divided the city into six sectors and we developed and we actually put quite a bit of lot of thought into the interview questions we would ask. We started with a number of counties. In fact, every county in the country does a homeless count if they get HUD funding. And we started with that questionnaire and then narrowed it down because that questionnaire is, quite frankly, about 35 pages long and could take up to a half hour to complete. And we didn't have that skills expertize. Plus we only wanted information that was really useful to us. One of the very unique aspects of our program and also something we put a lot of thought into is we had backpacks to distribute to whoever we met. And I want to thank Jim, friend of city staff and who staff to the shrub of of helping to put that together the backpacks included some food included included some basic necessities such as toiletries, socks. It also included bus passes so people could get to appointments that included phone cards and it included resource books about services that would be available. So the the districts that were created or the or the sectors that were created spanned from Alameda point out to Bay Farm Island. And each sector had a team of volunteers that did counting in that area. The volunteers were made up of community members, Alameda Police Department, other staff, Alameda Police Department volunteers and policing elected officials. Again, we're very thrilled to have our Mayor Spencer join us for the Count and Councilmember Ashcraft also join us for the Count. And we had staff from the County of Alameda Housing Department who were getting ready to lead their own homeless count that came out to see what they could assist us with in helping us. And then each member of Shrub also took a role as a leader of one of the teams. So we met very early in the morning prior to going out. The idea was to get out there right at sunrise and we did a briefing of the volunteers. Each volunteer was was very clearly identified as a volunteer to assist with homeless information. We had the assistant, the Alameda Police Department, and I can't say this enough. Alameda is so extremely fortunate to have on its police force a woman like Elisa Ledbetter, who on her own leading up to this has put together an amazing number of resources to assist people with mental disabilities, the homeless that she encounters. The police in general were a wealth of information on where we should we should be looking protocols for contacting, to making sure that both we were safe and the people we were contacting were safe. They just did a wonderful job on this. Plus, they recruited a number of volunteers. So we we we divided up the teams and made sure everybody was filled up with coffee and gave last minute instructions to each of the teams as to where you would be going to go over their questionnaire real briefly and then head out. And again, this is Officer Ledbetter, who can't say enough about her. So the findings of the survey were that we identified the 17 people as being homeless. Of that number, eight were interviewed and an additional nine were observed but were not interviewed. This was this was an anecdotal study versus an empirical study. If you do the county count, they have a lot of algorithms that they throw into the fig data more realistic. This was really literally feet on the ground with our eyes in some cases. You know, it's a little intimidating to approach somebody and say, are you homeless and ask those questions? So we may not have captured all the data. We weren't really trying to we were just trying to get a little baseline, a little bit of an understanding of where we're at. And we found two very interesting things. Of the eight that were interviewed, five indicated they were chronically homeless. That is, that continuously homeless for a year or more or homeless more than four times over a three year period. Among this group, mental health issues seemed apparent. And just to give you an example, we had one gentleman who had been dropped off here by his brother from, I believe, Arizona, and he had no spatial recognition ability. He had no sense of direction. He had been to the food bank once. He had left the island of Alameda. He'd been to the food bank once, but had never been able to find it again. So he stayed where he was and really relied on other people to bring him things. The Alameda Food Bank was I'm sorry, another important issue that three of the eight indicated they are veterans. And we had very specific information to hand out to veterans to get them hooked up with the Veteran Homeless Initiative. The Alameda Food Bank was used by four of the eight individuals, and several also mentioned that they'd use hospital and emergency services repeated times. What I think is really important of the eight people that were interviewed for who listed Alameda as their last permanent address. So they were living here as residents before they became homeless. So the next steps in this is actually I'm go to number two to begin with is to bring back the homeless count for a follow up count. We want to repeat this. So the more often we repeat it, the more the better information we get. So we are planning on doing another count in late July or early August, and we hope that some folks will join us for that. We also want to convene an interdepartmental meeting of some of the city departments to talk about some of the needs and an impact on homelessness in the context of future development. There's things we do, whether it's Parkland development or whatnot, that can either encourage or support homeless or discourage and move them out. And there's discussion to be had on both sides. But I think we need to go into it with an understanding of what are the consequences on the homeless of whatever policy actions we take. And of course, the last was was to continue working with the police department to improve protocols around the provision of resources, housing brochure, encountering homeless. And I can report to you that as recently as this week, when the police went out to the Sweeny Parkland and to do a clearing action, they took with them the backpacks we had prepared. And of the five people that were left there, because they've been for the last month, they've been going out there saying, you've got to move on, you've got to move on. They've been supporting these people in their efforts to move. And again, Officer Leadbitter has been out there with her resources. Five people were left and each of those five got a backpack with with bus passes and the calling cards and foods and socks. So there's already a lot of initiative underway between social services and the police department and not you know, this isn't a punishment action. It's a resource action to help direct people in the in the direction of the right resources. And that's my report. And I'd be glad to entertain any questions you may have. Member Ashcraft First of all, thank you for that report and also for for all of your efforts. I agree with you that Officer Elisha Ledbetter is a rock star when it comes to this, but so are you. Because when I raised the question with you last more than a year ago, you right away said, okay, let's let's walk Webster Street and let's, you know, pick a time to do that. And we walked up one side and down the other and it was really touching to see we did encounter some individuals and very touching to see Mr. Biggs and how non-threatening and respectful and low key his manner of speaking and eliciting information. Not everybody wanted our help, but I also wanted to just add that that day that we went out was a day kind of like yesterday we had rain, remember rain, and it had rained overnight. And so things were a little damp. So even when we showed up to get organized for the count, I know we were told some people head indoors. They find in a shelter somewhere under a roof when it's raining. So the count might have been a little low as a result of that. And I'm glad that you mentioned the encampment that was recently cleared out at the the site of the Jean Sweeney Beltline Park Open Space Park that we're developing, because it isn't just I read the local online news sites, Michelle Allison site and someone made the comment that, oh, the police just tell the homeless to move along, not Alameda PD. They don't. They had, as Mr. Biggs indicated, the backpacks that are full of not only some supplies but resources. And they can get you to where you need to go if you need the food bank or you need, you know, medical care or you need some rapid rehousing. And there was also a comment on the story that Michelle Allison did on her site. And someone mentioned seeing a family at the pizza at Nob Hill Market. You can think of where that is and that they appeared to be homeless. They were heating their dinner in a microwave and wasn't a shame that, you know, but if the police had come, they probably would have shooed them away. And I emailed the police chief, O'Leary, and said, did you see that comment? Because trust me, he reads those, too. And he said he did. And no, no, no. If so, this is just for the public and anyone listening. If you see a situation that looks like a family or an individual in need of assistance, you can call the police department the non-emergency number, tell them what you're seeing, where you're seeing it, and they will send an officer out to assist. So I checked that with the police chief when I read that comment. But anyway, thank you for all the work you're doing. We look forward to the next steps in this process. Thank you. And if I could just add, and I think I do have to say this, I saw that same comment and also prior to the first count I comment about, well, there were people barbecuing down at Crab Cove that, look, homeless people have a right to barbecue in our parks. People have a right to go shopping in the shopping centers and purchase items and heat them up. They may not necessarily be hot, not all. They may look different for you. They may be homeless. And it's okay to ask if their services that they need. Uh, member, Odie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. For. For all you do. You're one of the pillars of our community that, you know, take care of the people that are are least fortunate. And we really appreciate, you know, all of your hard work. I mean, I do I think I speak for the council. Just a couple of quick questions. So when we go back and we do this other count, are we doing kind of a census where, you know, we keep track? You know, is this someone we counted last time? You know, when we talk to that person, did they need services, you know, almost and almost like case management? I don't know if, you know, we have the resources to do that, but no. Are we doing that or are we are we able to tell in our next count? Are these folks that are new to alamy this homeless population or I mean, just things like that? I was just curious. We are going to attempt to see if there's there's any repeats from people we interviewed before. A number of the interviews, folks that we interviewed for last time I had notes on, in some cases I was able to because some of them already had case management in other jurisdictions that they were working with. So I was able to contact that case management. They're not able to share information with me. It's a one way, you know, hey, we met this person. Just want to make sure they're they're doing stuff. So we'll follow up if we do meet somebody that is a repeat from last year will definitely ask a question about what services they've they've are taking off since then. And you have the program where, you know, homeless veterans over at the collaborative government are. Were you able to help any of the if there was, what, three, three veterans Operation Dignity operates those those units? Our understanding is they were already tied in with services to some extent. And I know that since that time there's been a huge influx of vet services. So I want to follow up and see if they've they've been reached. Okay. And thanks again for everything you do. You're you're welcome. Everyday. Just two points. First point is thank you very much to Councilmember Marilyn as the Ashcraft for bringing this to the fore and also a thank you to Councilmember Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer for taking part. So we'll have to step up as well. Next time you have your count. And I mean that seriously, because this is an important and this leads me to the second point is that, you know, for the city of Alameda to be as proactive as we are, particularly you, the council members here, I think is a great reflection of how far we've come. Way back in 1994, you know, we were dealing with the homeless issue, but perhaps and in antagonistic ways. And out of that came. Amendment to the McKinney Act. And it really started here in Alameda. But, you know, through the collaborative homeless collaborative, Alameda Point Collaborative, you know, I think our community has done a sea change in terms of what its responsibility is with regard to those who are the most vulnerable. But we're not going to just build housing for those who can afford the highest market rate rents or for sale prices. But I think as staff and as council working with our community, we will also make sure to. Do what we can for those who are most vulnerable. I would be remiss also if I didn't say this was a this is a project of the entire shrub. Every member was very actively involved here in the morning state after work to help crunch the data. So this was this was a truly a whole commission effort. I swear I appreciate the diligence and particularly put in next steps after having the experience. There are a couple of things that I wanted perhaps to address to staff through through this board, if people are interested. And it's one thing to to live in a park. But we had the issue of the event abandoned the vacant buildings that are on the point that are attractive nuisances to young people. I'm afraid that they can be places where people who are leaving June 20 park might look for shelter and. I do not want to us to be reading that someone has died there. There's a fire there because of another encampment inside. And I'm hoping we can address removing those buildings. And at the same time, I think looking at the the means that we might have, not just in Alameda but through the county or state, is kind of a next step of where we put a roof over the heads of people who. What avail themselves to it and in a shortage of space that we have now, and how do we add to that to address it? Because I think in the next count, we'll probably see that the numbers are bigger. And that's just what I've observed over the last year. West side of Alameda. But it's my understanding that the point is on the parking lot and we'll be coming back. But we will be hearing from staff on that issue. I was just saying. Just go ahead. It's just to. Is there a way that we can accelerate? Is there a money in the Alameda Point budget to address what's an attractive nuisance but now that people are being moved out. Of in Sweeney Park. I mean, we there were five that were remaining, but there were others there. What are we going to do about that? And can we do it sooner than waiting until September when we talk about the parking lot? Right. So we do not meet during August. I was going to come back number. But the problem is now. I think at least for the buildings out at Alameda Point, part of that process is looking at sort of doing an inventory of that and making sure that we understand which buildings need to come down and then get a cost estimate to take them down and then sort of triage them to make sure, because we may not be able to afford to take them all down at once. So there is some planning that we need to do before we just sort of say, okay, yeah, we're going to do that. So we will absolutely do it as quickly as we can. Just a clarification, Mr. Madame. Is that part of the study that Public Works is doing? This is separate and apart and separate. Okay. Got it. And then just a question for Mr. Biggs. And we talked about this a couple of times about the need for rapid rehousing, but often using countywide or regional resources to maximize resources. I mean, I know we have we have a women's shelter in there, but do you can you just touch on that? So. Sure. So some of the resources. That as far as rapid rehousing goes, which is the whole idea of keeping people from becoming homeless first, the county, the boomerang fund. Which is the whole complex we all get into, but it's money that's coming back through the dissolution of redevelopment. They put a significant amount of funds from that. They could have gone into the general fund. They're putting it into rapid rehousing, building a future for women and children, which operates Midway Shelter is also the regional provider, including the City of Alameda for Rapid Rehousing Funds, and they also have some money, CDBG funds from the city for that as well. So they've really gone out of their way to make sure that Alameda serve through rapid rehousing. I will say, though, that the chronically homeless, the ones we're seeing out there, require the highest level. They need permanent supportive housing, which is what we operate out of at Alameda Point. But you know, the good side of it is if we can find some way to get seven, eight permanent supportive housing units, we have solved homelessness for all practical purposes in Alameda. You're always going to have people moving through. But for the chronically homeless, these guys who have been living in the wharves, under the wharves for the last five years. You could provide a permanent solution for them. Though we're close. We could be really close on that. So I'd like to share my experience going out that morning we left. My recollection is 6 a.m. or something like that. It was early. It was in the dark. When we met here, we teamed up. My partner and I were assigned an area, I think by South Shore, walking along the waterfront to Crab Cove. And we came we found only one person and the person we found actually by the time we we saw him, he was watching the sunrise and we spoke with him. And he was my recollection is he was a vet, but he had lived in this area previously. This is where he felt comfortable and he was very appreciative of the bag. He really did appreciate us giving him the bag. He was actually. You know, comfortable chatting with us. And I got the impression that that's actually where he feels comfortable, is there at Crab Cove, which, by the way, is where I feel comfortable, which if I chose that area, I run there in the morning and it's a beautiful place to live. However, of course, it's a serious issue. And, you know, reaching out to him, going out in these teams. I'm hoping, you know, it'd be great to have more community members join us whenever this data set. And we do team up in pairs. And it's it's actually a really good experience as someone that's out there trying to help our community members. Thank you to share that. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. So we just. This is the presentation. We don't vote on this. Yeah. The 6 p.m.. Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license, taxes and delinquent integrated waste management accounts via the property tax bills.

Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Troy Hosmer and Appointing April Madison-Ramsey as Members of the Civil Service Board; Reappointing Arnold Brillinger and Jennifer Linton and Appointing Allison Mullings as Members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities; and Reappointing Christine Chilcott and Appointing Priya Jagannathan and Anthony Lewis as Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.

AlamedaCC_10202020_2020-8384

Okay. So at this point I'm going to close oral communications and here's where we're going to hop ahead to item six A and so I know Madam Clerk here lining up our individuals, but let me just introduce what we're doing. This is where we are going to adopt a resolute resolutions. I think it can be one resolution, can it? Madam Clerk. You can approve it by one motion. One by one motions that we are adopting by one motion resolutions, reappointing Troy Horsburgh and appointing April Madison Ramsey as members of the Civil Service Board, reappointing Arnold Berlinguer and Jennifer Linton, and appointing Alison Mullens as members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and reappointing Christine Chilcott and appointing Priya Jagannathan and Anthony Lewis as members of the Social Services Human Relations Board. And then as an extra added bonus, Seema Cisneros, who is our newest appointee to the planning board, was unable to attend the the meeting, the last meeting where she would have been sworn in and introduced. Now, she managed to hook up virtually with the city clerk and be sworn in so she could attend her first planning board meeting. But I wanted you all to interest to meet her. So here in front of you, you have a very impressive collection of individuals. Hi, everyone. It was my high honor truly to have a chance to meet you all and hear your amazing backgrounds. I've counsel in the public. You should just be as amazed and grateful as I am that these talented, hardworking people with very, very busy lives are carving time out of their lives to help serve our city on the boards and commissions. So first, we need that resolution approved by one motion, correct? Correct. All right. I see Councilmember Odie is making that motion. Do I have a second? Councilmember Rivera has seconded me. We have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes, not Slate. Hi. Hi. Bella. Hi, Mayor. Is the Ashcraft High that carries by five eyes. May I quickly ask if anyone who is an attendee that called in and didn't have video options, if you could raise your hand by pushing Star nine so we can promote you too. But we just didn't see everybody. So we want to make sure nobody we weren't missing anybody. Nobody's raising their hands. So I think we're good. Okay. I'm not seeing Christine up. Oh. There there is someone that's an open for. We'll get well we'll put them in. Great. Thank you. Okay, great. And. And Anthony Lewis might be out there. Yeah. And Arnold and Jennifer. I'm not sure if you called in. Can you identify yourself just so we can say hello? You can go to. Go ahead and meet yourself. Hi, this is Anthony Lewis. Sorry about that. I know. No worries. I knew that accidentally, but thank you. I'm looking forward to being on the Shrub for sure. We're delighted to have. Thank you. Thank you. The city of Alameda when that's what a staff. Yes, that's. That's us. That's the broadcasters. Okay. All right. Well, let's let's move forward and we'll just get we've got a great crew right here. So. Yes. So if. And if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hand. This is kind of the awkward part on Zoom, but we all kind of step backwards. Maybe it helps out. Added you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear you support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California, and that you'll well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter. And then we can oh, they're all muted. But I think I saw as I said, I think. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. And, um, and again, I just want to thank you so much for, for this commitment to the city. We are all better for the, the time and the effort that you are going to spend on these various boards and commissions. So thank you. And you know what we can do really quick because we just have half a dozen. May I just ask you to just stand mute really quickly and introduce yourself and just a little, little bit about you? April, may I start with you? Is Madison Ramsey. Good evening, mayor and council members. I am April Madison Ramsey. I am a practicing attorney. I've been practicing law in the state of California for about 28 years, currently working in-house in the Office of General Counsel at Stanford University. I have worked for both. The city and county of San Francisco and the City of Oakland as an employment attorney, but most specifically as counsel to the various civil service commissions and boards. And so I was interested and excited about this opportunity to serve the city of Alameda. Thank you so much. And I'm just going to kind of go down at least on my screens tomorrow. CISNEROS Just say hello and introduce yourself. Sure. Getting me mayor and council members really excited to be here and sorry about the other time. But yeah, I've been in the land use and commercial real estate industry in both the public and nonprofit sector in different roles, whether ranging from. A big mixed use. Development to accessory dwelling units and been a resident of Alameda on and off since 2007. So I'm really excited to contribute back to my community in this role. So thank you all for this chance. And thank you, Anthony. Louis, introduce yourself. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and City Councilman. I'm Anthony Lewis. I'm retired. I was a rehabilitation counselor for the state of California for quite a while. Resident of Alameda on and off since 1988. And I'm as I said before, I'm really looking forward to being a part of the shrub. I still volunteer a lot with the Institute on Aging and other senior programs, and my passion is really working with homeless seniors and making sure folks are taken care of as we all get older and making sure we don't get left behind. So thank you so much for this opportunity. And I was became a fan of yours when you told me that you you ride the city bus. I'm always a fan of people who are either 55, so they forget. I think I may have seen you in your golden retriever one of those times. I'm sure you have. A mr. Hosmer treehouse. Maybe we'll go to you next. Yes. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Troy Hosmer. I retired from. The Coast Guard as a senior officer after a 26 year career and decided to make Alameda a home at that point. Currently serve as the. Maritime Port Security Director of the Port of Oakland. And I appreciate the opportunity to continue serving on the Civil Service Board for a second term. So thank you very much. Happy to be here. Thank you. Alison Mullings, welcome. Thank you. I want to make sure you can hear me. Yeah, just fine. It's perfect. Oh, great. So thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council and city staff. I'm very excited to be a part of this and join the Council on or the Commission for Persons with Disability, a long time Alameda resident. Proud parent of a couple of jets. And very dedicated and invested in. Progression in the area of accessibility and inclusion for persons with disability and by way of resumé. I'm an attorney as well. And work at Intel and have enjoyed the benefits of. Alameda and have been on the forefront of this area. And thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for serving jagannath and. I didn't think the mayor and council members. I'm Jagannathan. And I lead an early childhood. Collaborative in Oakland and prior to that. I worked for the City of Oakland and their Human Services Department on Early Childhood, put their Head Start program as well as the violence prevention programs. And my. Family and I moved here. About six years ago. I have two children and super excited to be able. To serve on this shrub. And really want to support the social service needs of our residents in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. And so thank you to all of you. Again, we are so grateful for your service and lovely to have you all introduced and sworn in tonight. So take care. Stay safe. We'll see you soon. Thank you. Yes. Right. Okay. So. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for that. Agenda change because we didn't want to keep our appointees waiting too long. So then we go back to the agenda and we move to item five C, which is the consent calendar. Items are routine and will be approved with one motion unless a removal is requested by the council or the public

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for Horizontal Integrated Construction Services. Approves a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for $275 million and for five years for project management and construction of the National Western Center Campus horizontal portfolio including preconstruction services, site management services, installation of temporary and permanent underground utilities, site excavation and backfill, permanent roads and sidewalk construction, bridge construction, and other infrastructure work at multiple work locations at the National Western Center campus in Council District 9 (201841662). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-25-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-22-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0587

But I just wanted to make a comment on Council Bill 587 on page eight. Can you pull that up. Madam Secretary? Five what? 587. 587. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. This is the horizontal contract for National Western Center. And I just wanted to state that. There have been several of us on the States who have been working on ensuring that we have a targeted hire program that will put people to work who live along the corridor, but also try to get them connected to apprenticeship opportunities. These are livable wage jobs that have a career path. Many people in this neighborhood, in this area of town are being displaced as a result of a lot of construction activity. And for those who can take advantage of higher paying jobs, can have the choice to stay in their neighborhood as opposed to being displaced. So I just want to say thanks to the national western team and folks in the mayor's office for ensuring that we have a solid commitment to a local targeted hire program. Not only on National Wester, but we will see the same thing on our bond projects and hopefully eventually on the build out of the gates at the airport, in the build out that will be seeing at the Great Hall. So I think it's it's critically important. The other piece of this is they have committed to a community benefit agreement as part of the National Western Project with the adjacent neighborhoods there. I'm serving on a committee that's working on the 1909 building, which is the oldest building on the site. Folks from the neighborhood are very engaged in that process. They have a consultant that has talked about a public market. And one of the most critical pieces of that is they've got to be they have to have that community not only involvement, but play a role in many of the businesses and whatnot that make public markets successful around the country. When you supplant them with private sector businesses and you have, you know, your chains and chain businesses and whatnot, they are not as successful. And any of you who traveled around the world and around this country know that the public markets that are successful, like Pike's Market and Faneuil Hall in Boston, are what they are because of that community role. So I just want to say to all the folks who have been working on this that this is an important element of the work that's moving forward with National Western. As they begin to start the construction will see the site prep happening. But as we start seeing buildings come out of the ground, these pieces become really important for the folks in the adjacent neighborhoods. So thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you. And thank you for talking about that. And, Councilman, commit yourself. You guys all have been working hard on that. And I want to thank the National Western team for putting that together. We feel like this is going to have an impact for the next decade to 20 years of folks in our neighborhoods. And so thank you all so much for your hard work. Okay. I think this concludes. Am I missing anything? Going once. Going twice on the dais. All right. Great. This concludes all the other items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction and order publish. We are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills. On final consideration, council members. Remember, this is your last. Remember, this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote. Otherwise it's your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can we please put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration from final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that the final following bills and be placed on final passage and the resolutions be adopted. 18 All series of 2018 7282 539 five 4581 606 ten 611 527 534 538 559 five 6569 607 525 526 536 537 587 590 7603606609 352 523 524 529 five 3532 533. 535 565 568578 584. 580 5601602. 442 428. 471. Four. 85. 427. And that's the last one. All right. Madam Secretary, I think we just missed one. Is that correct? Just the 42? Yes. Okay. You just said 82. That's okay. Just for the record, for 82. But we are ready. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Can each I. Lopez. New Ortega assessment. Mr. President. I fully support voting in as results. Actually. 11 eyes. Yes, 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted as bills have in place upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There'll be a required public hearing of Council Bill 366 changes on the classification for 2065 South Cherokee Street in Oberlin and require a public hearing for council before 2021. Change zoning classification of properties bounded at 38th Street, Walnut, 40th Avenue and Union Pacific RTD right away in Elyria. Swansea. A one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 561. Amend the Downtown Area Plan by establishing updated plan policies for the Central Platte Valley Area District.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending subsection 21.49.086.D of the Seattle Municipal Code to create Net Wholesale Revenue targets for 2017 and 2018 consistent with those assumed in the City Light 2017-2022 Strategic Plan adopted by Resolution 31678.

SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CB 118801

The report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item to cancel 118801 relating to the satellite department and many subsection 21.40 9.0. 86.80 of this item is the code to create net wholesale revenue targets for 2017 and 2018, consistent with those assumed in the city like 2017 through 2022. Strategic Plan adopted by Resolution 31678. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you very much. Council members to watch. Thank you. Both know this is a routine ordinance that approved Seattle City Lights net wholesale revenue targets. Satellite produces more energy than its customer base uses and sells the excess on the open market. Does that target for the revenue produced in this way in order to plan for it in the budget and this ordinance in this ordinance , Seattle City Lights set a target for a $60 million a year in net wholesale revenue for both 2017 and 2018, which happens to be the same as the target previously set for 2016. The Energy and Environment Committee recommended council passed this bill. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Are there any comments or questions saying none? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brien I saw what I. Bagshaw I just. Hi. Gonzales. Herbold. Hi. President. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair was Senate. Please read the report of the planning land use and Zoning Committee.

Recommendation to request City Auditor to conduct a limited scope audit that would include: 1) a review of internal controls over how funds are handled and spent by the PBID/PBIA; compliance with the City agreement; and possible benchmarking as to how other cities oversee PBID/PBIA's, and report back to the City Council with the findings.

LongBeachCC_12202016_16-1151

Motion carries items we're going to hear item 15 when the hearing. Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Price, Council Member, Super Anon recommendation to request the City Auditor to conduct a limited scope audit that would include a review of internal controls over how funds are handled and spent by the PBA. PBA. Compliance with the City Agreement and possible benchmarking as to how other cities oversee p bids pba's. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And first, I'd like to thank my colleagues, our council member, Price and Supernormal for signing on. And I'd like to thank the city auditor, Laura Dow for her assistance in this item. Our business district, as well as all of us know our key part of our city's success in the city's economic development. I mean, we've done they've done a great job of promoting and supporting many of our commercial corridors. I also have to say up front, our city staff in particular, Mr. Jim Fisk, does a great job in supporting our bids. And. And so if he were here, I would love for him to take a bow because I know he is. On the sunset of his career. He will be retiring very soon. But he's done an excellent job in supporting us. The City A is a significant property owner and stakeholder within four of the bids, contributing about $440,000 a year in assessment assessments. Combined with our bids and buyers, they collect about $11 million in annual revenue, including 8.4 $8.5 million directly from assessments either from property owners or business owners. Given the important role that business districts play in our city and the state law that entrusts the city council to establish these district, we believe that it's in the interest of transparency, open government. It would be beneficial for the city auditor to review these districts and associations and provide recommendations and best practices to assist them. This is a good government item in an effort to just improve and inspire public confidence in all of our entities. Our business districts are quasar government because there is a obviously a relationship and they have to come before the city council for proof that approval year after year. It's they've been involved in place for in our city for four decades and we've never had any such checks or controls. And I think this is this is necessary at this point. So I would encourage your support. Councilman Price. Thank you. Well, I support the intent behind the item, as has been explained to me. And I think transparency is is always a good, positive thing. I just want to make. Sure that the. Item is the request is limited. In scope to what's. Identified in the staff report as a review of internal controls over how funds are handled, compliance with the city agreement and possible benchmarking on best practices. That's what it's limited to. I also want to make sure and I talked with Councilman Austin about this, that the intent that this item is designed based on reading the item for our bids and our PE bids, but we have one bid that often it's not a bid, but often folks think is falls into the bid category. And that's the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement area. That's a different organization. It's a merchant bid. It's a mayoral appointment for the body. The city pays zero into it. The commercial property owners are assessed to mulgrew's property tax. And just like any other entity or commission that operates within the city, they're subject to audits any way they could be. I just want to make sure they're not included in this item, because I think this item is designed for and based on my conversations with you, the bids that that receive money from the city and and are not part that they don't have mayoral appointments. The Belmont Shore parking commissioner, for example, is established via ordinance. So I just want to make sure they're not included in this item. And that's the intent of this body. The intent was for birds and bees and as as written, I'm not I don't see that that the parking improvement district was included in that. I would defer to the city auditor for some clarification, if possible. Mr. Goodhew, did you need something? Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. Thank you. The way I understood it, too, was to start out with those puppies that the city does have an interest in. The city is a property owner of four of the bids. So we would start with the four bids that the city is a property owner and that pays the $440,000 annually and to ensure that the city is that the funds are being used as intended. At that point, we could either. Conclude the audit and apply the findings to the rest of the bid so that they're all uniform and standard. Or we could expand it and and do others if requested. So I think. If we were to start now, we would start with the four bids in which four PE bids in which the city is a property owner and start there. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And I read this item as kind of the start to establishing some best practices which I'm all in favor of. So if the best practices were developed as a result of, you know, some sort of a sampling or audit practice, and those best practices could be applied to all the bids, I would have no problem with that. The one concern that I have is if there is going to be a financial undertaking by any of our bids to comply with an audit, I'm concerned about them using their very limited resources to hire consultants or somehow be responsive to audit requests. And I don't know what that process would entail. I would hope that it would be more of a collaborative process so that the bids with limited resources aren't using money to, you know, hire a consultant to be able to comply with an audit or help them through an audit. Yes. I don't foresee that being a problem. This is a very limited scope audit as recommended in the action regarding the internal controls over their funds and to ensure they're being used as intended to ensure that they're in compliance with their contract and then to do some benchmarking and identify best practices. This is a very limited scope as as requested in the item, so we won't be branching out further than that at this point. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pier. Could we go to a public comment first? Sure. This is no objection on the other speakers in the motion public comment. Okay. Public comment. Please come forward. Very good, you clerc as the address as one has attended a number of meetings of the Belmont Shore Parking and Improvement Association. One of the things that was brought to my attention and I think it would apply here to to anyone. Is to make sure that we don't have what was presented a couple of weeks ago with the airport situation where there's a conflict of interest. If you've got landlords, if you have people on the commission that are landlords. And also commissioners that happened to be a landlords tenant. I think you have an inherent conflict of interest there, i.e. vote my way or your rent goes up. Right. So I think you need to. On any of these. Make sure that that situation does not exist. That there's no inherent. Conflict of interest. As I say, it's just happened to be what you had with the Air Force situation, according to some people. And I haven't followed all those details, but I would suggest you get inside of that to make sure that that does not exist in any improvement to any situation like this. That's an allegation. There's no conflict that's been determined. Just wanted to clarify that in regards to the airport item, I think that's important. Yeah, you can always accuse anyone of anything that hasn't been proven to be true. But I do know I do know of situations where that does exist. I mean, it's the landlord and the tenant are the are in the commission. Okay. I think time's up. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council, Craig Koch with the downtown Long Beach Alliance, one of four one of the four property based improvement districts. In the city. That the city does. Own property and. Pays us the full amount of assessments. We also do manage a tenant or merchant based bid, so we do have both models in our downtown for purposes. Of good government and transparency. The bids. Already comply. Meeting state requirements on the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. So any of this information is available at any member at any time by members of the public. We also do form I'm sorry. We also do complete and submit form 700 conflict of interest forms every year. Each of our board members and. Staff members comply with those requests. So I think there's good practice occurring on a daily basis relative to those requirements. Frankly, I'll be happy. To comply with any of these requirements that are being made. This evening of our organization. In fact, I've. Already sent. The ARTAS office a draft of our our independent audit, which we conduct on an annual basis, as well as our Form 990 that we're. Requested to submit as well. So that's all available. But I can't really speak for the other bids and the limited capacity that they may have. And I thank thank Councilmember. Price for. Bringing that up, because some of those bids do have limited capacity. But on the whole, I think. We are. Complying with state regulations and state. Expectations and certainly are very interested in this item. Frankly, it's it came it came to all of us as a surprise, not having any information in advance other than having the council agenda item posted and us asking. Ourselves. What was going on and really what the motivations were. So I'm really interested in hearing more about. That as well as what really. Transpires. From this point on. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Good evening. Tosha Hunter, director of Uptown Business Improvement District. And just wanted to say that we are one of those smaller bids and I am the only staff person there. So we would definitely comply with anything that is asked of us. And to mirror a lot of the things that Mr. Cogen said when I came into this position, I asked for an immediate audit. We work with an outside agency that handles all of our books and our paperwork, so we would definitely comply. But things like this could be a strain. We're up for renewal. And that right there and and meeting the needs of our property owners and our businesses and keeping all the clean and safe. I was just here last week giving my presentation for my annual report, and so hearing about the audit would definitely be a strain because we're working towards that renewal. So I also wanted to say that in addition to be a strain on us or me, I should say for the Uptown Business Improvement District city staff as well, Jim Fisk is very helpful with us to us and undergo an audit like this. I can just imagine what it would put on his plate. He's been very supportive and just want you to kind of reconsider this and the finances. It would not a if there was any type of financial component that this would cause us, our bid would fail. And I'm not here for failure. So thank you so much. Thank you. See no other public comment? I'm going to go back to Councilmember Pierce who deferred the floor. Thank you. I want to also echo that I didn't get a lot of information on this item before it came forward and hearing from several phone calls today. What I've learned is that many of our bids already do an audit, already have information that is is already done in-house, that we don't want to add an additional strain . And third is that we just voted on a transparency item for open data. And so I'm would like to suggest I would like to make a substitute motion that we have Jim Fisk work with all of the bids to provide their information through this are open data that we just decided to vote on everything from management plans to annual reports to the seven seventies being on there already for full transparency. And that way we're not getting into doing a second audit of somebody that's already paying for an audit, that we're not doubling the work and creating more work that we do that first before we take another step. Okay. There's a substitute motion and a second. I think there was a second by Vice Mayor Richardson. Cutler appears to have anything else. That is it. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Okay, Councilman. I'm sorry. Councilman Ringa was the second motion by Pierce. Customary Ringa. Yeah, I totally agree. I think that this is a duplicate duplicative to say correctly, and I think that it should also, you know, I think the people that are doing responsible, good work and, you know, the strain already caused by having to maintain the bids in the year long basis and the artillery duty. You know, one thing that you include in terms of the following, the browning. Rules. I think that says it enough for me right there that I'm pretty sure that you're on the up and up. But I can't support the motion as presented. But I do support the substitute. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm going to support the substitute motion. So just my thoughts here. Over the past few years, bids have really stepped up in the wake of the loss of redevelopment, particularly in North Long Beach. When we saw the last redevelopment come in, my predecessor, Steve Neal, had the foresight to say, look, we're going to need some deal making ability here in uptown and, you know, charged us with let's go create a business district. It was not easy. We had responses from, you know, you know, city staff, a number of folks saying this might take you a decade, but no one had ever pulled the businesses in the room and asked them, were you willing to step up if the city steps up and partners with you to create it? And to our surprise, they did. They enough property owners signed a petition and voted on it. But since then, it hasn't been easy. Like people like going from, you know, very little capacity to the presentation we saw two years to two weeks ago. And City Council has taken a lot. It's taken resources. It's taken manpower. It's taken a lot of collaboration. So so while I you know, I do support transparency. Transparency should go in collaboration and go hand in hand with collaboration. And so I was surprised today that I was surprised. I was out of town when I heard about this, but I was surprised to see that COBA, the Uptown Business District and a number of the business districts had no idea that this was coming. And that's just so strange to me because I see that I see them as an extension of the city's family. And I think this sends a bad message if we do that. I saw a couple of things. So, number one, I feel that the motion, you know, substitute motion is good. If we want to learn more about what the business districts are doing across the city, they already report the was annually and they get very little questions and they prepare for those. And he takes time and those things are on record with the city. So let's just ask them. Let's work with, you know, Jim Fisk and our economic development folks, see what they're already doing and said before we commit them to extra work and place that information in an open space. Right. Put it on the open data platform. That should be something that, you know, doesn't take a lot of staff time. And we're already, you know, placing emphasis on open data. We might say it's very little impact. But if, you know, a business is being audited by a government, whether it be the city of Long Beach or the IRS, you need to, you know, hire people and build capacity to be responsive in a way that your property owners feel confident in. So we may say it's it's no capacity need it, but any smart person would say, you know, strap up, lawyer up or get get, you know, ask your accountant to spend more hours than what you budget to prepare to respond to it. So that's so I'm concerned about the, you know, financial nature of it. Next, I think, you know, there are a lot of questions that could be answered in terms of renewal schedules. How are they coordinated renewals, vigils? Because sometimes we participate, sometimes we don't, and we need to be aware of that. So that's something we can look at in the open data space. You know, what is the history of of audits like? If we wanted to look at the history a lot is what do we even get them? That's a question. Another thing, you know, I have a good relationship with my business district. I, you know, I, I know would find it troublesome if I, as a council member would be upset with a decision my business district has made and, you know, slap them with an audit because I have that power and I'm concerned about whether that's the intent here or not. It doesn't matter. I'm just concerned about the perception or appearance of an abuse of power, because we have access to a city auditor that elected officials make the decision when to deploy. And that's just troublesome for me. And I would not say anything about anybody here at the dais, but that's when this recommendation comes up. It is up. You know, that's that's a question for us all for those reasons that, one, the business districts were were clueless on this. Number two, we never asked city staff report and I don't remember any questions, not just about any questions from the council during the annual reports. Then I think we haven't demonstrated any progressive level of inquiry before going to an audit and I think that is no way to really cultivate collaboration. So that's why I'm going to support the service, the motion. Councilman Mongo. That's a lot of information. I didn't know about the item, but I don't have a permit or a bit in my district, so I didn't think too much about it. But I do know that we went through quite a extensive presentation today from our economic development director, and one of the things that I'm really proud of is since taking office, the fifth District has started 562 new businesses, and that's 562. It's our area code. It's it's really something we're proud of. And most small businesses don't make it in the first two years. And so when I was reviewing the Business Health app that our economic development department is launching and talking to them about the resources available and how we now want to go out to our bids and ask them to go in and check on the businesses that are in red because their business license hasn't been renewed. Perhaps they're having financial challenges. We're talking through what that looks like. I was hoping we'd be going to our bids with those kinds of requests in the near future. I am aware that they do an annual review and present all that information to us. I'm looking forward to being able to help them more efficiently respond to praise in the same way that we do and that we need to put all our data online. Every single council item needs backup documentation attached to the item, even if it's a week after all of the things that are handed out need to be attached . We need to scan all the documents that are in this building and get those archived immediately. And I haven't seen a statement of work on that. I don't know that we know where we're going on that. So I want to see open data be our solution, and I need to see a more aggressive timeline on that. I'll also say that. I really value having an independent auditor in auditor. DOWD And Laura does an exceptional job of bringing together her own internal auditors to discuss what the 2017 plan is going to look like. And so when they do that, they do it from a position of knowing and understanding all the audits that they've seen , the issues that they've had. I've met with her on this several times, and so I'm not super comfortable saying we as the city council are now going to instruct you to change your plan and change some things about that. However, if the substitute motion is successful and you and your team want to amend your own plan and your own timeline because you feel that this is a concern area. I've reviewed the list both with you in the past of what you're doing in 2017, and I think there are things on it that I'm really looking forward to seeing and seen very soon. And when I compare it to the need a necessity for this kind of review. Again, I didn't hear from my community on this because all of our business associations are volunteer, so they wouldn't be impacted, but I think they would value the best practices that would come from the review. But I'm inclined at this time to continue to listen to my colleagues, but to support an open data model that is in the direction of self reporting online, what you've already done so that it's easily accessible and a place where your your CO businesses would go without using a PRA to see what you've already done. It's easy to give that back to the board, but to give it to all your business members, to give it to all the community people who aren't members, I think that there's some value in that. So that's the direction I'm leaning at this time. Thank you. I want to go to Councilman Austin, Councilman Gonzalez, and then a vote. Councilman Austin. Thanks. And I think there's been some some miscommunication and some mis interpretation of the intent. The original motion asked the city auditor to do three things review internal controls of how funds are handled and spent by Pids and BS to how they are operating in compliance with the City Agreement. And three possible benchmarking as to how other cities oversee P bids and report back to the City Council findings. Now, there's nothing in that limited scope that would, in my opinion, at any cost, any any operating procedures of a bid. And if that that that would be something. And if so, that would be something that we could take on, I think is very, very important in terms of public confidence, since, you know, our public dollars are being passed through these entities. They are always I public, public. They don't have the same level of accountability as our city departments, but they function very much as a as the arm of the city, as as was mentioned by the the extension of the city, as was mentioned by one of the council members. I do have a question regarding the city auditor scope, and maybe this is for the city attorney or the city auditor. Does the city council direction or lack of direction impact the scope of what the city auditor actually can look at? Because if, for example, this substitute substitute motion or substitute motion that's actually on the floor would take us in a whole different direction and take the city auditor out of the scope based on direction here. But does canvas does the city auditor have the scope to and I believe she does audit independently. The right is separately elected auditor that does have the independent. There's specific requirements under the charter that the auditor is required to do. But in addition to that, as a separately elected official can to undertake additional audits. Okay. Thank you. And I don't believe that any of our bids have anything to hide. I think they are operating in good faith. I work very closely with the business improvement districts in my, my, my, my district, and I'm very impressed with the output and work that they do. But this is a IT issue of, like I said, good government, right? We do not want to have issues. And, you know, I've heard of issues in other other areas of the city. We have new bids coming online. I'd like to bring on another bid in my district. Right. But, you know, best practices want to be we want to make sure that best practices are established. I don't have an issue with open transparency and open data, but I've heard also that that audits have already been done. If that's the case, I'd like to make a substitute substitute motion. Right. To to. Expand the scope of the original motion. Basically review the internal controls of how funds are handled and split number two, how they are in compliance with city agreements. And three, possible benchmarking as to how other cities bids are functioning and best practices and report back to the City Council with that if if bids have already done internal audits. Well, let's take a step out of the process. Let's ask them 2 to 2. Volunteer those those that information to the city auditor. And I think that would streamline and get to the to the cut to the chase. And again, I'll make sure that we are doing all we can to ensure that the public confidence and public trust is is is that here to. And I'll make the motion for the substitute. Substitute. There's a substitute substitute. Is there a second on the subject? Catherine Austin, can you. Chime in on the subject to substitute their. Okay. Is there a motion for the substance substitute, which is Councilwoman Price? Yeah, but I would like a little bit of clarification. I want to second because I want to talk about it, but I definitely want some a little bit of clarification on it too, because it sounds reasonable. I want to hear from my colleagues about it, too. Okay, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Can you just clarify a little bit of your motion again, Councilmember Austin, so I can. Suggest the original motion with in addition to allow it allows the the bids who have undertaken independent audits or their own audits to present that information to the city auditor's office for review. Okay. It seems like it's the same motion. But what? I'll just say. Well, thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. And so I'll say that I am also I'm you know, in looking at this item, I maybe I have to go back to basics and think that sometimes we just have to pick up the phone and contact our business improvement districts. And I think in terms of fairness as well, when I look at the Business Improvement District page on our website, you know, it also includes tourism and airport and downtown. And so I think that we're we it looks to me that we're being a little piggy and choosy as to who we want to include in this. And so I, I just don't think that this is an item that I would be able to support, because I don't feel like the lines of communication are open. I feel as though Jim Fiske is there for a reason. He's there to ask any questions. I know I've contacted him quite frequently about any questions I've had. I have Magnolia Industrial Group in my my district, the downtown Long Beach Associates, and I've attended the meetings. And if there's questions that are raised, we go through that and we talk about it. But I, I think that heading in this direction, I don't know is the best option at this point. But I do believe that there needs to be some framework put in place to be able to have checks and balances in some degree. But that framework needs to be put in place. And I think before getting there, we should put that framework in place. So that's my. Next step is Councilmember. Councilmember Supernormal. I'd just like to ask the city attorney to clarify the relationship between a council office and the bid. We had this discussion. I think I was on the job for a month or so when this came up and you explained it in detail that there's a bit of a firewall, for lack of a better term, between the council office. So I'm a little curious how we could a council office could trigger an audit. Mayor. Members of the council. Yes. An individual council member could not trigger an audit. I mean, that's why the item is before the council today to acting as a body to request the city auditor. The conversation that we had as once the city adopts or creates the permit, it becomes an instrument or an agency of the city under state law. So it becomes the responsibility of the city to approve the annual plan and to approve the documents and their operations going forward. But an individual council member under the charter can't direct or to do that under section two. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yeah. I think I just wanted to reiterate the only thing I can support the substitute. Substitute? Because I feel like we we already have beds that are providing information and just making sure that we go forward with that step first and going through the transparency process. If, in fact, there is a need then for the city auditor to do an audit. She doesn't need our direction to do that. So I'm just reiterating that I would ask that you support my substitute. Thank you. K Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I, I don't think that the substitute substitute is responsible, responsive to the council's comments or the public comment. It's very similar to the original motion. If anything, it expands on the original motion. And so for that reason, I can't support it. When we you know nothing against our city auditor, we love our city auditor. But I think we just need to be careful when we deploy or make requests of our city. And and then I would say, I think the request about like more information is good. And I think that the appropriate person to do it. We should ask the city manager to ask Jim Fiske to put together a report on what a lot of these things are and start, you know, these best practices, see what those things are they can collaborate with in order. They can collaborate with the cities. That's the first step to a two from four. And let's explore what's out there. Until that's happened, I still don't I still isn't clear to me what the need for this motion is. It hasn't been clear to me in the lack of the progressive inquiry still remains. Councilman Austin. Okay. Well, it's it I it's very clear that that the, the will of the council is to, uh, to not, not pass or to not support the city auditor looking at bids, which is questionable to me. Right? Because it has been stated by the city attorney that that they are entities of the city. Right. And that public resources are going through these these agencies. And there should be greater transparency and accountability. Right. I don't think that any business improvement district has ever had any sort of of of public audit to this point. And so, again, the thought was just a matter of good government, right? Responsible government, making sure that we are crossing our T's and dot in our eyes. And and this this council ultimately is is going to be held responsible. Now, when members of the public are questioning the integrity of any public entity. Right. Or any agency. They come to us. They hold us accountable as a council. Right. They're not going to go to, unfortunately, Mr. Cogen, because not an elected official. You're not going to go to torture Hunter. She's not an elected official. They're going to go to their elected official and question. And and oftentimes we do get these questions as. As elected officials from disgruntled business owners or individuals who have had some sort of business with with the with the bid for one reason or another. This, I think, protects them. This this this motion my motion actually helps the bid's in increasing, like I said, public confidence in the integrity in which their business is done. And like I said, I have no reason to question the integrity of the bids in any area of the city. But I think it's important for us to put controls in. And so I'm going to stand on my motion and ask that members you support, then reconsider some of your positions. Because I don't think walking away and turning the your head to turn and turning a blind eye to where public funds are actually being. Utilize is a responsible approach. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. One question about this motion. Would this be if for free? I don't have it in my district. Not right now. But I'm working on one. And my fear is, is that if we pass this motion as a substitute, as it's currently worded, I'm afraid that any future implementation of a permit in my district, as an example, would add another another step in that process of them doing an audit. And I have to correct I have to state that when we use the city auditor to do an audit, it is not an independent audit, it's our audit. We're ordering it. And she is our auditor and I'm. And when the P do their audits, I'm guessing you're using an independent auditor. So I would not and not to besmirch the city auditor's job, but there's already an independent audit in place. And this is duplicative, as I said before. So I'm going to call a question on this. There's a the question has been called, is there is there any objection to go to a vote? I object. I'd like to say to object. Okay. There's objections. So? So on a call for the question is not available. Is there a second on the call? Is there a second? Is your second call for the question. Councilman Pierce. So. So we'll take a. Vote a second. And it would have to pass by a majority of six votes in favor in order to call for the question. No. Okay. You drop it, I withdraw it. Okay, so we're going to move on to Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you for withdrawing your comment because I feel that some of the things that have been said, I just I'm going to say I hope that they weren't intended to me because I, I personally do support auditor out doing audits of anyone she and her staff determine need to be audited. That's how much I trust her. She is the most supported elected official in our city, in my opinion, and if she thought that this was important, I would completely 100% support her. And after tonight, she can still do that. What I have a hesitation with is. I don't see all the beds here or COBR and all the other groups, and I don't have relationships with all of them because they're not in my district. But but I do not take a blind eye to any of them, even when they are not in my district. And I will continue to utilize the process currently in place that I do believe in. Of the annual reports. Tosha, you and I have only met once, but I thought you did an exceptional presentation a few weeks ago and similar to the comments from Councilman Price. I've shared your story already with the board of our Volunteer Spring Street Business Association, and they want to meet you and hear about what you're working on. And when I think of those presentations, I think of that. And so not for the reasons that you'd mentioned. And and to be honest, before you mentioned those, I was leaning toward supporting your substitute substitute. But but for the reasons that I stand on the grounds that the city has a process. And if we want to change that process, I think we should do it with support of COBA and the leaders of those organizations, because as I mentioned last week, it's hard to get people to volunteer. This is the first time in our city's history that we only have 24 vacancies on commissions. I have often asked people to step up and be on commissions and the commitments and the scrutiny and the form seven hundreds and all those things. They're deterrents and I support them and I thank them for their service and I think them for what they put in. And I do think that there are certain. Bits that perhaps could use an audit more than others. And I think that that is at the discretion of the person with the certification. And and for that, I'll support the. Second motion. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go to Councilman Price, Councilman Gonzales, and then vote. Councilman Price. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to try to keep it quick, but I will say I don't understand this whole calling for the question concept. I've been on this body now for a year and a half, and it wasn't until very recently that people started doing that. I really don't understand that at all. We all represent our constituents. We we worked very hard to get in these positions. We should be able to talk as much as we want about an issue. I mean, imagine being able to be going back to your constituents and saying, you know what, I didn't even have enough votes to express my opinion on the item. I mean, I just we should at least be able. It's I understand it's late, but we all ran for public office. And that includes a lot of positives and a lot of negatives. And working late is one of the negatives. And allowing your colleague to speak on an item that they feel is important that they should speak on is is the basic of respect that we should be showing one another? That's just my opinion. I will never, ever ask to call the question if one of you has something to say about an item ever. That's my commitment to my colleagues. If you feel you need to say something for your constituents, I will never cut you off from that. And I just we never did that before. I have no idea what's happening. So I would just ask us to really think about that. You know, I, I did reach out to the bid in my district and spoke with them at length about this. They're on board. They're fine with the item. I did speak with Jim Fiske. He was fine with the item as well. His concern was whether or not our bids were going to have to take on an additional cost to, you know, respond to the audit, which I think the city auditor has done a good job with. If you read the item on its own, which is what I did when I signed on to the item, it makes a lot of sense. And to me, if we were talking about any other issue, I can't imagine our council would have a problem with what it's asking for, which is establishing best practices for something that we are utilizing in the city and hope to utilize, more of which is bids. And I think I have to be quite honest, I think there's something else going on here that's beyond what's written on this item, and I don't know what that is. I think the item is a good item. I think the intent behind the item is a good item. I don't know. I sense and I could be totally wrong, but I sense there's something else going on that that is not readily apparent from the four corners of this document. So. You know, one of the things I was listening to NPR the other day and they were talking about Joe Biden. And one of the things that his colleagues were saying across the board was whether they disagreed with him or not. He never questioned their motives. And we do that every once in a while here. And I don't get that. I really don't. You know, we can disagree, but, you know, questioning one another's motives is just ugly and unnecessary. I think if you read this item and step aside, it's basically saying if you look at the last paragraph, we've several bids have been in place for many years. Others have recently been established, given the important role of business districts in supporting and promoting our business and property owners. It would be beneficial for the city auditor to review these districts and associations and provide recommendations and best practices to assist bits and pieces, especially those in which the city is a major stakeholder. If you look at it for what it says and don't read beyond it, I think it's a very reasonable item. Maybe I'm totally wrong on that. I'd like the substitute substitute, because what it's saying is if you are a bid that obtained an independent audit, we don't have to do another audit. You can provide that data. And I think that takes care of some of the concerns that were that were raised by De Alba, who's represented if we need to do more outreach, maybe we should do more outreach. I just I don't think that the item on its face. Is all that I think is being insinuated. It is. And if if it is, I'm not aware of that because I'm reading this document, which seems very reasonable to me. So, you know, I think if we were to step back and say, is this something that we would support absent the personalities absent, then we should support it. I just I hate to have personality come in the way of policy if we think it's a good policy. I think best practices are an excellent idea. I think the auditor helping us get there is a fantastic way for us to to do it together in a consistent fashion. So with that, I turn the floor over and I thank you for indulge me with that. Three point blank seconds of dialog. I hope that didn't set everyone back too far in their night. Councilman Gonzales. Yes, I appreciate the dialog. Just really quickly, I just I'm not understanding why none of these questions were raised during each of the approval processes for each of the bids that we had over the year. And so that's. You know, we we stood here and we talked to in many of the business improvement districts, they came, they presented. We told them how great they were. No questions. No questions. And so now we're we're looking to do this. And I don't think any business improvement district has a problem doing the audit. I don't think that's the issue. There is no question behind that. I just think in terms of process like we've talked about, in terms of just being able to have communication lines open, it's just a little it's a little much. And we have Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I'll just respond to Councilmember Gonzalez, because you you you quote, you said, we need to put a framework in place. This item asks for our city auditor to look at best practices. Right. You said that you don't believe that any of the bills have are opposed to doing this, but the city council is. That doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense for council members who have who have serious stakes in this in this process. We all support our bids. And yes, last week the Uptown came and gave a presentation weeks before that to be back, even gave a presentation. And we love them for their excellent work. We want to continue that. Don't don't get me wrong. This is not an attack on our our business improvement districts. And that's what I think the the that has been the intent or the frame that that way it's not an attack on them. This is something to just improve our processes to make sure that we're streamlining and everybody is understands across the city that, you know, the city auditor may come in and and do an audit to to make sure that the books are good and that and in doing that, our residents, our businesses are going to feel a lot better about the process. They're going to feel good about their bids, as they hopefully do about their city city government, because it's a lot more transparent. That's the intent of the motion. And again, I would ask for you to support it, because I don't think anybody has anything to hide here. Kate, thank you very much. There is a vice mayor Richardson. Thank you. I just want to just say a couple of things, though. Some dog whistle politics. Something's going on. There's more to the story. I didn't place this agenda item on the on the city council agenda. And I don't think the other one turning our heads. I don't I didn't hear anybody here say, turn your heads. What we're saying is open your eyes and turn around your ears. Look at what's available first. Set a baseline and a justification for why we want to impose something on our business community, which is very important to many of us. And look at what's available. Key word, collaboration. It's a few red flags here. No heads up to Cuba. Both of the business districts in North Long Beach in uptown. No heads up to them or their boards. No heads up. No courtesy call or anything. No, no. No one knew anything. That that's that's the assumption. Well, the two people who spoke and I got the floor, but two people who spoke in public comment tonight, both did not say we're on board. What they said was and I can be more candid than they did. Look, whatever you put down us, we're going to swallow. That's fine. We will eat it. But I want you to be crystal clear. We did not know what this is. We don't know what it is. And we're struggling to figure it out. What is the rush like? Do your own homework. Let's look at what we have. Do the work of doing the diligence that is good public policy, that is good governance and built confidence in our business districts. And then and you have my word, I will support it if if the stuff comes back and there's additional things we need to look at. Great. But this is not how the city council should operate. And there is no there's something else going on here. I just think this like if anything else, someone said, take yourself out of it. And if anything else was happening, if we just jumped out of the blue and said, let's go, you know, do a performance evaluation on city manager randomly, that implies that there's a performance issue that provides you you want to know what the greater context is. That's what's happening here. So if there's greater context, we all want to know. Put it on the table if that's what it is. Otherwise, start do what we're asking for. We will go down this path with you. But let's show some progressive sort of inquiry. Let's find out what's there and do it. Partnership with all our business districts. It's just too many questions here. So. So I felt the need to sort of justify based on the dog whistle comments tonight. We're going to go and vote on the substitute substitute. The city auditor don't want to comment. Yeah, I would just like to make a clarification on a statement that was made. I'd like to clarify. A statement was made that the city auditor isn't independent because the city auditor is works for the council. But that's not. I just wanted to clarify that the city auditor is is independent, just as other independent auditors are are independent. So I needed to clarify that result. And I think the independent audits that the P bids and the. A's are receiving. Are different than what our office would be looking at. So we would ensure that business owners and property owners are receiving the intended benefits that their assessments are supposed to give them, that there is approximately $11 million annually coming in from assessments in the ten and a half years that I've been the city auditor. There are never there never has been an internal control audit on the p bids or to look at whether or not the businesses and property owners are receiving the intended benefit, whether or not the city is providing adequate oversight. Whether or not. The contract is they are in compliance with the contract. So there are a lot of questions that I don't think have been looked at that we would be looking at. So if the council. Voted to approve this item. That's when we would take that as a priority. According to our audit plan, we would we would move this item up in priority to what we were planning to do. If the item is not passed, then we would. I would regroup with my team and. Determine what what. Step would we take next. Thank you, Auditor. Just as we're going to go and go to a vote and as also as a reminder, I think whether the council votes for the sub sub or the sub. Obviously our city auditor has the ability to audit any, any, any group, anything associated with the city. And we're public dollars are involved. And so I think that's something that you had mentioned right now. And so I think it's important for the council to know that her and her team can and will audit any area of the city, I think, regardless of this vote. So we have we have a sub sub first. So I want to make sure I'm clear with the subset which is Councilmember Austin sub subs. Then we have the substitute motion which is Councilman Janine Pearce and then back to the main motion. So please vote on the substitute substitute motion. Councilman Austin. Thank you. She feels right. It's a dead heat. Mission fails. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't see the vote. Is the voting machine not working or. It's it's okay. Okay. So motion. Should fail. Now we have the substitute motion, which was Councilwoman Jeanine Peirce's motion on the floor. Motion carries. Okay. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. Moving on to the next item, please. But we got to the hearing. So a hearing, please.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a One Year License with Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. for the “Grandview Pavilion” Located at 300 Island Drive, including an Option to Extend the Term of the License for One Additional Year. (Community Development 216)

AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8097

We do not. No one has raised their hand on Zoom and no one has submitted anything. Okay, well, in that case, do. Okay. The city attorney has his hand up. All right, Mr. Chan. I have a question. Thank you. I have a quick question for Councilmember Vella. Just clarify. Her question. Is her intent for card technicality for the. Construction workers. Or for the staff that will be working there, like waiters and waitresses. Or both? Well, I think card check would be for the I think there's two parts. So one card check would be typically for the staff that would work there. On the construction side, I think we typically require certain projects under certain thresholds to fall under our project stabilization agreement. But that that that is I believe that's been discussed. But is it also does that need to be in the license agreement? So I don't see me as you can. Correct me if I'm wrong. The threshold. For the project stabilization agreement is quite high, so. I doubt that if they're engaging in any work in there that it would meet those thresholds. And so unless the council. Specifically direct us to put it in the. License agreement, it is plausible and perhaps likely. That construction workers would not be covered. So what I do know is that yes the card check and neutrality that they were agreeable to the I never had the discussion on the construction because I'm not sure there be any major construction there. But as far as the other part, the service workers, that was the part that they were agreeable to. So where does that leave your question? Councilmember Vella, did did you have it fully answered? Yes, I did. Okay. I'm I'm happy to do comment. Okay. Let's see. Do we? So we get a motion and then do discussion or when do more comment. Because this is now council comment. We didn't have any public speakers. Do you want to continue in this film? Yeah, I just I think and I discussed. This with the city manager. My concern was kind of the long term use of this space. There's quite a large parking lot there in the building. It's it's right next to a couple main roads. I think, you know, we're going to be having various conversations coming up relative to other needs of the city. These we've talked about, you know, our different priorities. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, at least from my perspective, that whatever we're doing here is is confined to a shorter period of time. I don't know that this is and I hope we'll have a larger conversation in the future about what the long term vision is for this property. I don't know that the event space concept is necessarily, you know, where where it will stay. So I'm glad that the it's one that it's a license agreement and two, that it's for a relatively short period of time so that we can have that or a future council can have that deliberation about the future usage. I, I also would like to see the card check neutrality language added. I agree with the Mayor about adding specific language relative to COVID 19. It's a weird time to be approving a license agreement for an event space with all things happening. So I don't want it to be interpreted as us entering into this and somehow condoning the, you know, the space to be used in a way that would not be in line with what the direction is from the state or the county, and that the the stricter of the two orders would would apply. And I think that's important as well. This is a city owned parcel. And so while this is a license, I want to make sure that we're responsible landlords. Thank you. I saw counts on Brody with his hand up. Yes, Counselor. Thank you. And I will agree with everything my. My colleague said. And I just wanted to point out on the under health orders, you he's going to need to comply. But I could see somebody making an argument that, well, an emergency order by the county or a governor's emergency order. You know, maybe we can skate on that, but if people need to comply. So, you know, when one of us goes there, you know, and asks about it and, you know, we're kind of brushed off, it doesn't give me any confidence that they're going to comply. So I need to make sure it's explicit in there. So. Okay. Further comments before we go for a motion, Councilmember Daisuke. Are you muted? Yeah. Just to confirm. So, City Manager Levitt. Is it your understanding that if the entity is asked to do car check or whatever, that they are okay with that? Yes, I had a discussion with them and I said that that likely would be a provision. So it's my mistake that it didn't get put in the license agreement, but they did understand. And it's card check neutrality, right? That's the way I yeah, that's the way I put it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? Do I have emotion too? This is a relief for a recommendation to authorize the city manager, his designee, to execute a one year license with Greenway. Did you want to say something first, Councilmember Vela, or make the motion? When make the motion. I was going to make the motion to grant that authority to the city manager, provided that the two provisions discussed the COVID 19 language and the card check neutrality language be added. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second chance on the data? Mm hmm. Yes. Second. Second. All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Vela, second by Councilmember De. So any further discussion seeing then? Maybe we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. Councilmember de Thug? Yes. Not quite. All right. Odie. Hi. Bella. Mayor. As the Ashcraft. High. That carries by five eyes. So you still have to a on this item on this agenda. So it has to be recess to go back to 60. So one more recess on this one. We are recessing this special meeting going back to regular item six. E, correct? Correct. Isn't Edward or as a year or whatever. Okay, friend. And who's. I see Miss Potter on this. Oh, I see Miss McConnell. Okay. And I'll quickly read the ordinance title and introduction. The ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. For a Delaware corporation acting for and on behalf of Williams-Sonoma Stores Inc, a California corporation for Building 169 Suite one or two located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point, extending the term for an additional 12 months with 112 month extension option, removing overflow parking from the leased premises and providing one month upfront payment of. All right, so who is this Mercado? You're starting on this one. Okay. And I'll leave. I'll be quick about it. So I'm Williams-Sonoma has been our tenant for they've been under they were initially under a license for one year and then they have had a lease for several years. And we're renewing this agreement and we're a little late in renewing because we got caught by COVID, but we're going to do a one year lease with an option to renew for one year and the rent is remaining flat mostly because of COVID and and they are getting a one month rent abatement. And that and that also is because of Novell and they have not been able to operate. So I'm sorry, my dog is driving me crazy. So we love dogs. Tompkins Day was on the table. Oh, well. So we have our limits. I know there's kids in the meeting, dogs and. Everything. Together. To get. Where were we. Anyway? So. So there are there are. This is a renewal one. In addition to the rent that they generate, they generate a sizable amount of sales tax revenue that Alameda has been put as the point of sale for their sales in the warehouse. And so yeah, so they are they generate a lot of sales tax revenue over the last few years. So we hope that you'll consider renewing this right now. They have I'm just going to give them a little bit of a marketing push right now. They have a very good sale with like 50% off everything. It might be worth a visit if you're out there watching. But they're doing the socially distance only allowing so many people in at a time. They have to. And it's such a huge hanger, they're lucky that they get to allow quite a few people in at one time. Nice. And keep the keep the doors open for ventilation. And just to remind everyone who's watching, whenever you leave your house, you need to be wearing your mask. I'll pull my and demonstrate later. But that includes when you're inside shopping and retail. But, you know, to your point, Ms.. Mcconney Williams-Sonoma is a California corporation based in our state and has been a tough time for for retailers all over. So with that and Ms.. Potter, were you going to add anything to the presentation now? Nice to see you. So, counsel and I just got word from the city clerk that we still have no public comment. Is that correct? Ms. WEISBERGER. Correct. No one has raised their hand or submitted a comment. Okay. So counsel, clarifying questions are motion or what would you like? Councilman Brody. Just a quick question. So we're building this this rent abatement into this lease. Does that mean they're not going to be eligible to any for any other rent abatement, like we discussed a few months back on our commercial commercial tenants? So they they had all the tenants have been notified of programs that were offering as a city and what they really wanted. And initially they were kind of difficult, I would like to say, but at the end of the day it just boiled down to them wanting just this one month rent abatement. And so it's it's fine. And so that's why we're recommending it. Okay. I mean, I can move approvals. Sure. Okay. We have a motion. All right. We have a motion from Councilmember. Do we have a second? It's okay. And it's been seconded by Councilmember de SA. Do we have any further discussion? Not seeing any. So may we take a roll call? Vote on the motion? Councilmember de SAG? Yes. Not quite. I. Ody I. Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft I. That carries my five eyes. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mercado. Nice to see you and your dog. Thank you, Miss Potter. All right. We are moving on to item six F. Introduction of an unqualified ordinance amending and codified ordinance number 3275 to extend the time that tenants must pay deferred rent from 210 days to 395 days following the city council's rescission of the local emergency. This would be Miss Potter's item, correct? Yes, absolutely. I'm going to be presenting this item in April of this year. The city council adopted as part of its urgency ordinance regarding an eviction moratorium for commercial as well as residential tenants. The council also approved as part of that ordinance a essentially a seven month time frame in which tenants could read pay rent that was either not paid in full or in part during the declaration of the state of emergency. At that time, staff was recommending that the repayment period should be, which should commence 30 days after the local emergency was lifted and then continued for six months. So seven months in total. And at that time, some council members had expressed interest in considering that perhaps more time should be allowed for tenants to repay rent. And there was some direction to to go back and check with stakeholders as we have as the months of carried on, as we have continued to have a shelter in

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Subsection 8.100.030.A., and Sections 8.100.040 and 8.100.050; all relating to the temporary prohibition of evictions due to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read (Ordinance No. ORD-20-0020). (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0472

All right. Motion carries. Item 20, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the temporary prohibition of evictions due to COVID 19, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Read and adopted as read. Can I get a motion in a second by Councilmember Pierce? Can I get a second, please? Seconded by Councilwoman and de Haas. Please do a roll call vote. Council District one. And so District one I. District two by district three. I. District four. District five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Budget for the following Departments: Fire, Police and Disaster Preparedness; and, Capital Improvement Program.

LongBeachCC_08142018_18-0674

And then we also have our kip, which I know is of interest to the council as it relates to infrastructure of all of our streets and sidewalks. And so this is obviously the opportunity for the Council to engage on the largest part of our budget, which is public safety as well as our infrastructure budget. So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. West. Mayor Councilmembers We were very, very excited to present the fiscal year 19 budget, I think, last week. So this is our first budget presentation. We're starting off as we normally do, with our continuum of care. Tonight, you're going to hear first from our fire chief, Mike Terry, then from our chief of police, Robert Lunar, then from our disaster management director, Reggie Harrison. Then we can either hear questions, questions from the council, or we can go straight into Craig Beck's Capital Improvement Project. And then for questions. Let me ask the council, unless there's any objection. I know that different people like it different ways. Last year we just we heard all the presentations and then we did questions. So I'll keep it that way unless people want to have. Department by department. Is there any objection to keeping it the same way? No. Okay, great. So we'll go through all four. So, Craig, you'll follow disaster management. So the mission was the one where we do have to divide it up, I think is we need a separate CIP. We certainly have a safety continuum because those are two very separate. Never mind what I just said. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So right now we will start with our fire chief, Mike Terry might take it away. All right. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. This evening, I will be giving you a brief overview of the Long Beach Fire Department's fiscal year 19 proposed budget. My presentation will touch upon the services provided by the Fire Department some of our key accomplishments for the current fiscal year. Notable changes for the fiscal year 19 proposed budget and some major challenges and opportunities that we foresee in the upcoming fiscal year. The Fire Department delivers fire rescue and emergency medical services, marine safety response, hazardous materials response, and non-emergency response services to residents, businesses and visitors. In the city of Long Beach, we provide a 24 hour operation for which all first responders must be prepared at all times. Additionally, we work to ensure the safety of the community and to prevent fires through proactive fire prevention and code enforcement programs. And we also provide training and education that is essential to the delivery of our core fire and rescue services. I'd now like to outline some of the fire department's accomplishments and highlights for the current fiscal year. Over the past 12 months, we have responded to over 72,000 fire, emergency medical services, mine safety and other emergency incidents. This equates to more than 153,000 individual unit responses. Included in this number are over 52,000 medical calls and 5800 fire calls. This number also includes hazardous materials responses, airport responses and other non fire responses. This year, we converted our patient care reporting system from paper to electronic. Our new electronic patient care reporting system, or EPR, has resulted in better patient tracking, improved communication with area receiving hospitals, robust real time data collection and retrieval and expedited ambulance billing. Also, earlier this year, we partnered with the water department to place a pump pod into service. This particular piece of equipment enables us to save over 1.8 million gallons of water each year by recycling water use during training, testing and certification exercises. Our training division developed and conducted training to address response to mass casualty incidents of a criminal nature such as those involving active shooters. Our Fire Recruit Academy Class 2018, a graduated 19 new firefighters and our Community Emergency Response Team or CERT program, continues to be a busy and popular program. This year alone, over 155 adults received cert training, which they will be able to use to assist the community in case of an earthquake or other natural disaster. Finally, the fire department instituted a mental health first aid program and began providing training to our fire and marine safety first responders. Training is provided by our Hart Team members and equips first responders with strategies to assist individuals experiencing a mental health or substance use related crisis. The proposed fiscal year 19 budget for the fire department is $126.8 million. We have a total of 531 full time equivalent staff consisting of 406 sworn is in fire ranks. Another 25 full time year round marine safety first responders and over 180 seasonal lifeguards. 26 full time ambulance operators. Additionally, the fire department is supported by a civilian staff in fire operations, support services, fire prevention and Fire Administration. As you can see in the graph, most of our budget or $96.4 million or 76% of the department's total budget is in the general fund, which supports most departmental activities. The Long Beach Park, the Long Beach Airport provides financial support in the amount of $5.9 million for fire and rescue services that the fire department provides. The airport and this is included in the fire department's general fund budget. 22% of the department's budget is in the Tidelands Fund, which supports marine safety activities, as well as our fire operations in the Port of Long Beach. The harbor department provides cost reimbursement for services provided in the port, and that is also included in the $27.8 million Tidelands Fund budget for fire. Rounding out the fire department's budget are the Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Act Fund, also referred to as Prop H, which provides an additional support of $1.6 million for fire staffing and the Cooper Fund, which provides for funding for inspection services and business emergency plan reviews to ensure hazardous chemicals are handled, stored and transported in accordance with current state and local standards. The fiscal year 19 budget includes ongoing funding for a second Homelessness, Education and response team or heart unit. The mission of the Hart team is to reduce the number of fire department responses to individuals experiencing homelessness through rapid response to 911 calls for service, collaborating with our continuum of care partners and educating fire, the fire service and community members about issues surrounding homelessness and available resources in our city. Our first heart unit has attained great amount of success toward meeting this mission, and the addition of a second heart team will allow us to build on that success and reach even more people in their time of need. The fiscal 19 fiscal year 19 budget also provides one time funding for a second fire academy. This will this will allow us to fill our current and projected vacancies. Additional changes in the budget include support for a firefighter inspector, a development services permit counter to streamline plan services and a second storekeeper to ensure proper inventory controls and maintain warehouse operations that experience a high volume of transactions. Looking forward to fiscal year 19. The department has several significant challenges and opportunities. Our first challenge is to continue to meet the expectations of the community while facing increased demands for services, especially emergency medical services. Another challenge is for us to continue to identify emerging public safety issues and implement programs that meet the needs of our community. In addition to providing fire and emergency medical response services, it is important that we remain aware of other public safety needs and try and stay agile as an organization so that we can implement innovative programs like the Hart Team. While we. While we. Excuse me. We need to be aware. Excuse me. We are aware that we need to improve diversity not just in the ranks of entry level firefighters, but also in the promotional classifications like fire captain and battalion chief. In fiscal year 19, we will work with the Civil Service Department and one of the city's new management assistants to identify solutions that address this important challenge. We also have a number of retirements in supervisory and management positions coming up in the next several years. And that means we face the challenge of identifying and developing the next generation of leaders requiring strong management, development and succession planning programs. And a final challenge is to maximize available revenue sources and attain full cost recovery for our services. We provide our community whenever feasible. With resources and support in the fiscal year 19 budget. We also have a number of opportunities and reasons for ongoing optimism. First, the potential restoration of Engine 17 would further improve our emergency response capabilities. These increased capabilities would have a positive impact on the entire service delivery system throughout the city, not just in Engine 17 immediate response area. We also have an opportunity to improve quality assurance, data collection and cost recovery through the implementation of our electronic patient care reporting system, referred to as PCR that I mentioned earlier. In the few months since implementation, we've already begun to realize some of these benefits, and with a second Hart unit in service, the fire department and our Continuum of Care partners have an opportunity to expand services to individuals experiencing homelessness. And finally, investments in our public safety infrastructure, specifically funding to renovate and modernize our fire stations and our fire training center will enable us to improve our service delivery and overall working conditions. Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I thank you for the opportunity to present an overview of the Fire Department's Fiscal Year 2019 proposed budget. This concludes my presentation and I'll wait to respond to any questions you may have after I handed over to my partner, the Chief of Police. Thank you, Fire Chief Dewey. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Vice Mayor sitting over there and members of the city council. The police department is a is a dynamic organization. We are tasked with the incredible responsibility of enforcing laws, investigating crime. Securing the city's critical infrastructure. And fostering positive relationships and trust within our diverse community. Most importantly, we respond to our community's calls for help 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The police department's mission is public safety. Through partnerships, public safety services are delivered through the work of five Barrel's 17 divisions and over 100 distinct units and sections. Our core services include 911 response across the city's 52 square miles, with over 211,000 calls for service in 2017, which averages to about 578 calls for service on a daily basis. Investigating misdemeanor and felony crimes ranging from murder to bike theft. The child abuse. Securing major critical infrastructure, including the port, the airport and metro blue line that you just heard the presentation on previously. And providing contract services to city partners such as the Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach, City College, Long Beach Transit and the Pike Outlets just to name a few. Long Beach Police Department operates on all cylinders. Throughout the year, our employees and volunteers are absolutely doing amazing work. As you will see in the next few slides, our department has many accomplishments in FY 18. Thanks to the mayor and measure funding, the South Division was restored and became operational in February of 2017. The restoration of South Division represents our community's ongoing support to invest in public safety. I am also proud to share that the police department has officially completed its first year of providing services to L.A. Metro over the past year . Officers had approximately 17,000 Metro related contacts, which included calls for service and officer initiated activity. This roughly equates to approximately 50 contacts per day. Response time to the Metro rated metro related emergency calls was 2.4 minutes for those priority calls and 6.7 minutes to routine calls, which is actually pretty amazing. This past year marks a successful public safety partnership between L.A. Metro and our city. The size and scale of special events are dramatically larger in the previous than the previous years. As such, the demand for police services to staff these events has increased significantly. In calendar year 2017. Our officers staffed 170 events. Those events generated 220 days of staffing. So far in calendar year 2018, 150 events have been staffed, generating 186 days of staffing year to date. We have provided staffing for 14 large concerts and music festivals, 98 film productions, 44 parades and holiday staffing. In total, the police department has secured safety for nearly 1 million special event attendees. In technology. The police department recently deployed 200 body cameras in the south and north divisions through a one year no cost contract. We are grateful to the Departments of Technology and Innovation, Financial Management, Public Works and the City Attorney's Office for their assistance in making this new program possible. We look forward to updating the City Council on the progress of this new body worn camera program. Responding to homelessness and quality of life issues are priorities to our community and therefore are top priorities for our entire department. However, I would like to highlight our quality of life officers who have done tremendous work in addressing homelessness challenges in our city. Since January of this year. Quality of Life officers have made 644 contacts with persons experiencing homelessness. They have provided referrals, supplies and mental health evaluations. They have helped transport 149 individuals to the Multi-Service Center, Long Beach Rescue Mission and other social service organizations. They've helped 103 individuals, and they participated in 174 homeless encampment cleanups. This is absolutely amazing work. And I do want to point out, even though I'm highlighting the police department, this is absolutely a team effort with other city departments. The police department is an active supporter and participant in diversion programs as an alternative to arrest and as a solution to reduce recidivism. In addition to our Youth Diversion partnerships with our local nonprofits, we partner with the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, the L.A. County Office of Diversion and Reentry, and the City Prosecutor's Office to assist with grant funded diversion outreach focused along the Long Beach Boulevard corridor. We also participate in the countywide Youth Diversion Program. I am excited to share that we continue to partner with the Office of Civic Innovation, formerly known as the A-Team under the Justice Lab. Together, we are working to better identify individuals who are current high frequency offenders and determine their social service needs. As part of this effort. The Jail Mental Health Clinician Program, in partnership with the Guidance Center is underway. In addition, we are firming up the data sharing and communication between our patrol commanders, crime analyst and data researchers with the Office of Civic Innovation. The Police Department continues to provide training and develop policies aligned with the Task Force Report on 21st Century Policing, which was released back in 2015. As part of this effort, our training division provides innovative training principles consistent with the current industry standards. Topics include procedural justice, implicit bias, fair and impartial policing, and assisting individuals with mental illness. In addition, a special order was issued department wide outlining police department procedures that align our department's operations with SB 54 and the Long Beach Values Act. Building community trust through relationships is a foundational principle supported by the Long Beach Police Department. This year we have hosted 13 community police academies funded by the PCC grant. Since the community support for this program has been so extremely positive. We plan to host future community police academies in 2019 and have already expanded the curriculum to include youth community police academies, which were showcased recently on the local Long Beach network. I am happy to report that the police recruit class number 92, which is slated to graduate here in the next week, which started back in February of 2018, closely mirrors the ethnic demographics of our community. It's 67% minority. Highlighting our commitment to support the advancement of diversity within our department. With the great work of our Community Engagement Division, we have ramped up our social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram in an effort to humanize our police officers. Under the umbrella campaign of hashtag. Long Beach Police Department cares, the warmth and compassion of our police personnel are consistently showcased. In Fy19, the proposed police department budget totals nearly $259 million and includes which includes all funds. The police department is supported by the general fund, grant funds, gas and oil tax revenue and the Title IX Fund . The police department also generates revenue through fees, charges for contract police services and revenue from other agencies. In Fy19, the department is proposed to generate $45 million in revenue for the General Fund, General Grants Fund and the Tidelands Fund. The total FTE count is proposed to increase from 1214 FTE in FY18 to 1241 FTEs in Fy19. The increase includes three net new sworn positions, as well as the transfer of 27 civilian positions from the airport department to the police department. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of our department's notable changes. The Police Department's proposed FOIA 19 budget includes an overall increase in sworn in civilian positions. Personnel changes include two additional quality of life officers funded by Measure one officer in the North Division and one officer in the West Division. This mean this means that we all have a quality of life officer in each geographical patrol division. Two New Quality of life officers and one detective to support blue line operations. The Homeland Security Lieutenant will be transferred to oversee the airport police section. As I stated earlier, this will include the transfer of 27 special services officer positions from the airport department to the airport police section. Two new civilian positions to support the department's personnel and financial workload. And and as part of operational efficiencies, 4.5 vacant civilian positions will be eliminated in addition. And it's part of the proposed plan to reduce one vacant lieutenant and one vacant sergeant position to the police officer classification. Other changes include a pilot program to deploy up to four civilian community service officers in the field to assist with select priority three non-emergency calls for service and continued funding for background investigations for cannabis related medical and recreational use business applicants. We are grateful for the Council's support for one time funding in past years and propose the following one time funding for 19 a second back to back police academy. Funding for an upgrade to our records management system which will ensure we are in compliance with state and federal mandates. 1.9 million in Neighborhood Safe Streets funding to support community based, focused enforcement, and $100,000 to support the jail mental health clinician in FY 19. The law enforcement profession is and is is evolving. And at no other time has it changed so much, so quickly. The demands, accountability and expectations have never been higher. The next slide will highlight a few current and future challenges facing our police department and profession. Criminal justice reforms continue to negatively impact our police department and our community, as does unfunded state and federal mandates. These federal mandates and state legislation have placed new technology, data gathering and reporting requirements on local law enforcement agencies. Unfunded mandates impact our ability to prioritize and administratively support our core function when limited or no funding is made available by federal and state legislators. Looking ahead, future legislation also seeks to change use of force standards, which will not only significantly impact police training during the response to threatening situations, it could endanger the lives of our officers and members of our community. In totality, the police department is facing an ever changing legal environment, and adapting to these changes requires many financial resources that must be absorbed by our department and city. Additionally, the police department actively applies for grants from the federal, state and county levels. Recent DOJ grant applications require mandatory certifications to comply with ICE data request and other communication conditions. We have paused applying for DOJ grants that require these certifications and will continue to confer with the City Attorney's Office to review new grants that may be of interest to our department and city. One of our most challenging issues is homelessness and our community safety concerns. In January, 250 police chiefs from the nation's largest police departments, as well as local government researchers and community partners, convened in Long Beach for an executive level dialog on homelessness. As we all know, this is a community wide challenge, although the law enforcement community collectively advocates for compassionate and fair treatment of individuals experiencing homelessness. When the law is violated, enforcement action will be taken. An enforcement tool that is useful in addressing recurring homeless challenges is the stay away order system, which organizes court ordered stay away orders in public locations that are target targets for misdemeanor activity. This has been helpful in addressing the needs of residents, neighborhood groups, local businesses and other public locations that have been challenged by ongoing criminal activity. Across the country and specifically in Southern California, the Southern California region. Police departments, including our own, are facing high rates of attrition due to retirements. This is a natural demographic pattern given the large hiring trends that occurred 25 to 30 years ago. Coupled with a healthier economy and competition among local and regional police departments, it is more challenging than ever to on board and retain police recruits. In Fy19, we will maximize our opportunities to support the needs of the department and our community. We look forward to the potential restoration and funding for a community rapid response. Bike team composed of one sergeant and five bike officers. Well, it has been a challenge to implement new technology solutions. We are looking forward to the rollout of Long Beach Coast, a new records management system. The increased use of body worn cameras. Additional contributions to the open data portal. And the new citywide fiber plan. Upgrades to citywide technology and police related platforms can make routine activities more efficient, encourage transparency, and allow for more refined data analysis. The police department is also looking forward to rebuilding a training center, which will be an asset to our community and region. We will finally retire 20 year old trailers and cinder block buildings at the training division, which have been operating past their useful life. Lastly, to address challenges in police recruiting, we will once again partner with the Office of Civic Innovation. We will follow the City of Lee's I-Team approach to do a full assessment of our recruitment, selection, onboarding and training process to identify any opportunities for improvement. This concludes my presentation, and as always, I'll be going after the Master of Disaster for questions. Thank you to you for that great introduction. Really appreciate that as always. Mayor, vice mayor and members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to present the fiscal year 19 proposed budget for the Department of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications. I also want to thank the city manager, the police chief, the fire chief for their support, collaboration and keen understanding of the critical role that this department plays in the public safety continuum. Natural and man made disasters have dominated news headlines throughout the year. Over the past month, an unprecedented number of wildfires have burned. From Northern California to Southern California, over 600,000 acres have been burned. Hundreds of thousands of residents have been evacuated. A few thousand structures have been destroyed. And unfortunately, 11 lives have been lost, including those of six firefighters. Each disaster, rather manmade on its orders, that is a disaster. Either manmade or natural, serves as a reminder to the city of Long Beach and its residents of how important it is to be prepared, have an evacuation plan, a disaster, go kit, and be prepared to be self-sustaining for at least seven days while first responders are en route to the scene. Lessons that we've learned from recent disasters is just how quickly the public tends to respond to provide aid when disasters occur. During recent hurricanes, neighbors and motorboats, canoes and even Paddleboards were first on the scene to aid fellow residents trapped by rising waters. Therefore, I offer I 19 budget and staff work plans reflect greater work with our residents and recognition that neighbors will be the first ones in our communities to take action after disaster strikes and before first responders arrive. After the fires and the mudslides in Northern California, we learned that residents will heed emergency notification warnings from police and fire and emergency managers to evacuate or shelter in place. Alert notification warnings that are sent timely with consistent and concise managed messages, if heeded, can and will save lives. Therefore, our budget and staff work plans reflect a greater investment in tools and technology to notify the greatest amount of residents and visitors possible more effectively using multiple methods of communications. And finally, this year is the 50th anniversary of the first call to 911. And while we celebrate this occasion with our dispatchers, we are well aware that 911 equipment across the country are aged and in use. 24 seven. Long Beach is no exception. Therefore, we have invested in new corps communications systems to ensure clear and predictable communications with our residents and first responders in the field. The Department recognizes the important role that we play as part of the public safety continuum. We are dedicated to making Long Beach a more prepared city through our emergency communication systems and our disaster preparedness, outreach and training programs through through the department's course services. We've touched the lives of our residents in many important ways. The core services of the department are really echoed in its title. We provide 911 communications for police, fire and emergency medical calls for service. And we are responsible to work with our city staff, our community partners, hospitals, school district transit agencies and the business community to provide to respond effectively to a major emergency or disaster. The department is also responsible for the coordination of the city's Homeland Security grant funds. Accomplishments in the 911 call center include handling over 800,000 calls for service and answering 90% of those calls with an industry standard of 10 seconds. We completed the replacement and upgrade of both our radio dispatch system and a911 telephone system at a combined cost of just over $8 million, funded through Homeland Security grant funds and the California Office of Emergency Services. And I am proud to note those upgrades were completed without any disruption and emergency calls for services in December. Reliance Text to 911 system which provides equal access to emergency services to residents who are hearing and or speech impaired. The system can also be used by residents in situations where it is too dangerous to call 911. The department was rest was recently approved by FEMA to implement the Federal Wireless Emergency Alert Messaging System. This system allows the city to send emergency messages to residents and visitors directly to their mobile phones. Similar to the way Amber Alerts are sent, there is no need to sign up to receive these messages. The system will be used in the event of a major citywide disaster. The system will be supplemental to our current alert Long Beach system. And as was stated earlier, we coordinated Homeland Security grant funding this year totaling $14 million, a portion of which was used for the radio replacement project. Accomplishments in the area of disaster preparedness include implementation of the pilot ready your Long Beach Neighborhood Program in two neighborhoods . The Ready Your Neighborhood Long Beach program trains residents to identify those at risk in their neighborhoods elderly neighbors, mobility impaired neighbors who will require assistance during a disaster. The program also trains neighbors to identify the resources they have retired nurses, neighbors who have ladders and other generators that can be used during a disaster. This program teaches. And prepares residents to work together in the event of a disaster. And we're really, really happy to have been able to work with the Grant neighborhood in the ninth District to pilot two neighborhood programs. We are also really pleased to have established a Long Beach disaster relief fund just today, announced in partnership with Lambie's Community Foundation. This fund is designed to provide assistance with local recovery efforts for incidents not covered by FEMA. The fund is managed by the foundation, and contributions to the foundation can be made at the Lambie's Community Foundation website. This was a very busy year for us. We conducted outreach to over 30 community businesses and resident groups on business disaster preparedness topics. We also maintained a robust social media presence, and we conducted or participated in a number of annual preparedness events, including the Tsunami Walk and Preparedness Fair, our Pet Preparedness Month Outreach Program, and the upcoming Ready Land based Preparedness Expo, which we invite all residents to attend on September the 15th at Cal State Long Beach campus. And finally, we continue to receive reimbursements from FEMA for claims following the 2017 winter storm, events so far totaling $600,000 in reimbursements. We accomplished all of that with minimal impact to the city's general fund. 80% of the department's budget is devoted to 911 call taking and dispatching. The remaining budget covers disaster preparedness, outreach and training, facility maintenance and Homeland Security Grant Administration. The department's notable changes include a new disaster preparedness officer, Jeff Duvall. Jeff, would you stand? We recently recruited Jeff from the city of Anaheim, where he held a similar position for a number of years. We also are pleased to announce a new administrative officer, Diane Brown. Who's handling the slides at this moment. But please stand, Diane, to be recognized. We recruited Diane from Long Beach City College, but she is no stranger to the city of Long Beach. She spent 15 years in our health department before going over to lobby City College. Both of these individuals are going to be assets to the department, and we will. And we continue to work on measure funded projects, upgrading the EOC, heating and air conditioning system using $800,000 of funding in the area of challenges and opportunities. We continue to be challenged by the slow pace by which residents have been signing up for the Long Beach. We encourage residents to sign up for a look at Long Beach so that we can ensure everyone receives timely notification in the event of a disaster. To help with the sign ups, we are in the process of switching a little Long Beach to a new vendor who will make the sign up process easier and quicker. Cross-training work continues with our 911 dispatchers. Cross-trained. Dispatchers have been utilized to provide additional resources for large scale incidents. We currently have 20% of the staff in the cross training program. However, our priority continues to be recruiting and training additional dispatchers to reduce overtime. And we will continue to work to expand the Ready Your Labs neighborhood program to include several additional communities yet to be identified. And finally, in October, FEMA will facilitate a tabletop exercise for our department heads to support their ability to make policy level decisions that support field responses to doing an incident. Thank you. Thank you for your support. This continued. This concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. And the last of my four speakers will be capital improvement program, actually. Vice mayor. We're now going to conclude and go to questions for the three departments, and then Mr. Beck will do capital improvements when the questions are done. Thank you. Susie. Q Yes. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentations. Each of them was incredibly informative and impressive in terms of all the accomplishments. And of course, looking ahead at the opportunities, present some great opportunities for us as council members in terms of policy setting. So I'll take them in the order that they were presented for. Fire Chief Drury, thank you very much for your presentation. I note that our response times are good and they're expected to get better in Fy19. Could you share a little bit about why that's important and how the restoration of some of the fire resources that we have has assisted and response times overall? Mayor Councilmembers. Councilmember Price. Yeah. Thank you very much for the question. Our response times have remained pretty static over the last year, although on an annual basis we still see about a 3 to 5% annual call volume increase. And so obviously the restoration of Engine eight last year and adding Rescue 12 back into the system last year helped ease the pressure that would typically be applied to our organization as a result of increasing call volumes. So across the city for first response, first engine or truck on scene, we're still writing about the same ballpark. We've been about 6 minutes and 35 seconds, and we're still meeting the national standard to get the paramedics on scene within the allotted time set out by the NFPA. Of course, to your question, as you add a resource back into the system, which our data shows clearly that we're still seeing the same call volume increases, we're staying about where it was and it's continued to grow over the years. Adding into the resource back into the system will enable to enable us to ease the pressure citywide. I've said this before many times publicly that just because we put a resource in North Long Beach doesn't necessarily mean it's dedicated just North Long Beach at any given moment throughout the day, that resource could be called upon to respond down to Naples Island or to downtown and vice versa. So as we add another resource into the system and it's been proposed Engine 17, which is over on the east side of Long Beach, that will help ease a lot of pressure that we currently feel in central Long Beach or downtown by adding that additional resource. So we're excited about that as an opportunity, excited to continue that discussion. And I think anything that we add back into the system now will just make our system more effective than it already is. And I appreciate that explanation and I've shared with with my residents. I know we've increased response times in the third district in several areas, and that has occurred as a result of all the restorations, whether it's a rescue 12, whether it's hopefully going to be 17, whatever it is, it takes the pressure off of the whole system , and I think that's a great thing. So I wanted to highlight that. I also noted that one of the changes that you have proposed for FY 19, I think it's a really great change and I don't think it was highlighted enough, with all due respect, in your presentation, because it's actually a business friendly addition, and that's the addition of the additional staff for Planned Trek. I think that, you know, sometimes you don't associate the fire department as as helping us be business friendly. But for us to be able to expedite this and streamline some of these requirements as businesses go through the permitting process, I think it's it's really important. So thank you. Would you like to comment on that. Councilmember? I just want to say thank you for acknowledging the work of our Fire Prevention Bureau. That that bureau is led by Deputy Chief Rick Brant, which we all know is perhaps one of the best in the business in the world of fire prevention, special events, filming all the stuff that he does and his entire team in fire prevention have embraced his vision there. And that is to be more business friendly, to speed up the process and ensure that those people that want to want to do business in Long Beach know that they have a partner in the fire department, that we're going to help them get to where they want to be. So I appreciate you bringing that up. And I apologize for not highlighting a greater. Well. It's again, it's it's kind of not a natural connection. But I think that the, you know, residents may not understand the important role. And we have a team member on the city three team Lisa West, who's our business liaison. And anytime a business applies for a permit in the district, she kind of holds their hand and walks them through the process. And it's only been through her eyes that I've been able to see the work that the fire department does. So thank you for that position. I wholeheartedly support it. I also want to commend you on the use of the electronic patient care reporting system. I had the opportunity to go on a ride along with the fire department recently and got to see them use it. And my sister is one of the physicians at the New Star Behavioral Center that we have and Councilman Oranga as a district. And she told me that she is actually when the Long Beach fire has come, has been using the program and she was speaking very fondly of it. So, you know. So you can get some feedback from one of the practitioners on the other side. I think it's been very successful, so thank you for that. And then finally, just a comment to you. Gosh, it was probably about a year ago that you and I were having just an informal conversation and you shared with me some of your vision on peer support programs. And who would have known at that time how important your commitment to peer support would have been for your department in the last year. So so kudos to you for having that vision and for making mental health mental health focus such an important part of your leadership. Both both the work that you do and the work that Chief Learner does involves leadership of a group of people who are susceptible to vicarious trauma on a daily basis. And again, your foresight was very, very, very apparent to me during the last few months. So thank you, Councilmember. I feel like I need to jump in here. That's that's as much as I embrace that. The entire command staff, the deputy chiefs, the assistant chiefs, the rank and file, our union, everybody in our organization embraced that mission together. And one of our deputy chief said during we're going through a very dark time about a month ago, said that everything we started to put in place five years ago was was preparation for that moment. And I couldn't be more thankful for the work that these men and women in the organization do and the support that they lent to that program specifically. Well, thank you. Thank you for keeping up the great work of your department despite unforeseen circumstances. We all appreciate it. Thank you. So I'm going to move on now to Chief Luna, if that's okay. Chief Luna, a couple of questions I had for you. You talk on page three of our department overview, you talk a little bit about the pilot staffing models that we have. And I was hoping that maybe you could share a little bit more about those pilot staffing models and what we're hoping to accomplish with those. And I think that's kind of the use of some non Swarns to assist to support. Members of the council. Councilwoman Price Our vision for that is, is kind of something we did years ago and we stop doing, and that's to hire civilian individuals to go out and in a pilot form and handle some priority. Three calls. Some report calls, non-injury, traffic collision, things of that nature to relieve some of the pressure from the police officers out there. There were some things that worked in the past, some things that didn't. I think it's it's worth trying and and see where it gets us and and see how. Number one, the safety of the employees is important. Is it going to increase our capacity in other areas if we can get more proactive time for our patrol officers to do either quality of life work, more crime prevention work, getting out of their cars and playing with kids in the park, that would be awesome. We're always trying to find ways to maximize our police officers times in the field, and we think this may be a way to do it. So are you open to some suggestions on what that might look like in terms of the support role? Of course. Well, I don't know how defined the program has been, but I do know. Well, first, let me just start with saying you're absolutely correct that these are changing times in the world of law enforcement and public safety. And I commend you and your command staff for being nimble and responding to some of the changes that have taken place that have really changed the way policing is done. And although there's a lot of, you know, kind of fluffy rhetoric about how things should be done, at the end of the day, it's our police officers that people turn to when they have quality of life issues or when a crime happens and they expect them to solve every problem. And oftentimes it's not a police problem. And when we take tools away from police officers that limit their ability to enforce laws, I think it puts a lot of pressure on police departments to solve problems that really are not their problems to solve. So I commend you for leading at a time like this, and I can understand that right now is probably one of the most challenging times for someone for police officers, because it's very hard to recruit people into the profession. With all the changes that are happening. So I appreciate your commitment to enforcement and I support your efforts to do the work on the front end, the outreach, the education, the work on the back end, and the diversion programs and efforts to rehabilitate that, balanced with the commitment to enforcement, I think, is what makes a modern day police chief successful. And I see all of those qualities in you. So thank you. I appreciate that. And if I could just have a quick couple seconds, if I can have a lot of our command staff is here, if you guys can just stand really quick, it's good to stretch after being sitting here for several hours, but just stand and be acknowledged. It's it's a team effort from our entire command staff and every every employee who works on this police department. Just absolutely amazing people. We're so blessed to have them all. So thank you, guys. Absolutely. Thank you. They do amazing work. And I have been I have been incredibly blessed to work one on one with several of them sitting up there. So I feel very lucky about that. So before I go back to that question about whether you're open to well, no, I'll go into it right now. So I think there there's probably some opportunities. And for us to use the resources that that you've talked about, these are new kind of creative pilots for things like supporting our police officers. You know, when an arrest is made, could there be an inventory team that would that would identify the property and store the property so that the officer doesn't. Could there be a booking team that would transport the individual and book that person so that the officer doesn't have to go to jail? But just, you know, those kinds of ideas of of how non sworn could be used so that we're not taking police officers off the street. But I defer entirely to you and your team on on how that works. But I will say that is something that I've heard a lot of police chiefs are looking at right now in terms of trying to manage resources with the changing staffing and the changing limitations that we have in the industry. So I, I think that that has some potential and I look forward to hearing how that rolls out in practice. You aren't one of the pages here in our budget book, we talk about key measures, performance measures, and of course, we have on their response time to priority one calls. And we have violent crime rates. And this isn't meant as a criticism whatsoever. But is there a reason we don't track property crimes or quality of life crimes as a performance measure? Because, you know, those seem to be the bulk of the calls for service that some of us get. And I wonder if there is a way to track those as a performance measure as well, or is this kind of the best practice to track these things is performance measure. We absolutely track crime and that's how we anybody would grade their police department, including ours. For us, as of July, our our July index crime report, that's the latest one we have. Our property crime is down 8.5% throughout the entire city. So that is one area that we consistently look at in regards to quality of life crimes, whether they're lower grade property crimes, that is well within what we look at. And each month. And I'd invite anybody behind the dais to join us for our monthly crime meeting. That Deputy Chief Heber facilitates to see exactly how much we do, how much we pay attention to, and the creative responses by our entire team of employees to address these these crime trends. It's it's absolutely impressive, and it's done consistently. We take this stuff personal. We lose a lot of sleep over it. We want to make sure that this city is safe and we do everything we can to make sure that happens. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. And I know you're committed to that. I just I would like to see those numbers highlighted more as well, because those are really important to anyone, you know, who has had a residential burglary or something and feels that that crime maybe isn't taken as seriously, because I know it is. And I want us to highlight those numbers more. So we talked a little bit about grants and in your presentation you covered grants a little bit. And I think you touched upon this, that maybe we've paused for applying for some of the grants that require certification because of the state and our position on the the Values Act . But is there any indication that national policies are going to impact our existing grants or the grants that we're relying on for Fy19? I would say yes, yes, and yes. That is such a fluid situation with national politics being what they are. There's consistent challenges in court and honestly, we're working hand in hand with our city attorney consistently to try and stay ahead of this. We don't want to miss out on any grant opportunities. And it seems like, at least in some of the ones that we weren't able to put in for because of our current city policies, those are things we're paying attention to. And obviously if we get to an area where we're deficient and funding will be coming back to this policy body to ask for additional funding, if we can't get it through the normal grant channels that we normally get them from. And Chief, I'm asking you as a as a member of this body to please do that, because it's important. I think that we know I'll tell you right now, as a matter of principle and as a matter of my fiduciary duty, having more police officers on the street and having the resources to be able to fund that is more important to me than sending a message. And so I think if we're in a situation where you feel that significant grant funds are going to be affected by some policy that we're setting, please. I want to know that because I want to make those decisions with that in mind, because we are at a great place with our police department. We're continuing to increase and hopefully, hopefully there is some wisdom at the highest levels of this nation that realizes that we shouldn't be punished. But if that starts to happen, then I would ask that you please keep us up to date on that. Yes, ma'am. Or there is an imposition of a traffic collision fee that we're going to be implementing. Is that a fee that's assessed to the suspect or the defendant in a DUI case? To the suspect. Or suspect or defendant. Did they have to be charged? Do we now? I'm sorry. I'd have to double check on that. Okay. No problem. Thank you. The transfer of the 27 positions at the airport, the TSOs. Does that affect their job at all, their job. Duties or their training? Is that something that is going to be impactful to those 27 individuals at all? We believe the impact will be positive. They will fall under our imbroglio, our chain of command, our training standards. And that will, even though they are great people and they've done great work out at the airport. We believe that the scenario that we're proposing makes them better, makes us better, makes our airport and city safer. Okay. Thank you, Chief. You on. Page 384. Where we outlined the summary of changes, there's a reference to downgrading two positions a sergeant and a lieutenant position. But then there was also a reference in the PowerPoint about filling two vacancies. Is that I'm sorry, removing those vacancies. Is that the same reference? There is. There is one vacancy with the sergeant. The lieutenant position is not vacant, at least not in the location that is proposed to be reduced. Do we know what departments those are going to be in? The lieutenant comes from the patrol bureau and the sergeant comes from the investigations bureau. Okay. Proposed. Okay. So my only concern with those is that, you know, there are certain that many obviously every division in the police department benefits from expertize. But there are a couple of areas where I think we especially need expertize right now. And I would hate to downgrade positions and that would be with pretty. Special events. Many of those are events are in my district and in Council Member Pearce's district. I know representing the coast. And so having that historical context and that knowledge to be able to work with and and collaborate with community members is so important that I would hope that, you know, I wish we weren't downgrading those positions or filling those vacancies. But if that has to be done, I just would ask if there could be a second look as we go through these discussions to see if that's necessary. Yes, we will. We have been doing that. Those are very difficult positions to reduce. But in a sense, when you get the directions to balance your general fund budget, at the end of the day, that equates to about $140,000 that I'm going to have to find somewhere else. There are there are no good positions to reduce. We're just at from a capacity perspective, that's just where we're at. So it was the best case scenario of not a very good situation to begin with, if that makes sense. It does, Chief, and I appreciate you sharing that. I think it's important for me and my colleagues to understand that, because it may be important for us as we think about the budget. So I appreciate that. Thank you. I know that we're going to do a body worn camera. You know, we're doing the pilot with the 200. I've I've said this many times and I know a lot of my colleagues feel the same way. We'd love to see a full roll out of body worn cameras. And this is more, you know, a request to the city manager. I think that we think of a way that we can incorporate a full rollout in FY 20. And I'm hoping that maybe we can collect some data on the positions that we're going to be funding to examine the cost of redactions for the body worn camera , to see what the true cost of that will be and maybe pilot, you know, for those 200, how many praise are we getting and how many redactions are we actually doing? Because it may be that we've overestimated what the operating costs might be, might be. And so I just hope that we would be thinking about a FY 20. We really need to have body worn cameras throughout the whole city. I can't stress important how important that is. Yes, we agree. And that's the purpose for not going city wide deployment at this time. To do them in south and north gives us the opportunity to look at the logistics of it. The investigative portion of it, the proportion of it. And we believe doing this for the amount of time we're going to do it will give us the ability to come back and give all of you a true cost for what this would cost for a full blown body worn camera program. Great. Thank you, Chief. Do we anticipate to get some data on the clinician that's in the jail in terms of how many people the clinician sees and how many are referred to successfully for services? That is our goal. We have some very, very smart people working on our innovation team and over at the Health Department, they're all about stats and data, and I can't wait to see what comes out. I'm really excited that the city put this much effort into looking at creative solutions, not just complain about criminal justice reform, but look at thinking out of the box and trying to figure out how to solve these problems long term. Thank you, Chief. And then I just have one final question, and that is, I know you referenced the number, I think it was 825, but how many sworn officers do we have now and what would be the ideal number of officers for a city of our size? But I'm going to I'm going to refer to some of our financial policies. But looking at it from an optimistic view. What would it be? So you notice everyone laughing over here at me when you ask me that question. Our F-18 budget, it's sworn numbers are 848. That's what we're budgeted at. And in regards to what's that right number? Honestly, four, I mean, there's formulas that different people use. And you look at formulas for each cities. If you just look at California, if you compare us to Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, we're within about the same range. There's arguments about, you know, officers that are just assigned to you as opposed to contract bodies. Every city is unique. They have interesting needs. I can tell you this, our people are working their butts off. I believe that the officers we have are doing the same work of the officers we had seven or eight years ago before the recession hit. All of you wonderful people, but you work our butts off. And I'm not complaining. That's just the business we're in. So. So getting to the number of. Of what we need. I know when we had 1200, we used to say it wasn't enough. It just depends on the community. My job is to stay engaged with all of you, with our community consistently, listen to the needs that they have, and then try and prioritize and figure out what we can and cannot do. You guys, all of you, ladies and gentlemen, are, I think, are doing a good job of managing the city. We are with our department that runs a lot on overtime. And and like I said, our people are working their tails off. But I think we're getting the job done. So we'll continue to monitor it. I will not be shy about coming to you and saying that we're at capacity and we may not be able to do something that you're asking us to do or reshift and reprioritize because we just don't have the people to do it. Now I'm not talking. That's everyday business. If we're dealing with an emergency or where we've got to call people back to work. Our department is very well trained and very well prepared to deal with that any day of the week. Thank you, Chief. And and just in conclusion, I agree. Your department and the men and women of your department are doing tremendous work, and it's obvious in the things that they do every day. I recently have the opportunity to go to the Long Beach courthouse on an Orange County case because a judge had sent a case over to Long Beach because of a conflict. But anyway, as I was walking through the hallway in my capacity as an Orange County prosecutor, I saw the hallways of the courthouse lined with Long Beach officers. And I'm a huge sap, and I don't think anyone here is that shocked to hear that. But I literally had to take a moment in the hallway just looking out at the Sea of Black with just the sense of incredible pride for this department. I wanted to walk up to every officer and say, Hi, I'm on the council. I'm so proud of what you're doing. But I didn't do that. I just walked by them as as did the other prosecutors in the courthouse. But I just feel just I get to work with them all the time and I get to work with officers from agencies all over every day. And I'm really proud of the officers from the Long Beach Police Department. They're incredibly respectful and everything that they do and our firefighters as well. So thank you to both chiefs for everything. We really appreciate that. Just a correction on the numbers. I said before the recession, I said 1200. It's actually 1020. That was our where we were top budgeted numbers before. I just want to correct that before somebody puts out in the paper and says something about that. Thank you, Chief. Okay. So just one final question. I have and I really don't want to call you the master of disaster or whatever it is they've been calling you. I'm not sure. Do you like it? I don't. I can't tell if you like it. You don't like it? I don't. Think so. Remember that it originated somewhere? Yes. By the city manager. I believe. I've heard it come out of his mouth. Anyway, I wanted to just acknowledge the great outreach and partnership that you and your team have been doing. We've been privileged to have two San Army walks with your team, and I think they both had great turnouts and it's been fantastic. So thank you for that. The 911 operators, you talked about the ongoing training. I just want to make sure that that training also includes maybe how to interact with the residents that are calling about. The priority three calls are the quality of life calls, because some of the concerns that we get sometimes from residents is that if they're case that they're calling on isn't a priority one call that maybe, you know, they get a dismissive tone or something like that. I just want to make sure that every resident feels heard and that that training includes that type of education. Yeah, totally. Totally agree. Councilmember, if you recall that the Public Safety Committee meeting a couple of months ago, we talked about, you know, what residents should expect when they call and what they should expect from our dispatchers. And one of the primary things is that every call is important and the residents should feel that way and assure residents that help will be on the way for their calls, the way that they're prioritized. So we don't make that distinction in that regard. They're all important to us. We really appreciate, Councilmember, your support of the annual Tsunami Evacuation Walk and Resource Fair. It's growing every year in size and scope. And we think that's and that's an important community event that you support and that we try to support with you. Of course, it's our pleasure to do so. And and a huge kudos to a nine on one operator. So I ask that question not because I've identified any opportunities for improvement, because having worked with Commander Herzog, he's really good at when residents would say, well, I called 911 and they said, blah, blah, blah. He would pull the tape and send it. And sure enough, there were some factual inaccuracies in some of the way that the phone calls were reported. And in every single time that I had the opportunity to listen to those calls, it was always the dispatchers who were very respectful and frankly, often abused by people for no apparent reason. And I just think they do a really great job of standing their ground, but also being very empathetic. So thank you. They? Excuse me. Okay, you guys, I just woke up. Okay. This is mango units. Thank you. Knowing that I have the pleasure to serve on Budget Oversight Committee, I'll hold back some of my questions. And I also think that there are so many of you here today that are here for future agenda items. And while the budget is the most exciting thing in most of our lives, I know that you have other important matters. So I'm going to get to the meat and potatoes of my quick questions. I appreciate the work of our fire department. I really appreciate going over the budget in detail, and I don't have any questions for you at this time. My questions are really going to be with the police department at this time. So first, I want to compliment you and the T.I department for the new platform of tracking crimes. I think that this has been a significant contribution to the community. I want to give a special thank you to Commander Herzog, who has since moved on from the East Division. He recognized the number of individuals in our communities that used to use the crime report tracking website and the major setbacks that it had. He took their input and worked hand in hand with community members who would identify specific inaccuracies on the website to try to identify as we moved into this new system, what caused those inaccuracies. And I think that accurate, important, accurate, transparent data for the community to know and be able to see their own crime stats is important in communities taking ownership and making those calls when they see something that is suspicious. However, we've had some challenges with the Go Language P.D. app. I appreciate the Ericsson for getting that back online. As soon as our neighborhood association said that it was down. It is back up and running tonight. I really, really appreciate the ability for a community member to give their own police report. However, when we talk about adding non sworn to do that, I have some concerns in terms of costs and training. And so I'll bring back up what I brought up four years ago and three years ago and then I kind of gave up on for a while, but I'm back at it. We have 48 police officers scheduled to retire this year. We are we instituting a reserve program where they could come back to the city in a reserve capacity. Knowing and understanding the knowledge and information that they have from their years on the force where they could potentially take some of these community service officer. Non-emergency. Priority three. Focused. Immediate. The information on the new pilot program with notes on Councilwoman Mongo. We actually have several police officers who have retired and have become reserve officers now in our reserve program. They're slated to work. I want to say it's 10 hours a month and some special events because it's a volunteer assignment. Mm hmm. Not to me. Not too many people are going to volunteer to go out and become a report card. So that's a little bit of a challenge. So that's why we wanted to try this program. Again, we're just giving it a shot, see what works. We're open to any option that would reduce the police officers workload and have them do more priority type work. How many reserves do we currently have? Sorry about that. I'd have to get back to you on that. I want to say it's in the range of about 25 or 30. So I will ask that our Long Beach police officers who are considering retirement in the next 12 months or have retired over the last 12 months, I think in the next 24 months we have upwards of I don't even want to say eligible because it would scare us the numbers, but I would guess we've been averaging somewhere between 30 and 40 to 50 a year. And so I would strongly encourage all of those reserves to do that. And then I would also encourage us to look at an opportunity where, in addition to your volunteer hours, other reserve agencies, after you meet your minimum requirements of your 10 hours, you can be on an hourly paid position, which is at a significant reduction from what an hourly full timer would cost because they're already receiving their pension and they're already retired. They have to keep under their 960 hours unless they get an exemption depending on the agency from was ERA or I can't remember the acronym is for LAPD. But I hope that we will sit down and explore this as a opportunity because the ability for us to keep those individuals, so many of them are changing agencies and going back to work full time. And we just are missing out on that experience. They know the streets, they know the communities, they know the neighborhoods, they know the trends. Which leads me to my second question. I'm the big the. Investigations, Sergeant. Is it specifically burglary? I know Councilman Price mentioned a couple of different areas that it could have been in, but I don't think I heard what specific section the downgraded sergeant was coming from. Burglary. It is burglary. Okay. And is that an area where. We are caught up or behind in those investigations. I know that we have backlogs in lots of areas. We have backlogs in all of our investigative units. So that would concern me. I know that we want to clear these investigations because the sooner we get these individuals in jail, the better chance we have of less victimization. So I look forward to working with you and your department on what those opportunities are. I really just can't stress enough what a great outcome reserve programs have been, including you as our police chief, who started as a reserve. And I'm so proud of that and and the work that you did and and how you've led our department over these last few years. And so I hope that at least it's something that we can consider over the next several weeks, because 25 reserve officers I know that we had a a staff member in your office who ended up retiring, who was working on building that back up. And we had regular meetings. But as that staffing change happens, I know it's challenging. And so anything I can do to help and work with you and the team, I just feel so passionately that keeping these individuals with that level of experience on the team is so important. And with that, I will pass it off to the next council member, since I know it's a long meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Next Miss Universe. So thank you. My little lighthouse. I can't tell if it's on or off. Thank you. Have a very few. I'm not very. If you have very little to say. I think it's a great budget and it's wonderful. And I think that thanks to the citizens of Long Beach, they helped us basically get this budget that we have right now that we can really implement a lot of our programs and re and reintroduce others like my my colleague, Councilmember Mungo, who had no questions for fire. I do. And I had no questions from for PD budget a little bit. And I have just one for the master of disaster. In terms of fire, you didn't mention anything. About the research program, the Community Emergency Response Team. I was wondering, is that still in effect or I know we were challenged of a year ago or a couple of years back. I'm getting some funding for some emergency kits or some igloos for to store some emergency equipment. What's the status of that? Mr. Vice Mayor, Councilmembers Councilmember Urunga Yes. The program is still very much active. In fact, this past year we trained 155 additional adults in in basic cert programs. This program has has grown beyond just cert now. And we're now we're doing teenage cert and we do Spanish language cert classes. And the program is started to grow throughout the city. Jake Heflin, as you guys you guys all know Jake Heflin, he is our program manager for Year Program and it's thriving, doing very well. And this past week, I'm happy to report that we've got a number of young men and women in our community that come from challenged backgrounds throughout the community. And all sorts of different situations have been put into what we're calling a fire core program. And they've gone out to the fire stations. They're riding along, they're getting firsthand experience on what it's like to be with the fire, the fire department and firefighters on a daily basis. But each one of those young men and women teenagers went through a 24 hour training class before we let them go right along with our firefighters. So, yes, the program is functioning at a high level. It's thriving, continuing to grow, and we anticipate it will continue to grow in popularity for years to come. That's that's great to hear because I know it's a very important community benefit that we have out there. And it really gets our our members of the community engaged with the city in terms of disaster preparedness and and being able to provide emergency response when we need it, which is a good segue way to my next question . A lot of us were already a lot of the questions that I had there was that we're asked by our customer representative. Thank you for being so astute with a lot of your questions regarding disaster preparedness. We great that one. The one aspect of your presentation that stood out to me was the cross training of the dispatchers. Could you go into a little bit more detail in terms of what does cross training entail in regards to their their performing their their jobs as dispatchers currently? Thank you, Councilmember. Currently, we have co-located dispatchers, police and Fire Hall located on the second floor of the Emergency Communications Operations Center and have been co-located with similar skill sets since that building was erected about 15 years ago. We've always identified. The potential to create some economies and skills as well as to be able to provide additional resources when we have large scale incidents that occur in the city, like a major fire, like the Paradise Gardens fire that we experienced a couple of years ago, or like some of the police activities that we've also experienced . So these are very similar disciplines. Staff are all accustomed to talking to telephone and doing radio work, some in code, some not in code. But we've had success with the dispatchers that we've been able to put through the training course. As I said, it provides a force multiplier for us when we have a large event. Our challenge in the cross training program is our need to continue is our need to answer all of the phone calls that we have as they're coming in. So an analogy that I use quite often is we have to keep this plane flying while we're trying to build another wing, and our priority is to keep the plane from flying. So we spend most of our time just bringing in new dispatchers, training them in one or the other, discipline, police or fire. And then as time and resources permit, then we go through some training on a cross-training program with other dispatchers. So we're about 20% of our dispatchers that have completed the training. They go back and forth between the two centers. If there's an influx of calls on one side, we will bring some cross training dispatchers in to assist as opposed to calling dispatchers from home to come in. So we have a much quicker response and it has paid dividends for us. Our priority, though, is, as I said, reducing overtime by bringing in by training dispatchers continuously on one discipline or another. Okay. Yeah, that's what I figured that cross-training was included because I would recall that there were actually two two sites, one for a fire in another location and one for police, which was down here in the basement of City Hall once upon a time. And so now with the the EOC establish out there, Redondo, it it creates a great opportunity to have these these two services put together. And the cross training is a is of course, a one of those benefits that the community would would greatly benefit from because of the level of service that would be expanded. So that's what I have. Mace Mary, you can wake up now. Thank you for the visit. You guys were losing our audience. You must answer. Mrs. Pierce. Here. My turn. Great. Oh, excuse me. Well, I want to say what a great budget it is. I think that the staff has done a fantastic job. And when I sat down and looked at it on the first day, I just kind of sat with it because it is such a different budget than the first budget that I was able to participate in passing . And so I just want to give a congratulations to all the staff that's worked really hard on this. I'm going to go the opposite direction. So let's talk about disaster preparedness. I want to first say how great it has been to work with your office. We have done some fantastic things. We've done some Facebook Live videos with your team, or we came in and did one around earthquakes and then we went to the aquarium and talked about tsunamis. And so my goal is hopefully to do one of those quarterly with your office and also with fire and PD. And so I just want to thank you for being willing to think outside the box and having your team like they come in with everything. So when we did the one for the earthquake, she brought in a whole box of goodies to show everybody all the little bitty things that you can do to make a difference that now my house is finally disaster ready. So I want to thank you for that. I did want to ask my staff, did the active shooter training in the main library last year, do you have plans for that training again in the next year? Thank you, council member. We appreciate your staff outreach to us to do some Facebook Live. We think, you know, as many other departments utilizing social media really helps us to get our message out. And especially in the area like disaster preparedness, where people don't really think about it much until something happens and at that point it's too late. So it's great that we able to get out in front. And so we appreciate your participation there. Yes. Last year we did active shooter training with every department in the city. We did it with all of the council officers. We did it with the ranchos, with the with the museums. And we continue to offer those services to city departments that need it, council officers, turnover and staff. And we're happy to come back out and do those trainings. Wonderful. I have a hole about a three new people on my staff and I've got seven. A new intern. So I think we'll be calling you soon. I did have one other question. The current roles of the administration, bureau managers and disaster preparedness manager positions. What will change with them with the title change? Yeah, you know that that nothing will change with the title change. The title change better reflects the the magnitude of the job as opposed from an officer to a manager. But with our staff, we have the same we have the same responsibilities and administration as other departments have, sometimes on a smaller basis in some areas, sometimes greater in some other areas. And so we are really, really fortunate that through a recruitment process, we were able to identify Diane Brown, had previous experience with the city, could hit the ground running and kept us all of our recruitment. Everything stayed on track. So great. Okay. I think that that's pretty much it will be outreaching again, like I said, to do a couple more activities with with your office and just really appreciate your efforts. And I am going to ask my staff that at the end of each of our signatures that we add to download the alert app on their phones. And it did take me a while when I tried to do it, I couldn't multitask and do it, which I'm a pro at multitasking. So it took me a minute, but we're going to add that to the end of our signatures. And maybe if we could do that for the entire city, that might be a great step to get awareness out about that. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's go to let's see Chief Luna. I have several questions on PD and I'm going to try not to duplicate those that have already come up. And before I begin, I want to say when we looked at the budget and I saw the added quality of life officers, the bike officers, I was elated in my district where we have a it's a denser district than parts of the east side. We've had many requests, particularly in our business improvement district, for bike officers that are able to be more nimble. And so I if you could walk through for me where the bike officers will be, I see some metro, but what is the ability to have them in our beds, like the Dhaba Fourth Street and our beaches? It seems like an appropriate use on our beaches outside of the the trucks that we have. Yeah. Councilmember Pearce, the concept or the vision that we have for this rapid bicycle response team that's proposed is we wanted to get one sergeant and five police officers really available to the entire city. It would not be for just one area. The concept would be is that we put them on some type of whether it's a bicycle, motocross bicycle, put. Them on scooters. No scooters, no scooters, less DC he says yes, but we have some significant challenges throughout the city with not our homeless population but the criminals within the homeless population. And as most of you can attest to, they're on the beaches, in the flood controls, places that are very difficult for a police car to get into. So when this team gets put together, if it if it goes through, they'll figure out the type of vehicles to get into those areas. Their task would be to focus on the high frequency offenders, the people with extensive criminal histories that we see out on our streets within that population and the significant mentally ill. So that team would focus on that group and we believe it would reduce the numbers of crimes that are occurring within that population that is increasing our overall index crime, especially in the aggravated assault categories. We are having multiple incidences where the individuals I've described to you are either the suspects or the victims. This team can get to them and we believe would have an impact. But whatever the problems are anywhere in the city, that's where they would go. Great. Okay, let's see. And then I had a question on the quality of life officers. I know with the Hart team, you know, there's only so much that they can do with a quality of life officer. Do they have the ability to transport or do they have to call in somebody else if they have a situation where they need to take someone to the hospital or something like that. They transport themselves. They can. Yes, great. They do. And they do often. Okay. And I wanted to to talk about the community policing model. I remember my first budget, we talked about this and it was like we just don't have the capacity. We don't have the capacity to even talk about getting out of our cars and playing games with the community members. So I'm really happy to hear your comments tonight about that. And just wanted to highlight it's great to be chipping away and adding more officers each year to get us closer to that to that goal. If you follow us on social media, hopefully you do. You'll see a lot of our officers engaging, getting out of their cars, whether it's parks, neighborhoods. I'm hoping that through the clerk's office, they give you all the capes that we handed out on National. We've got capes. Yeah. And that's something our officers are doing every day, every night and really, really building relationships out there consistently. Great. Thank you for that. And following that question on community policing, what is the standard for keeping officers within their beat? How long do we typically shift somebody around or keep them. In patrol calls for service. It is currently a six month deployment. The officers get to choose based on seniority division shift days off and again, that's based on seniority. Some end up staying a lot longer than six months because they like where they work, but it gives people the opportunity to move around the city and do some different things. So is there I know that in having some conversations with other cities and other jurisdictions where they have attempted to have people in the same community for two years or three years and that same area. So they're able to build that trust with with that population and really they're able to outreach them and build trust and not having to rebuild trust every six months. Is there any I mean, I'm not telling you how to do your job. And same thing with Susie Councilmember Price. You know, some advice on how do we continue to build that trust within our communities. Is there anything else keeping us from extending that time or encouraging people to stay longer? But it is something that we listen to. We look at best practices, not only in the region, around us, in the state and the entire country. And those are things that we assess. Each patrol division has what we call police resource officers, and they're there a little bit longer, depending on if there's movement, opportunity for promotion or opportunities for another bureau. But this is something that we believe works here for our city. It it works for our employees, but we're constantly reevaluating it to see if if we're having challenges in building trust in certain neighborhoods. We believe at this time this six month deployment is working for us, but we're never stuck in our ways. We always look at best practices. Okay. Thank you for that. And then you mentioned that we're running a lot on over time. I think I had a brief conversation with you in regards and maybe financial management can help us understand. I understand that the Tidelands funds could be used to pay for overtime in the Tidelands area. Is that something that one what would that look like and to is that something that would help? PD Particularly in our Entertainment Convention Center, I mean, the beach zone there, we I know we have a lot of challenges right there in our marina. So if you could walk through what that would look like using Tidelands funds for PD overtime. I'll start off and then if you need to add to that financial wizard yourself. However. We currently do use overtime from Tidelands to do exactly what you just described, and we've been doing that successfully. Generally, we get the support not only from all of you, but the city manager's office and financial management to be flexible in regards to retrieving funding, overtime funding from different funds. And although it's welcomed and it's effective. I'm really concerned about our capacity right now in overtime employee wellness, psychological well-being, making sure our employees are spending time with their own families so they are more productive at work. So those are all things we have to fine balance with. And that's the thing I talked about earlier is if at one point over time is just not the way we're going to get this job done, I have to come back to this council and say we are beyond our capacity and we may need more staffing, structural staffing increases. And I mean, I've said many times that I don't necessarily support overtime with our PD because I understand how stressful your job is. And so having a department that's all working overtime leads could possibly lead to, you know, situations in the field that we could deter if we didn't have officers working overtime. So I think what would be helpful for me and maybe it could be in front of this council or not too from for on how many overtime hours we have and what would it look like to fill those with with FTEs instead would be kind of helpful I think for us to understand, not necessarily in this budget cycle, but for the next year for me to understand would be helpful. Did Financial have anything else to add? I believe that the police chief is correct that we are already using the overtime from Tidelands, but we will. Verify that and get back to you. I think that we are okay. And then one to last things for PD. I think that this morning we would we sent you an email, but I did go to a community meeting last night and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but one of the challenges that I've had in my district is that we have transients or folks that are on drugs have a situation where they get violent or physical or cause a situation with another resident they call PD. And the gentleman last night I asked him to call to make sure that residents know that if they're not happy with the situation that they had, that they need to call and talk to a supervisor in PD. So number one two is that when we have situations like having PD come out and they said we want to file a charge against this person, this homeless person that attacked me or whatever, that sometimes the officers will say, well, why do you want to do that? There's nothing we can really do. And that they feel. I've had three situations the last two months where they said they let the person walk away and the officer was said that they were on drugs or they were high. And so that's what we're grappling with with the beach challenge. And so how can we help knowing that we don't have room in our jails, knowing about Prop 47, what is a best practice for our constituents to understand and what they need to do whenever they do call police and they feel like they've been in a poor situation? To let us know. I need dates and times. Yeah. If. If somebody alleges that one of our officers responded to the scene of an incident and they didn't perform their duties. I need to know. I need to follow up. Many times we get those type of allegations. Somebody stated it earlier. We'll check with our communications center. Everything's taped. And if I've learned anything in the last three years of my career is there's two sides, every story. So we get both sides and we figure out what happened. And many times people do get frustrated because they call the police. And when we get out there, we find that no crime has been committed. And and obviously, you know, there's sometimes we can do something. But taking a crime report, you don't take one unless a crime was committed. But it's still our obligation to explain to somebody what what we're doing and why and explain from that perspective. And we have great employees, but once in a while we do make a mistake. And if we do, we'll correct it. Great. Thank you for that night. That was exactly what I told community members last night. But I know that I had a room of 30 people that are watching at home right now. So I wanted to have it not just come from my mouth, but have it come from yours as well. And my very last thing for PD is back to the airport. I wanted to understand what is what are the staff that are there now and what would be the change, having them underneath you versus the airport? And is there a cost differential there? There is some cost differential for the exact numbers. I would need some assistance from financial management there. But in regards to the responsibilities being under the police department, it just completely changes the dynamics. Our training standards, our expectations are just very much different than what they've had in the past. And that's not to say I mean, it's a great group of people. They've been doing a good job. We just believe being in our chain of command, they would do that that much better and they would perform. From a safety perspective, making the airport a lot safer than it is now. Can you. Has there been a situation or something that's happened that's been a red flag or is it just trying to create a different atmosphere? A little of both. Okay. I'll leave it there and we can check in before the budget processes are final as well. So that's all I have for you, Chief Luna. A fun. I didn't promise a short one, so I've got a fire next. I just want to say with fire, I'm extremely happy that in the last budget we were able to make the Hart team structural. They were adding a second Hart team. I love that we're adding 17, you know, crossing fingers. So I have two big questions for you. One is, I know that the Hart team cannot transport, and I know that we've had conversations with Janice Hahn. We've talked at the state level. Is there can you give us a status update on where we are in giving the the Hart team the ability to to transport? Councilmember the that the intent of the program was to never have the Hart team transport. If you go back a couple of years when we first put the program in place as a pilot program, we were figuring it out. It proved to be very successful. So we, the council structurally funded it last year. One of the things I brought up during last year's budget presentation was ultimately down the road. We'd like to get to a place where we go to L.A. County Emergency Medical Services Agency and make that resource response capable under the 911. So that's what I meant, right? So it's not or it's not the the rig itself is not configured to transport first responders. So we are still in the process of debating and discussing how we should best approach that. I will tell you this. The Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency has already told us that adding another resource into the system is no problem, provided that has the right tools and equipment on it to meet the criteria that they call out. The question we're dealing with internally is the mission of the Hart team has proved to be very successful and we continue to grow the program and it's morphing. And the Joel Davis and Justin Berger, the two firefighter paramedics that are on that are teaching us really about what that program should be. And so we have to be very careful as we move forward not to take them away from their core mission. So I do like the idea of having them become a response capable unit that for surge protection or overflow or those situations where we're just out of resources, we could dispatch the Hart Unit, maybe an A and an ambulance to transport somebody, but we have to do it in a very measured and deliberate way to make sure that we are not on a daily basis taking them away from from their mission. Yeah, because their mission is important and they're making a difference on the things they're doing right now. That is very helpful. Thank you for that. And I love that they're doing the trainings with everybody. I'm just really thrilled with how you guys have taken it and really been measured and slow at moving it to make sure it's the right fit. Also, I think the same thing that Councilmember Susie Price mentioned planned small business has been a key part of my term and I think that as much as we can do to open those doors quicker and so adding an additional staff for that, the electronic system is wonderful. So that's really what I have for you guys. I'm just really thrilled. And oh, I did have one more question. I know that you guys have a list we don't like to talk about all the time. Downtown Long Beach is growing our residents by 3000, we have station one. We have some improvements around the Queen Mary. If you could just talk about fire for me in downtown and what that looks like not only with our new residential units, but we are adding potentially three new hotels. What does it look like to reassess kind of the needs for first responders and downtown. Councilmember Yes, that's an ongoing discussion we have in our Fire Prevention Bureau. And to your point, as I mentioned earlier, our fire prevention bureau, I think I'm biased, of course, but I think we're the best in the business around the state of California. We take a very proactive approach with our business community to get them to a yes where we want them to do what they. Want to do. We want them to do it in a safe and productive way. We constantly evaluate the downtown, the entire city, really. But the density in downtown is a constant topic of discussion and fire prevention. No more in in this area of the city are things that there's no no more sprawl. Now, we're going vertical with the density. Right instead of the response times have always been calculated in the fire service from the fire station to the address. But now we have to take into account not only to go from the fire station to the address, but you also have to go up 24 hours to get to wherever the issue may be. Or 34. In some cases. Yeah. So we are we are evaluating that scenario on a regular basis to make sure that we're doing what we can to augment our resource responses to the downtown environment. Secondarily, going back to fire prevention or Fire Prevention Bureau has been really good, as are all the developers that are coming to town and using the latest materials and the latest fire suppression systems really to try and minimize the incidence of a conflagration or fires happening. Not to say they won't happen and they're just meant to hold them in check until we get there. But our fire prevention, working in concert with the development community, working in concert with our operations folks, are talking about these things and crunching the numbers. And you said earlier our list, I believe you're referring to the list, the restoration priority list. And certainly if we ever got there, if we were fortunate enough to find the funding for Engine 17, we would certainly look very hard. Our next resource on that list is Engine one, two, one, or we would have have a discussion there. So we'll continue that discussion and do everything we can to minimize the potential impacts of density. Great. I want to thank all three of you for your leadership. Everybody on your teams. Rank and file people that do the hard work every single day. I appreciate you guys. I know sometimes we have tough public conversations and sometimes put each other in difficult situations, but know from the bottom of my heart, my constituents, we appreciate you guys and we're going to continue to push to make sure that we remain the best that we can be and just really. Thank you. Thank you. Congressman Soprano. Thank you. My comments will be very brief. I just have one question. But to paraphrase Reggie Harrison, we've got to keep this council meeting flying and I'm afraid the wings might fall off so long. So no questions for the director of disaster preparedness or Police Chief Luna. But Chief Theresa, you probably want to know the topic I want to bring up here, and that's Engine ten. You're supposed to be shocked. Okay. Now, actually, the first image you had in your. Presentation was a photograph of Engine ten, but it was sitting out in front of Station 17. And that just struck me because. Engine ten occupied Station 17, while Station ten was. Being remodeled and you had the same thing for Engine 22 was that 17 while Station 22 is being remodeled. So I just realized since we've had Engine 17 and mothballs, Station 17, it's kind of been the Airbnb of the Language Fire Department. So I'm really looking forward to. The restoration of Engine 17, so it won't have that distinction anymore. The one question I do have, Chief, is we asked this of you a couple of years ago. Once, if this council pulls the trigger on this restoration, how long would it take you to get that engine company in service? Would it be a matter of hours, days or weeks? I can't remember the I will give you the standard response. I tell every every one of our our council members and our mayor. If you ask how long it would take me to turn the resource on in town, I can have it in service tomorrow morning at 8 a.m.. But the reality is that the smart reality would be for us probably after the first of the year, so we can plan for it. We'll have another academy that will graduate and we won't have the staffing issues that we might have if we turned it on tomorrow. So we'd give us a little bit of time to get it up and going. But functionally, we're uniquely well positioned that we can establish a response profile anywhere in the city very, very quickly. But I would say probably January 1st would be a time that we would shoot for to make it an effective transition. Okay. Thank you. Great to have you all tonight. Thanks you through, Mr. Zuber. No. Councilman Salvador. I'm okay. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Councilman. Vice Mayor. Andrews. A couple of things. So first, having seen a number of budgets, it's a good budget. It's a budget that doesn't require a bunch of scrutiny, but rather, I think, you know, this is a budget that allows us to kind of imagine vision, what the future looks like, and that's really refreshing. So first Chief Tory, so I noticed you mentioned a challenge for you was increasing diversity in the department and and I know that that's been a commitment of yours since you've become chief. I've seen the evidence, but I think it's great that you will step up and actually acknowledge that we have to do more. And I've heard the same from the rank and file. So what are some of the tactics you envision sort of deploying as you ramp up for this next academy? Well, Councilmember. The question for US centers, not so much about the command staff. My teams will or our intent to diversify the organization when we have the opportunity to do that. Well, what we want to focus on is we are literally only as good as the people who show up to take our exam or the people who end up on our list. Right. The list that we get from civil services eligible, that's that's what we select from. So we want to we want to take it a step farther. We want to we want to actually get into that how that list is created. How are these people being provided the opportunity or the knowledge that the opportunity exists for them? And what are we doing as an organization, a fire department? And I'll give Candace in civil service a lot of credit. She wants to partner with us on this so that we we can we can create new modes and methods of actually getting these people in our community that represent our community to come take this exam and be successful in the process. So we're fortunate we have a management assistant that's going to be rotated through fire a little bit later on into the year. And we believe we're going to we're going to hand her the keys, really. And we believe that she's going to produce a really deep dove to figure out where those issues are and and really set us on a course that we can change some things. And I just want to say this. I've said this for years, but for me, as the fire chief in the city, diversity is not a numbers game, it's an inclusion game. So I want to make sure that we're creating a safe and inclusive environment for anybody in our community that wants to become a firefighter. And that at that point, we're also providing them all the opportunities they need to be successful. So I think if we look at it from a pure numbers standpoint, we're missing the opportunity to actually create an inclusive, diverse workforce. And that's what we want to focus on. I enjoy that. You use the words inclusive and diverse and and I agree they're more than buzzwords, I think is the recipe for success. If you see the the trend line of the demographics of our city and we just saw another agency in Metro, they embrace this early and they're thriving, successful. I think we should play to our strengths. And in my opinion, that means when you get this management assistant less and less, engage Lumbee City College a bit more. I think, you know, there's an there's you know, there's real opportunities for us to, you know, continue to develop a real pipeline leveraging lobby, City College. And it will help our enrollment at the college, but also allow us to better engage the community because we don't have to do this alone. We have this apparatus here that we need to utilize more. So that's just a recommendation. And then and also, you know, this fall, we should receive a report from policy link on our economic inclusion strategies in a piece. There may be some some national best practices on how to engage or better engage the local community. So I look forward to sort of just playing with that, this concept with you a little bit over the course of the next year. I obviously support the restoration of 12. I mean, of 17 I saw the impact when 12 were restored. And, you know, I've said and I'll continue to say it, we saw three minute diminished cut in the response times in North Palm Beach. And, you know, the more resources put in the play, it supports better, stronger response times across the city. So you have my complete support there. Just a question on GMT. How does that come in? I know that you were in the process last budget, last few budgets on implementing that and getting the tablets and all that. How's that coming along? The GMT funding and process? Councilmember The GMT program is up and running. We submit an annual cost report to CMS's Center for Medicaid Services through the State of California. And we are I'm I'm trying to recall, but I believe we're budgeted and I think we're bringing it about a little over $1,000,000 million to. 1.1 $1.2 million a year into the system. So it's proving to be successful so. Far and there's still potential for that to increase. Right. Are we not artificially optimized there or what? Yes, sir. Currently we believe we are fully optimized at this point. There could be some changes that come through the GMD program in fiscal year 19 that could could provide us some different avenues for revenue out of that program. But it remains to be seen whether the federal government will change the guidelines. Thank you. Well, I'm pleased with the job that you guys are doing. And, you know, one thing I'll just I'll just offer not operations related, but our beautiful new station 12. When you take a look the landscaping a little bit, it's a I don't know if the drought or some sprinklers are broken, but looks like we're going to have a replace probably like two thirds of the plants that. That is that is super drought tolerant vegetation. All right. They're not that tolerant, then. Well, thanks a lot. Chief Lula, just you have a lot to be proud of. I'm glad to look at your accomplishments and as very visible work, particularly. I see you called out the diversion work, the lead diversion work on Long Beach Boulevard. And I know that that's grant funded and they're doing a fantastic job actually engaging with the residents in the businesses and they know the officer by name, but I know with grant funded. So when do we anticipate that grant to end? Two years from now. Two years. Okay. So I, you know, I'd like to think about. I know there's a lot of activity there in terms of like, you know, motel conversion, other work. I'd like to think of like a transition plan to set some goals on the, you know, on the planning side and on the development side for things we can tangible things we can see on that corridor when that program goes away. So. So we're well aware of what resources we have, which resources we don't have a lot of Beach Boulevard, and we could see some tangible improvement. And and in addition to that, and he's just come it's not really a question. Just just comments and thoughts. Um, I'm glad to see the quality of life officer deployed in North Long Beach. Are they going to be is the lead off is that that's more of this doing that right after the more. I believe it's more that. Officer Commander's been identified. Detectives is the one working on the crime that probably he was talking about. Look, some more is doing lead. So is this person are they going to work together because it's really the same corridor where you have the majority of the problems related to human trafficking and homelessness? Yes. Okay. So so that said, I want to I want to start a conversation with you this year. And it's just an idea, I mean, kicking around a talk with Councilman Austin about it and talk to some others, the idea is and it's not really a new idea, but I want to reintroduce it. But the idea is maybe look at the Focus on Zombies Boulevard or perhaps the new community center, Highland Park, and think about establishing a community policing center, which is essentially the new quality of life officer the staff from the lead program that's handling human trafficking, the resource officer and our business district security staff, and sort of having sort of a focal point. You know, we have the North Station at the Alamo, but we don't have anything in the actual nine or 805 zip code. And I think that's it could be interesting for us to explore that for a number of reasons. Number 190805 zip code is growing by population four times the rate of the citywide population growth statistic. And you know, with with these recent opportunities that we have, I think we should think about what that might look like. We think about that, Chief. Worth exploring. Okay. Well, quite an endorsement, but we'll look forward to continuing that conversation and look forward to continue that conversation. And but overall, this is a this is a good budget master disaster. Mr. Harrison, I got to tell you, you know, you're always I mean, you've come engage with our North Lambie's executive leadership, our leadership council. And, you know, you and your staff and the police dispatch have done a good job really addressing a lot of the concerns. I have no really no concerns and just encouragement that we want to continue the conversation we've had with the North Miami Beach community and your office. So thank you for your hard work and look forward to continuing to engage with you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Alston. Thank you. And I'm going to really be brief. I want to just just commend all of our public safety. I think the presentation was great. The budget is, I think, sound and one that I think takes into account all of our needs. Certainly we could have more officers and use more officers, more firefighters, more more resources. But I think we're we're moving in the right direction. And I commend city manager and the department heads, both chiefs, for for for putting together a sound budget. I do have a couple of questions. Number one, for emergency disaster preparedness. Mr. Harrison, in the the budget, it talks about key measures and the number of public safety dispatcher candidates process for recruitment. And I'm looking at a a decline from 2017 when you had 244. And then in FY 17. And here in Fy19, you have 150. Why is that? And can you talk about your recruitment and retention of dispatchers? Well, we are with that. We have the public safety dispatchers is one of only two other jobs in the city that has aa1 year probation. One being police, the other being fire and public safety dispatchers. We go through a process. It's a one year probationary process. So depending on where we are, we bring in candidates off of the off of the hiring list. And we populate our center with our training staff and then we go through a one year process. And so we have an elasticity of a certain amount of dispatchers that we can handle during a 12 month period of time. And so we're going to go through some ebbs and flow as we have, you know, we're staffed up, trainers have out there at capacity. So they can't take additional dispatchers off the off the list. It's really pretty much as simple as that. And then the job of a dispatcher, you know, we kind of describe it as multitasking on on steroids. It is a challenging job for many of the dispatchers. It's a rewarding job for all of the dispatchers. But it is a job that's detail oriented. It is a job that takes all of the concentration that an individual has. And it is a job that takes all of that 12 month probationary time to actually be able to master and graduate out of that program. And so how many dispatchers do we actually employ? We are budgeted for, I believe, 75 dispatchers. We did some reorganization last year in recognition of the cross training as an incentive to be able to pay those dispatcher that have completed cross training so that they could receive additional income with that skill. So we had to do some reorganization, as I recall, with about at 75, I believe, with what we have. I'm looking at 81 in emergency communications, but that's close. So so with that many people coming to training, I mean, how many folks are actually sticking with the department? It's a challenging it's a challenging job. Council member it really is an across the board, across the board nationwide. So it's not just an issue for for Long Beach. We will have on average a 40% graduation rate with our dispatchers for a variety of reasons, for a variety of reasons that people, you know, they they come in with their own concepts of what dispatching is all about. And, you know, and then they're then there's a certain reality that sets in in terms of what the job is. Dispatchers are really busy. They're moving from one station to another. The calls that they take, they paint a picture for first responders in the field. They can see visually because of the series of questions that they're asking, pretty much exactly what a first responder is going to see when they arrive on scene. And sometimes that experience is a little bit more reality than some people feel comfortable with. I thank you for explaining that. I really appreciate that. And I ask that question because oftentimes it's the support staff that don't get get recognized for for some of the really important work that they're doing. And so we appreciate those dispatchers as well. The next question I have is for Chief Luna, and I'm also looking at the support bureau numbers here. And while I'm looking at the the F y 18 FTE numbers, it looks like there's 256 at this point, five in the support bureau, and it moves up to 286. And I'm trying to figure out which is that is that the proposed move to bring the assessors from the airport into the Department Support Bureau. That would be the 27 assessors. It would also include the body pick up, the intended proposed body pick up from Metro. Metro Blue Line is under our support bureau. Okay. My last point is the great job. Then all the way around. I think the budget is sound. I would just influence upon Army Chief and commander in the North Division to keep the North Station open for 4 hours, if as much as possible, because that is a a resource that I know our residents out there truly, truly depend on. It's great to have a police station. You know, it's really frustrating when when people go to the police station and they can't make contact with an officer when the doors are closed and not open. And I know we rectified that work to to to have those those doors of that police station open of, you know , at least a certain amount of hours every day. But I would just ask that you you continue to focus on on making the public or keeping the North Station accessible to the public for for for those those type of calls and situations where where people really need to touch the PD for many years. And I'll just say this was before I took office. I think the police station was closed for several years and people there was a sign on the door and said, hey, you know, if you need to to talk to somebody, go downtown. Right. That's a that's a huge if convenient for anybody be is for anybody living in the north part of the city and for the resource to be there. I just want to emphasize that, you know, it's good to be able to make contact with what the public safety officer, the police officer for our public. So thank you very much. Looking forward to to another year of great public safety all the way around. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. I do have some some comments and then a one suggestion by Senator Jeff. Sorry, I didn't see up there. Let me go to Vice Mayor Andrews first. You go first. I have your. Name of a mine so. That I see first of my. Yeah, I've been kind of sleeping on the job, so I'm glad you came back. Here and. We're back. Okay. First of all, I want to start out by saying, you know, I agree with councilwoman, you know, Price, that we do need to take a second look at the employees reduction because I'm very, very happy to see the quality of life, you know, for officers added to the West Division. You know, I'm looking forward to these officers, you know, coming to my monthly briefing, you know, and neither the police or the I need you know, I need the police or the fire budget. Did I see fireworks prevention, enforcement, you know, outreach. Notice that as a key service. And I did not see any specific line item for this. I know that the conversation about this has been a priority, and we want to do it. We want these efforts to be proactive as well as reactive. And I'm hoping is somewhere in the budget we have allocated funds, you know, for this issue, you know, and anyway, I think the South Division stations is doing a great job to keep up the good work, you guys. And for the last question, I, I will I will add any you know, I want to know what any of the airports, you know, as as as always, do they lose any authorities or rankings with the proposed budget change? Vice mayor? I don't believe so. I will double check and get back to you. Thank you, sir. Okay. In last, I'd like to leave this to Reggie. You know, I won't use that word because I know what a great job you guys are doing. But that's a prevention emergency communication. You know, I need a lot about you know, I've heard a lot and continue about the outreach and the social media information material and access to the deaf and the blind residents that we have. But what about those that first language? You know, if it's not English, are they reaching out to those communities as well? Yes, Vice me. I'm glad that you asked that question. We have we have all of our outreach material, which is all translated into the various languages that our language act requires. Additionally, we our emergency messages are quickly translated for our speech impaired vision impaired residents so that we send out American Sign Language videos almost simultaneous to the English language. This third party provider also provides Spanish language interpretations pretty quickly as well simultaneously. So we believe that on a countywide basis, the city of Long Beach is at the forefront in terms of that kind of outreach into those diverse neighborhoods. Not to say that there is more that we could do and we'd be happy to work with you and your district and some additional outreach. But in terms of getting messages out quickly and concise and consistent, we're able to accomplish that. I want to thank you for really recognizing that, because I have so much, you know, diversity in my area and, you know, in your team. You know, we realize it's key when people call 911, you know, are we having a mass emergency? I would like to be sure that all this information is reaching out to everyone. So many thank you guys for everything you do. And thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to I want to make some comments. And then I do have an ask of the Budget Oversight Committee at the end of the comments. I want to I want to thank, obviously, the staff for making their presentation. I've heard this presentation I was mentioning to Mr. Lester, I think many, many times it seems like ten or so as we've been developing the budget. And so I it's good to have it out for public comment. And I want to mention a few things, some of which were referred to earlier tonight by some of the councilmembers . In 2014, when when this council, as we sit up here, was formed, we had 803 police officers and 406 firefighters. The current budget proposal allocates the funding if four restorations are made to 851 police officers and 431 firefighters. So certainly an increase of both police and firefighters over the course of the last four years. The restorations up to now have included Engine eight and Belmont Shore Rescue 12 and North Long Beach, the Hart unit that we're talking about this year, Engine 17 and East Long Beach, the restoration of South Division, the creation of the new Metro Division as part of the Metro Blue Line, which we know was part of our Metro contract for new quality of life officers and a six person bike officer team, which is part of this year's budget in addition to the growing of these departments. We're also investing, of course, in infrastructure and technology as it relates to police and fire, and that includes modernizing the both of the police and fire academies. That's in this year's budget, the upgrading of Long Beach PD and fire technology, including radio and communication systems, the funding of body cameras, which was I think mentioned earlier by Councilwoman Price, and the purchasing of modernized cameras across the city as it relates to the COPS system, which is our camera. I don't know that that's the acronym, but it's our camera system that we have across the city. So these are some significant investments. And I want to thank the Council for for making all of these which were really we're really grateful of. I also want to mention that we are committed to all of these restorations as outlined in the proposals today. But one issue has come up. I mentioned this to Mr. West. I've been talking to some folks, and I want to make sure that this gets addressed. It's been mentioned actually a few times tonight. I know in the F 19 budget, we have the reduction of the one sergeant position that's going down to an officer position. We know that the position has been identified as a sergeant that's assigned to a burglary detail. That's right. Chief Luna. That's correct. That's correct. And we know from what I understand and just talking to a few of the members of our police team, this is a sergeant that's kind of responsible for vetting, assigning and prioritizing theft cases in the city. Correct. Burglary and theft, yes. Okay. And so I know that this is a busy section of the department. And I also know that part of this part of the proposal we have in front of us is to possibly combine the burglary detail with auto theft with auto theft auto under one, sergeant, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, you know, and again, in just and in the budget, a moving you know, it's it moves and evolves as we move along. So I'd like to request tonight that the Budget Oversight Committee take up the it take up this issue and not reduce. Police sergeant position to the officer position. I think others have shown interest in this already on the council tonight. And so if I can make that request to the Budget Oversight Committee as we move forward, I think that the position in this case should not be downgraded to an officer position. So I think we need to keep it as a sergeant. And so, Mr. Mango, I'll leave that to you and to the BBC. But that's something I think that we've heard is going to be important. And so with that, I want to close my comments on on police, fire and disaster preparedness and Councilman Mangle. Yet an additional comment. I just wanted to take a moment to think and recognize the number of budget staff that are here tonight. I know you were only at the the midway point before we get to see the most exciting budget that I believe in, which is the CIP budget. But I know it's a long night and I know months and months of work went into all of the preparation that each of you do to make this book a reality and to make it possible for these department heads to sit before us and and say the words that you wrote for them. So thank you so much. And then Miss Mango, you'll take your you and the committee will take a look at that position. Absolutely. Okay. Excellent. Good. Well, with that, I'm going to open it up. What we're going to do is we're only halfway through our budget presentation. We're skipping next. So I want to take public comment on this portion of the budget presentation, which is safety. So if you have a public comment on this on on the police, fire or disaster preparedness only, please come forward on this part of the budget. Yes, sir. Members of the Council, I'll be very brief. My name is Renee Castro. I'm director for community engagement at Century Village. Is that Cabrillo? Of course. We provide housing for 1500 formerly homeless individuals, over 700 veterans, 600 children. And of course, that kind of huge operation requires. The collaboration with police fire, of course, development services and of course, our Health and Human Services Department. But recently I will really. Highlight our partnership. With the Emergency Communications and Operation Center. ECAC really want to thank Reggie Harrison for the incredible training they. Did for all of our partners. We had over 15. Partners who went to the CAC and we had a training on 911 and dispatch and it was incredible. So just. Wanted to highlight Reggie. And all of his work. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Richard Suarez. I'm with the International Association. Of Machinists and Aerospace. Workers. I represent employees working in both the police department, the CISOs at the airport, and folks working at the Emergency Preparedness Department. I stand before you this evening because I believe that some information was shared with this council that does not reflect the accuracy of what we have out on the field. In the deepest department, we have approximately 18 trained fire folks and 30 trained police officers excuse me, police dispatchers. It was mentioned that about 20% of that number is cross utilized when in. Reality there's only one. Or two folks that can answer both the police and the fire phones and about five that can only answer the. Fire phone. So 20% is a figure that that's not realistic with the folks that are there. Now, in addition to that, we spoke about overtime and about stress on the job. These are the only folks in the entire city that the M.O. you excludes them from a free from duty period. Every employee in this city has an eight hour free from duty period at the negotiating table. Three years ago, the city would not agree to give that same level of relief to the men and women who. Answered 911 calls. For the last four and a half years since I've been here, there has been mandatory overtime in this department every single week. People are forced to work overtime every single week. So when we talk about reductions in cost, we have an issue here. The social situation at the at the airport is severe and grave. They the chief said that there will be no change in authority when in fact, their level one training, their post training has been taken away. They will no longer. Be post trained. They will keep their there and they realize that the time is short here. And I would invite to meet with each and every one of you in your offices. But perhaps Councilwoman Mungo, who has a experience in law enforcement, knows the importance of this. Level one training with the police department is attempting to do is to put them through a ten day home made training here in Long Beach, not send them to Rio Hondo, not send them to the police academy. None of that. And this is concerning on many levels. Right now we're speaking about 27 SOS. There aren't 27 SOS at the airport. There's less than half of that. There's 13 of them. And we have had these openings for years. So I believe that by design, there is an attempt not to staff properly. There's 13 men and women who protect this airport. There has been no deficiencies in the security detail. What they're proposing to do is to fill these positions up with police officers at a significantly higher cost than what an SSL makes a cop out, so makes about $30 an hour. Almost double for the top out, officer. Thank you. Thank you very much for source. We'll be happy to get together and chat about that. Yes, I trust you. Thank you, sir. Jim Foster, president of the Long Beach Police Officers Association. I come to thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your recommendation to take a second look at that sergeant position in burglary at your continued support of public safety for all of us. I also want to extend my thanks. To the Budget Oversight Committee, chaired by Councilwoman. Mangal and Councilwoman Pryce. Your questions today. This burglary. Position is the central node within the. Department where all of our property crime really filters through. This expert who manages all of that property crime throughout the city is the best advice giver to the upper leadership on how we should give our resources out to stop property crimes. So this this one position to me was very important to try to retain. To keep my employees who are working there properly managed. But I do appreciate. That's taking another look at that because I think somewhere in the budget we're going to be able to try to find the funding to keep this position. It really affects the entire city, not just a small portion. So thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Foster. And the next speaker? No. Oh, yes. Please come forward. Dave Shukla on file. I'd just like to thank the Mayor City Council for this budget. Specifically the emphasis on public safety and disaster and emergency preparedness. I recently was trained a couple of weekends ago at the fire department. It was a great experience. Very, very useful. And I look. Forward to not only continued support, but expansion along with diversion. Other programs for civilians can not only get skills but be of use in the storms to come. For next year, I'd love to see. More specifically about climate change. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes this part of the budget hearing. I want to thank everyone that spoke and police and to our police fire to that preparedness team. Thank you all. I know that this is a hefty week, but as a reminder, this is also seven almost 70% of our total budget. And so these questions and this discussion tonight is very important. So thank you. So we're going to go into our second half of the budget presentation tonight, which is on CHP, which is on infrastructure, which is I told them I told Mr. Beck and others this is my favorite presentation of the year when it relates to the budget. It's all about our streets and our park projects and our infrastructure improvements all across the city. And and again, a lot of great news as it relates to Missouri and our CHP program and everything that's in this presentation. And I would encourage the council to really kind of deep I mean, do a do a deep dove and take a look at all the great projects that are being proposed. And so thank you for that and we'll turn this over. Mr. West, did you have any opening comments before we turn this over to Mr. Beck? Yes, Mayor. This is a huge, huge undertaking. The Capital Improvement Project, a lot of time and energy has gone into this, and we want to review it with all of you. It includes measure A, it looks at the entire 50 square miles. And I can't say enough about the entire team on the presentation that you're going to see right now. So I am going to turn this over. To our public works director, Craig Beck. And his team to present the capital improvement program for fiscal year 19. Craig. Thank you, Pat. Good evening, Mayor. City council and community members viewing this presentation. We're here tonight to discuss the city's capital improvement program, sometimes called KIPP for short. It provides the city's infrastructure investment plan for the coming year. The following presentation will detail proposed funding for the design, construction and maintenance of citywide infrastructure, which is the building blocks for a great city. As you can see, the fiscal year 18 cap budget, which is this year, is comprised of different funding sources that equal about $96 million. These funds support many different projects and are organized in our recipe book in six different categories. As identified on this page. They are mobility, public facilities. Parks and recreation. Beaches and marinas. Airports and utilities. Some of the major accomplishments that we would like to highlight for this year is our new sixth Street Bike Boulevard, a very important East-West connection across the city. Our Admiral Kidd Artificial Turf Sports Field and the city decided to use safe caulk and sand fill as opposed to recycled tires. Our Rainbow Bridge at Seaside Way. This is a great connection between our Terrace Theater and Convention Center. A new Harvey Milk Park refresh, which continues to have other improvements happen and will conclude with a new outdoor office function and our ongoing citywide paving projects. So what is our investment plan for fiscal year 19? It's about $120 million. This represents a $24 million increase over the current year, and that's driven primarily by two significant changes. First, the water department is planning to invest $30 million into pipeline replacement projects for both sewer and potable water. That's a $14 million increase over what they've committed in fiscal year 18. And I also want to highlight that the city is receiving new transportation dollars from the SB one gas tax funding. That $8 million that we're going to get from SB one is going to support 11 new street projects in the city just in fiscal year 19. So how do we plan to spend that $120 million? You see the six different categories here. I'm going to go through each of them in more detail. And first, since I'm wearing my new blue tonight, I want to highlight mobility. And I really appreciate our partners from Metro being here this evening talking about all the wonderful projects that they're doing in the city. And those are just some of the high profile projects that they highlighted this evening. There's a number of different partnerships that the city is working on with Metro, and we look to continue many of the great things that we do. So how does a city approach mobility? We do something which is called a complete streets. So what we're looking at is what type of improvements need to happen, and we want to look at that in their entirety. So, for example, does a street need to have new curb ramps added or do trees need to be trimmed? Are there broken sidewalks it should be addressed? Or is the street part of the citywide bicycle master plan? A good example of this approach in how we build out new streets is Bellflower Boulevard. If you haven't driven on it recently, I encourage you to do so. Not only is there brand new paving on Bellflower, but we also addressed much needed sidewalk repair and added protected bike lanes as this is a key connection point for riders going to Cal State, Long Beach Go Beach. So this year, all in all, we've added about 17 miles of bicycle lanes and we're adding those for all residents 80 to 80. This further enhances the city's livability efforts to provide alternative to single occupancy vehicle trips. That's bad. So mobility, $51 million plan for fiscal year 19. There's three major corridor projects that we're going to engage, including Market Anaheim, which is a pedestrian safety corridor project, and Artesia, which is a Great Streets project that we're coordinating through Skaggs and our adjacent cities. We also continue our investment in repaving our dirt alleys. We were able to accomplish about 1.6 miles of paved dirt alleys in fiscal year 18, and we look to replicate that in 19. And we'll finish paving all dirt alleys in fiscal year 20. That's our plan. Lastly, staff is recommending that council look at adding money to sidewalks while we prioritized our traditional sidewalk investment for new curb ramps as specified in our accessibility settlement. We think it's also important to address path to travel and similar to the action that council took in fiscal year 18, where $1,000,000 is allocated for sidewalks and divided by need among the nine council districts. We're recommending that that happen again and actually increase that number to 2 million. Again, divided throughout all nine council districts by need. So I love to highlight this map. This is a great picture. This map shows the city's five year street investment plan. And in particular, I want to highlight the Green Street segments. So those Green Street segments are streets that have already been completed or that will be completed by the end of this year. And that's almost 50% of our planned work. Now, granted, many of these streets were slurry and we were able to get those down a little quicker. But it really represents the great investment that we're making and the great progress that we've made to date. Still, we have many important projects ahead. So this map here is showing our street investment plan for the next two years, fiscal year 19 and fiscal year 20. Last year, council asked for a forward looking snapshot and staff is trying to provide that, showing two years of planned street work. My goal next year when I bring CIP to this council is I'll provide a snapshot for three years of street work. That's what we're working towards as a team and we hope to deliver that to this council and the community. So I'd like to shift to public facilities. For public facilities, there is a plan to invest $16 million. This will further some of the key projects completed in fiscal year 18, including workplace privacy improvements at Fire Station seven and ten. Also upgrades to our Expo Community Center in Bixby Knolls. So fiscal year 19 will include work at our public safety buildings, at the Fire Department Training Center and the police department west substation. We're also identified a number of city libraries for new roofs to ensure that those facilities don't leak. Assuming we get some weather this coming winter and also major renovations for our north health facility in Halton Park, this is a complete redo of that facility. For Parks and Recreation. This category we see some of the, I'll say, fun projects that the community gets to enjoy. In Bixby Park there is a new dog park added this year. The red car greenbelt next to Colorado lagoon is a wonderful walking path with native plantings and this just happened recently. It was very exciting to see, but a signature themed playground was opened at Lo Cerritos Park and we have Vets Park, Drake Park and Whaley Park Playgrounds coming real soon, and we should be delivering those within the next 90 days. Priority projects for fiscal year 19 include the restoration of the Eldorado Duck Pond. This is a high priority project that we're glad we're able to get to. And also Davenport, what we're calling phase two, which is really the buildout and activation of the greenspace from the former landfill closure. So moving to beaches and marinas. Fiscal year 19, we're going to be able to address the junior lifeguard station at 55th place. Also, there's an exciting new concept for the Alamitos Beach concession stand, which we hope to bring the council within the next few months for approval to move forward. This will add to the fantastic amenities completed this year at Bayshore, which is the place to beat the heat this summer. So if you haven't been, you have to go to the new swim, dock and aquatic playground. It's an. Absolute hit. The airport will continue to invest in improvements for accessing the terminal building and also rehabilitation on some of its airfield runways. And lastly, again, utilities. There's many men and women who work in this city that do work every day, ensuring that our utilities are safe and function for all of our residents. And I want to again champion the work that the water departments do, planning to do to invest in their infrastructure. And we're also planning to do work for our storm pump station. This continues addressing some of the emergency upgrades that we need to do to ensure that we're safe when we have storm events. So that's the overarching copybook. But I wanted to delve a little bit deeper into measure. There's some great things happening with the measure of funds that the voters of this city approved. Hopefully, everyone is familiar with the Measure Reinvestment Plan and hopefully we've had an opportunity to actually visit the measure. The city's measure, a web page at Long Beach dot gov board slash measure a in there you will see this map and some details about what that investment plan means. So this is a snapshot of three years of measure. And it's amazing when you start thinking we are receiving $80 million towards infrastructure in just three years. I cannot emphasize the positive impact this has had to our cities. See IP. So kind of part of that five year investment strategy and infrastructure. This map is showing just the facility and park projects. So we've taken off the street layer and we wanted to highlight over 50 and park facility projects are identified as part of Measure a plan. And if you look closely, it's probably hard to tell on the screen. But if you look closely, there's 17 projects that are highlighted in green, which will be delivered by the end of this year. Again, we're making really good progress on our commitment to this community, and I look forward to continuing that. 19. So measure eight projects, new park projects. I mentioned El Dorado, Duck Pond and Davenport. I also want to highlight some upgrades to our sports courts at El Dorado, Low, Cerritos and Silverado. These are important recreation opportunities for many of our residents in the city. Measure also supports many facilities. Improvements to Alamitos and El Dorado libraries are planned for fiscal year 19 public safety buildings, as I mentioned. Also our animal care center and our health facilities. So back again to mobility projects are citywide. Investment in streets, sidewalks and alleys and bridges is very important. This council has made that commitment and you're seeing that continued with the investment that were planned for 19. And I mentioned the pump stations earlier. I want to transition a little bit and talk about the future. So while Measure is planned right now in the first three years to provide $80 million of its commitment towards infrastructure, staff has identified some additional resources. So during the city manager and mayor's budget presentation, there was a discussion about $55.3 million a future measure. A staff is proposing that $35 million of that be allocated to infrastructure. This would include 25 and a half million dollars to support the fire and police training facilities, $6.3 million for facility improvements based on priorities in the facility condition assessment. Also, an additional $2.3 million towards new park playgrounds to include a new signature themed playground and recreation park and also upgrades to playgrounds at Eldorado, Sycamore Grove, Cherry Park and Ramona Park. Staff is also recommending that of that $55 million, 20.3 million be allocated towards public safety budgets. This would help support additional PD and fire academy classes. Body worn cameras, which were talked about in the previous presentation and other investments. Investment in the city's infrastructure is driven by successful strategic planning, which starts with understanding the needs. This council supports smart investment strategies, including those identified in our pavement and alley management plans, which we will continue to update every two years. A new sidewalk assessment which is currently underway, and that's going to create a full GIS structure that will allow us to track all necessary improvements across the city. We're also working on a facility facility condition assessment, which will help us all prioritize where the most critical needs exist and are over 130 facilities across the city. Stormwater Masterplan is also important. While we've looked at our pump stations in 2015 and we have emergency work identified that we're moving forward to address. We do need to work to identify funding to understand exactly what our stormwater system needs. There's a number of deferred maintenance in our pipelines and we look forward to identifying future strategic funding for that purpose. The proposed Fiscal Year 19 Capital Improvement Plan provides a balanced approach in addressing much needed maintenance and new amenities, keeping Long Beach a great place to live, work and play. Thank you for your time and I'm available to address Council's questions. Thank you, Mr. Beck. I'm going to start with Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. Excellent presentation. Mr. Beck, we all enjoy your announcer voice. The it's just rolls off so naturally. But I just really wanted to thank you and your team. It's been a tremendous amount of effort on your part to, you know, efficiently utilize the incoming revenue in a way that is balanced and across the entire city. And I personally appreciate that and I thank you and your team for that. I wanted to ask about libraries. I know a lot of our libraries have critical needs. We're trying to encourage people to go to libraries. We're trying to make sure that they remain relevant part of the community. And so I think taking a hard look at where we can improve our library facilities to modernize them a little bit would be really great, especially since we're going to have a beautiful modern library here at Main. And we want to make sure that that spirit and the welcoming nature of that is shared throughout. So, you know, I know we have a lot of older buildings, if there's any, as we're thinking about roof improvements and things, if there's any design elements that we can utilize to make the spaces brighter, more open, things that can be done that are not as costly but perhaps would create a more inviting space. I think that would be really good. And I just wanted to kind of throw that out there as a suggestion if there's some efficiencies to be had because we're out there doing work anyway. I know we've been working with you on Bayshore and some opportunities there, but I'm sure many other libraries are in the same boat because they were built around the same time. So so that's really all I wanted to add. And I just wanted to thank both public works and PRM and all the city departments that have been involved in the implementation of a lot of these CIP projects. It's just been a fantastic year, I think. And again, I like to see that we spread the the benefits citywide so that every resident gets to see the benefits of the investment that they've made in the city. So thank you. This Councilmember Price, I would like to highlight a little bit on the and the libraries. While I didn't have it in my presentation, there is work ongoing in many of our libraries besides some of the maintenance issues we're looking at improving circulation desks and also adding hearing loops at many of our libraries. And I know that's an important topic for you. Thank you very much. Next up is Councilman Mungo. Thank you, Mr. Beck. I really appreciate your presentation. As you know, this is my most exciting part of the budget. I want to echo your comments related to path of travel. As our city ages, it is of the utmost importance that our community is out and walking and to be able to walk our community path of travel is of the utmost importance. I appreciate the efforts to double what we put forward last year. I only know that it would only be better if we could get to four times where we are. Because I know that to get to the standard amounts we were at before the curb cuts would be 4 million. I also appreciate that within your requirements are many, many long term and big improvements. And while I am very excited about the number of additions and upgrades to our Park Playground equipment, I look forward to working with the Budget Oversight Committee over the next after the budget process, but more towards the winter months. On working through the three year plan and the breakout of those specific categories and where they could be. Because as we want to make sure there's a new park playground in every space of the city that's accessible to everyone and adjacent to any of the areas that have a lot of activity related to older siblings where the younger siblings can play. And so I appreciate the work that you've done on that as well. I appreciate working with your office on Creative Solutions. And so I know that not all of the things in the capital improvement projects like Storm and Sewer are sexy. I think that they're really important because as the rains do come, the work that you've done in stormwater facilities and the such have really made a considerable impact on the flooding in our neighborhoods, especially with the uneven pavement of the streets that haven't been graded in a long time. And so I know you're working through your street plan. You specifically mentioned the 11th Street projects and the gasoline tax. And so if that would be repealed, those would not be completed. Do you know the 11th Street projects off the top of your head? Councilman Romano I do not, but there was an item that this council approved they had to pass originally, right? Yeah. So they're all listed on that. And yes, you are correct, those 11th Street projects would go away if the SB one tax is repealed. I just think it's important whether you're for or against it. I just think it's important that you know what you're voting on specifically. And so I know that I'll do my best to pull that too from four from before and actually with the council presentation, wasn't it the council presentation from before? And just so that people are aware because I get a lot of questions about that tax and I'm not always able to off the top of my head tell them which streets they know of that would be repaired and so those would not be repaired should that be repealed. And I think that's important for people to know. Thank you for all the work you've done. Great, great presentation. Best presentation in four years. So I'm excited about the new improvements. Think a councilwoman. And before I move on to Councilman Austin, I can just quickly respond. I think from what I remember correctly, well, there are a variety of highway improvements that are immediate SB one funded streets, the immediate SB one and largest project that gets funded is the entire reconstruction of PCH. That's from the entrance of of Long Beach on the on the east side, all the way to its exit in western in the west side of the city. So I know that's the that's the first project that the state has funded using SB one as far as major street project. And of course it will be many, many others. But that because that is a a state highway, I know that that is on the list on top of, of course, all the residential streets and everything else that will get funded through some of the local return dollars. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And this is a very encouraging presentation, CERP budget. I wouldn't say one of the the best that I've seen in my six years on the council and seven budgets. So kudos to our public works department and every department that has had anything to do with this. There are a couple of major art arteries in the north that are better called out here. Obviously, Market Street has been a high priority for my office to fix that. I mean, and many residents are sitting here and getting emails from residents watching the construction going on around the district and they're asking about Market Street. And so they've seen great improvements on Orange Avenue and and all around the district. But Market Street still is a street that is a priority. And I'm glad to see it's it's being funded and and we're close to getting some work done there as well as. Olmos Boulevard, I believe the Alamo is to one funded as well. Is that correct? Mr. Beck? That sounds correct. I don't have the list in front of me. I can get back to you. Well, I don't know if anybody mentioned it or asked the question, but what are the impacts of SB one? We do know that that is a funding source that was provided by the legislature after many years of work to to get that done. And, you know, there's there's some some efforts to try to repeal that on the ballot. Where would that be? And the repeal specifically, what would that mean in dollars in terms and in projects to the city of Long Beach right now? So we did receive a little the city did receive a little bit of money in this fiscal year, about two and a half million dollars from SB one, though those dollars have already been implemented into projects. In fact, we're currently working on a project in District three on the ATO that is SB one funded. There's a couple more in the city that we're working on. The one that I've highlighted in the CHP presentation, those 11 streets that this council adopted by resolution will be built with roughly $8 million that we anticipate receiving in fiscal year 19 from SB one. So if SB one was repealed, we would not receive $8 million and those streets would not get built out at this point in time. We've also put into our five year plan an additional $8 million in 20 and an additional $8 million in 21. So you can see that that would add up pretty quickly, 24 or $25 million in three years. That goes directly to street projects. Yeah. Thank you for explaining that. And it would just you know, I'm sure we'll be talking more about that outside of council over time and what the what the public in the near future. I will say that that I've also heard from many residents and I just just will compliment your department for the management and even the contractors doing the work. But there is a noticeable difference in terms of the quality of work being performed as well. I'm hearing that from residents who are, you know, seeing it firsthand and are really, really thankful and appreciative of the the curbs, the the the gutters, the sidewalks, the streets. I think we are experiencing unprecedented amount of infrastructure and infrastructure and and construction in our city right now. And I can say specifically, even in my district right now, we're seeing quite a bit it's a little bit of an inconvenience. But these are these are good inconveniences. They have because it's, I believe, an investment in our in our future. And we talk about being a livable city, increasing livability and quality of life. We don't do that without investing in our infrastructure. So those are my comments. I'm going to be very brief. I like what I see. I'm thrilled that that we have identified money for the hopefully to build out of Davenport Park and phase two complete can now complete really soon and the street improvements are just just just fantastic. So this is the best budget that I've seen in seven years. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. I too enjoyed your announcer voice and your AP budget and so great work. I do have a couple questions. Let's see where to start. I do want to say I know everybody's giving you praise. I want to give you too much praise and we get too excited. But it is a really exciting time to be a councilmember. I know that you guys did the hard work to get Measure E passed. The voters did a hard job of passing that, and it's really great to be in council whenever we're able to to see all these changes. And you've done a great job on Broadway. I know that it's kind of a terrifying we'll be doing this whole story. You've done a great job about doing it piece by piece, working with the residents. And so I just want to say to you and your staff how much we really appreciate how smooth that has gone. So let's see. I have where to start. The beach, playgrounds. Can you talk? It says that it's unfunded. Can you talk about a funding plan for those beach playgrounds and a timeline for those? You know, I'm just like. So are you referring to the unfunded section? Yes. The city book? Yes, sir. So we thought it was important to add not only projects that were funded, but some projects that were still seeking funding for. Hmm. There are a number of priorities competing against the Tidelands dollars. We have seen some slight increase in Tidelands with the increase in price of oil. Hopefully that will continue in a way that will allow us to fund some of our priority projects. Playgrounds, pools, many of the other activities in the Tidelands, there's a number of different competing projects, but if there is extra money available, we wanted to make sure that that was highlighted. So this council would understand that there are projects on the shelf ready to go. If funding is available. Great. And I do I love seeing all the new park programs that are in here. I do want to lift up the Bixby Park. You know, and I know my predecessor did a lot of work envisioning Bixby Park. Spend a lot of time and money. And I want to thank Councilmember Price for sharing the cost of putting in the dog park there. We divided our divide by nine funds. We did not have majority funds to do that. We still have. I asked our most recent owner director to try to come back with the budget for what parcel one would look like. And I know that, you know, the funds of Bixby Park are going to work hard to fundraise. We're going to work hard to fundraise. In my mind, though, that parcel probably won't cost that much. And so it would be great if we could try to identify some funds and measure A to try to finish that parcel and the visioning with the dig and everything so that we're not spending another two years trying to put pennies together to make something happen that your department could probably make happen much quicker and save us all a lot of time and energy from all the conversations. I will have to have to get that funding together. So I want to put that as a priority that if we could get parcel one done along, you know, sometime after Broadway is finished, I think would be awesome. Yeah, there's some great work happening in Bixby Park right now, not only the dog park, but the investment in the community center in the shade structure. It's really great to be able to see those assets get improved in that community. Absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, parcel three, parcel two and really parcel one is that other parcel where we've got the structures in the middle. I mean, it is we went over there to have a community meeting and they are falling apart. And it it's going to take some capital to make sure that we can deter that that we've got lighting over there. And because of the situation, I know we have to have P.D. out there a lot. And so we did meet with them with our both of our commanders and Bixby Park. And they're going to go out there and do an assessment to try to help us get to there. And we're going to work with our new parks director. So I just hope that that as we're identifying funds, if it is, you know, smaller pennies, then building a whole new park, it would be really helpful, I think, for that community to kind of have that finished. And then I had a question around the senior center. I know that we're looking at trying to relocate that senior center. I know there's some conversations happening. The funds that were earmarked for Measure eight for that, are they still earmarked for when it moves? Yeah. So there's a couple of things going on with the senior center. There were some major funded to do improvements. We paused those improvements because we were concerned about potential subsidence issues and structural challenges in the building that the senior centers in. And we're talking about the senior center on Fourth Street. Yes, we did do a review and a geo technical survey and determined that we can address what subsidence was occurring and that it was a non structural challenge in the building. So at this point in time there is that money available to move forward. I know there is a secondary conversation happening about a potential move at the senior center. I think at this point in time it looks like the senior center is going to stay at its current location for a period of time and that we're planning to move forward with those improvements. So kind of green light, we're moving forward and we'll be making some improvements. Senior center soon. Great. And just while it's on the top of my head, I know that the seaside print shop was recently sold and is going to be a senior daycare, but it's a high end senior daycare, so I'll connect you guys with the people that recently purchased it, and maybe we can talk about shared resources on that corridor. It's not ideally what I would love there, but I think it's going to be a good asset. They're going to keep it nice and clean and tidy. Two other questions. You've talked about doing roof repairs. What is the conversation been within your department around the core roofs program that L.A. has implemented? So I think citywide we really have been embracing sustainable efforts and not only cool roofs, but solar. We're getting ready to do a new battery program at our public safety buildings so we can look at how we're we're purchasing and offloading not only solar, but but peak power. We we support sustainable efforts. We have installed the cool roofs. And I think you're referring to kind of the white colored roofs instead of a black or a charcoal, which has been typical many roofs. So we have done that and we support doing more. Great. And then at the convention center, is it a million that we have earmarked for the convention center or more? And in the FY19 budget, we're proposing $1,000,000 for convention center improvements. And can you quickly, if you have it, if you can remember the improvements that we did last year and what these went to and what these improvements would go to. I know that. I apologize. I don't have that list. I know there was some lighting work and some other. I can get. That for you and follow up. Okay. I just want to I know that every year we talk about the convention center and the needs to focus on the bones and everything else. And last year we were able to put in a beautiful fountain. And I also know that we have a lot of other projects in the Tidelands like Alameda Speech, Rainbow Lagoon and a lot of these playgrounds. And so just want to be able to have all that information in front of us and exactly what is proposed to be funded so we can make a decision on the Council and Tidelands if that's in fact where we want to spend our money this year. And then the last thing is, I see that Vision Zero action plan so that it's unfunded. I thought that we were moving forward with with that. And that may be misleading certainly to the development of the Vision Zero Action Plan is funded. We are moving forward. We have a consultant on board. We have started that work. What is unfunded right now is improvements that would come out of that action plan. We don't know what those are exactly. I don't have that report. I do anticipate bringing a Vision Zero action plan to this council, hopefully in the next six, nine months, on the outside, six months. And then we could start having that conversation about where those priorities lie. Okay, great. And I'll just echo my support for four Vision zero. I think you guys have done a great job about your improvements and as we continue with Measure A, makes sense. So get that in front of us sooner rather than later. So great, great, great work. Really pleasure working with you guys. Love your energy efficiency, sustainability vision as you go through this work. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andres. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Real quickly, Greg, I just want to thank you guys for a great job you're doing. And I just hope my council, my community is really watching this because the fact that when we have our community, you know, like budget, you know, meeting, I really hope that they can come and hear the good news that you have done for our district. Thank you again, big guy. Great job. That would be Thursday at 6:00, I think. Mr. Sanders, thank you. Councilmember Cipriano. Thank you. Great presentation. And I won't get into the weeds here, but since it was brought up, you had the traffic circle listed on the presentation. We've talked about that in the past, but it just struck me if the PCH project doesn't go through, that would impact that traffic circle differently. It'd be a lot easier to do the Traffic Circle Project if the PCH project goes through also at the same time. So we'll keep an eye on that. And I want to echo what everyone said about the the a great budget here. But I also want to say to Craig Beck. Every day I marvel at your management skill in operating a very complex department. Thank you. Thank you. And I think you, Mr. Beck, you and your team are doing a great job managing all the new projects that we have, just all of a sudden. So thank you. Is there a public comment on the CHP budget? Please come forward. Oh, my God. Oh, my gosh. Karen Reside, resident of the First District. It's great. To see all of the advancements. The city has made in the project. There's just a couple of things to put on my Gray Panther hat right now for the seniors, a city of our size, according to recommendations, should have a senior center for every 50,000 residents. So we only have six, which wouldn't really be full fledged senior centers. And we're the only city of our size that doesn't have a modern, up to date senior center. So it's great that we're starting. To to look at that process and to see what the needs are of our seniors are. But we want to also preserve the senior center that's on Fore Street. That senior center is. Heavily, heavily used. By residents in that district. And if that senior center as close to the services go away, it's going to very negatively impact the seniors that live in that particular area. They just want to bring that. And also I want to mention sidewalks. You know, we're replacing sidewalks and there are some still that are really. When the assessment was done, like the ones around St Mary's, where a lot of seniors go, that there's one that's got a razor that's like eight inches high. And I walk it twice a week when I go and volunteer there and one is afraid I'm going to trip over it. So if that could be pushed out. That's really health and safety hazard. And the tiles on Pine Avenue, the snatch where it's all elevated. I know Donna Darnella has tripped and fallen on those tiles. So have I. And so is Jack. Matt Smith, who before he passed, said a lawsuit on that. So those are just some key issues that needs for our seniors and also lighting. And I know we're on a road lighting replacement program. I hate going down Pacific Avenue. It's the street I heavily travel. It's not that well, but thank you for all the hard work and it's great to see the improvement province. Keep up the good work. Thank you. There's a motion in a second to receive and file and and will continue to the next budget hearing, which is next council meeting. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. And the next item is the the last item that we will try to time certain but it's the budget so it's been difficult is item 19.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, install, maintain, and operate below-grade private utility lines under and across Roy Street, west of 8th Avenue N; Dexter Avenue N, north of Mercer Street; Roy Street, west of Dexter Avenue N; and the alley north of Mercer Street, west of Dexter Avenue N, south of Roy Street, and east of Aurora Avenue N, as proposed by McKinstry Company LLC.

SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_Res 31980

Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31980. Granting conceptual approval to construct, install, maintain and operate below grade private utility lines. Committee recommended the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much. Casmir Peterson. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you. Council President Resolution 31980. This resolution is a preliminary approval for development of a heat capturing project that needs a permit to locate pipes under city government streets. The project is in an environmentally beneficial way to capture, for use, heat from sewer lines that would otherwise be wasted. We'll see this project again with complete drawings, along with a permit application later. The committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you so much for that report. Colleagues, are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing non. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Petersen Yes. Strauss Yes. HERBOLD Yes. Suarez I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Bhaskara i president Gonzalez I 18 favorite and opposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Adoption of other resolutions. Will the clerk please read agenda item 24 into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District; authorizing material scope changes to Seattle Transportation Benefit District Proposition 1; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to execute an interlocal agreement with Seattle Public Schools to provide transit passes to Seattle Public Schools students; changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation to fund the ORCA Opportunity Program; and amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475); all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119256

The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council 4119 256 relating to the Transportation Benefit District authorizing material scope changes to the sale transportation benefit district Proposition one. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. This was discussed in the committee a few weeks ago. It came to full council two weeks ago today, and we put a hold on that because of some concerns we heard between the committee meeting and the full council. I'm going to give you an overview of what the legislation does at the base level, and then we'll move forward with an amendment to make some changes. The base legislation essentially goes and make some adjustments to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Initiative that was passed by citizens a few years ago. There are four areas where the changes are being made to allow greater flexibility to invest those dollars into transit outcomes that folks are hoping to see. The first would allow up to $7 million a year to be invested in or capacities for students in Seattle public schools. We currently do this for low income students, but the proposal would allow more flexibility to a broader range of students. And the mayor has proposed making sure that all high school students have access to our campuses, regardless of how far they live from school and also in the summer. And this legislation would allow that flexibility. Another change is where we can invest in buying additional service hours. The original legislation said service hour, additional service. Our investments can be made on routes as long as 80% of the stops on that route were within the city of Seattle. The ordinance before us today would adjust that to allow routes that have 65% of the stops to the city of Seattle. There are a couple high, high volume routes that are could benefit from some investments but are not currently allowed to have those investments because slightly more than the criteria, number of routes are happening just outside the city's borders. So that adjustment would allow greater flexibility. This would also the change would also allow us to make investments and capital improvements. We heard a little bit about that in public comment today. The city has made some great investments in capital improvements in particular. What I'm familiar with is along the 44, where some modest capital improvements on curb bulbs for in-line stops, queuing lines and huge jumps in the traffic signals allow busses to operate more efficiently in the corridor and has the same effect as buying more service hours because busses can complete their routes in shorter time and make more trips with the same busses and riders. Busses and operators, I should say. The final change is in the current legislation, which we're going to propose to remove, would have allowed flexibility for Metro for the city to contract with private operators as a pilot project during the periods of maximum constraint, which is a series of construction projects and other events happening in the next couple of years where we're expecting significant congestion downtown. So that is what the underlying legislation would do, and I'm happy to take questions on that. But first, I'd like to go ahead and move our amendment and maybe I'll ask it Councilmember Skate, if you want to move that, and then I'll second it . Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move Amendment One to Council Bill 119256, which strikes subsection C from section two and deletes section four. Second. I would describe that as Amendment one. So would you like to comment on Amendment One before we vote on the amendment only? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks again to the good chair for his work to work on this amendment with me. I think that what you see in this amendment is a recognition that while we understand that there are limitations that are currently presenting itself to King County Metro, the answer is not a pilot program without consultation and work with workers and the community at large. The answer instead is, I think, as we heard today, greater investments in infrastructure and investments making sure that we have transit only lanes, that we look at the limitations around what we understand to be spaces for parking busses and work collaboratively to address some of those issues. And what you see in front of us is a recognition that the heart of this legislation, as it came down from the mayor's office, as I read it initially, was really around the worker card. This concept around a pilot program appears to have been included without the due diligence to have conversations with the folks who are doing the work, the drivers here, the community at large, and the labor community at large. So what you see in front of us is an effort to really try to pull that piece out with the recognition that we need to have longer conversations with the executive, with King County Metro, with the drivers, with community, with the labor movement , to make sure that we're actually looking at how to meet our goals of moving individuals, commuters, families, students, and do so in a way that's inclusive. And I think I'll save some of my other comments for later on. Mr. President. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Just on the amendment. Amendment one. Customers want. Thank you, President Herrell. I support this amendment. While it is true that the privatization that the mayor proposed would represent a small section of our public bus service. Opening the door to privatization would be a major mistake. It could give private companies an opening a foot in the door to undercut our public transportation system, replacing living wage union jobs with low paid, precarious labor, and setting prices not to maximize public usefulness, but instead to maximize private profits. Those things would not happen immediately, but that is the direction inevitably that privatization points towards. In Chicago, corrupt Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pushing a private mass transit system to be built by billionaire Elon Musk. And with revenues, decisions and benefits going to that private corporation and privatization does not necessarily stop there in the neocolonial world. As in my home country, India, in the wave of neo liberalism that has marked the last several decades, all of the most profitable and beneficial sections of the state sector have been sold off to private corporations to profit from the workers there and from the deeply impoverished communities in the surrounding areas. And as a matter of fact, decades of research from the U.S. itself shows that privatization of public services, whether it is transit or electricity or garbage pickup, ends up costing municipal governments far more than public entities do, while destroying union jobs and workplace rights for workers. I would recommend a really, really good book written in 1997, way back in 1997 by an economist from the Economic Policy Institute called Elliott Carr. And the book is The Privatization of Public Service, in which he shows statistically how every study shows that privatization of public services is actually bad for the public. I wanted to thank Linda Errol, who is a bus driver and a member of Edu, and Jeremy Muni, the ADA co-chair, who volunteered their time to bring attention to this threat of privatization and to all the edu A.I. speakers who spoke today to stop this before it went further. So let's vote yes on this. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. So we're just going to vote on the amendment first. If I hear the comments. So all those in favor of amendment number one as described by Councilmember Mosquito, please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. And now we have the base. Legislation comes from Brown. We'd like to see some more remarks. I'll just add my gratitude for the folks who showed up today at a council meeting two weeks ago. I really appreciate all the operators. I really appreciate all the work you do day in, day out to make sure hundreds of thousands of people get around our city safely. And I also appreciate one out for my appreciation for the fact that as the city grows, we're relying more and more on your services and the transit agencies to move people around. And I know that I'm hearing from folks throughout my communities that they want to see more bus services soon as possible. And I know that that's a constraint on you all. And so thank you for working through this rapid growth in your industry and continuing to serve the people of our communities. I also want to thank the transit advocates who showed up and been engaged in this from the beginning. Thanks for your continued oversight and advice on this. I'm really excited about providing some flexibility here, and I'm also proud to be co-sponsoring the amendment to not move forward on the piling projects at this time and move forward on the other issues that I think will have an immediate benefit. That's a very good skater. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to support this bill as amended. I think it's important that we do expand access to worker cards. I know that many of our council members have been working on this for a while, and I think that our amendment to the mayor's proposal makes this an actually fiscally sound policy as well . We don't want to be privatizing or giving the impression that we're moving forward on pilots without full and robust discussions with workers, with the community at large. And I think we all recognize that our current busses are at capacity. I'm sure many of the drivers that are here know on a daily basis that we need more services. And the way to do that is, I think, is exactly as one of the drivers expressed, creating transit only lanes, investing in buying busses, creating that parking space for busses to actually be housed, and investing in drivers. And when we do so that invest in the health and safety of our community, then invest in the health and safety of the drivers. That allows for more individuals to be able to get a good living wage job in this industry. I'm also really interested in working with the community at large and the folks who are here today about how we make sure that the last mile is successful going forward. We want to make sure that people are getting to these rapid transit lines, that we're increasing access for people to be able to take the light rail or bus to work, and that we're creating opportunities for folks to really get out of their cars to meet our environmental goals that this city has established. I also think that it's important that we match these goals with our overall city's vision zero goals, which to date have, I think, in my opinion, taken a back seat. We know that individuals continue to be injured while walking or riding bikes, and we want more people to take the bus and get out of their cars. We need to look at this holistically and think about ways that we get people into busses and out of their cars. So as we move forward, I will be looking forward to working with the good chair and the Council as a whole on investments in worker training, safety investments in infrastructure, making sure that we have pedestrians and riders and cyclists in mind as we create our are our mission to complete our vision zero goals. And I just want to thank again the folks who flagged this issue for us and the ongoing conversation that's happening in community about how we meet our transit needs while being fiscally smart with the public dollars that we have for our good public servants. So thank you so much. Thank you. Astronomer Johnson, just. Briefly want to speak to an issue that was brought up during public comment. This bill that we're going to pass today, in addition to many of the things that my colleagues outlined, allows for up to $7 million a year to be spent on youth work implementation. It's not prescriptive in the way that maybe some of our other legislation that's adopted may have been in the past. This allows the Department of Transportation to then enter into negotiations with King County, Metro, SBC and other folks around the distribution of that additional to up to $7 million annually. So during public comment, the Speaker talked about the need for us to make sure that we are getting kids on busses, regardless of whether they're in private schools or in public schools. And we've received some information from Metro that we've shared in my office, with the mayor's office, about some of the different proposals that we could walk down if the city wanted to choose to partner with the folks on Metro in a different way than just subsidizing kids in high school. So we have a lot of different avenues that we could go down. This legislation today authorizes the expenditure. It doesn't execute the agreement that we're now putting into the mayor's hands to have her and the Department of Transportation then execute those agreements. My hope is that we can really use the up to $7 million a year to really maximize the number of kids that are getting on and off busses, particularly since the number of the amount that Metro generates in terms of youth or every year is 10 to $12 million a year. So we'd be making a very significant contribution to Metro in terms of an increase and hoping that that commensurate resource will allow for an increase for kids at all ages of the system. Excellent. Okay. Before we vote, I just wanted to thank 85, 85, 87 and the Transit Riders Union and the advocates for just strong and effective advocacy gets things done. Thank you very much for that. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Macheda I O'Brien. I somewhat. Bagshaw Gonzalez Johnson Suarez President Harrell. Height. Eight in favor an unopposed. Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts. Committee. Three part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Items two and three appointments 1034 and 1035 re appointments of Nikki Hurley and Joseph Case Centers members Seattle LGBTQ Commission for Term two April 30th, 2020.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Table 41-1C of Chapter 21.41, and Section 21.45.114 (2), (5) and (8), all relating to alcoholic beverage manufacturing and accessory tasting rooms, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11152016_16-1001

Thank you, Danny. Appreciate it. Okay. So we're going to begin with our hearings and we have the first hearing, which we're going to do, I believe we want to have it read. Be great report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Include the public hearing and declare ordinance amending sections of Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to alcoholic beverage manufacturing and accessory tasting rooms read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. I don't believe an oath is required, so with this, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, the staff report tonight will be given by Carey Tai, our current planning officer. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to do it for Kerry. Carey is going to be sitting here answering all the technical questions. The short staff report. Is that you asked us to look at potential revisions to the Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing Ordinance to to create more flexibility and to reduce some inconsistencies that exist between our downtown plan and our ABM ordinance. So we did. Come up with some proposed. Flexible flexibility, submitted those to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did approve them unanimously. And now we are before you. We are reducing the parking requirements for ABM'S and we are allowing them to to get a consistency. Issue eliminated with the downtown plan, allowing accessory. Tasting rooms to. Remain open on Friday and Saturdays until 11:00. Or ask. For later hours through an AUP. Process and then allow facilities that are over 6000 square feet to. Go through an AUP. Process instead of a Q P. Process. We originally. Anticipated that most of these uses would be of the 6000 square foot or. Lower range. We do have some that are coming in that are a larger size. We do need a little bit of control over them to. Make sure that the interface with the neighborhoods are not creating nuisance. But other than that, we do believe that these. Amendments provide the flexibility that you are looking for. With that. Kerry or I are here to. Answer any. Questions. Thank you. Are there any public comments on this hearing? Please come forward. This is just on hearing, number one. Nothing else, please. Good evening, Mayor. Councilman. Um, my name is Kellen Carlson, a lobbyist beer company. For the last year and a half, I've been working all throughout the city to try and find a location, and I really want to support the recommendation of lowering the parking. I know in the Planning Commission, what about doing this thing with the cities of Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, for suggestions which are built a bit differently than our city, which is somewhat landlocked. And what we have, Victoria, is what we have. And the biggest concern or problem we've encountered is parking our warehouse warehousing districts. And what we have for brewery facilities are very limited on what parking is there as they were built for warehousing requirements ten, 20, 30 years ago. So I just want to really support the recommendations. I don't know exactly what the reduced parking is, but I really want to support that and move that forward. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for opening up a business and window open up in Long Beach. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name's Belinda Delgadillo. Thank you so much for listening to our comments and I'm just here to support the amendment as well. I think it'll bring tremendous growth for the city and an opportunity, as we've seen in San Diego, growth in tourism, bringing a new customer base to the area and and really supporting local businesses, which is what I've seen in breweries. So, yeah, I'm just here to show my support for that. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. And our last speaker. Hello. I'm Dan from Liberation Brewing Company. We're hoping to open. In town in the new year. And I just wanted to stop by and then. My support for amending this this bill here. It, it. It's been a great process working with the planning department and the city. They've been very receptive and getting on the phone with us and helping us through everything. And I just wanted to say that we're looking forward. To working. With the city. And. The continued evolution of this this measure. Thanks so much. Great. Well, thank you, Councilman Price comments. I want to thank staff for putting together these amendments. I'm very supportive of encouraging more businesses like these to come to the city of Long Beach and have seen the benefits of these businesses in my district and citywide. So thank you for everyone who's here and thanks to staff for putting this together. I asked my colleagues to support this item. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I completely support this. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thank you to Ms.. Bolek and her team for walking me through this and making sure that we have a good, sound policy. And to you brewers out there and they're looking for a location has plenty of space in north Long Beach thanks. Thank you councilwoman Councilmember Pearce. Everybody knows the second district is where all the breweries are. Come on, guys. I just wanted to thank staff so much for all your work on this and for the council members that were on this item previously for your leadership. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm just going to add and say that the beer economy is real. It's growing. There's been incredible success in a bunch of of breweries that have been safe and very positive for the community that have opened up across the city. There certainly are a large amount in downtown. There's been incredible success in Alamitos Bay and what's happening over there along the shore and the coastline. And now we know that there is interest up in north Long Beach and in the Bixby Knolls area and now in parts of a councilman uranium district, which I think is where liberation brewing is is going, I believe. So there is there is a lot of interest. And I'm just grateful that the staff has been so expeditious in looking at this and the council's been so supportive of supporting these businesses. This is a very good thing for business. And it's all about anytime you can cut the red tape a little bit and make things easier is always a good thing. So thank you all. You can please go ahead. And Castro votes. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, declaring the vacant property located at 5622 40th Avenue West as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said property; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118472

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please. Rate item six. Agenda Item six. Council Bill 118472. Relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring the vacant property located at 5622 40th Avenue West as surplus to the city's needs, authorizing the sale of said property, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon Counter Bill 118472. This bill allows for the sale of surplus property at 5622 40th Avenue West is a small parcel between two lots. It is too small for development to the adjacent property owner who will be purchasing it for $26,250. The Council. The Committee recommended to passage. Questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gordon. I Harrell. I O'Brien. II Okamoto. I. Rasmussen. All right. So want a back show and President Burgess eight in favor and opposed. The bill passes in the chair will sign it please read item seven.

A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Grant and Other Money Projects Fund. Establishes the Fox North special revenue fund to accept the developer’s $250,000 contribution to support the Next Step Study associated with a contract agreement with Ascendant Capital Partners DNA, LLC, West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1, and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2 obligating the developer and their assigns to certain requirements for development of approximately 41 acres located between I-70, I-25, the UP & BNSF rail lines and 38th Avenue, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-1-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0443

Oh, yeah. Sorry. You know what? Yes. I do want to put those on. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Sure. Would you please put 443 and 446? Yes. I move the council bills. 18 dash four, four, three and four, four, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. All right. It has been moved in. Seconded. Councilwoman Kenny said. You want to try to? I'm about to vote against this agreement to for the same reasons as I cited in the last public hearing. But I have to note for the record just how very hard everybody worked on the transit demand management pieces of it and how strongly I support that piece of it. It's clear it's going to pass. I want it to succeed. And so I just wanted the record to be clear that I am fully supportive of the the transportation and mobility pieces. I do appreciate the developer coming forward and making the commitment on helping to kick start that study. And so I will be voting against it exclusively because of the shortcomings and the affordable housing piece. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. And this is something that we have been talking about on council for a long time to transport transportation demand management citywide. Councilman Clark, this is something that we agreed to. There's a $250,000 contribution by the developer to kick this off in this area, something that's badly needed. Again, please go in. Walk this area, walk it. You will see it is in bad shape. So I'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Clare Espinosa. Stephen Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I heard in. High. Fashion. How can each. Lopez. No new Ortega. I. Mr. President, i. Police closed voting as a result. Eight eyes, three nays, one abstention. 83 nays, one abstention. For 43 years. Pass. All right, so we put both I'm sorry, 443 and 446 on at the same. I do need to do it separately. There is no need to do it separately. It was done in the black. Got it. Okay. Councilman Flint, will you please put council for 22 on the floor? Yeah. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the John Lewis Memorial Bridge constructed under the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Northgate Bridge and Cycle Track Project; accepting the Northgate Easement Agreement granted by the State of Washington, State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, on behalf of North Seattle College, dated February 28, 2019; accepting a Pedestrian Bridge Easement Agreement granted by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority, dated April 22, 2021; accepting the Trail Lease granted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, dated September 29, 2021; placing the real property interests conveyed by such easements and lease under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns portions of property in the west half of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian and the east half of the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian.)

SeattleCityCouncil_03222022_CB 120271

If part of the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee. Agenda Item one Council Bill one 2271 related to John Lewis Memorial Bridge, constructed under the Seattle Department of Transportation's North Gate Bridge and Cycle Track Project, excepting the North Gate Easement Agreement granted by the State of Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges on behalf of North Seattle College, dated February 28, 2019. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So was I supposed to say read the short title or did you read the whole thing? I read the short title. Good. Thank you, Mr. Councilmember Peterson. Thank you. Council President, colleagues. Council Bill 120271 finalizes the various easements and agreements between our Seattle Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation, North Seattle College, and Sound Transit for the maintenance of the John Lewis Memorial Bridge. As we know, that new bridge enables bikes and pedestrians to safely cross over I-5 to connect with the North Gate Transit Hub Industrial Site. Our committee unanimously recommended approval of this council bill. Thank you. So is there anything anyone would like to say in regards to Council Bill 1202712. Councilmember Peterson. Well, I have a few things to say just briefly without going into too much detail. I just an update. I know I don't sit in your committee, Casper Peterson, but this has been a long time coming, getting this done, I think since like 2016. And right now we're right in the end, the tail end of getting four major signs put up on the bridge for the John Lewis Bridge. And they will be interpretive with phenomenal quotes of Congressman Lewis. And we're working with Washed Out to get a actual sign on the road where people can look up and see the brown historical sign that says John Lewis Bridge so that it's official title. I want to thank Parks and also Northfield College and washed out because they've been working with this with this with us on this for a long time and sound transit so we could have the bridge we could name the bridge, but more importantly, that we could have something in to recognize. Congressman Lewis. And, you know, it really was a testament of parks coming through to take over that land and make sure they maintain the wetlands and the marshlands and redirect redesigning the project and the bridge. So they had a better ark to it and more. And why more what what more widen. So we could have strollers and runners and bikes and baby strollers or more people walking. Not just bikes, nothing against bikes, but everybody's bridge. So that's what we wanted it to be. So I'm glad this is finally done. So thank you. Anyone else. Hey. So. Will the clerk please call the role of the passage of the bill? Let's remember Peterson. Yes. Councilmember Salon? Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Moschella. I. Councilmember Nelson. I know Council President Flores. I age in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation or the ordinance on my behalf? Thank you. Moving on to the what else we have here. Adoption of other resolutions. There are no other resolutions for introduction or adoption today. Other business. Is there any other business to be to come before Seattle City Council today, councilmember strauss.

A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging and approving the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report as conforming with the public policy objectives of The City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington; and approving the Progress Report for the biennium September 2018 through August 2020.

SeattleCityCouncil_02222021_Res 31986

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item ten into the record? Agenda Item ten. Resolution 31986. Relating to the City White Department and excuse me, acknowledging and approving a 2020 Integrated Resource Plan Progress report as conforming with the public policy objectives of the City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington. And approving the progress report for the biennium September 2018 through August 2020. Committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. This resolution is also from your committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you for the committee report. Thank you. House President, colleagues. Resolution 31986 is the Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report from Seattle City Light, as required by state law. The requirement for a resource plan helps to ensure that our municipally owned utility continues to deliver clean and reliable electric power to our residents and businesses. We had a presentation and public hearing on the progress report at our February 3rd committee meeting and then at our February 17 committee meeting, we unanimously recommended adoption of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing now, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution so far? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Purple. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosqueda. I. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. I am favored unopposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item 11 into the record. Option of other resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31993 Endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District.

Recommendation to suspend Council rule contained in Long Beach Municipal Code 2.03.020 (B) to cancel the meeting of December 24, 2019.

LongBeachCC_12032019_19-1200

A price, Councilmember Your Honor. Councilmember Richardson. Okay. Item 23 Communication from Mayor Garcia recommendation to cancel the City Council Meeting of Tuesday, December 24th, 2019. As Mr. Greenwood, you speak on this. If you go. Please cast your vote. Okay. Go ahead. Yes. Mr. Modica, there was a discussion about the 24th and then potentially the seventh. Was that resolved that the seventh would be added? And so we are looking at the calendar and we can certainly come back with something on the seventh. I mean, it's up to the council if you want to do that. I don't know if that's notified for tonight. If we can do that tonight, that would have us have one council meeting and in January for business, which you did. We cancel the 14th then is that when the state of the city of. 14th is not a canceled meeting, but it normally has was just consent calendar. So we'd still come here and then proceed. Okay. Correct. You appreciate it. But if we can look at the schedule and we're able to do the seventh, if that's something the council wants to look at later, we can still certainly do that. Appreciate. Thank you. Item 23. Item 23 was just read. Would you like me to read? Oh, let's take a vote then. Because your vote. Motion carries. Item 24 Communication from Councilmember Pearce Recommendation to receive and file a presentation from CSU Colby College of Business Administration on the Long Beach Small Business Monitor Survey. And Nancy. Mr. Goodhue, so I don't see any public comment. Please cast your vote. This is a presentation from Cal State Long Beach. Oh. We. This is Scott is here. Yes. Actually, 1/2. We're doing that. We'll go ahead and do this 1/1. But we actually did we I think we skipped over item 26. So we're going to that's on this agenda. So we're going to go we're going to come back to item 24 and go back to 26 and another 24.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and all necessary documents, subcontracts, and subsequent amendments, including to the award amount, with the State of California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency’s Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC), to receive and expend $8,516,928 from the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Round 3 Program, Continuum of Care allocation, for the period of November 1, 2021 to June 30, 2026, with the option to renew for one additional five-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $8,516,928, offset by grant revenues. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11092021_21-1179

The President said has. The motion is carried on. A 55 identifies report from Health and Human Services recommendation to execute an agreement with each CFC to receive and expend 8.5 million from the homeless. Housing Assistance and Prevention Round three Program Continuum of Care Allocation Citywide. There's a motion reset. And is there any public comment? Franklin SIM. Well, I'm sure to a lot of residents, $8.5 million to fix homelessness. Sounds like a good thing. And I think that it is. I think that it's important also to remember that in the city of Long Beach, Measure eight was a lot of money, still is. A lot of our roads still aren't fixed. And that over a span of five years, $112 million has been dedicated to homelessness services. And to put it into context, we drive on the freeways. The fire department came here. They told you about the brush fires. I myself see open drug use by the homeless and the unhoused as human waste. Our children are seeing public nudity. Our cities are dotted with encampments. The fact is that we need a strategic plan. We don't have one. 2017 The Council asked Mr. West to give it. They didn't ask for a plan. You asked for an approach. We didn't get one. Instead, we got essentially a list of what all the departments were doing on homelessness. I can. I want to give you some examples of what I mean when I say we don't have a strategic plan. The Mayor's Homelessness Fund was founded in 2018. That's almost four years ago. I sat on a homelessness committee association this week. They said that only one out of four of the amount the organizations that were supposed to be funded had been funded. They actually had to change a letter that's going to go to the council people and the commissioner asked to take three of them now are to take the numbers out because the money isn't going to them . The mayor's homelessness fund said they didn't have a workflow, so for years, no work for working on that. They said they're still working on a rubric to help grade the proposals. Then Mr. Duncan from the WHO has the Homelessness Service Bureau. He says he's got three general outreach people. They lost a public health nurse. He even made a plea that if we know anyone who needed work, that the Homelessness Bureau was looking for four. For employees. They're understaffed. We need a strategic plan. So I want to say to the mothers in Long Beach and the parents. We want to take who we want to take our kids to to a part. Into a clean park. We need a strategic plan. We deserve that. We don't have it. And it's ridiculous. That concludes the public comment. Those of us who are in the second. The motion is carried.

Application of 14302 Development, LLC, and the Seattle Housing Authority, to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue NE and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue NE from Single Family 7200 (SF 7200) to Lowrise 3 with a Mandatory Housing Affordability 2 suffix (LR3 (M2)) (Project No. 3023581, Type IV).

SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CF 314367

And I don't want to call 314367. The application of 4130 to Development LLC and the Seattle Housing Authority to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast from single family, 7200 square feet to low rise three with a mandatory housing affordability two suffix project number 3023581 Type four. Thank you so much. I got to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of the committee responsible for this item to provide us the report. I thank you, Council president, colleagues. This clerk files a contract rezoning application to rezone the property at 1430 to 30th Avenue Northeast and a portion of the adjacent property at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast from single family zoned 7202 low rise three. Both properties are currently split zone between S.F. 7 to 7200 and low rise three and the lot at 43 zero 2/30 Avenue Northeast. The applicant plans to develop four townhomes for a total of 21 units. The lot at 41330 30 if avenue northeast is owned by Sale Housing Authority and has no plans for redevelopment but is being included in the recent application to avoid a narrow strip of single family zoning remaining on a block, otherwise zoned for low rise land use and neighborhoods. Committee unanimously approved this application with two changes made in committee. The First Amendment increased the mandatory housing affordability requirements to the full development on these sites. Both the STSCI and hearing examiner recommendations included an m suffix to note denoting the low lowest level of affordable housing requirement. Thanks to list with some of central staff, the committee recognized that the higher M2 suffix should have been applied. This change increases the image a requirement from 7% or $7 per square foot to 9% or $12.50 per square foot. Contract reasons are typically conditioned on future development, conforming to the development proposal submitted at the time of the recent application. Because the Seattle Housing Authority has no plans to redevelop. The committee also removed that condition from a portion of the reason. Both the director and hearing examiner issued recommendations for this for the approval of this rezoning application, and that is the committee report. Council President, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on agenda item one? Hearing no additional comments and no hands raised will call the roll on granting as conditions. The quick file. It is then. I. So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. LEWIS Yes. MORALES Yes, that's correct. I council President Gonzalez I Adan favor and opposed. The court filings granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council. Will the verdict please affix my signature to the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council on my behalf? Will the clerk please read Agenda Item two into the record? And Madam Clerk, I think your muted. Inc you. Report of City Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120216 An Ordinance relating to land use and Zoning Amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page eight of the official land use map tourism portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast and accepting property

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with Marina Management, L.L.C. for moorage improvements, maintenance, and operation of the City of Seattle’s public Leschi and Lakewood moorage facilities on Lake Washington; and amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 budget, to lift a budget proviso imposed on the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Capital Improvement Program budget in 2016 for the moorage facilities.

SeattleCityCouncil_08142017_CB 118996

Thank you very much. Any questions about this appointment? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i i. Those opposed vote. No. The motion carries. The appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Parks. Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee. The Report of the Park's Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item seven Council 118996 relating to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with Marina Management LLC for mortgage improvements, maintenance and operation of the City Sails Public, Lesh II and Lakewood March facilities on Lake Washington and in many ordinance 124 927 , which adopted the 2016 budget to lift a proviso budget imposed on the Department of Parks Recreation's Capital Improvement Program budget in 2016 for the March Facilities Committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you, Councilmember. Worse. Thank you. This is the came out of unanimously out of parks. And so I want to begin with some information and some little background information for those of you who hadn't had a chance to actually read this lease. The Lake Washington mortgage agreement is for the management of public mortgages on Lake Washington. These public mortgages were operated by a contractor for over 34 years and have only been operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation since October 2015. So respectfully, two years in 2013, a request for proposal was released and Marina Management LLC was chosen as a successful proposal. The lease agreement provides for a 20 year agreement with up to two successive year successive tenure extensions. The superintendent of the Department of Parks and Recreation will provide written approval of the capital improvements. The superintendent will also provide approval of slip rent increases, slips of 30 feet and under will have a rent cap of $12 adjusted by CPI. All other slip increases will have to be rationalized with a market study and approved by the superintendent. The tenant marina management must give 60 day notice to the superintendent to permit or deny rate increase. What's more important is that we are in this agreement looking at public ask to access will be a key component of this new agreement, creating more opportunity for non boat owners to enjoy access to Lake Washington. I want to make a few comments based on the lease and some of the issues that have arisen and particularly address some of the people that have. And thank you for showing up for public comment and all the other hearings that we've had in the actual agreement. It is on our sixth draft. We've had three committee hearings, public comment. We've met privately with the community groups. I want to thank central staff and legal for assisting us. And my understanding is this issue has been active for at least five years. The history which I had included in the lease is that since the 1930s, 1931 has always been operated by a private operator or company from 1981 to 2015. We again had a private operator that was so from 1981 to 2015. That's 34 years. And then, of course, the last couple of years, Department of Parks and Recreation has been attempting to operate these two marinas. I want to state that we did address the rental rates and made sure that we had notice and that capital improvements were done before any kind of rates could be increased. My understanding is that the on board people will be grandfathered in. So we addressed the issue of displacement. We also made sure that the tenant cannot raise rates until all capital improvements are completed. And inside the lease agreement, we are subject to DNR leases which supersede, of course, this lease. I should note that no land is being sold nor land is being transferred at or change from park use to any other use. In addition or in conclusion. I think we should note that this is indeed a partnership. It is not anything new, and it's not anything we haven't done before. I'm learning in this committee we have many public private partnerships with many of the park assets and all the other properties that the city owns. I would note that Councilmember Bagshaw, I believe, who is part of our committee, had a few comments to make as well. Thank you guys for being back, Joe. Thank you, sir. So for my colleagues, this legislation is something that I actually was working on five years ago when I was part chair and we had an RFP that the community really didn't like. And we went back to the drawing board and it took several years. We went through a project advisory team receiving their input as well. And for those of you who have been to Lesh, you know that the docks in the finger piers out there are impossibly bad. To say that they are sinking is an understatement. You cannot walk on parts of them. Some of the others who are we still have small boats moored are in just deplorable condition. We needed to do something and it was million dollar, millions of dollars that Parks did not have. So we entered into or proposed to be entering into this agreement that will be financially sustainable, where we will have assistance not only in the. Rebuilding but maintaining the asset going forward. Parks, as Councilmember Suarez pointed out, will continue to own the property. It's not like we're transferring property. We are getting assistance from the private sector with people who are experts in doing this to build and then operate. We have heard from a handful of people here today. I do want to say thank you. You have been very, very committed to your community. And I want you to know that we've heard loud and clear what your concerns are with Lakewood Mortgage in particular. I also want to acknowledge that we've heard from dozens and dozens of families that have urged us to move forward with this. They are have small sailboats. They've got small boat, but small things like this. Also, there are a lot of kayakers who would like to have access to the water. That is what we're trying to accomplish here. And as was pointed out already, the parks will review and approve the lease rates. This is not something where it will be dictated to us, but we will make sure that the rates are consistent with fair market value and that families will continue to have access to this. Both marinas and something came up last week that I pointed out. I think there is an opportunity for the community to stay involved. Lots of concerns. I heard about speedboats and jetskis and I wanted to use as a model what San Juan County did in the mid nineties where they actually put an end to jetskis in and around Friday Harbor and places where there were noise was being extremely annoying but also impacting the orcas that were residents around there. I think this is an opportunity for us to work with King County. Should the community continue to want to be involved in this? There's something we can do there and that there is a model from which we can follow. So with that, I just urge my colleagues to proceed with this, to vote yes for this marina. I see our superintendent, Susan Aguirre, in the front row. We have put them through their paces. So thank you for being here and joining us today. President Harrell, can I just say one comment? I'm sorry. Absolutely. I'll just wrap it up and I apologize in which. I have some comments as well. But I know you do. I just want to say this. After six variations of this lease and working with legal and working with parks and work with marine management and thank you, Joe, Brian, for meeting meeting with you and giving us a lot of great feedback. Our goal here for Seward Park is that this is a community asset and it should be open to all of the public that this is everybody's marina, that the marina belongs to the public and not just people that own boats. And that is our main goal here. When we were plowing through the maps, the lease in the agreements and the attachments, including the parking lot. And so when we look back at the history from the throes up into the fifties and then up to 91 in 1981, I think it's fair to say that. And there's nothing wrong with that, that particular communities did enjoy the lake and access and boating. But now that we're in an era of race and social justice and access and everybody being able to enjoy all of Seattle's benefits, that was really our goal, is to make sure that we open this up and that we partner with somebody that can make that a reality. We did not enter into this lease lightly, and again, that was our main goal. Here it is and certainly wasn't to destroy or displace or not take into account the wonderful individuals and families that have enjoyed their slips in this lake since the 1950s. But to open it up to all of Seattle's residents and beyond. Thank you. Thank you. I'd make a few comments here. And I again, I want to thank Councilman Waters and Bagshaw and the Committee for and that I sit on for really trying to do as much of a deep dove as possible in reviewing the lease and sort of reviewing the record. I, I can't support this legislation. We'll be voting against it for, quite candidly, for a variety of reasons. While we're not conveying the property, it is a 20 year lease with an option, I think two options at ten years an option. So we're certainly tying it up for quite a long time. And you know, I look at this from two perspectives. One is what's in the city's best interests and what's in the community's best interest. And hopefully those don't mutually exclude one another from the city's perspective. If you look at that, you know, I asked during the committee, what's the value of these two assets? No one ever looked at each other. And I said, well, if I just use the the amount of capital investments, but the both the city and marina management, the privately owned firm that will put into it there, they're allegedly putting in around 8.2 billion. I see. Allegedly or theoretically, because if you look at the lease, there's really not a dollar amount that they stipulate to investing. It's there's a an attachment that describes the kinds of capital improvements. But we don't know from this lease what the amount of capital improvements will be. But let's say it's 8,000,008.2, which is the number that those that were shared at the committee table and the city will invest approximately 7.2. So roughly, if you just add those two and say this assets worth 15 million plus what the city receives is about $25,000 annually. 25,000 on a $15 million asset to me is not a good rate of return, nor is it a prudent investment. I go a step further to look at that. We have been receiving anywhere upwards north of 350 to 400000 over the years. And I've heard Parks say, well, we're not in the business of renting a marina. That's not our core competency, so to speak. And I push back on that by saying, you know, we're we're port city, we're surrounded by water. We regulate houseboat rates and rental rates in Lake Union. We should know this line of business should should be part of our fabric as a city, as is a port city at that. And so I look at, again, the numbers where even at this stage of the legislation where we can't see specifically what the new slip configuration would be, we can't say with specificity how much capital improvements will be done. I can't say when you look at the rate of return, this is a good deal for the city that we are tying up for 20 million to 20 years plus now. We've have some great public private partnerships that have worked for the benefit of the community and for the city. And I applaud and have supported these. When we put this out for an RFP, you may recall that these two are these two marinas to to lump them together. I think someone does each of those marinas a disservice. Less shy is literally falling in the water. Lakewood is not in dire straits, is is less shy. And you may recall that we did put in about 3.8 million in the budget to fix up to fix Lesher. And what we then did some time after that was we allowed Parks instead of using that for capped repairs to less shy to sort of leverage that for this RFP. And through that RFP process, we listened to the community and come up with a plan well out of that work and that was good work. We only really had one significant responder to the RFP. I think that some of the communities and some of the people that oppose it put together sort of a response. And I don't even know if that was for both marinas, but we really had one commercial response. And to me that should have been a flag that perhaps we need to re approach or reevaluate our approach to this whole dilemma that we found ourselves in. And it's a very important to realize that we found ourselves in this dilemma because the city neglected to invest the revenues we received for year after year after year north of $350,000 into the marinas. So I think this is a shortcut. This is a shortcut to tie up this land with a very, very minimal return on our investment to a private entity. And I don't think that that's good policy. I would also suggest that when you have one bid and you do not have an independent consultant or an economist or anyone really look at the land value and whether this is a good business deal for the city. And I don't believe because I asked several questions about that when you don't have that kind of record to suggest this is good business, that it wouldn't be ready for legislation. And I think that's the situation we find ourselves in now in terms of the community. I don't think anyone's arguing that this should be open, this should not be open to the public, and it's not a public gem. And I think that the community understands that. But in Lakewood as an example, most of the residents are from 98118. You heard testimony and repeated testimony that these aren't rich, wealthy, affluent folks who just have money just to spend. You have a lot of working class people who have affordable that are willing to pay affordable rates, and they're not trying to compare that to private mortgages in other parts of the city. So I won't support this legislation because I think we have an incredible gem here and we're not doing the hard work to really look at what makes best sense for the city and for the community. And we sort of took a shortcut by privatizing this arrangement at a very nominal rate of return. Again, 15 million getting 25,000 per year, which is significantly lower than even what we were getting when we were running it ourselves. So that's my position, particularly as a District two person is very familiar with this area and the other one is of course in the other district, but I know them both. So that's that's my opinion. Councilmember Herbold. Couple questions. First, clarifying question for you. Councilmember Harrell or Council President Harrell, are you saying that our our rate of return historically has been around $350,000 a year? In your back of the envelope calculation is it's it's looking like $25,000 a year with this. Deal. Correct. That 380,000 maybe. We asked this question during committee how much revenues are receiving now. We've we had a small operator and then we managed it ourselves. And I want to say upward of 350 to 400000 under the new lease that you're being asked to consider now will receive roughly around $25,000. It may go up as rents go up and rents will go up. So it'll increase, but only slightly based on the rent increase, but roughly 25,000. And that's my my second question as it relates to the rent increases. Chair Whereas you spoke to the fact that there can't be any rent increases until the capital improvements are made and that those parks superintendent has some oversight of rent increases. I was wondering if, one, you could speak to what constraints the park superintendent is under in approving requested rent and increases in two. Are there any expectations in. The. In the agreement that relate specifically to the number of slips? That would be another concern I would have is if under this new agreement, they were allowed to reduce the total number of slips. Available for for public. Use. Well, maybe you should it to my committee for the last six months, but I will answer that, first of all. Number one, we actually changed the conditions in the lease that the superintendent first of all, number one, we changed the first and most important thing is that nobody's slip increase, rent increase would occur unless all capital improvements were done. And there's an attachment that has a list of all the capital improvements. The second piece is, as you said, and that's a very good question because that was brought up by many people that came and gave public comment, is that the increases will be done if their lessee slips of 30 feet and under will have a cap of $12 adjusted by CPI. Some may argue that's rent control with people, with boats. All other slip increases will have to be rationalized with a market study. So what we did in this was council. Harrell's concern is that the tenant wouldn't just be allowed to just raise the rent. They would have to show the superintended a market, study a reasonable rates and give them the tenant would have to give the superintendent 60 days notice that this is what they intend. And then the superintendent can make a decision whether or not to allow the tenant to raise the rent. And the superintendent cannot unreasonably deny or delay the tenant's request. And then Councilmember Bagshaw made sure that there were particulars in the lease so that people have an opportunity to voice their concerns about raising raising the rent. And again, the people that live on board, I understand, will be grandfathered in. And as far as and I just want to share this and just briefly how we got here. And again, I wasn't here five or six years ago because that's how long this has been going on. The city and marine management will partner to support the renovation projects, which we estimate will actually be on an estimate between 16 and $18 million, which we just don't have the money for. There's a reason why for decades and decades, we've had private operators managing these marinas, not the city. We've only been doing it for a couple of years. The partnership leverages the city's 3.8 million capital improvement allocation for the mortgages, increasing the scope of the improvements. So management will pay for all operating expenses related to the management and operation of the marinas. Re management is responsible for paying annual DNR lease payments, lease excise taxes and other taxes and penalties, including the lease and marine management, will pay rent in the amount of 3% of gross revenues. Now, this is a 20 term lease, and what I understand from legal that that's not uncommon. As you know, in the state of Washington, the the there is no. One of the few states in this country that allow private ownership of Thailand's. However, in this case, the state of Washington owns all the tidelands we own. Basically the effect not physical fixtures, but the buildings, which, as you can see from the pictures, if you looked at, are completely dilapidated as well as the docks. So this was what the agreement came to. Hence six drafts of it. And I want to add to that, we did take into the account about displacement and the DNR leases and we did make sure that we worked with legal and the superintendent on how what the process would be for people that are there, that people aren't displaced. And this is what we came up with. One other just answer to your question about the number of slips that's in attachment F to the lease agreement. And let's just take less shy as an example. You'll see reading down that there are 52 spaces for 25 foot slips. The same with 30. And then there are a couple of lines there for 60 foot slips. That's a pretty big boat to have a 60 foot slip, but those can be divided into throws or even two tows if they want to have some smaller boats on there. So in attachment, if you will see that those are the minimum set, what are expected, they may change as the configuration is put in play, but it gives that gives park some flexibility. So since we're all answering the question, I'll sort of give my answer as well. But I think what's critical about all these answers is, again, and this is not meant as a criticism of any of my colleagues, I just think it is what it is that the lease and even the attachment, these are aspirations, but it's not very specific. And I know that there's been emails to suggest that this slips and one of the marinas will drop from 138 to 1 or two. That's a those are very specific numbers, and I haven't seen anything to refute that. So again, I ask very simple questions like, when will the repairs be done? What's the schedule to be done? And if you ask central staff that, I think he would tell you he can't tell based on these documents because that's how scanty they are, in my opinion. Again, I think there's an enormous amount of sort of good faith in this lease, but I don't think we're here to make decisions on good faith. We're here to look at both the letter of the lease and the policy goals we're trying to achieve. And I say this particularly in terms of public private partnerships, particularly one that so long and again, this is these are, you know, I'm saying 15 to $16 million worth of assets and huge opportunities, by the way, when we're talking about particularly reaching residents in 98118, if you ask me, well, what would you how would you like to proceed? I'd like to fix like less shy and with capital improvements and really start from scratch on what the design to look from Lakewood. But you don't even have to start from scratch because all of that good community work has been done. But again, to sort of turn the keys over for 20 years, I don't think is a prudent way to go, given these very simple questions like, well, what exactly will the number of slips be? Because there's too many ambiguities, I think, in the attachments, because they're not we're not bound to the attachment. There's still there's still a lot of wiggle room. I have one last question that gets memorable. The two tenure extension options, we refer to them as options. But there if I if I'm correct, they're only options for the tenant. We we don't have the ability to say no. If the tenant wants to once the two tenure extensions. Is that. Correct? My understanding is that we do have the ability to say, well, cancel it. Yes, I could. Why don't I move to suspend the rules? Why don't I spin rules and. Mr. Goodenough, would you like to just answer that one question? Thank you. On the options. Ranga Knight Council Central Staff. So it is the option of the tenants to it. As long as the tenant has completed the capital improvements and is not in default of the lease, then they have the option to exercise the ten year extension options. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Mr.. Goodnight. Uh, okay. Well, we've got sort of Councilmember Bryan, please. Yeah, I'll. Just be brief. Council resident here. I share your concerns and your comments, and so I will also be joining you in voting no on this. Thank you. Any other concerns or questions at this point? Councilman, where did you want to see any closing remarks before we vote? Thank you. That's picture. Okay. Just let me get my notes. Okay. So we have a bill that came out of committee, so please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. No. No. No. You've got a choice as to. Who knows? Hi. Yeah. Yeah. Burgess Hi. Gonzalez Johnson Whereas I. Herbold No. President Harrell. Nope. Five in favor, three opposed. Okay, I'll kick. Please read the next agenda item into the record. I'm sorry. The bill passed and Cher was silent. Thank you for that. And please read the next gen item.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $200, offset by the Third Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library for their Celebrate Our Librarians event; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $200 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0922

Thank you. And can we do the functions for content? Items I believe are 11, three, 14, 16 and 28, I believe. Item 11 is a communication from Council on Price recommendation to increase appropriation in the general fund group in the City Manager Department by $200 to provide a contribution to the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library. Item 12 is communication from Councilman Super Now. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the special advertising and promotion fund group and the city manager's department by $10,000 to provide support for the end of summer celebration. Item 13 is a communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the general fund group in the city manager department by $500 to provide a donation to the Jazz Angels . Item 14 is a communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the general fund group in the City Manager department by $300 to provide a donation to the Little Lion Foundation. Item 16 is a communication from Councilman Allen recommendation to increase appropriation in the general fund group in the city manager department by $1,020 to provide contribution to Casa Korero, Sew Feria Business Association, Friends of Long Beach Public Library and Dave Van Patten. Item 28 is a communication. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson and Council Member Muranga. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the general fund group in the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a donation to Ron Palmer Summit. Basketball and Academic Camp. We have a promotion and a second time as councilman served Councilman Ringa and customers and they have any comments. Now. I had queued up to motion, but. Great that we have any public comment on this. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on items 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 28 in person, please sign up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. Seen on the concludes public comment. Thank you. Please to a roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Sanchez. I am. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilwoman Price. I. Councilman Spooner, i. Councilwoman Mongo i. Councilwoman Sarah I. Councilmember Waronker I. Councilman Alston. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. I. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. That concludes the consent. Just a couple announcements for the regular agenda. So we do have a very long and full agenda today. We have the budget hearing, which will happen first and then right after the budget hearing. We have a variety of other hearings as it relate to the our local control program and sales tax agreement. And then we have we're going to go right into some issues around and bonds around the aquarium and also the second reading of the health care worker ordinance, which we're going to try to do all of that towards the beginning of the agenda. And then we have a long agenda for the rest of of the council. So I just want to warn folks that we do have a we do have a long meeting. We're going to go right into the budget hearings. That's the first thing on the agenda. And they're going to try to move through that, through the council as expeditiously as possible. And so with that, let's continue the budget hearing, which we are doing for fire, police and parks. We're going to hear all of the presentations at once. And then after we go through all the presentations, we'll do all the all of the questions at once and then any any public comment, and we'll go from there.

Adopt resolution determining that the proposed project is within the scope of the project previously analyzed as part of the Midtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2015031034) and warrants no further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162; and, approving a Lot Merger (LMG17-015) to consolidate three lots into one lot on properties located at 1836-1852 Locust Avenue, in the Midtown Specific Plan (SP-1). (District 6)

LongBeachCC_01092018_18-0006

Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the Midtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use District Map by changing the designation of 11 properties to mixed uses. Adopt a resolution determining that the proposed project is within the scope of the project previously analyzed as part of the Midtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and approving a lot merger to consolidate three lots into one lot on properties located at 183621852 Locust Avenue District six. Thank you. Staff report, please. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Cory Tai again will give a short staff report. Thank you. Hello again. This next item is extremely similar to the previous item and it's just the location is slightly to the north, but it's for the same story. And the only difference I'm going to in the interest of brevity, I'm going to skip forward a little bit. The site is the development site here is outlined in in red at 1836 to 1852 Locust Avenue. And there's there's Long Beach Boulevard there to the to the right of that. The green outline is what highlights the general plan amendment area. And again, the reason that we do more than just one parcel is that the general plan covers a cohesive area. And so we took the most logical boundary and our chain are proposing to change the underlying general plan designations to allow for implementation of the Midtown specific plan. The situation is the same where right now the underlying general plan land use allows is three B and eight A, those are the land use districts they allow for residential only or commercial only. And the midtown specific plan being a mixed use district is more suitable for a land use district seven, which is mixed use. And so that's what is being proposed to be changed. The project here is a bit different, is a smaller scale. It's 48 units and this would normally be approved. Actually, this is a site plan, review committee level approval. And so the site plan review committee can only effectuate an approval of this project if the general plan amendment is is approved. So again, this is under the allowable FFR of 4.0. This is a 1.95 and it is a five storey building, 48 units, 47 of which are affordable. And it also includes amenities and private open space for the residents. And again, the project does meet the project findings. The proposed general plan amendment was evaluated and an addendum to the midtown specific plan. Programmatic e.r. And found that no new impacts would be would result from this general plan amendment. There is a lot merger because the project site is made of several lots that need to be combined. Again, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on this proposed general plan amendment on December 9th, and they recommended that the City Council approved this request. The public notice thing was sent out and just like the other project staff has not received any any comments on this. So with that, staff is recommending that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve this project. At this point, the applicant is in the audience and I staff can also answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this hearing with the applicant, like the address, the council? Okay. So we'll close public? No. Okay. So we'll close public comment. Take it back behind the real Councilmember Andrews. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. B, I would just like to say again, we're starting to make this I-66 again look like Naples. You know, with projects like this, we can't go wrong. And I just want to say that General Plans is create an opportunity for more investments in the area. And it has my full support. You know, it needs to be I just want to let you know, this is high quality, affordable housing projects will serve and benefit the residents in that area. And I want to thank you again for bringing this project together. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll just say, it looked like the image looked like three levels. So this is five levels. How does that work? Yes. The front portion of the building is three stories. Because they wanted to. Conform to the current. Neighborhood and not over. Build, but the back to where the alley is. Five stories. Good, good. I really like that. That staircase and how it sort of you know, it doesn't look too massive in the front, but you still were able to build enough units. That's good. Good stuff. I just want to make a comment. Where's Mr. Beer? The applicant. Here. Is the applicant here. Would you like it? I think they want to hear from you. We got to hear from you. It's. But this is not good. If you insist. I'm Vanessa Luna. I'm the housing director of Clifford Bears Housing. And we're very excited to bring this development forward in Long Beach. Clifford Bears has other developments, affordable communities in Long Beach as well. And we love the city. There's a huge need for affordable housing, especially affordable housing, as we provide with services for residents. And we're really excited to see it happen and very happy to see the support in the community that has come forward for this development. And we're going to be working with community partners to provide services to the residents free of charge, have a property management onsite, reputable John Stuart Company who manages our other buildings. And so it's again, we're very happy to be building here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue from I-B, UO-2 and I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial to commercial-mixed use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.

DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0362

Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 362 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 362 be placed upon final consideration and do pass it as it has been moved in second it. The hearing for Council 362 is open. May we have the staff report? Sarah White. Good evening. I'm Sara. It was CPD here to present the staff report for 700 West 40th Avenue, 689 West 39th Avenue and 725 West 39th Avenue. The request is to rezone from IU oh two and Ibeju oh two to CRM 20. The subject property is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. The property totals just over two and a half acres. And again, the request is to rezone to urban center neighborhood context mixed use 20 storey maximum height. The current zoning on the subject properties are I be you too and I you are to the zoning adjacent to the northeast is also IAU oh two. To the west is ibe u O2 to the north is C-Max 20. And to the south and east are seems 12. The existing land use in the area is a mix of industrial parking, office and commercial to the west of the subject. Property is showing it is transportation, communication, utility. Essentially the railroad tracks to the north is industrial, to the east is vacant and parking and also commercial and retail . And to the south is additional industrial parking and commercial or retail. The Planning Board heard the request at their meeting on March 15 and voted unanimously to remove to move the to recommend approval to City Council the land use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I saw this at their meeting on April 4th and voted to move it forward. All of the appropriate answers have been noticed and we did receive two letters of support throughout the public process. One from the You Can Globeville Civic Association. Number two, and one for the Globeville Civic Partners, both speaking to how this is an appropriate request for the transit oriented area. And to review criteria. We are reviewing this application for consistency against four adopted plans. Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the 41st and Fox Stationary Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with several strategies in Comprehensive Plan 2000, which is detailed further in your staff report, but it's primarily related to quality infill development, encouraging mixed use in transit oriented development, and identify areas where density and new uses are desirable. Blueprint. Denver identifies this area as transit oriented development, which is described as a balanced mix of land uses with compact mid to high density development and walkable with active street edges. It is also identified as an area of change and the requested CMCs 20 zone district has provisions that provide for all of the things that are called for in the transit oriented development description of Blueprint Denver. Additionally blueprint Denver's Future Street Classifications. The site is directly adjacent to 39th and Gallup PAYGO streets, which are on designated local, but it will be primarily served by Fox Street, which is a mixed use arterial. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan also has land use concepts in it. The subject site is outlined in the green box on your slide, and it is identified as transit oriented development. Again, it has descriptions very similar to a blueprint has in terms of mixed uses and mid to high density, walkable, pedestrian friendly areas. The Global Neighborhood Plan also identifies recommended maximum heights and the subject site is outlined in the blue box on your side and is in an area that is called for it to be 20 storeys. So therefore the 20 zone district is consistent with the recommendations in the global neighborhood plan. The 41st and Fox stationary plan also has land use and building height recommendations. The site is outlined in red on your screen and it is identified as a mixed use office slash residential use with heights of up to 20 stories. This land use calls for employment services and residential uses within walking distance of the station. The CRM x 20 zone district would provide for the allowance for this type of development, and the 20 storey maximum height is consistent with the heights called for in the 41st and Fox stationary plan. Therefore, the recommendation is consistent with the 41st and Fox stationary plan recommendations. Therefore, CPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Do you require recommended? Rezoning would result in a uniform application of the CMC's toe zoned district and it would further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans, but also because the requested zone district would allow for pedestrian friendly development within areas close to transit, making transit more accessible, which contributes to the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances identified in this application are changed or changing conditions. And given the opening of the 41st and Fox station station area and other rezonings to similar zone districts in the area, we do find that there are change conditions to justify a rezoning. And the request is consistent with the neighborhood context and CMCs 20 zone district purpose and intent. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. All right. We have one speaker this evening that one person can come to the front. Tim Scheidt linked. Schlichting. Schlichting Yes. Good evening. My name is Tim Schlichting with LCP Development. Our business address is 2150 West 29th Avenue in Denver. My private residence is in Aurora. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for considering our application this evening. I don't really have anything at this time to add to the staff report, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Schlichting. All right. Questions by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. So my question first is for staff. I'm sorry. Your name? Sarah. Sarah. Sarah. Has there been conversation with this applicant and other applicants on Fox Street about any expectation from the city to participate in helping address the 38th Avenue Fox, a 25 Park Avenue interchange? And if not, what are we doing as a city as we continue to? Be asked to approve high densities in this area, to look at that interchange and not wait until all of the development happens. And then we're stuck dealing with a mess that we can't, you know, we have to deal with. So can you is that something that comes up either with the applicants? And I was going to ask the application applicant the same question. If you've had this conversation with CPD as you've talked with them. Sure. And I can let the applicant say if they've had any discussions, but I can speak to some of the area wide mobility concerns in this. So the 40 person block stationary plan does have mobility and infrastructure recommendations in it. Recommendations in the plan that have already been implemented include a pedestrian and bike bridge over the rail at 41st Avenue, the anchor street pedestrian bike bridge over 38, the Anchor Street Multi-Use path from 30th 45th and the 38th AV underpass improvements. You know, when additional development increases, demand mobility projects will be constructed in accordance with the stationary plan as funding is available and several mobility projects in this station area are being considered for the geo band process that's going through right now. So that's what I have to answer the question more specifically about the interchange. I don't have anything specific related to that one. I know we have a lot of folks who live at the Regency that move back and forth to downtown. I don't know how many of them are trying to walk through Park Avenue, but that interchange, as we see it built out, as we see Fox Street built out with the projects that have come through here and requested very high densities. I'm concerned about pedestrian safety for more and more people who were selling it as a TOD site. We're going to encourage people to walk. I think to get to the west will be great because you do have the bridges, you've got the 30th Avenue underpass for people that want to go up to Highlands or any of the businesses on 38th Avenue. But for traffic that's wanting to move across under I-25 and into downtown, I think it's going to be a nightmare of an interchange. And so I'm just concerned that we're approving all or we're being asked to approve all of these applications without having any context of what's happening or what we will create to happen as a result of our actions. And so I'm. I just think it's important to be raising this so that we don't wait until it's a problem. And to my knowledge, that intersection is not in the bond issue. I can remember when the Regency Hotel was used as a nightclub, and it used to cause traffic to back up on I-25 on a on a weekend basis every weekend. And so when you start adding the volume of traffic and yes, it's a TOD site, but many of those developments are going to have parking and people will still have their cars until we become a true, multi-modal city. And so I'm just a little concerned about that. So I just wanted to ask that question and make sure that we're being very cognizant of what we are creating. I know that at this particular location we've got the the buffer of the RTD train from the cargo traffic. So the issue of, you know, how do we address proximity to rail and ensure that we're protecting life and property, I think is. Will be addressed as a result of, you know, the buffering that's already there. But I just wanted to raise that issue because I think it's something we're going to be dealing with and just want to ensure that CPD is having this conversation with the applicants that are coming into the area, that are requesting huge densities and want , you know, and yeah, it's what was planned for in the community engagement process. But so I just want to ask the applicant if you want to add anything further. Sure. I don't I know I don't have an explicit answer to your question about what the impact on the, you know, that interchange will be. I do share your concern. When we're you know, we're still evaluating different, you know, development alternatives. So when we come forth the site development plan at that time, we would have a traffic study done and see how that, you know, based on the density that we'd be bringing at that time, how, you know, what the impact would be on that and that intersection. I will I will tell you, you know, I can't make any promises along these lines, but I would tell you that as an initial project in that location is a first, you know, kind of a first mover, if you will, to to really bring a significant amount of private developments. That location. I don't think that the first project out of the ground will be 20 stories. There is precedent already with the property, the north, there's 12 on two sides, as Sara pointed out. But I would certainly if we're developing it, it wouldn't be a 20 story project. And and we're in some talks with some folks that may either acquired from us or a joint venture with us. And those folks are also thinking along the lines that we are that is the first project in that location. It wouldn't be 20 stories, but would would an eight story project have an impact on that intersection? It sure would. And until we know what we're doing, we haven't, you know, hired a traffic engineer to really, you know, kind of evaluate that. So but but definitely duly noted. We our concern as well. Thank you. I appreciate your input. Can you just clarify that this is the same corner property that has the liquor store and the new pizza shop. So that that is on the heart corner of 39th and Fox. Right. And then just to the west. Just to the west is what word still has a sign that's called power rental. So you're immediately west of that. Immediately west. And then further west of us is Wagner Rentals. That's not the property. And then our property actually wraps and fronts on the it's definitely adjacent to the the RTD station. So it's kind of L-shaped a little bit. Thank you. All right. You. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Espinosa and the applicant, Tim could and I apologize because there's some redundancy in your your last answer. But I did have three questions and they sort of are linked. So are you familiar with the Gold, the Globeville small area plan? And how do you intend to fulfill those plan recommendations? The Globeville small area plan or the neighborhood plan? The Neighborhood Plan, 2015. Yeah, I can't you know, I can't cited chapter and verse, but as far as I think, I think Sara touched on a number of the, you know, objectives of that to create a walkable, mixed use community. I think it calls for density around transit, which is why we think this is appropriate. Our thought is that it probably would be a combination of of multifamily, residential housing and some street level retail. It doesn't benefit from some of the frontage on Fox Street that that the the crafty fox that was that. Councilwoman Ortega just asked about it is a little bit embedded there. So as far as a a retail type of a location, you know, it it probably doesn't have a it would have to be a destination type retail. But I don't know if we'd see a lot of you know, could be in street level retail but some I mean, certainly there is a really cool building in there. A lot of what we do is repurposing old buildings. There's that there's one that we've really looked at as far as repurposing we think it'd be, you know, there's a lot of this happen in the city, but we think it'd be a really cool brewery and taproom. You know, no promises there. But we're we're very interested in that type of a use. So we like to bring some kind of retail that would activate the street. We'd like to be very sensitive to pedestrian connections. There are a couple of vacated gallery both Galapagos and 40th alignments have been have been were vacated and are part of our property. We're looking at bringing the street cred back through the property and dedicating that back to the city or make them private drives or private pedestrian ways. So we're you know, we're trying to to be very sensitive to what the plan calls for. Okay. Maybe not specifically, but do you know what the different the differences in a closed developer, developable square footage both today with the existing use zoning and after the rezoning. What would. How much square footage would be allowable under the new zoning? We've had you know, we've had what density study done by an arc by Shiraz Atkinson Rockmore in an architecture firm here in Denver. And, you know, we kind of had them look at the low, medium and high kind of scenarios. Not to scare anyone, but the high was up to upwards of a million square feet. And that assumed with some reasonable setbacks and some, again, would bring in some bringing back in through some streets. I don't I think that is the unlikely scenario. I mean, I would I would probably put the density if I if I had to guess, if I you know, if I were betting today, I would say a full build out the density would probably be on the order of half that it might be a half a million square feet between multi-family, residential and commercial. But until we've really nailed down a specific plan, you know, I can't I can't tell you exactly what that would be. I mean, where it is today under industrial I mean, kind of a right now, it's there's a lot of yard area, so there's not a lot of structures on it. But, you know, a typical density on an industrial project is maybe 0.3, 2.4 air. So I'd have to do that math what it would be, take the land area, times that ratio and then that's what. Not much. Yeah, right. Not much. So. And then the fee that the city charges for rezoning is based on the square feet of the parcel. Do you know what the fee the city charged was in this case? I'm sorry that you're talking about the linkage fee or the or the. The fee to you with your application. Oh, I don't know offhand. We wrote that check a while ago. 60,000 or. Well, it's a thousand for the first acre and 500 for any portion afterwards. And this is about two and a half, so, uh, 2500, roughly, maybe 3000. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. All right. This concludes our speakers from four members of council public hearing of Council Bill 362 is now closed. Comments from Members of Council. Gentlemen. That's one other. Yeah, I might as well connect the dots. I'm pretty sure you all sort of did the same math. But the fee, there's a certain amount of development right in industrial land that isn't a whole lot of a new development. And when we rezone to 20 storeys and we go somewhere upwards of 500000 to 1000000 acre feet, the city only charges a fee of 2500 K for that additional development rights. And in the case since I've been on council, we've done several of these rezonings in Globeville. And the problem is, is Globeville is an area with definite infrastructure needs, as Councilwoman Ortega was expressing. And, um, and if we don't have a way to sort of address that through the development process that falls back on the taxpayers to then pay for that infrastructure in a different way. And so I just want us to be cognizant because we haven't seen massive redevelopment, even though we've given granted massive redevelopment potential over there. There was a definite vision that was laid out in the Globeville plan, and it's sort of like everyone is. I've said it before. I'll say it again. It's a mexican standoff. Everyone's sort of waiting for that developer to sort of take that leap of faith first. Um, and, and, and so it's just that what worries me is that when we do this, we grant this additional development, right? For 2500 square feet. That's more marketable land. And that money goes to the speculator that put the money down on the industrial land and then paid this fee, and then they hired consultants or did it themselves. But it's not a very rigorous process. Right. You just make the case the stationary plan lays it out for you. You just go in and ask and prove that it meets that intent and then you get this far. And so if the then property changes hands and it gets resold, that value gets sucked out of Globeville. And it could be in infrastructure, it could be in built environment, better architecture, better materials, or a flexible space down on the grade level or a grocery store that, heaven forbid, that we keep asking for. And so it's not this developer's fault. It's not it's our policies. It's our policies that create this sort of grant this this maximum flexibility with little to ask for in return. And it's just wanted to be cognizant because this is one of those things that I've been harping on, and I've tried to make the case in different ways, but I thought I finally realized, let's just let the normal course play out. And you see what that is, 2500 bucks, $1,000 per half acre or acre, anything less than an acre, thousand dollars. All you got to do with the application fee and then in the neighborhood plan and say, look, it supports 20 storeys. That's what I want. And and, you know, and so with that said, you know, you know, I'm not going to oppose this rezoning because I've supported many in Globeville. I have opposed mining Globeville as well. But I hope for the best. I hope that you guys actually start giving us both buildings and infrastructure that are much, much needed over there. But to date, it hasn't happened except for the Salazar's small little the brewery and stuff that have gone in already. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call. Okay. Sorry. One woman got to the wrong place. CLARK All right. ESPINOSA All right. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. I Cashman can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. Reluctantly. I'm sorry. That's an I. I think, Mr. President. I believe scores of voting and as results. Lebanese. A Lebanese council Bill 362 has passed. All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 366 on the floor? 66. I move the council bill 366 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second it a public hearing for Council Bill 366 is open.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents and technical amendments with WeWork, a privately-held real estate and office share company based in New York City, NY, to provide a work space for the City’s Business Navigators Program, for a period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, at no cost. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02072017_17-0023

That's it. Motion passes five zero 14. Report from economic and property development. Recommendation Execute all necessary documents with We work to provide a workspace for the city's business navigators program citywide wide. Any public comment? Please cast your votes. Motion carries five zero. Okay. And that is all the agenda is over. We will do is their second public comment on items not on the agenda. Anyone. Mr. Bolen. Go ahead. That's where we want to go. Go ahead. I wanted to come here tonight and. Thank all eight of you who supported the. Vote on the f i. S at the airport. I've been coming here for 40 years, I think, on airport issues, and I've never seen such a an incredible getting together of all of the.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire by negotiation land and all other necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area at 10005 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington for sediment management and fish enhancement, and to execute, accept and record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City; placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06152015_CB 118406

The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 118406 relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area of one 1005 Rainier Avenue. South Seattle, Washington for sediment management and fish enhancement and execute except in record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City, placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The committee recommends a bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. And thank you very much. This is a parcel of property on Rainier Avenue South, and we're recommending that we acquire this. Seattle Public Utilities has been working on a lower Taylor Creek restoration project, and this will become part of it. And the goal is to improve the creek habitat and fish pass fish passage to replace a public culvert under Rainier Avenue South. And this will be akin to the work that was done up on Thornton Creek that will replace a small round tube with a larger rectangle through which fish can actually move. It also will help address localized flooding and reduce the sediment disposition that goes into Lake Washington, as in additionally to increase our public open space. So our goal is to be working with parks to assure continued public access along this line. The property was listed for sale two years ago. SPU negotiated a price of $545,000. And since SPU already owns a majority of the property for the project along this corridor, it will actually help lower maintenance costs and reduce the construction costs. And there is a house, an apartment building on that as part of the property right now. And SPU will maintain the property with its current tenants until about 2018 when restoration begins. So nobody's going to be evicted in the near future. And we are in the middle of a preliminary design and I would ask for your vote in support of this Council. Bill 118406. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Rasmussen I. So want back shall I garden i harrell i lakota i o'brien i okamoto I am president Burgess I nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Other business council member Okamoto. Yes. Thank you, President Burgess. I'd like to make a request to be excused from the full council meeting on Monday, June 29th. Second. It's moved in. Second, and the council member Okamoto be excused on June 29th. All in favor of the motion indicate by voting. I oppose vote no. You're excused. Is there any other business? Thank you. The council will be adjourned.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA. (Community Development 256)

AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7923

Public adoption of resolution confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for fiscal year 2020 and 2021 and leaving an annual assessment on the Park Street. Okay. So the recommendations that we have for the public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the CPA report for fiscal year 2021 and levying an annual assessment on the CPA. Do we have any public speakers on this item? Oh, wait. We need to ask the attendees. Do any attendees want to raise their hand and speak on this item? Okay. None. Okay. We have no, um, no speakers, and so I'm closing public comment. So, um, do I have a motion? Do you want to. Okay, I have a seconds. I have. Over the counter of today's efforts, we have a motion by the vice mayor, a second by councilmember designee. We have a roll call vote, please. Councilmembers. Hi. Hi. Hi, Bella. I may or as he Ashcroft I. That carries by five eyes. Thank you. Okay, now we move to item six. Be mayor. I'm sorry for this one. Yeah. Yes. Councilmember De is recusing himself. Okay, let's give him a moment. Okay. Okay. These as a room? Yeah. 60 is public hearing to consider adoption resolution confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area Assessment Report for fiscal year 2020 2021 and leaving an annual assessment for the Webster Street BIA.

Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2018 Budget for the following Departments: Police and Fire.

LongBeachCC_08082017_17-0668

Yeah. Let's go ahead and set up for a hearing. Okay. Let's set up for our public safety hearing. Staff, can you read here? Number three p hearing. Number. Item number 46. Report from financial management. Recommendation to conduct a budget hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget for Police and Fire. Thank you very much. I'm going to go ahead. This is a continuation, of course, of our budget hearings and our third hearing of the night. When I got called in to turn this over to staff for the report and the presentation, mayor, council members. We're going to go through two of our public safety hearings tonight that starts the budget hearing process. We're going to hear first from Chief Robert Luna with the police department presenting that budget. Then you're going to hear from Chief Mike Derry, from the fire department presenting that budget. So before we get into it, we just want to remind us all that we look at taking care of the public safety needs in our city. It's just not police. It's just not fire. We call this the continuum of public safety. Basically, it's incredibly important for all of us in all of the departments to think about public safety, to work closely with our police department, our fire department. Whether it's the city prosecutor. Or the city attorney, just the infrastructure that we build, code enforcement, our library services. We also have health and help. Homeless and health services. Workforce development. Parks. Recreation, marine. Affordable housing. Graffiti removal. And also neighborhood services. And that's all important. So our city looks beautiful, looks clean, graffiti gets removed, trash gets picked up. Kids are involved in our parks and our libraries, and we have opportunities for youth to get jobs and get off the streets their workforce. So again, we do want to highlight that we're all here to support police and fire in their mission. So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Chief Luna. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. As you know, our public safety efforts in Long Beach are a true partnership. So I would like to begin with some acknowledgments. First of all, I would like to thank the city manager and all of you, the City Council, for your continued support . I would also like to thank the other city departments and our community for your partnership. We could not be successful without all of you. We achieve greater success when working together and dealing with the challenges facing our community, such as crime and quality of life. I want to thank the men and women of the Long Beach Police Department. Their courage, commitment and dedication towards keeping our community safe is truly appreciated. They are doing an amazing job or they're doing amazing work. In addition, the leadership of our command staff has helped to strengthen trust and collaboration by being visible, accessible and responsive, working in partnership with our most valuable asset, our community. On this slide, you will see a list of our core services which are guided by our strategic vision and the concepts presented in the President's 21st century policing report. These core services include safeguarding lives and property, providing law enforcement services in a constitutional manner, proactively seeking to build partnerships with our community and responding to calls for service. And that's why 16 and 17 the police department achieved many accomplishments that have been and that have enhanced public safety in our community. We would like to express our gratitude to our community for the passage of measure. These funds have sustained police department resources that otherwise would have been eliminated from our operation. As you can see, our officers were dispatched to over 211,000 calls for service in calendar year 2016. This translates to patrol officers responding to an average of 579 calls for service making, just over 1000 officer initiated contacts and making approximately 50 arrests per day. In addition, our response time to priority one emergency calls for service has remained under our goal of 5 minutes. As you know, the city was awarded the Metro contract. Thank you to our team for creating and implementing a solid, well-thought out plan. Also, the community support. And the mayor's participation on the Metro Board, which was critical in securing this agreement. So I want to thank all of you. Due to staffing enhancements for Missouri and the Metro contract, our department is currently preparing for our fourth back to back police academy that will take place in FY 18. We could not have done this without the help of our civil service department. Since FY16, they have assisted us with over 100 recruitment events and as a result of those efforts we received over 5400 applications tested close to 2000 individuals, of which approximately 1400 passed. And we presented 291 individuals for our final selection of the 291 presented for selection, 167 police recruits were hired and we graduated 108. I would like to recognize the efforts of our Support Bureau and the Academy staff. This is quite an accomplishment. I am also happy to report that as of today we have received over 800 applications in the past seven weeks for our upcoming Academy class, which will start in February. The South division became operational in February of this year, and we also began construction of the substation at the Public Safety Building. This project was also funded by measuring resources. In addition, we continue to seek grant opportunities that may be used to assist repeat offenders and individuals experiencing homelessness in their FY17. The department was awarded nearly $1 million to fund outreach and support services for these efforts. The police department has experienced an increase in service requests for our mental evaluation teams. As a result, we redirected resources to provide two additional police officers and mental health clinicians to assist on calls for service. As always, the police department strives to be present and active in our community, attending hundreds of community events every year. The summary shown here highlights the proposed FBI 18 police department budget totaling $241.8 million and will support over 1200 full time equivalents, including 848 sworn personnel. Thanks to Missouri funds and the Metro contract, the FOIA team budget adds 40 new personnel to the department, including 34 new sworn positions. When compared to the adopted FBI 17 budget. Our budget is supported primarily by the General Fund at 92%. The title of the title ends fund at 5%, general grants at 2%, and proper funds at 1%. The FY18 budget represents a 9.5% increase over the f y 17 budget. The police department will continue to actively apply for grants in Fy18 to support programs and equipment purchases. We forecast that our grant awards will total approximately $7 million in FY 18. The Fy18 budget proposal includes many notable changes. We will benefit from funding opportunities that will sustain a girl. Certain police department operations, specifically $1 million in Measure eight funds, will be dedicated to the Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative, which will allow us to conduct special crime reduction operations through Event Action Plans, Event Action Plans, increased police staffing and visibility in neighborhoods, corridors, parks and commercial areas that are experiencing an increase in crime. This has been a very useful tool over the years and has proven successful in improving safety in our community. As proposed, we will receive $900,000 in general fund one times to be used for discretionary overtime. This will help support overtime for our Investigations Bureau to clear cases and other initiatives such as the Hazard Incident Management Team. The police department is also grateful to receive measure funds to support police recruit academy operations in Fy18. We will hire a recruit class that brings us to maximum capacity. We are excited to hire a larger than average class size to help with our staffing needs. In addition, we will receive Measure M.A funds to support drug recognition, expert training for patrol officers and overtime for short for sworn presence at the Civic Center. The Metro contract will add a total of 28 sworn and civilian positions to the Fy18 budget and will be assigned to the field and administrative teams for the new Metro Transportation Section. The police department will also convert several clerk typist positions into analyst positions, furthering our objective to be more data driven. To be a more data driven organization, and the department will convert an administrative sergeant position into two civilian positions in the community engagement division as the department looks ahead. There are a few challenges that I would like to point out. Although the principles of policing remain consistent. Our environment has undergone significant shifts that will redefine police filled investigative and business operations. We are all fully aware that homelessness has been a challenge citywide. The police department continues to support the Health Department, our health department to impact homelessness by implementing creative solutions with all of our city and community partners. Also, increased workload demands have constrained our ability to undertake initiatives outside the police department's scope of core services, such as additional quality of life officers. We understand and support the city's efforts to attract and promote special events. However, the growing number of special events continues to be a challenge for the police department. Planning and staffing. From a staffing and planning perspective. Criminal justice reforms also continue to negatively impact public safety. And we continue to receive unfunded mandates for technology, mental health training, as well as procedural justice training, only to name a few. In addition, the continued use of aging facilities and technology infrastructure, including the police academy facility and outdated records management system, continues to be a challenge. Our body worn camera pilot program will continue or will come up to an end in November. We will be reviewing the results and exploring our options. We look forward to presenting our findings over the next several months. So far, we have learned that body worn camera technology is complicated and requires a huge investment for any city that chooses to fully implement this program. However, despite these challenges, there are several opportunities are available to the police department allowing us to better address contemporary public safety issues. We are currently evaluating field operations to maximize swarm presence in our community. Specifically, we are researching various models that would limit patrol officers from transporting and escorting inmates to obtain medical care at hospitals and clinics . This would free up patrol officers to answer calls for service, as well as providing more time for proactive policing and engaging our community. I also wanted to highlight that our department has been working closely with the city's innovation team to research police operations. This partnership has allowed the city to identify opportunities for intervention to help reduce repeat criminal offenses in our city. With their help, the city has implemented an administrative regulation which will permit data sharing between city departments to address high utilizers of city services. Additionally, we are in an ongoing participant to the Data Driven Justice Initiative in collaboration with the Technology and Innovation Department. We are developing a strategic technology plan to identify best investments in public safety technology and software applications. In Fy18, the police department will begin the RFP process for a new law enforcement records management system. This will ensure the department meets the FBI's updated federal crime reporting requirement. It will also assist our efforts in being compliant with AP 1953, which will require us to collect and report specific data to the Attorney General regarding all of our stops. In closing, the police department will continue to build public trust through a number of efforts which coincides with our mission of public safety through partnerships with your assistance and support. We will continue to expand our technological capabilities. We will employ a data driven approach to our enforcement and investigative strategies to maximize our resources, reduce crime, and improve the quality of life. We will continue to address violent crime increases through a variety of initiatives, including our continuing support and participation in the city and in the city's public safety continuum violence prevention plan and working with our city's innovation team. This concludes my presentation. We will be available to answer any questions after my partner, Chief Terry, makes his presentation. He's currently staged and ready to go. Thank you, Chief. We're going to get our other chief, the great chief, to load up the presentation. And then once we have both presentations, we'll go into city council. Questions or comments? Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. This evening, I will be giving you a brief overview of the Long Beach Fire Department's fiscal year 18 proposed budget. My presentation will also touch upon services provided by the Fire Department. Some of our key accomplishments for the current fiscal year. Notable changes in fiscal year 18 proposed budget and some major issues and opportunities that we foresee in the upcoming fiscal year. The Fire Department delivers fire rescue, emergency medical services, marine safety response, hazardous materials response, and non-emergency response services to residents, businesses and visitors within the city of Long Beach. We provide 24 hour operation for which all first responders must be prepared at all times. Additionally, we work to ensure the safety of the community and to prevent fires through proactive fire prevention and code enforcement programs. And we also provide training and education that is essential to the delivery of our core fire and rescue services. I would now like to outline some of the fire department's accomplishments and highlights for the current fiscal year. Over the past 12 months, we've responded to over 71,000 fire, emergency medical services, marine safety and other emergency incidents. This equates to more than 150,000 individual unit responses. Included in this number are over 51,000 medical calls and over 5700 fire calls. This number also includes hazardous materials responses, airport responses and other non fire responses. A major highlight of the current fiscal year has been the restoration of fire engine eight in the Belmont Shore area and the restoration of Rescue 12 in North Long Beach. These restorations have improved the department's fire and emergency medical response capabilities citywide and would not have been possible without the Long Beach measure. A funding excuse me. We also continued our multiyear multiphase plan to address workforce privacy issues throughout our facilities, working in partnership with public works and utilizing capital improvement funding. We are completing improvements at three of our fire stations this year stations to Station ten and Station 22. With one time funding from the City Council, we implemented a new and innovative program our Homelessness, Education and Response Team, commonly referred to as our Heart Unit. This team is comprised of two firefighter paramedics who work closely with the city's continuum of care partners, including the city's Department of Health and Human Services, to assist individuals who are experiencing homelessness. This program has been highly successful, and as you'll see later in this presentation, the proposed FY 18 budget provides resources to structurally fund this program on an ongoing basis. Additionally, our Fire Prevention Bureau actively managed and participated in 512 film days and 450 special events, doing our part to enhance the city's reputation as a destination for special events and filming. Finally, for the first time ever, we conducted two simultaneous fire recruit academies. This was a tremendous undertaking by our training staff and was highly successful as we graduated 39 new firefighters. The proposed fiscal year 18 budget for the fire department is $116.9 million. We have a total of 528.91 full time equivalent staff consisting of 403 sworn Ph.Ds in the fire ranks. Another 27 full time year round marine safety first responders, over 180 seasonal lifeguards and 26 full time ambulance operators. Additionally, the fire department is supported by a civilian staff in fire operations, support services, fire prevention and administration. 74% of our budget is in the general fund, which supports most departmental activities. The proposed Fy18 General Fund budget for the fire department is $86.6 million. The Long Beach Airport provides support in the amount of $5.3 million for fire and rescue services provided to the airport. And this is included in the fire department's general fund budget. Additionally, the Tidelands Fund supports marine safety activities as well as our fire operations in the Port of Long Beach. The Harbor Department provides cost reimbursement for the services provided in the port in the amount of $18.5 million, and that's included in the $27.4 million Tidelands Fund budget for the fire department. Proposition H from the Oil Production Tax continues to provide additional support for fire staffing in the amount of just over $2 million annually. And along with the Health Department, the fire department content provides environmental protection services that are supported by the Cooper Fund. This stands for Certified Unified Program Agency and through permit fees, it provides funding for inspection services and businesses and business emergency plan reviews to ensure hazardous materials and hazardous chemicals are handled, stored and transported in accordance with current state and local standards. The Fire Department's proposed fiscal year 18 budget includes several notable changes that I would like to highlight. First, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, this proposed budget includes the resources to structurally fund the Homelessness, Education and Response Team or Heart Unit. The mission of the Hart team is to reduce the number of fire department responses to individuals experiencing homelessness through rapid response to 911 calls for service, collaborating with our continuum of care partners, and educating the fire service and community members about issues surrounding homelessness and available resources. By all accounts, this has been a very successful program and we look forward to continuing it on an ongoing basis. Therefore, 18 budget also includes funding to add a battalion chief in the Fire Operations Bureau. This additional staff person will give us the subject matter expert who will be responsible for managing the fire department's 26 facilities, providing supervisory expertize and testing, procurement and inventory management of equipment, and providing consistent oversight of specialty programs such as urban search and rescue, hazardous materials, airport rescue, firefighting. The proposed budget includes additional staff for the medical marijuana program as well, based on anticipated demands of the and inspecting all the medical marijuana facilities. Additional staffing is necessary to maintain a reasonable turnaround time for the inspection process. The firefighter slash investigator will be the lead staff member during annual inspections for sanctioned businesses and will also take the lead from the fire department on enforcement activities related to illegal or unsanctioned businesses. We are also proposing the upgrade of two positions that will improve management and administrative oversight, upgrading a battalion chief position to Assistant Fire Chief and our Community Services Division and upgrading Marine Safety Sergeant position to Marine Safety Captain and our Marine Safety Division. Finally, the proposed budget includes the increase and increase in ambulance transport fees. The Long Beach Fire Department has not adjusted these fees since fiscal year 14. And since that time, the rates authorized by the County of Los Angeles EMS Agency have increased and now significantly and see exceed Long Beach fees. For this reason, we are proposing an increase of $217 for advanced life support transport and $105 for basic life support transport. These proposed increases will improve our cost recovery and bring us closer to the ambulance transport fees charged by the majority of providers in Los Angeles County. Looking forward to fiscal 18, the department has several significant challenges and opportunities. The first is to improve our response times and response capabilities and to continue to meet the expectations of our community by maintaining fire suppression and emergency services staffing levels. As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, the restoration of Engine eight and Rescue 12 has improved emergency response capabilities, not just in their immediate response areas, but also citywide. Another significant challenge is to continue to train new firefighters and new fire recruits into firefighters and existing staff. With regard to fire suppression, emergency medical services, wildland firefighting and specialized services such as air aircraft, rescue and firefighting, urban search and rescue and hazardous materials. We are an all risk department, meaning that we respond to all the needs of our community, regardless of the nature of the incident. Therefore, we must train all of our employees to be ready to effectively respond to a wide variety of emergency incidents. Another significant challenge and opportunity is to prepare the next generation of firefighters to step into positions of leadership. To that end, the fire department continues to train up potential for future leaders in areas of supervisory skills and management development. These succession planning efforts are critical to the long term continued success of the Long Beach Fire Department in coming years. Finally, we will continue to work with the Department of Technology and Innovation to utilize new technology to help streamline operations, implement performance management tools, and overall increase our efficiency. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to present an overview of the Fire Department's fiscal year. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fire Chief. And think, of course, our police chief as well. A great presentation. We're going to go ahead and go into now. The city council. Is there anything else, Mr. West, that you wanted to add to that? No, sir. Okay, great. So how do we go ahead and go into the council? We have a motion in a second to receive and file the hearing and move to the next hearing. But let me start with Councilman Price. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Very well done. And there's a lot of very exciting news that both departments share. So I appreciate that. I want to start with the police department presentation and Chief Chief Luna. First of all, I cannot support. Any more. If it were even possible your commitment to increasing RDR. So for the folks who are not familiar with the program, D.A.R.E. is an international program and the state of California has more dealers than any other state in the United States, and dreams are going to be needed and used a lot more in light of the passage of Prop 64. So there is no roadside test that is reliable to detect the presence of drugs in an impaired driver's system. So the drugs are going to become a very useful tool statewide. And I'm personally very involved with this program through my work as a prosecutor and trained statewide on this. So I'm very, very encouraged that our chief is going to make a commitment to include D.A.R.E. training for our officers. Do you know how many certified dealers we have on our force right now? We have approximately between ten and 12 and then working to get more or gain more. Okay. So one thing that I'm thinking of and I'm putting it out there to my council colleagues and of course, you know, a good case will have to be made for it. But but I do believe there are agencies that are considering providing stipends for officers who will become certified degrees and maintain their certifications. And that's something I would like the city of Long Beach to think about or participate in. So I'm putting that out there because I think that's something that the association might be interested in, including in negotiations next time around. I think a a stipend for each certified degree multiplied by the number of degrees I hope we have, would be a very insignificant amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but would encourage our officers to maintain their certifications and would make the city of Long Beach one of the first cities to have a stipend for degrees, which is a trend that a lot of agencies are currently exploring. So I want to put that out there so that that dialog and discussion could be had. But even if we were to double the number of degrees, a 20 $500 a year stipend, for example, for each officer that maintains their degree certification really would not be that big of an impact on the city, but would mean a lot to the officer and provide an incentive for them to continue their certification. So I completely support that, that program and that commitment, and I think it's very timely right now. And when we're in a situation, when we have a drug impaired driver involved in a horrific collision, which happens all the time, but there are those collisions that get the attention of the media. And when we're asked what is the city of Long Beach been doing to combat this issue, I want us to have a story about our proactive response in terms of training up our officers to become certified dealers. So thank you for that. The Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative that we allocated $1,000,000 for. Could you provide a summary for the Council of what types of projects or needs were funded with that money in 17? Yes, Councilmember Price what we've used that money for in the past and what we intend to use it in the future is it goes to the basis of our philosophy of policing. As you all are aware, because all of you work hand in hand with our division commanders. The community comes to you. We work closely, hand in hand, with all of your staffs to listen to our community and the needs, those needs can be anything from violent crime, property crime or quality of life issues. Every division in the city is different. So commanders will come to us when they need resources outside of their allotment to handle some of these specialized challenges that we have. It has been a very successful program for us in the police department, I think really for the whole city in the past. And I think as as you see our crime rate, which right now we're very fortunate as a city to have an overall 5% reduction, a big contribution or a big contributor to that, I should say, is the fact that we're through data analysis, we're able to see some of these challenges. We're listening to our community and we're using those resources to apply to specific problems. At the end of the day, a simple math equation is that it really adds more FTE, but we put them out there on the days that are needed, at the times that they're needed, and it's been very effective for us. Now I know when we talked about this issue, when we first allocated these funds, it was very important to to me at least, I can't I can't speak for any of my other colleagues that that this money be used to address specific needs within districts and not necessarily prioritized based on the type of crime or the particular district. The basically the allocation of the funds be equitable and not really prioritized within the crime category. Do you believe that that that goal has been followed in the allocation of the funds? I believe it has. And that's not only listening to our patrol bureau where our division commanders are, patrol division commanders reside, but a lot of feedback from our community members and all of you. So hypothetically saying North Division, the commander up there, Rudy Camisa, can have a challenge where he asks for these funds, this funding request. And Liz Griffin, who's in the audience, she is listening to her counsel, people out east, out in east division and the challenges are facing out east are very different than maybe the ones out west or out north or down here in South Division. So I do believe that they're being utilized for that specific community's needs and they're done by patrol division. Well, that's good. That's very encouraging to hear. And, you know, I want to go on and on record in making it clear that that that money should be distributed in an equitable fashion throughout the city to address the different needs in every district, and that it really shouldn't be looked at from a district wide standpoint. But that and it sounds like you're doing deferring to our commanders in determining what the needs are. I know I meet regularly with with the commander and my division and we talk about the needs. And so she has a very good handle on what it is that our residents, what is keeping our residents awake at night, which may be different than what's keeping residents and another division awake at night, but nevertheless it's keeping our residents awake at night. And so just making sure that those those concerns are reviewed kind of holistically would be very important. And I appreciate you. From what I'm hearing, you're continuing your commitment to that, that kind of analysis. Yes, ma'am. For quality of life officers, I realize we have resource restraints and limitations. But I have to tell you, I think that is one of the most effective programs that we have, because it combines social work with law enforcement, which is something we rarely see. And so my my question is, did we give any thought to requesting more quality of life officers? And if so, what was your recommendation in terms of whether that was a feasible option for you? The simple answer to that is yes from a perspective that our quality of life officers are very effective at what they do. Policing has changed. But at the end of the day, our core services from a calls for service perspective, homeland security obligations and investigative obligations. We we do our best to prioritize where the people should go. And something that the council needs to be aware of is that the quality of life officers that we have for the Long Beach Police Department are not budgeted as quality of life officers. They are patrol officers, calls for service officers who each division commander. Going back to what we talked about on your previous question. They they're listening to their community. They're responding to the community's needs. And they determined to pull somebody out of calls for service to apply themselves to that specific task. We have had they are so successful that we have had requests to increase the size of them. I do not have the capacity to do that at this point. So any request to add additional quality of life officers would be asking for additional FTEs for the police department sworn to ease. And so I'm guessing that based on the challenges before you the recommendation on the FDA is and the new FTAs that we've already discussed and where those would be assigned, you made those recommendations based on the totality, given what your resource needs are. Yes. Okay. Okay. So I want to talk about body worn cameras. I have to say, I understand the frustrations with the technology and the lessons learned. I'm experiencing that every day in my capacity, in my other job with agencies. But I will say, I think that. It's something we need to figure out and implement and in full force soon. A lot of other agencies are doing it and we have a stellar police department. We set policy for a lot of the region, set standards for a lot of the region in terms of things we try and do. And I would like to see us get moving and operational on the body worn cameras. And I don't know what you think about that. It is becoming more of an industry standard out there. It is. And that's why we are currently in the middle of our pilot program. The pilot program will end in November, and we are already gathering facts and will be doing a thorough report that will we will be bringing forward at the end of the pilot program. And as I stated in in my presentation, it is a challenge because as we are studying not only what we're doing here at the Long Beach Police Department, but we're paying very close attention to what's going on in other police departments in this region and across the country. It is extremely expensive. And if this policy body wants us to move forward with that technology, we're going to have to make a significant, significant financial commitment to do that. And that is not in this year's budget. And I and I get that and I appreciate that. What I would be interested in moving forward is how many cities of our size don't have body cameras. Because I will tell you, in the numerous law enforcement roundtables that I host and attend statewide, they are becoming the standard of practice. It is rare to see an agency not have body cameras, especially a large agency. And I don't want to be one of the only agencies who doesn't have one if that's where the industry is headed. I think I think it speaks to the to the the credibility of the agency in terms of responding to and adopting trends and standards. So I understand the fiscal challenges, but I also think that we need to do a very good job of educating the body on, you know, what the what the best standard standard of practice is in the industry right now and being able to articulate if we can't come up with the resources to invest in that technology, why we believe that's not going to set us back in terms of using that the latest resources and tools. So I just think it's very unusual to be in a room with multiple agencies, at least in the Southern California region, and say who's not, who's using. But it used to be you'd say who's using body cameras six months, eight months ago, and one or two agencies would raise their hands. Now, you say who's not yet using body cameras and one or two agencies will raise their hands. That's been my experience. It could be very different in L.A. County, but I think that's data that we need to know in terms of our budgeting. And, you know, how many urban cities with a population similar to ours are not going to be using them? I think that's an important issue. I think that's a huge investment that we're going to have to talk about. And and we can use one time dollars for it, which is which is good, is my understanding. We would have to have ongoing money for training in that and such. But I think that investment needs to be something that's a priority for us. I don't know if you agree or disagree with that. You ask some very good questions. Many of the questions you're asking will be part of the assessment that will be presented to this body in several months when the pilot program is completed. And then just I don't have a list right off the top of my head of what agencies do or don't. But just as an example, the Los Angeles Police Department does have most of their officers are carrying body worn cameras. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is not. So those are two examples of two agencies that are doing it just a little bit different. Now, I know that Sheriff McDonnell's considering a pilot program sort of like ours. So are they going to go that direction? That's to be seen. But those are we're trying to keep our finger on the pulse of what others are doing so we can be on the front end and not the back end. And I think that's very good. I would be shocked if in the next 3 to 5 years there's a single agency that's not working on body worn cameras. I mean, I would just be completely shocked to hear that. So I think I think that's just something that if it's not an expenditure we have scheduled for this year or 2019, we certainly should be planning for it in 2020. But that's just my $0.02. So thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. Chief Tory, I do have a question for you on the Hart team. So I was speaking with a council counterpart, I guess, in the City of Orange, and I know that they too have a Hart team. I'm not sure if exactly the same composition as ours, but it sounds like this is something that a lot of cities are using and that, from what I heard, the successes has not have not been as as impressive as ours. And the attention to the team in terms of what the public knows the team to be has not been as successful as ours. So I want to commend you on the outreach that you've done on that. Do we have any data on where we're deploying the Hart team citywide? Because one of the concerns that I hear and I don't know if it's if it's rumor or myth, but that that they they're really not going citywide. I know that's a lot to ask for one team, but what efforts are we making to to make sure that the allocation of that resources equitable. Councilmember the the Hart team in working with the continuum of care partners at the Health Department and our partners at Long Beach PD with the quality of life officers and acting on basically what they know from being out on the street, they target certain areas where we know that people are experiencing homelessness, congregate or where they're directed to. It's not uncommon for the Hart team to be given a tip, if you will, that a constituent will call the fire department and say, hey, you know, there's a number of people that are experiencing homelessness in this area. Can you guys have somebody go out and check it out and we'll do that. The majority of their work tends to be in places where people who are experiencing homelessness congregate. So they're not specifically directed to be in one specific geographic location or another. And as you well know, people who are experiencing homelessness in the city of Long Beach are all over the city and in places sometimes that you can see and sometimes that you cannot. So we've done our best through Deputy Chief Rex Winkle in operations, has done our very best to get them to go out to the various segments of our community that have people who are experiencing homelessness and do the best we can with the two people we've got. So the short answer to your question is, no, they're not. I can't I can't tell you they're specifically assigned to one place. We're doing our very best to be in as many places at once as we can. But really, the information that we get from that community and the information we get from our otherwise bigger community dictates how we deploy that resource. Would it be feasible at all? And this is not something that you have to answer right now. I'm just I'm really just thinking out loud. But would it be feasible at all to take that resource, the number of hours they work during the week and have half of their shift each you know, half of their shift be designated to a particular either either a police dove initiative. We want to do it that way or a district and then have the other half be responding to constituent calls or tips or things like that. But that that they that they touch every part of the city in a week on a weekly basis, that they they touch it in the sense of they're driving around actively and proactively identifying people who might need help or assistance, and that there is some sort of a schedule whereby we know the Hart team will visit our district on this day, on this day. And, you know, we know for sure we can tell residents. Yes, the Hart team, you know, comes to the third district once a week, and this is the day they come, but they also come as needed or they also come as tips are given and that kind of thing. Is that of is that even feasible? COUNCILMEMBER Yes, the answer is in the fire department we have three battalions right there. Battalion two typically is the east side of Long Beach. Battalion one is kind of downtown central Long Beach, and Battalion three is North Long Beach, the Hart Unit, like, as I mentioned, through our paramedic coordinator and under the direction of Deputy Chief Rex Winkel. They are directed to hit those specific battalions. Right. We might get information that there's a person or people experiencing homelessness over on the San Gabriel River Channel. And so they might get directed on any given day to go over there and work. And typically what happens, what we're finding, I think, with them is that when when they get to a specific geographic location, for instance, maybe they're down on the beach, that typically one conversation leads to another, to another, to another. It becomes a very time consuming process for them to interact with folks. But they are making a difference, I think. I think to to put a little number on it for you, I want you to know that there were about 300 since they been started. There are about 346 calls that came to our dispatch center that the team was actually attached to 164 calls that they went on like welfare checks. They actually just went out and did welfare checks like you suggested. They physically proactively go out and address things. And the number of times the heart unit was first on scene on those was 261 times. So they are proactively out in the community making contact with people. But perhaps the biggest number that that I'm happy about is just under 100 times they were able to cancel incoming resources, fire engines and rescues that otherwise would have been tied up dealing with that issue. So it's proving its worth. And I would love to have, you know, 150 more people doing that on a daily basis. And I think that's something we're actually getting to the education that we're getting with this heart unit. The heart unit then comes back and is educating the rest of our floor personnel. So ultimately down the road, we will have a better a more well-educated workforce as it relates to this specific issue. And every man and woman that's deployed in Long Beach fire should be able to interact in the same way that the heart unit is. And I think that's fantastic. And it's a it's a very it's a great goal because it's really using our existing resources and teaching them a new skill, which is good for them, but it's also good for the city. But but I will say that, you know, I think regardless of where you are in the city, the residents in that district believe that the homeless or the transient problem is the absolute worst in their district. It doesn't matter where you're at. And so if we say to them, the heart team is going where the need is, but that need may not be always in third or, you know, oftentimes it's another area that's something that that's data that they can't relate to because to them, the problem is the absolute worst than it can't possibly be worse anywhere else in the city. Right. And so we hear that a lot. So I think if we were able to represent to our residents that, yes, we know there's this resource that's designed to make it. We know this resource makes a difference. We know it works. And we can guarantee that this resource will spend an equal amount of time right here helping you with your need, as they will in other parts of the city. Because I think that that's important is that they may have a different perspective on where the need is, but the residents of a particular area may or may disagree with that. So how can we, you know, take what you and I and everyone in this room probably knows is the data and marry that with perception and allow people to see their city working for them. So that's kind of where and this is something Commander Griffen and I talk about all the time, because you can tell people about data all the time, but if the perception is different, you need to actually back it up with presence in order to get over that perception. So that's kind of where the the nature of these comments comes from. And I'm again, I'm not looking for any particular answer right now, but I realize that that's a resource that we can't replicate right now because of our budget limitations. But to the extent that we can allocate it in a manner that is quantifiable and explainable, I think that would be very helpful for those of us sitting behind the dais. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have nothing further. Council in Austin. Thank you and thank you to our chairperson of the Public Safety Committee for her great questions and comments. We have been working on these issues for for some time. I want to thank our chiefs, both Chief Luna and Dori, for their great presentations. The work that you, the men and women in your department do to provide public safety goes without mentioning. It's extremely important. I think it's one of the obviously a core service of the city and some of the most important work that we do and commitments that we make as a city council member when it comes to budgeting . I had a couple of areas that I wanted to just get a little bit more information on. And so I'll start with the Chief Luna regarding some of the challenges that you raised. You raised the challenge. One of the challenges being unfunded mandate mandates for technology, mental health training and procedural justice upon the department. Can you elaborate on what those challenges actually are? And specifically what changes have been placed upon the department that are unfunded that we as a council can need to know about and can help possibly fund. So some specific questions is especially like, for example, the last three years in law enforcement, when we see high profile incidents that happen across the country, there's definitely a reaction, sometimes a response to it. And a lot of the reaction usually is that very well-intended legislation comes across where, for example, there there's a request that police departments do more procedural justice training, implicit bias training, cultural sensitivity training, or there are databases, for example, to track racial profiling and things of that nature. The majority of the time, when somebody comes up with the legislation, people jump on board. But they don't recognize that in order to conduct the training or just in the technology realm, that that costs money and sometimes it costs people. So, for example, for us, we I talked in my presentation about the technology strategic plan that we're working on with with our technology department in another year or so. The FBI has changed the way they're going to collect crime statistics. So they are changing their system. And our technology doesn't match those systems currently. And as we adjust and by the way, the technology or the request to change the statistics and the information being imported into the statistics, I think will make us all better will have better information. But we're playing catch up with that level of technology that costs millions of dollars to get there. And those are the things I talked about and working in partnership with our other city partners to make sure that we get there. From a training perspective, it always sounds good and it sounds sexy to say, Hey, we need more procedural justice training and all the ones I just listed and this department is doing that. But at the end of the day, each full time equivalent is allotted 28 hours. And then when you start subtracting training time and other time out of the field, we start doing the math of what we are able to deploy. And when you get into too much training, you pull too many people out of the field, and that's not serving our community the way it should. So we've got to find balance. And the the overtime we're talking about is to backfill a lot of patrol functions or other investigative functions when we have people away at training. So that's just something that has to be managed. So when we hear about these great ideas or great legislation, I think a a question that our community needs to ask our policymakers need to ask is, where's the money coming from? Because we're pretty strapped as a as a as a city, just like any other city. Understand. And that's, I think, a great explanation. I don't think I agree with everything, obviously, because as a policymaker, we have a responsibility to a constituency that is responding to these actions at the same time. My question to you is. You know, of the 2088 hours currently, you say per per officer. How much of that or what percentage of that is dedicated to training with, I guess, period? There is mandatory post training and that is at least 40 hours per year. And then on top of that, every day before an officer goes out in the field, they're in a roll call where they are getting usually between 20 or 30 minutes a day, minimum of some current event or something that's changing across the board. So there is constant training that's going on from that perspective. Okay. And then the training in regards to and we you listed them implicit bias, cultural sensitivity, racial profiling, etc.. Implicit bias. Yes. Right. Do you think in any way that that training may be reduce may have an impact on reducing costs later potentially or improving police and community relations? I mean, there has to be a or has there been an evaluation in terms of cost benefits of such training? The straight answer on that is absolutely it helps. I think all training that we're involved in, there's an old saying all training is good training and some is definitely better than others. But from that perspective, every time we have people in a classroom and they're learning how to better deal with our community members, all of us are better for it. And I want to throw this out as we're talking about that. If I start giving you numbers or statistics of how many calls or how many people are employee's contact per day, it's in the thousands. And if I start giving you the ratio of if you think of police work and no one dials 911 when things are going well, it's when things are falling apart. And all officers time and time again are able to defuze de-escalate and handle situations even with armed suspects on a daily basis to such a professional level. So when you start throwing in the amount of complaints in there that we get, that goes to your question. It is it's minimal. It is less than half a percent. If you look at the ratios of contacts per complaints or we start getting into uses of force, your officers are doing an amazing job out there every day in this environment that we're in. Can we always get better? Absolutely. Are do I believe that this police department is on the upper levels of the training we're getting, comparatively speaking, other police departments? Absolutely. We're getting the best training and it's all good training. I'm not complaining about getting the training. I'm just saying that it does have an impact on us. And as time goes on, we get more and more requests for more training and to do things differently. And those things costs money. And it and most of them are great investments. And I think I don't disagree with anything you said. Matter of fact, I agree with everything you said. Our police officers have the toughest jobs out there. Some of the toughest jobs. And I have nothing but respect for the work that they do, the situations they encounter on a daily basis. I know that the average citizen myself wouldn't want to deal with and so much respect to your department and the men and women who do the work. I will say that I think that policing is changing this dramatically. The profession, the practices, the management and administration is changing. And so we have to be flexible and recognize that balance as well. I would also go go to the the the issue of body worn cameras. I will agree with my colleague, Councilmember Price, that I think this is something that we we must commit to as a as a city moving forward. It is the future, and we need to make it work. I think these cameras inspire public confidence as well as reduce liability for our city. And again, can they may be an initial investment up front, but I think the long term benefits in terms of just public confidence and the potentially the potential to reduce liability is is well worth it. And so I'd love to have more conversation about that and look. Forward to getting the the results of the pilot project that we currently have. And when it comes to two to policing, Long Beach continues to lead. And I want to commend you for for your leadership. The the the the chiefs before you for their leadership. And I know we will continue to do that. In addition to body worn cameras, I just want to throw it out there that I think we should also be looking at investing in and cameras in our. I know we have them in some places, but in our business districts and in key corridors that are important to economic development, I think we need to to invest in cameras in those areas as well. Again, inspiring confidence, but also sending a message loud and clear that that we're not going to tolerate crime in those areas because they are important to the the economic vitality of our city. I also I know in the past we have you mentioned also the the RFP process for the new records management system. Is that is that that budgeted or or do we have have we budgeted that in this this f y fiscal year? We have some money for it. And we're paying a consultant to come in and assist us to make sure that we're identifying the the right equipment for for our city. But that's something that we're going to have to work together as we move forward. So it may not be budgeted this fiscal year. That may move into 19. That accurate or safe? Yes. My financial chief behind me saying yes. Thanks to you. And then I know you councils passed in not too long ago. Over the last few years we have made strong stances on issues like human trafficking, task force and task force to address issues of prohibited possessors, to get guns off the streets and crack down. How are we dealing with those issues in this budget. With our existing resources, our our officers on the street specifically are directed enforcement teams that are working out in patrol, are specialized and investigative units. And our investigations bureau continue to focus. And what we're doing is through better data. I talked about what the I-Team is doing for us, and I'm really excited about the opportunities we have in front of us. And there will be some technology needs that go along with it. But really, instead of going out and and doing sweeps like we once did is where we're so much more data driven and focused on individuals. We're looking at criminal histories and and really looking at patterns and then trying to figure out who we can surgically removed from communities who are causing problems and victimizing people in our neighborhoods. That's good to know. And I'm glad to hear that we're getting smarter, I think. But perhaps those those task force have provided some sort of tools and best practices to help us help us identify problem areas. But I'd like to, too, you know, if in any way make sure that we're in place in a strong emphasis on those areas and not walking away from them. But we are and we appreciate your leadership. I know you've always talked about human trafficking. And and I'll tell you what, the city of Long Beach as a whole is a leader in that arena and not only its police department through the leadership in this room, but we have so many community members who have done so much out there in organizations that we're working with too many to name right now. But this is just a completely different issue. We look at it a very different way, and I think we are one of the most effective communities in dealing with not only the suspects, but more importantly, the victims. The other side of the equation of this horrible crime. All right. Thank you for your your patience. And I know we'll be continuing this conversation in the weeks to come. Chief Tory, again, thank you for your presentation. I just have a couple of quick questions for you. And forgive me, I've been I wasn't able to attend the budget hearing last week, and I'm looking beyond the head here for good. But in I've just been able to to kind of grapple with the budget here today. But is there an Academy plan for the fire department in this fiscal year? Councilmember Yes, part of our part of our annual our fiscal year 18 budget does include the revenue, the dollars to do a fire academy. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then I wanted to follow up on the Hart team. I think, you know, I think Councilmember Price was on to something at our last public safety committee meeting. We went out into the community and there was a detailed presentation not only on the Hart team, but also the Met team and some of our efforts in terms of public safety outreach to to deal with our homeless issues, but also those with the mental illness in the streets. Is it possible and I guess my question specifically is what would it take to employ a Hart team in every battalion? You said that what currently there is a Hart team in the employ or I don't know if it's one to but one battalion but or it's moved around between three different battalions. If every battalion had a hard team dedicated. What would be the cost? And is that possible to. To achieve? Councilmember Each each a structurally funded heart unit costs about 300, and just under $350,000 is what the cost would be. Currently, the existing heart team that we have deployed is it's a citywide resource. It goes it goes all over the city. And as I mentioned earlier, wherever the hotspots are is where it will go. So but the structural value of that is about $350,000. And I guess with existing resources, is it possible to develop that or to, say, tweak our system in a manner that would actually provide that service? Councilmember the no, not not without additional additional funding that we don't have. You got to remember, when we first put the hard team into place, it was put in as a pilot program. We had one time dollars to put that in place. What this proposed budget does is it turns that pilot program into a structurally funded resource, so it becomes an ongoing resource that we can use whenever. So beyond the dollars that have been allocated in this proposed budget, I don't have any other discretionary dollars that I could apply toward that. You couldn't rely on your great administrative management skills to kind of make that happen. Councilman, I might be able to do it once. But no, we don't have any additional revenue in our budget that's not already accounted for in other programs or resources. Okay. Well, I'm not going to give up on that that that thought an ideal. I think we we have some there's some opportunities. And again, with and with policing, I think with our fire services, we need to be adaptable to to change to 21st century needs. Specifically, we know that, you know, fire services has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. And medical responses are are pretty much what we do. But but there's a there's a certain level of proactivity that I think is necessary for us to be the city we want to be. We we have. And I'll just say I get constituent calls and correspondence on a daily basis. People are concerned about homelessness. They're concerned about, you know, people on our streets that could get services. And if we were more proactive in reaching out to them, you know, our quality of life and our neighborhoods would be a lot better . So with that, I will reserve my comments and look forward to hearing from the rest of the colleagues at the council. Thank you. Thank you. That's me. Richardson My goodness, that is a lot to follow. And so, yeah, I had like three or 4 minutes, so, so let's just go through what I have here. So first, there's a lot to be proud of in this budget, but I want to begin just just talking with the fire department. So we've we've worked over the last few years to identify the resources to finally put paramedic services back into District nine and at Station 12. So and I know that we've we've worked on this. We found different iterations of of wait means to do it. We finally got it done with measure. A So what has been the impact of the system since we've placed Rescue 12 into service? Vice Mayor When we put prior to putting Rescue 12 in service, the average response time in Station 12 was first in area for a paramedic resource was about 8 minutes and 40 seconds. Since we put Rescue 12 in service, that number has dropped down to 5 minutes and 36 seconds. So it's been a significant decrease in overall response time in that geographic area and citywide. The addition of Rescue 12, because it really is a citywide resource has taken it's not as significant, but it has shaved about 30 seconds off the expected response time citywide by having that resource in place. So I'm gonna pause for a minute because that that is a significant number. So we've shaved 3 minutes of paramedic response time off of the response in North Long Beach. I mean, it's just unheard of to think about the fact that we've had response times for that long eight minute response time. If you imagine a cardiac arrest, a heart attack, you know, a major events, life support, emergency, the fact that folks had to wait that long and we're finally addressing that with shaving 3 minutes off. That's something the entire city council and everybody who supported Measure, that's something they should all be proud of. So congratulations to you and thank you for that. And I do want to say citywide, 30 seconds is significant. That means our system is healthier. It is stronger because we didn't think so much just about our backyards, but thought about the entire system. And so this should be evidence to us that we should we should certainly think about. The human element of the choices we make, how it really impacts and makes a meaningful difference in the lives of people. So thank you. Thank you, Chief, for that are my next question. Let's talk about the fire fee. So this council went through a process and we walked down a road and explored a a first responder fee. How is that common and how is that how is that developing and how we approaching that in the budget this year? Vice mayor. The first responder fee has been in effect for the past year, roughly. I'm not prepared to give you an actual the exact number that we've pulled in. I can tell you that is it has trended a little bit over initial projections on the amount of dollars that have come into the city. We projected that it will receive over to over $2 million this year from fire impact fee. And is that what we saw? We met our projections. We went over our projections. We initially projected we'd reached about $1.6 million. In how we budgeting that surplus. Are we utilizing that? Now, if you go back a couple of years, Vice Mayor, the fire impact fee was was used to plug a hole that was left with the elimination of the RMD program. A portion of it was used to plug that and the rest has been allocated in the proposed budget general fund resource. And so do we anticipate to that trend to grow that we can see that as an amount that we can continue to budget on and make other enhancements to the budget with Vice Mayor? I think that would be a financial policy decision through financial management. We're working with them to determine that that is a stable funding source, but we don't anticipate in the fire department that we'll see a reduction in our annual calls for service in EMS. So we believe that's a pretty it's a pretty stable number. What is the fire fee? The same level it was when we initially established it? Yes, same same. Number. Okay. And how does that compare to the fire fee in other of the regions? Vice Mayor That that number is literally all over the board, throughout the region and throughout the state. In some places it's as high as 5 to $800. In some places it's as low as $50. The study that we put forward to the Council prior to implementation of the first responder fee outlined a number of cities throughout our region, and this placed us directly kind of right in the middle and it's actually included in the budget book from last year. If I, if you want me to refer to it, I can. But in the middle. I think where I'm heading here is, you know, I don't I would love to know there was a significant discussion about how this might impact low income residents. And we established a like a a program or a system to identify them and provide fee waivers. Have we have we had to use that? And at what levels like how did this impact our low income community? Yeah. Vice Mayor The when, when we do get cold calls from time to time, we'll get calls into the fire department from people who express that they are unable to, to pay the first responder fear they have. They can test the bill or whatever, but most of them will take their information. We then pass that information on to our partners over in financial management. And the financial management folks are very good about educating them what process or what steps they need to take in order to get the fee waived or come up with a payment plan or whatever they want to do. We don't receive a great number of those calls, but there have been a few. And Director Gross's here, he thank you, can speak to that if you'd like. Since we implemented the first responder fee and at the request of city council, we've we've tried to be very sensitive about those concerns. I would say that the number of fee waivers has probably tripled or quadrupled since we implemented it. But I think that's all been for the good. We have I think we have done a very good job of making sure that people who have those concerns get a fee waiver application. The city attorney reviews it in general. Most of those fee waivers are approved, and I think we have considerable satisfaction in that process. It's fantastic. There's been a lot of conversation about, you know, you know, we've made progress, but there's still interest in expanding, say, the Hart team. I've, you know, learned a lot through Councilmember Pierce and our fire chief about the Hart team when it was an idea. And it's something that it seems like folks folks like and it seems like it's making an impact. And the narratives are great and the data is great. And, you know, based on the narrative today and other conversations that I've had, there is significant interest in expanding it. I think we should think about maybe a plan rather than look for a short term solution in this budget. But I think we should evaluate our ability to bear to, you know, look at that fire fee and compare where we are with other cities and see without, you know, sort of without placing a burden on our our low income communities or the folks who might opt into this fee waiver, see how much and someone who's insured, how much we can increase to offset a, you know, additional support in terms of the Hart team. Because what we see is a value added here with this this new model with the Hart team. There's definitely interest and need to be proactive with with homelessness. So maybe we should be creative and take a look at maybe doing a study over the course of the next year on what we could bear and how that could help us to support additional Hart team apparatus. I can tell you, you know, less than a year ago, less than a year ago, my my neighbor called us because, you know, there's a gentleman you know, there's a gentleman sitting on my bench on the front porch having a good old tall can of beer. And they said he doesn't look like the council member. I don't think he's a he lives there. And so, you know, we we responded and Petey responded and helped us. And we, you know, we helped get this gentleman support at our local shelter and helped it out. But if that happened to me that, you know, that could tell you homelessness is a is an issue all across our city. And our residents want us to do as much as our guys as we can to evaluate ways to address it systemically, but also to respond to the needs of neighborhoods. So that is a balance. So I do appreciate all the dialog tonight about, you know, hey, I have a real need in my district and people want to see that response in their district because if you see your house, no matter whether you feel as equitable or not, I want to see a response. I completely understand that. So I support the dialog as far as it's gone. In terms of the Hart team, we should look at, we should look at rather than, you know, dictating police resources and saying, just show face. In my district. I don't see a meaningful I don't see a meaningful impact. And if that means add additional resources or or look at this first responder fee that's really working, I think that I think we have two things here that could match up and say first responder fee and an Hart team match up. And, you know, and I'd have to give once again credit to Councilwoman Pearce, because this is a conversation we've been having for a while now that we you know, we'd like to see more of this Hart team, and this may be a potential solution. So hopefully we can take that up in the in the months to come. Switching over to PD. So there's there's a lot to be proud of in the in the police department budget as well. So we've got for you know, before I do that, what do you think about Mr. GROSS? What do you think about what I just proposed? Mr. wrote Mr. GROSS and Mr. Dery, we've got to both right next to each other. We think about that putting the plan together to leverage, to reevaluate the level of first responder fee and see if it could offset structurally funding heart or expanding heart. Now my my job in the gets to be a little beyond just the financial numbers but part of part of our responsibility in financial management is to collect the fees, the first responder fees and issue you pointed out, deal with the waivers and deal with the calls. So is this something we can look into from the both of your opinions? Is is this a direction that we can realistically explore? Yes, it can be explored. I think there would be a lot of resistance to an increased fee in that area. Okay. And Mr.. Mr. Dooley, what do you think? I think I typically defer to the director of financial management on on policies related to financial management. But I. Vice Mayor, I would certainly I would certainly provide any necessary information and that would be required to have a robust discussion on that. And we would definitely have a seat at the table and and see if that's something that could be done. Absolutely. So. So I'd like to I'd like to understand that resistance and understand if this is feasible. So so moving on the police department. So for back to back academies, that's certainly something to be proud of. When I started working here years ago for Councilman Neal, you know, just we were fighting just to have one one academy . And I see Greg Abbott shaking her head. She remembers nodding your head. She remembers one was a big feat and we've done four back to back and we are supporting them in this budget. And that's so that is something to be proud of. The Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative and I haven't tracked it very closely. I remember when the discussion came up and my understanding was, you know, this is a resources that as needed, we can draw down and make sure we sort of focus on certain areas. Mr.. Mr. Chief, how does this connect to the impact team's? Are these related to the impact teams? Because I know we utilize impact teams to really when there's an incident, we want to have a heavy response. We utilize the impact, the impacting. Are they related? Vice mayor, if you're asking about the are directed enforcement? Yes, directed at, for example, our north division directed enforcement team, which is very effective in doing what they do. Those moneys that we are talking about are apart from them, although they can be utilized as the resource on overtime. If the commander data directs us that way. But usually it is a a problem that occurs on on any specific given day or time of the day. Wherever the data takes us. So, for example, if it's auto burglaries on graveyard, we're going to figure out how to get more people on overtime during the days that we see that that's happening to us. So it is different, but they could be kind of the same. It just depends on where the data takes us. Okay. And I'm sure we're likely to hear much more on this from my colleagues. But it seems to me, I mean, crime crime is heading in the right direction. And in our city, we've seen crime, certain categories of crime hit in the right direction in North Long Beach. I meet regularly with our commander. It seems like the resources from from, you know, the are the direct enforcement team as well as the neighborhood safe streets team is being deployed in a in a meaningful way that's making a difference. And so I'd like to continue to evaluate that and make sure that, you know, our body, you know, as elected officials, were not influencing things based on a different value model, anything other than need, anything other than, you know, need and crime and keeping our community safe. So I'd love to I'd love for, you know, to continue to hear that. And I think it would go a long way to here, you know, city manager, one of these memos on a memo to come out soon, just giving an update on that that that program, because since it first came out, I haven't really received an update on it. So I'd like to see that. Yeah, that Miss Malika got it. Thank you. So I'm really excited about some of the data driven justice stuff. So we had a conversation maybe a year ago, Mr. Chief, who was in your office and we, you know, we talked about a number of things from, you know, rap lyrics to to models that we've seen all across the country, from Oakland to New York. And since then, you know, we've been heading in that direction. Our innovation team has pivoted and establish a new a new sort of focus here. You know, we had a community community discussion around 21st century policing, you know, over two years ago with our ministers alliance and so so clergy and community partners about really doubling down on things like diversion and things like sort of body cameras and things like implicit bias steps have been taken to head in that direction. Specifically, the innovation team's work, specifically the violence prevention work that brought in an expert to talk about implicit bias training and the establishment of the office equity. And the way I see it, they're all aligned. They're all really aligned. And what I'd like to see really is a more comprehensive approach, since, you know, we've heard a lot of discussion at council tonight. And frankly, I think that's what our people on staff has been waiting for. You know, significant people on the council to start saying these things, hey, we want to be serious about body cameras. We want to be serious about 21st century policing because this conversation is really only taking place in the communities. It's taking place at the Federal Legislation Committee. But I think it is appropriate that we have this conversation. So I want to say thank you to Councilwoman Price, Councilman Austin, for helping to breach this subject at the council , because it has been difficult the last few years to get this amount of focus on this. So I look forward to working together on more comprehensive. Comprehensive we looking at how we can address 21st century policing. I know that there was a study came out of the White House and that we evaluated and we placed into our process with the establishment of the My Brother's Keeper Local Action Plan. And we pointed to a number of a number of things, including the version to focus on. And just two weeks ago and I'm not sure if the public is aware of this, our work has been recognized because we hosted a national summit right here in Long Beach with the Obama Foundation and the My Brother's Keeper Alliance discussing this very subject matter. So I think it's really encouraging to go to this summit and thank you to all city staff and the mayor for helping to land this here in Long Beach. But to take that and here we are two weeks later at the at the city council during a budget discussion, talking about making these things real. So so I want to say, this is this is fantastic work. And I want to see I think I want to see some tracking and some discussion publicly about these 21st century policing tactics. And in turn, specifically on body cameras. On body cameras, you know, the pilot that we set out, set out on, I do want to see where we are in terms of data, because I know it took us a little while to get up because of the issues with data and information and the legal circumstances surrounding that. So I don't want to put any pressure to keep up with another city. What I'd like to do is put a put a real program together that's structurally sustainable and makes make sense and that the community can have a little bit of confidence and faith in so that so that's that's good. So kudos to everyone who's discussing that and hitting that heading in that direction. The next thing I want to talk about, fireworks. So, you know, fireworks lived in North Long Beach for seven years now. And I got to tell you, it's different when you have a when you have a three, three month old. And, you know, before I would when I was a young guy or a single guy or when me and my wife were just alone, we just we didn't the impact that as much we didn't hear the impact as much because we always spent 4th of July away with family. And I can tell you, it is a disaster. I saw our response, the fireworks to the public. And I know our fire, our police officers and our firefighters work hard. They are slammed. I completely get it. I completely get it. And they work hard and I've had conversations. We speak with our commanders and our fire folks all the time, but in reality, we've got to figure something out. And what and what I think is I think the in the hearts and minds of our residents, we need to do a better job at communicating the circumstance. The conundrum wherein in terms of this region I live, you know, my district is adjacent to Compton, Bellflower, Lakewood, Paramount and Rancho Dominguez. And all of them have different rules on fireworks. So living as close to different borders, I hear the impact across the border. So what I'd like to really see and where we can work together on, because there's no easy solution to this. I'd like to see us to engage in a real conversation around sort with these adjacent cities to see if we can talk about a regional a regional solution to this. Because I, I think the city councils in those areas, we've had off the cuff conversations. I think there's something there we can talk about constraints or maybe engage the county about a response regionally. But I think we need to have that conversation. So those are those are my remarks on on fireworks. And I would also say that I think physically people want to see a certain level of response like I don't think we bad to grab certain parks and heavily impacted areas and literally set up set up tents with some of our have set up a firework fireworks information station on the 4th of July at a park in the middle of the neighborhood where you can talk about where you you know, where to go to report something and you can get information in. And people will feel like feel like we're not just running around putting putting out fires, literally, but rather we have a central location to where the community might feel safe. And we can rotate these things around because I know resources are different, but I want to see like a visible response beyond what we did this year on lawn signs. So I definitely have had to do that. The last thing I'll say is I think I think it was really smart in this presentation to outline your challenges. So I do want to acknowledge that the fact that you outline these challenges, it helps us as a city council to to maybe, maybe can put ourselves in your shoes a bit and understand what your what your what your problems are so that we can think be solution driven. Right. And so I would I would like to. And Mr. City managers, that's something that we're encouraging all the departments to do. Yes. Is that is that new? I don't remember. That is a new thing. We've done it before. Yes. Okay. I think it should be standard moving forward. Just standard, because, you know, it really helps put things in perspective. So so thanks again to everyone on this. And this has been a good dialog. And again, you know, the my take away from here is that our police department is doing great work and they need and, you know, everything has a cost. And we should really think about how we can be intentional to identify new resources, support them. And secondly, three minute response time, three minute cut on our response time in North Palm Beach is something that that I'm going to be proud to talk about. Thanks a lot. Now next up is Councilmember Ringo. Crime is headed in the right direction. Must be like. I don't understand it. I mean, in the right direction. Up, down, sideways. You know, whatever. I mean, either way, I know it's a positive statement, not a positive statement. But the bottom line is, is that, you know, there are some challenges in this budget that the both chiefs have mentioned. We're not exactly where we want to be. Of course, you know, I don't know if we ever will be where we want to be in regards to budgets for our public safety personnel. But I and my focus mostly is that we're talking about people and we're talking about those service providers as first responders that we need to have on duty to ensure that those response times are done, to ensure that crime is headed in the right direction, to ensure that. Our. Residents feel safe, and that when they call 911 or the non-emergency number, that there's going to be somebody there quickly and efficiently and provide the the needed response that they need to have. So my comment on this is going to be very brief, very short. And it's dealing with if we're going to want people coming out of our academies who are ready and have all the equipment and all the tools that they need to do their jobs, we need to do it at the front end as well. So my emphasis is mostly and I've spoken with the city manager about this before, is that we need to dedicate more money, more resources to our recruitment efforts to ensure that we get the most qualified people out there to apply for our jobs in police and fire. And that includes dispatching security, all that. And it's a full service that we want to provide our residents. So I want to ensure that we have enough money in our budget here and identify. To provide some recruitment teams and advertising dollars to make sure that we get the word out that Long Beach is hiring. It's a great place to work. It's a great place to live in this great, great, great, great place to raise family. So I hope that from here on out, we are able to get that message out there that low is hiring coming to work for us. It's a great career. And and we don't do that unless we get the word out with a good recruitment budget and advertising budgets around. That's my message on that. And that's about police and fire. What we need in both areas in regards to the budget, of course, it always is challenging and I think that one of the things we haven't really paid any attention to on the city council and I think it's with us at this point, is the the declining condition of our police academy. I mean, I remember back in the day when it was a nice Rancho style Academy lockers, showers, you name it, it was a very nice place to be. Our recruits loved to be there. And now we have where bungalows, trailers. And I think that they're getting old. They they have to be old and they have to be falling apart. So I think that we have to look at dedicating some of our budget into replacing those trailers and getting an academy that's top notch state of the art that provides all the full abilities of our police department to train our police officers the best that they can and that there's a department that they really want to come to because we've got a great topnotch academy. I don't know what the stats are right now in regards to our academy being used by other agencies. I know we used to have recruits coming from other agencies to train with us. I don't know if we're doing that anymore or do we have the capacity to do that anymore? Put both police and fire. We for the police department, we currently in this class, this recruit class, we have four members from outside agencies and we did in the previous one as well. Well, that speaks well for us, but I'll be probably turning over here because they don't have academies themselves. So but regardless of the growth of that, I think we can expand that opportunity for other departments as well. If we get an academy that that's top notch. And I would like the city council to look at ways that we can create a better Academy experience, if you will, for our recruits once they join a department. And that goes for both both departments. So I hope we can get something if if it takes a bond or whatever. That's something that we can discuss in terms of what we need to do to ensure that we have a police academy that that and fire academy. That's a top notch. I know a lot of the emphasis has been on homelessness and the the increased services that we need to provide to those individuals, as well as to respond to requests for service when there is a homeless individual out in the in the street and what the response is going to be, we have we have the response teams for that. But from from speaking to some residents, you know, their feel they're feeling isn't without perceptions and some of it is factual. Some of mine that might not be is that they're getting bolder and more aggressive as time seems to go on. So we need to look at how we can best deal with that with our homeless issues and problems. We're going to be getting some additional funds for an account from a county measure h. H. H. H. Therefore, H or three. H. H or. Okay, we're getting 1hi here. I was hoping for a4h program, but that's another story. So we are going to get some help and some relief. But, you know, we need to a few more. So I'm sure that our our departments are going to be looking at that. And given that, has there been a a decrease or a re a new focus on gangs? And back in a few years ago, we're talking about the elimination of the gang unit and its possibility of reinstating it. And I haven't heard any talk about that lately, and I haven't heard the police department really address that the last at least the last two budgets. Are we beyond that? Have we have we restructure, reorganized our departments in such a way that we're addressing it, but not really calling it that anymore? Councilman, your anger regarding gangs. We have not stopped working. Gang enforcement. We never did stop, I should say. Once upon a time during the recession, when we lost over 20% of our staffing, our field gang unit was eliminated. But we still had a gang investigations section, a very effective one, a very good one. And to this day, they're very effective at what they do. We have to use other resources within the department. For example, directed enforcement teams in each patrol division are very effective at dealing with violent crime, specifically gang members. But again, as I've said earlier, very good questions asked. We just have a very different way of approaching it. I think it's a much smarter way of approaching it, a very data driven, focused way of approaching it. And I think and I knock on wood, that's why our murder rate year to date is down over 30%. Our gang shootings are down about a third over 30% as well. So the men and women of our department and I got to say, our community, our partners, it's a it's a whole team effort, are doing a very effective job at managing that challenge. And it is always a challenge, but we continue to take it on and. And. Yeah, I mean, they're. That's great. You know, that that's a statement that that carries very, very well with me in terms of the police department is doing an excellent job in, in addressing ah gang issues and problems and if it being able to get done without having a specific dedicated gang unit to it, all the better. I mean that means that we're, we're are using our resources effectively and efficiently. That's all I have to have. That's all I have to say to. Thank you, Councilmember Pete. Okay. Well, first, I want to echo a lot of what my colleagues have said. It's great to hear people talking about equity, even though we might not be using the word equity. When we talk about police cameras and we talk about data driven results. These are things that we need to be able to do to govern for everybody in ways that might help those that have the least tools at their disposal to those that have the most. And so I'm going to try to be quick and not go through all of my questions. I'll start with fire. We've had a lot of chat about the Hart team, which I, of course, love. As far as the first responder fee, is there anything keeping the city from saying that we would have a policy to stay at the rate of the county first responder fee? So, Councilmember, I think I want to let me clarify that. So the county of Los Angeles does not establish a first responder fee. The county of Los Angeles, the local EMS agency, does established establish a guideline for ambulance transport fees. So the first responder fee is something different. Let's make sure I clarify that. It might be a long night. To your to your question, though, I think I understand your question. That would be a a decision that the council would make to determine how you how the council wanted to direct financial management or the department to establish, ah, ambulance transport fee as it relates to what it currently is. Great. And my understanding is we have three battalions in the city. Yes, ma'am. And one proposal that we're kind of playing around with through conversations with you and financial management is if we it's fantastic that we have one that's going to be structurally funded. I think that's great that the pilot program demonstrated numbers that that say this is taking time, that we're not having to use elsewhere. So if we were able to increase our first responder fees to a level that we could do another pilot program for one of the battalions, I've also been in conversations with our county supervisor around funding and possibly another one so that we could hopefully get to three so that we're at the city capacity, because we do know that there's great need on, you know, underneath our freeways by the airport. You know, my colleagues just talk. So I want us to try to explore some options outside of the box to try to figure out where we can get funds to do that. I'd also like to ask you, how soon could we possibly get just a really quick memo on the Hart team and the impact that you guys have seen, because I know after three months of being employed that are being utilized, that we already had some good numbers. But I didn't see those numbers. Directly in your report. And Councilmember, we can put together we can put together a memo to the council that outlines all the data points, some of the many of the data points I brought up earlier. But we can go through a kind of a chronological history for you, and I could probably provide that within 30 days. Okay, fantastic. The other conversation that's been coming up is the need for another academy for fire. I know in my district alone, we've got several hundred new residential units coming on and obviously we want to make sure that we have enough fire to to handle that. And I might not be restoring an engine, but just doing the basics of the academy. Where are some funding sources that financial management or fire might be looking at if we wanted to give some direction? Well, Councilmember, as I mentioned earlier, that the fire department is funded for one fire academy. Typically that's going to depends on the lengthy academy, but that's typically around 20 for new recruits that would start the academy. And we do have some attrition typically. So the key question here for us, we're finding now that, you know, the council has with Measure A and a lot of the council allocations over the past couple of years, we've actually begun to hire people again. We're still kind of playing catch up, though, from a number of years with no academy. And you're correct, even though we we brought on two academy classes this year, we're still showing numbers. It looks like we're going to be down a number of firefighters over the next two years. So we're exploring creative ways inside our existing budget that we can potentially add more recruits to our existing fire academy. But certainly any dollars, any kind of one time dollars, I suppose, that were available to help us bring in new firefighters to the system would be would be beneficial for us. Great. Thank you for that. I know that you guys also have a long list of any other one time fund opportunities. So obviously we want to support fire as much as possible. I think what you guys have here has been great being able to see us upgrade different staff and I just want to make sure that as our city grows in population that we have enough firefighters and the resources necessary for that. So obviously fully support. Trying to think creatively about a Hart team option for police are awesome PD department I want to say. How great it is to see in this report back that we're looking at data analysts, that we're shifting over some resources to make sure that we're doing that. How closely is the department working with the Office of Equity currently? If at all. I know we're working with the team. We are absolutely working with the team. We've been in meetings regarding the Office of Equity. It's a new office. It's just coming online. So we have had conversations and we're looking forward to working with them. That's fantastic. And I know that you guys are working with the with the team on some of the data. I think what would be really exciting is to see the Office of Equity with the team working with you guys to share with us what data points you guys are hitting on. I know that they're you know, we could pull data on small areas or on a very long list and looking at what other cities have done, like St Louis, like Seattle, what are the data points that have helped them kind of see a shift would be really helpful. But I really want to just celebrate the work that you guys have done that you've put into this. I fully support our additional academies. I wanted to ask on the national incident based reporting system that we're going to be shifting over to in the future. How is that different from what we're currently doing? Give me a second and I'll get a document I have that actually explains it in a just a quick paragraph. It's actually pretty exciting stuff. Okay. Thank you. It's where I'm trying to talk fast. So in the past, the FBI collects well, actually, we turn in our crime statistics on a monthly basis to the Department of Justice, State, DOJ, and then they in turn turn it over to the FBI. And that's the what we call the 3010 or refer to the 3010 report in here. And usually that was just crime stats that they're asking us for. Like, for example, part one divided into violent crime and property crime. What this new system is going to do it. It collects it collects each offense within each incident. And what I what I find exciting about this, it actually asks for characteristics about victims offenders and arrestees property data. So it gets more specific into the incidences. So we'll have potentially the ability to better identify patterns and trends and things of that nature and have more information that people typically ask us about offenders and victims that were not always readily able to answer without doing an extensive hand search. That's great and it's great to hear for the camera conversation. Obviously, you guys know my opinion. I completely echo that and think that it's, you know, as you mentioned, that it's cost savings if we're investing in this in the long run. When we look at any. Times that we've been we've had to pay out because of legal challenges. And, you know, I'd be interested to see what other cities have seen reduce as a result. Of having those cameras. So I like to say that my colleague, Councilmember Price and I definitely almost everything she said I agree with today. So that's fantastic, which is great. The last question I have is on property crime. While our crimes overall are going down, property crime obviously is still a challenge and we know that crime rates are directly correlated to poverty after school programs, making sure that we have some of that in place. But what is the your department's angle at trying to reduce those property crimes? I'm sorry about that, Councilman or Councilwoman Pierce, regarding the crime stats, our property crime is actually in the negatives. It's for the 3010. In June, it was -8.6%. Where besides homicide and rape and violent crime, that's unfortunately the crime that's going the direction we don't want it to, but we're working hard to do that. But overall, the city crime is down 5.4%. From a property perspective, property crime perspective. Our officers are responding to it because our community is more active, I believe, than it ever has been. From a community watch perspective. They're seeing something, they're saying something, they're calling us. We're getting to the calls. Usually priority one calls. We're getting there below 5 minutes. That teamwork is really helping. Our investigators are working as hard as they ever have to get the cases filed with the district attorney's office or the city prosecutor's office. So we're effective in that sense. And I think it's it's important to recognize that we as the city of Long Beach are doing good, comparatively speaking, to the cities around us who are not doing good for a lot of the challenges that we've talked about before in here with Proposition 47, for example, and the challenges with the criminal justice system, we have more people on the street who are not incarcerated and a lot of them for good reasons. But we have repeat offenders who are committing a dozen burglaries, 18 burglaries that we're catching are putting away, and then they're coming right back out. So those are the constant challenges we have and we're trying to do a better job. Again, going back to this I-Team concept of being more data driven. So we focus on those not that we're going to ignore any crime, but we want to be more focused on these individuals and their histories of why they're there in the first place. Is there some education issues, some health issues, substance abuse issues, mental health issues? So I'm really excited about the I-Team and the way we'll be able to use the data to drill down and really focus on these individuals, not only from a police enforcement perspective, but a trying to get them help in a more holistic way for me. And I'm going to just focus on the substance abuse part of this, where if we can go to our partners out there and specifically say, hey, we have a grouping of people, how can we help with these individuals? And they use them as examples, positive examples. Maybe we can turn the tide and keep them away from committing some of these property crimes. Yes. Thank you for that. And I know you guys are working closely with our city prosecutor's office and that's been huge. So thank you for that clarification. My very last question is the percentage. I'm curious for financial management. We use Tidelands funds right now to cover some overtime for public safety. How does that percentage right now compare to other years? Is it about. The same or have we dipped into. That more than we have in the past? We can take a look at the report and come back. I believe it's the same as we have in other years that we're not decreasing, but we're not increasing. But we can look into that and get your response. Yeah, definitely. I know that fire brought up, you know, special events. Obviously, we are seeing an increase in special events. A big chunk of those special events happen to be in our Highlands area. So just want to make sure that we're exploring ways that we can have a conversation around making sure we have resources there so that we can use other resources throughout the city to to cover in those areas as well. So those are my questions. Thank you, guys, very, very much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Great. Lucky for me, most of my questions have been answered. So. And for us. For all of us. Yes. Okay. Well, I appreciate each of your departments and all of our employees and each of you. I have had just such great back and forth with each of you on on many of the initiatives that we've put in place. And I think we are in a really great position currently as a city. So I'll start actually with a question for both of you. How about that? This is a question about, you know, we've been often hearing about and we see it in downtown, unfortunately, the opioid epidemic. And I don't see anything in the in the budget specifically tackling that. But I know we're working on that. Of course, some cities have put together like a city county task force. Have we are we doing that or is there intention to do that? Councilmember. Yeah. Thank you for bringing up that topic. This is a it's not just a Long Beach issue. This is a national issue that the fire service and our police partners are dealing with on a national scale. There's been a great emphasis and effort lately from the state of California through our federal partners down to the state and now coming down to the local level, level, greater levels of education for our employees as they deal with some of these drugs that are out there in the community today in at levels that we've never seen before. I will tell you that we in fact, just today at fire headquarters, we're having a conversation about this very subject and and the information that we wanted to give to our nurse. Educators are our team, our education team to then get out to our paramedics, get out to our crews in the field, things to be aware of . And that that also stands true with the police department as well. I mean, there's been a number of cases recently in the local region where police officers will arrive on the scene first and they will be exposed to drugs and opioid, you know, fentanyl and some of these other drugs. They get exposed to that and creates a hazardous materials environment. Fire department ends up coming in and cleaning it up. So it is a very, very serious, very pressing issue. We're taking it seriously. We're beginning to address it through proactive training of our folks with our existing resources. Great. And I think we all just kind of needed to hear that, because I know it is a national we hear it. We're hearing it everywhere. And it's just it's scary. I mean, you see people on the street and they just look, you know, they're just completely lost and it's unfortunate. So thank you for that. I just. Councilman Gonzalez, just real quick, just to add, from the police department's perspective, actually, Councilwoman Pryce asked me this question probably I'm going to say about a month ago or so. And we have a current project that we're working on within the police department, number one, and we're working with our partners in fire in trying to figure out it is we're definitely hearing about it. There's a significant challenge on the on our East Coast, some of our East Coast departments. You hear about it every day in the news. My major city chief meetings, it's been brought up, but it's we're doing a stat review to see if it's really a challenge here in our city, both on the police and fire side of things. Because when we talk to our employees, they're not identifying it as something they're seen as we're hearing about it in other places. But as always, we've got to be ready for these things. So some of the questions that Councilwoman Pryce had asked about was the use of Narcan that's been used more and more by police departments. So we're currently looking at that and looking at potentially buying it for some officers, trying it out. And again, I really appreciate Chief Gehry's help in it, because at the end of the day, it's it's almost like applying a medication, and that's kind of a new area for our officers. So we're looking at it, we're studying it, and we hope to have more information for all of you here in the very near future regarding that topic. Great. And I'm glad you brought up the stats because I think if there's, you know, not a clear enough issue with that, then obviously we have to direct our resources elsewhere. But we know it's somewhat of an issue here. So I appreciate both of your responses on that. I will start with fire. So great that we have a new academy, 24 new recruits. Sounds wonderful. I also wanted to ask about the increase in the ambulance transportation fees. Do we have financial projections as to what that will look like in the coming years for us? Councilmember? No. All we can use all we can do is base current kind of current projections on historical data. What we know we've collected in the past. We do know that if we raise raise the ambulance transport fee, the two on the Ehla side and the blue side, we expect to generate an additional $722,000 a year. OC. Okay. Great. And then on the last question for you, Chief Derry, the fireworks I know has been, of course, an issue for everyone city wide. And there was a thought out there about and perhaps it's just a collaboration, but a thought of having more free firework shows, perhaps funded through the foundation of sorts. So I don't know if that would even be a deterrence for individuals to not pop off that are, you know, not on 4th of July, but just a thought out there. You know, I don't know. Maybe we'll see what happens. And then I also want to commend your your Marine Safety Department as well. I think they do an incredible job out there. So overall, great job. And thank you so much for everything you do. So, Chief Luna, also incredible work as well, the innovative recruiting that we're talking about. I just want to make sure that as do the civil service. I saw that in the proposed budget and it will be done through civil service. This is not an extra position. Correct. That will be designated for recruiting. We're doing it through our existing resources. Okay. Perfect. And civil service is a great partner. They've been doing an amazing job with us. Okay, wonderful. And then the Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative. I love to see that. It's great that we're creating a robust bus program around that. I know that. I hear you on the bus transit all the time. See something, say something. It's in English. It's in different languages. I would say if we can continue that. That would be great, especially in the communities that you know are non English because we know a lot of our we have a homicide that happens and no one calls. And so any more outreach that we can do to just continue that discussion that we need, you know, people out there calling and being proactive is important. And then lastly is do we have a separate dataset for gangs statistics? I know we I don't know. I'm sure it's embedded perhaps in violent crime, you know, violence and other stuff. But do we have a separate data set for that? We're getting better and better at tracking specific gang information. But we do have a stat we keep away from the 3010 regarding gang shootings. And that's why I indicated earlier that our gang shootings are down year to date. Okay. Thank you. And then last that I'll leave is with, of course, security cameras. I know with our tech services as much as we can get those up and running as fast as possible, the better. I know we're adding some on our Washington middle school and I have to commend Commander Burke and Camp and Commander Lewis, who've been working with us. They have been incredible. I will tell you, you know, when people say that you guys need more training, we need this, absolutely everyone needs more training. But at the same time, to be able to put these groups together and just have a panel, we had Doug Halbert with us. We had our of course, our Commanders and Ministers Alliance Central, and we built a really good collaboration with great feedback. So I just want to commend your commanders for that as well. And I think those are all of my questions. And actually, I'm sorry, I have one question, and this is actually since we're in the PD field, this is actually directed towards our city manager. And I don't know if you have a question for me or I'm sorry, an answer for me relative to our safe passages at Washington Middle School. So what is the question? Our Safe Passages program at Washington Middle School. I'm going to defer to the chief on that. Yeah, if you can. Councilwoman Gonzales, if you could ask me, between myself and Mara, we should be able to answer it. Okay, great. D r update council woman Gonzales that we're waiting for the contract to be received from the county. So it is in process and we're working towards executing that agreement. Okay, great. Any help that I can provide in speeding that up, you'll let me know. But I thank you for all your work in that. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Thank you. First of all, I. Want to thank all the individuals for sticking around tonight because we only have 32 more items to go. And I know some of you are going to have to stay in the others. You guys are warriors. I find that being close to L.A., you can just sit around and listen to Councilwoman. Price and Vice Mayor Richardson. You'll get all the overlays if you just stick. Around, listen to them because they're going to tell you what's going on. I went to sleep, woke up, and they were still talking. But it's okay. It's all right. And I'm going to rush right through this. I don't have two questions. And that is the two things that I heard from. Both our chiefs was that it said that crime in the city was down 5%. That is wonderful. The other 3% that, you know. Response time, that was wonderful. You guys just keep up the good work. I have nothing else to say. Everyone else has said everything. That's it. Thank you. Councilman. Mongo hearing the applause and knowing that everyone else has said everything. Perhaps we should start with the rule that the maker of the motion gets 2 minutes. Then every council member after that gets one minute with unlimited recues. As long as you go to the end of the line so that we each get the opportunity to ask the questions that may have been important to our district, but perhaps people at home weren't. They might have been awake at that time. It's after 10:00 now, so who knows? I have a couple of quick questions. Hopefully not too many. I love the Hart team. Think they do meaningful work. Meaningful impact on the homeless study did show that homeless is down in the city as a whole, but that homelessness is up in the East Division. And so I think that when we talk about deployment of resources, while there's still a majority of homelessness in the downtown area, we do have to be mindful of where it is migrating to and do our best to sometimes get ahead of things. So I kind of think of the potential deployment of the Hart team to be kind of like what we're doing within public works in terms of slurry, sealing some of the streets that we can save and addressing the people who are about to become homeless and or are just becoming homeless and or are moving because of new mitigating factors and what opportunities there are within that. So there was an infographic online. I've actually been asked to find it and I actually don't remember where I thought if it was Twitter or Facebook or if one of my colleagues had posted it, but it showed a map of the city and it was blue dots of everywhere . The Hart team had responded and they were all in one council district. And I think that that was alarming to the community. I don't know if it was meant to be. Look at all the great work we've done. We're out in the community. There's a lot of dots. I don't know if it was data or if it was just made up. And I think that part of that will be rectified by how we are implementing some communication strategies and public safety. And I think that we need to be do a better job communicating because I think you guys are doing a great job and I have seen the Hart team on the East Side, but when I looked at the end of the graph, the moment it was when I thought there was not a single blue dot. Where's where's Commander Griffin? From the cherry line over of the East Division of Police Department. There wasn't one blue dot. And so I think that that's a messaging more than a real resource allocation, anything to achieve. So Councilmember the the infographic you're referring to was posted on Facebook and the fire department every month puts out a series of maps basically based on council district that shows in that council district how many calls for emergency medical services we had, how many fire calls, non fire calls and Hakeem calls. So I suspect what might have happened is you might have been looking at a specific council district and the Hart team calls in that council district were specifically posted there just for that council district. If you looked at a different council district, you'd see the Hart team calls their I will tell you that we deploy the Hart team to respond anywhere in the city where the work dictates we go. They they go where we find people who are experiencing homelessness. And that work will take them all over the city. Yes, it's true that we seem to experience a larger number of people experiencing homelessness concentrated in our beach and downtown core. But they are very active in North Long Beach to the best of our ability and very active outreach to the best of our ability. It is important to put it in perspective that we have one Hart team and and it's the success of the program, the success of the pilot program and all the outcomes, the beneficial outcomes we've seen have driven demand to a level that is difficult to keep up with, but we're doing our very best. I would hope that we don't communicate information in districts anymore because I think that when those get out, it leads to misinterpret misinformation in the community. And I think that while we are elected by districts and we do a lot of work ensuring that our districts are. Are getting their fair share of resources. We also and that it's equitable. I appreciate that too. We also have to think citywide and this is a $3 billion one city budget. And so I think it's important that we keep that in mind. We were talking about the ambulance transportation fees. I know there's a number of fees within the fire department. Do you want to name a few that are the more recent acquisitions to the department, including the ambulance transportation fee and what that amount is and what the increase is looking like because in the budget book I see $700,000 variance, but it doesn't say like it's going to go up $32 or it doesn't say the specifics. Councilmember The budget does. When you talk about ambulance transport fees, we're proposing it's a 270, $217 increase in Allison, $105 in bills. That's in the budget pages as proposed. I must have missed that. So I was looking through when I saw the total net. So what is the current rate and what is the new rate proposed? Go ahead, David. David Honey City. Council Councilwoman Mango. Or you can tell me what page to go to. I have all 500 pages here. I'm not sure what page it's on, but the the current rate for advanced life support transport is $1,675, and under the proposed budget, that would go $217 to $1892 for transport. And what percentage of that is currently reimbursable by a majority of the insurance providers in the region that are 100% reimbursable for the first call a year? Or I mean, how much how much are we really burdening our taxpayers? Councilmember. That's a question for financial management. You're asking about revenue billing returns. Am I correct in that? I mean, I guess if we want to have a robust discussion, I think that's a quote from earlier. You have a robust discussion about fees. What we really need to talk about is how many addresses are being billed this fee annually. How many of these addresses are getting multiple billions annually? I know that we have a couple of addresses within the community that are over users of the system, but then there are others that are moderate users. And then to know and understand, are these the fees that are being burdened by the resident or are they being burdened by insurance? And if they are available for cost recovery for the resident through insurance, what percentage of them are actually being paid by insurance companies? Because a $200 increase doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a lot to a person living on a fixed income. Was that a question? So the question is what percentage of these fees are paid by insurance companies versus single payers? For the most part, to the extent people have insurance, it will be covered by fees, by insurance. Even the new rate. Yes. That's what we believe. And will there be a chart that will be getting it sometimes similar to when we increase fees in any of the other departments in the city that kind of show current fee total rate cost recovery. What percentage of these fees go to collections? A breakout. Yeah. A I mean, this is a large fee to just fold into the budget. Councilmember, I'd like to weigh in here. So the proposed increase in ambulance transport fees would actually put us it's about 50, 50% of what would be required to actually get to what the county rate what Los Angeles County is currently charging for ambulance transport fees. Long Beach if you remember in 2014 we we as a to a one city we went beyond what the county was charging for ambulance transport fees. We said we wanted to set our rates higher. We went about almost $200 higher than what the county was charging, which prior to that we had traditionally always kind of married up with what the county was charging. There are 31 fire departments in Los Angeles County. 28 of them used the county rates as the baseline and it's built into their budgets. The other the other, there's two of them that are above county rates and a couple that are below. We are now one of them that is below. So this proposed increase would get us about 50% of the way to getting to what the current county rates are, what's being charged in Los Angeles County. So it's it's I think I just want to make sure that we're clear on what we're talking about here. Then when we're talking about raising the fees, Long Beach will still be below 28 other fire regional fire agencies for the same service. So there are some fees that we charge for that L.A. County does not yet charge for. Your speaking of the first responder fee specifically. And are we proposing an increase to that? We are not. Okay. And if we do get a report back to have a discussion about the fees, I think that it would be a good dialog because I think that part of the first responder fee was to deter non appropriate utilization of the system. And I think that there are certain addresses that are consistently utilizing our services. I think we've talked about some of these sober living homes that don't have appropriate staffing that we can't do anything about because they're mandated by the state and others such like that. So I think that some of the data that we probably need to have in that discussion that we hopefully will have is what those utilizations look like next body worn cameras. So I appreciate the dialog today. I am a personal supporter of body worn cameras. I strongly encourage any police officer whose department or agency does not supply them to choose to wear them on their own. They are available for purchase. I think that if we're going to deploy body worn cameras as a department, I appreciate that we've gone with the pilot program. I think that it's really important to discuss the true long term costs that are required. This is not a one time investment. A true body worn camera program includes retention and data and management. And storage of that data is a long term cost. It includes upgrades and technical assistance that I think really need to be evaluated. And so I was wondering if part of the reason that this is still a challenge is because we've actually started modeling what those costs are for an agency of our size. Do we know what those costs are? Is that still a part of the process? What's the timeline on knowing that? Is that a part of the pilot program council? One month ago, we selected a very unique technology solution that was not readily available several years back when we started this program. And part of determining the cost depends on which solution we pick. The vary depending on how data is uploaded and how it's stored. And so that's a cost consideration that we have not yet fully undertaken, but we will do over the next several months. I appreciate that. I think that that is a really important component of the dialog. I think that there are not only concerns about the data and its access, but the security related to it. Because when a police officer goes into the home of a community member, they are in their most vulnerable moments as well. And while I appreciate that the cameras are there to protect everyone in the in the situation, I think that oftentimes the victims of violent crime, the victims of. Domestic violence. The victims of all of these things are often portrayed in those videos. And then you have to talk about what does it look like to redact out people who don't want their identity shared and their personal situations shared? And I really think that we need to have a serious discussion about what that looks like, because these videos without proper security can be very salacious in nature. Agreed. Councilmember Mongeau. And that is spelled out in our our pilot policy, very strict and direct about the victim privacy. So we're very concerned and and that'll be part of our assessment as we move forward. How did that work out? And not only looking at how it worked out for the Long Beach Police Department, but still looking at best practices around us to see what we've learned. And with body worn cameras, it still is a newer technology. We're learning things every day from all of our law enforcement partners. Well, I appreciate that. I think that I know that not many people take the time to delve into all 510 pages. But I appreciate all the staff that have put in the work. I appreciate even throughout this dialog, the many questions that staff have been available to answer. On the two dividers worth of data we've been provided so far. And people do read the book. I know that a lot of staff take a lot of time to put it together. So thank you. Thank you to everyone. And I hope my proposal on the two and one minute is seriously considered by this body for speaking. Councilmember Soprano. Okay. Thank you. I think I'm the last speaker. So if that doesn't get a round of applause, I don't know what will happen. Oh, thank you. One minute. All right. I'm just following up on a couple of issues. I want to go. Back to the fire first. Responder fee to Chief de re. As I recall, that was implemented two years ago, July 2015, and it was projected to generate about 1.8 million -200 K for administrative costs or whatnot. Is that about right? Yes, sir, that's correct. And do we have data? I just know what was proposed at the time. I don't know if we have data to to see where it is now, but we're not increasing that fee is the point. That is correct, sir. And we projected. That we would receive about $1.6 million. We believe it's trending towards about $2 million of revenue that would come in. Okay, great. We are not proposing an increase in the first responder fee. Right. But we're we're trending a higher amount than we projected. Yes, sir. Okay. And the other I just want to make a comment regarding the heart unit, and that is I just want to put in a perspective that this might be the best resource of funds, but I'm concerned about counsel, cherry picking services. My feeling is that the heart unit is part of a system, a consortium of care, and that's who needs to make the decision. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you for that. That was definitely the best, most concise of the night. Thank you, Councilman Sabrina. Just Chase, I just want to say thank you for your work. Crime is down. Response times are down. We're hiring more cops. We're hiring more firefighters. And you guys are doing a great job. So thank you. Okay, let me go out and take public comment on this issue as what I will also do is, believe it or not, we're still in the last year and we have even started the council meeting. And so what we're going to do is right after this hearing, we're going to go round up public comment for the council meeting and then the full agenda for the actual council meeting. So it's I know it's difficult with all with this timing, so I apologize for that. Mr.. Mr.. Goodhue, obviously the budget public comment on the budget and they're going to go right into public comment for the council meeting. That is correct. And this follows up parenthetically some comments made earlier on a different subject. I'm going to read an email that I sent out to the chief, to the prosecutor and a number of you. So forgive me. As I read it, the specter of such was brought into sharp focus over the last few days. My sense is a close examination will reveal that, notwithstanding the ill served Chief Luna's mantra, if you see something, say something. There are those within his ranks and the dispatch center that do everything they can to discourage people from reporting crimes or reasons for reasons ranging from rank stupidity to laziness adding to the malignancy. The above have found a fellow traveler, in my view, in the Long Beach City Prosecutor, the above tolls to the imperatives of a federal master to oversee Long Beach police and the California Supreme Court's judicial review paradigm. If it is not suspended or revoked the city prosecutors license. It should be noted that the above is separate from the pending U.S. Department of Justice arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. The self inflicted mayor, selfie addicted Mayor Robert Garcia and a bipartisan U.S. circuit rebuked Camilla Harris. So rebuked for the epidemic of corruption. The former Willie Brown squeeze engendered said arrest and imprisoning, flowing from the criminal complicity of Garcia again to Harris's criminal conduct in the violent, wanton intercourse and destruction of Marine Stadium much needed support structure to us. What remains to be seen is if the scope of the federal master purview will include include overseeing the entire city of Long Beach. A close order inspection of the revenue stream from the pen for the pending elections in Long Beach should prove to be instructive. Thank you for the next speaker, please. Time and money. I've been here for five and a half hours. The person to whom I wanted to direct my comments just left this room. It falls under the category of safety. And I think the problem is idea and it's been discussed by the entire council to body cameras is great. It probably would have saved untold tens of thousands of dollars had they been warned on June 26th when one of your council members had an interaction with the police. I think there would be a lot less vague comments with regards to what happened, when it happened, what the timing was, because nobody seems to want to reveal this information. I'm a pharmacist, so I know a little bit about blood alcohol levels and I did a little bit of calculation. Alcohol was excreted from the body at a rate of 15%, 0.15% per hour. If indeed Councilman Pierce had 80 minutes of delay, her levels would have risen to .08 from the .06 that was reportedly measured. That would make her in violation of the law. Most citizens would be picked up. Even at the level she blew at the severely prolonged time in which it was administered. This speaks to the training. It is my understanding that there was a program put in. I believe the training was so that people with the record would be more clearly identified more quickly. But I'd like to speak to the 22 interviews and 300 hours that had to be put in such that the case could be put back to the L.A. district attorney so that it could be explored by the Integrity Committee. Waste. Unbelievable. Waste and cover up. And what a moral canvas for this city. This city. It's just amazing. And I have a great idea for you. On you seem to like to have first responder feet. So let's talk about this one. People call about the homeless all the time. They won't press charges. They won't follow citizen's arrest. And so nothing happens. But if the homeless person manages to collect 24 of those citizen's arrest, then they get to go before the prosecutor, and then they get approximately 5 minutes jail time. The citizens need to know this. I see that. That's red. So I'm assuming I'm cut off. Any pressure. Charge them for it. If you get a call and have somebody come out because you don't like somebody standing on your porch or standing on your edge, your property, or they're over there doing something that you don't like and you won't press charges. Charge him for it. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Hi, Warren. Lisowski. Couple of comments on the budget hearing here. I've got a problem with the overall budget. I Councilperson Mhlongo alluded to this large binder 500 some pages, but I don't feel that the detail there is necessary to really analyze the budget. You know, there's a website that you can click with some charts and stuff, but you really can't click through $100 Million line item here to find out where that money is really going in so many of the different department budgets. There's operating transfers and interphone charges tends to raise hundreds of millions of dollars that citizens don't have access to. So I would propose that this council, in doing their budgets for public review, I don't know if it needs to be brownout compliant that we be able to really click through the budgets and find out where the money's really going. Now, the one area that you can click through is on this the staffing, the the wages and salary charts. And just a comment I had on the fire department. You've got 12 battalion chiefs for $200 million. Sorry, 12 battalion chiefs at $2 Million. Do we need 12 battalion chiefs? I mean, if you cut that number down by just a few, you could go from 29 ambulance operators to easily double that number. And with respect to the Department of Justice's Budget Office, in their 2013 report regarding police, city of an average city spends $279 per year per resident in Long Beach, spending $489 per resident. So I think there absolutely is to echo what Councilperson Price was saying, money in the budget for body worn cameras and the first responder fee. I apologize in my ignorance, this is the first I'm hearing it of this. I was not as vigilant, you know, watching this this body over the last few years as I probably should have been. But I'm really surprised that that type of regressive tax is being charged to somebody in need. We pay property taxes. We pay sales taxes. God forbid somebody breaks something or gets in a car accident. And now they have to be worried about getting billed back $250 to collect $1.4 million of your $3 billion budget. It just really seems abusive and not a good way to raise $1.2 million. Just final thought, is that out of our $3.3 billion budget here, it really seems like only about 500 million that goes towards the general fund really gets discussed in this body. There's vast sums of budget that go through the harbor and the tidelands that I think should have the details that this does also. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker, please. Very angel. I'm speaking right now on behalf of the Jane Addams Neighborhood Association in North Long Beach, and I sent an email to all of you. And basically, we have concerns about crime. I mean, we talk to our police. We have a good relationship with the police. They come and speak to our organization. They tell us what's going on. There's always something going on and they encourage us to call. We go ahead and call. And they said, you know, sometimes we're just not going to be able to make it. We have priorities. And so the priorities are the most difficult crimes. And so the crimes of maybe quality of life or, you know, maybe arguments between neighbors, whatever it might be, I mean, those won't even get addressed because there isn't time to address them. It's only the most critical crimes that are getting addressed. So I think police and fire may be making do, but the truth is, is a lot is getting away from us because we don't have the resources to address them. And I appreciate that they're doing everything they can to make do. But the truth is, it's not enough. And I think the community in the neighborhoods and business deserve more. And I understand it's expensive, but I also know that we spend a lot of money on other things that aren't nearly as critical as public safety. And I think it's important that that we address this. So we're asking, in fact, the neighborhood association is demanding. That we have more. Resources put toward police and public safety for the good to the neighborhoods. I mean, it isn't even safe to drive down the street anymore. We don't do traffic enforcement anymore. I see cars going. Through red lights. Concert. Gently. And that might seem, you know, maybe it's not a big deal. But I tell you, every time a car goes through. A red light, there's. An opportunity for a death and a devastating situation. So we're I don't see that we're even doing traffic enforcement anymore to any great degree. And the fact that we have people living almost caravans still. Along our major corridors. Because there aren't enough people to enforce or because we don't. I know that's being addressed a little bit later tonight. But the fact that. It's been allowed to get to this point is really critical as well. So I'm just hoping that you'll pay attention to the needs of the neighborhoods and maybe it isn't bad or maybe it's improved in parts of town, but considered that maybe in other parts of town it isn't quite as good. And we do need more resources. We appreciate the work that the public safety units are doing, but we need them more than what we have resources for. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening again, Greg. Average Eighth District. First, I would like to thank Council member Marengo for the questions that you asked. You didn't pose it as if everything. Is. Great and I appreciate that because it isn't great. You know, I have two passions in this city and one of them, as you all. Know, is the. Airport, but the other is public safety. I think that the responsibility of our government, whether it's at the federal level, the state level or local, is first and foremost public safety at the appropriate levels. Not at not at the level where the chief has to say, we'll do the best that we can do with what you give us. I think we've gone way past that. That's been the comment that's been set before the council for many years and not making do like Lori just referred to. You know, there's a brief history of back in the 1980s, we had a hiring freeze in the late eighties and crime was on the rise. And there was a they coined the phrase white flight because crime was increasing. People were leaving. Then they had to hire additional cops to make up for that time that they had the hiring freeze and they hired many new officers. Actually, those officers are now a year, maybe two years away from retirement. I know that PD has attrition rates of usually 30 to 35 a year. I would like you to ask, what are those numbers projected for 2018 to 2021? During that time that as I read it, if I read it correctly, the budget projections for 2019 to 2021 are deficits of $10,000,009 million. So what do we do when we get there? Today, we have substations that are closed to the public after spending millions of dollars to bring community policing closer to our residents. Today, we have 200 fewer officers than we did in 2009 to 2012. Today, we have an outdated citywide camera system when we spent millions of dollars to improve community safety. I know that Long Beach PD has taken on a study by the Institute and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I went to one of their two meetings that was held last week. It was poorly attended because it was poorly advertised, but they will return with their recommendations to to the police. And I'm going to guess that. Based on their best principles. They may even say that we're not capable or that we can no longer afford our own police department. He shared what they base their their percentages on, and we don't come close to it. So the more development we have, the more residents we have, the greater needs for visible public safety in our community. Today, Vons made a call. They had a. Man exposing. Himself and terrorizing the women that were taking over the new shift. It took 3 hours for a police officer to get there to the bonds in Bixby Knolls. Code Enforcement. I've been calling for three weeks and I still haven't had a response on a home that's abandoned and taken up by homeless people. So we have a lot of needs. I ask that you look at. Where we. Were with the number of police officers. Back when Mayor O'Neal took over, we were 791. Foster promised 100 more and had to cut. And today we have. 46. Fewer than we did when Mayor O'Neal took office. So please look at those numbers. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm cluelessly and I am from 307 to Knoxville in Long Beach and I'm here to speak on the Planning Commission and the latest appointment to the Planning Commission. I'm a member. So we're going to do that public comment right after the budget. Public comment, which will be right after these gentlemen over here. This is only on the budget. You want me to wait? Yeah, it's only on the budget. And then we'll get to the public comment in a minute. I think, Speaker. Yes, I'm not I really wasn't here to talk about body cameras, but now that you have it, I'm going to get into this thing. Very controversial situation, body cameras. I was here maybe a couple of years ago when you got into it the first time. And I it to me it was an overpriced deal. It was not a deal that you should have got into. There were some free goods involved. There's different things involved here. And it was not as bad as Los Angeles, I'll say that much. And frankly speaking, there are municipalities in this country, you who have litigation trying to break contracts on body cameras. There's been it's very controversial. Prices are ridiculous to the extent of, well, I'll be kind. I won't use certain words, but the charges down the road are going to be humongous and they're going to get worse. And you people have ignored certain things. And in many ways, I stopped trying to do business on security equipment three or four years ago on this with Long Beach. Maybe it's changed now, but I'll just say there are there are ways to overcome the humongous charges that you're going to get with your cloud situation on your present supplier. That's all I'm going to say on on this. I don't I don't want to say the wrong word. Wall Street jeer or jail roll up, uh, a lot of things about some of the scams going on in body cameras. The city of New York has had all kind of litigation. There's litigation all over the place about body cameras and Jim McDonald, I told when he got into office, be it be the last guy in stay away from body cameras as long as you can. And to me, he's the smartest guy around. Thank you. Thank you. Next picture, please. Franklin Sims, fourth District soprano was my councilperson. I just want to say that. I'm very grateful for the work that the police chief and the fire chief are doing. I was very outspoken on Measure A and I was really happy to hear about this report as I was listening that I couldn't help but hear the hypocrisy. And it kind of remind me that this cool guy named Jesus, you guys may have heard of him. And he said. Why are you looking at the mote in your brother's eye but cares not for the beam in your eye? When I look at it, I agree with Powell. I think this is about our kids and making sure that our streets are safe. But I remember talking to Chief Luna about what that meant during those tense discussions about Measure eight. And what he told me was that when he sends his force into. Our. Tough neighborhoods, he said that the first line of protection wasn't a body cam. Wasn't cultural sensitivity or implicit bias. He said the first line was public trust. A lot of people here have reiterated that same claim. As a black man. I'm having a hard time trusting right now because I think that if I was pulled over or stopped at 2:40 a.m.. And I was intoxicated. And a black woman was in the car with me. She was intoxicated. I'm having a hard time believing that I'm going to be. Able to call a friend. This undermines the work that Chief Luna does. This undermines the public trust when his forces go out and they serve a warrant. And to access community, I ask community. Where's the public trust that they're going to get the same sweet deal that happened that early morning? They're going to get that same sweet deal where the police escort them home and the squad car. I want to be able to tell my daughter that maybe her husband's going to get a sweet deal like that one day. But I'm not sure. Appearances matter. Perhaps white. Privilege matters. There is no public trust. If the public can't trust the city council. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And I think that was our last speaker on on the budget. Is there anyone else on the budget? Please think no other speakers on the budget. Okay. Then there's a motion in a second. Of course, the motion is to continue the budget hearing to the next meeting, which will have other departments present. So, members, please cast your votes on the continuation of the hearing. Richardson and Austin. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. We're actually now going to go in to the council meeting. Believe it or not, it is ten 1040. Let me let me name who. If you're here, please let me know. Folks that signed up for public comment.

Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer-review report for the Ocean Boulevard (Bluff) Erosion and Enhancement Phase 2 project. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0485

Yes. Item 25, report from the City Manager Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer review report for the Ocean Boulevard Bluff Erosion Enhancement Phase two Project District three. Coming up. Let's just hold 110, 15 seconds till we get the the group out and we'll start. 38 in an hour. 25, right. Thank you. Okay. Mr. West. Vice mayor, members of the council, Eric Lopez, will provide the staff report in conjunction with the peer review engineers. So I'll now hand it over to Eric Lopez. Thank you, honorable vice mayor and members of the city council. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide information that was requested by the Council on April 29th, including the results of the geotechnical peer review. Before I introduce the lead geotechnical engineer to discuss the peer review results, I will provide some project background and existing condition details . The purpose of the Ocean Boulevard Bluff, Erosion and Enhancement Project is to stabilize portions of the bluff between 20th place and 36th place. The city's engineers have recommended using cylinder drilling technology and a ten colored chocolate phasing there that contains planter pockets. This project also includes improvements to Bluff Park. The original project plans and specifications were originally approved by the Council on July 9th, 2013. The project area consists of two main phases that that can be separated into various sections that have received different levels of treatment. Phase one at the bottom right corner, which is located between Redondo and 36th place, was stabilized with solar panels in Shop Street in 2011. Phase two Area one, which is located on the left hand corner adjacent to the Museum of Art between 20th place and Lin. Darrow has received most of the required selling hours, but no shark creep. Phase two Area two between Temple and or Asaba has received selling hours, and approximately half of the area has received the final shot recoding. The other half has exposed someone else. Phase two, area three between Rosalba and Paloma has received also on hours and the full shot pretreatment and is ready for staining. On April 29th, the city council voted to delay implementation of to delay continuation of the project construction and directed staff to conduct an engineering analysis. Consider all other alternatives to blood stabilization. Advise the Council on Community Improvements that do not involve concrete, and report the results to the Council and to the public. 40 requested peer review. Three independent geotechnical firms were hired to review the project. The committee was led by John Chandra Wood Layton, consultant, who will now discuss the process and results of the review. Thank you, Eric, and good evening. The other two members are Dr. Carol Morley and also Daniel Crandall. They're here as well. We were asked by the city to review, to perform a peer review of the geotechnical reports to verify the selected slope improvements are the preferred method, I'm sorry, and to evaluate feasible alternatives. The subject of our reviews was the to report prepared by Kleinfeld, the geotechnical engineer of record. Along with the two reports we were provided with the construction plans memorandum by the City Manager dated May 13, 2014, and the memorandum by S.A. P.W. A. The slowest look I located in the coastal environment with existing improvement right on top of the slope. Therefore they are parameters that are unique and specific to the site. It's an overview of the provided documents. We understand that grading to flatten the slope is not an acceptable option because grading will move the top of the slope back and will cut into the size of Bluff Park and or it will move the total of the slope out. They will encroach into the beach area. We also understand that retaining wall at the tall or the middle of the slope are not desirable due to a static and cost reasons. Despite being in a seismically active area, we understand that the design of the slope improvements will need to meet the seismic design requirements. We had these parameters in our mind when we performed a review. The summary of findings. The full exploration consisted of 14 borings and three colon penetration testing, and the borings were advanced at the top of the slope as well as at the beach area by the toll of the slope. It is the committee opinions that the full exploration was adequate considering the extent of the project as well as the consistency of the subsurface soils. The sole parameters were selected based on lab testing and also testing in the field. Along with public correlation. Again, it's the opinion of the committee that the SOL parameters are reasonable for the site. The seismic parameters were developed following the guidelines by California Geological Survey and also Southern California Engineering Center. Those parameters are reasonable, and they follow the practice of the County of Los Angeles. We also review the methods approach and the parameters using the slope stability analysis. And we agree with the approach and method and. The report found that portions of the slab had that fact of safety lower than the court. The court requirements and the committee agreed with that findings. We had a factor of safety with the fission kleinfeld recommended for nailing to stabilized the slope. The committee agreed with that finding that some type of deep soil anchor, such as for nails or tiebacks, will be required to improve the static and seismic stability of the slope. Where solariums are installed, the face will be protected with shot. Creating the shot. Will be stained and sculpted. And also provided with plenty of pockets for vegetation growth. Should create a final along with child credit has been commonly used for blood stabilization along the Pacific Coast Highway from Santa monica to San Clemente to San Diego. It is the community's open ended phone, mailing and short clip are appropriate for the site and opportunities to show it is the use of bio technical techniques, which involve using three routes to encode the use of its soil. This option is feasible for the site where create has not been installed and depending on the contour and inclinations of the slopes, the deep rooted vegetation may be implemented with other elements such as steel, wire mesh or timber grids to hold the topsoil and the slope planting. This method, however, is not recommended where it has been installed because it will require remove removal of this shortcut, which it's a tedious process before it is structurally connected to the solid nailing and removal of the shortcut may impact the integrity of the existing soils and also the chocolate is placed places. The poor is fraught directly on the slope phase. So removal of the shortcut work may also take out some of the source that would decrease the stability of the slope. It is the conclusion of the committee that the solar system is an appropriate solution for the project and for the site by the technical techniques may be considered for slope area where Short Create has not been installed but is not recommended in the area where it has been installed. Thank you. Thank you, John. The we have looked at some of the bio technical options and we found a couple of pictures prior to landscaping and after our technical option had been landscape. And we have a couple of pictures included on on this slide. So this is on the top right hand. Hand corner is a steel mesh option and then in the bottom is a fully vegetated bio technical option. We've also included picture of the of a of the shark treats with without any landscaping and without find no staining . And we included a picture of an area that had been created and landscaped. Additional pictures were included were are included in the staff report of before and after scenarios with and without shark creep and landscaping. Mr.. Lopez, just briefly, if you can, to the quick question of once so back the the diving when the from the bottom left that's an of shark treat. That no the bottom bottom the bottom left hand corner is a bio technical vegetated method. Got it. Thank you. And the bottom left hand corner here in this slide is a shot. Create an out and shot treat area with landscaping. With mature landscaping. As discussed in the peer review report and by the by the Geo Technical Committee, there are viable alternatives to short create for areas that currently do not contain financial create. However, these bio technical solutions do require significantly more maintenance. A cost estimate for those for those areas are listed on Slide 13. For phase two, area one that currently has most of the required selling hours but no shot create an estimate. The estimated cost to install a bio technical alternative is 1.04 million for this for the portion of phase two Area two that currently does not have final shot create. The estimated cost to install a geo technical alternative instead of 683,000. The total estimated cost to remove all existing chocolate and install a bio technical alternative is estimated between 9.8 and 11.5 million, and the breakdown between the removal of concrete and the installation of a bio technical alternative is listed on the slide. The timeline. If a biotech the treatment were to be selected would be between seven and nine months to go through. From design and engineering to implementation. The duration of construction has yet to be determined. If the existing Shah were to be removed to install a bio technical option that would require 9 to 12 months to complete the duration of construction is also estimated to increase, but that time has not been determined. The timeline to complete the project per existing plants and specifications will require one month to re mobilize and and another month to complete our remaining major construction. What an anticipated completion date of August 29, 2014. If the Council would like to explore the option of sloping the bluff by extending onto the beach or bluff park, the timeline to design and implement the option assessment is estimated to take 14 to 23 months. In addition to community concerns with impacting the beach or Bluff Park, the city's local coastal program requires that bluff stabilization measures should be designed to cause minimum encroachment on existing sand areas. And that's a reference to page two to page two. That's 29 and the local coastal program. Options to complete the project include proceeding with existing plans, improving landscaping and finishing park improvements to finishing shock weed wearing complete improving landscaping, finishing park improvements and evaluating botanical solutions for Phase two Area one three Removing shot, create and starting bold technical alternatives for an entire bluff or for starting additional alternatives that may not have been considered today. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the by the geotechnical engineering committee led by John Chandra with Leighton, a rural and Daniel with Earth Mechanics and Delta. They have played they have committed such this time, significant time in order to assist the city and council in compiling this report . That concludes that I recommend a staff presentation. Okay. Mr.. Was that complete? Yes, sir. Okay. I should like. To just go to the public. Sure. Let's go ahead and open up in the public comment on the item. So as you come forward, please make sure that you identify yourself for the record. Good evening, council members. I'm Mel Nutter. And before I get started, I do have a memo that some of you may already have seen. And I just want to make sure that you all have a copy. Knowing that my time is undoubtedly limited, I want to refer to notes which usually I prefer not to do. But I want to say that on December 21st of 2009, the city gave notice that the zoning administrator would hold a hearing on this particular application for a coastal development permit for the Bluff Park Project. And in February of this year, there was a request under your Public Notice or Public Records Act requirements for a copy of that permit, as well as the plans associated with it. And unfortunately, your staff was unable to come up with what we were looking for. And instead we ultimately obtained a copy of much of that from the Coastal Commission where a notice was provided to them about the action taken on December 21st of 2009. And I mention that because there are a variety of conditions we found in that documentation, including an indication that certain plans had had been approved. And we've never been able to locate those plans, nor apparently has anybody at the city, as far as we can tell, are at the Coastal Commission. And in that connection, one week after the zoning administrator acted on this coastal development permit, there was a an engineering report. It was labeled preliminary or draft, but it did not talk about Short Creek at all. It talked about some of the other ways of dealing with stabilizing the bluff. And I can only speculate that whatever the plans were that were submitted to the zoning administrator and where the subject of that permit action, in fact did not include shot, create the memo that I've provided you and I seem about running out of time if you're strict about that. The memo I provided indicates, as did your staff, that in spite of the fact that your consulting firm or the peer review group did an admirable job of dealing with the issues, given the constraints that were provided. Thank you. We're going to leave. We believe that if you take a careful look at that memo that I've distributed, you will see that it's quite possible for there to be some encroachment on the beach, if that's a better way of dealing with this. Thank you, Bill. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Hi. Gabrielle Weekes, Sierra Club. Hi, Al. Long time no see. I was just hounding him this afternoon about something else, so this sign pretty much says it all. Let's. Let's take our time and get it right. The neighborhood associations were shown drawings of something that was mostly plants to stabilize the bluffs the way it had been. I've lived in Long Beach for about 15 years, and that's been stabilized by plant the whole time I've lived here. The Sierra Club is out there once a week with a regular hike that we've had since the eighties. That goes up and down that and I'm there out there early in the morning. So, I mean, I've never seen chunks of dirt fly loose or anything I can understand. Maybe one has shored up a little bit with some new plants, but we're absolutely confused by why the whole thing looks like a target parking lot at an angle. But let's take our time and get it right. There's been a lot of damage done. There's a lot of cement and pins and steel plates. And, you know, and thank you, by the way, for actually giving us a price on how much to remove all that. I think it was horrible mistake. I don't know anybody who says, yeah, lots of cement. Our beach looks like the monitor or the Merrimac. Maybe we will have to spend the big bucks to remove all that, but at least let's take our time and get something right. And maybe we decide that this is that the GEO staff needs more supervising so that we don't accidentally spend 9 million on shock treat that nobody meant to be there. It is sturdy and that's great, but it was pretty sturdy before. So I don't understand why we've got like the, you know, Civil War bunker going on there, but let's take our time and get it right, because this thing will last for 20 or 50 years. And if we spend more money removing all that ugly stuff before teenagers graffiti it, well, maybe that's what we do, because it's going to be there for many, many years. And that's what we've hinged our tourism on. Tourists aren't going to come to hang out and spend money at something that looks like Attica. Making. Gabrielle next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Seamus and I'm a licensed civil engineer in the state of California. I live in the fourth district and I have property in the second district. I'm the vice chair of the Long Beach chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and the Lummis chapter thinks the alternative is horrible. We need to pull it out and pretty much follow alternative for option number four. So there are alternatives. And I got a little bit ahead of myself. I wanted to start off with Go Team USA 2018. We'll come round next time. Okay. So one recommendation is to finish as much work as you possibly can that doesn't involve concrete and demobilize all that equipment off the beach so we can study the alternatives for the concrete removal while we can finish everything else and just make the beach not look like a construction zone. Another recommendation I recommend for you guys is to get the stakeholders involved in some sort of stakeholder workshop because there's a lot of plans and details that you guys don't need to be involved with, with, and the stakeholders are happy to spend their time getting into it and all the little options and alternatives. And this concept about the stakeholders don't want an alternative extending out onto the beach. I don't know what stakeholders they're talking about, but some of the people right here are perfectly happy with that alternative. The peer review is flawed due to the narrow scope. If you can go to the second slide on that on this slide up here, can we go back to the different slides? The second slide is up there. Whoever is in charge of that? No. All right. Well, the city council has to ask the the staff to do a peer review of all alternatives before they scope the peer review. Most of the alternatives were wiped out and not even considered. So if you need a peer review, have them go back and do it again. I disagree with as a licensed civil engineer, I disagree with the conclusions of that peer review. The conclusion said that because it's going to be expensive and because it's going to be damaging to remove the shock to the existing soil, then you shouldn't do it. Well, that's not a good reason not to do it. We all knew it would be expensive and time consuming and damaging to the existing soil. And if you're going to rebuild the bluff in some way, you're probably going to have to damage the existing soil. So those are givens and that's not a reason not to remove the shot. Cory, thank you for your time. Next Speaker Hello, my name is David Revell. I'm a coastal geomorphologist and was the lead author on the essay. P.W. A Report. On April 29th, I presented to the City Council on a range of bio technical stabilization alternatives. I've said that I was here to work with the city to try and come up with some alternatives. I promptly followed up with Mr. Lopez with two of the three peer review committee members, and I followed up with a report two weeks later which was submitted to the city looking at a wide range of alternatives. In that report, we also raised nine questions for consideration by the geotechnical committee. None of them were addressed or answered in the by this committee. These questions ranged from the potential size of a catastrophic landslide, the inclusion of the existing seawall and the slope stability analysis and the angle of repose related to the geologic unit that this block is made up of. After review of the report, I noticed that several of the alternatives were included. I heard in the presentation that the by the vegetation stabilization was actually considered feasible, and however, the big missing piece was the slope regrading and slope stabilization caused by recreating a stable slope and apparently was precluded for the same reason that it was not considered by the Kleinfeld to report. The Kleinfeld to report was specifically told not to look at regrading because of this concern about going out on to the beach, a decision not to include construction of an additional wall was the cost in esthetics. Can we regrade this slope? Technically, absolutely. We've done it in many places and engineers do that a lot. The bluffs of Long Beach have evolved over time. The once wave attacked cliffs have been sheltered from waves. The artificial sand fill has been placed to widen the beach. And as that cliff has gradually retreated, we've started to get closer to an equilibrium angle of stability. This natural process would have given us this free, constructed, stable angle if we had just given it time. And that has obviously not been the case we've now injected in an urban environment. We need engineering and we need some partners to make sure we get the plants and the slope stable now. In my professional opinion, there are several technical alternatives for stabilizing this bluff. We absolutely need to consider slope regrading and slope stabilization. We can achieve a lot with that. I don't think that either the KLINEFELTER report or the peer review committee was given the freedom to look at that alternative in earnest. And I think that is what city staff should be directed to do and to provide another option in the suite of stabilization tools. Thank you. Hi. I'm Will Collin. I live on Loma Avenue. We greatly appreciate the opportunity given to. The community during this temporary pause in. Construction. We've been busy researching records, contacting other cities about how they've resolved similar issues and putting together alternatives for our bluffs. With that in mind, I'm here to support the council directing staff to do two things. First, continue the pause on the bluff stabilization until all alternatives can be compared. No more work on the short creek, no more piecemeal. Work on repairing the revegetation. Failures of Phase one and two staff should put together a complete list of alternatives for bluff, stabilization, revegetation, and then do a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits. And staff should provide the community a way to participate in the analysis so that options for cost savings and assurances for final successes are fully vetted prior to spending any more money. Second. Contract contractors and renegotiate a modification of the contract. We'd like to see work on the Bluff Park complete as soon as possible, and we understand this may require some temporary handrails that can be removed when the bluff work starts again and maybe some time. Other than that, modifications can be made to that contract. But we think that there are ways to do this that will allow public use of the park on schedule. And we hope that the city attorney can negotiate a contract modification that keeps the crew working while the city figures out what to do with the Stuff Revitalization Project. Now it's clear to everyone that mistakes were made prior to the permit getting approved. We do not believe that there was any intentional wrongdoing. But telling the engineers from KLINEFELTER to upgrade the slope was prohibited by the Coastal Commission was wrong. This is not prohibited by the city's LPC or the Coastal Act and telling the peer review team to also omit any consideration of that alternative is just repeating the error. So we do not know who asked the Coastal Commission for that opinion or what the Coastal Commission said. But we know that the that the beach fill is not only allowed for for bluff stabilization, it was anticipated when the LCP was adopted and if the city told the Coastal Commission it. Wasn't necessary because there was an. Alternative that didn't require beach fill, that would also be wrong. The alternative of short Crete is prohibited in the Coastal Act. Finally, if the community is allowed to contribute to that comparison of all the alternatives, we believe that we can find innovative ways to reduce costs for all the necessary repairs. We appreciate the opportunity, given the community during this pause, and we look forward to bringing our ideas on how to fix the mistakes to this point. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Great. Good evening. As City Council vice mayor. Temporarily. My name is Gordon a cager and live at 235 Loma and thank you very much for bringing this subject back to City Council. Thank you. For those of you who participated in the special session at the end of April for making this happen, I'm also very happy to tell you that I've been renominated to the city's Sustainable City Commission, and I'm honored to represent the third District. I'd like to very briefly finish Mel Nutter's comments. This was something that he was prevented from speaking about as a result of the time constraints. I'd like to read specifically a paragraph that he was not permitted to to say because of the time. What we can say is that a Kleinfeld or engineering report dated a week after the December hearing describing slope stability techniques that did not include the use of shock create. This is back in December of 2009 because shark creep was not being considered then. Presumably the approved plans did not provide for the shock treatment suggested later. Is that is the case? The work currently performed appears to be unpermitted and in violation of your LCP requirements. I'm here to ask specifically two things this evening. I'd like your assistant assistance to direct staff tonight to finish the Bluff Park Project. The residents of the city deserve their park back. The Bluff Park residents deserve their park back. We can finish the sidewalk. We can finish the handrails. We can do the lawn. We can do the irrigation and finish the construction. Separate that project from what's happening on the bluff, please. It's a whole different project, whole different constraints. We should finish the park fast, and we should do the Bluff Erosion Project much more slowly. Secondly, I think it's very, very reasonable to request a cost benefit analysis, a feasibility study, and stop me if this sounds too eco terrorism or unreasonable. But this is a very complex project. You've just had numbers prod up to you in public that no one has had an opportunity to look at independently. Have we had a competitive bid put out? Do we know what it costs to remove shot create? By the way, when I did construction at my house and I got to do demo and my new kitchen is going in, I use the same company who's doing the new construction to do the demolition of the old work. That's what saves costs. And if you're interested in saving money on this project, please consider directing staff to more competitive notions of how to cost these kinds of projects to benefit the community. Please slow down. Cool your jets. There's no hurry here. We're looking for a long term solution to a problem that's been decades in the making. And there's no reason to do this fast. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Sydney Simon. I live in Belmont Heights and I'm a property owner in Alamitos Beach. First of all, I want to reiterate that whatever we do, we've got it forever, certainly as long as any of us are going to be around here. So I say let's slow down and not rush to judgment. We've been given the impression that these concrete walls are going to be covered with plants. But I actually really question the utility of these planter pockets. They measure about two feet by two feet. They are they are laid on a in a cement wall that South facing that's got the sun beating down on it every single day. And I just question how legitimate the growth, the promise of lush growth is that it's going to be coming out of there. I don't actually even know of a project that has successfully used planter pockets. Another thing that I'm really worried about as it's configured now and even what the peer review suggested. It sounds to me like a patchwork of solutions and there isn't any kind of consistent design that's going to get to bring the whole thing together, and that's just a recipe for disaster. So I propose absolutely separating the park from the bluff finish the park. The neighborhoods would be so indebted if we could finish the park, get the irrigation going, and then address the bluff. Then consider the costs and alternatives to removing the shock rate, flattening the slope for erosion and seismic control and revegetated with carefully selected native plants. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Isaac Waxhaw and I live on First Street in Bluff Park. First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think it's possible to separate the park from. From the bluff. I've seen this construction going on, and whenever they work on the bluff, the park is not accessed, accessible. Not to my point. This Council approved plans and specifications for the Bluff Corrosion and Enhancement Project not once, but twice. The second. Time. Was a year and a half after the first project was completed and you voted to continue it. A vote to change this project from the existing plan is you approved twice is telling us. That you made a mistake. Twice. A multimillion dollar mistake. And he waited for for many years until the project was weeks from completion. Three weeks to stop and admit. Your costly mistake? I don't think so. I don't think so many of us. And I think it's really most of us feel that you showed good judgment when you voted for the first time and again when you voted for it the second time. The 2010 report explains in great details why the existing plan is right. I read the entire report and it makes a lot of sense to me. I also spoke to some experts about it, too. Four years later, we have a new report. Concluding that the first report was correct. Let's finish the project. You approved a plan to ensure people that your decisions were right. And let's get it finished real soon. And please, let's not waste any more money. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Council and vice mayor. My name is Elise McConaughey. I live in El Ninos Beach neighborhood. I really appreciate the council taking the time to stop and look at this and stop this from moving forward. I have to agree with or disagree on a multitude of levels with the last speaker, except for the fact is that the decisions of the council, I believe, were based upon inaccurate information that was given to you. So I do not fault the Council with this. I do agree that they could be broken up and that we could finish the bluff, we could fix the sidewalks, install the handrails and get our park back. Second, I believe that we need to take the time and do a feasibility study on the bluff and really take a look at some of our alternatives with costs and benefit to help the Council to make an informed decision. This means considering all of the erosion control options. Unfortunately, due to budget challenges, we had lost some of the key folks that had been involved originally with this project in the initial discussions. I believe that there was vital information that was lost and that did not get communicated to the new focal people. Let's not be in a hurry. Our City Council has spearheaded a lot of new and great ideas. There has not always been the most popular choices from plastic bags to bike lanes and parklets. But let's also be honest too. Those were easy fixes. If they didn't work out, we could repaint. We can move a pot. This is not the same thing. This, unfortunately, is something that's going to be with us forever. And we don't want to regret it. So please, please us, do the right thing and let's stop and look at all of our options on the bluff. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Alex Monti. I live at First Street in Molino. In Bluff Park, and like many of my neighbors in Bluff Park, I'm in favor of finishing the project. Under the current design, experts have drawn attention to the risk involved in removing the shot created at this point. Well, if as a result, we maintain the shot create and the other remediation methods which have already been used in place, and add yet another erosion control by a technical restraint system we heard about. We are. Changing our bluff into a showroom of erosion control techniques available for other people to select from. And this is not what we're looking for. We do not want to become a showroom for others. We have made, we believe, the right decisions, given the fact that we live in a seismically active area and. We are weeks from completing the. Project. I ask that you maintain the project. In place and completed. As designed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. I have a handout for you folks because I'm a slow speaker. So if I get cut off, I'd like you to finish reading my comments. They continued. Mayor, vice mayor. Soon to be mayor, council members and staff. My name was having this single hardest and I lived in the Black Park Historic District. As long time residents, my husband and I are equally disappointed and frustrated with the chain of events leading up to the current state of affairs. Since the mid 1970s, many of us in the neighborhood have been requesting that the erosion issue that the projects with the park condition be addressed. In the year 2000, many give us participated in said it sponsored to workshops came monthly with the impression natural solution was to be implemented. There was never anything said about Shaqiri on page ten of the 2000 report. Ken Public entities such as the Park Association and the Alameda Speech Association were listed as parties of consultation. I do not recall any additional public hearings, workshops or presentations regarding this topic to any neighborhood association in a specific purpose of caring for a local coastal development. Permanent here of five 1412 regarding the Bixby Park left portion also also only also listed on the same page, known regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Corps, Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services were listed as being anticipated to be involved. My question is, were they? I'm page 34. The 2010 crime failed to report. It stated that the city has selected so I want a chart crate facing page 38 report talks about the need for what appears to be a complicated drainage system which without which lead to adventure loss facing along with greater damage to the bluff has the drainage system currently installed at the over appropriate chart proving it is my experience so eager that once city works with public organizations, the outcomes are infinitely better. Third recommendation to separate out the completion of part from activations but fair approach and stabilization projects make sense to me. Give the park. I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish up. I want to you know that I know the last paragraph, so I just couldn't finish it. I think if. And it gives back to the to those who want to use it in a timely manner. And if there's no time to come up with a more appropriate solution to the black problem, using a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives available for observation and control to. This will be a legacy of yours for future generations. Thank you. Thank you, Helen. Next speaker, please. Hi. Sorry. I turned to be too loud. My name is Jenny, and I'm a resident of the edge of the second and sixth District. And I just wanted to start out by saying thank you to the first, second, fourth and sixth District for park improvements and green initiatives. In my neighborhood, we just got trees put in along 10th. Last year we had Craftsman Park installed and there's ongoing redevelopment and fixes at MacArthur Park. I've been a very active member of the O.C. seven neighborhood Group since it founded in 2012, and I've been a member of Surfrider since the mid 1990s. I'm going to try not to repeat everybody else's concerns, but I have a few things that I want to bring up that I haven't heard yet. Just talking about the green initiatives. One of the biggest things, the last big group that was here that spoke, they were really pushing the tourism and the aquatic capital of the world or the West Coast or the city slogan. It was really, really important to them. I was disappointed to see them leave. The more of them didn't stay for this issue because we are talking about the same area. But I just want to present is this a postcard that we'd really be proud to see? Welcome to Long Beach. And we've got to pay a bluff. The L.A. River, they're huge initiatives, part of L.A. County to unpaved because it's more natural, it's healthier, it provides more greenspace, it reduces runoff. All the other things that we're talking about, wetlands and dune restoration here, do we really want to have a pay bluff? We keep talking about the price, how expensive it is. We have one single quote that was 9.8 million to 1.5 million. Is it really going to be cheaper in 20 years? Do we really expect it to have a 20 year lifespan? What are the additional costs? What if it fails underneath? That was an address the last time we did discuss it. And also if there's any upkeep and repainting and also replanting because we haven't discussed whether there's an irrigation system as part of it and what if that fails underneath. Also, anything that's cemented will increase the runoff and the erosion of the beach. So there may be additional costs. I know that was a consideration with the local coastal plan when we were talking about putting in parts tonight an additional 167,000 in restaurant, restroom improvements and other path related expenses were approved. We're going to be building things that people are going to walk along the path and look at at a concrete barrier. And as a resident of Long Beach, a fifth generation Californian, I support everybody else that is asked to separate the park and the restoration. Projects there from. The bluff. It makes sense if we're looking at a redesign in re slope implemented in 18 to 24 months. That doesn't sound unreasonable considering that this plan has been 16 years in the making. Thank you very much. Thank you, Speaker. Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and members of the Council. My name is Kobe Sky. I'm a registered civil engineer in California who works in environmental engineering for the county of Los Angeles. And I'm a resident of the second District. I won't repeat some of the great comments that were already presented about how important this issue is. Obviously, people are very passionate because this is the heart of our city. It's so important to our economic development and our enjoyment of our beach. So I'll just focus on what we hope to take away from this issue, and that is that we definitely need more transparency and information sharing with the residents so that they can participate in this process. I think that you've heard from residents in Long Beach and in the area that have amazing expertize that they can learn and provide and they want to share. And we've had several cases recently where we don't have the full information about a project until it's moved along to close to the end of the process. And then residents are alarmed and concerned and there is definitely a better way where we can engage, are great resources in this city and have them participate and be happy with the product. And I know that a lot of of you like that model better. And this is a great opportunity for us. We have work that we can have the company finish to get our park back while taking the time to, you know, essentially get this right or as right as we can, given the resources we have. So I hope the city council will do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Survivor, and I live in Belmont Heights. I'm an environmental consultant and I've worked on Coastal Act enforcement for many years, and I have experience with coastal farming projects up and down the coast. So I offer to help the community as a volunteer by researching the documentation leading up to this project, as well as suggesting other cities to contact about cost effective alternatives to shore crude. As I told you in April, it was clear to me at the beginning that mistakes were made in choosing this short, crude alternative. I know from experience the Coastal Commission would never approve this project, and I confirmed in consultation with Mel Nutter that contrary to what the community and the engineers were told, your local coastal program does allow grading and beach fill for this specific site. I have to tell you, it's somewhat unusual for LCP is to be that specific. So it's troubling. The city management misinterpreted the law and eliminated the cheapest and best answer alternative from the beginning. And now in the peer review, I discovered something else in my research that I've been reluctant to share with the community, but I think you need to know what it is before we make a decision. After months of repeated requests, city management of city management has been unable to produce a coastal development permit for this project. They've given us a notice for a zoning administrator hearing in 2009 to adopt the CDP. But there's no record of the hearing nor the CGP under consideration. We got conditions of approval with reference to the CTP and project drawings, but not the CTP on the drawings. We got communication from the Coastal Commission about the CTP, but it didn't include the CTP. Really, I think we've got an every scrap of paper about the creepy except the permit itself and the approved drawings. Further, if this permit was issued in December of 2009, why did the city have Clint and Felder finish a report on the alternatives in 2010? Look, if there was irregularities in the permit or the permit can't be found, the city may be vulnerable to a cease and desist order, but it's important to see exactly what was what was permitted. Before you. Decide what to do now. And here's a really important point. The community is offering to work with the city management in a constructive and cooperative effort to fix both phase one and phase two. I think you should take them up on that offer. Don't do it just because there's a. Potential for an enforcement action and a cease and desist order. Do it because the community is genuine in their quest to find. Solutions. To it, because it's the right thing to do. Do it because this project can be a proud legacy. From this generation to the next. You can restore and beautify the natural bluffs. You didn't have to arm of the bluffs and then try to make them look natural. Natural solutions were available, available in 2009, and those alternatives are still available now. I think you've got to wrap it up. Okay. I'm going to quit there. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Hi. Thank you. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Roger Faruqi. I live in the Bluff Park community in the neighborhood. I work for a large general contracting company in Los Angeles. I'm very familiar with building large projects that involve doing slope stabilization and have examined the reports on the project and read them very carefully. It's very apparent to me that there are a couple of solutions to this. One is to regrade and one is to come up with some kind of structured solution to it. In my opinion, I had heard in when this project was being restarted or done something about two and a half years ago, I was pretty excited that we were actually going to do something with it. I walk the park on a regular basis and it's very disturbing to me that it had gotten to the delirious, dilapidated condition that it was in. It was very frustrating for me to walk into one of the most prime parks in the whole city and have it be so in bad disrepair. And it was obvious to me that one of the reasons it was in disrepair is that there's not a great foundation for it. We needed to do something to stabilize the slope there, either regrade it or reinforce it. I think that's been pretty clear in all of the reports, including the peer report recently done, that those that needed to be done in order to be able to maintain a park there. It's my belief that the solution that was put forth is a reasonable one. The we have a lot of people here that want to villainize concrete on the face of that or short creek. I want to point out that the reason that is a bluff and the nature of it is, is that there are loosely or in the original report, KLINEFELTER describes it as weakly cemented soils. What we basically have there is a bluff with very weak concrete on it, naturally. And all we're doing is making it stronger. I want to make that point. It's very frustrating to me that we've gotten that this has been delayed, that we're spending extra money with it. I really want to see the park finished. I think you should implement the program that you have put in place. Finish the park if you'd like to restudy regrading it. You can certainly grade over the top of this stabilization and it'll certainly be very strong if that was done. Anyway, I'm done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. And before we speak, is there any other speakers? I'm going to cut off the speakers list. Casey None. To the gentleman behind, you'll be the last speaker. Good evening. My name is Alan Ross. I've lived in the bluff now for six years, so I'm kind of a newcomer to all of this. But I'm not a partizan, as so many people here. I'm just someone who sat back and watched you. You had two reports. You acted on them. You built what you've built. I'm not going to sit here and say that. I think the shot is the most esthetically beautiful thing I've ever seen. But it's okay and it seems to work. I haven't heard one thing tonight that would indicate that it doesn't work. You stopped the project, you spent money. You had engineers come in and look at it again. And I didn't hear one word that says what you did doesn't work. So as a resident, I would like to see you finish this project. We're being told that it would be $11 million to take this out. And someone suggested that Mr. Parkin could cleverly renegotiate the terms and get it cheaper. I don't want to see you spend $8 million or $7 million to do this. Take your money. Spend it on something worthwhile. But you've you've run this project all the way to the end. No one is saying it doesn't work. And I think you should finish it. Thank you. Thank you. Your last speaker on the item. Sir. Good evening. My name is Andrew Virtue. I'm a resident of Belmont Plaza, adjacent to the bluff. I've lived in Long Beach since 1989, and I'm a professional landscape designer based here in Long Beach, California. And I use the bike path a lot in the bluff. And I have to say I hate the shot create. I think it's ugly, but as many people do. But I also can see the potential practicality of of it as some the last people have said, considering the fragile crumbling nature of a bluff and bluffs do tend to crumble down into the ocean over time. So I I'm not going to offer any expertize as far as whether or not the shark creed is the best idea. I do like the idea of exploring whether there are other solutions for the remaining area that hasn't yet been covered with concrete. But I have one piece of very practical advice, I think, which is Ice Plant addressing one of the earlier people who spoke about what could be put in the planter pockets that would actually cover the concrete. And it's very unsexy. It's very odd. Glamorous. It's not fashionable, but it actually can grow to up to 160 feet in diameter from a single plant. We see it all over Southern California. It's not native, unfortunately, but it really does do the job of covering slopes. It will grow in foggy, salty, coastal conditions. It will tolerate hot, scalding sun on a concrete bluff. And it's the only plant that I know of in the world. It's actually Latin name is Capo Broadus at Dulles. It's an ugly name for sort of an ugly plant, but it really will cover a hot, scalding hot bluff that's covered in concrete. And if the shark remains and if that's what has to be there in order to keep the bluff from falling down, even though it's not a native, it's not exciting, it's not glamorous and it's not fashionable. I think it's very practical and we should look at what actually grows versus some of the earlier landscaping projects that were done, exotic things that were put on the hillside that all failed. And we ended up with a crisscross of white PVC, plastic irrigation pipes and a lot of weeds adjacent to the staircases. And the unglamorous ice plant is one of the few things that really will grow and hopefully would cover some of the concrete. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the public comment. I have a couple of councilmembers, Councilmember DeLong and Councilman Bishopsgate. Thank you. After our last speaker, somebody needs to get Gordon on Advil or adult beverage, one or the other. But, you know, to my colleagues, let me just say that, you know, you're going to miss me while I'm gone when you don't have these stimulating and exciting projects before you on a regular basis. Start with that. You know, as you know, we've you know, obviously, it's been a bit of a divisive issue in the community, particularly recently, I think just this evening. We have experts on both sides that recommended completely different approaches. And accordingly, I think that some compromise is in order here and to try and thread the needle and see if we can make everybody as happy as possible or at least equally unhappy. As we go forward and we'll find out the outcome. You know, certainly looking back and hindsight being 2020, I do agree. I think that a different approach clearly could have been taken with this project or just even starting with something simple like finish phase one before moving on to phase two, because we really don't know how this will end up looking like. But had we finished phase one, finished the irrigation, finish, the landscaping, it might look just great. And we wouldn't be here tonight because the community would be looking at it and saying, yeah, you know, that that that actually turned out okay. Let's continue on that with that process. But unfortunately, we don't know that. So what I'm going to recommend is my motion is very similar to the staff's second alternative. And what that is, is that, first of all, to move forward expeditiously with the work on the top park portion of the bluff and any other infrastructure improvements regarding the railings, sidewalks, etc., let's get that finished as quickly as we possibly can. Secondly, as you know, although the the peer review studies do support shot create is a viable option for bluff stabilization. We've we've heard that several times, particularly from the peer review committee. They've also indicated that other options are viable as well, potentially. So we would ask staff that on the portions that have not been shot created to go look whether it's geo grid or whatever those other appropriate alternatives are, let's take a look at that and see if there's a better solution on a going forward basis. In regards to the shot create, I think we should finish what we started with. I do agree with the gentleman whether we can negotiate down from 10 million to 9 million or 7 million. It's still a tremendous amount of money for the city to do that. Again, I think we could have done it differently perhaps in the beginning, but sometimes you are where you are. So I think we need to finish with the short creek. We need to finish getting it stained. We need to get the irrigation here. We get it. We need to get it landscaped. I will also ask staff that as the alternatives are being considered, meet with the local bluff part and Neighborhood Association and perhaps others to keep them updated. The progress so that as we move forward, this is a project that the community feels that they're a partner in every step of the way. And in addition to the city council and that's my motion. Second Councilmember Chips Lipski. One of my concerns is the I think it point's been brought up twice tonight. And I have this city attorney and city manager on this is to the difficulty that residents had when they asked. They did a public records request and lo and behold, there's a missing permit, which obviously, if we didn't have it permit, it could . Subject. The city to have an enforcement action, and we may have to take the Shot Creek out anyway. So I would ask what happened with the permit? Why hasn't it been able to be disclosed in the public records? Do we do we have a permit that you could share with us tonight? Give copies to everybody? Eric Lopez We do we do have a local coastal permit on file. That's that clearly lays out the special conditions of approval. That permit has been provided. We can distribute copies and put a copy of it on the website as well. Eric and. In all due respect, I have their packet that they received as a public records request. It's not in the packet. They wouldn't have stood here and made these allegations if they had received that. Councilmember It's in the incident. The projects are construction specifications and it was. It was out. It was you may have it, but was it provided as part of the request for the Public Records Act? Response is apparently not. I'm not sure if it was provided, but we do have it and we can provide it. Mr.. And who who's responsible for responding and Public Records Act requests. I believe the channel through the city manager's office. Okay, Mr. West. So the reason they didn't get a copy of this. I didn't see that public records request. We certainly will get back to you and see whether we got it and why it wasn't provided and whether it was or not. Well, but if if we could if we could indulge just for a moment with Mr. Nutter, since he has talked with the Coastal Commission as well, they apparently don't have a copy either. Well, you've heard we have a copy and well. You may have a copy, but we've got some serious allegations. And I really understand the public coming and saying, listen, you approved it. Get going, finish it off. But if there are some serious allegations being made here tonight that this may be unpermitted work and that the shot was not presented and that decisions were made, so if they didn't get a copy and most of the commission doesn't have it, then can we get a response about what's going on here? Yes, we have we have the permit. Will you have at the council? We have we have the permit. And the issue that you're talking about is whether or not a pre was sent and whether we responded appropriately to the APRA. I don't know that and we will investigate that immediately tomorrow. Well, Mr. Russell, I'll get you a copy of it because you need a copy. We'll get them a copy. As well, sir. Well, if the council. Would indulge, could Mr. Nutter just because he was cut off, he was handling things, could he just comment about his interactions about this issue? Because this these are serious allegations, folks. This goes to the heart of the argument that the residents are arguing about is you made a decision and apparently the documentation isn't there. Could Mr. Nutter address what he was told? If you have a question, Mr. Nutter. Could you could you address what you were told? Yes. I was told that staff could not at the city council at City Hall find anything other than the initial application and a notice of the hearing for December 21st, 2009. As I tried to explain in my earlier comments, I was able to obtain some additional information from the Coastal Commission, which, in fairness to your staff, does indicate some of the conditions that apparently were attached to that permit. But but that's the scary. Part of it. Is that one of the one of the points was that there were approved plans. Haven't seen them. Don't know where they are. And I'm a little concerned that if all we're going to see are a series of conditions that reference some other documents that actually reflect what the project has described to the zoning administrator was in December of 2009 that we don't have a complete picture package, and I'm not sure whether Mr. Lopez is referring to a few pages of conditions that reference approved plans that we have not seen. And I don't know whether he's got those. So in addition to the permit, are the plans available? We'll certainly look tomorrow and see what's been provided and what's been asked for. Yes. So we're talking about a plan. Well, because the plans the plans are very important about the permit, because the plans set out what was requested, obviously, in the permit. And so all I can say, they will investigate tomorrow. I'm not sure who Mr. Nutter talked to or what staff members replied. All I can say is we're taking this in. We're writing notes. We're paying attention. We'll respond tomorrow. Okay. Well, then I'd like to make a substitute motion that we we lay this over for the new city council so that the appropriate documentation can be provided to the council. Cape motion dies. Councilman Alonzo. Told you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I wanted to thank the community for coming out and certainly engaging us in this effort. It is certainly worthwhile. I think most of you that are here in the audience were part of the initial group that came forward with your concerns and having read and reviewed what the peer review group has come forward with, and I appreciate that process as well, where you were involved in ensuring that the selection of the group was amenable and agreeable to those of you that are very interested. I am in agreement with Councilmember DeLong, who had articulated, while this is not perhaps the most esthetically pleasing option, we have spent money going down this road. It is an option that was validated by a group of experts as an option that's acceptable. I do wish we had finished our phase one, as Mr. DeLong said, prior to multitasking and and starting. But I think that in in earnest is because we wanted to complete this project long overdue as as quickly as possible and ensure that we revealed progress along the path. But having said that, I will support continuing with what we have right now and looking at the alternatives as the motion, such as the motion called for looking at alternatives for the remainder of the project. I have a question for staff, Mr. City Manager or or your designee in terms of the contractor that's currently doing the work would. Perhaps as a city attorney. QUESTION Do we have to take any extra measures for considering alternatives for the remainder of the project? Well, the consideration. Of. The remainder, I guess it depends. I mean, the depending on what the alternative that the council wants to go forward with, could either one be a change order to an existing agreement with our existing contractor? Or if it's such a significant change, a departure from what was planned, then there may be a rebid requirement, but until those options come before us, we couldn't give you a concrete answer. Okay. Well, I appreciate the. Thank you. Thank you so much, along. With all my questions been answered. Thank you. Karen Braxton. Thank you. And I want to thank everybody for coming out. Certainly learned more about bluffs than I ever thought. I know tonight. I do have a question regarding the motion. Does it need to be date specific in terms of when the options should come back to the Council? Mr.. Brown. Well, I think there was looking at the presentation for a period of time that said it would take to look at the alternatives. To step one coming in. In 2 to 3 months or something. As I recall, I heard to look at whether there are alternatives that are feasible. So just to clarify, to come back with alternatives on the two areas that have been soil nailed but not shot created. So we would like the ability to talk to the contractor and engage with the community and look at what. The the. Whether it's a bio technical alternative or a landscaping alternative, then get back. To the council. And we're looking for that to be a 2 to 3 month process. Eric 44 The concepts. Yes, we can. We can look at the bio technical alternatives, concepts and engineering within that time frame. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Austin. Mr. City Attorney. That was my question. Is the it does the motion have or does it include or is it a limit? The options that you're asking them to evaluate to the bio technical or is are other options? I'm not clear on what direction the council's giving staff for the areas that are not to be finished with Short Creek. So it would be, as I understood, the peer review report which I have here. Bear with me just a moment. So so the purity report said an available alternative Shot Creek for slope phase production is using prior technical techniques as outlined in Section 3.0. So that's what I'm looking to have addressed. I think that came about and. Will bring will bring those alternatives back to the council at a later date once they've been worked out with the engineers in the community. But I think, as Mr. Lopez says, I think we're looking for as kind of a conceptual as a viable. Does it work? You know, maybe some kind of an order of magnitude in terms of cost to the community to support it as opposed to shock, create and then come back. Yes. Mr. Olson. Joe, anything else? Okay. I have a couple of things. From what I understand, emotion. And you want to just make sure it's clear the motion is one to complete the work at the park, but obviously at the park, anything that can get done as soon as possible. And I think that's obviously been pretty clear that the importance of it, the community certainly wants that. The second is to continue with the current short street project as and part of that one phase and finish the the other portion of the landscaping portion of the other phase that was done initially, correct? Absolutely possible. And then the then the last piece of that is for the areas that have not been completed to evaluate about tactical solutions. Now, could it be evaluated by a technical end or other landscaping or other solutions that are that are possibly out there? Because and maybe I understood this roundabout, but are from what the from the peer review report that are both biotech the goal solutions as well as possible other landscape or other solutions. Or maybe I misinterpreted misinterpreted that. Is that correct? Mr.. LOPEZ The the available alternatives are only the bio technical alternatives. So there's various iterations of these about bio technical techniques that will be explored. But those are what what is feasible. And that's not what I thought I heard. But is there anyone else appear that differently? Yeah. Mr. Vice Mayor, as they talk about in section 3.0, the bio technical techniques, and they give things such as deep root of vegetation, deep root of vegetation and combination of geographic timber grid and life slope grading with a lattice like a river and horizontal table. So I think biochemical techniques is pretty all encompassing. Okay. And that would include landscape options and. Yes. And other types of I want to make sure that we're not limiting to one one type, but we're looking at the a broad range of options that, according to the engineers and others, is all within this bio technical solution group. Okay. So that's that clarifies the motion for me. Can you comment answer the question, Mr. Lopez, on the current shot street section, that's that's I know that we were a few weeks away from completing. How much is the short crit work actually completed? In an area in area three, the shaft work has been fully completed and it just requires the Steyning treatment and area. Two half of the half half of the area has been fully completed, which out create and just require sustaining. The second half still has to expose someone else. Okay, so it's essentially half of the second phase. It still needs complete that we would actually be finishing on the shock route side. It's now because the different areas consist of different length. So it's if we can go back to the to the exhibit and go through the three areas and face to page three. Yeah, no, I think, I think I got it. Yeah I it's different. It's a different so it's not half. So I, I get that piece. Okay. And. I think that is all I had. Any other questions for council? Okay. So we have a motion on the floor from Consumer DeLong and second by Councilmember Lowenthal. Please cast your votes. Vice Mayor Garcia. I'm a yes. Motion carries six one. It was. Okay. Thank you. We'll move to item 2026, correct? Yes. Please click or read item.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute an equipment lease-purchase agreement and related financing documents with Banc of America Public Capital Corporation (BAPCC), a Kansas Corporation, for the financing of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project, in an amount not to exceed $18,500,000, plus interest and fees, payable over a 15-year period. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07212015_15-0694

Report from financial management in Long Beach. Gas and Oil. Recommendation to execute and equipment lease purchase agreement with Bank of America Public Capital Corporation for the financing of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project in an amount not to exceed 18,500,000 citywide. Submission. Second is a staff report. Chris Garner and Dave Nakamoto. Good evening. A year ago, the city council approved our going forward with a smart meter program for the gas utility. And so what's before you tonight is the financing mechanism for that effort. With this financing, it'll be the question is how will it be paid for? And it will be. Paid for. Using the annual cost savings that we will achieve by eliminating our manual. Manual gas meter. Reading. Contract. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? CNN members cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Hey. Item 25 Report from Health and Human Services. Recommendation to execute all necessary documents with the State of California Department of Public Health in the amount of $19,337,101 for Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Supplement Program Citywide.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment Number 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and any subsequent amendments thereto, between the City of Long Beach and AES Alamitos, LLC, to extend the term, accept a one-time cash payment of $150,000, and amend Section 5 “Term and Renegotiation.” to support the Alamitos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project; and Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operating Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $150,000 offset by an MOU cash payment from AES Alamitos, LLC, for engineering and due diligence efforts. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_06212022_22-0679

Two. Thank you. Item 16, please. On the consent calendar. Item 16 is a report from Public Works recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amendment to the MRU and and any subsequent amendments between the City of Long Beach and 80 Alamitos LLC to extend the term except a one time cash payment of $150,000 and amend Section five term and renegotiation to support the Alimentos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project and increase the appropriation in the Thailand Operating Fund Group. In the public works department by $150,000, offset by an employee cash payment from the AEC Alamitos LLC for the Engineering and Due Diligence Effort District three. Councilman Premiere Pro comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it's if it's all right with you, I'd like to have a short staff report. I see Josh Hickman here. And this is a really important project for the water quality in Alamitos Bay. And I would like just a brief staff report, please. Thank you very much. Absolutely. So this is a huge project and it really is an important one to really address the water quality issues that will we expect to come when A ceases to do their current pumping. And so Eric Lopez is actually on the phone with us today. So he will get part of it. And Josh is here to answer questions as well. So, Eric. Thanks. And we have the PowerPoint on the screen and we can go to the next slide. So the Alamitos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project. We've made some progress since. In the last ten years, though, we've we've had the opportunity to refine our engineering design concept and really lay the foundation for the additional engineering and technical analysis of of water quality data that will help inform our, our proposed design as it is well known the as and at h g as our power plants have been pumping water through through cooling pumps for over 55 years and that the water flow and the circulation patterns within the bay have grown accustomed to this activity there. There is a phase out of the current pumping systems are in place at both A and each test. And so this project is meant to find ways to for us to maintain our good water quality in and throughout Alamitos Bay, we're looking at a pumping system that's more fish friendly, that's more environmentally friendly, and that helps us achieve our main goals of maintaining our water quality. Our next slide. We. There is currently a series of pumps and outfall structures that are shown on this slide. The there are different different pumps are operate at different times and at different rates. But overall, the pumps and the gas pumps do provide a substantial pool of water and assist with with that with circulation. Next slide. They were out of focus area for for this project this is the south and take us to now it's near six which as a has retired they've actually retired punch one two and six and the are other three pumps are still operational. The current date that we have for when those will be retired is around December 2023. That is subject to change. And where we're just we're we're following that very, very closely. There are some additional pumps that will continue working throughout that time and that would be retired later this decade. And but right now, we're focused in the area of I retired a number six next like. So for the last couple of years, we've looked at a couple of conceptual designs and we've looked at different alternatives out four to be exact, and really trying to come up with a with a system around at this unit six, we were initially looking at using the existing structures there. But then have you can we go to the next slide? As you can see in this next slide, we found some some substantial deterioration. And our engineers are recommending a new structure as part of this effort. So we've been focused and kind of what that new structure could look like. And we've come up with a concept that would allow us to achieve the original goals of the project. And, you know, while continuing to use the the same area the unit takes existing and take area and achieve the project goals next line. What we're looking at is maintaining the existing intake canal, using the existing underground pipes that exist, potentially constructing a new pump house with fish friendly pumps and then using the existing outdoor structure. So the water will continue to circulate through through the bay to the San Diego River and continues that similar pattern. To help maintain water clarity, water quality. Next line. And this this is just a site plan that shows where the plants will be located. The electrical services are the discharge pipes and then the existing outfalls into the San Diego River. Next slide. Our tentative schedule is to complete our 30% design this year. That will allow us to go through the environmental entitlements process and to take our regulatory permitting. And then we are going to be fine tuning the financial and operational needs so that we have a really clear sense of what this project is going to require and what the budget, what the what the target budgets are going to be, the budget requirements we next line. The conceptual design process estimated. We don't have the funding in place. The proposed contribution from A is going to be a big help in allowing us to continue the engineering and cycle force that is required for this project . It is early to put a budget or a cost number to this effort, but it is expected to be substantial and we will be providing that as part of the next phase of this project. And same with the operations, maintenance and monitoring costs, ongoing cost. That's something that we're we're trying to solidify. Next slide. And that concludes that presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions. Gentlemen. Thank you. I have no additional questions other than just some hopefully direction to staff that. We are looking forward to the funding gap and identifying ways to meet that. It's going to be a huge financial burden for us and I think this item shows that ACE is the willing partner. And hopefully that partnership continues to the next phase of this project with us. But this is a major priority project for the city of Long Beach. To to scale down that entire presentation into the following, I think would be accurate. If we do not replace those pumps, that water will collect bacteria and will not provide an opportunity for recreation and swimming as it does currently. And it will become a source of liability and blight for the city as opposed to an opportunity for recreation and outdoor enjoyment of a city asset. So it's imperative and I think it's a critical environmental project and I think staff are being involved in and I know it's a highly technical project and I think you're doing a great job having recently got it back on track. So thank you. Councilman. Also, any comments? As public comment, I believe. Elizabeth LAMB and Dave Chappelle. Thank you, council members. My name is Elizabeth LAMB and I'm executive. Director of the Low. Street US Wetlands Land Trust, and I appreciate this opportunity to comment. We completely agree there are problems with pollution in. Alamitos Bay that need to be resolved. We just want to make sure that the solution is consistent with the ongoing efforts to restore low cerritos wetlands. We do thank Mr. Modica and Mr. Lopez for providing us with several studies that were prepared by Moffitt and Nicole about the project. And on its face, it does seem reasonable that the continued operation of the pumps would help to maintain. Water quality in the bay. But experts that we have reviewed these studies. With raised concerns about some of the baselines and assumptions used to support the conclusions about the fact that there would be no significant impacts to marine biology. Because of that, we are glad to see that the latest report does include mention of environmental review. Our concern right now is that the project is moving into agreements about access to the. Property and final. Construction design. We are concerned there is so much momentum behind the city's preferred. Alternative that the city has. Already precluded an objective discussion. Of alternatives that would come through something. Like a square review. We want to suggest to you that the city engage in something similar to a secure scoping process. Before going any further with planning and expenditures for the bay pumping. Plan. The process that would include interesting interest in interested parties like the Lowe's through the Wetlands Land Trust and the Low Street. US Wetlands Authority, who are the restoration planners for the area, and of course state. And local agencies. Council members. I know we. Want the same thing. We want water quality in the bay that protects recreational uses and is consistent with wetlands restoration. And we understand that that is a complex problem. But perhaps there is more than one way to resolve that problem. So we hope the city will share with us that they have fully conceived and investigated all the alternatives and share that. Specific information. With us. I hope you can see how getting input from public, from the public and the several agencies with expertize on water pollution would not only ensure a thorough consideration of potential alternatives, it would pave the. Way. For a smoother adoption of the permits required. I thank you for your time. Dave Shukla Third District and in specific, I grew up and my house is directly across the street from this project, from the water intakes one, two, three and four. First of all, the energy content necessary to run the pumps does not necessitate continuing to keep the power plant open. The basic argument that this facility has made over time has been that, well, you know, bad things will happen, you won't have reliability, you won't have, you know, water quality, you won't have all the good things if you don't have us. And the fact of the matter is, you don't need to burn gas at that facility to charge up and run the pumping stations. Moreover, there's a lot about this facility that we just don't really talk about. Like, for instance, it's one of the facilities in the coastal zone that is literally over time changed the actual line of the coastal zone. The coastal zone line is going to have to be increased, you know, more inland because of the climate change that this facility over time has created. Uh, according to Energy Information Agency data from 1968 to 2000, uh, this was the third most polluting facility by electricity generation in North America. And, you know, the combined point source right across the street from my from my backyard, it's chiffonade. Yes. These are both kind of legacy facilities. And they're two of maybe four or five of the last holdouts in the state. Um, the state has a commitment not only to water quality, but also to ensuring a livable future. And we know per the carbon scoping plan that a lot of people have disagreements about where, where, what direction that may be. Um, it's been proposed that three or more of these facilities need to be created to meet our energy needs at a time when solar, wind, geothermal or oil cheaper, when the offshore wind permits for the entire West Coast are about to go live, it's an industry that is holding on with a death grasp. And, you know, we may not be able to escape it. It may be one of the reasons why, you know, our family leaves before things get too bad, you know, I mean, we have this on our conscience. Well, I'd be continuing to be. I mean, I come here every week trying to see if there's any possibility of getting out from under the system of dirty energy and a lot of the, uh, economies of dependency created. And I honestly, you know, I don't think there has been concrete proof that the water quality issue in specific, let alone the more general issue of burning natural gas to meet our energy needs, has ever been shown that, you know, we need that specific facility or we need the city's preferred alternative. I think it needs to go through sequent. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second by Councilman Austin, and Pryce comes from Pryce and an Austin. I just this is that was up on the board, but I think that was from the last one. Did you just clear the. We have the same the same. The same motions and the same mover in secondary. Okay, great. So then it got clear to my board for whatever reason. Could you put those back in, please? Yeah. Just. Just put the motion back in. It wasn't. It wasn't on mine for whatever reason, so. Okay, great. Now it's gone again. Okay, that's okay. So we have a motion in a second. Members, please go and cast your votes. Castleman said he has. The motion is. Carried. Thank you. We're going to do we have we have two presentations and some items we need to get to pretty quickly. And so unless there's any objection on the funds transfer, hopefully get through this very, very quickly. Let's read those into the record and just get these voted on, please.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary documents, subcontracts, or subsequent amendments, including amendments to the award amount and agreement term, with the City of Los Angeles to accept and expend grant funding in an amount not to exceed $6,869,171 for Department of Homeland Security 2021 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant, for the period of September 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund Group in the Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications Department by $590,000, in the General Grants Fund Group in the Fire Department by $3,327,666, in the General Grants Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $307,500, in the General Grants Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $125,235, in the General Grants Fund Group in the Police Department by $1,886,270, and in the General Grants Fund Group in the Technology and Innovation Department by $472,500, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0432

Thank you very much. We now are moving on to item 16, the rest of the items on the agenda, I believe our staff items. So we'll go ahead and begin with item 16. Item 16 is a report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications, Fire, Health and Human Services, Parks and Recreation. Marine, please. Technology and Innovation. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreement and necessary documents with the City of L.A. to accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed 6.8 million for Department of Homeland Security 2021 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Citywide. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment? Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item 16 in person? Please line up at the podium. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak in the room, please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. Yes. That concludes public comment. Thank you very much. Covered District one. High. District two high. Desert three. High. District four. District five. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. High. District nine. High. The motion is carried. Nine zero.

AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept a specified grant and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising project allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07082019_CB 119563

The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item two accountable 119 563 relating to grant funds from non city sources authorized and director of the Shell Department Transportation to accept a specified grant. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. This is I mentioned this council briefing a bit. It's about a little over a $600,000 grant acceptances for work on the Cowan's Cowan Park Bridge. I think this is a bridge that will be getting some seismic upgrades. As I mentioned earlier, the this was on the contingency list of projects the city had submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for the grant approval process because a couple other projects in advance are ahead of that. We're not able likely to be able to complete the projects by the end of the year for the funding requirement . The city, thankfully, was able to accelerate this project to use some of those grant funds so we wouldn't have to the region would not have to forfeit those grant funds to go back to the federal government. And this allows the other projects that were behind elsewhere in the region to slide in for the next the next grant process. Thank you, Councilman Brian. Any questions or comments on this bill? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez purple. Hi, Suarez. O'Brien, Chaco. All right, so what I think Shire President Harrell high eight in favor not oppose. The bill passed in the Senate. Please read agenda item number three.

Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipeline Inc. for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 12, No. P.W. 01-15-01. (Public Works 602)

AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3661

I pulled F and G kind of together. So it was just more of a kind of another update about the same area because that's Park and Otis. And if you could give a brief status update on where we are on the sewer replacement because during periods of heavy rain it was last week, we still see a lot of flooding along shoreline. So maybe kind of a brief update and maybe some anticipated date when we might be able to see relief, you know, from these these big pools of standing water. Sure. Two separate issues. We have separate sanitary and storm system. So the sanitary system, which was the construction work that we were doing, has nothing to do with the flooding that we're seeing. That's our storm system. The items on the agenda tonight are the acceptance of work from Ranger Pipeline's Who is our sewer construction contractor. That job replaced a pressurized sewer pipe that goes from the South Shore Shopping Center down to Chrissy Park. That pipe failed. This work replaced it. It was successfully done under budget. We have a brand new pipe in the ground, so that works, done really well. We are seeing the benefits of it now as we speak. Well, if. It's really not related, then maybe we could have, you know, staff come back after the beginning of the year with an update. On. The weather, not hold up this item. For sure. Yeah. And we do have key staff that would be able to speak to the storm flooding issues in that area. Well, that would be helpful after the first of the year, right. Any other member, Ashcraft, as long as staff is coming back to talk about key flooding issues, you're probably aware that the Main Street Ferry parking lot was pretty severely flooded, more than the usual area, but pretty much all. Over. Whatever day that was last week that we had such heavy rain. So, yes, heavy rains combined with king tides. So the water really has nowhere to go. So if there are flooding issues, we definitely saw them this past storm. We love the water, though. Okay. I'm of approval of the two items, two F and two G. Second. Thank you. Thanks. And I wanted to give our city manager an opportunity to share. So if community members find something in the area that they want repaired, they go to. So they go to see Click Fix actually is a program that the public works department manages. And it's very you take a picture of it, you put a little description of it, and there's a response from staff. It gets routed to the appropriate staff and you can track the progress of that request. So we encourage citizens to use that. So that includes the flooding areas. So that being said, all of us in favor I bushwhackers unanimously think so that's items to EF and to G. And now we move on to. Hey, Ben Brody. Yeah, I think it's Jay. Oh. Actually, I did. Remember Ashcroft. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I wasn't here last time for the first reading of this ordinance, but I did go back and read the agenda item, the staff report. And I also emailed, but only very recently, to staff my concern. All right. I'm just pulling this up. Yes. Hi, Mr. Garland. Thank you. So. We we have before us this ordinance that establishes a residential permit, a residential parking permit system for neighborhoods in our city. And homeowners associations, procedures and whatnot. The precipitating factors seemed to be the overflow parking from the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal. And my concern and why I pulled this is that. We have, as is often the case, more than one competing interests that we need to resolve. And I want to make sure that we are. Addressing everything we're juggling, but we're keeping all the balls up in the air. And just judging from communication I've had from fairy riders, and maybe they weren't as informed as they should have been, or maybe the process wasn't quite as informative as it could have been. But my concern is that if we are going to allow for homeowners associations to have permit parking only on their neighborhood streets, and these are there's a couple of particular developments in proximity to the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal. But at the same time, we haven't provided sufficient alternatives to folks who do need to drive cars and or maybe we've provided alternatives, but we haven't done as robust a job of marketing them. And so people aren't aware of them, which is almost the same as not having them there. I always think it's better to get the public information out ahead of time, even a month in advance. I know. Well, I won't go into it. I'm I'm really pleased. I've because I've been a very squeaky wheel. You all know, I've been nipping at your heels on the the parking and you did. We've gotten the no parking signs down on north off of North Loop Road there in the vicinity of the child care centers, which is helping. And I'm hearing from these parents of young children who can park dropped their children off, walked into the end of the road and take the shuttle that the Harbor Bay Business Park is allowing people to use to get to the ferry terminal. But as far as the line, is it 19 or 21, 21, 21, which is apparently a free shuttle and now it's on time. When did that start? How was it noticed? And what's the ridership so far in the time, however long it's been since since it's been started? Sure. I keep on standing up just to sit down, but I'm actually going to ask Jennifer. I get better at the AC Transit. He didn't have a description for you like the air. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers. Welcome, Councilmember Bella. So we have we did actually do some marketing for the line of them. But let me step back a little bit because probably about over the last six months we've been working with AC Transit to really improve that line.

Approves Text Amendment #9 to create the new D-AS-12+ and D-AS-20+ zone districts as well as a new Design Advisory Board for the Arapahoe Square neighborhood in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves Text Amendment #9 to create the new D-AS-12+ (downtown, Arapahoe Square, 12 stories+) and D-AS-20+ (20 stories+) zone districts as well as a new Design Advisory Board for the Arapahoe Square neighborhood in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-11-16.

DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0320

allowances for short term rentals as accessory to primary residential uses where residential uses are currently allowed assets. The new legislation allowing short term rentals was not included into the Text Amendment language for the new proposal proposed. Square Zone districts recently adopted Council Bill 261 applies to the new Arapaho Square Zone districts. The amendment represents the filing of tax amendment language with the Denver city clerk and adds a role to the use table that's important. So the used table has now been added on page 8.10 ten to match the row added in the tax amendment for short term rentals. To clarify that short term rentals would be permitted use with limitations in the proposed new Arapaho Square Zone districts. If the amendment passes, it will not require a delay in the hearing or vote that is scheduled for tonight. So the combined public hearing for council bills 320 and 321 is now open. Speakers may address either or both bills, including the amendment. Councilor Brooks. Councilman Brooks will offer later this evening at the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each bill and on the amendment. May we have the staff report? Thank you. Council President Herndon and members of council. Good evening. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'm joined by Elise Hoke, who is a key staff member on the project that led to the proposed text and map amendments that are before you tonight. I will mention that during question and answer, if you have detailed questions about the reasoning for the little amendment that Councilman Brooks just read into the record regarding short term rentals, I'd be I'd be happy to go into the detail. And before I tell you about the proposals for a proposed square in in greater detail, I'd like to ask Councilman Brooks to be kick us off and tell us a little bit about how we got here. Yep. Thank you. A this has been an incredible 18 month process and the package in front of you all for council today in the public is a process that involved a lot of hard work and dedication by a technical task force from the community. And so you will see neighborhood presidents on board. You will see developers, you'll see architects. And in my mind, will go down as one of the most informed, well-informed and credible group that I've had the pleasure to working on. You know, in dealing with zoning, the new zoning for a proposed square will implement the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, recommendations for active high density mixed use district that will be downtown Denver's next great neighborhood. As stated in the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, northeast downtown areas plan. In addition to accommodating a high level of development capacity, the zoning also promotes quality design and an active pedestrian realm. Examples include requirements for upper storey setbacks to reduce visual mass and scale while increasing sky exposure. A variety of permitted building forms to allow flexibility and encourage diverse range of designs in the area. Building forms that incentivize active facades by allowing greater height requirements for windows and pedestrian entrances to activate the street. Prohibitions on non-active uses. We want active uses in Rebel Square, so please, if you want to come down there, please activate your users for the majority of the building's frontage. And so with that, those kind of high level. I also want to say one thing and I'm really excited for this. Zoning does allow for point towers, which formerly were not allowed in the city of Denver. But to get more micro, we will have our staff and a lead us off. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman Brooks. And on at and I will go into a little bit more detail, but as you can probably tell that there's a lot of detail here. And so we'll save really diving too deep in until we get into the questions if there are particular things you'd like to know about. And I think you'll hear in the public testimony from some of our task force members that Councilman Brooks Spokes spoke about. He was also on the task force who we owe a lot of gratitude for to to for guiding this process through. So the the purpose of the text and map amendments is to implement plan recommendations for a context and form based regulatory system in Arapahoe Square that includes creating two new form base zone districts. The text amendment also would enable a new design advisory board. I'll just note that that Design Advisory Board will use design standards and guidelines that are separately adopted from a text amendment using a different process that I'll talk about more in a minute. And the MAP amendment would create the zone district mapping that provides the height transitions that the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan, particularly talks about in the Arapahoe Square area, and map those two new zone districts. So the process has been extensive and has been going on for over a year and a half now. The task force met more than ten times during the development of of these proposals. These were three hour long meetings that were. Open to the public. So we really dove deep and worked through the design issues that you'll see in the proposals and looked at alternatives and then arrived at the task force recommendations. We also hosted a public open house in March that was well attended. We've had office hours for the public to drop by and speak with us 1 to 1. We've taken this for the official planning board hearings to the planning board a number of times for informational items and to neighborhood organizations, both in the Arabo Square area and also ANC Zoning and Planning Committee as well. I will note that if the text and map amendments are adopted tonight, the ordinance makes the effective date of both August 23rd, and there's a reason for that. Throughout the process, we've told stakeholders and participants, property owners and developers, we're most interested in knowing exactly when they would have to comply with any new regulations. And what we told them is we won't make it any sooner than six months after we've published a public review draft of everything that's proposed. And so to keep that promise. That's why we would delay the effective date until until late August. So in terms of what we've heard from the public, I'll just tell you a few things. First off, there's a lot of excitement regarding the future of Arapahoe Square. You hear that word potential a lot when Arapahoe Square comes up. You know, it's a it's the next great place potentially if we do things right in terms of promoting a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and promoting quality human scale design, that's context sensitive. We also heard that part of that is being flexible, that this is a place where a lot of different kinds of design could be appropriate as long as it's pedestrian oriented and human scaled. And so we've heard from two neighboring Arnaud's, Curtis Park neighbors and Enterprise Hill that they support the project. They've provided letters of support. We've also heard, though, a diversity of opinions on building height in the area and in particularly the height of the Pointe Towers that Councilman Brooks mentioned and on always. We'll tell you more about what a point tower is in a moment, as well as how heights transition to surrounding neighborhoods, which, of course, is a topic for tonight and in particular, height transitions. In Curtis Park, just outside of Arapahoe Square. And I'll tell you more about this when when we put a map on the screen. But just to note that the task force and the bill sponsor both recommended that we take a portion that we were originally planning to include in the MAP Amendment out, you know, a little area of Curtis Park pending a request for further study of appropriate heights there. We've also heard a diversity of opinion on view opinions on vehicle parking requirements. The proposal includes no vehicular parking requirement for those two new downtown Arapahoe Square Zone districts that the text amendment creates. That's consistent with the approach for the downtown Core Zone District, which starts right across the street here. And that's been in place for for quite a few years. And in that time, the market has really provided parking where where the markets are fit. And so looking at the very rich transit resources in Arapahoe Square and the fact that it's becoming more and more a part of downtown Denver, there is no minimum vehicular parking proposed in the zone districts. I will turn it over to on a list to tell you about the text amendment portion of the proposals and walk you through the criteria. Before I do that, I just wanted to mention the separate design standards and guidelines. And as I said earlier, those are not adopted by city council. This is a document that. So Arapahoe Square is one of the few places in Denver outside of a historic district that has these separate design standards and guidelines that that inform a more case by case review of designs that that come in. And we are proposing to update that existing system. We've written completely new and updated designs, terms and guidelines that work integrally with the zoning enabled by the text amendment. And those design centers and guidelines will inform the work that this new Design Advisory Board will do, looking at projects on a case by case basis in Arapahoe Square. So you all know what zoning does. You talk about it every day. The prescriptive rules that that shape development. Just to tell you a little bit more about design standards and guidelines, they work with zoning. It's a it's a process that goes on alongside zoning that's more performance oriented, oriented and more qualitative. So they can address a higher level of detail, but tend to make less definitive statements than zoning. So zoning has lots of numbers in it. It's very quantitative. If the height limit is 200 feet, a 205 foot building is too tall. Design sessions and guidelines first start with design principles and then down to intent statements and then specific standards and guidelines that talk about the results that we're looking for and some strategies that would be appropriate to get those results but aren't as prescriptive the design advisory board. It's their job to interpret them because some interpretation is necessary. Did this project meet those standards and guidelines? So that's how that works. And I'll turn it over to him. At least now we're going back to the zoning now, so she'll tell you about the proposed text amendment. Great. Thank you, Abe, and good evening, members of council. So as Abe mentioned, we are developing two different zone districts and the primary difference between these two zone districts is the difference in height, as called for by the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhood Plan to create a transition with greater heights closer to downtown and lower heights closer to the surrounding neighborhoods of Curtis Park within both of these zone districts. Three different building forms are permitted. We have the general, the general with height incentive and the point tower. All of these building forms have standards that address the building siting, such as build to requirements, pedestrian entries, as well as transparency requirements. Ground floor active uses and so forth. Once we move beyond the general, which is kind of that baseline, what you must do, we move along to the general with height incentive. And as the name would indicate, when you use this building form, you get an increase in height of approximately four or eight storeys. And what you're doing here is you're creating an enhanced facade design by minimizing the visibility of structured parking. And so with the intent to create a very pedestrian oriented neighborhood, we do not want parking to dominate that public realm. And so that's what the general with height incentive aims to do. Additionally, we have the Point Tower with which Albert Brooks made mention that this is a new building form that we have yet to see in Denver. And really what this aims to do is reduce the building floor play above a height of five stories or less to 10,000 square feet. So what you're producing is a tall and slender building that retains sky exposure, minimizes impacts of shadows of the surrounding area, and also can be a contributing feature to the Denver skyline that we've grown to love. As you'll know, all of these building forms do have an upper story setback, which was a direct recommendation of the Northeast Downtowns neighborhood plan. And then they also have nuances that call out different key streets, such as Walton or Curtis, with differentiation of build to standards, to acknowledge the the place of that. In addition, I do just want to point out that we did have local design firms that have developed with in Denver and Arapahoe Square specifically to test the viability of all of these building forms. So while we've done a lot of internal modeling, we've also wanted to go out to the private sector and ensure that this proposal is buildable. Move on. Moving along, I will step through the consist the review criteria for a text amendment. And so with that we have consistency of adopted plans furthering the public health, safety and general welfare and informing that we have a uniform application of district regulations. I'll first start with comp plan 2000, which really calls for zoning that provides flexibility for future needs. In that we're creating three different building forms that provide flexibility within each of them, as well as providing opportunities for quality, infill development and ensuring that we have vibrant urban centers. So with Arapahoe Square being at the edge of the downtown core, enabling for those great opportunities to happen. We also want to focus our design standards and put our efforts towards those new and evolving districts, as Arapahoe Square certainly is, and targeting specific design concerns to structured parking and those negative impacts with appropriate controls and incentives. Moving forward into Blueprint Denver, we want to ensure zoning changes to implement design requirements and ensure that quality design is not only provided to the neighborhood within but the surrounding areas, and also to ensure that we facilitate appropriate uses and densities for the areas that are appropriate, especially within areas of change. Moving along to the downtown area plan. That's where we really started acknowledging Arapahoe Square as this neighborhood and this opportunity to become this cutting edge, densely populated, mixed use area for Arapahoe Square that provides not only a range of housing types, but also can become the Center for Innovative Business and Office uses. And therefore, there was a call to revise the land use regulations to ensure that this vision was realized. Most recently, we have the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2011. And as you can see here on the right, we have a series of diagrams that are clipped out from that plan. And this is where the concept of the five story datum, as well as the points are highlighted in this. The plan calls for enhanced urban design to occur through a mix of building forms. And as a result, we have those three different building forms for property owners to choose from. We also want to have variations in building height. So depending on what type of building you are choosing to use, you'll have a different height allowances for that exchange. We also have this concept of point towers emerging through the 2011 Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan. We also want to ensure that the buildings are in visual interest and ensure that pedestrian scale for the public realm. So while we might have higher buildings, they still need to be pedestrian friendly and intended to promote that human scale design that's so important. It also specifically calls out the implementation of the stadium or this upper storey setback is called out in the text amendment at a maximum of five storeys. However, this can occur at a lower height and minimizing the visual impacts of parking. So that's where these different concepts of general with heightened sense of endpoint tower really minimize the visibility and impacts of structured parking. And as a result, we find that the proposed tax amendment is consistent with all of these plans. Moving along, I'm going to hand it back over to Abe to talk about the mapping of these districts. Thanks, Don. I'm almost done. We just have the map amendment to get through. First, I want to illustrate the geographic scope of the of the study. You know, where were we looking? And so we looked at anywhere that is within the Arabo Square neighborhood, as defined by the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. That's the purple boundary on the map here. Then there is also Arabo Square already has its own special zone district, and this predates the 2010 code update. It was B8 A and now it's called DHS. And that's the kind of pink color that you see on the map. So interestingly, that special zoning doesn't cover the whole Arapahoe Square neighborhood, but does reach outside the neighborhood some. So anywhere that either was within the neighborhood or had that zoned as that existing zoning we looked at. And then I mentioned that Curtis Park height transition discussion earlier that regards the area that's in the dashed line there, which is a portion of that existing DHS zoning that's outside of Arapahoe Square, where we originally proposed to map existing zone districts there. That would create the height transition recommended in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. And in that particular area, there was just a lot of discussion about how that might not be appropriate. And there, you know, folks felt fairly strongly on both sides. In the end, the task force unanimously told us, told staff that they would like to leave that area outside of the proposed map amendment pending further discussion of of what was appropriate there. So when we go to the map showing the proposed map amendment that that area is is missing. And so what we're proposing is to take those two new DHS 12 plus and 20 plus zone districts that with those three building forms that on a list described and map those across the area. That is the Arapahoe Square neighborhood proper, excepting just a couple of little areas. One is an existing planned unit development that may opt in later. The other is a historic building with open space zoning right now. And then outside of the Arapahoe Square neighborhood, if I just go back to the previous slide, the areas that are outside of that purple boundary we are in consultation with the task force, have proposed to map existing zone districts that are that are on the books now to accomplish the height transitions recommended by the neighborhood plan. And these these match exactly the height map that we'll see in the plan in just a moment. So it's an eight story district eight in the ballpark area just outside of Arapahoe Square and five and three story district stepping down into the portions of Curtis Park that that remain in the in the proposed map amendment. So looking at the review criteria for the MAP amendment, the first being consistency with adopted plans. The same plans apply here as to the plans that on at least describe for the text amendment and many of the same objectives and statements apply as well. But I'll just add from comprehensive plan 2000 that it seeks to conserve land by promoting infill development at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place. Places like Arabo Square. And Blueprint Denver then also has the the land use maps that we can look to for appropriate future land uses in the area. And it maps the whole area considered for the map amendment as an area of change. And the concept land uses are mixed use and transit oriented development. So most of the area is designated as mixed use. And then a smaller area near the light rail on Welton Street is designated as transit oriented development. When you look at the descriptions of those two land forces, they sound somewhat similar. It's about a variety of things happening that are pedestrian friendly with relatively high densities. And then there's the street classifications set forth by Blueprint. Denver are also consistent with this idea that those those kinds of streets serve a relatively high and mixed high intensity and mixed land uses surrounding the streets. Most of the streets on the downtown core side of Broadway are designated as downtown Access Streets, and there are also mixed use arterials and main dash collector streets in the in the area the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan land use map carries forward the blueprint land use map and so it it looks the same here mixed use and transit oriented development it describes them in the same way the neighborhood plan goes goes a step further though and maps appropriate heights in in Arapahoe Square and the vicinity with the objective of creating a transition from the downtown core towards the neighborhoods. And so in Arapahoe Square proper the within the purple boundary on that first map we looked at it maps 20 stories with an additional ten stories allowed for tall slender point tower. So it specifically calls out point towers and says how much taller they could potentially be in that area closer to downtown. Then at a point, somewhere between 21st and 22nd Street, it it says that the height should transition downward within Arapahoe Square and provide for a maximum of 12 storeys, with an additional eight storeys given as an allowance and a tall, slender point tower building form. And then outside of Arapahoe Square, it recommends building heights ranging from 3 to 8 stories stepping down towards the neighborhoods. And so that's exactly consistent with what you'll see in the mixed use zone districts that we're proposing outside of Arapahoe Square, the same heights. So clearly, the Department of Community Planning and Development finds that the review criteria for both the text and the map amendment have been met, including consistency with adopted plans that they further the health, safety and general welfare that they result in regulations that are uniform across the district. On April 20th, Planning Board considered both the text and map amendments, and they unanimously recommended approval of both. And so Community Planning and development staff recommend City Council approval of Text Amendment Number nine, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Community Planning and Development Staff also recommend City Council approval of Map Amendment Number 2016 EIS 00035 finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both. All right. We have seven speakers and I'm just going to go ahead and call seven and you can make your way up. They are Keith Pryor, Joel Noble, Craig Sutley, Richard Farley, Amy Harman, Bryce McCarty and John Desmond. So you seven can come on up to your the front pew and Mr. Pryor, you can begin your remarks when you are ready. And 3 minutes for each of those speakers. Good evening, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. This has been Keith Prior, 2418 Champ. I live in Curtis Park and I'm adjacent to literally a block away. Not even that. From. Some of this zoning change. I was not on the task force. I am a neighbor. Abe and staff did a phenomenal job with the task force and including neighbors like myself in the Open House process, in the discussions, taking our feedback, taking our concerns, working with the design review committee and process, and really making this process work . I thought the neighbors were heard. Part of that was removing the piece that is controversial for Curtis Park, which we are going to be having a discussion further. I am on the side that I would like higher heights directly across the street from me, other neighbors, that it would be more appropriate for lower heights. So. Well, we'll have that discussion and bring that back to you in the future. But moving this forward is critical because Arapahoe Square, as you know, is a city of parking lots. It has had the existing zoning that is of downtown, which really has not brought the the sense of what could be built. And that's why this area has remained undeveloped, because the actual value of what people think their land's worth and what you can actually build on that land has always been at odds. And so by now, having this process, bringing the planning process and working with the landowners and really getting our heads around what is actually buildable in this area and making that more contextual, more sustainable, more actually in line with predictability that allows people to then match the develop or the development potential for this area with that of the land values that the owners currently have. So I think with this process and having it so inclusive, you will see after this amendment hopefully a lot more development coming in on this given now knowing what people can actually put on these lots. And I think with the point tower option, it really does give us that density that is so desperately needed in the lack of housing options that we have in the city. And so it also allows for a really nice mix of allowing businesses which activates during the day, residents activating during the night. And it just really brings hopefully some opportunities for everyday services as well as like dry cleaners, not only restaurants but just, you know, like I said, the dry cleaners and other things, Kinkos that Curtis Park neighbors desperately need. So I really highly encourage you to support this as the neighbors as myself went in support. So thank you very much. Thank you, Joe Noble. Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street. And I'm here tonight representing Curtis Park neighbors. I was the immediate past president of Curtis Park Neighbors and now serve on the board of directors from Curtis Park Neighbors. I was the designee to the task force. And Curtis Park neighbors, as you see in your packet, has sent a letter of support for this process. This is a very good, inclusive process. To take. What was recommended in the Northeast downtown neighborhoods, plan and apply it in zoning and then to apply it in zoning. Required Writing New Zone Districts. As you'll read in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. The zoning that was called for was very different than one that we have on the books. It called for this datum line. It called for point towers. It called for shaping the mass and hiding the parking. So all that was our guide in doing this zoning that you see tonight. I'd like to. Speak a little more generally. How is it that we're rezoning such a large area without controversy and increasing density? How are we doing this? And the answer is, we did a small area plan. We did a neighborhood plan. We took all the time that it took to find that community consensus. And once that community consensus was built and documented in the plan and adopted by city council, we didn't waste a lot of time in then pursuing changing the zoning. We struck while the iron is hot. Choose your metaphor. We built on the consensus that was already there, and we know a good thing when we see it. We're copying the process that was followed in Cherry Creek, in Cherry Creek. They did a small area plan. They got the consensus and then they followed up with a legislative rezoning. In that case, that also involved writing new zoned districts and was also facilitated by Mike Hughes. And that was also a fantastic process. So we stole him as well. So I would I would encourage you not only to support this, but also to strongly consider when you do neighborhood plans, when you do stationary plans or any sort of small area plan in the future, and you find that community consensus, take that opportunity to then follow it up with the zoning process like this. There's nothing like having that community consensus built in. People will appreciate it when the zoning happens and people will appreciate it when the development happens enabled by that zoning. I'll be happy to be here for any questions. Thank you, Craig. Simply. Hello Cancer Council. I'm here representing Enterprise Hill. Which is also centered around Clemens historic district, which is just to the. I guess you'd call it the southeast of Mirabeau Square, including probably the farthest three blocks of Arapahoe Square. This process was, as Elvis was saying, approximately 18 months. You're going to 16 was 18 ago that we started. And Mr. Hughes did do a fantastic facilitating job with a very diverse group of people, having a developer or landowner across the table from a a neighborhood person who cares about his historic district more than anything else was a unique situation that I wish it would have been happening maybe six months or a year earlier so we wouldn't have a couple of buildings that wouldn't even come close to this design guideline. They're getting ready to break ground, but I think everything's great. This is awesome. I think the more places that the city can do things like this and involve the neighborhoods along with the the landowners and the developers, the better off our city will be. And hopefully not only Cherry Creek North, but this Arapahoe Square can be a an example of how to do this going forward. So thanks a lot. And I hope you guys supported it possibly. Could you say your name for the record? Craig Simply and I'm at 2120 Glenarm place is my address. Thank you. Bridget Farley. Mr. President, members of council, I'm Richard Farley. I live at 2500 Walnut Street, just on the edge of Arapahoe Square. And, you know, in speaking in favor of both the ordinance and the Design Advisory Board, I was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that crafted this the ordinance and the design standards and guidelines. And, you know, I'm amazed at what a thorough process it was. The staff did a terrific job. We met for ten times or it seemed like we met about 100. And there was a lot of good dialog, a lot of of give and take. There was comments from the the the audience of folks who knew about the the the effort and through the public involvement process. And it resulted in really a well researched, well-considered ordinance with design standards and guidelines. It creatively deals with street level activity, scale and variation of large buildings, unique areas in the neighborhood like 21st Street and end Broadway and parking requirements and parking design. Design being is embedded in the ordinance since. If you want to receive some of the high the height that is allowed in the in the ordinance, you have to line the parking levels or parking structure with other uses so that, you know, if you go from 12 storeys to 20 storeys, if you want that extra extra eight storeys, it's it's not given to you. You have to earn it by making the parking levels behind other uses, preferably residential, but it could be office. I think that that's a a pretty major incentive. It's not easy to get incentives into the form based code. And I think that the transitions to adjoining neighborhoods were well addressed, not only with Curtis Park but with the Ball Park neighborhood in Clemons Park. You know, I think that the the parking is also creatively addressed by eliminating the parking requirement of the larger structures. And larger developments are going to require parking through through both market and by the lenders. So they're not going to be it's not going to be on under part. But the smaller projects could very well be forced to provide more parking than they need. We had several you know, had two developers tell us that that the that the real small ones could be forced to provide. Mr. Farley. You're doing your thing. That's what I'm saying. I thoroughly support this. The ordinance and the design standards guidelines and the Design Advisory Board. Thank you, sir. Amy Harmon. Good evening. I actually am delighted about the experience we had with this task force. I am a real estate developer. I'm representing myself as a landowner, as a founder of the Community Coordinating District, which happens to be a metropolitan district for which it was the last time I was here. The last time Mary Hancock served on the council. And so fun to be back. But at that time, I think but the most exciting thing about this proposed square task force has been for me is just that it really embraced the history of all of these planning efforts that have happened for many decades, frankly, and included many people, both, you know, the example of Dick Farley, who's just a wonderful professional that we all really appreciated his perspective. And then very new planners, new owners, new council people, and in general, just the strong commitment to process, but then the participants desire to really maintain that opening for flexibility. So I was struck earlier by some of the topics earlier this evening where people were wishing for aspects of the old zoning code. And now here we are with a new form based learning code. I think we got it right in Arapaho Square. I think that we have a lot more to do in this area because it really is a large area. I think we need to start focusing on the heartbeat aspect of it, which is not about the planning in the building. It's about what the people are going to do moving forward. And it was just a real delight to be a part of such a diverse and smart and committed group of people that really through the years have had their differences but have come to be friends and I think respected peers in the neighborhood. So thank you so much. Ms.. Herman, can you could you say your name for the record? Amy Harman. Thank you for the contact. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time to speak tonight. I am Bryce, the account, the founder of our unit. We are a real estate development technology company focusing on two things sustainability and affordability. As I'm sure you guys are aware, the built environment consumes 70% of the electricity on the grid. And so we feel like it's the responsibility of ours to build our buildings as sustainable as possible. Obviously, looking out for low hanging fruit first having a sustainable envelope, sustainable mechanical. So solar production, obviously battery storage. So our buildings are not peaker buildings on the grid. And then user engagement, engaging our users in our buildings to be more energy efficient. And the only affordability side, we start every project asking ourselves, what is the price point that we think is market rate affordable for this location? And we design backwards from that. And there's really no magic trick, right? The only as as a private entity, the only tools that we have to to fix to try to fix affordability is density, right? Density and size. So obviously our use are smaller, which is great because when you make them smaller, they're inherently more energy efficient because they take less energy to heat and cool and then density or be able to be more dense on the site. And what always drives density these urban locations is parking, right? Parking is is expensive. Expensive to build. You know, either we have to buy the land and put it on the land or we have to build underground structure or. Or stack. Structure. So it's expensive. And for us to get it under the thousand dollars per month on the rental side, parking is the one is the one that that that we have to be willing to give up for. That unit, not. That all our units will be zero part, but we would like to be able to provide units in the nines by break under $1,000, and those will not have a parking spot. So with this new proposal, we have those weapons available to be able to to fix some of these issues. So obviously, we're in favor of this proposal. And I appreciate. Thank you. Thank you. John Desmond. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm John Desmond. I'm executive vice president of the Downtown Denver Partnership. And my address is 511. 16th Street. Denver. And I'm speaking on behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership this evening, which strongly supports the zoning map and text amendments, as well as the design standards and guidelines. And I also was the partnership representative on the Technical Task Force, and I'll try not to repeat to many of my other colleagues comments, but I'm very supportive of what they've all said. The partnership's been heavily involved in advocating for the improvement of Arapahoe Square for many years. Together with community planning and development, the partnership co-manage the 27 downtown area plan, which is adopted by council and which featured Arapahoe Square prominently as one of its seven transformative projects and even on a lease talked about that earlier. We were also partners with the city in developing the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, which again previous speakers talked about and went into much greater detail on Arapahoe Square. And then in the last year the partnership has been very involved with and helped fund plans to redefine 21st Street, which one runs through the heart of Arapahoe Square as a signature pedestrian and bicycle oriented street. That will serve as its. Future spine. So we're very. Emotionally invested in this plan. And we we believe, as outlined in the various plans, that this the amendments and the standards and. Guidelines are consistent with the goals and. Strategies from these plans and will greatly help foster a proper and appropriate and unique mix of high quality, well-designed developments and uses that complement both downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods and in particular in building on Councilman Brooks's comments earlier, we want to commend the plan for the thoughtful design review provisions. The encouragement of active ground floor uses. The height, transition and massing requirements, the special considerations for developments adjacent to historic districts. And the flexibility in developing building forms and parking options, all of which will make this a vital, memorable and welcoming district that will set standards for quality, sustainability and pedestrian oriented design for the entire city. And based on that, we strongly urge that you support the package of amendments this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions. Any questions of members of council? Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Hello. Hello. Thank you. Hey, if you don't mind. Abby. You remember our chat a couple of weeks ago by the elevator? Yes. I'm guessing this will be more productive. Let's see. So you talked in your presentation about open space and pedestrian oriented and doing things right. How will those elements unfold in this zoning? So, you know, a lot of the project, of course, looked at, you know, what's it going to make to make this a great place for pedestrians? A start with the open space question because it's a little more specific and there was a lot of discussion early on at the task force level. You know, how important is open space like courtyards and plazas and that sort of thing for the future of Arapahoe Square? And I think that, you know, the task force discussion was a little bit mixed on that with some task force members having concerned that, excuse me, hopefully that's not me. There was some concern that the existing character of the neighborhood, you know, and the local social services providers would make it somewhat counterproductive to provide like those privately owned open spaces, at least in the near term. And so the discussion went to, okay, we're not going to literally require those places as part of the zoning. And we looked at potentially incentivizing them. Ultimately, the main incentive we had to work with was height. And there was so much discussion regarding the need to do something about the visibility of parking in the neighborhood, particularly structured parking and of looming over the street and reducing that human scale that the task force wanted to concentrate the incentives there. So you get more height by limiting the visibility of structured parking as opposed to providing open space or doing other things. So where we landed is that open space is enabled. You know, you're you're allowed to provide it. There's a greater build to range provided on certain streets, including 21st Street, which is especially appropriate place for open space. And then in the separate design sessions and guidelines, which you're not adopting tonight, there's a lot of discussion about the quality of open space. So when you do provide space, when when the building is not built to the sidewalk edge, which is one way of activating the pedestrian space, then you are providing something that is that is highly activated, whether it's like what we've called an enhanced set back in the design terms and guidelines, that would be you're maybe providing a few extra feet along the sidewalk and either using it to expand the literal pedestrian through use area or for cafe seating or other really active things. Or if you're providing courtyards that they be highly activated. High level of transparency that real usable entrances to the buildings are located on those courtyards, that they're well-lit so that they're they're not leftover spaces. They're they're spaces that contribute to the to the pedestrian realm. So that was a lengthy answer. So I'll be quick on just the other things that we discussed with regard to pedestrian orientation. So we're moving forward. The many of the pedestrian oriented requirements that apply in urban center mixed use districts now, including the street level transparency requirements, the new street level active use requirements, which were introduced into the code last summer. And then on top of that, there's a lot of discussion in the design standards and guidelines about where entrances are located, how parking is accessed when you provide it, that it's ideally provided from the alley. In some cases, that's not possible because of the uses and the and the building configuration, but if so, that it's provided from sort of the long end of the block instead of the short end of the block, which is already very broken up by the alley being there so that those curb cuts don't have such an adverse effect on the pedestrian experience and the design terms and guidelines also talk about streetscape. And since we don't have a streetscape plan for the area that would say, you know, there should it should all be blue light fixtures or anything like that. What we talk about is that the streetscape just providing, you know, regular street trees that are sited in a way that helps them thrive and doesn't get in the way of pedestrian movement between parallel parking, say, and the sidewalk. And so there really are a lot of details of the pedestrian experience that are addressed by the proposals. So we're not requiring any open space. We are incentivizing it. Do we have any similar developments to look at that might give us a clue how other projects have played out, what we might look forward to? So you're asking how much open space do you think we'll get considering that we're not requiring it? Sure. I think interestingly, we probably will get some and there is not a specific open space requirement in Arapahoe Square now. And there aren't in most of Denver some districts. There are several projects that have been working their way through the development review process and are approved or near approval right now. One of them I know actually is pulling back from a corner along 21st Street in order to provide a very sort of obvious entry into the multifamily project there. And so is providing a kind of open space and in front of the building as part of their program. And how many acres are we rezoning here to get. The exact acreage? I don't know. Unless on a lease knows, you know, this would be the entire area on the other side of 20th from here to Park Avenue and then between essentially Welton and the alley between Larimer and Lawrence and mixed. Uses thousands of new residents probably downtown. There could be, I would guess, that the neighborhood could be built out into thousands of residential units in the future. Thank you. Mr. Farley, if you don't mind. And I'd like to just recognize Mr. Farley for his lengthy contributions to our city, both as an employee and on the other side. You've started talking about parking. And I wonder if you could talk about parking and no parking and reduce parking and how it makes sense or not in this case? Well, we discussed that a lot. And it seems that where we came down on that was that the the market in the lenders are going to require, you know, a lot of parking in the larger projects. They're going to require at least, you know, one space per unit, maybe more. Some of them require to we did not want to encourage over parking. We did not want to somehow force developers to build a lots of parking levels that in 20 years it may not be needed, or that the kind of cars we drive in 20 years are tiny cars instead of F-150s. So it seems to me that we just did not want to force parking into the equation, and we don't think that that's going to impact adjoining neighborhoods. Mm hmm. The like I say, the smaller developers often find that only a half of their of their residents require parking because so many of them, millennials and others are, you know, now using Uber, they're using they're bicycling, they're doing all sorts of stuff and they're trying to avoid buying cars and the you know, the costs related to that. And how are you defining smaller projects, approximately? I'm sorry. How are you defining? What would a smaller project look like to you as far as numbers? Oh, I would say under 50 units. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr.. Good evening. Can you talk to me? You are going to provide rentals for under $1,000 a month. That's our goal with with the proper density. And those units will have alternative modes of transportation. So we we provide, obviously, bike sharing. We're working on doing our own electric car sharing program or our projects that the tenants will be able to reserve the car through the through the app. How how large would a $999 a month? Yes. So these would be studios ranging about about around 300 square feet. Okay. So micro units, was that a fair? So technically, we don't use that that term because technically a migraine is 300 square feet and below. That's the technical definition. And because we're in a green technology in our yes, we actually call them smart units because we can show people who can live just as well and in a well laid out unit. And how do how does what you're talking about compare to what the market is offering now in that size range? So so right now for comparable, you know, traditional class-A apartment building, they're building a few studios. And the ones that they're building are about 650 square feet, at least 505 or 600 square feet. And those are renting up to 14 $50,000 a month. And so your yours will be aimed at what am I? So we 80% and below. I'd like to be obviously as I can go under, that'd be great. But 80% of I am I. And last. You're not out of the ground yet. No. So I forgot to mention. Sorry, I was. Trying to put in 3 minutes. That's okay. I'm just. I assume you're saying that's your aim? Yeah, we bought a we bought a property last year at 20 to 50 shampoo, right. Sort of middle block. So we own a parcel. And do you think it's realistic by the time you would be out of the ground and open that you'll be able to offer something under a thousand a month? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a question for the same speaker that just walked away. This is look, you're still in. Over here. Oh, excuse me. So, Councilman Castro, next part of my question. But what I wanted to know is if for your particular development and I was really excited to hear that somebody is looking at bringing something in at a more affordable price point, although they are small units. Yes. Do you anticipate going after any type of subsidies, incentive dollars, housing, tax credits, any of that kind of stuff to target a lower income population? No, that's a good question. The one tool that we found is with with Freddie, Fannie and Freddie. So they actually are promoting workforce housing and we fit that criteria there. Their workforce affordable price for that location is about $1,044 a month. So we we fit that criteria. And because of that, we get better terms on our debt for permanent financing. So I think that's a that's one tool that we're you. Know, you're not having a problem financing a unit of that size. No, because, again, the nice thing is when you take three or four square foot off the unit per square foot, it's comparable to to a 650 square foot studio. You just made it smaller. So the overall prices lower. Okay. Thank you. My next question is either for Abe or Dick Farley. So given the work that you did with the neighborhood, I want to hear a little bit about the discussions as it related to any of the shelters in the area. Looking at the boundaries, I'm not sure how many or which ones of the large shelters are actually in this area and were they part of the process and do they know their property was resumed if they're in there and I can't tell from the map which ones are actually in. There are several that are in. I think probably most of the ones you you'd think of are within the within the boundary for the map amendments. So how far north does it go? Does it include lumber? It goes. So on the north side, it goes halfway between Lawrence and Larimer. So to that alley. Okay. So the ballpark historic district is not in, but everything just just on this side is is in. And we did have a member of the task force from the Colorado Coalition of the Homeless who represented their interests on the task force. We didn't have a lot of active participation from the other social service providers. You know, we certainly heard, not surprisingly, that, you know, some residents, both of Arapahoe Square and of of surrounding neighborhoods, are concerned with the concentration of social services there, which is, you know, relatively near its maximum in terms of what could realistically be there with zoning requirements regarding separation and and the exact location of those services in terms of, you know, whether or not those uses were appropriate or what the future holds for them. The task force, I think, felt that that really was part of a bigger city wide conversation, that it didn't really make sense to just look at it from the perspective of that one neighborhood. And I know Councilman Brooks, as you know, had a lot of discussions regarding elevating that conversation more to a citywide level. So their properties are included. And the ones that I can think of, given the boundaries that you described, are the Denver Rescue Mission. Salvation Army has, I know at least one, possibly two locations down there. Clearly, Koch has a number of them. Samaritan House is included. I think the only one that's not is step 13, which is on the river street. So the vast majority of them would be and I don't know that CCH had direct dialog with, with all the others. And so I would just say that I think of a reach out to them would be really important for them to know that their property has been resolved. I don't know that it makes any difference in terms of what their core operations are, but I think it would be really important for them to know that they've been included in this. You know. Sure. Yeah, that's that's a really good point. I'll mention that, you know, we also did twice do mailings to all the property owners that we have on record in the area, both at the outset of the project to get them involved and then more recently to say, look, there's a proposal on the table at this point, you know. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Yeah, Councilmember. It's funny you ring in. You indicated. I just wanted to respond. I just wanted to respond to that because, you know, we worked on this for a little bit. The first thing I'd say is that the existing zoning under DHS allows we're just mapping. And so there's a there's certain allowable uses there and there's nothing that we switched. The other thing I'd say is there are a number of providers who came to the meetings and attended the meetings and every provider was notified. So if there's a learning conversation that we can have, I mean, we are certainly welcome to that. We certainly had a lot of different viewpoints come through that meeting. And we, you know, we weren't addressing uses, we were doing zoning. And so but I appreciate I appreciate the question, but I think this zone district encompasses every provider, you know, homeless provider in that area. Thanks. But Councilman Espinoza. I don't even know if we can do this, but is since there are height incentives, are there any affordability incentives? Christian. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And I just calculated the acreage for Councilman Cashman. So it's about 100 acres. And in terms of your affordability question, there are not specific incentives for provision of affordable housing. It certainly was very much a part of the discussion in terms of, you know, again, kind of like the open space. Should there be requirements? Should there be incentives? And ultimately, the task force, I think, really deferred to the to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, which says that design incentives, which were really the ones that we had to work with, like giving additional height, were best used to incentivize design features. So that's what we're doing better. Quality design gets you better height, not affordable. Housing gets you gets you more height. And also just a feeling that, you know, you know, we know that there's this bigger citywide conversation regarding affordable housing that's really gathered a lot of steam. And, you know, we're on the verge of some major proposals that will apply citywide. And so the task force really deferred to that effort with regard to specific requirements for affordable housing. Did you? Yeah. Let me let me respond to it, because there is another effort afoot, obviously, at 30th and Blake, where we're looking at affordable housing. You know, what we learned nationwide when we're looking at incentives is that depending on where your base is and where the entitlement is, is really what incentivize. So, for instance, you know in at 30th and Blake the base is really low in that the height of the entitlement that we're asking for is at 16. So there are folks going from 3 to 16 and that would incentivize them. The base in this district is already at 150 feet in some areas. And so the, you know, incentivizing that was not the greatest. And so we we had a conversation around that and it just didn't make sense. And I didn't feel like we had a low enough base to to do that. But I mean, obviously it was a part of the conversation. It was something that we had as a as a task force. Councilman Flynn. I know. And actually. Councilman Spence, I'm sorry. Go ahead and finish our question. So can you guys go to the slide that shows the upper story setbacks? And I actually. Have a slide that we didn't show, which will show a little bit more detail about how that works. There are there are a series of slides here. So. This is good. The thing is, is that this depiction shows a real, real simple you know, it's very simple imagery to sort of explain the upper the concept of upper story setbacks. But the the depictions in the in the other graphics really convey the character, a character about the nature of these setbacks. And I want to sort of because I'm I mean, the next question is going to be to explain to me how the design standard, once again, how the design standards, the and the zoning are sort of how they relate. Okay. So the other depiction sort of shows more architectural sort of sense of meaning, character. Again, that's that's real simple. Like, you can't obviously you can't build well, so you can't build anything, anything that even vaguely looks like that. Right? Because there's no openings. There's no vertical, horizontal or articulation of the facade. There's no transparency on the ground level. So go back to the other renderings that we're showing and sharing with the public. So now the runway shows the little orange landing. Let me see. Okay. Do you want to use this? Yes. Because this sort of shows and conveys some sort of notion about what this place could be and how those setbacks impact the design of the structures. And so I would like to know how true to the zoning these models are are, because this is sort of the the concern about the existing zoned districts is we've conveyed a real, real architectural power, I mean, tangible architectural examples. And that then the people, the layperson sort of feels that that adequately reflects the development potential. But in reality, there's a lot of relief shown here that actually isn't in the zone requirement. And the cause. And then I want to speak to that. But a first need to understand how this how this sort of both depicts the zoning and relates to this design standards, because there's some very healthy cornices on the buildings and at those each one of the setbacks, that is not a requirement, if I understand what I've read. Correct. So yeah, that's a good question. These graphics are very similar to graphics that are used in the building form tables and the proposed zoning for the for these three building forms. And all three of the building firms, of course, meet the zoning standards. And you will see that, you know, like this building right here, you can see where I'm pointing. Mm hmm. And this building here that those those orange areas are the required setback areas. And those two buildings. That's they're showing the bare minimum of setbacks. Like that's the minimum that could meet the setback requirement. This one here, you'll see that the orange is the bare minimum needed to meet the setback requirement. But there's a there's more design there. There's a more creative thing going on. It's not this area that's not marked in orange is not specifically required as a setback. And then you said mentioned on those those other graphics that just sort of showed sort of the block buildings that didn't have any windows or things like that. Those were just to illustrate different creative approaches for using the setback standard and not any of the other requirements. But so on these graphics, there is the build to requirement in the zoning regarding the position of the buildings, the transparency requirement in the zoning, regarding the transparency. The zoning requires that there be street facing entrance on each building, and the design signs and guidelines then, you know, are really are a unique thing here, which is taking something that that you're right. You know, you could if you if you try to go for the bare minimum and you just provide the transparency and you only do what you'd absolutely have to do for the upper storey setback, perhaps we're not getting where we need to go for a district like Arapahoe Square. But the design serums and guidelines are an opportunity to have a more detailed discussion. Okay. How are you working within the zoning to meet the objectives that we've set forth for Arapahoe Square? And so, for example, there's a whole section on the the street level and the street level definition. And while it doesn't necessarily say that the only way you can provide the pedestrian, comfortable street level is to put a cornice right above the first level for for that sense of enclosure, it talks about a whole range of strategies and says, oh, you have to do something. So so these buildings, you do have to do this higher level of design quality in Arapahoe Square through that process. There's a lot of different ways you could do it, though. So I couldn't tell you that this is exactly how it would play out with any existing building. But it would it is it's it is in Cbd's belief because of the wind, the opening stack, the way they're sort of talked about in the design guidelines and standards. And there are horizontal projections and there are some pilasters and things like that. General sense is, is that this does convey something that would meet that. Yes. Well, I'm not a member member of the design advisory board, so it's not for me to for me to decide. But yeah, as staff, we wanted to show buildings that we thought met the full package. You know, these are graphics that are in the zoning, but, but the buildings are going to have to go through the separate design review. And we wanted to show things that were consistent with the intent. So then can legally what is the so you have a section 13.1 .6. 2a5c, which is. Wall design elements. Mm hmm. How does that section relate to the design guidelines, the standards, and which one takes precedent legally when there is conflict? Yeah, that's a really good question. So what Councilman Espinosa is referring to is that so there's the base transparency requirement. And then in this zone district, like other mixed use zone districts, there are transparency alternatives to provide some flexibility. We've listed a pretty limited range of them here in this district. And actually the the only two that we've listed are the art and like display cases. So while design is one that's a transparency alternative that's available in other mixed use districts, but not this one. But I would say, you know, it would be a good example that that if it were one of the alternatives, the zoning sort of attempts to kind of set forth a very bare minimum of what you're going to have to do with this wall that would otherwise be blank in terms of design to qualify as an alternative . And I think design review really can it is very appropriate to add an extra layer on to that. Okay. We you definitely have to meet the bare minimum. That's what zoning says. Now, how does this respond to this particular situation? Is it actually meeting the intent? You know, is it is it really substituting for transparency or not? And that's that's appropriate. So we don't get to that section through the Das zone districts. Is that correct? Right. Yeah. So that it's probably in there because it just happens to be on the same page as something that we that we did adjust. But it's not one of the available alternatives. Good. Because there's obviously some control. I was looking at some conflict between the the design and I was going to ask you, how do we rectify those those conflicts with that? So I would. Well, no, we can't even do that. So then that's it. Thank you for those answers. I would actually then like to talk to Dick Farley and Joel Noble on a couple of items. I want both of your guys his opinion on this. So, Joel, first, I want to thank you for mentioning the effort that it took to get here in the number of steps , just as a point of privilege, I guess I'm going to say that is why I advocated for a 15 FTE, one and a half million dollars for CPD staff specifically to do this process in those areas that are sort of most quickly being impacted by this level of development. And then also then having that resource to get other areas this level of scrutiny, because we have valuable places that need to be considered. There's a lot of really great ideas here, but you only get there through all those steps that you just talked about. So thank you for mentioning that. And because that's important and crucial. So on the design standards, I know we're not talking about that, but there are. Can't even read my own chicken scratch. Enhanced setback language would. What about those enhanced setbacks and this is to both to you would not wear how would those not comport to existing zone zero setback zone districts would those all I mean would those those notions those those those strategies, would they be how closely are they able to be carried over to other existing zero setback zone districts? I think Mr. Farley might be better equipped as an architect to speak to that. Well, you do have a bill of his own. That's part of this district. 0 to 10 feet. And within that, you're, you know, 70% of your building facade that faces, you know, a primary street. Actually, before. You do that, can you explain to the to the people what the concept is on these enhanced setbacks, actually, that are part of that that are now going to be incorporated into the Stone District. Council? Why don't you make sure that your questions are. Answered before we. Okay. Because I don't know, just to do my colleagues all understand what an enhanced setback is and everyone. Okay. Never mind. Go ahead. Well, I'm not sure I do. The enhanced setback, as far as I know, is part of the build. Whose own? 0 to 10 feet there are in the design standards and guidelines. There are, you know, sort of a lot of standards and guidelines that encourage you to set back further the setback an additional three or five feet from the build to zone in order to get a larger sidewalk. Those are encouragements in the in the design standards and guidelines, in fact. Well, actually, they're more than that. There are some standards in there. I don't think you I don't know if you have a copy of the design standards and guidelines to go along with it . But if that's what you mean by enhanced setbacks, then we're trying to encourage the development to push back a little bit and make that useful space for the public, rather than trying to create two courtyards that are largely private. Do you guys believe that the incentive is there, that this will get captured and to the degree that is desired? I'm sorry. Repeat that, please. Is the incentive there to do that, that you that the task force believes that this that this enhanced set back will get rid of? I said it better the first time. So there's there's there's a I believe there are features here that are generally desired at the pedestrian level. Do you feel that there is a sufficient enough incentive that this will this will be utilized to the degree that is desired for this zone district? Yeah, I think so. I think within the dialog, the design standards and guidelines within the Design Advisory Board, I think that we can achieve more of a ground level open space and step back. That means something. Okay. The reason. So now back to that original question, because there's there there's a lot there's there's just enough in here that I think would speak. And it speaks to the pedestrian environment regardless. I mean, any sort of urban or Main Street ish zone district, I think it has direct applicability. But I don't I didn't work on hammering those out. You guys did. Do you feel like they do actually have portability to others zoned districts that have zero mean similar setback requirements? Well, if you redo those districts, I suppose they have portability. But and that's why I'm asking, because the next thing is, you know, in a later meeting, I'll probably ask CPD, hey, what about a text amendment that actually captures this sort of language citywide because we have these own districts throughout. Yeah. So I think. Can I just just add a little bit of technical detail? Things stick so the the enhanced setbacks, the anticipation that word enhance setbacks doesn't exist in the text amendment. It's a concept in the in the separate design standards and guidelines. It's really like, what do you do when the building is not right at the sidewalk edge and the the build to range is 0 to 10 on on a lot of streets in Arapahoe Square, which is consistent with urban centers, own districts. But there are some specific streets that are identified in the plan and that we talked about at the task force level, especially 21st Street, which has this whole separate plan going on for it. That'll be like the the district's linear park is the way it's shaping up that those are places where we could say, oh, actually the build to is 0 to 20. So that's what the zoning says. So now there's some real space that you have to work with there. And what the design standards are talking about, design parents and guidelines are talking about is what do you do when you use that space? And I think what's what's different here, I mean, this is this is potentially portable. But there's a key difference is that we have a higher comfort level in increasing the build to range because we've got the design review process to look case by case at what's happening in that space and and ensure that it's meeting the intent of engaging the street, which is what the build two standard is is supposed to be doing. Thank you. I mean, that that answer just speaks to everything that we were just talking about. And thank you for that announcement on further questions. Thank you, Councilman. Go to Flynn and then Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Abe And maybe since Kara is here, maybe she could weigh in on this also. But in looking at the the map amendment, I noticed a couple of carve outs and one of them is the 20th Street Gym, which is a Denver historic landmark building. But there's another Denver landmark building, the savage candy company that is included in the map amendment and also the Paris Hotel, which I'm surprised to learn is not a Denver landmark but is a national register property. Karen may be able to save me here. I believe the Paris Hotel is actually in the ballpark. Historic district for me. May call up on this map. Okay. I don't think that it is, but. And sorry. In any case, I was wondering what is the impact of the map amendment and the text amendment together on those? Well, obviously nothing on the 20th Street, Jim, but on the Sandwich Candy Company and on other perhaps eligible buildings within the Map amendment, how will this impact those? Sure. So the savage candy company, as you said, is a locally designated historic landmark. That means that the landmark design guidelines also apply to that building. Now, right now, the that existing Arapahoe Square design review actually spills over outside of Arapahoe Square into areas that are also designated historic districts. That's a little bit awkward because when there's like vacant ground or when there's buildings that are able to be torn down because they're not contributing, there might be some question about how the two guidelines interact to guide review of a new building, but we're fixing that by making sure there's no overlap between historic districts and the robust square design review. There will still be overlap with the The Savage Candy Company and anything else that's designated in the future. It's a little different, though, because those buildings are, you know, the they obviously are essentially contributing buildings. They can't be torn down. So we're not talking about new construction there. We're only talking about additions and other things that might happen on those buildings, in which case we would defer completely to the landmark review process, which is really what has a lot to say about the treatment of an existing important building. Okay. And you just kind of touched on or opened up the door for my other question, which was I noticed that we're giving a floor area premium for. For rehabilitation of landmarked buildings. But is there also an opportunity to give floor area a premium for rehabilitation of eligible buildings? It doesn't seem that that's that's addressed here. But might that encourage the preservation of some eligible buildings that aren't landmarked currently? Right. To get to give that floor area premium for that? Sure. One thing I'll note is that where you're looking at that floor area premium that's in the existing DEA zoning, not one of the new zone districts, and that actually that zone district only exists in there now in order to apply to the area that isn't proposed for the MAP amendment. Like if we had included that area, that zone district would have been struck from existence. Essentially, it's it's, you know, one of the districts that predates the 2010 form based zoning approach. That's why it has a floor, a ratio standard in it. And those premiums so that district doesn't will only apply essentially in this area that was continued to apply in this area here that was left out. Now, could we be doing that sort of thing in the new zone districts? Yes, potentially it is kind of goes back to the questions about affordable housing. And, you know, what we're trying to incentivize and and the the task force discussion that really ended up emphasizing the the streetscape and the visibility of structured parking as being what was most important to use the limited incentive power that we had available on . There are some challenges with regard to giving premiums for eligible buildings and that sort of thing. It's primarily because until something is designated as a historic landmark, it can be torn down. And so you can see the difficulty with giving a big premium for preservation of a building that could be torn down three years later. Right. And so typically, most cities say, no, the premium is available only if it's designated. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Catherine, back up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Nice to see you again, pal. Affordability. So we're building 100 acres with no affordable housing. So how large is the Gates property? Uh, I. I'm remembering about 40 acres or so. Is that true? 40 acres? Yeah. You know, so much. About half the size. Little less than half the size. So last time we discussed this affordable housing. Maybe not last time, but a few months ago, we were told that the city has like 100,000 income burdened families right now. And every time we talk, we're we're talking about affordable housing being our great challenge. And I love everything I'm hearing about this project. But that and since that's what I personally believe is our city's greatest challenge to give up 100 acres. I'm looking around the city trying to find where we're going to put anything approaching the number, the amount of affordable housing we need to solve the problem. Can you help me with that? Well, you know, in Councilman Brooks may have something to add, but, you know, just to know that fairly soon, ideally, you know, as the citywide approach to affordable housing moves forward, there actually will be have requirements that apply in Arapahoe Square along with, you know, everywhere else where new development is occurring. And what exactly that looks like. Councilman Brooks could probably tell you more about that. We did talk about, you know, affordability a lot as part of the discussion. And it really came down to, you know, once we kind of passed the point where it was clear that the task force didn't want to go in the direction of like literally saying you have to provide 10% of the units or whatever it's going to be that the discussion was really, let's make sure that we don't make it too expensive to develop. Let's make sure that we allow for the variety of projects like the projects that Mr. Lockhart was talking about, that might be more likely to provide some relatively market rate, affordable housing. And then if, you know, of course, the IHS, which may not be doing much now because so much rental is being built but does apply there now. Yeah, no, I understand. And I think you're alluding to your council's begun consideration of linkage fees. You know, developer impact fees. So if we don't get any affordable housing on these hundred acres. Perhaps as time goes on, we're able to arrive at that some sort of fee of that nature. That still permits development, but brings us some dough in to incentivize elsewhere. Right. But I'm looking for the ground where that's going to be built with the number of units that we need in the city. And I'm just having a hard time finding out where that is. So, yeah, that's that's just where I'm at right now. Thank you for your answer. Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Ortega. Well, I just want to add that I think by creating a higher density area and in creating a higher in best use opportunity, it. You know, I can remember way back when, you know, the city took a trip with a whole bunch of people with the I can't remember if is the chamber or the partnership. This was like 15 years ago. Everybody went to Vancouver and came back and, you know, everybody was kind of raising their hand saying, yeah, we need density in Denver and this is where we're going to have affordability. But guess what? That's not how it happened. Where we have seen density, we have not seen affordability. And unless we have the conversation and make it a priority, in my experience, in the absence of public policy, you you get nothing. You don't get the affordable housing unless there's public financing that goes along with it. It's why when we did the inclusionary housing ordinance, we set a policy for ensuring that affordability was a value that this city wanted to see with anybody building more than 30 units. And we're going to see the density in this area comparable to what's in our downtown. You know, the central business district. But we're placing no value and we'll see all these other pieces come through piecemeal. But we're being asked to make this commitment right now. Without that key element, knowing how critical affordable housing is for this city. And I think it's it's a missed opportunity. I think we have really missed the boat by not ensuring that it was, in fact, a part of what was brought forward for this council to be able to incorporate into the changes that were being asked to do now, because it's the thing that always gets left out or left off. And it's why we have people that are on the outside of the looking glass, you know, wishing that they could be part of all the great things that are happening in the city of Denver. But they're the families having to move away because they can't afford to live in the city. So I just I'm concerned that we haven't done that yet. And I hear that that's still part of the conversation. But, you know, I equate this to what we did with I-70. We gave away all the land underneath I-70 as part of an IGA, which was our only leveraging point. And now if there are things that we need and want for those neighborhoods, it's a hell of a lot harder to make damn sure we're taking care of those needs. And so I'm just struggling a little bit with this. I mean, I think the need to expand our downtown is critical. Having some big box retail is is vital to our city. Every major city you go to has, you know, some of that as part of the element. You know, they're incorporated into the housing developments, their incredible mixed use opportunities all across the country. But I'm just concerned we're missing the boat on that piece. Thanks to. You. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman. Okay, we're still on questions. Councilman Espinosa, I'm happy with you. Councilman Lopez, you got a question? Yes, I have a question on on particular in regards to affordability. Not maybe the city attorney's office. I could chime in on it. Can we? I think those are valid points. But can we negotiate terms of affordable housing availability units, any kind of mandates in this particular ordinance? But not. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I don't know if this is responsive, but you have no authority to impose rental restriction requirements as part of your regulatory authority under state law. So nothing could have been embedded in this ordinance that would have limited the rentals on any rental properties. They're going to be built in the area being resold tonight, currently under the Cho, which may be about to change in the near future. But currently any for sale housing would be fully subject to the Cho if something were to happen rapidly before before anything else happens to that ordinance. So you you have and you all know this you have extreme limitations on what you can do in terms of controlling with your police power rentals and apartment complexes. And as Councilwoman Ortega just alluded to years ago, we adopted a policy for requiring inclusionary units in for sale projects. Right. So those are the general public policies that guide development in any reason the property, including this free zone property, those are the limitations, those are the considerations and it's already been mentioned and it's for another night because of the limitations we face under state law. We're trying some new things that will be coming to this council very soon that will apply to this property when construction occurs in this property and will apply to properties all over the city that will address the issue of affordability on a global basis. But, you know, not to be any more redundant than that and others on council may want to comment. I know Councilman Brooks and both are heavily involved with what's coming, which will have applicability to this territory as well as other properties around the city. Thank you, Mr. Broadway Council President. Thank you. Okay. Okay. All right. So I think you had an answer for comments or did I want to get the comments or did you have a question you have questions or you want to answer? Or do you want to? If there is a question about how a future linkage fee might work in this area, I'm happy to answer that now or in the comment period, I felt like there was an implied question, so I'm happy to shed some light on that, if that's helpful. I have a question regarding that and not necessarily the linkage fee, but. I know at some point we talked about the possibility for a buildout option. Do you do we have any notion about what that would what that would be? Because then it would be directly applicable to development, new development in this area if there were such an option. So, Mr. President, with your. Thank you, Mr. President. So the way that a typical linkage fee in the one that we're anticipating would work is it's charged per square foot of development. And generally speaking, every city that we've modeled in our anticipation is that we would replicate is would have a build alternative. So it would basically be a conversion probably again by square foot. So for every thousand square feet, you're responsible 4.1 units perhaps. So it's it's some kind of a formula that actually creates responsibility. And so the way that it works is it's an option. So your default requirement is to pay, but there is an option to build. I think the way that we've discussed this with the Office of Economic Development is that if you were to build units in a situation like this, you're getting credit for those units instead of paying the fee. There's no subsidy from the city, but it's also probably a very small number of units. It's not near the 10% that you might get in an inclusionary project. So why is it better for the city? It's better for the city because every single development is contributing, but they're contributing a much smaller amount. So it's spread more evenly across the real estate market. And so in a case like this, what may happen is you may have some properties that pay the fee, you may have some properties that choose to build the units and they have no subsidy. And it's maybe just a small number of units. You may have other projects, however, where they actually seek to maybe they're having a hard time making their performance work. And Councilman Brooks has had several of these projects in the Wellston corridor where they may actually choose to seek out some subsidy. Maybe they were required to build three or four units, but if they build 20 units, they're able to get a loan from the Office of Economic Development. So there is an opportunity for us to come in later. So you may be we're obligated to build three or four units, but with a loan from OSD, you're able to get to ten or 20 units. And ultimately what we have the opportunity to do is not just receive linkage fees, but we actually have the opportunity to spend them. So that's one opportunity that may happen is the layering. That's only if you go above what the base requirement is. So the other thing I would state is that this this whole regime would then replace the inclusionary housing ordinance. So that would no longer apply on the for sale side to new projects going forward. But it would have similar length of affordability and contracts and things like that. So the only other thing I might add is just that when we think about this site as compared to a gate site or other sites, one of the challenges I have as a policymaker is this is not one landowner, right? So most of those other really big sites involve a single landowner. I think one of the most important opportunities for affordability in this area will probably be either through that layered subsidy approach with buildings that need maybe some assistance getting over the finish line and are willing to entertain affordability to help do that or for acquisition of actual properties, you know, for for affordable workforce housing perhaps or affordable for sale housing even. So those are those are all possibilities, but they become much more about layering the alternatives within the policy than they can be about the upfront. Set aside that some of our bigger projects have done when they have a single landowner, and that single landowner has decided to enter into an area wide plan, we don't have a single landowner here, so it makes it harder to do the same outcome. Thank you, Councilman King. All right. So, colleagues, I want to bring us back to this and see if there any more questions. And I want to get to comments which I know won't be brief. And then the reminder, there's another public hearing. So being respectful of people's time, I hope we continue to move forward. So see, no other questions, no club hearings, not closed comments. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to take a little bit of time and thank some of the people in this audience who are still still sitting in these chairs and paid for parking, hopefully. So, you know, I have a ticket, a thank you for your leadership on this. You've been great. And Sarah Showalter, wherever you are taking care of your baby. I hope you. Thank you. You've been great as well. And Elise, you've been awesome. Thank you for your leadership. Very sharp. Really cut your teeth on Arapahoe Square is really fun to watch you make use. Left. But he has been an incredible facilitator. He did a great job. This is not an easy bunch. I remember one meeting in particular where, you know, John Noble, you know, Dick Farley was Chris's last name from planning board. Smith. Chris Smith. Incredible. We're just into this crazy zoning matter where it was and it was incredible debate and we actually had that several times. And so but developers and, you know, property owners, this was this was incredible, I will say, is probably one the one of the times I just walked into the room and said, I'm I am learning so much each time I come here because people just brought their expertize. And so thank you for everyone who was on the task force. I really appreciate it. And I also want to thank a person who did not who's not here with us and who did not see this through, but was very instrumental on the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan in 2010 and 11. And that's Carl Madison. This was something that was super important to her, cause I read her notes as I got in her office, and I am more connected to her than everyone else. I just want to give Carlene Madison a shout out. Wherever you are. Let's just talk about affordable housing just for 1/2, because I think one thing I think those are good points made by councilwoman can teach, especially one of the reasons we have not seen our appeals court take off is this many different landowners who are not really connected and there's not a real vision and brand for Arapahoe Square. But the current situation, the current housing situation in Arapahoe Square, no one is really talking about that. Well, let me talk about it real quick. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, 200 plus units right across the street right off of park have Saint Francis these are these are these are permanent affordable housing units. Housing first program Saint Francis 200 plus units. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless will have another 150 units offer. Broadway Brant Snyder is building 223 units from 30 to 60% i and those are just the larger projects. The Denver Housing Authority has over 4 to 600 units of affordability. And so there's a current base in this area that I think is very important for us to consider when we're talking about affordability in the city. And so, you know, I want my colleagues to know it wasn't by lack of effort trying to figure out how do we think about mixed income housing, which is called for in the downtown northeast downtown neighborhoods plan? We don't have a lot of market rate units in this area currently. We don't have a lot of mixed income units, workforce housing units currently in this area. And that's what we do want. But, you know, until you're in the lab, in the lab to me means 16 months with this group of individuals trying to think of creative ways to make this happen. It's really not that easy. And at 30th and Blake, we're trying to make this happen and it is hard and it's a lot of hard work. We think we can come to a conclusion. The other thing I want to say is there are current entitlements under under the current DHS zoning under FHA that are pretty similar to what we just mapped. And that's important for folks to realize. What we did was we added incentives. What we did is, is we added design standards and guidelines, which I feel like is going to help this area and going to help the issues that we're seeing citywide of people throwing up anything they want to in in certain districts. And the other piece that I just want to give a lot of credit to the staff and to the task force is we had it wasn't just like we came up with these ideas and said, okay, I hope somebody builds it. We brought architects in and we brought developers in and we had them test everything that we put forward. And so I feel confident in this plan. I feel like there's going to be some real opportunities for all types of housing in this district. And I think we're going to get some beautiful developments in this district. So I'll be supporting this. And not only because I feel like it's the future of what we need to be doing in these small area plans and and mapping districts and put in design standards and guidelines. But because of the experts you see in the audience from our community who actually did the hard work. To make this a reality. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Yeah. Just because we talked about it, I wanted to throw out what I was thinking. This is going to be gross oversimplification on the math, but it speaks to something that it's too late for this, but it's something that we should be thinking because we're working on these things. And so we shouldn't be. We should be more holistic when we when we approach it, because we have been throughout the 14 month process, we have had an affordable housing issue and we've been looking for solutions and we've been talking about things. And so this gross oversimplification actually uses the graphic that's on your screens and up on the wall. As you can see, the majority of the you know, the largest chunk is that 20 story plus. And so if I were Jesus and this is not again, this is gross oversimplification, but if it's 100 acres and it's been uniformly 12 developable stories, that's 1200 acres of potential development. Again, gross oversimplification. I know. And if you just made a 1% requirement, you would have 500,000 and you took that 12, 12, 1200 acres. You'd have 500,000 square feet of affordability if you just had a 1% on that. And then if that's roughly equivalent or close to where we end up with a developer fee, suddenly it starts to go, well, wait a sec, maybe we should do our build too, because the delta between getting money to do that versus what our requirement is compels us. And rather than have concentrated developments with those people in the 380 square foot units or those people in the Saint Francis Center, we could actually have these things mixed into this Arapahoe Square development just more organically. I mean, it's not organic because it's we're compelling it by zoning, but we're making it really one of those things that is very difficult to not choose because there is economy of scale. One of the reasons why you go in, you take that incentive to go to 12 and go into a point tower and stuff like that is because once you've hit certain thresholds, it just makes its starts to get cheaper to keep repeating yourself. Floor after floor after floor, your vertical transportation systems are already and your smoke exhaust systems are already and pressurized air pressurization system, all this stuff that goes into these buildings to make them tall, you know, doesn't it starts to pay off. It starts to reduce costs as you go up. And so there was certain that's unfortunate. We're not talking about till now. And so that's not going to. But but it is something that I wish we were thinking about. We didn't just that that was one of those maybe it was one of those models that you guys tested and go, well, wait a sec. If a developer in fact fee is at $2 a square foot, which on a $300 square foot construction project is is is, you know, is still a little one and a half percent and do that right. But you get it. That's actually far less than 1%. Never mind. But, you know, I don't know where we're going to end up being, but I know we modeled 7% and we modeled 1%. I mean, one mill, you know, all these different things we could maybe have said, is there a sweet spot where we compel development in this area to at least consider capturing affordability in their incentive to go up? And so it's just a missed opportunity, but it's not one we thought about really until now. And it's in this discussion about linkage fee and Mills is is is something that we weren't really was a notion up until recently. So it's too late. But I just wanted everyone to sort of recognize that this is a long, big area with a lot of potential. And there there might be a way going forward for us to think about when we do zone districts, how we might actually make that close, that gap so that we're actually getting more mixed use developments akin to the Verde in New York City rather than single one offs here, there and everywhere even. But there's things there, too. Anyway, I do want to thank everyone that was involved, because this is this is as you probably figured out, my time on council is sort of my ideal. I wish I had 14 months in in an army of CPD. And because I do have an army of community and people that would want to get involved with this so that we could do this in District one. But this is a great thing, and I thank you all for being a participant in that. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So I recently were with a number of my colleagues and others and in the business community in the city, went on an urban exploration voyage to Brooklyn and saw how they're dealing with a lot of issues. And people ask me what my takeaway was from that when I got back, and what my take away from that trip was, is I came back very convinced that the need for in substantially increased density, inappropriate places. And at the same time I came back with a commitment to increased efforts of historic preservation, inappropriate places. This project meets for me all the requirements of increased density. I might even think that if there was anything I'd do different, it would be to go higher. And I appreciated Attorney Broadwell reminding us of the limits that we have on what we can do to affect affordability. You know, we can't force rental affordability. We can do it. Or our ordinances for affordability on purchased properties is limited. I get that. But my constituents and everybody I talk to around the city, they're not really interested in those details. They're they're interested in the fact that their parents can't downsize because there's nowhere for them to go locally. Their kids can't buy in Denver for. There's nowhere for them to go. Our teachers can't buy in Denver because they're not making enough. The crisis that I hear from everybody is affordable housing. And I have nothing but respect for the task force that created this plan because I believe that they did everything they could within the current realities to create this proposal. I just can't give up with if I was hearing anything. From people across the city, from people who want to move here about anything but affordable housing to to get zero is never a good number for me, you know. So to get as close to zero as we're getting in a hundred acres with literally within walking distance of of one of our largest employment zones in the city. Proximity to rail. I just can't do that. So unfortunately, while there's so much about this that I love, I'm not going to be able to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Captain Burke's my hop over and go to Councilman Lopez. Cosmo Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this moving forward. I share my same the same sentiments as my colleague, Councilman Cashman in a lot of places. Why not go higher? And especially where density is needed. You look at where we're at in this particular area and that, you know, that's that's a great opportunity. Yes. It's a lot of acreage. And, you know, here's the thing. We're going to need the units. You know, in order to affect a lot of different things economically, you need those units. And it is unfortunate and that we have are and are limited in terms of any kind of doing anything about affordable housing when it comes to rent control and and things like that. Right. I think when you look at and it's exactly what I asked our assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, that Telluride ruling looms over our head like a big dark cloud. And there's really nothing we can do on the city level about that. You know, except to try to build more units. And try to allow density in areas where it's appropriate. So, you know, A, is the status quo in this area acceptable? Absolutely. No, it is completely underdeveloped. And I just hope that we, as we are as as the plan has been fulfilled, as those sites are being built upon , and as we break ground and put cranes in the air. But that perhaps. It's not just for sale development, that it's also other uses particularly. Housing for folks who. Basically are on our street and call that neighborhood home as well, too. So having said that, I do support this moving forward. I think it's a step in the right direction. It's something that's been, as Councilman Brooks said, talked about since I remember Carter Madsen sitting in this chair and talking about Arapahoe Square and setting that vision. So let's move forward. I'm supportive, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks, back up. I just wanted to end on a note that was, you know, positive and make sure that all the folks who were involved in this project really know how groundbreaking it is and how it's it's us as a city in a direction where we're going to be able to repeat this in other small areas. So I want to say that. And then the last thing I want to say around affordability is, you know, in in the NHL, there's this there's this there's this loophole in downtown area and districts where you are incentivized to build higher. And we incentivize you to, you know, to get affordable housing. And that loophole was never taken advantage of in this district, which I find interesting. And we had this conversation in our. In our task force. And so, you know, I think it's once it gets to this stage now, now I feel like a staff person, you know , because we went through this with 18 months. But once it gets to this stage, I think it's easy to to criticize and to say what could have been. And but until you go through the process and you sit through the meetings, until you weigh all the evidence, until you show the data, it's it's a challenge. And I think this group did a tremendous job and came together and was very successful. And so I just want to thank everybody involved. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I will just simply and then I'll go to Councilman Brooks for the offer. His amendment. I mean, you all sincerely should be applauded for this. This is remarkable. And I think, Joy, you hit on the head. No argument. You're going higher and denser and no complaints whatsoever. And I think it's a testament to all the work that you put together. So it's it's unfortunate we have Monday morning quarterbacking going because I think it's yeoman's work and it's easy for us to sit here at the end and say, wait and consider this. And I appreciate Councilman Kenny's kind of letting us know about the linkage fees. And I agree with her reasoning for why I think it's a challenge here. So I think this is a great thing to be celebrated, and I hope that we can move this forward. Councilman Ortega. I thank you. So this this area, a large part of it was part of my old district, District nine, back when I served. And many of those lots were vacant then. So, you know, it's been an underserved part of the city for a very, very long time. And I think it is important that the changes move forward. My hope is that we can get there with the kind of tools that are needed that will ensure that we have some affordability. I know to be able to build, you know, it takes some subsidy, whether it's creating a special district, looking at tax increment financing. I'm not sure all all the various tools that you all have discussed and looked at, but many of those are financing tools that require council's approval. And my hope is that as part of any of those discussions, it includes how affordable housing. And in my mind, when you look at what exists in in this neighborhood. We actually saw a significant amount of affordable housing disappear in this part of the city, while at the same time we've seen more higher density housing that has come in to the area. Yes, a number of the projects on Walton have included affordability. But if you look at how many units were in this neighborhood that the Denver Housing Authority had, a number of those were replaced with some of the redeveloped sites that DHB owned in that area. So the Curtis Park Homes that was redeveloped with more affordable units. Some of those residents were allowed to come back, but it really served a different income level of population. Yes, we have shelters or nonprofits that run homeless housing development in that area. But I think when we start addressing the affordable housing needs, in my mind it's looking at the teachers and the police officers and people who really want to live in this city that can't afford to do that. And so I think on the very low end, we've done a good job addressing those needs. But I think, you know, it's looking at the different areas of the image scale that many of us have been trying to figure out how we can incentivize and encourage development to include other income levels so that more people who want to live in this city can afford to do so. So I'm going to be supporting this tonight because I think it's really important that these changes happen in this area. I just hope that by creating a higher and better use that the land prices don't become so outrageously expensive. We cannot afford to do some affordable housing in this area. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Carson. Thank you, Mr. President. Look, I don't think that these are public hearings. We're supposed to hear a staff presentation. We're supposed to hear comments pro and con from the public comments and questions from city council. I don't believe questions. These are not coronations. I don't believe that bringing up objections are Monday morning quarterbacking. I think it's my job. I could sit here and just yell Yahoo! But the people I'm representing aren't sitting at home right now feeling Yahoo! They have the questions that I've presented, and so I'm going to retain the right to express my opinions pro or con. It shows no disrespect to the people working on this. I think they've done a wonderful job. The people that I represent are interested in change. They're interested in us figuring it out. We haven't figured it out yet. A lot of people have done yeoman's work to attempt to figure it out. But I'm not going to sit here and be insulted for representing my constituents. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. You know the comments on 320. All right, Councilman Brooks, we got you. Would you like to offer your amendment to counter Bill 3 to 0? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Move that council bill 320, be amended in the following particulars. On page one, line 27, strike two, numbers 0214 and replace. Replace it with 0214, dash 001 and on line 27. Strike the date of May 24, 2016 and replace it with the date June 27, 2016. Got it. It has been moved and seconded. So council members, we're now any comments on the motion to amend? CNN. All right. We're voting on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, welcome. Brooks Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Cashman can each. LOPEZ All right. Ortega, I. Black eye, I. Mr. President. All. Ma'am. Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. Nine eyes, one abstention, nine. Eyes, one abstention, 320 has been amended. So now, Councilman Brooks, we need a motion to place it on final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I placed council bill 324 sorry. 321 to be placed on final consideration and do pass through. Three 2324 and do pass as amended. Got it moved. Second. Any comments? Any more comments? Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to. You're going to hear me pass. And I'm going to wait to hear what my colleague Paul Cashman, is going to vote. And the reason be. And if. Sorry, Paul, but if he doesn't support it, I'm going to abstain. And it's not to do anything that you guys did or didn't do because the criteria is going to be there. But it is because this I do feel like this is something that can and should be captured if we can. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. That's another. Any other comments? 320 as amended. CNN. I'm Secretary Rocco. Brooks. I. Espinoza. Yes. Flynn I. Gillmor I. Question can each. Lopez, i. Ortega I. Black eye. Espinosa abstain. Mr. President. High. Now. Secretary, please close the building. And as a result. It is one nay, one abstention. Eight I's, one nay, one abstention. 320 has passed as amended. All right, so now we've got 321. Councilman Brooks, please be accountable. 321 on the floor for final passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 321. To be placed upon final consideration and due pass. It has been moved and second to any comments. 3 to 1. See none. Madam Secretary, welcome. BROOKS Hi, Espinosa. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore Hi, Catherine. Can each. LOPEZ Hi. ORTEGA By black. Eye. ESPINOSA Abstain. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please, for the vote. Now, the result? 881 nay, one abstention. Eight eyes when they want abstention. 321 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We got our last public hearing. 395. Councilman Brooks, will you please put out the bill? 394 395 on the floor for final passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 394 doing 95 on the floor for final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing is now open through 95. May we have the staff report?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2018, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119271

Agenda item for Council Bill 119 271 authorizing a 2018 acceptance of funding from announced resources committee recommends the. Bill passed. This round picture. Thank you. We actually have five items of business that's coming from our Finance Committee, so I ask you to bear with me. There are lots of detail here in the funding of these various ordinances, but if anybody has specific questions, we can probably answer them or we can bring Glen Lee back and Eric Sand. I want to say thank you for everyone who's been involved in this. And we did spend over two full hours in our committee a week ago going through these. So Council Bill 119271. This is the first grant acceptance ordinance of 2018 and it authorizes the city departments to accept approximately 13.4 million of funding from external sources and support a range of purposes. And those grants will be funding projects for parks for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, our Seattle Fire Department, the Police Department and SPU, Seattle Public Utilities and Escort. So we're going to be voting on these individually, but I will happily take any questions. Otherwise, you recommend the acceptance of these grants. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments from that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. O'Brien Sergeant. Thanks. Bye. Gonzalez Verbal Johnson. Suarez Mr. President. Harrell High nine in favor not opposed to the. Bill passed and chair of Senate please read the next agenda item the short title. Agenda in five council 119 272 amending ordinance 125 493 which amended the 2018 budget. Including the 2018 through 2023 capital improvement program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.

Adoption of Resolution Commending John A. Russo for His Service to the City of Alameda as City Manager. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1569

Well, I will. I move. Adoption of the resolution commending John E Russo for his service to the city of Alameda as city manager. All right, now discussion. You want to make comments? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, I would just like to say, and I think that many of us who know John know that, knows that he has a big personality which has enabled him to achieve some very big accomplishments in Alameda. And those were enumerated in the in the resolution and especially the conveyance of the Naval Air Station. We're going to be talking about that tonight and for some months to come. And your work with labor groups, it goes on and on. Suffice it to say that, John, you leave us better than you found us. And I know you're moving on to the city of Riverside, a much bigger city with a bigger population, bigger challenges, your equal to the task. And the city of Riverside is in good hands with you. And we'll miss you. We do have four speakers. Three have them speak at this point. Should we vote? Well, I think we're supposed to have public comment before. Actually, we do know. Well. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers Gray Harris, then Jeff Del Bono, then Helen Soares and then Dianne Lichtenstein. Good evening. I'm Greg Harris. I'm here as the co-president of the city of Alameda Democratic Club. I wanted to thank John and Alex. I'm going to do six A and B all at once in the interest of time for their service to the city of Alameda. I was formerly the president of the teachers union in Alameda. And during that time, the school district was going through some rocky times. The city of Alameda also went through some rocky times. And then John and Alex came. And the rocky times kind of evened out and smoothed out kind of like the school district is hopefully doing now. And now you're going to leave. So I am sad about that. But I also know that Riverside is lucky to have you. And we really appreciate all the time and work you have spent here. Helen Source most everything's been pretty well covered, especially in the resolution. But I just wanted to reinforce see a team that John is a symbol. This fine team of professionals have brought a high standard to our city, a high standard of excellence. His knowledge of how cities work and the regulatory process and expertize and guiding careful development to enhance our city, and most especially redirecting Alameda Point from our three times, going down the same rathole and teeing the city up for success with his strong start for actual development that will strengthen our economy for years to come. Credibility and address are social needs. What a big thanks. And I wish you and Alex all the best. And thanks to both of you for being such fine team leader sitting. Good evening, Diane Liechtenstein. I am not as eloquent as little Arnie Rich or certainly as a proclamation or as Helen. But I do know all the wonderful things that have been said about John. And since he has been here, he surely has propelled our city along. And I wish him and his family all the best. Thank you, Jeff de Bono. And thank you for waiting. And then I'll be Karen, be. Mayor, council, city staff. So I have one word quitters, but I'm going to do it in the efficiency of time. Two, I'm going to combine the both A and B, and I want to thank both of both John and Alex for their service. I think everybody knows the history with the firefighters here before they came. I know that for me and for every single guy that sits in the station, and I think I can speak for every police officer on the street. John and Alex brought dignity to city hall. They brought respect. And that's what we felt in the firehouse. And that's what we felt as employees here when they got here. The collaborative process, the mutual respect, we had to open communication. And it wasn't always easy at times. I know. I know sometimes. Like I told the guys in Riverside, when you have a problem with John, sometimes you got to work through Alex to get back to John because, you know, we don't always we don't always see eye to eye, but the mutual respect that was shown brought a lot back to this city. And I hope that continues forward. I think Riverside deserves deserves to have you, especially with how conservative it is down there. But I thank you again for your service. And Alex, I know that you reached out to the fire department personally and worked hand in hand with our fire chief and some of our employees, such as Jim Colburn, and really put the effort and time. And I don't know how to thank you guys. It meant a lot to us. It means a lot to us. And I think we've accomplished some great things here. I hope we can accomplish other great things that's unprecedented in the state of California in the future. Meetings coming up. But once again, thank you again, both of you guys. I consider you guys friends and thank you very much for your service. Evan Bayh. Hmm. That evening, Madam Mayor, the city council and Mr. Russo. I'm so glad that I didn't miss this part. I just wanted to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have been, I think, one of the best city managers we've ever had. And I can say that because when we took on the role as master developer, I really don't think we understood exactly what we were accepting. But you made it seem easy. You know, you knew just what we had to do. You knew how to negotiate the deals. You knew how to keep us moving forward. And that's what I'm used to. I've worked for developers for 15 years. And you have been an incredible developer. And I appreciate all of your hard work. And we're going to miss you. I'm going to miss you. And I wish you the best. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel comments. The other memory. And just want to echo a lot of what the public said. And I was having a conversation with a constituent earlier today, and she said to me, is it typical that we give proclamations and recognize outgoing city managers as like, well, it's not often that we have won leave voluntarily in recent times. So that's that's what was my first thought. But my second thought was, you know, it's not it's not often we're blessed with somebody of John's talents and skills here in Alameda. I remember talking to the then vice mayor four years ago when I first learned that you were interested in doing this job. And my apologies to Mr. Arnovitz. You know, my first comment was, well, if you can get Michael Jordan to come play for your team at his peak, then that's what you should do. And I think that's what we did. And not only do we get Michael Jordan to the Chicago Bulls reference, I'm sorry, that's where I'm from. Not only do we get Michael Jordan, we got Scottie Pippen with him. So we had an amazing team. And, you know. I'm so glad that I'm sitting in the seat now and not four years ago, because you've turned around the morale at City Hall. You've turned around. Now there's labor peace, which is very important, and you've turned around the city finances. And I'm really going to miss you, man. Wish you were here, but I know we're in good hands, so thanks. Member, De Saag. Thank you very much. Several days ago, on April 19th, the city of Alameda celebrated its 161 year, having been founded in April 19th, 1854. I think over that time, Mr. Russo and his tenure as city manager will stand out as one of the best, in my opinion. He took a city that was in disarray and put us in the right direction, not just internally within the walls of City Hall, but externally in terms of how we work with the community and how we work on major projects like Alameda Point, which was long stalled. I think history will be kind to Mr. Russo and also the city council's that he worked with Mayor Gilmore or Mayor Chris Spencer. And I think for your time here and also Mr. Nguyen's time here, Alameda is the much richer and I think your place in art in the chapters of it as is city hall. History is certainly going to be a good chapter. Assistant City Manager Liz Wormley. Did you want to be vice mayor? Sorry. I just wanted to say, I hope people understand just how difficult the job is. Appreciate. Your energy to that. And I wish you the absolute best in Riverside, and I hope you enjoy it. This one right now. Thank you, Madam Mayor. First, I'd just like to invite everybody tomorrow to our going away party that we're hosting for both Alex and John at the Elks from 5 to 7 p.m.. And we have some special treats for them. But everybody is invited. I also just wanted to say that, you know, 17 years ago I worked here as management analyst, as one where where I started my career in California. And and I left to go on to bigger, better things. And I always had an eye coming back to Alameda because I always lived I continued to live in Alameda, but there was never really an opportunity that I saw where I really wanted to be part of a team until I saw that John actually took the helm. And when I realized that he was here, it was an organization that I really wanted to be part of. And he has not let me down. John has brought transparency and accountability to city hall and accountability. And I really want to emphasize that. You know, in cities we have a. Employees, long time employees. And sometimes it's hard for us to accomplish the tasks that we want to accomplish. John brought that accountability to City Hall that I really have not witnessed in cities that I've worked with, and I've been in cities for 25 years. One of the things that people don't realize about John, I think everybody thinks he came from a large city and he had the large city mentality, but at his core, he really cared about the individual, the small guy. Oftentimes when we would talk about business transactions or with developers, he was always the hardest on the developers, on the people that had the big pocketbook. But on the little guy, on the small business, on the person who was trying to pull a permit, he always if he could cut not cut corner corners, because we're not allowed to do that. But that was his mentality was was to go after the big folks and actually do what he could and bend over backwards for the average citizen. And, you know, that's just I don't think people really realize that. And that's such a such a great gift. And and just I'd like to acknowledge him for that. I just want to say I'm really going to miss you, John and Alex both. Let me say a few words about Alex. It's hard to be to work with John. I think you all can imagine as a council member, Ashcraft has said, as he Ashcraft has said, you know, John has a big personality and. We've got Alex, who is sort of part of that partnership. And I think it's been Alex has always been at his side and has always provided, I think, to our staff council, the perspective of the average citizen. How would our decisions that we make here at City Hall affect the average citizen? And has really brought a perspective, I think, that really is unique to City Hall. So, Alex, I want to say thank you to you, to both of you. I wish you the best of luck. We're really going to miss you. And I'll do my best to fill your shoes. But as I'm sure everybody knows, they're quite big shoes to fill. I will do my best. And again, good luck. And I want to say a few words for those of you who don't know. When I was on the school board, I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Russo. We would regularly have joint meetings and he was always professional. And then during the campaign, very gracious and afforded really me every opportunity to learn what the city was about. He always took the time to to answer questions. And now, with the transition again, always professional. And I truly respect you as your work. And then you personally, what you bring to the table. I wish you and your family absolutely the best. And it really has been a benefit to our city to have you serve. And now we will vote all those in favor. I. Oppose. Motion carries. Unanimously. We're good to go. Thank you. All right. Next six be.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to provide an update on the implementation of the Long Beach ban on single-use food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene foam, rigid polystyrene #6, and non-recyclable and non-compostable materials.

LongBeachCC_10152019_19-1032

Motion carries. Thank you. We're moving on to item 12, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Pierce, Councilmember Superdog Council Member, your UNGA recommendation direct city manager to provide an update on the implementation of the Long Beach ban on single use food and beverage containers. Councilman Price. Thank you. And I'm going to turn it over to staff for their staff report on this item. And I think I'll have a few follow up questions after. Thank you, Councilmember Price. The timing of this request from council was very fortunate. We were in the middle of doing an update, so this worked out very well. We happy to give you an update of the progress of the ordinance implementation so far and what's next to come. And then I understand in the next agenda item there's a potential to give us some additional direction. So with that, I will turn it over to Craig Beck. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Good evening. They are members of council. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you and share all the results that are happening relative to the expanded polystyrene ordinance that was implemented by this council. There we go. So adopted in April of last year, the polystyrene ordinance really put in place this city's goals to try to reduce pollution and address some of the issues. Polystyrene. The Council asked to move forward with an implementation over three different. Phases and those phases. Addressed different type of of food establishments. Phase one included all city facilities. Phase two were are large food providers in phase three were are small food providers in that is coming up here in December. So we thought it was a good time to check in, share what's going on and. Why we believe we're having a lot of. Success with the implementation of the ordinance. So I'm going to ask Deacon Marconi and to run through some of the specifics of what we've been doing. Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Members of the Council, I'm here to provide you some updates on what we've been doing with the ordinance and what we're going to be continuing to do. And I'm very excited to do that. It's hard to believe that this council requested this ordnance already. One and a half years ago, on September 3rd of 2018, we reached phase one in this phase included city facilities and permitted special events. And I'm really proud to say that we have 100% compliance and all our city facilities with this ordnance that includes the airport and all the restaurants within the airport, the Museum of Art, the Golf Courses, Aquarium Convention Center. And we still have a few challenges with permitted special events, mostly centered around food trucks that are given their licenses outside of Long Beach that aren't made aware of our ordinance. So we're working on that, but we're excited to see the success of Phase one. Phase two included larger restaurants as defined by the city council as being 101 people or more seating 401 people or more and franchised restaurants. That includes our subways and Starbucks and McDonald's and Jack in the Box. And it's interesting that many of these chain restaurants were already in compliance. There have already been some pressure on these restaurants, too, to steer away from polystyrene. So the subway's Chipotle Starbucks, jack in the box, McDonald's, all these chains were already in compliance. We did have a few like Chick fil A and 7-Eleven that requested specific assistance staff provided them with that. 7-Eleven is subject to a phase three as well, because they will be they sell polystyrene expanded polystyrene ice chests. And that were those were banned under this ordinance. But they already have a suitable alternative, and they have no fear that they will comply with that retail portion of their compliance. By December 3rd, phase three goes into effect December 3rd, and it affects restaurant seating less than 101 people. It also includes a ban on certain retail products such as craft beads, pies, expanded polystyrene craft beads and coolers. 77% of the food establishments in the city fall under phase three, so a huge chunk of the food establishments fall under phase three. I'd like to note that the Health Department started making site visits back in September of 2018, and to date they've found that one third of the restaurants that fall under Phase three are already early compliant. We also had public works staff go out over the summertime, starting much later than September 2018, around June of 2019, and in a three or four month period, they visited nearly 300 restaurants and found that out of a sample of 287 businesses, 43% were already in early compliance. So we were really pleased that that the restaurants are partnering with us so actively. So how did we get this message out there? We did a lot of outreach and education. We had direct mailers sent in June of 2018. In June of 2018, we advised the businesses about economic incentives that were available for businesses to utilize to help support the transition. January 2019 and about a week ago, we sent follow up postcards reminding the affected businesses of what their requirements were. We also we also have a phone free website for that provides resources and education to these businesses. And I'd like to mention that we gave away nearly $13,000 in incentives to our businesses. To put that in comparison to other cities we're aware of that have afforded economic incentives were San Francisco which is much larger obviously and Encinitas which is much smaller. Obviously, neither city had anyone to apply for economic incentives. We really put that message out there. So some of our businesses could take advantage of that, and we're really proud of that. We also did a little knock and talk. We borrow that phrase from elsewhere. We visited 362 businesses. We had a multilingual strategy. We had print advertising, fliers, lots of social media posts, lots of Facebook and website promotion of the program. We called it phone free. Long Beach was how we branded it, and businesses who complied with the ordinance, if they so chose, could join from free Long Beach and become a phone free Long Beach member. And what we do is then promote those restaurants as being phone free. We provide them with window decals, a letter from the mayor. We provide them with paper straws and special recognition, one on one assistance and promotion at city events. We visited restaurants in every council district. We visited at least 30 restaurants in every council district. Obviously, some council districts have more restaurants than others, or certainly they might be clumped together more than others, making it easier to hit more. But we had very positive reactions and especially want to call out restaurants along Retro Row in CD2, in Belmont, Shaw and CD3 and along Atlantic Avenue in CD8. Such willingness and downtown's such willingness to participate, and it's almost as if they teamed up together and said, Let's just do this. You know, it was great. Continued promotion of foam free Long Beach. Over 100 posts on Facebook and Twitter. Six weeks of advertising on Facebook and Instagram of nearly 30,000 people reached on that 13 print ads in multiple languages, including the Grunion Gazette, the Long Beach Business Journal, LA Opinion. This next slide is one of my favorites because these are three businesses I wasn't even familiar with, and we like to go out to new restaurants and places to try out. And this is exactly what we were trying to accomplish with the Fall Free Long Beach Partnership is to promote these businesses, and we're checking out new restaurants all the time now that we didn't even know existed. So we're really excited about that. But that's not all. Along with our foam free Long Beach campaign, we started to bring your own Long Beach campaign, and that was helping people make commitments to reusing their own material. So, for example, we have given out about 5000 packages of reusable to go items. You may have seen some of these. They include reusable cutlery, collapsible bowls, reusable chopsticks, metal utensil kits, reusable straws. And we have gotten pledges from 4000 residents of Long Beach to utilize these items and take them with them. The goal being as more and more people bring their own reusable items. Restaurants need to purchase fewer fewer products to use for to-go items. I have to compliment the Health Department on what amazing partners they've been. They've played a major role in compliance. They've played a major role in education. And without their support, this wouldn't be possible. They have integrated education and compliance into their annual food facility inspections. They go to the facilities each each year, and they've been working with the businesses to help them come into compliance. Their main focus, as they do with any new roll out of programs, is education, education, education. How do we get people compliant who aren't? They found that 33% of the businesses they've visited are already in compliance. And as I said earlier, a smaller sample over the summer, over a shorter period of time, we found 43 are actually in early compliance. Enforcement procedures allow for a focus on education. That's the goal. The second visit will reinforce that compliance requirements. A third visit may result in an administrative citation, which seldom, if ever, happens. Or an office hearing. A fourth visit could result in a referral to the city prosecutor or business licensing. The ordinance allows for a procedure to be put in place for temporary exemptions due to hardship. No one has asked for that temporary exemption at this point. A hotline has been created and online format will be available for the public to report repeated violations to us. At this point, I'd like to thank the Council for having a thoughtful approach to this and phasing this in. It's a unique way of doing it. Most cities that we don't know of, any other city that has a phased in process of this type. Most cities just give you 30 or 60 days and you're either in compliance or you're not. You move on. So I think the businesses are very appreciative of that sensitivity. Thank you. And I would just like to add quickly that I want. To. Recognize the leadership of Erin Roland. She's been leading this effort for the city. She's done a fantastic job in. Get to the point. We are and we look forward to her continued efforts as we move into phase three. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any. Public comments. I don't. No strangers, Vice Mayor. Can I say a few things? Yes, I was going. Oh, sorry. You know, I was gonna go by the diocese. Okay, fine. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor. Sir. Thank you for that report. That was a really, really great report. I'm surprised, pleasantly surprised to hear that 33% of the small businesses are in early compliance. That's incredible. Thank you for that statistic. I didn't know it. I know that when we initially those of us that really advocated for a phased in approach, wanted to know what the fiscal impact might be for the small businesses to phase in fully. Do we did we do a study on that? Do we have any who did the study? Do we have any information on that? Like what is the cost to them? What kind of a burden is this for a restaurant that that seats 101 or less? Councilmember Price We didn't do a formal study. We didn't commission a formal study for that. We do have some research, though, on cost comparisons, and we found very little differences in cost comparisons. And it also depends on what a business decides to use. We have one business that went to a using aluminum foil and said they saved a tremendous amount of money over it. And we have some businesses that have chosen to go more expensive options. But they've also commented that. Their customers seem to really appreciate the fact that they've moved on, as there seems to be some sort of social stigma starting to develop over polystyrene. So, you know, I can give you some examples where we have foam, for example, a 16 ounce foam cup for cold drinks was about. $0.04 a cup, and now they're about four and a half cents a cup in some cases. We have other examples where a nine inch foam plate was about $0.04 a plate and now the paper plate is $0.01 a plate. So it really is all over the map. So it's fair to say that in some cases they actually reduce their costs. In some cases, their costs went up. But in those cases, it's negligible. The range is around a half a cent or so it appears. So I would say it probably averages maybe a penny. Okay. And then remind me on this. Did we did we include large retailers like Smart and Final and other retailers in our ordinance. With respect to the ban, the retail sale ban on ice chests and with the Kraft foam balls. Yes. But not as to cups, plates, things of that nature. No. Okay. So there's an opportunity there to to further expand the ban. Yes. If you should so choose. I'm frankly, I'm surprised that they're still selling those, but that's just my personal opinion. And the other thing that I thought was interesting is that no one has applied for the hardship exemption. Was that something that was discussed in all the visits? That that's an option? I can't honestly say it was discussed in all the visits, but yes, they were made aware of it. Okay. All right. And I'm assuming that's included in the outreach materials that we provided. Yes, it was. And I think an important point that we wanted to add to your question earlier about economic impact. One of the things that we're also trying to champion, and we included a slide is to bring your own campaign. And so we're finding that more and more restaurant patrons are actually bringing their own containers to to if they're having take home and they're utilizing that. So I think the overall usage of the containers themselves are going down, that that's a trend we're seeing happening. That's great. Finally, on behalf of the third district, I want to thank you. It looks like you went to 75 businesses, restaurants in the third district, more than any other district. And I'm assuming that's probably mostly due to our business corridors because they're highly concentrated in those business corridors. But I thank you for doing that. I think that individual outreach goes a long way. And I will say just anecdotally, I'm noticing trends in terms of the bring your own. I work in a courthouse on a day to day basis. And my the my staff that works for me are all much younger than me. And they've apparently caught this on this train long before me. And they a bunch of them got stopped at the metal detectors because they were trying to bring in their own knives and forks for their lunches. And the bailiffs were looking at them like they were aliens. Like what? What are these little bags? They had all had these cute little bags that had like their straw, their knife in their fork. And they they all you know, someone went and bought some for everybody. I was trying to bring them in. So they called the supervisor and they're like, your employees are trying to bring knives and forks into the courthouse. And they said, well, of course, we don't want to use the plastic ones. So this definitely is a as a change. And I could see how that social stigma would continue to grow in light of what I'm seeing with my the opportunities for learning that my staff provides me every day. So thank you. It. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I was wondering. No, no, I wasn't trying to stop. Thank you for the great report. I have another item coming up right after this. Obviously, to expand a little more on this on this topic. But a lot of the outreach and education component of this process, especially when you're raising it in. It's very important to keep people connected with what's taking place. So I have a new one here. So it's a knocking talker. That's a that's a that's opposed to what I always do, what I'm campaigning, which is smile and dial. Impressive flesh, though, which is what I'm doing when I'm here. We all have our methods. Yeah, we do. But no thank you. And and in the multilingual strategy, it obviously is, is is working. But again, I think we need to expand the efforts and try to get the the mobile restaurants more and more in tune with what's taking place, especially to be operating here in Long Beach. So but thank you for your efforts on this. Thank you for not. Thank you. And while many third district restaurants were mentioned, I don't recall a mention of Jojo's in the fourth District, but I believe they are part of the plastic campaign, foam campaign. They absolutely. Are. Okay. And are there any other 95 year old establishments and continue this operation who have jumped on the bandwagon here? I can't say with complete certainty, but I'm going to say no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Also, when you mention the Styrofoam ice chests, I think beanbag chairs, if my recollection serves me, also part of that ban. Yes. Anything with the polystyrene balls is included. The last question is. I understood that originally when this came forward, we were going to go with a third party analysis on these outcomes. If that wasn't the case, then I need to be corrected. I thought that's where we were and one of the rationales was that the impact on staff time. So two questions there. Do we do we have third party analysis? And then I think you said that the health department handled this with all within their staff time and it worked out well. We went back and reviewed the council minutes and there was no direction to do a third party analysis. So we did not do that. That said, you know, there was obviously time to develop the campaign and distribute the materials, but the health department has now incorporated that education and outreach within their regular visits. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The sleep. He's come forward. I just thought I should say something nice. So thank you so much for taking this one up. 12 and 13. Definitely. Environmentally, I think you're doing the right thing. Thanks. Thank you. And with that members, Mr. Gordon, cast your votes. Ocean carries 13, please.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Subsection 21.49.130.B of the Seattle Municipal Code to extend the Department’s authority to execute, implement, and administer contracts for periods of up to 60 months for wholesale marketing activity.

SeattleCityCouncil_04302018_CB 119238

The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 119 238 Relating to the City Life Department amending subsection 21.40 9.1 30 point be set. I misspoke her to extend the department's authority to execute, implement and administer contracts for periods for up to six months for wholesale marketing activity. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. As you heard, Council Bill 119238 is the third in a recent series that we put forward from our committee around energy efficiency and renewable energy measures that we are trying to implement at Seattle City Life here we're granting the authority for Seattle City Light to bid on and take bids for energy contracts in the wholesale market for up to five years, which I think will actually have a beneficial impact for our region. As we think about ways to reduce usage and to sell excess energy, this is potentially going to be helpful not only for our energy efficiency efforts, but also for the region and the nation. I want to note that this came out of committee unanimously and encourage vote. Thank you. Councilmember Skinner. Any further comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas I mosquera gather I o'brien i somewhat I beg Char. Gonzalez. Johnson, President Harrell. Eight and favorite on oppose. The bill passenger will sign. It. Mr. Chair, may I take a small moment for personal privilege? Issue me. Thank you, Mr. President. The point of personal privilege that I wanted to make is related to Wayne Shorter, who was the individual at Seattle City Lake, who worked there for a number of years as the power management director. He retired on Friday. He was there for his second to last day in our committee to see this bill move out of committee because he's worked on this for a very long time. He's earned the gratitude of this council for his commitment to Seattle City life and having the foresight to identify opportunities to leverage city lights, carbon free hydropower, efforts to help other communities reduce their climate impact while also generating more revenue for Seattle City Light. Because I didn't get a chance to say thank you to him and to his colleagues. Last Thursday, we wanted to make sure to extend a huge amount of appreciation for all of his work. We understand he's already begun his retirement. We hope this message receives him. Thank you for being a leader on this issue, for leading the development of this ordinance. We are grateful for your service and happy retirement. Thank you from Mexico for recognizing the work and their congratulations on their retirement. Is there any further business coming for the council? We had another meeting right after this. We do have a meeting. We will move into the Finance Committee for a revenue update and we will start that. It will tell me like 4:00 or. No, I think we should take a five minute break, 36 minute break, three, 5:00. Five. At the meeting. 350. And with that, we stand adjourned and. Could. Add whenever.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with all appropriate departments to include commercial small business rent relief as part of any future rent relief funding initiatives provided by the City.

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0641

Item 27. Or. Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilman Super Na, Councilman Austin Recommendation to request City Manager to include commercial small business rent relief as part of any future rent relief funding initiatives provided by the city. Mr. Mayor, this is Susie Price. I need to declare a conflict. Okay. I am a small business owner in the city of Long Beach, and although I have sought and received a formal opinion from the FTC regarding my voting on items involving businesses and have been approved to vote on those items as falling within the public generally exception, I am choosing to conflict off of this item and not participate in the discussion or the vote in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety. Since any benefit to businesses on this particular item might result in a direct financial benefit. With that, I'm going to log off of the meeting. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Council on Mango. Gil. Many of our small businesses are the backbone of our city. And those small businesses have certain revenues coming in. And they have to make tough decisions about the number of employees that they can reemploy and the number of hours that they can offer to those employees. And it's often based on their ability to meet, rent and other things that have put them over the top in terms of the balance of expenses versus revenue in the last several months. And so I hope that as we evaluate the different options for matching funds and rent support, that we also include those commercial businesses. Because while it is both important that people have a roof over their head, it is also important that they have their jobs so that they can again afford to pay rent. Furthermore, I'm hoping that there can be some research done into whether or not businesses that hire back Long Beach residents are able to get a higher priority in any of these kinds of funds that are become available. Does that really support our Long Beach neighbors with jobs? Thank you. For all the councilmembers that supported this item. They got the present day out. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo, for this, but I think that this is absolutely the right thing to do. It is very critical for us at this point to not only look to look at our tenants, but to also look at those tenants that are in commercial areas. And I think that they also have been very much affected by COVID 19, and they continue to be affected because of the health order. And now even the fact that we're scaling back and we always have to keep them in the front for, you know, thinking of them and in front and, you know, so it's really it's really important that we bring this item and that we definitely include them in anything pertaining to any kind of rental assistance or or moratoriums, anything that to do with rental policies that we do consider them and keep them in mind are small businesses, as was said, is what makes Long Beach. And it brings so many jobs and so many people that are invested in those small businesses to create the wonderful community that we have here in the city of Long Beach. So in turn, I hope that we also can can provide them with assistance and making sure that they know that we care about them as well and we continued to invest in them. So again, thank you, Councilmember Mongo, for allowing me to sign on to this item and for your thoughtfulness about our businesses here in Long Beach. Thank you. Councilman Austin. I thank you. And ditto to both the maker of the motion and sponsor Councilmember Mongo in the House. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been said. Obviously, our small businesses are really part of the DNA of our of our city, of our communities throughout the city, and they should be supported however we can. I believe this item is consistent with the values and spirit of the Council. The priorities that have been set forth already, and our economic support packages that we put together already. And so this, I think, further emphasizes that I'm happy to support. Any public comment? We have one comment from Dave Kuka. Your time starts now. Hello. Dave Chappelle from the third district. I urge your support on this item, like with the rental eviction moratorium. Eventually we're going to need to not only reckon with. The forces that wanted to reopen to early. The forces that have directed a lot of the funding available at the federal level. But also those that have generally been getting fed up of three and a half years of illegality at the federal level eventually is going to have to seriously consider. Going to the bank on behalf of the small businesses in town and having serious discussions about restructuring and canceling debt. That's what this is. The people primarily responsible. The rentier class would add much to the productive economy and not let the small, small businesses be struggling with their own. Thank you for your support of the fight. Thank you all the. District one, district two. I District three. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. By. District seven. By District eight. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE creating the King County Access for All program to support cultural organizations, imposing a one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax to finance the King County Access for All program conditioned on voter approval, and providing for the submission to the qualified electors of King County at a special election to be held in King County on August 1, 2017, of a proposition authorizing the sales and use tax imposed by this ordinance; and amending Ordinance 14482, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.060.

KingCountyCC_04192017_2017-0178

Thank you all very much. By your vote we will move that along and I am very confident we will be ready for our flight on Tuesday. So this brings us to item number five, which is the proposed ordinance motion propose ordinance 2017 0178 regarding King County access for all. This ordinance council will recall is a revised version of the executives transmitted access for all program to improve public access to arts, science and heritage programs. On Monday, this ordinance was introduced and it was duly referred to this committee and to the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee. Part of the purpose of that dual referral was because the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee does not have a meeting scheduled until May 10th. And if we are to. Take up any action on this as proposed for the April August ballot. It would need to be done before May 10th. So we have this meeting to have discussion and proposed changes to the new and updated ordinance, if we choose. And then we'd have to figure out a path forward procedurally because one is not really apparent at the moment. But this enables us to at least have discussion of the substance today. So with that, I'm going to turn to our. Okay. Before I turn to our lead staff, I'm going to call on Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if the chair permits, I'd like to just give a little introduction. I think that would be very welcome. Thank you. Thank you. As my colleagues know, I introduced on behalf of the executive the proposed ordinance that was transmitted to us. And I did that along with Council Chair McDermott and council member of the Belle Duchy. And I have to say this has been quite an experience, and what the three of us did I can guarantee is to listen to our colleagues, listen to the concerns that have been expressed and those mainly focused on not enough geographic fairness, equity, that the regional organizations, which are the large ones, get too much funding and the community based organizations get too little of the funding, and there's inadequate attention to social and economic equity. Another concern was that there was inadequate oversight of fort culture, which would become the agency to oversee access for all. And there was concern that not all school districts in our county would benefit. And another major one is that the implementation plan should be approved by the Council. There were other ones, but those are the main categories that I heard anyway need to be addressed. So as it was not possible to continue the discussion in the Budget Finance Fiscal Management Committee, I worked with my colleagues to develop a new proposal. So this is a new one. This is a new ordinance. And I believe that it really does address these issues that I mentioned, including a $1 million per district floor requirement, equity and inclusion being enhanced seed money so that new organizations could emerge, could develop, especially in those council districts where there are very few opportunities for organizations to develop currently strong reporting and accountability language in this new measure. And then there are some miscellaneous technical changes, but I commend this to you, and I am very appreciative that we are able to have a discussion on it today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Caldwell's for that overview. I think it's really helpful to set the stage and continuing. I am going to call on our council staff here today, Lia Zoghbi and Andrew Kim, to walk us through the new ordinance and make sure that everybody understands what is in it, that we have an opportunity to ask questions. And then when I think when we've established a base level of understanding of where we are, then we can turn to discussion about where we ought to go. So good morning for being here. Thank you. Good morning. Council members. I'm Lee Zoghbi and with the council staff and with me is Andrew Kim. Council staff. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. This proposed ordinance is a revised version of the Access for All program, and to briefly recap the program, it would provide public access to arts, science and heritage programs and experiences in King County, and the program would be funded by a 1/10 of a percent sales tax for seven years, proposed for voter consideration at a special election on August 1st of this year. And because members are familiar with the executive transmitted from a proposal, I would have us skip to the analysis section on page 13 of your packet for a comparison of how this version compares with the executive proposed ordinance. So there's a table on page 13 that compares the major program elements, the Public School Access Program, the Regional Cultural Organization Access Program, and the Community Based Cultural Organization Access Program. And so the major change you've. C is that there's a shift of funding from the regional cultural organizations to the community based to community based programing, and the requirement that includes mandatory requirements for regional cultural organizations to provide equity and inclusion benefits and a geographic distribution public benefit. So those benefits would be aimed at providing cultural programs for people with economic and geographic barriers to access. The regional cultural organizations would be required to spend at least 30% of their award annually on equity and inclusion benefits. And then of that, at least 10% of that would or at least 10% of their total award would have to be spent on programing that it's occurring outside of the cities where regional cultural organizations are not primarily located. Are. Occurring in those cities. If I said that right, regional cultural organizations would also have the option of meeting that geographic geographic distribution requirement by contributing their 10% of their award to for culture to distribute to community based cultural organizations. So overall, you see that requirement reflected on the chart with the $3.8 million shift from regional choral cultural organizations to the community based cultural organizations. The requirement for regional cultural organizations to contribute at least 20% of their wards to the public school access program, and at least 30% to equity inclusion benefits means that at least 50% of their award is restricted to specific uses. So you see that reflected in the chart with the $19 million that is now unrestricted, unrestricted for regional cultural organizations. What page you are? I'm on page 13. So the first column of numbers is the new proposal, and the second column of numbers is the executive transmitted proposal. And. I'm sorry. Anytime. It might make sense, but it's related. Please go ahead. Councilmember, tell Americans where you finished asking your question. No, but I'm glad I'm okay. Councilmember, I have to go, but go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Lia, did you say 3.8 million is moving from the regional organizations now that 3.8 million will go to the community based organizations. So the way it would actually work is that 3.8% of the total awards that would go to 8 million are yes, 3.8 million would be required to be spent in communities that don't have a regional cultural organization. Or there is the option of providing it directly back to for culture to distribute to community based organizations. So how I would look is there's a few different options. Organization, regional organizations could provide programing in a, you know, somewhere other than where they're located. They could do that already. And it was. Correct. Now they're required. What percentage? That that's at least 10%. Okay. But the 30% has to be used for equity and inclusion benefits, and that would be also considered an equity and inclusion benefit. If I might have a follow up. Can we legally do that? Say, I mean, I'm intrigued by this idea that we can have 70% go to the regionals, but then ask that a percentage be given back to for culture. So has that been through legal review, the ability to say you can meet, we can comply with state law? And still direct the regionals, know if the regionals are giving a piece of it back, could we direct 50% or 90% to go to for culture and then distribute? You couldn't direct it specifically what you what how it structured is they can either they have choices for how to meet the 10% requirement. We can legally require. So they can do that by providing the programing, by partnering with a community based cultural organization, or they are given the option if they want to, to give the money back. So that is what we can do under state law. Okay. So there's not necessarily any I'm not trying to be facetious here, but there's no guarantee there will be money going to poor culture, to the regional organizations. It's just an option there. Correct. But there is a guarantee that that 10% has to be spent in communities. It can't just be spent where. That 90% could still be spent in Seattle, or if it were a Seattle based organization, 90% could be spent community benefit Seattle and 10% could be in the busses out to the other. Technically, not really that either because 20% have to go to the public school program, which has to go countywide. And then also, well, it's kind of technically difficult, but it doesn't have to go countywide. But there's there's very specific requirements what what the public school access funds have to go to. And it you know, it has to be spent at, you know, at the public school level for all districts within King County, all public schools, the 30%. Again, it is a requirement that of at least 30%, the award has to be spent on equity and inclusion benefits. And those could be in the form of providing discounted, you know, admission to an organization, or it could be in the form of taking programing out to the community. But at least 10% of their overall award would have to go out to the community. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And thank you, Madam Chair. Leah, I have a question on the last comment that council member of the would just throw that I can understand that equity and inclusion means the regional, cultural and scientific entities are providing public transit or bus access and that taking some of their programs into the schools and perhaps the neighborhoods. But is that the same as what you said earlier, about 3.8 million being transferred to their communities to set up regional culture. As I understand your question, it's that two different things. So that. To be honest, I'm. Not sure the 20%, 20% of a regional cultural organization award would be going to the public school program, the Public School Cultural Access Program. And that program involves transportation to students, to cultural organizations. It also involves cultural organizations taking programs to cap classrooms so that the 20% then there's an additional additional and and that was always required in this ordinance. There's an additional 30% requirements. And of that for equity and inclusion. And many of those benefits, you know, the defined benefits involve either providing overcoming barriers to access for people who have economic barriers or people who have geographic barriers. And so the additional requirement would be that 30%, you know, a third of it, 10% of the overall award had to be spent towards mitigating those or has to be spent in communities that don't have regional. Cultural or. Economic. That's meant by whom, as spent by the regional organizations or for culture or given to our community groups, for them to define what cultural aspirations and programs they like to see develop. So that that would actually get worked out at the contract and implementation plan level those details. And so it could look different for each cultural organization. But when they are entering into contract with for culture to receive their awards, the specific benefits, they would come forward with a proposal of how they would meet this requirement culture. I would define what culturally legitimate for these organizations. Not for the community organizations. For the regional organization. I know, but I'm talking about the 30% that you said now that would be made available for creative, cultural and scientific activities that take place in the communities. Are you, senator for culture would be the determiner of what groups get that money? Can I find a figure? I want to step in for a quick second. One of the items we discussed wanting to see in this proposal for the sponsors was the idea that there would be involvement of the council members in helping to shape the implementation plan, which would include a plan for geographic areas and specific geographic areas. I should say plans plural for specific geographic areas and how those would be met by the cascading flow of money, but also countywide equity plan and how that would be developed. And that then after having had that upfront input into what those plans should say as part of the implementation plan, then we would as a council have to approve the implementation plan so that we would see it back and be have an ability to make sure it reflected what we wanted to see it say. And then my further understanding is that the implementation plan will be used to flow down to the contracts with individual agencies so that when for culture creates the requirements that each agency has to meet in exchange for the support through this policy, that that those contracts would collectively have to meet the vision in the implementation plan. Am I saying that about right? That's correct. I don't see it really clearly in the language, I guess, of at least of the staff report. And I haven't, I'll be honest with you, looked at this closely this far down into the ordinance, yet this is happening like in real time. But I want to make sure that that language says exactly what I just said in the ordinance. But by the time we get to doing anything with it. You. Yeah, 1/2. I want to make sure that she got it. She write it down yet? Okay. Yeah. Councilmember and I would be much happier if we saw your pen actually write something. Marc Andrews. Okay. Thank you. Andrews Pen is right in council. That works. Okay. So Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Caldwell's. But we trust you. You know where to find the tape. I'm sure you're listening to the tape. It makes for excitement on page 14 on some area, the equity and start up plan on the first bullet says Cultural Opportunity Act six is expansion plans for the east, west and south sub areas of the county. So yeah, there's no north. But mostly when we talk about east, we're talking about maybe close to two thirds of the county is in east, which means that it ends up closer to Seattle than, say, North Bend or Snoqualmie. And in a meeting yesterday with people, they said, you know, we're really tired of things never getting out beyond the halfway mark of this county. So I think we're going to need to add another category there. At least one. I'm not going to speak to that. When somebody wants to speak to North, that's another issue. But I don't know how he said. Whether I'm next. Okay. 92, that for you, sir. The people yesterday to me say we don't want to be called the Far East anymore because that's not where we want to be called. So I don't know what we want to be called, whether we want to be called outside the rural areas or around the rural areas or unincorporated areas. But we need to have another thing in there so that it isn't just and not that I don't love Bellevue. I do love Bellevue, but what's in Bellevue doesn't necessarily help the people out in sky comas or in in Oklahoma. So I think we need to be looking at that 1007 square miles to make sure that they aren't left out again. Thank you. Councilmember Carl Wells. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just and I agree, I believe there should be another category I thought that was being put in. But I do think another point is very important here that is added to this new proposed ordinance, and that is that the equity advisory committee that would be established by foreign culture would have at least nine members on it, appointed by or confirmed by the Council. That means that every council member of the nine districts is able to determine who would be a good representative of her or his district, and the council would confirm those appointees. I think this would go a long way toward the council. The council excuse me, the council would confirm those members appointed. So that would go a long way to address what I believe a council member will do. She brought up and council member. Council. Okay. Any other questions, comments at this point? Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Thank you. And I'm trying to get orange. I just came from the Shoreline Rotary, my annual presentation there and their annual one of their annual inquiries is with respect to sound transit. And it's been, I don't know, 20 years since they've had a supposed North End or an actual North End representative on the board. And so this is fresh on my mind because having a meeting at the table, make sure you're at the table and not being eaten. So why isn't there in this new proposal? Why was the North End left out? I mean, we have strong cultural organization as a shoreline historical society, the Kenmore Historical Society. We have a void, if you will, a gap in in in capacity up there. Why was it left out? I know. I will I will dove right in there and say we had we have had a number of discussions among us who were working on this. We've invited others to join us in working on it. And we're inviting now for people to join us in working on it and perfecting it. So I think that regardless of why it is the way it is today, this is the point of a discussion with all nine of us is now we are all nine here. We were all nine talking about it and that we can perfect things that are missing. And I think that that's an important thing to do. But the I will tell you, the way the discussion went was, should we have a plan that each council member engages in advising for culture what it should say by district? That was the initial idea. And if you look at a map of our districts in some places, that makes a whole lot of sense. In other places, it doesn't make as much sense to do it by district. That's just because the district lines me. You know, they were written for a purpose, which is to basically get us all as somewhat equal amount of population to represent. They weren't necessarily drawn based on, if you will, watersheds of arts and culture and heritage. Well, as someone who drew those lines and knows the law, one of the factors you look at our communities of interest. Right. So that's in the state statute on redistricting. And so. I understand that obviously. You have northeast, south and West together. And so it seems like a choice was made here to leave the north end out. And I'm just wondering why. No, no, no. We we what we talked about in our meeting was having sub areas. And the sub areas in this county have typically been represented by north east and south north is, you know, think about transportation, you've got skateboard, you've got seashore, you've got ETP. I don't think those are perfect. And I'm perfectly open to talking about smaller and different segregation, but that was the discussion. There was no discussion of let's leave the north end out. Nobody said that. And in fact, we put the north end in. But like I say, if there's a different and a better way of doing it in, you know, your district, as I know my district, as we all know our districts better than anyone else. Well, maybe maybe I'm just misunderstanding, maybe the communities in there, but it's not in their name. Councilmember Cole. Well, I thank you. It was intended to be part of West, but if it if I can certainly reword. And Madam Chair. Go ahead, Councilor. I did get a text from a staff that yeah, it was I thought it was going in there. That was the intent, just there was never any intention to leave it out and it was an error that it did not get included. So I think we should go along with what the chair has indicated that we're here to get this perfect, and that includes making technical adjustments as needed. Thank you. And I. I meant what I said. If north, south and east aren't the right words, clearly west isn't the right word. But if north, south and east aren't the right words, or if that's not enough words, then we should add more words or change the words. That's fine. And thank you. Thank you for the information. I think it may be less about the labels and more about logical communities of interest that are based on a history of investment or not investment, or any communities of common interest and how they might work together or not. And so I'm not sure if those are further defined in the ordinance somewhere, but that's really my kind of thinking on it. You just, you know, if you're going to go with this approach of having these regional plans, what what should those regions look like? There's a great discussion to have. And I that's what I meant, actually, is if if the words north, south and east don't capture the logical communities of interest because they're too broad or because they're not in the right places, then I think it's a great discussion to have about what are the right categories, how small, how focused . That's a good conversation to have. But I would I. It also add that that requirement is within the implementation plan, with the intention that it would be further defined within the implementation plan that the Council would be approving. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to make this into too much of an informal discussion here, but but it's also very important that the ordinance say clearly what we expect to be in the implementation plan, because if it doesn't say that clearly and the implementation plan then doesn't include what we assumed would be in it, we don't have the authority to require that to be in it. So, I mean, the ordinance language is very important for that reason. Did I see Councilmember Garces hand a few minutes ago? Councilmember Garza, were you waiting? No. No. Okay. You were in the middle of your presentation. Why don't we let you continue? So that was the explanation of the chart and the first change from the underlying ordinance. If there aren't any more questions about the the chart, the next requirement is that I did. Madam Chair, I think clarify back to the numbers, if I might, a very brief one. Go ahead, Councilman, before. We get too far ahead on it, because I think this is important, this question of whether or not the new measure. Shifts money from regional organizations to community based organizations. And I'll say my read first, it's partly a comment I want to just make. I want to make sure I'm understanding this accurately. I think I am. Regional organizations would receive the same amount of money under this proposal as the original one. This just says 10% of it has to be spent in communities outside, you know, whether it's intentional. And the classic example we use is the science center vans. It's an easy one to understand. Or if they volunteer, they could voluntarily give some money back to for culture. So one scenario, if they chose to do things like Vans, is that the community based organizations would get not one dime more in dollars under this, but those communities would have. It just kind of locks in what we've been talking about, which was that organizations could come into your community. I just want to because I it's at the core of one of my concerns is that distinction between investing in a community versus investing in a different community and having them come into yours. And I just wanted to the way it appears the money flows here is that the money is proportional money to regional and communities the same under both versions. We just say the regionals need to spend 10% on certain things that benefit communities other than the one they're located in. I just want to make sure that I'm following that correctly. That's correct. Okay. And some of that, how we communicate is a matter of. Correct and made data. Differently. But I if the chart dynasties, say organizations, probably we'd be at this point better to categorize this total amount as spend on communities, most of it going to community based organizations. But we can't tell you exactly what that would be at this point until those contracts are are signed, because. It kind of that throws me because then we put it in categories and we say it's kind of another example. The schools, if I understand it, 10% of the money goes to school districts. Other money goes to regional organizations that they spend on school programs. And so sometimes we conflate the terms. School access program with money for the schools. And when we do that, it makes it appear as if the regional organizations are getting much less money than they are. If we pull out the portion that they're spending on the schools, pull out the portion that they're spending on community organizations, and we say, look, they're only getting 40% of the money. The reality they're getting a much larger percentage, but they have some strings attached on how they spend that. And that's good or bad. It's a matter how to communicate. I just want to make sure we're transparent about where the dollars are, who's getting to make them make those decisions about the dollar. So that's as more of a comment than a question. But I think it I think it's a fair one to correct. And and really, in terms of who's making the decisions, even with the the public school access program restricted funds, it really is down to that contract level. So it it's it's a proposal by the regional organizations, but it's a process to determine if if the proposal meets the eligibility requirements and the eligibility requirements will be based on what is in the ordinance. Councilmember Coles. Thank you, Madam Chair. Leah, I would I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Lia has not gone over the whole proposal yet, but there are a couple of provisions I think do need to have attention. One is that unlike the original proposed ordinance, this one includes language that each council district will be receiving of a minimum of $1 million to be directed toward community based organizations. That is something very different. Yes. And secondly, we did include language. And I cannot tell you where it is right now, but you can go over it as a path forward for council districts to add a path for community based organizations to be come or have created centers. Big centers could become regional centers themselves so that people from Seattle, from my district, could go to another area of the county to attend an event, to go to a museum that would be a new regional organization. So money is spent in that district as well for hotels, restaurants, shops and so forth. So we are trying very hard to address the need, legitimate need, I believe, to get an equitable distribution around the whole county in every district. Thank you. Madam Chair. That the member for the. Question on point Councilmember Caldwell's that's a really interesting idea, an appealing idea for a district like mine and I think other members on the council and I could see that really bringing value. You know, Councilmember One has been a good supporter of the new federal waste center and you can see the enthusiasm around from the community surrounding that and what that will mean at the federal way. And I could see something in the kind of redeveloping North End, you know, Kenmore Mall area. In this proposal, how would that be funded? Are there dollars in the funding allocation method that could bring that to life? And if so, how much? It sounds like an expensive undertaking, but there's a lot of money here. So is that is that in here to fund that? So what Councilmember Caldwell's is referring to would be within those those Sabrina plans that would be developed. And so those those plans would be intended to look at the funding available within the different categories, and it would be different in different areas and how, you know, direct how that it should be developed or how it should be used over time to develop such things as a regional center for specific purposes. And that then would be used by more culture in working with their organize the organizations that they're providing grants to and looking at how distributions should be made protected, particularly within the competitive pool to achieve that vision. Okay. And maybe this may be an offline explanation, but I'm not seeing on your helpful chart on page 13, which seems to allocate the dollars where that money would come from. I mean, one of these centers would 10 to $20 million. I would assume. It could come from any of the categories. It would be. A matter of the organizations that the money has to go to, organizations other than the public school access, the 10% part of the public school access program. So everything else has to be achieved through awards to to cultural organizations, either regional ones or community based ones. So in theory, could a regional one say the zoo or the Seattle Art Museum? Would they somehow in their bucket of money, be funding a North King County Regional Cultural Center? Is that possible that that wouldn't that? I don't think that's the way that it's written currently. It would be borders that money. Well, I'm honestly, I'm trying to understand where the where the money is to do this. It's I guess it's a I love the concept and it seems to have a lot of value. I mean, it's very appealing. I mean, next. Councilmember Lambert's been meeting him and Councilmember Gossett. So I really like the idea of some regional planning like this, both what Councilmember Caldwell says, and then the other day, Work Council member of the Grove said, When we bring people into Seattle, there's a multiplier effect and it be interesting to know what the multiplier effect is. You know, for every dollar spent in the arts, does the surrounding community get $15 because people are getting dinner there and they've spent the night at the hotel or pay for parking, whatever? Because, you know, a lot of our districts could use some economic development. So how do we get something in other districts, too, out of this money so that we would have some economic development going on? Because this is a wonderful thing and it should be available to other places. The other thing is that as I'm listening to this, there are districts in this county that don't really have the wherewithal , as I'm wondering, much like with our best starts for kids, if we could have a navigator, a listener, an expert, whatever we want to call this person. Who. Was on tap that anybody could say, I need you to help me get an X in my district and help with the expertize of that. Is there somebody like that in here or there? There is actually there within the community based cultural organizations. That 1.8 million you see for admin administration of the community based cultural organization program. The vision is to have technical assistance, to have some, you know, to to provide technical assistance for organizations, to help them learn about the program, to help them apply for a grant funds to learn about what they may be eligible for. And the vision would be actually to have some of those technical support people co-located out in communities, not Seattle, where our culture is currently located. So one in the north, one in the east, one in the south. And then beyond that, there's some planning towards using money for communications, using money to develop initiatives, basically. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett, followed by Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is in response to a response that you made to Councilman Dombroski. I thought that at the beginning of this process and peak my interest when you said we're going to have $3.8 million available for community based cultural activities, even possibly a couple of regional centers. But then later, when he asked about who makes the decisions about this money or this kind of money, it wasn't clear on who that would be. I'm trying to figure out, is this 3.8 million and for Culture Bank and we have to go to them and make a case. Or is this part of the council's strategic plan where the King County Council will have some say and determining who gets this money is just it's not clear. The 3.8 would be part of the Regional Cultural Organizations Award. So the state law provides a formula where the regional organizations get their award. You know, we talked about they don't just get a blank check that it's actually an eligibility. Says how much each one of them get. Correct. And I know we've done that, but the 3.8 million would be is a restriction on those funds to be spent in communities. That's what DEMBOSKY was asking. Like if the zoo get 4.7 million and the Pacific Science Center gets 4.2 million. Are you saying that in order to come up this 3.8 million, each of them are giving up 800,000 and putting it in a pot that smaller regions can apply to. It's true that our culture or some other entity that's going to make the decision on who gets this money, how much and what they can use it for. Yes. Okay. So there are three basic options of what those regionals could do with that restricted portion of their award. They could spend it directly on programing in communities. They could partner with a community based in. In that case, that would be a joint decision between Fort Culture and the regional organization on how to spend that money . They could partner with a community based cultural organization in a community, so that would be a joint decision with the cultural, the regional and the community based cultural organization. And then again with for culture, because it would be a contract for the award. The last option would be and it could be somebody first. I don't there's no particular order, but it could be to return the funds to for culture and then it would be a part of that community based cultural organization, competitive pool that. Would apply. Health care would administer. And people would apply for. Cultural organizations would apply for money. Correct. And then the decision makers would be for culture and the people that they put together to help them make these decisions. Correct. All right. Councilmember Caldwell's followed by Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of points and I'll wait until Councilmember Garcia returns to address what he brought up. But with regard to the comments or questions made by council members up to Grove and DEMBOSKY, which I thought were there are very important ones I would like I would invite you to turn to a couple of pages in our briefing, page 14, again on the fifth bullet sub area equity and start up plans. And you may see on the third one it refers to a cultural organization's start up plan for fostering the development of new cultural organizations. And the overlying part of this one requires that for culture develop plans with. In consultation with County Council members. We also have been created the Equity Advisory Committee, which we would confirm the appointments to that representing our district. But more pointedly, if you will, turn to page 53 in our briefing, this is the actual redlined version of the proposed ordinance for us. And on that, which is page five and insert 53, page 53 in our materials, page five of the redlined ordinance and on the statement of facts, number 11 and 12, all added, all in red line refer to this access for all funding would foster the creation and development of new cultural organizations throughout King County, reduce geographical barriers and ensure that all residents have easy access to arts, science and heritage resources. And very poignantly, number 12, access for all funding would support the growth and development of arts, science and heritage centers throughout King County to promote healthy and vibrant communities. I wanted that those two in there to make sure that our intent is included, to be able to have that path forward, to create the centers that have been mentioned. It's integral to this proposed ordinance. I think you can smell Councilmember Dunn followed by councilmember. Of the girl. At first. Let me say you're doing a good job up there right now. I'm going to tell you when you're ready. Yeah. Doing a good job. I guess my interest is there or, you know, not a lot of arts district things in my district. I want to be able to create something out of whole cloth that doesn't exist there because there's nothing there right now. And so the flexibility is important to do just that. And I just want to make sure that we can build that in. Yes, it is. It's built into the state statute that funds can be used, community based cultural organization funds can be used to fund startup costs for new organizations. What about capital, though? Yes, capital. Regional culture organizations cannot fund capital, but community based ones can. Very good. Thank you. Yes. And Councilmember Dunn, if I may, you're being a little unfair. You have three excellent community based organizations on our list here, and we just we'd like to see more. Yeah, I wish we had more. The way my district is sort of balkanized, there just isn't that urban core that traditionally carries the arts organizations. Thank you. Very good. Councilmember at the. Grove. Madam Chair, I'm worried I'm wading into beginning a discussion back and forth that we want to wait on. I think that I think we're there. I myself. But thank you for asking. I appreciate that. I have I I love the language in here that calls for development of plans for how we get geographic equity, how we address that. But we're spending the money and then we're going to go have a plan. I one, I think we should have done that before we created how we drive all the dollars out. And I also think there's an important distinction between non legally binding and, you know, findings language that we want to do this or language that calls for the creation of a plan is very different than putting money aside to do that. And there's no guarantee that there will be any money to do that. There is the the pot of money for community based organizations. We could tap into that. Maybe that could happen. Maybe in some areas. That means it comes out of the other community based organizations. You know, I. I wish that's what our plan did. I wish whoever wrote the state law had done that kind of planning and create a system that allowed us to invest those dollars in ways that created that. But if we make a decision to put something on the ballot, the buy formula drives a huge chunk of the money into the large regional organizations that are geographically centered largely and then say, we'll have a plan and we'll that might try to achieve some other things. It doesn't provide certainty and it it appears almost like window dressing on something. It's a good faith. I think it's a listening and response to concerns. But, you know, if you know, there's only 7 million a year for capital in there and if we're going to spend 7 million a year on developing this, this means there won't be capital for small organizations. There's all trade offs in those decisions we make and we punt on those decisions, which is okay. I mean, it's an implementation plan and contracts for how people spend the money. But I just think there's a difference in point. I think it goes to the question Councilor Dombrowski was asking. Around. Where will the dollars come from? And also, is there is there any level of certainty at all other than it's eligible? There'll be a plan. Maybe we'll do it, because I believe you can. I think the up my soapbox squirrel. I actually believe in that vision that if we had a part of, you know, this is a $500 billion plan, let's say you put a 50 million into something up north to develop a string of historical museums up there and then developed a plan on how to we'd settle for 40 . Yeah, well, 50 million is only 10% of this whole thing. Are these two. And you know if the dollars went, if we had certainty that those dollars would be there to implement the plan, whether it's 100 million, 50 million, 40 million in a community, then you know, you're getting that. But to say, well, the plan and they can compete within that existing community, part of money I don't think provides a level certainty that gets me comfortable. I think that's a to comment and a I guess a debate on that on that point. Okay. Councilmember Cole. Well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, as council member at the Grove pointed out, there is a requirement for a plan for the funding, but no funding takes place before an implementation plan is approved by the Council. So I think that if we can keep that framework in mind, then we can see that the Council will not approve any plans. No money will be provided until the plans are approved and the Council will be having a lot more involvement in that implementation plan itself, especially through this equity committee with a representative from each council. The ordinance proposed ordinance also includes a provision that the board culture board will have to hold meetings out in the communities to get the community input what they want. And the last thing I'd like to say here is this is a process. The money is not going to be there instantly. It will be gradually increased as the revenue comes in. And that's why I said that we included a path forward. So there could be these large regional centers in sub areas and individual districts have to work toward that. And that's what we will be doing with our involvement with the implementation plan. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that Councilmember Antigulov articulated my vision and analysis really quite well. And then let me give you an example of why I say that. And let's add that we're going to get $3.8 billion moved from the big organizations, big regional organizations that could be flexible and used and all over the county first roll out first. Then in response to Councilmember Dunn, who articulated the possibility of building a big community based cultural center in his district. She said that he said that would we have to use the community based funds? And she said yes. And I had earlier thought that the big extra money was coming from the big organization. So when I come out of the ground and said that whoever set this up, they really put us in a bind because they put in the legislation for any county over 1.5 million we want is a prescription problem. All the big organizations get a lot of money based on their traditional attendance rates and the amount of money that people are already putting in these cultural institutions that have been here a while. And and then when there was a lot of funds coming from the community, they said, let's see what we could do to try to get a more equitable process established. But it would have been much better to have a lot more flexibility and $500 million coming for control and scientific development or county if one. We, the legislative body, have a lot more flexibility from the get and setting something that we collectively thought would be democratic and real responsive to our people . And I think that's the reason we're having so many struggles now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I feel a little compelled to just kind of put a little historical context on this, though, that this legislation was worked through Olympia for eight years, quite a number of years. And my understanding is it was supported by a legislative agenda and lobbying each step of the way by county council members. So it has been here a number of times over the years. I know my predecessor was very active in advocating for this bill, both at the County Council and at the state. So I there's a big difference between a bill that we're not trying to implement and a big tax ask that we're not like imminently about to do. But and today, when we're being asked to imminently do it, but it's the structure is not something that is or should be news to this council. Okay. Were you done, Leo? And we got into discussion or did you have more? I hadn't finished providing the comparisons. A lot of them have come out. So it's up to you if you want to make sure that I get them all in or if you feel, you know. I'm going to ask for you to finish, please. And if there are things that we've already sort of talked to, maybe you just hit them quickly and carry on. Thank you. Okay. So. So first, there would be a requirement for for culture to distribute a total of at least $1 million in each community based or in each year to community based cultural organizations in each county council district. So that's a change from the original ordinance and next requirements for Four Cultures annual report on the program to the Executive and Council would include specific provisions, including a report on the distribution of funds and numbers served broken down by council districts. So members would be able to track that over time. The first report would be transmitted in 2019 rather than 2018 because that's when the money would be coming in. Next, the proposed ordinance would require the council require council approval by ordinance of the implementation plan, and it allows for amendments to the implementation plan, which could be initiated by the executive or the Council. But the Council would approve any amendment by ordinance. The proposed ordinance also restricts proceeds of the tax exempt start up funding from being spent until the implementation plan is improved approved by the Council. Next it in group includes require requirements for for for culture to develop three plans and those have been discussed somewhat. But let me lay them out what they are and they each plan would be developed with community input and also includes council can't even talk anymore in consultation with county council members. So the first one would be a cultural opportunity and access expansion plan for the sub areas of the county and we will correct those. And the next one would be a county wide cultural access equity plan for achieving equity and inclusion outcomes. And the equity inclusion outcomes are listed in the ordinance, and this would be a plan for how to specifically achieve them. And last would be a cultural organization start up plan for fostering the development of new cultural organizations. A next requirement would be that it would require at least nine of the members of the Equity Advisory Committee that for culture would be creating to be recommended one each by each county council member and confirmed by the King County Council. And finally, it makes a number of technical changes to clarify the ordinance and comply with state law, including amending four cultures charter to make it clear that they have the authority to administer this program. Okay. That brings us to the end of the presentation. Is there any other questions or discussion at this time, Councilman Domanski. Thank you very much. I was looking at this red line version, which is helpful. And in section ten, on page 78 of our materials 30 of the ordinance, there's some new language here around the Charter of the Cultural Development Authority. It says it's approved. It says it references an attachment A which isn't here. Help us understand what's going on in this section. I'm sorry. That's my mistake. The attachment age should have been in your packet. So is the legal question, you know? Feel free to toss it to our legal beagle over there, Jim. It was a legal recommendation just to make it explicitly clear that for culture has the authority to to administer the act this for all program. I mean, they have broad authority, but one of the things they don't have explicit authority is to provide funding for, for example, science organizations. So this just cleans that up, make sure that they have that that actual change in the attachment. A if you saw is, is pretty small, but I will make sure it's distributed. It's like a one liner. We are we by this ordinance changing the charter of our culture to give it new powers. Yes. Just narrowly focused to administering this program. Okay. And if we're doing that by this ordinance, can we make other changes to the For Culture Charter in terms of its. You could if they were related to the access for all program and fit that one one subject role. Well, I probably shouldn't be giving legal advice, but that's what I've been told. We want to invite him is. Nodding. I think they got it right. Okay. At least for today's purposes. I want to echo Councilmember Dunn's comments. This is a complicated ordinance and it's very clear you're prepared and know it well. It's been helpful to hear your answers to the questions. Good job. Thank you. Any comments or questions. Okay. So I've heard a number, by the way. I think there's been a really good discussion. I echo the thanks to the staff and especially Lee. I know I have a sense of just a sense of how many hours you have spent to get to the level of mastery that you have today. But it's been very, very helpful to us. So thank you so much. A lot. But could I just also say poor Andrew. Doesn't say anything, but. He is doing a lot of work. There. Looks really good, you know, just he looks like he he gives a lot of confidence just because of his demeanor. You have. You know, from. Your work with him behind the scenes, but. He thank you as well, Andrew. I mean, I know that there have been a large number of people, I mean, district staff as well, who have been working, just working very, very hard to get this to a place where we could have just the type of discussion that we had today, which I think was very, very helpful and productive. I appreciate everybody is engaging with it where we are right now, if I may, was sort of wrap us up here over this agenda item is, as I said at the beginning, this ordinance does has been duly referred to budget in fiscal management and to this committee. I am not going to unless somebody waves their hand frantically to me and asked me to ask for a vote to move this out of committee because it wouldn't really accomplish anything. If we want to move forward and discuss this further and potentially take up an action that will have to happen at an upcoming meeting of the full council, because, as I said, the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee doesn't meet until after our timeline has run out to do what was proposed in the initial ordinance. And so that decision will have to be made by the body at council whether and what they want to do and I don't think we're going to do that here today. So I think I'll just leave it there for now. Councilman Domanski. Think that chair and. Your Councilmember Dombroski is up and then you're next. Sorry, Councilmember Garcia, thanks for having this again, this working session today and for bringing forward this new ordinance. Just procedurally following on that, can we get reoriented or refreshed or reminded about the timeline that the council is facing? Assuming that we were shooting for that August 1st, 2017, ballot measure, I know there's some different vote requirements being on when you do it and let us know what what we're what our time. Sure. So the last and the last council meeting to do it as a regular action, it would be with minimal processing, meaning the chair and the executive would need to sign it right away and that it would be May 1st. And then after that you'd have until May 12th to pass it as an emergency. But the last council meeting would be May 8th unless there were a special customers. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. I had a question of first of all, thank you, Madam Chair, and a question on something you said and and I need, Councilman, I think about the way and and here it is. And I understand why the council as a whole decided to refer it is to committees. It was originally in the budget and now it's a budget. And Kyle, if. But it is not going to or nor has any intention of and had before our deadline of May 1st, what was the value, what was the necessity of referring it back to budget? If there's a likelihood that we're going to make the decision on that before it could even get the budget. And I don't understand that. And it was a redland budget. I believe councilman of the Grove might have a word or two on that topic. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, Councilmember Gossett. And I can only speak for my personal perspective and understanding, and I'll be candid with folks as it was, we have some divisions on this council as to whether or not this is the right plan and the right time at the last council meeting. Some members were you know, there were there were different paths forward. And it was unclear whether or not there was the support at the time to pull this forward. And the the two committee chairs talked and it appeared there was support to refer it back to the Budget Committee. But there also is a shared desire to support the public interest of having greater debate and discussion in order to facilitate trying to find a solution before the clock runs out. That would have been harder if it had been referred to the Budget Committee because we didn't have a meeting to have this kind of discussion and input . So even though. There wasn't necessarily support for it to go around the Budget Committee. There was support to keep trying to keep trying to find solutions to that that meet a majority of the council. And by having by doing the dual referral, it allows it to essentially, if we were to vote it out today, it would go to the Budget Committee. But if it had just gone to the Budget Committee, we would not have had the opportunity to listen to each other and listen to the public and keep exploring solutions the same way we could. So it was a way to keep the discussion moving without, quite frankly, the budget chair feeling like it had been pulled out of the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. So that's my best attempt to explain why I thought a dual referral made sense. So the Budget Committee would possibly never will hear this. That's a scenario I think I can. I think that if this were to pass, the likely scenario would be a majority of the council feels strongly that it needs to come up and would vote at full council regardless of what committee it was were referred to. I would hope that that, you know, anytime committee chairs don't want that to happen to themselves, but. Procedurally, if the decision today is not to advance it out of this committee, then that would be the procedural path forward, as I understand it, if it were to advance and I don't know, let maybe the chair. You know, add a word in. First of all, I agree with everything that our budget chair, councilmember of the group, just said. That was an accurate rendering of my understanding of how this came about. It was a compromise. And the compromise was to for the purpose of allowing discussion and an opportunity to try to. I've been using the word perfect, the ordinance, but I guess I should say to amend the ordinance to a place where perhaps there could be stronger support for it going to the ballot on on the council. If we succeed in that, then I think you might see that there's a path to vote at full council because it would be by agreement and without objection. However, if we can't get to the point where people were council members feel that they want to advance this, then we would be back, in my opinion, in the same place we were out before today, which is that there's no agreement to move forward at the Budget Committee and therefore it does not move forward. So this is just give us one more opportunity publicly to discuss the specifics, to discuss particularly the new proposals. One of the challenges in all of this has been, although some of us have been working on amendments, they weren't widely shared because they were very slow in coming along. There was a lot of work to do here. And and council members rightly said that they would need to see and understand exactly what was being proposed before they could have a position on it. I mean, that's eminently reasonable. And so today was that opportunity. And we're going to see after today where we are, whether we can get close enough to have a vote at council , at full council, or whether we can't. But it's going to be the will of the body either way. I mean. Right. We we vote as as nine and you need a you need a majority on something like this. I'd like to see more than just a bare majority anyway. So I think we're trying to get to a place where more of us feel that it's something that they can support. Councilmember Gossett, thank you. Earlier you had said that one of the amendments is that $1,000,000 go to each council district. But then when I made an inquiry about that, they say, oh, Councilman Garcia, it doesn't mean you're district because there are different entities located in district that are already cumulatively receiving more than $1,000,000. Well, that's not every district getting $1,000,000. That may have been an earlier concept, but the concept that is in the ordinance your district, every district would be guaranteed to receive at least one. Additional million. Dollar community. The community based cultural organizations within your district would be guaranteed to receive a total of at least $1 million. Why did the chair say no? I said, it's not you. As she was speaking and you asked an additional million dollars and I don't know if she heard you say that. So she was not saying every district gets an additional million dollars. Well, so was I correct originally that if there are organizations in District two that are cumulatively are getting $1,000,000 or more, then I would not get $1,000,000 for community based cultural entities. So an additional yeah, that's my question. I'm not sure if I understand your question. So there's there's the regional culture organizations that are distributed by formula, the community based cultural organizations by state law. Their process is a competitive process. So there's not really a guarantee necessarily of who gets what. I know there's numbers that have been circulated. The numbers. Correct. That's based on the previous grant awards that have that that occurred in 2015. So each council district would be guaranteed to have their community based cultural organizations receive a total of 1 million each year at least. So if if you looked at, you know, a chart that showed that you already were that District two was already receiving that to your culture, then it wouldn't add any to. It wouldn't be another million added. All right. The specific purpose, if I may, Councilmember Gossett, of proposing this type of law was because in the original proposal, there were some districts that got I mean, almost literally nothing in community based. Okay. Yeah. Because as Councilmember Dunn pointed out, if you didn't have cultural organizations in your district, there was nowhere for the money to go to . And so the idea here was to set a floor of some reasonable amount that could be used to develop and grow cultural organizations in places where they don't exist already. That that was sort of the concept. Yeah. All right. And remember. And just adding on to that, there was one in my district that got $583 and I got people to do 83,000. You know, no. 500, 3000 might have been wonderful. There were those zeros further down. So not having a floor made that really not as good as it could have been. I think we'll figure this out. Councilmember Graham. Just want to clarify, we're talking $1,000,000 annualized every year now. Okay. Just want to correct. All right. Thanks for good clarification. Okay. Councilmember up the group. Thank you. And I'll try to be brief. Since we didn't, we kind of we're in the middle of questions that we the comment kind of went quickly. And I, I just want to make one point because this may be one of the last chances, may or may not be what the last chance is to talk about it , kind of that why the geographic distribution matters in my mind. One of the tremendous benefits of arts and cultural investments is the economic return to a community. These are important and worthwhile public investments. And I was looking at the American Planning Association website. These aren't my words. I want to be used to plagiarizing. They actually, as a planning association, acknowledge the value of arts and cultural investments in a community. They point out it improves a community's competitive edge, creates a foundation for defining a sense of place. It attracts new and visiting populations. It integrates the visions of community and business leaders and contributes to the development of a skilled workforce. Simply put, they provide direct economic and community benefit to the communities in which they're located. I've often heard the county executive and others talk about the differences in equality between one zip code and another in this county. Now, some people live shorter, lives in the poorer areas. And I think that if we want to have an arts and cultural funding plan that serves the purposes and the mission of this one, then it would have. We can, I believe we can. I have optimism that we can find a way to provide direct dollar investments into the lowest income, most ethnically diverse portions of the county so that those types of benefits are shared. There are benefits from people coming into your community. There are tremendous and I said it before, I really value and appreciate it. When Seattle Theater Group runs a camp for low income kids in South King County, or when the Pacific Science Center brings bands to schools. And overall, this plan will increase the amount of that. And that's good. But the idea of a very significant sales tax increase that burdens working class people the most without a significant investment into the lowest income parts of the county, is at the core of my concerns. I just wanted to make sure I had a chance to get that on the record as to why I feel the way I do. And I appreciate the million dollars per district, but at the end of the day, it's sort of I don't mean to say this in a negative way, but it's kind of fiddling around the edges while the main thrust and strategy of the plan remains, um, rather problematic. So it's because I value these and because I want to see these benefits shared, but I'm hopeful that we can keep moving in that direction of of ensuring that kind of direct investment in every community. I just wanted the opportunity to get that on the record and appreciate it. Thank you. Councilmember at Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate what Councilmember up the Grove said very much. That's been the fabric of what I've worked on as a public policy maker for a long time. It's spread across the policy areas to a and when the Prosperity Partnership came up with one of its recommendations for creating such a plan like we had before us, and I think that was in 2005, somewhere in there, if they looked at what was happening in Denver in particular, they had created something very similar to what we have here. And I believe the voters in the greater metropolitan Denver area have twice now three times voted on continuing that plan. And I don't recall all the other cities and counties, the metropolitan areas and the in the country that have since done the same. I know there are quite a few of them. And the point behind this was to do what the title of this act indicates access for all and. As such, the work in the legislature for eight plus years was focus. That has been the focus not to get money to the big boys, so to speak, the regionals, but how we can not only spread the opportunities throughout the county for especially for under in underrepresented areas, for access to arts, culture and science heritage, but also to create those economic opportunities in throughout the entire county. Madam Chair. Would it be all right if we had Jim Kraft come up for a moment? Because because he represents Cultural Access Washington, which worked on this for so many years, and I would appreciate him in just a couple of moments from him. Councilmember Ordinarily, I would be very, very flexible with that sort of thing. But we had a panel at the last call me that when we discussed this where we had a number of people who had a full opportunity to present the perspective of the proponents. And today is really meant to be about debate among the council members in our opportunity to have discussion. And we've gone well over the amount of time that was allotted for this. So I would just as soon move on to the next agenda item. And I apologize for that, but I don't think that that is going to advance our discussion any more today than we already have been able to advance it. So I would prefer. To add not appreciate that, but we do have a new ordinance before us. I understand. Thank you. Thank you for understanding. I appreciate that. Councilmember Councilmember run right where you've been waiting. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I make sure everyone understands that this afternoon at 1:00, the Regional Policy Committee will also have this before it. And it's an opportunity for the gentleman who is just referenced to speak before us. We have a substantial list of people who are going to speak before the RTC on this very issue. Thank you, Councilmember. I appreciate that. I think that would be a good opportunity. You know, and I can speak to why I wanted to speak. I was just really. Oh, please go ahead. Councilmember Yes. You know, when I was a member of the state Senate, I took a very strong regional view, even though I represented at that time South King County in North Pierce County, because I looked upon some of the major players in our arts and related communities that reside in downtown Seattle, as you know, regional assets. And we needed to protect them, particularly as it nurtured. So I'm going back 30 years, 40 years. Well, they've had a good protection and they've got a lot of nurturing by us at the state level, by the state. Those of us who in the suburban areas are very happy to also nurture our burgeoning in growth industry of arts and sciences. And it's time, you know, again, as a state senator, I bucked a lot of criticism in my community to support taxes and plans and programs to support, whether it's a civic science center, Seattle Art Museum , other major projects, because I saw them as major assets that benefited my community. My community is looking back now to Seattle saying help us. You know, I think it's very interesting. We use the word access to arts. Well, access to arts is very difficult for a lot of us because of transportation problems. You know, it's very difficult for people in Councilmember Lambert's district to drive down to Seattle. It's very difficult for people in councilmember up the groves to drive down to Seattle or even public transportation. We don't have light rail in federal way. And I just want to ask you, let's focus on that word access. There's not a lot access in Maple Valley to downtown Seattle. So we need to focus on trying to put some arts back in those communities. I would also talk about there's this body has taken a very strong position on recognizing that we've got to even the field. Well, it's interesting. The field has changed dramatically. If you look at the demographics of my district in 2017, it looks more like councilman regardless district in 27. So when you look at the demographic changes that taking place in King County and you want to talk about access to the arts and you care about the issues I've been raised here, I think we better take a long look and make sure there's more equitable, equitable access to the arts. Thank you. Okay. I think we have had a really good, robust conversation. We could do this all day. I would like to take the the final 15 or so minutes and and get to the the scintillating and very important topic of solid waste. So perhaps we could have one of my SO yeah, if we could move on to the next agenda item. Thank you very much, everybody, for that discussion, for that presentation. And we will now take up our final agenda item for today, and that's item six, where we have staff from the Solid Waste Division to speak to us

Recommendation to request City Manager to begin the review and approval process for the renaming of Ximeno Avenue between 7th Street and 10th Street as Bruin Way in honor of Wilson High School.

LongBeachCC_11142017_17-1036

Thank you. So next we have Gerry Glynn. Thomas, are you here next? Malcolm Armstrong, are you here? Okay, that concludes public comment. We are moving forward now with item number 22. Item two is a communication from Councilwoman Price. A recommendation to begin the review and approval process for the renaming of Examination Avenue between Seventh Street and 10th Street, as Bruin way in honor was in high school. Councilmember Price I always try to be as much like Councilman Andrews as I possibly can. And when I heard he had Jackrabbit Lane, I decided we need a brew in way. So we had about 20 students and the principal of Wilson here earlier tonight, but the students had homework to do, so we sent them on their way . This is just the start of a process that I hope is not too lengthy, but it will go through the various committees. I think it's going to go through a planning commission and then it'll make its way back here. And at that point, it will hopefully will have students and staff and administrators from Wilson High School here. I do want to point out to my colleagues and anyone who's watching that this particular area of examiner does not have any residential houses on it. It actually goes through the Wilson campus. So Wilson High School is on both sides of the street. So changing the name of the street at this location would not impact any residential properties. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, yes, yes. And boy, I sure wouldn't think that this is a very clear way to show our support to our school district. And you know that I'm totally in support of that. But, you know, in my district we have they call it Jackrabbit Lane and the kids just love it. So I knew you would follow that. And Councilman Price, you you totally have my support on this. I do. Would be good when we meet beat you guys at golf which we generally do. But you had gone. Oh. At least there's golf we to back. There. But it would be you know easier to either go to Jackrabbit Lane. Or Bruin Way. You know. I think you started something, Councilman. All right. Any public comment on this item saying nonmembers, please cast your vote. On Panther way. I mean, brewing way. Sorry, I'm a yes motion case. Thank you. Next, we have item 24.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution adopting a plan to implement SB 415, changing the date of Long Beach Municipal and School District Primary and General Elections. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10032017_17-0877

Thank you very much. Seeing that there, that concludes public comment. Thank you all that came out for public comment. I appreciate you guys coming out. Okay. Next up is going to go ahead and be item number. What's the next 30. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare a resolution adopting a plan to implement SB 415. Changing the date of the Long Beach Municipal and School District Primary and General Elections Citywide. Mr. City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. And members of the Council. Senate Bill 415 amended the election code was signed by Governor Brown in 2015. The intent of Senate Bill 415 is to improve voter turnout at local elections. SB 415 requires the local public agency with a nine concurrent election to change its dates either the statewide primary or a general election . If the agency's voter turnout for the municipal election held on a non concurrent date was at least 25% lower than the average voter turnout for the last four statewide general elections. SB 415 only impacts regularly scheduled local elections. Primary and general. It doesn't affect the timing of special elections. So those items may go on a ballot at any time as allowed by state law. For nearly two years, it was unclear whether this bill applied to Long Beach as a charter city and the provisions of the Charter of the City of Long Beach directly conflict with the provisions of SB 415. In 2016, a request was made to the California Attorney General to clarify that issue. And in July of this year, the Attorney General issued opinion, holding that SB 415 does in fact apply to charter cities and school districts governed by their city charter. So while the Attorney General opinion is not legally binding like a court decision, they're viewed by the courts as highly persuasive excuse me. And local agencies generally follow them as they would a court decision. So what is required? SB 415 requires a political subdivision may hold an election on other than statewide election dates. If, by January 1st of 2018, the city has adopted a plan to consolidate future elections with a statewide election no later than January of or no later than 2022. The bill or the law doesn't really go into what the specifics of the plan are. But it is our recommendation that we recommend the Council to adopt or direct us to prepare a resolution for your consideration. Adopting a plan. The There has been a change since this item was placed on the agenda. The governor did sign Senate Bill 568 568 further complicates this this already complicated item. What 568 does is it will move effective 2019 the state's primary election from June to March and allow the governor to move that even earlier in the year during presidential elections. So the impact of this would be beginning in 2020. The city would have to move their elections or the city has three options. They could adopt and move in 2018, 2020 or 2022. Our office is not recommending moving for the 2018 elections. This is a matter of just practically being able to do it in that time frame. We already are in the election cycle. The it would also, we believe, create additional confusion for the voters because in 18 they would vote in June, in November and then in 2020 you would vote in March and November. So we and also the city clerk can weigh in here, too, that the we may not be able to consolidate with the county in 18. We're hoping by 2020 the county would have their new election system in place so that we can consolidate and that would save money. We also need to work with our partners at the school district to bring them into the process. We have reached out to them and we will work with them on a go forward basis on how that implements and impacts them. So tonight, if the motion as provided would direct us to prepare a resolution adopting a plan to implement SB 415 and to move the primary general elections pursuant to state law and the effective date we are asking or recommending it be 2020. If that recommendation is adopted, what would be the next steps we would return with that resolution? Adopting the plan to change the election dates further, the resolution would direct the city attorney to draft amendments to the Long Beach Municipal Code to make the necessary changes to implement the plan. That would include ordinance to change the election cycle when election funds become surplus. What date? So the elected official would take office if elected in November. It could be the third Tuesday in December. It would take we would have to look at how long is it for the certification of the election and what would be the desire . So we would come back to council with those recommendations. We're not asking for those decisions to be made tonight. That would come back. We would have the resolution directing us to prepare those amendments. We would draft those amendments, come back and get input from the city council. City council can direct that to committee. They can do what they like without. Then we would come back with a final version. So at this time, we believe that the city is required to move their election under the law. It does invalidate, in essence, a portion of our charter on when the election dates are held. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. There is a motion on a second to approve the city attorney's recommendation for 2020. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I actually would like to hear from our city clerk just her take on this item before making any comments and hearing from my colleagues, if that's okay. Just your. I know that there's a legal recommendation right at the state level. And I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the 2020 timeline. Does that allow us, you think, the right amount of time to work with the county? The information that we have received from the county is that they will be ready for us in 2020 if they are if they have their election system certified and are ready to take us in 2020, I think it's a good opportunity for us to go forward and consolidate our election with them. It is a an election cycle that is not city wide, it's the even district. So I think it's a good testing ground at that at that time for us to move forward. And in your opinion, if we did it in 2018, that would put you guys in a little bit of chaos. I think it would put the county in a little bit of chaos. Our election cycle for 2018 started on January one, 2017. So we are already in the middle of our election cycle and we've already started the process working with candidates campaign finance. So I think right now our 2018 election would be best held with the city clerk's office. Great. Thank you for for that. I, I support the 2020 timeline. I want to thank the city attorney for providing us with a detailed report. And I know that that has been a big question if Long Beach actually had to do this. And so it's great to have that clarity. I also you know, I think my two concerns is making sure that we go with the 2020 timeline and making sure that we're actually working with Lexi and with the school board and that before this item come back for its final vote, that we actually have some some clarity on where everybody is in their election process and that we're working as a city holistically moving that stuff forward. And you did clarify that this we can take this vote today and then it'll come we can put it back into the Elections Oversight Committee. That's correct. We would bring back the resolution, adopting the plan, and to request us to prepare the ordinance. It maybe be it would be my recommendation that we move forward with obviously what I've recommended tonight. And then when the motion came back or the resolution came back, adopting adopting that resolution at the time I came back with the draft ordinance to the entire body, I think would be the time that if necessary or if that's the desire of the council to send it to the Election Oversight Committee for further discussion. Or you may pick just specific items that you want to discuss. So we would bring the entire thing, all the draft back to the council to bring them an up to date and tell them where we are on this. And at that time, if that at the Election Oversight Committee or whatever committee the council decides to send it to. We'd be happy to do that. And what is the timeline that we need to work within if we go with the 2020? Very good. The under SB 415, the council has to adopt a plan by before January 1st of 2018. We believe that the resolution we would bring back to you is kind of the 5000 foot view of what your plan is. Your plan is to implement the change and to move to the statewide primary and general election in 2020. The the details of the plan are to be determined. We would be working with that. So we would come back to you as we prepare that. I'm not sure we can get to it by the end of the year, but early 2018 we would have the resolution. Are the ordinances in front of you maybe after the holidays for you to consider and we would have everything in place hopefully no later than spring of 18 so that we would be prepared for 2020. Great. So we have from now until spring of 2018 to finalize that plan, working with the clerk, working with NBCC and School Board as well. And I say that that's optimistic on when we would have it. We have until obviously 2020 to get everything we need to have it everything in place. I have reached out and spoken to the Long Beach Unified School District and to Long Beach City College. They are aware of this item tonight. I have told them that depending on the action of the council, we would be following up with them after this evening to keep them updated and then into the process. One of the concerns for the school district, for example, is. The November election. They adopt their budget, I'm told, in December. And so having a new person coming in, either the night of the budget adoption or the first week after that may cause them some issues. So they want to talk to us about the impact of those changes. Okay. Thank you for answering the questions. I just want to say, you know, that this is, I think, a move in the right direction. I think we have a lot of hope that aligning our election cycles will increase voter turnout. I know we've had voter turnout as low as 10%, as high as 40%, and that the highest is whenever we have it in June and November. And so as much as we can as a city, I know that our our city clerk has spent a long time and for the last three city clerks, it's been a long time trying to make sure that we're engaging with as many residents as possible so that, yes, African-Americans, Latinos, that the diverse population is fully engaged in our election cycle. And so I think that this absolutely is the right move, and I urge my colleagues to support this as well. Thank you. Thank you. Count summary Rango. Vice Mayor Richardson. Gray averaged a disparity. Council Councilwoman Mango. Skip to skip you. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So thank you. Who. Who prepared this report was this city attorney's office? Yes, it was. I think you did a did a pretty good job at justifying whether or not the city of Long Beach qualifies as a as a city under as SB 415 in terms of the 25% decline. Would you mind walking us through the methodology here for a moment? I'm going to. We asked the city if we're talking about the math on the 25%. That's why I went to law school. The the city clerk. We gave her the numbers and asked her to verify these numbers. And so if there's specific questions on the turnout or the years of the of the numbers, they provided those numbers. Well, I think it's what it does is it presents a strong case for not if, but when. Right. It narrows the conversation to make it very clearly that we we do meet this threshold that's that's required here. And it's and it's not even close between 25% and some of the percentages that I see here. So I think it's important because this is a really important debate for our city. I think it's important that the city understand our residents understand how far we compared to the 25% decline in turnout between and alignment with the state with the June, November versus our local turnout. So walk us through your methodology. And we. We used numbers provided to us by the Registrar Recorder's office in Los Angeles on voter turnout for all the elections in this item to to use as a base for our comparison. And then we used also our own statistics for our turnout over the last four election cycles. So you can see that. We. Clearly fall under that 25% threshold in elections where it was not a citywide election and it was maybe just one or two districts. We took that into account when we were doing our math. I know that questions come up and it was the total voters that were involved in that election that we used as our base for this statistical analysis. So everything is even across the board. Is there any particular election that you had questions on? No, not specifically. So the numbers that I see here, it says the percentage difference between the city's district primary election turnout and four statewide general election average is as follows. I see 68% decline in 2010. So between the states turnout and our local turnout was a 68% difference, way higher than 2576 in 2012, 66 in 2014. And just as recent as 2016, a 75% difference in turnout. Now, I know that there's been a lot of conversation about what we can do to increase participation. SB 14, whether it was popular or not. The title of it was the Voter Participation Act. And this is one of the simplest things we can do to simply ensure that voting is simple and easy and more people participate in the civic process. That's something that support. Therefore, I think the question I can support staff's recommendation because it allows us time to to prepare for that, submit this plan and get our affairs in order by 2020. It wouldn't make any sense by 2018. My final question, city manager or city attorney, when do we have to evaluate any potential fiscal impact here? We since this is required by state law, I think that the clerk is going to depending on the action of the council tonight. When we come back, not with the resolution, but with the ordinance. We could certainly, I believe that would give us enough time to talk about the fiscal impact. One of the unknowns is, as the clerk had mentioned, the county, if they're ready for us, that's one cost. If they're not ready for us, that's another cost. If we're we're doing a two vote Tuesday on both the June or the March and the November dates, you're looking at significant costs similar to what you're probably incurring now. Okay. So we anticipate cost would likely be similar, but we will have an opportunity to vet that out some other time. We will we will know more as we get closer to 2019 and 2020. It's hard to make that call right now because the county does not have their voting system in place. So we don't know what our share of that will be. We only know what it has been historically. And I don't think that's going to be a fair representation of what it will be in 2020 if their new election system is in place. So I think it gives us time. This motion gives us time to to get this right. And I think fundamentally, this just. Means, you know, we have an opportunity to state whether more or fewer people should have the right and the opportunity and easy opportunity to vote and determine their own future. And I think that that's I feel really good about staff recommendations, so I'll be supporting that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, well, for me, it's very simple. It increases voter turnout and it aligns the city of Long Beach with the states and the feds. So I think I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Councilman. Super. Now. Just very quickly, the what we have in place currently would be. An April. Primary, followed by a June election that will go away no matter what. So if you're in a runoff election, you have six weeks between April and June moving forward. I guess the primary would be in March possibly, and then the runoff would be in November. That is correct. Under SB 415 and the way we need to implement the law, obviously the council would have other options to consider in the future. If there is a, you know, a instant runoff type of situation, you could study you could study different items if that period of time is too long between the two elections. And I certainly, as I sit here, realize how long a period of time that would be. It's forever. And so but. SB 415 that's a separate issue for for a different night and a different discussion. But yes, you're absolutely correct. The April and June will go away and 2020 we would be on the state's schedule. Okay. Thank you. So we can decide that at a later date. I just thought that was important to bring out right now in terms of transparency. And a few of us up here have participated in the runoff and that six weeks seems like an eternity. I can't imagine waiting till November, our whole summer in and around the runoff. Imagine. Yes, Councilman Austin. Yeah, I'll be very brief. My, I'm going to be supportive of this item because I think it makes a lot of sense. Number one, I mean, obviously, there's going to be some impacts to our local elections here in Long Beach. But on a national level, I think it's very, very important that California be a strong voice and be relevant on the national electoral process. And so I'm kind of I'm very happy to see that the legislation was passed and there will be move in our primary up. But I will agree with Councilmember Supernova's assessment, though, if we're going to have a move the primary up to March and possibly a runoff in November, that can make for some very interesting campaigning dynamics. So but but I will support. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilman and. Yes, thank you, Mayor, because increasing voter turnout is important, I think, in all our neighborhoods and our residents here, you know, no city matter. But, you know, I'm hoping that we can consider transit transitioning this into to 2020 in order to provide, you know, sufficient outreach and time to those who are, you know, coordinate this election. It will be done quick and faster and everyone will be have a chance at least to come out and vote, because that is a very important November is very important, I think, for everyone. Thank you. Thank you for supporting this counts already. Any public comment saying we're going to go out and cast our vote as we're casting? I just want to also just add I'm very supportive. Mr. City Attorney, I know you worked very hard on this. I know there was a lot of a lot of work from you and your team. But this is for I think, for a lot of us who have been watching this issue and particularly around the issue of voter rights and ensuring that that that people have access to voting and to ensuring that people aren't voting sometimes 3 to 4 times a year. I think this is absolutely the step in the right direction. So I'm very happy about this moving forward as well. Cast your votes, please.

Recommendation to approve the minutes for the City Council meetings of Tuesday, July 15 and July 22, 2014.

LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0558

Thank you. Moving on to first item two, which is it was requested for the pool from consent from Councilmember Urunga. Yes. Just for the record, I have some corrections on page three of four, the swearing in ceremony, the correct name of the council person that being sworn in is Roberto with an O muranga and the person doing the swearing in was Supervisor elect Hilda Solis. Okay, the changes have been noted. So there is a motion to approve with those recommended changes? Yes. Kaser second. Okay. There's a motion and a secondary public comment on that item. See nonmembers, please cast your votes. That way. Forward motion carries eight zero. Thank you. Now we have item four and five and Mr. City two. And we will take both of these together. They're similar in scope. That's at the option of the jury. Can I'll go and do that? Item four and five have been requested to be pulled by Councilmembers Gonzales as well as council members. Austin. So I will first to maybe Mr. City Court. Did you want to begin by kind of giving a brief on those items or.

A resolution approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. for asphalt aggregate to be used in asphalt manufacturing for street paving. Approves a master purchase order with Martin Marietta Material, Inc. for $5 million and through 2-28-25 for the purchase and delivery of asphalt aggregate to be used for asphalt manufacturing for street paving, citywide (SC-00004621). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-31-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-25-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03092020_20-0167

No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilwoman CdeBaca has called out Bill 59 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put our the first item on our screens and council member sorry, go ahead with your questions on 167. Thank you. Council President Is there anyone who can talk to me about 167? Thank you. Can you just introduce yourself quickly? Elizabeth Hughes, purchaser for the city and county of Denver. Thank you so much for coming. I still have a. Couple of questions about. This. So as I was reading through the contracts today, I was looking at 166 and 167. So they're essentially exactly the same contracts, two different two different organizations. But the terms are the same. The amounts are doubled, but the length of time is the same. The only thing is kind of different is that on one of them, under the pricing, it says in 167, it says the best market price at the time a request, and then it's dependent on the availability. So I was just a little bit confused about what's going on there. I believe you're talking about the natural sand for Martin Marietta. Yes, this is the sand under Martin Marietta. That is a limited commodity now. And if we had a primary, which aggregate industries is our primary, they can secure the amount that we will need. But because the secondary is for emergency uses only, we cannot secure an amount of how much tons of sand that we will need to create asphalt. Okay, so let me just make sure I wrap my mind around this. So. There's a sands shortage coming. Potentially kind of coming. We are doing research on other alternatives. And so the the $10 million contract, 166, that is the main contract. And so there's a price set for that one because they can for sure get that amount of sand correct. And then. In 167. There is no price set because it's a secondary contract and we're not sure that they can get that amount of sand. It's only going to be used in case for a delivery. Cannot be made by the primary for whatever reason. Okay. And so there is that way. It's the half the price of the other contract, because we're really only looking at the set price of the the rock. Other has got have I believe it's about half because it's going to be only for emergency use and we just need something in place in case the town cannot deliver the goods on time. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Hold on just a second. We have maybe another one. Yep. Good. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a real quick question. Are you guys in any way connected to the asphalt production at Suncor? I'm going to turn this over to Pat. Awesome. Thank you. Giving in council members. Pat Kennedy, Dottie Ives, Asset Management. Could you repeat that question, please? Is this contract in any way connected to the asphalt that's produced at Suncor? No, this is this. This is material that we use at our plant for the purpose of producing asphalt ourselves. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. See no other questions on this item. We're going to move on to the next one. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next one up? And it looks like this 169. Go ahead, Councilmember.

AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing an amendment to the Development Agreement between The City of Seattle and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for real property above and adjacent to the Capitol Hill station; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07232018_CB 119294

The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning. Committee Agenda Item eight Casper. 119 294 Appropriate for approving and authorizing an amendment. To the development agreement between the City of Seattle and the Central. Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for the real property above and adjacent to the Capitol Hill Station and ratifying confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill passes. Amended. Pass from Johnson. Small change to the development agreement between the city and sound transit allows for the construction of capital housing's affordable housing projects on site B north next to the Capitol Hill station. Very good. Any questions or comments comes from a skater. Just want to say thank you to Councilmember Johnson and his staff and central staff for moving this change through in order to make sure that the project remained on track. I think it's really heartening to see the council respond so quickly to technical issues so that we can continue to respond to the need for more affordable housing . Thank you so much for your work on this. I should have mentioned Councilmember Miss Kidder, thanks to your office. But also the Sound Transit Board has already ratified disagreements over the second signers. Excellent. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. By John Gonzalez Johnson. Whereas I macheda i somewhat President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed to share with Senate. Please read items nine through 14 together.

Recommendation to request City Manager, or his designee, work with Public Works Department and return to Council with a To/From/For memorandum and a receive and file presentation within 90 days; In addition, request City Manager, or his designee to provide recommendations to improve the current policies/processes surrounding tree infestations; a cost estimate for the removal and replanting of all affected magnolia trees within the City's boundaries; and a cost estimate for water blasting all affected sidewalks to remove the Tulip Tree Scale secretions.

LongBeachCC_10082019_19-1004

Thank you. I will hear the next item, please to believe is 20. Communication from Councilmember Arango, Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price, Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to request City Manager to work with public works department and return to council with a two from four memorandum and a presentation within 90 days on the Magnolia Tulip Street Scale. Comprehensive Update. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Let me start with Councilmember Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. And before I begin, I want to thank my council colleagues, Councilmembers Pearce and Pryce, and also Vice Mayor Andrews for joining me on this important item here. A few years ago, I started receiving a lot of calls regarding magnolias and tree sap that were damaging not only cars, but streets and sidewalks. So as it's typically done, when we get calls like that, we get the arborists to go out and visit the the trees and see what is going on with them. The arborist concluded that there was a disease that was taking place in a few of those trees and they started a treatment to get them well. As time went on, we began to discover that the tree sap, which is not not toxic per se, but it is a thick soot that basically is a black and tar like that, basically hugs the ground and makes it very sticky and as well as on the street and also damages carpet. So we were finding that neighbors were not parking their cars under their trees and parking them elsewhere and creating all kinds of other havoc in the neighborhood. So as you arborists were treating these trees, we were getting more calls from other parts of the district now of experiencing the same the same issue with Willows Magnolias. So beginning earlier this year, we decided that this is an ongoing issue and it's a growing one. Come to find out that once we put this on the item that had my council colleagues join us in citing this issue, because it now that the SAP was beginning to appear in other parts of the city as well in other districts. So what I'm trying to do here today is to direct staff to look at the tree SAP issue and with the what's going on with the magnolias. The arborist has determined that the disease that these trees are experiencing is called to the tree scale. Basically, it's a pest that gets into the trees, it gets into the branches and it starts killing them. The response of the trees is like I like to liken it like to a body. When the body gets infected, it puts out its white, white blood cells to kill it. Well, the trees do the same thing. They start crying with their out, their sap, trying to get rid of the pest. But as you see here in some of these pictures, it gets really, really pervasive in terms of the tree set that that is that it deposits all over the place and could see right here the sap that goes out to the vehicles. And it's very liquidy, as you can see, and it's also very sticky. So the the item that I have here before you is to basically direct staff to take an inventory to get to give us some data in regards to the magnolia trees. By, first of all, counting how many trees are there in the city, how many are deceased? How can we treat them? What can we do to get them? Well, again, what can residents do if they have a magnolia tree that's infected in front of them in their yards? What can they do to preventive maintenance for preventing the the pests getting into their trees? So with that, I'm also wanting to get to a recommendation of some policies perhaps or some processes that we can include for the treatment of these trees and also getting some estimates as far as what would be the difference between. Fixing. One can fix a tree, but you can cure it. Cure curing the trees, treating them, removing them, and or eventually getting rid of them, as well as looking at what the cost would be for removing some of the the soot that you see right here on the sidewalks and on the streets and what the cost would be to get rid of that. It becomes a so not only a blight for the neighborhoods and for the houses that were there front of, but getting rid of those trees would really increase, would make the neighborhoods a lot better and more walkable. I walk my dog, for example, and I have to go around because walking through it, it is very sticky and and I don't want to even think what it does to the paws of my pets. So with that, I hope that I can get the support of my council colleagues to push this request forward and come back in around 90 days with a presentation and a policy as to how we can proceed with these trees. They pass it on. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Ranga for bringing this item forward. This is so relevant right now, and I was excited to hear that he was bringing this item because it's a very relevant topic of conversation in the Alamitos Heights neighborhood of the city. We have about. 824 magnolia trees in the Alamitos Heights area. And I know that several of the trees have obtained are showing signs that there might be infested with this disease. So I'm looking forward to the report back. And I know that in our neighborhood we are going to have a community meeting just to give everyone an update about what's going on, because a lot of people have seen the sap and don't really know what it's connected with or what's causing it. So we will probably have a community meeting in the next three weeks to educate the community on what we're dealing with and what some of the recommendations are moving forward. So thank you, Councilman, for bringing this item forward and I appreciate the opportunity to sign on. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank my county councilman Evinger for allowing me to come on this item with him, because, in fact, my portion regarding the, you know, homes at the hundreds of the beautiful trees in the, you know, mature, you know, magnolia trees, they are part of what creates the beauty and tranquility and neighborhoods in which we live in. But unfortunately, many of these trees have come infested with scales. We need to do everything we can in trying to save as many of these trees that we can. If we can't remove the some of the, you know, the most disease ones, then will have to do and eventually, I think will do, you know, and now we're going to have to lose them. All that would be would really would be a tragedy because these are very beautiful trees. But I think if we can sit around and do the things we were supposed to do, get some type of, you know, at least we can get some kind of data on finding out what we can do and what we can't do in order to save these trees. So I'm really asking my supporters to please join me with this item and and supporting this. And thank you for bringing it to the diocese. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I want to thank both Councilman Price and Councilmember Otunga in that through the budget process, we already started discussing the challenges ahead and we were able to, even though we don't have a solution yet, set aside some funding that could be used when a solution is determined. So I appreciate that being brought to the attention of the committee in advance. I think this kind of thing is only possible when there is funding for it. And so the forward thinking of those colleagues that have magnolia trees is is critical. And I'm very I think it's notable that they be commended for their forward thinking. Thank you. We have four members of the public. Please line up and order Heather Stemmer to lead Stomatal orders and I apologize if I mispronounce it. Mr. Goodhue Mr. Horner via and I think it's Annette Aguilar. Please come forward. Good evening. I have some additional photos if if you guys are open to looking at them as well. You can pick them to the clerk right after. Actually, just give me after they speak. Okay. So I'm here tonight with my neighbors. I live at 37 Golden Avenue. And in front of my house, there's two infected trees. And they each have one infected tree that's about ten feet away from my property line. So you can imagine with pretty much any direction the wind blows, I'm getting this sap from three different trees at the same time. It is a very sticky substance and very thick once it lands and once it's on the tree. But something else to consider is that it's very easily airborne. It blows out into a very fine mist and gets everywhere. It's as has been discussed, it's ruining paint on cars, on homes. It's actually damaging the screens on my windows in the front, which are less than ten years old. And that company has already said that that's not going to be covered under warranty because it's just unusual circumstances. It's caused. Insect infestations year over year. I've we've I've had bees so bad three years in a row that we had to hire exterminators to come out. They couldn't even just rescue them. They had to tear off the whole back of my garage. Ants year after year after year that have caused hundreds of dollars in food loss. There have been times where you prepare dinner and you set it out and you can't even have dinner before there's ants coming out. Everything has to be sealed up in airtight containers all year long. All the time. Just about a month ago, a branch fell. I think it's a little bit worse than than you guys are understanding to or at least some of the trees are a little bit further in the decay process than than do you know, my neighbor had a branch that was roughly five inches thick and about six feet long fall off. I was standing out in front of my house. It glanced off of his car, luckily didn't cause any damage. But we're half a half a block from Bernie Elementary and there's at least a dozen larger branches on our for trees that are ready to fall off. Two of the trees are visibly leaning towards the street. We've been trying to reach out to the city, all four of us, for several years now. Marilyn was able to get one of her trees trimmed, one branch last year, and that's it. I mean, we don't get much in the way of return correspondence on what is going to happen. I did get the you know, the notice from councilman you're on his office that this was going to be discussed tonight so that I could come and talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mr. Goodhue. Next up. When you think about it in many respects. This is what's happening. Throughout this city. With marijuana and vaping. People doing that walking down the street. The same infestations of disease. Are entering people's bodies. By inhaling. What those people are exhaling. And that provides a solution of how we deal with that other subject, essentially cut them down and ship them out someplace before they infect. More people, particularly the kids. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Mr. Horn Via. Hi. Good evening, Mary. Council members. First of all, I would like to bring to your attention a quote from the Department of Public Works. And as well-intended it is. And in a lot of the hard work that's coming in from the public works, I think it's a really interesting quote. And it follows. As such, the Public Works Department is committed to preserving and protecting the community's urban forests and promoting the health and safety of the trees from the time they are planted through maturity. However, as I mentioned, as well-intended as it may seem. Misdirected priorities. A lack of funding have left our urban forests vulnerable to infestation and death due to lack of watering, proper maintenance and importantly, lack of planning. Back in 2015, Citi Order estimated that the value of park trees was in the vicinity of $112 million. That's not including street trees, nor the additional quantifiable benefits of warming forests that would undoubtedly increase the value of the assets by millions more. Therefore, I applaud the decision by Councilmember Robert Tharanga in bringing the subject to the forefront once again. This is an issue that many of us in Long Beach, including city staff, have attempted to address. If you're years ago, back in 2016, actually, station worker also addressed a similar issue known as the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and Management Plan. Eight years before that, Public Works also brought to the Council the Urban Force Master Plan, which was received and filed. Therefore, it is necessary that it be clearly addressed now and that the city developed the necessary structure to develop the Urban Forest's vision and clearly see it for what it is an asset, not a liability. Now, the issue that has prompted Councilmember Ranga to step up know we've clearly heard it is the magnolia scale of the problem affecting is affecting not only trees in our urban canopy. It is also affecting the quality of life of residents in District seven, District eight, District two, and throughout the city. As we deal with the results of climate change and pollution that are nearly affected, there are clearly affecting all of the residents of Long Beach, but more notably West Side and North Long Beach. Therefore, many residents and organizations throughout the city will like to join your effort in developing a long range strategy and offer our assistance. Moreover, we also proposed to the city a suggested treatment method that we feel will be the best step in addressing a tree scale issue. The suggestion comes after various conversations with the University of California Cooperative Extension personnel and other knowledgeable experts of the field. However, as we look to the long term success, we must encourage the city. To be proactive, to proactively maintain our urban forest by hiring competent urban forester to adequately to add to with adequate resources to oversee the vast number of trees and increase the forest areas throughout the city. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much, sir. And that gore. Hello, Signor Roberto Ranga. I just found out today that you're my council member. I am your constituent. I'm glad to be here and meet everyone and all the council members for Long Beach. I recently moved to Long Beach and I'm not going anywhere. I'm staying here. I'm a first time home homeowner, and it took a lot of effort for my family, for myself to get into our first home. These two months have been a nightmare for for myself, for my daughter, for my husband. Every time we drive into our home, we can see the darkness from the six magnolias that surround my house on the street. You can see how dark and black they are. So it's like a horror movie, just just the site itself. Once we get in there, all the tarp from the outside, we take in two of the driveway into the back of our house. All the leaves are constantly falling because of the type of tree are getting that black powder into our home. And when we rape and pick up the leaves we're smelling and we're worried about our or about our health. Also, I don't know if a lot of people have mentioned this, but there is a bad smell, very extreme bad smell, especially with the heat. So I think I just came in to walk into my first home and the worst time, which is the heat that drops. And this thing is raining, I think. Signor Roberto, it's a little bit more than just, you know, walking the dog and trying to avoid the street. It's a smell. It's constant rain and the months of heat and is just it's just a nightmare. And I think that I moved to Long Beach to to. To make sure that whatever we bring as a family is to make the city better. To care for the house that we purchase. To be a good resident. But when I see how the streets are broken up, the pavement is making a puddle of this tarp right in front because it's so broken. So even if I try to wash, which I wash the the sidewalk, all the water that I'm throwing, it just gets together. And there's this tart that starts fuming, all this smell, and it just stays there. So I have a puddle of tar of the smelly thing, and even if I wash, it makes it worse, Senor Roberto, because I'm just releasing more of the tar in the smell. So it really is a nightmare. It's evaluating. Maybe my house, I was told by public works, it's been four years now and I there's no more time for this. You know, maybe we'll put it in and we'll try to figure out. I think it's only going to get worse. And we wish our next summer that tree is gone and that we have a baby tree that we're going to attend to and care for. So we would like to have those trees removed and for the money to be available, because we were told by public works that it's a question of of money. So if you can please chop up those trees and thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilman, your anger. Yeah. I want to thank those individuals that came forward today to talk about the this this issue. Obviously, our concern is to get these trees well, cutting the trees is our last resort. However, we understand that that might need to happen because some of them will be so far gone that we can't salvage them. As Councilmember Stacie Mango mentioned, we did do a little forward thinking on this to set aside some funds so that we could manage this issue with with the this too, the tree scale pest that's affecting our trees. And also as as it was presented earlier, it's spreading to it might be spreading spreading to other trees as well . So we need to address that issue as we move forward. So it's a it's an issue that we need to take care of. It's one that came has come forward to us within the most recent times because of the growing infestations going on. At first it was something that we thought we could take care of with a with an arborist and treating a few trees here and there. But we now know that it's a much larger issue than we first thought. So my my challenge that's not my challenge. My request to the public works department to staff is to come back with a plan to get these trees well. And if not, then let's talk about how we can replace them or have other types of trees planted in that spot. But it's going to cost. We know that we have the money set aside for it. And if and I encourage anybody who has a magnolia tree in front of their house that they think is experiencing this pest infestation, to please contact our office, call us or call the city manager's office and identify your your neighborhood or the trees so that we could include it into our inventory, because that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to collect data and we're trying to find out where these trees are, how many there are, how many are sick, how many have been treated, and how many have responded to the treatment. And we also want to be able to provide you, the residents, with information as to how you can also provide some preventive maintenance on your trees if they're well, right now, the last thing we want is to get your tree sick. So there's opportunities for here for us to be able to provide you with the information you need to has a preventive maintenance on your trees as well as getting them. Well, again, like I say, the last thing we want to do is to kill trees, chop them down, we want to keep them. But if we can't, then we need some alternative ways of being able to handle this in this situation. So again, I want to thank you for coming here this evening and for sharing your thoughts. And feel free to contact my office at Erika by 625707777. Should you have any other concerns that you want to raise with us regarding that? So with that, I'll pass it on to my colleagues. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. And with that members, please cast your votes to receive and follow the report. And thank you to all those that came out I know that are going to be look obviously are looking forward to public works addressing this issue as well.

A bill for an ordinance concerning the Airport Facilities of the City and County of Denver; authorizing the issuance of the "City and County of Denver, Colorado, for and on behalf of its Department of Aviation, Airport System Subordinate Revenue Bonds, Series 2022" from time to time, in one or more series or subseries, on a taxable or a tax-exempt basis, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $3,980,000,000 for the purposes of defraying the costs of the Series 2022 Subordinate Project, and providing other details in connection therewith; authorizing the Treasurer, within certain limitations and restrictions, to finalize details, terms and other provisions of the Bonds, their negotiated sale, determination of Refunded Bonds, and to select the registrar, paying agent, escrow bank and underwriters; approving forms of and authorizing execution and delivery of certain documents; ratifying action previously taken; providing for other related matters; and providing the effective date of this ordinance.Authorizes the Manager of Finance, Chief Financial Officer to issue City and County

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0570

Councilmember Black, would you please put Bill 570 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 22.0570 be be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council Member State Abarca. I'll be quick. Just want to go on record as a no for this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council member. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 570, please. Hines. I. Can each. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Blank. I see the Bakken. Clark. Right. Flynn. I. Herndon. Cashman. Ortega. So it's pretty great. I think we need to have a conversation if our leadership is going to be changing. This party should have some conversation with the mayor's office about where we're going and not having a. An agency without a leader for an extended period of time. I'll vote to move this forward, but I think that's a conversation this party needs to have with the mayor. Thank you. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result. One need to advise. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-5 70 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Council Member Black, will you please put Bill 590 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the submittal of a grant application to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for the Legacy Disposal Site Abatement Partial Grant Program for the East 55th Way Landfill Closure Project, as part of the Davenport Park Phase II Expansion Project; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to apply for the grant to install a final landfill cover system that includes a landfill gas (LFG) collection and control system, and to execute all documents necessary to accept and expend the grant funds and any other actions necessary to administer the grant. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0059

Item 15. Item 15 Report from Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the middle of a grant application council recycle for the East 55th Way Land Closure Project and to apply for the grant to install a final landfill cover system that includes a landfill, gas collection and control system. District eight. Thank you, city manager. A quick report from armel and director of Public Works. Fabulous. Thank you. Honorable Vice Mayor Low Anton and council members. I don't have a PowerPoint and it's going to take 30 seconds. Basically, we're asking your approval to submit an application to Cal Recycle, to apply for funding to be able to clean this site. It's it's a great opportunity for the city to bring in half a million dollars or so if we're successful and make this project even more successful. Thank you. There's been a motion by Councilman Austin and a second by Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Mr. Malloy. And I will let you know that I fully support all your efforts to get this grant, and I would encourage my fellow council members to vote in support of this item. This will be a giant leap forward for us to have the opportunity to complete phase two of the Pops Davenport Park. Right now, phase one is kind of recessed off of the streets. And if you drive down Paramount Boulevard, you know most people miss it and don't know that there's a treasure there. We are really motivated and excited to to move forward to get phase two planned. And this this grant will be instrumental in helping us do that. And will I mean, it's an extra half a million dollars that we didn't see a year ago that will, like I said, be resourceful for us to want to move the process forward. And so I would ask for your full support and I think staff for identifying the grant. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Is there any member of the public that wished to address the Council on item 15 seeing none members, please cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero.

Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center Repairs and Provide Direction on Options for a City Aquatic Center; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Fund Transfers Out Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19 by $250,000 and Capital Projects Fund Transfers In and Appropriations by $250,000, Each, for Costs Associated with Repair of the Emma Hood Swim Center. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6835

entirety Ordinance 2030 to 27 concerning land use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance of the Aluminum Civil Code, Section 30, Dash ten, cannabis that, among other things, permits retail cannabis dispensaries in certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of non medicinal cannabis in certain zoning districts and an ordinance C concerning cannabis regulations and Amateurism Code. Article 16 Cannabis Businesses of Chapters six Businesses, Occupations and Industries that, among other things, establishes the number of retail close dispensaries to be open to the public, including delivery dispensaries, disperses their operations, creates a buffer zone from sensitive uses and permits the sale of number to small cannabis. And lastly, Audience D concerning the land use requirements and zoning ordinance, the code section 30 Dash and cannabis that among other things, permits retail, cannabis dispensaries and certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of numbers of cannabis in certain voting districts. Okay. Councilmember decide that I'm here as before. I will recuse myself from this matter. So. All right. Thank you. Assuming there's no comments on the approval. Second. Okay. Of of all four together and no speakers. Spanish speakers. Okay. Okay. All in favor. I. And oppose. I'm going to oppose for reasons that I've stated in the past. So the motion carries 3 to 1. Thank you. Okay. And now we are. Considering. Moving on to the regular calendar. So item six, a. Recommendation to receive a report on the status of the methods from center repairs and provide directions on options for a city aquatic center and adoption of related resolutions. Okay. And who's that? You, me? Wooldridge, our recreation parks director is coming up. Do we have speakers on the side of Laura? We have one speaker on this item. Sorry. In this. PowerPoint advanced. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director and Interim Assistant City Manager. And I'm here to give you an update and receive input on the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School and changes happening there. So as you know, some recent background, it's a very old center, swim center. We have a joint use agreement with the school district and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. I'll refer to that as the county from here on out has red tagged. The facility will close at the end of May. I negotiated with county staff to work out a plants in that we could get general agreement to work with the school district, come back to the county with a repair plan, with a specific scope of work, and along provide them with a long term plan on how we would build build a city pool with some specific milestones built in so they could see we were making concrete progress. So what we've done since then is we have an ad hoc committee that's of two members of this body, two council members, as well as two school district board members, including one of their youth representatives. There's staff from each agency and three members of the aquatic community. What the aquatic community has done in parallel with the ad hoc committee is they. So this ad hoc committee meets weekly every Tuesday and the community group meets every Wednesday. And so that group is a wide group of representatives, from what I've heard, 20 people that meet every week from swim, water polo, diving, recreational users, masters swimmers, and so they get community input on what the needs are of the community as a whole and work through all of those issues. And then the three liaisons bring that information back to the ad hoc committee. So it's really been, I think, a really great collaborative approach. It's been really helpful to to get information back and forth between the community and then the ad hoc committee. So what the repair plan is and what you have in front of you is funding of 70%. We're estimating a maximum amount of $350,000 to do the repair plan for this is just for the immediate repairs, immediate health and safety repairs. The city would pay 70% of those costs, which is a maximum of 250,000. And the school district would pay 30% of those costs. What that would do is we is is that items before you would be addressed re plastering the dove pool dressing air leaks which helps the water turnover rate things like that. Those were all the key items identified by the county and with the school district has already started addressing some of the smaller issues that are really kind of the low hanging fruit, such as drain covers and things like that. We did meet with the county staff two weeks ago. We're waiting on final confirmation of the approved scope of work. The reason this amount is a little bit higher, 350,000 is really just a just in case. If we if the county provides us written confirmation, which we expect next week and we stay within what we anticipate was the original scope of work that we had talked about with them. I expect it to be more around $250,000 at most in total. And so by authorizing the 250,000 that's really in not to exceed, I expect it to be lower than that. And we would only expend obviously up to what repairs are made. Another piece of the puzzle is the division of state architecture. So any building on a school site has to be reviewed is under the purview of the California Division of State Architects. We don't believe that this requires what's called a DSA permit, but the school district, especially because there's currently with all of the construction happening at Alameda High School, there's two DSA inspectors on site every day, and we have to make sure we do it correctly. So they're going to be to as soon as we get the written confirmation from the county, the school district's going to take it to DSA to confirm, here's what we're doing. We want to let you know and then make sure there's no permit required. The reason that's important is because if a DSA permit is required, it will slow this whole repair process down by 3 to 4 months. Yes. And just in case, I might have missed the explanation, but DSA stands for the. Division of State Architecture. Thank you. So in terms of the new aquatic facility and components, I want to be clear that these this is simply just initial conversations. And these are recommendations that have come from that community group that has been talking a lot about what they'd like to see in a new swimming, new swim facility. These are the major components and we've discussed them at the ad hoc committee. Come to general consensus there as well, a 32 basically two pools, a 30 to 50 meter pool, which would be the main competition pool, a smaller 25 yard pool. That would be for practice. Swim lessons, recreational swim, birthday parties, things like that would have a zero depth entry because that's really for both ADA access and is great for seniors and little the little tots and such lighting for evening programing which would extend our potential for revenue and make it a more usable facility for the community . Potentially a recreational splash play structure such as structures that have water splashing out. And that's helpful for the recreational side, again, for revenue generation, for birthday parties. And also just to attract families, we would update and modern or provide a modern fully ADA locker rooms, make sure that there's sufficient seating for bleachers and open lawn for pop up tents. And this is important, especially for larger meets. We've also talked about a multi-use room for training like Red Cross trainings, lifeguard trainings, things like that, a whole host of trainings for classes and also for birthday parties and also a concession snack bar and picnic table area. What's also been discussed is an option to have a noncompetitive the noncompetitive pool, the 25 yard pool indoors. So maybe a mixture of indoor outdoor facility. An example of that would be the city of Albany. They have a pool that's jointly that's at the Albany High School campus and is jointly managed by the city. And they have an indoor pool with swim lessons and such. And they also have an outdoor competitive pool. And also that. Well, I'm going to get in a minute into kind of the next steps and how will be what some opportunities are for even further input. Another thing that the ad hoc committee looked at as potential locations in your packet. There was a list of pros and cons and that that is what the committee brainstormed. And looking at all of those ten locations as to locations that really kind of rose to the top as more ideal locations. One is the existing site at Emerald Swim Center, but we've looked at how we can push out into push out from the existing sites, such as moving the facility all the way out to Oak Street and and moving that tennis court over to another side or the fields and pushing out in different ways enough to nearly double the size of the facility. The other side is at Thompson Field. That obviously would require moving the existing football field first. So I want to be clear that we know where in this plan to we want to move out other sports. So we would need to make sure that there's a suitable football facility done and ready to go before we even started at Thompson Field to put a pool space in there. The up side of Thompson is a really large amount of space, so you could do nearly anything you want at that site, but again, requires relocating the field and being in a very tight neighborhood area would require parking and other transportation facilities on site. Damn good swimmers. The current Emma Hood Swim Center location in a bigger footprint. It's a tighter fit to get all the components that we looked at earlier. But there's existing infrastructure such as the water and the util, the sewer and all of that. It's really close to parking with the parking garage nearby and public transit. I want to be clear that neither of these sites, none of these ten sites have been vetted by the community. Again, it's just gone through the process and we're on a pretty quick timeline. And so that's why we've been moving through the process in this way. Some additional information on how we're considering this new aquatic facility. It is being discussed as a city facility, city built and then ultimately operated and maintained by the city. We are really looking to make sure that it serves both competitive and recreational needs. Currently, both the sites that we've identified as having as being more ideal are on a state owned land. And so that would require some sort of land agreement between the school district and the city. The mechanism of that is still being discussed and definitely has not been finalized. The school board is will be discussing that in closed session next week at their next Tuesday at their meeting. In terms of next steps for the immediate next steps to repair and reopen. Again, it's too for both agencies to authorize the funding. The school board is is an open session next week to authorize their portion of the funding. And we're waiting next week for the county to formally confirm the scope of work. The plan is that the pool at Emma Hood would close at the end of May because then all of the swim teams and everyone can finish their season. We would close for the summer to get all of the repairs done and then and get all all of the inspections and permits finalized and then with the goal to reopen for the school year. In terms of the long term plan, so the reason we're doing this long term plan is really in such a quick timeline is really to address the County Health's request that we do so. And and the requirement was that we provide some sort of really high level plan so they could see we we're making progress and that so there would be milestones that they can hold us to. It's really the M.O. you that we. So the first step would be that we would provide an M.O. you to the county and it's a really high level M.O. You wouldn't stipulate stipulate for example, the location, but it would stipulate that the that will be a city pool, city built, city operated and in partnership with the school district in that they will be a key stakeholder and that they will work with us on any land agreements. And so that's kind of the level of the the M.O. you that we would present to the county. Our current deadline is to get an MRU to them and get the timelines to them is May 31st. We've asked for an extension to June 30th and hope to hear on that next week. I want to be clear to that in terms of finalizing the location, finalizing what exactly type facility we're looking at, indoor outdoor size pools, things like that. There's time for that conversation. We don't need to get to that that to the county right away. What we need to give them is a timeline. So the current timeline has that the M.O., you would give them the M.O. you that I mentioned before, by June 30, we would have a land transfer agreement or not necessarily even a transfer, but some sort of land agreement between the school district and the city by December. And so by December, we would have to have a finalized location and the mechanism to do that. Then we would work on the development of the conceptual design, which would be due by by mid 2020. And then we would start to confirm funding mechanisms around that time, whether it was an infrastructure bond, private funding, some combination thereof, and then look toward timelines on permits and approvals and design and finally construction. So. So we have time to finalize the location until really, you know, sometime this fall and then finalize the mechanism by December and get that all into an agreement the way I have. We've also been looking at the input process on design is then in July to have potentially a joint meeting, public meeting to discuss the design ideas and location and then engage an architect to do conceptual designs such as and provide different options of conceptual designs with cost estimates attached. Because then we can have very real conversations about what's possible and then also work jointly with the school district to finalize a location. So that concludes my report, and I'm open to any questions. Okay. Are there any clarifying questions on the staff report or should we go to our have a speaker question Council member Dave. I can wait. Just a quick clarifying question. In your presentation, you said you indicated as your first bullet point that the pool could be anywhere from 30 to 50 meters. It struck me as kind of odd and people here will know a lot more than me. Aren't most swimming races like, you know, divided by 50, like 25 meter, 50 meter or 100 meter? How would you do a 100 meter race in a 30 meter pool? I'm actually I'm sure some swimmers can answer that better than I can, but we'll just put that question out there. But I mean, in in some part, I'm following the the desire of the community. A 30 meter pool isn't uncommon. What always boggles my mind, there's also a 25 yard pool. So there's there's different dimensions. But the 30 meter pool is standard. A 50 meter pool is considered an Olympic size is also standard. So they're both standard sizes that are that are used. But perhaps a. Person can surely dance. Okay. So Councilman Rivera and Amy. Thank you for your presentation. My question is really trying to understand the resolution that's attached and and how it relates to the presentation. Mm hmm. So you had mentioned a high level M.O. you and benchmarks in the. And I just want to clarify, because in the resolution in the amended resolution, I think it's the seventh whereas paragraph requiring that by May 30th, 2019, we've now asked for an extension to June 30th. So potentially it could be May or June. Right. For that paragraph? Yeah. Since we uploaded the staff report, we're trying to get a little bit longer. Yes. Okay. And then in terms of the long term replacement plan in place, we could we could say something like high level long term replacement plan or something like that or conceptual replacement plan or something. Yeah. Okay. And. Uh, okay. And then for the July meeting, you're talking about July of this year, correct? Correct. And it'll be a joint meeting with both the school board and the council. And we would follow the. I think I think our open government policies are a little more robust than we would follow all the the posting regulations. Okay. Thank you. Yes. And just to clarify what that to your to your first point, what what what it could look like in terms of M0, you language would be some a high level agreement on the type of land use basically saying that the city will have full site control but not identifying the specific location. Thank you. Councilman Brody, thank you. A few questions. Thanks for the update on this. So the district's meeting in closed session, you said next week. Correct. And I mean, at a high level, because you only have to do a high level for closed session. I mean, what is the what is the topic they're going to be discussing? It's on options for on land, what they can do with their land, what their options are. So like price in terms of payment, things like that. No, not more. Much more high level than that. Okay. What are the what are the what are the available mechanisms to transfer land from the school district to the city? I mean, I guess I'm wondering if it's worth our council, you know, having that same discussion. Because, you know, we haven't weighed in on that as a full council and given any direction as the committee goes forth and discuss this with the school board. Direction. What specifically? Because what they're really talking about is what since they own the land, what their legal options are to transfer or sell, lease, whatever the mechanism is to the city and what tools are available to them is what they're. Well, I think it'd be good to know from a council perspective what, you know, our options are as well. And, you know, based on the different options they're looking at, you know, they have to be there has to be a finite number. Right. So what the impact would be for us as well. I mean, I just think that would be it'd be worthwhile for this body, at least if we're sending off a team to negotiate on the city's behalf that they have some direction and input from. So just to be clear, we're not negotiating location. We're not negotiating pricing terms or anything like that. I am vice mayor and that's why it. Wasn't quite finished, but. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Cause I wrote them a call in there. And then on this M.O.. You. So overall scope of the facility location responsibilities you have land transfer in there milestones. So that's an email you that the city and the district is going to negotiate. Correct. And again, I mean the direction as. Who's who's negotiating that is that the subcommittees that you. The committee will be looking at it. We're starting a draft of that just kind of high level bullet points for it. The draft of it would go to each body to discuss and approve and then make tweaks and then come back and and and so so each body would be weighing in on the menu before it was finalized. Okay. So there's going to be an opportunity for the body as a whole to kind of give priority and negotiating authority on, you know, what we want and don't want in that milieu, right? Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that happens. By summer next week. Well, I was going to help answer the question that that was half of it right there is that we're not negotiating the ammo. I think that the conversation tonight hopefully is, you know, we're having the conversation about, you know, what are our various interests. Right. And the school district has some real legal requirements about, you know, required field sizes, etc.. The reason they're going into closed session is because their decision on A, do they do anything with the land? And if they do something, how does it impact their standing with the state? There were some legal issues that they had to deal with. I think our assumption and why we haven't gone in a closed session is unless there's a, in my view, to to negotiate that has legal issues. We felt that we could have the conversation starting tonight with questions like, you know, you know, do we want to do a long term lease? Would we prefer to own the land, etc.? We actually developed a list. The subcommittee did today I have that I can at some point in time propose it. The other thing that I and I may have looked away for 2 seconds here in the presentation, but I don't think I heard it, was that we've also proposed holding the final two meetings of both the board and the Council in June, as so from 6 to 7 before each of our our final meetings in June as joint meetings so that if there are issues with the IMO you that need to be negotiated between both parties like literally we need to sit down and is out before the June 30th deadline. We will have it on our calendar to call those meetings so that all ten members can do it. But I think our assumption is, is that in the same way that we negotiate and we'll use and whatever else is that staff will do most of the work. The subcommittee, because it can meet every week and can talk to our counterparts, is trying to make sure that we're doing the bidding that we hear from from this group and whatnot. But that yeah, of course, everything will come back here. Nobody nobody is going to take something for signing and say, here, we've negotiated it at the subcommittee. I mean. Council member. So I don't know whether it's to the chair to the vice mayor or to our assistant city manager. I know. I forgot the question. So is there a contingency plan if there's request for a June 30th extension is not granted. I mean to have this these discussions in May. Ms. Wooldridge. We certainly I mean, we're working as quickly as we can and we can certainly hold a special meeting and try and organize one for the last week of May as needed. When I met with them on site a couple of weeks ago, they seemed quite favorable towards the June 30th. So that didn't seem to be a major obstacle. I mean, it just it might make sense to have something planned in schedule just in case worst case scenario, because the last thing I want to see happen is that we lose that extension and then all of a sudden we don't have an opportunity to weigh in. Okay. We'll know something next week. You think, from county health? Yes. It's been two weeks and they told me 2 to 3 weeks and I've been hounding them. So I'm hoping by next week to get written confirmation from county health. And I'll add that. Mr. Aldridge and the city manager Eric Levitt, and I also met with our county supervisor, Wilma Chan, to keep her in the loop on this and she's offered her assistance. So we are covering the bases. Okay. If you know. When we're coming in. Vice Mayor. Do you wanna go first? Okay. I wanted to ask for clarification from you, from your perception. We have spent a lot of time talking about CITES and we've narrowed down to two and that the school district is certainly talking a little bit more about specifically a rate that the subcommittee has kind of been talking about my hood . We're open to other ones, but it's not that we're going to send them a and start a whole new conversation about sites in July. The hope is not to because at the end of the day, one of our deadlines is going to be a signed land agreement in December. We're not going to be able to have another month and a half of conversations on where and then hopefully because that's going to hold up the design, etc.. I just you kept saying in July, we'll talk about the sites. It's true. So we're not necessarily selecting the site now, but there is also been a narrowing. And if there are concerns about that or if there are sites that people feel we're not, that this would be a great time to debate that. Absolutely. And the conceptual designs will be based on a certain site. Right. So I certainly want all to hear all of your questions and clarifying clarifying questions and comments for Ms.. Walters. We do have a public speaker, and then we'll go into our council discussion. But if you're still in the clarifying stages, escalate. Councilmember Vela. So. To that end. I guess my question is if the school board makes a determination because all I look through the list and I think half the list are are properties or, you know, city parks, that sort of thing, and half the list are school district properties. If we are talking about a school district property, ultimately it's their decision whether or not they're going to. Make one of their properties available to us. So I guess my concern is, you know, can we even make a determination tonight on on a school district parcel when ultimately it's their decision to make? I think tonight's really more to brainstorm and hear if there's other ideas and if if we're not necessarily going to for confirmed only select a site tonight but it's it's a continuing it's an evolving conversation and it's a quickly moving one. So I think if there's other sites to be considered, we should talk about that tonight. I think if the school district ultimately decides that they're not interested in doing any kind of land agreement with the school or with the city, then we look at some of the other sites that are sitting on site. Okay. Any more clarifications? Okay. Then let's have our public speakers, so on. Okay. And Amelia Besant, it's. Okay. So my, my rule for conduct of a council meeting is I'm sure she's absolutely awesome, but we, we don't applaud, we don't cheer, we don't boo, we don't do the wave just because it keeps the council meeting moving along. And for some speakers, they actually find that intimidating and it might discourage someone from speaking. But with that, the floor is yours. And I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Hi, my name is Amelia Booth Notes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor and City Council for hearing me. I'm lucky enough to live in Alameda, be raising two young kids in Alameda and also work in Alameda. One of the biggest problems is that I don't leave the island. Not a huge problem for me. I'm also one of the lucky people who gets to see the sunrise at my herd pool and the sunset. I coach masters and as a masters coach on the island, I can tell you that there is not nearly enough accessibility to the water for the city of Alameda. We have a lot of people who have come to ask to learn how to swim, but we don't really have adult learn to swim programs. We try and accommodate them, but there's not enough space. As a mom, I can tell you that there is not nearly enough facilities available for Parks and Rec to grow their aquatics program. The wait lists are already full, like there's already waitlist for the summer, and I would love my kids to have access to the pool here as the high school some coach. We just finished our season. We had a great season. I coach over at ends now and I can tell you that both Alameda High and ends now both have burgeoning aquatics programs and it would be, I believe, crippling to both of those programs if we had to rely on one high school pool. I'm also a member of the Alameda Aquatics Alliance, the group that's been getting together, and it was brought up before how many people this group represents? It's a massive number. You have USA swimmers, you have master swimmers, you have club swimmers, you have club water polo. The list goes on. I'm also going to say you have swimmers who don't realize they're swimmers yet because they haven't had access to water here in Alameda. If you build it, they will come. And this group has had access to these conversations and we're in great support of the plan as it's coming out. Um, and I would just really like to emphasize that it has to move quick because the where we are, there's a great wave of energy around aquatics. And if the district isn't interested in helping build the aquatics program here, I really hope that the city council continues to get behind that so that my kids grow up and they have access to pools. I love living here and hearing this every meeting I've gone to all of the aquatics meetings like this well in 1954, and then there's a really great statement and then in 1973, and then there's a really great statement. And what I would really like to have happen is that in 2019, the really great statement as the city of Alameda got behind aquatics and didn't just leave it up to the district. And that is all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. So that's the no, thank you. That is the other I think under a certain age you get away with that. Okay. So now we go to our council discussion of the the issues before us. Who wants to start Councilmember de SAC? I'll start acting. City Assistant City Manager Amy Wooldridge asked for council input on a range of items, one of the items being the location of the pool, recognizing that the decision is partly a decision of a USDA and also a decision of the city of Alameda City Hall. My take on on this particular thing is to give you how I would see the location decision, the lens through which I'm looking at that decision. And the lens that I would look at this decision is basically to encourage either parties, whether it's a USD or a city hall, to come up with a decision that has the least amount of moving parts, meaning like if you put the pool here, you have to then move this here, then you have to move that. Then there strive. I hope for the decision that is the most elegant with the least moving about parts because, you know, as Occam's razor suggests, the most elegant, parsimonious decision that oftentimes is the best decision. So that would be my encouragement. As you have your discussions with your counterparts at a USD, let's resist any Rube Goldberg type of contraptions because and honestly, I think in the past the city of Alameda and a USD have have entered into such agreements that are very, very complicated. And given that there's possibilities that there are very elegant decision choices, that that would be my suggestion is to resist. Look. Decisions with the most moving parts. Thank you. Councilmember de so Councilman Rivera. So I actually, I think that, um, we need to have a contingency plan and I think that contingency plans help move both parties along to get to where we need to be. So to that end, I want to make sure that I'm happy to hear that we're holding spots in June for those joint meetings. I actually think we should try to agenda is one of like just plan on agenda using one of them rather than just holding it so that we can have that joint meeting. And if we need to show that we have the full authority of council or or anything like that, we have it where we're building it and we know we'll be there. I'll be there with my baby. And who's going to be a future pool kid? Because I was a poor kid. And, you know, I think the other the other thing that I think we need to do is to Councilmember Ortiz point. We may maybe need to look at a date in May just in case and get it agenda is because we have the ODC issues and I know we're doing a million things and trying to get the budget ready and everything else, but I really believe that we need to do that just in case something doesn't work out . I also think that we need to have, just like we can pick, hey, here's our ideal a USD site. I think we need to think about what's the ideal city owned site in case a USD doesn't come through. And I went through this list. I know we have other properties in mind, or we have other properties that we own as a city. There was a long conversation a while ago about the Alameda Point officer's pool. I know it's on the other side of town. I know it's not necessarily next to a U.S. but there's you know, I think it rates higher among the city owned facilities in terms of parking. Yes, we're going to need to work on transit. We're going to need to work on some other things. But I think that it strengthens our position to be able to say, look, we have a backup plan in the instance that a USD isn't for some reason able to come through with one of their facilities. You know, I learned to swim in Franklin pool I swam from when I was a little kid. I did double days during summer. I reported my times to Dr. Parker whenever I saw him in middle school. I did water polo in high school and college. And I think that being an island and peninsula community with so much water surrounding us, we really owe it to our community. I'm swimming now. It's the only one of the few activities I can still do, and it brings me great relief. So I really do think that we need to find a way to think about options. I appreciate the work that's gone into this. The reason I was asking the questions about the resolution is I think that just how it's worded could be a little misleading. I know I got a couple of calls from people and, you know, there are shared constituents. So whether you're, you know, a student at Alameda High School or, you know, you're you're not just under the jurisdiction of AOC, I want to make sure that they have access to pools as well. And, you know, and to that end, I also think that if there is some sort of land transfer involved, at least for me , I want to start having a conversation of how do we make sure we preserve Alameda High's access to pools? So I don't, for instance, want them paying for pool time. I want to make sure that we we build that in so that that's part of the cost to me of of having the pool. And if if they're willing to give us the land, yes, we're going to have to build it. But, you know, we need to make sure that our students one of the great things about interscholastic sports is that it's the great equalizer. Everybody should have access. And I think that that's an opportunity that a lot of kids get a lot of things out of being able to just go right after school into their extracurricular activities. So I look forward to the conversations that we can have with the school district on this. It would be great to partner with them on it. I think that there's a lot of potential there. I want to make sure that the facility also meets the needs of the community, and I really appreciate the community work that's gone into this. I want to make sure that there's an opportunity for all of our constituents to weigh in and at least hear from us. I think that there's going to be a lot of input. And and strong feelings. And I just want to make sure. I think that it's helpful to have both of our boards together to hear that input, because I think everybody needs to hear it. And I think asking people to go to two different meetings is very difficult, which is why I like the idea of the joint meeting so that we're all hearing the same thing and hopefully we can get on the same page. And whatever happened in the past with AUC, we can move forward and use this as an opportunity to build a partnership. But I'm also worried about their budget and their ability. I mean, they're having a hard time paying teachers right now. So I don't want to I don't want to nickel and dime them. And I think we're coming up on our budget talks. So I think it's kind of makes sense that we're having this conversation, even though it needs to be expedited, that we're having it in line with when we're talking about our budget and and what that looks like. Okay. Thank you. Next, we hear. I'll be. Sorry, Councilman Rudy. Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague's comments. I mean, I agree with a lot of what both of them said. But, you know, critically, time is of the essence here. I mean, this is something we should have done literally years ago. So I think it's important knowing that time is of the essence, as Councilmember De said, not to over engineer something that, you know, may look great and, you know, with all the bells and whistles when you really need to get something done and we need to get it done fast. So I think it's critical that we when we pick a site, we consider that in mind. So if you have all these moving parts, you know, there's just more more chance that something gets complicated and followed up and delayed. So we've seen that. So I appreciate Councilmember De SA contributing that to the discussion and to Councilmember Vela's point. These are our shared constituents and we do have to be cognizant of the school district. And I think that to the extent, you know, we have one time money that that we've been successful in in earning as a city and the school district is in financial distress, that it would make sense that the city use some of that one one time money. I mean, the 7030 split is fine, but I mean, there's no reason why, you know, if it's 250,000, you know, why the city couldn't pitch in the other 75 or the other 80,000. You know, and I don't know if it's necessary to, you know, browbeat the school board into submission, you know, because they're really not in the business of running a pool. They're in the business of educating children. So I think we should be cognizant of that as we do our negotiations with them. I also think it's important that, you know, we treat them with respect as an equal partner, as they are an equal partner. And some of the details on this are really fuzzy to me still. And I'd like to have a little more clarity. You know, land transfers, we've done those before and those are super complicated. They have appraisals. You know, do you do we pay for the land? Do we transfer the land? You know, if we transfer land, you know, do land swap like we did with the the school district a while back, I think it was for the island high property. Now, that's a super complicated transaction and that's a policy decision that I think the council needs to weigh in on sooner rather than later over what types of properties we would be willing to transfer and, you know, how long of a process that is. So I appreciate that having a June meeting. But I do think, as I think I asked the question and my colleague, Councilman Avella agreed with me, we should have some contingency plan that we have a meeting on calendar for May. So if any of these issues come up that we have a chance to weigh in because when I see that an IOU is going to be drafted and I don't have any input in the high level terms and bullet points and don't even really know, you know, what they're going to look like. You know, I'd like to have a chance to do that and have the community weigh in if it's something we can do in open session. So, I mean, those are kind of my general comments. You know, I reserve the rest of my time in case I want to respond to anything else that comes up. But let's not like nickel and dime the school district, especially if they do decide to transfer the land. I think we have to. If we own it, then we have a bigger responsibility. And I think that responsibility extends to what the speaker said to make sure we provide, you know, priority one would be the schools and the school aquatics programs because the district would be giving up land to us. So I don't want to lose sight of that either. And, you know, and I you know, I think as Councilman Abella said, you know, I think charging the school district to use land that they transfer to us just so we could build a pool, I think is kind of ridiculous. Did you already. Do? Okay. I have some questions. Okay. Um. Excuse me. I want to make my comments now. So I am on the pool subcommittee. Vice Mayor Knox White and I are on the committee and subcommittee, and I want to compliment the members of that subcommittee and especially the Alameda Aquatics Alliance. If I got that right, because it's been really helpful to have the community input. And as I am learning all the time, we have such talented residents in Alameda and they're very generous with their time and sharing their expertize. I mean, we even have a gentleman who's a pool designer on our on our subcommittee and on our the this joint use committee. And we have representatives of the different aquatic communities and swimmers and parents, and we also have members besides the two school board members. We have the shark, the facilities manager should come and and we have the athletic director from Anthony El High and we usually have the principal from Alameda, but he wasn't there today. But anyway, we're definitely getting good input from the schools. I'm a little surprised to hear that we shouldn't browbeat people. I don't see browbeating going on. Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder. We're having discussions. I mean, quite frankly, the city would love to own the land and and put in the majority of the the funding into it, if that can be worked out as far as charging for use there. There's a formula and right now, all daytime use during the school day up till 530 is provided to the school district and no charge. We had some discussion today about what happens on the weekends when there are tournaments and tournaments are revenue generating events. And so, you know, whether there would be some charge for that because those are also when those events are going on, then the city's not collecting revenue when those pools are used for, you know, members of the public. And so I, I do understand that the school district has budget challenges. So do we will we'll get into that next week. But I what I like about this committee is they are truly they we are truly working with the objective of wanting to move as quickly as possible, quickly, but carefully to get Alameda pool reopened when those necessary repairs are made. But then, you know, simultaneously be working on the plan for a new pool. And it's exciting to me to just to see the potential that's there, you know, not one but two poles that can be used because you need your your warm up pool and you need your competition pool. And we hope to have a splash zone for young kids and families and the zero entry pool that Mr. Aldridge described. But everyone is bringing their expertize. I mean, I don't know about scheduling swim events and tournaments and all that, but boy, are there people on the committee who can who can tell us that. But when it comes down to locations, there really are a finite number of possibilities and in kind of declining order of of suitable this suitability the the officers pool just to comment on that. It certainly has some potential as far as space. But again, this would be the pool for Alameda High. And it's a matter of you know, it's not to say that you can't transport kids across town, but that adds another layer of of complexity. But always good to have a plan B. And I think that when one of the things that we are looking at when we do this community meeting in July with both of our, you know, the school board and the city council is this is a community meeting where the community will come. Now, we're not going to start from square one because a lot of vetting has already been done and a lot of really informed decision has taken place because of these people with expertize who have informed us every step of the way. So I think that we are. I think we're all. Moving forward in good faith. We have more decisions still to make. But I do think everyone's moving in the same goal. We want there to be very little time that we are without two poles in Alameda. I mean, it will happen. It will have to happen because the army, the pool is is going to have to close down at the end of the school year swim season. So those repairs can be done, but hopefully we get the sign off from county health that they approve the repairs we've proposed and we get those going. And I miss Wooldridge has done a masterful job of reprograming, our city programs, summer swim programs to other, other locations, and we'll keep working at that. But I just want to just a shout out to the aquatics community. I know a lot of you were in the room today and, you know, thank you again for sharing your your time and your your information with us. And I and kudos to the vice mayor because he really helped be the bridge and get the palsy aquatics community together because he's had at least one, if not two sons who were in aquatics at at Alameda High. So with that, would you like to make your comments? Yeah, I have some comments. I guess I guess. Whatever. They're they're their comments. But I actually and I know some people are low on time and I'm hoping this might be an item where we actually allow people to go past the nine minute. Not myself, but I want to comment. I don't think there's a scenario, Amy, there, correct me if I'm wrong. Where? We may not have a commitment in May, but but there's not a scenario where we have to have an MRU by May. The June date was really chosen and suggested by us because the school district goes dark and we know that we're going to have to have a plan and a land use agreement and everything else by the end of December at the very, very latest. And in fact, actually internally we're talking about October because we go dark in August and school district goes dark in July. The end of June was the the last time we can do anything is as far as both bodies before September. And if we start talking about these issues and finalizing these issues in September, there's no way we get to a land use agreement in October. So we did talk about the idea of a joint meeting at the subcommittee today, and the general feeling among everybody was that unless there was a real reason to do so and folks in the room didn't see one at this time, but we're open to hearing one from this council. From the council. If if there was a feeling that that that that that instead we're at a time we're kind of getting this is this is a great time to get the feedback now. Councilmember Odie, the first question on on the list that board member Harris and I agreed to bring back for for discussion was kind of this do we have does the city care about long term lease versus exchange versus sale? At the committee level, we've been talking about supporting solutions that allow the division of state architect to get out of to not be involved. Right. We want to have just one regulatory agency involved in a city pool and let's not have it be the one that also oversees the schools, because it's all we will have county health no matter what. So so a question I would propose if there are feelings about is is, you know, is are any are all of those acceptable? Are any of those acceptable? The school district is probably going to drive a lot of that because they're the ones who own the land and they have to agree. But if we have one that we just say we're not willing to do that, now is a great time to say that. We have heard that people are fairly comfortable with the city proposing and maintaining the building and maintaining the pool. I felt like the comments here said that pretty well. Well, jump to the fees issue, which I'm glad people brought up tonight. The other issue that we're talking about right now is how do we account for the time that AOC is given to use the pool? So currently they have a joint use agreement that outlines very specific hours that are school hours. Right. The city cannot prioritize that. It cannot supplant those in the school, doesn't want to use them, but they actually are using a few more hours than that with some of their programs. And so there has been some discussion about which hours do we, you know, do we block out in our email you in our agreement thing specific hours for your city and which hours do we use or the current use hours? Are they the joint use hours, etc.? Do they include weekends or do we keep things really simple and keep it to weekdays? And then lastly, the fees issue is the fees for use of the pool that that I've heard at least two members here mentioned. You know, first off, is that the sense of the council also, you know, if there are if there are free out some hours that are not charged for is it any hours the school district wants, even if they expand their hours in the future? Is it only for the hours that are in the agreement that we sign and they pay the community hour, which is again still below operating cost? So those are those are the big ones that we will know next week with the school district is interested in moving forward with Emma Hood is the site that has been the site that the community for members in this council two, three weeks ago said that they thought would be great if we could make it happen. And I'd be interested to know if that if it were to happen, if that would be a site you would be able to support. And then, you know, and then hopefully we will have that will become the backbone of an MRU that staff will draft and bring back to the full council. But I think those are kind of the key questions that we've agreed are kind of on the table that we're discussing for this high level. And so you and I would be, you know, I think now is a is now is a great time to to provide that input, because the hope of the subcommittee is that there's not a need for a joint meeting unless for some reason our two organizations are at loggerheads and need to sit down and hash it out together. Councilmember Vela. I say you guys are my percent. Yeah, I. Actually think that those are the exact reasons why we should have a joint meeting. Um, because I think that there's nuances in every point that you raised. So, um, you know, I would want to hear from, I would want to have public comment on that. I would want to hear from the school board, I think, uh, agenda using each of those things that people know, those are the topics that we're going to be talking about. Um, and going over would be helpful. Um, I think that right now we're, we're working off of a proposal that Emma Hood is in fact the location and that the school district's okay with the transfer. In terms of the hours, you know, I think that we need to have a longer conversation about what what does future use of the pool look like? Does it if it's at Emma Hood, does the city, you know, is there separate access during the day time? So maybe it's not during school hours that those that they get blocked off. But there is a difference in time. They do have swim meets that happen on the weekends for high school. That happens. They also have water polo tournaments that happen. And I wouldn't necessarily want to charge the school district for use for those sorts of things. So from my perspective I feel like we do need to agenda is a joint meeting and I think if we add those points and we can have that conversation, we might be able to get to a place of resolution fairly quickly . Council member, Daisuke. Yeah, well if you're asking me what to what side I think is preferable. You know, having outlined what I see as the key issues, i.e. the site that has the less moving parts, frankly speaking, I think that's the good project mode site. So if I was, you know, forced to make a suggestion, that would be it. But at the same time, I don't want to, you know, speak for the school district, the school district, while that will have to, you know, go through their process and in determining if their if that's a site that they want to work with . But speaking for myself as one of five, I would suggest certainly Emma Hood, because as I said to me, that looks like the has a less moving parts on the details of fees, user hours, etc.. I have every confidence that our staff members, both at District and and City Hall staff members can figure out the details that are fair to to each to all parties concerned, not just the institutions of the school district and city hall, but also to the users and the various organizations. Thank you. Counselor Brody. Thank you. I mean, I guess push comes to shove if I. Based on the information I have now, you know, I would agree that Emma Hood is probably the best place for it. But, you know, there may be something that comes forward that changes my mind. I don't know. I mean, what's concerning here is more of a process issue as opposed to anything else, is that I think those are important questions the vice mayor raised. But, you know, they should be raised in a staff report with some analysis that the council could have some time to think about rather than being raised with , you know, each person having two or 3 minutes on their clock. And we can chime in without any background or any, you know, any thought. So I think that's why I was hoping we would have a meeting. So our council as a whole could give direction on some of these important high level points. Thank you. So, um, if I, um, understand the concerns, I think that we need to hear back from the school board after they meet next week, I would say. And Council. Member. Vice Mayor Knox way. I mean, I would say that the the will of both of our bodies in fact the three because there really are three elements to this but the community representation and the school districts in the city, I mean, I would say that Emma Hood is the site that we're we're definitely focusing on. And I mean, the chart you saw has, you know, pretty pretty much lays it out. I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea because it's to say I think it's a good idea to have a plan B that the contingency plan people mentioned so that if for some reason Emma Hood just becomes untenable. But there's there's a lot of reasons that people are moving moving towards making that work. But, you know, you never know what you don't know. So, I mean, but even so, you could look down that list of the pros and the cons and see, I don't know, what would you say the the next one would be. Well, it could be. Uh. Thompson Field. But speaking of moving parts, there's a lot of moving parts on that one. And then when we get out to Alameda Point, well, it seems like it's wide open space. Some of that is spoken for, but it's also dependent on infrastructure going in and that means a delay. We can't do that right away. And yet you know that we've got this need for the pool sooner rather than later. So that's I mean, that has to be a significant factor. There's there's there's some factors that are in our control. We cannot decide, you know, we want this developer now to enter this agreement and start paying for infrastructure so we can get moving. I mean, that could be a few more years. And that and the need is now and I agree with everything the coach said about we are we're underserved as an island community. We don't have enough water and space. And and yet I also think. A. Predecessor of mine, Maria Gilmore, when she was mayor, used to often say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You know, we could spend a long time chasing that perfect project. We will make this as perfect as we can. And we don't have unlimited budget, so we can't do everything in the world, but we can do quite a bit. And I understand your concerns, Councilmember Ody, about process and you'd like to, you know, have more input on this. We did it as subcommittees because there were just a lot of sort of preliminary things to get out of the way that didn't need to take the time of the whole council and school board. But so here we are now. And I think the vice mayor posed some some good questions when he said that to do so. So I think one of the questions, and I don't mean to speak for you is to chime in anytime you want. But first of all, for this body, are we comfortable with the concept of the city building and maintaining the pool? Just as an overarching theme? Because I reflect on one place, my expectation is the next three council meetings will have some form of more discussion of this board in developing this. The goal is not for the subcommittee to hear comments today and then bring back a recommended M.O. you at the end, you know, two weeks before this thing is supposed to be signed. So I just want to honored Councilmember Otis point that that there is yes. The the full entire intent is for that to happen. We're trying to get some initial feedback to give to basically we're giving it to staff. We'll find out where the school district is next week. And then staff can work together with shark to to hopefully have the that that draft initial discussion menu that will be agenda ized fully for discussion. Can we do a quick housekeeping matter since I was on the subcommittee that did the rules on timing council comment and I'm now not speaking because I see my clock is at zero. Um, can, can we have a vote to extend our time on this matter, which I think is fairly significant. Move approval to waive the time constraints. I think we can. Yeah, just wait. Let's just we need to have this. This item only to have a second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. Hi. Okay, I heard. One, two, three, four. That's all I need. Do I have a four? I have five. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Who was speaking? Was that you? Love it. I had my hand up. I hadn't been recognized yet. So we've wave. Okay. Where's not waving the chair? I don't know. I mean, I understand the the need for the subcommittee because there were some urgent decisions that had to be made, especially related to the closure and the budgeting and the repair schedule. But it seems to me that a lot of those urgent decisions now are passed and we have the opportunity to have I mean, it sounds like everyone in the community has gotten to weigh to weigh in except one, two, three, because we're not allowed to go to these meetings or hear what's going on. So I think, you know, I think we're at a time now where the purpose of the subcommittee to take care of the urgent issues is kind of expired. And the community as a whole, including 60% of the council, should have an opportunity to to weigh in on the these intricacies. I mean, that's pretty much what it is. Okay. Um, is that. Did you ask me? Yeah, I was just going to say, I it's also that there's three members of the school board that haven't been able to weigh in. So I think, you know, I don't I don't hear necessarily a theoretical disagreement, um, per se. I just think that, um. I guess I don't see the difference between we're going to gender is this on our council meetings and then the school district is going to agenda, is it on theirs? I think we can do that. That doesn't preclude us from having, let's say, one joint meeting or something like that. And I think we could do both. So that would be my ask. And I think when we do that and what I heard from council member Odie and certainly what I would like is, you know, something, some analysis about the finances from staff in terms of, you know, what the what, what the components of the transfer would look like, what are concerns. And that's why I was asking the question earlier, what comes first? Right. If it's Emma Hood that we're talking about, then we need to hear from the school district first and then we can talk about what they're looking for, which is a staff to staff conversation. But then staff would come to us and say, this is this is basically what the school district's looking for. These are your options. So I think on that point, um, I'm not saying no to Emma Hood. I'm just saying I just want to make sure if for whatever reason, there's something that comes forward where somebody challenges, let's say, the use of that or the transfer from the school district to the city. Um, do we have a contingency plan? And then in terms of funding, you know, if, if we could hear from staff about laying, I mean, we still don't even know how we're going to fund the construction of it, let alone the usage of the pool, that sort of thing. So I think if we can get that information from staff, I'm fine having that agenda used at another future council meeting. And then if we can have that joint meeting with the school district where we can have the conversation, I would find that acceptable. Yeah. And, and I don't disagree with that. And it'll also be up to the we can't compel the school district to have a meeting with us, but when they're ready, I'm sure that will get done. And just a quick question for the city manager. Um, do we will we in our budget workshops, will we be looking at a cost for a pool? No, at. This at this time it's not been looked at in the in the upcoming budget. You can definitely. Give direction during the budgeting sessions. But this has been going well. The temporary. I think the temporary cost will. Be is either. In this year's budget or next year's budget, but I think it's in this year's budget. But the long term cost is not being looked at and we probably would need a some type of stay because the capital is one one thing and there would have to be a bond or or fundraising or something major for for the capital side. But it's the ongoing operations. And subsidy of the system that's going to be the more critical issue, I think, long term for the council. So good good items to add to our list of discussion. But it's those are those are things details that can be worked out later. We we are on this timeline to get you know our are deadlines with county health and then to the end of the year. But we're not going to wait until the December deadline. I, I still would like to see if we can have some consensus or not about whether people would be comfortable with the the concept of the city building and maintaining the pool with the understanding that we just heard from the city manager that we don't know where that money would come from. So but you know, conceptually. We got that. First. Meeting. Yeah. Okay. That's already. Okay. Well, you pose that is one of the questions I'm just going to agree with. But anyway. Okay, so we've established that. Is that was that correct. Okay. And then, oh, you said something and I was going to comment, but no, I don't remember what it was. Well, um, so okay, what, what more do we need to discuss tonight? So can I ask a couple questions that I proposal for how to move forward? Councilmember De Saag So I heard I heard councilmembers Odie and Vela say that they feel that the for the fees, there's just should be no charges for the schools. Can I ask just a quick question? I'll get to the joint meeting. I'm not ignoring that, is there do you think for any hours they want, no matter how many hours they want, is that based on whatever? You know, if we come to a here are the guaranteed school hours every year. Is that what you're. Because I heard Councilmember de SAC say he's comfortable with what staff wants to do. Correct. I'm sorry. Yeah. No worries. It's okay. Is that. So? Well, I. I mean. Okay. I'm sorry. I mean, do we have an idea of what these fees would be? I mean. About $21,000 a year based on what they're really current usages. That's like budget. Dust. It seems like, you know, if we're going to demand that the district pay that, I mean, I'd like to see analysis like what what it would be, what they're willing to do, what they're not willing to do, what they'd be. You know. You know, it's like a negotiation in order for us to give direction. You know. I guess what we're trying to do tonight is get a sense of whether you have things you would like analyzed, negotiated for that, or should staff just go off and make their own list? I guess that's my frustration is I hear nobody's arguing that that that shouldn't exist. Now is a time that I think, okay, staff is asking for. What do you think's important for that analysis? Well, is that is that something urgent that has to be done, like outside of a transparent council meeting? Or is it something that needs to be done in order to meet this deadline? It is definitely something the school district is very interested in discussing. And they they are the ones who raised it and said they would like to see where we can get for it on it. Yes, I would say yes. So we need it in order to do that. MRU. That's a yes. Unless the school district decides they're not. I mean, I look at this and I see our reserves are like in the thirties and maybe, you know, upper thirties and those are in the thirties now that those are in the thirties. There's just like 329 million. The district is 29 million in reserve. Yeah. Okay. Well, I thought there was a state law. They were supposed to reduce that report and. Our teachers have a one year contract. And, you know, we're sitting here talking about $21,000. It just seems to me kind of ridiculous. I don't I guess the question is understanding that you don't think they should pay the $21,000. Should they pay for nothing ever? Or is that $21,000 that they're not paying for, for the hours that, let's say, are in the current use agreement? Well, I don't know. I think a lot depends on where the site is. I mean, if it's Emma Hood and they're going to either transfer the land to us through a swap or some type of sale, then there might be something that they might be entitled to more than if, say, we built it somewhere else. I mean. So may I. Sense a resistance to like having a transparent and open process and discussing this and that? We have to discuss this today and let a subcommittee where 60% of the elected members of the two bodies aren't allowed to participate. Let me say, uh uh. Rudy. So let me say one thing. Were we to have a substantive discussion on specific items? The details that I speak of, whether they are the details of how the fees are shared or not shared, the details with regard to poor usage in time, things like that. To me, it seems as though that discussion necessarily has to begin with some kind of staff assessment and staff recommendations, perhaps even encapsulated in a staff report. So at some point in time, it just seems like, you know, that not just because, you know, there there are hired professionals and they and they have proven themselves in in many projects in the past. It just seems as though for us to have a robust, substantive discussion that the public can really engage in is going to begin with staff assessment and staff information anyways. So, um, so I just, that's why I feel comfortable in, and, you know, leaving it to staff and getting their recommendation. I don't necessarily have to agree with what they have to say, but I know that they're going to give their best professional judgment. Councilmember Vela Yeah. So Councilmember Desai, you had said that you don't necessarily have to agree with it. Does that mean that the expectation be that there's some sort of staff analysis and then it comes back to council and then we weigh in and then the subcommittee goes back. What's going to have to happen? So if I if I could ask intervention, which, by the way, I'm really trying to be mindful of when I go and change venues so you can be more comfortable. I will ask you. Okay. You tell me. Right. Okay. Um, so I'm wondering if what we should do now is have our list of things we want staff to bring back to us at our next council meeting. Because I'm hearing that that people want some further input in. And also by the next council meeting, we'll know what the school district decides next week and hopefully have time to get it into a staff report. Um, but I do think we should take a look at the resolution because that's authoring authorizing going forward with the money for the repairs. And I think we can all agree that we need to get those repairs done to meet the deadline set by county health. So. Councilmember Avella. So I don't have a problem with that, assuming the questions or the interpretation of the seventh paragraph is that the authorization requiring because it says by May 30th. Tell me where we are now. It's the seventh, whereas paragraph it says is requiring that by May 30th the city oh long term replacement plan in place, that what we mean by replacement plan is some sort of high level discussion and that by May 30th it could be. Or June 30th, essentially. And that really this is this is, again, the high level stuff and that we're still going to have the staff assessment come back to council council feedback so that we can give you guys authority at the subcommittee level. Whatever. That sounds reasonable. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE Do you have a good idea of what it is that counsel you know, from, from the discussion, what counsel wants you to come back with or do you want to run it by us? Sure, absolutely so. And I just want to give kind of a I'll tell you what I'm what I'm hearing of what you want me to bring back, which is absolutely not a problem. And also just talk timing for just a second. With our Sunshine Ordinance, we have to post staff report 12 days in advance, which means for the next council meeting it's due to it posts tomorrow by five. We don't even know Thursday. Sorry. Today's Tuesday. Thank you. So Thursday at five, we don't know. So it's sort of I understand the frustration and part of it is because it's such a fast moving process. Right. So I can't post a staff report before I, I can, but it won't have information about what happened with the school district and what some of their what they're talking about. Right. So. So I just want to give that caveat that we're we're doing that. That's why not all the information is here tonight, because we're continuing to meet and things are evolving every single week. And our our sunshine ordinance doesn't allow for a quick moving process. With that, what I heard for the May 21st staff report is a financial analysis. I can provide a financial analysis on estimated construction costs, estimated land value, estimated operation and maintenance costs as well as I can give you some high level on fees. Really in terms of fees, we just have our existing fee schedule, but there's also concessions and potential revenue for that. There's birthday parties. There's all these things that we don't even have fees for yet. So I can give you a very ballpark on potential revenue. Yes. You also include what the current, um, usage or attach to the current usage agreement, um, the joint use agreement, joint use agreement. And I assume that outlines the hours of use and that sort of things that we can, we can have that informed conversation as well. Yes, I can attach. Do you want me to charge the full joint use agreement? I'm happy to. I'll just. You could also highlight the relevant. Right. That's what I mean. I can also just abbreviate in the staff report that the if you attach it and then abbreviated in the report. Okay. There's also a difference in the committee has been talking a lot about this about the hours that are stipulated in the joint use agreement versus the actual hours you used. So I can bring to you kind of the draft high level points for the memo you. I can also bring you sort of some of the mechanisms that have been talked about. Again, not knowing what the school district is interested in doing. We don't know their legal analysis. We don't know any of that. And so it will be a very high level conversation. We also have looked at our in our committee a draft layout of hood. If you're interested in seeing that kind of what it could potentially how it could play out and why we think it's a site that could work. So you could attach that to a staff report, the the drawing that we've got. So those are the types of data points that I have that I currently that I can provide to the council. How's that sound? Good. Okay. Okay. So with that, let's take a look at the resolution. This is to authorize the repair plan not to exceed $350,000 transfers from one person to another. To do this, to have a motion to approve. So moved. A second. Second. It's been moved by Councilmember Otis, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. All in favor. I. Okay. That was unanimous. All right. With that, we're going to close this item. I'm going to allow a change of venue for the city councilmember. And how are we? Are we hooking up as soon. As you want to do that? Yeah. We're going to take a. Five minute break. From. Eric. Yeah. Okay. Do we want to take a five minute break? We will take a five minute break. Without ever able to give you. Any time. We went somewhere else in the desert. And people ask me if I'm like. You, everyone? Yes. Okay. So we are resuming the city council meeting and we just for the record, if you're in the room, Councilmember Vella is joining us. She's in the building, which just in a remote location that's a little more comfortable for her. So now we are moving on to item six B. Madam Clerk, will you introduce the item, please? Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with two five year options to extend substantially in the form of the attached with novelist Data Technologies, a Delaware corporation for Building 530, an 82,251 square foot building located at one 2120 West Oriented Avenue and the adjacent building 529 a 3200 square foot building and building 608 343 square foot building at Alameda Point. This item requires four affirmative votes and it was continued from the April 2nd. And also note that we closed public we have a public comment at the last meeting. So this is now just staff presentations and council discussion. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor. I am Ninette Mercado and from the Community Development Department. As was stated, as has been a topic before the council in three closed sessions and tonight is its second time in the public. At the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Council received a public presentation of the proposed lease with Nautilus Data Technologies for the

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare and return to the City Council for its consideration, all documents necessary to place one or more possible ballot initiatives on the November 8, 2016 ballot related to the taxation of recreational and medical marijuana; and/or request City Attorney to prepare and return a competing medical marijuana regulatory ordinance for placement on the November 2016 ballot.

LongBeachCC_07192016_16-0660

Great. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you can go ahead and read the item, please. Which is item number 19? Yep. Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare all documents necessary to place one or more possible ballot initiatives on the November 8th ballot related to the taxation of recreational and medical marijuana, and. Or to prepare and return a competing medical marijuana regulatory ordinance for placement on the ballot. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go out and turn this over to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So last week, the city council voted to submit a petition driven ballot measure to the voters in the in November 2016 regarding the regulation and taxation of medical marijuana businesses in our city. In that measure, there are provisions that will repeals taxes previously adopted in 2010 by city voters related to the sale and cultivation of recreational marijuana and significantly reduce the voter approved taxes on medical marijuana. In addition, a statewide initiative regarding recreational marijuana is qualify for placement on the November 2016 statewide ballot. That measure permits local governments to establish local sales and use taxes related to the sale of production. Recreational marijuana if passed. Tonight, we have an opportunity to make sure that our taxable structure is set up in a way that we capture tax revenue with both medicinal and recreational cannabis in order to offset our own costs as a city, and that we have the resources to ensure a public benefit. Therefore, I move. Here's a vote. I'm making a motion and I'm submitting this motion to the clerk to share with the council, should they if they want it. The motion is to request the city attorney to prepare and return to City Council all documents necessary to place an initiative on the November 8th, 2016 ballot related to the taxation of marijuana businesses. At its August 2nd meeting, which does the following number one. Establishes a gross receipts tax of 6% on medical marijuana dispensaries and delegates authority to increase that tax to a maximum rate of 8% by a majority vote of the city council. Number two, it establishes a gross receipts tax of 8% on the non-medical sale of marijuana for adult use and delegates authority to increase that tax to a maximum rate of 12% by a majority vote of the city council. Number three establishes a gross receipts tax of 6% on any business located in Long Beach that engages in the manufacture, testing, processing, distributing, packaging or labeling of marijuana or marijuana containing products, medical or non-medical for wholesale to other retail marijuana businesses that sell those products to customers and delegates authority to increase that tax to a maximum rate of 8% by a majority vote of the City Council. If such a business conducts retail sales, the gross receipts tax identified above on retail sales in Long Beach will apply in lieu of the tax in this section and then finally establish a tax of $12 per square foot of space dedicated in the cultivation of marijuana over the canopy area and delegated authority to increase that tax to a maximum rate of $15 per square foot by majority vote of the City Council. So this motion applies only to the taxation of marijuana and leaves untouched other sections of the regulation of medical marijuana businesses initiatives that qualified for the ballot through signature gathering. So again, this approach is balanced, it's modest. It assures that the tax revenue is captured to ensure that the city of Long Beach does receive public benefit. Should the voters move forward with adopting this this marijuana ordinance? I urge support. Thank you. Thank you. There is the motion and a second on the floor. I'm going to do public comment first. Or Councilwoman Price, do you want to go next? Councilman Price was asked to go to public comment first. I have a question. I just had a question. Oh, sure. Councilman, is this considered a competing initiative. Vice mayor or members of the council? It would be a competing measure as to the taxing portion of the initiative. We would make it clear in this if it were approved by the council when it came back, it would make it clear to the voters that this would compete with the tax portion of that initiative. But the rest of the regulatory ordinance it would not compete with. Okay. Would not invalidate the regulatory ordinance. Okay. But in regards to the taxes and things, there's direct, direct differences between what's proposed and what this competing initiative. That is correct. And under the election code, in order to be successful, this initiative, this proposal would have to receive more votes than the other initiative. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. I see no other council comment. Any public comment? Please come forward. No. Go ahead. My name is Stephanie Dawson, so I'm a resident of the second district. I will say that the taxes that are being assessed for are proposed on this measure with pursuant to manufacturing distribution are entirely within line, reasonable and balanced within the retail sector. However, I will warn that they are that in anywhere with above 6% is going to be high. If a in a collateral bill from the county also passes, which is going to assess a 10% sales tax on top of that, especially pursuant to the four medical patients, is going to be extremely problematic because one each has passed a 10% sales tax on her own just for the city. Combine that with the inability for any of these retail businesses, especially to deduct any of their business expenses because of the federal prohibition on it. And you're going to be tapped out. You're going to be making retail outlets essentially unable to function, potentially. You're going to have ones that are going to be well-financed and ready and willing to open, willing to provide good union, local jobs that frankly, will not be able to operate with an effective tax rate. You know, just adding these all up in my head at this point, you know, they could be anywhere from 50 to 75% with inclusion of the problem from the feds. So please do not tax retail, tax manufacturing, feel free to tax cultivation, distribution, any of those things. But at this point, wait until the county is going to be making clear how much of a bite they're going to be taking on the front end. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am Francis, Emily Tyson Harris and I reside in District one. And I don't really have a lot of background in terms of the details of all this, but I will share this much. I've watched different programs where they speak about the taxation, and there is a concern about persons that have medical problems and the tax level for medicinal marijuana and the problems that will create like financially for them in terms of paying this extra money. And the other thing has to do with I don't know if you can answer this at this particular time, but I'm kind of a bit concerned to see, I understand about the taxing allowance, tax benefit that the state of California is going to have to pass out. But this extra money that the money that the state is giving, what's the plans with the state? How do they plan to spend the money? What are they going to do with this extra money and. I didn't hear anything mentioned was just a good thing about home delivery, a marijuana type service, which I don't believe that's on the plate. But when he mentioned about the federal government, that's a major matter of concern because some of the programs and different conversations I've had and just trying to search to get more knowledge about the matter, there's a concern about with the federal government receiving money and there's collectives in other states that literally cannot make purchases with credit cards, debit cards. It all has to be done by cash. So there's a major problem with tracking the money. So I don't know what is in line with this, but I really, really, really seriously think that something's going to have to be on the have to be established in terms of how the money's going to be tracked. So thank you very much. And I can't say that I approve of all of these levels because I find it somewhat problematic. I reason I understand why you have it here, but there's still to me, a lot of questions are not answered. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Surely researching or consultant Pastor Schwab Group and Associates as we're sitting here tonight, I need to remind us that as we as you're about to vote, a vote is being cast in heaven because God is watching each of you. And you represent not just the city. You represent each of your family members. So while you're voting in this year, you're saying to your family members and those who are unborn that I support you starting to either smoke marijuana. I support the wave of the fumes in the park. So I support being with you when you go by the buildings. I supported the people who are sitting in the cars. The smell of it. I am supporting. True story. When I was not here from 2012 through 2014. The beginning of 2015 is when I returned back to the city of Long Beach. I was starting initiative services for homeless in Ventura County, helping to augment their services. That is where I have been. When I was out before you, I was recommended by a parent who was her son. Ventura County sheriff officer said, I want you, my son, to work with your organization. The son had a heroin problem and he was now going through rehabilitation to get off of heroin. And so as a pastor and both as a volunteer coordinator, his mother wanted him to work with me and I had a chance to ask him. I said, I have not done drugs. I have not cigarets alcohol is not a part of my daily. So I need your honest opinion. Young man, 21 years old, having come through Cordon Blue Chef training, but he couldn't even use the skill because now he was hooked on heroin. I said, Where do you start? I said, I'm hearing talk that marijuana is the gateway drug. I need your personal opinion. 21 year old now sitting in front of me needing help. Where did it start? He said Marijuana. I started smoking marijuana. And then after you do that, somebody comes along, you know, they're putting Primos, right? They're mixing the cocaine with the marijuana. And then we have a had our chief in his absence. I don't see him anymore. But I remember Suzy asked in the chief are we have can handle the the the the outside carriers or distributors or manufacturers of the product. And she said no, we can handle it. So now we're voting it in anyway any power that is God puts it in office. So he had your chief and all the other police officers tell you we cannot handle this if people who are not authorized to sell this product began to make it illegally. So you're voting it in in spite of hearing your chief. So why are you doing that? Understand that God is saying, okay, all of your family members, somebody is going to be end up with a drug habit and they're not going to stop at marijuana. Prophetically, you are giving this order of the day. Thank you. Due process. Time is up. Next speaker is our final public speaker. It looks like I'm going to close public speaking after dark after councilman tauranga and then the speaker's close. Next speaker thank you, diana. La genes. And by the way, welcome to janine piercer, our newest. Yeah, i would actually like to answer that very quickly. Marijuana is not a gateway drug up. In fact, actually, it's used quite often for a gateway drug out of heroin and out of alcoholism and out of those things. So it is actually an effective drug gateway out of those things. And what I would also say is 600 churches just recently came on board saying that we need to legalize and deal with it as a as a health issue. Now, speaking of being God given. Now, medical marijuana is a miraculous God given herb. This was given to us by God. Thank you. And it treats a myriad of illness ailments that includes cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, PTSD. And I think you've heard me say these things before, but you need to get it, because what I hear is that it you know, I keep hearing you say things that, you know, well, it's this or it's that. These are myths. Don't perpetuate the myths. It's discriminatory. You've had the opportunity to create a reasonable ordinance, but you failed. You had the citizens put forth their time and money and effort. And now you want to undermine this this effort. And it's totally disrespectful. Now, here we're talking about taxes. Okay. So you're talking 6 to 10 sales. 6 to 8 gross grow. 12 to 15 square foot on the grow. That's besides the 10% that the L.A. C Los Angeles County is putting forward. The state is charging 15%. The state board of Equalization starting charging 10%. Come on, people. How greedy can you be? I mean, this this showing nothing but greed. Discrimination against groups is wrong. Yet this council and government continues to demonize and degrade people who are sick and disabled that need this medicine. You've got 900 over almost 900 liquid drug outlets in Long Beach. And yet you demonized this this God given plant. So your constituents have voted time and again for in favor of it. It needs to go. You had your opportunity. Let it be. If you want to do something good, bring it back and make it into law now instead of sending it to the voters. In the end, we're all have to answer to a higher power. And, you know, I really wonder how this deliberation would go if Jesus Christ himself was standing here. I think he'd be ashamed. Anyway, you're supposed to be representatives and leaders, and we'd like to know when will that start? Thank you. And our last speaker. And then we're going back to the council. Tony was the wrong address on file. I just want the council to use the utmost caution and be as conservative as possible when it comes. To medical marijuana. If it was my preference. I would not tax medical marijuana at all, but put the burden on recreational. And I think, you know, we can't. Go to my sister who has who has a husband, had stage four colon cancer. She couldn't. Go to take her Blue Shield card. And get compensation or pay for that medicine. The Rick Simpson oil that that relieved. Him I think it was Simpson oil something like that. That really helped to. Alleviate the pain. She couldn't do that. She had to cash in her retirement so that she wouldn't see her husband suffer. He ultimately took care of it by his own hands. And it was unfortunate, but the pain he was going through was just too much for her and for him. So it's not like you can just go to your insurance company and say, hey, this really is something that helps and that is proven. So I would ask for you to reconsider. At least take a look at it and make sure that you are you have some. Consideration, sympathy for those people. Who actually use this to alleviate their pain and to use it because they need it. And it is an economic burden as well as a physical one. And again, I would prefer that medical. Marijuana is not taxed at all and that all the burden is put on recreational. But I know it's up to you. Thank you. Okay. Speaker list is closed. We're going back to the council for a vote. Councilwoman Price. I have a question about this tax. Is it one of the things that I agree with, with one of the comments that Shirley made? Our police chief has indicated very publicly that our police department cannot handle the additional responsibilities that not the legal operations, but the illegal operations would bring. And what we've seen is in the city of L.A., for example, there's 135 legal dispensaries and over 1000 illegal ones. So it is going to place a strain on our police department. That's just a reality. So the question that I have is, is it possible for us similar to things that we've done in the past to indicate whether it's tonight or at some point down the road, an intent to spend the money on public safety so that the money that's generated through the taxes goes back into enforcing the operations. Because I'm sure that even the legal operators will want the police's assistance in shutting down the illegal operators. So we're going to need to have some money in enforcing the operations. And could this tax be used for that? Mr. City. Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, the tax revenue and the way I understand the motion, that the motion would come back to you as a general tax, which would go to the general fund and then allocated by the Council as the Council deems appropriate. If if there was a desire to dedicate the proceeds to, as you said, law enforcement or code enforcement or other services necessary, you may create it as a special tax, which would require a two thirds vote of the people in order to pass. So I think you have to be very careful on how you allocate or where you would say you would dedicate it. Similar to Measure A, there was a resolution non-binding that was advisory on the council for that. Something like that could be done, but generally speaking, it would be a general tax come to the Council for allocation . So the resolution, would that be something that could come to the council after tonight? That is correct. It could come at any time. Okay. So I would make a friendly amendment that we asked the city attorney to look at a resolution that would express the intent of the council to spend any tax revenues, to cost recovery for any operations associated with medical marijuana enforcement, which would probably be for the illegal operations, which I think are the biggest concern for all of us. I would so number one, I would say that I think there is a there is a conversation about, you know, from a legal standpoint, how to what are the implications of when we place this on the ballot and dedicated? Does it require a higher threshold to be adopted or are there some steps that we can consider? So I think I think a good friendly should be to inquire if the city attorney can come back with options on, you know, what are the implications of one or the other. Because what I don't want to do is, you know, we're kind of under a deadline to make sure we meet the appropriate, you know, timeline for the to make place on the ballot. So if you're willing to make your friendly more broad come back show some options for how we can dedicated obviously I think the city council would support if there was a resolution about public safety, but there might be other things in place and we just need to broaden it a little bit. Sure. Sure. And just to clarify, I mean, I know we're under the gun, which is why I had suggested we start discussing a competitive initiative a couple of weeks ago. But I understand we're under the gun and I'm not asking for a resolution or anything to come back at the next council meeting. I'm just saying at some point in the future, so so we can word it as broadly as you like. Maybe we can say at some point after this item, the city attorney to come back with options on how the city council can basically declare their intent for how the tax money. So as long. As they declare the. Sure, that's fine. Sure. And and as part of that city attorney, I think what Councilman Price is is is asking, is that a process that we put in place similar to Measure A where the council very clearly said where the intent was. But obviously, the you know, the measure itself was a general tax, but there was resolutions and there was other materials that were that were adopted that the council showed pretty clear intent about where the tax revenue would go. We can do that for you. But it is my understanding that that resolution of that option won't come back on August 2nd. It'll be some time after that. Okay. That's perfect. Thank you. We're going to. Councilman Pearce. Just want to thank you for being here. Guys, can you hear me? Thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing this option to us. I just want to stress that I would also want to have that conversation about where the money goes to. I have one question for a city attorney. Can you clarify the county tax? Should that pass? Where would those funds go to where Long Beach have to apply or is it automatic? And I may ask the city manager to add in here. It's my understanding that these those funds will not automatically come to the city of Long Beach, that they will be dedicated special tax for homeless. And I believe that the city maybe there may be opportunities to apply for certain grants, but there is no guaranteed source of any revenue coming to Long Beach from the proposed county tax. Okay. And then I just want to stress I mean, I want to thank Tony Razor for her comments. I think looking at the state level around, you know, the lowest tax possible for medical is something that, you know, when we continue this conversation, looking at how many funds would come in, should we lower that amount to even a 4%, even though that that is something that's not in the original ballot measure? So I just wanted to make that comment. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion in a second on the floor to approve the motion by Councilman Richardson, as I stated with the friendly by Councilwoman Susie Price. Members, please go ahead and cast for votes. Motion carries. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much, counsel. We're going to go ahead and now move on to the next item, which is there's a request from Councilman Gonzales. What item would you like to hear? I'm sorry. That related to Harvey Milk Park, you said. Kick. Madam Clerk, item number nine.

On the message and order, referred on December 1, 2021, Docket #1210, authorizing the City of Boston to extend the local option first adopted in 2012 that offers members of the Massachusetts National Guard and reservist on active duty in foreign countries a real and personal property tax exemption of up to 100% of the total assessed, the Committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_12082021_2021-1210

Thank you very much, Councilor Campbell. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1210? Surely. Docket 1210. The Committee on Ways Means to which was referred on December 1st, 2021, docket number 1210 message an order authorizing the city of Boston to extend the local option first adopted in 2012. It offers members of Massachusetts National Guard and reservists on active duty in foreign countries a real and personal property tax exemption up to 100% of the total assessed. Submits report recommending the order to pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, Councilor Kenzie Bok. The floor is yours. Thank you so much, Mr. President. We had a great hearing on this on Friday. Thank you so much to Councilors Flynn and Flaherty for attending. And as it says in the description, Docket 1210 would authorize the city of Boston to accept this local option, which lets us provide a property tax exemption of up to 100% to homeowners who are active members of the National Guard or military Reserve serving in a foreign country during the fiscal year. This was adopted in 2012, and so every two years it's required that we reauthorize it. So the Council has been doing that continuously since the option first was created. I have to say that one of the things we discussed in the hearing is the fact that this is probably too well-kept of a secret. I mean, it's a fairly narrow band of folks as it is. But for instance, like the year before last, we had seven people taking advantage of it. In this past year, we actually didn't have anybody taking advantage of it. So one of the things that Councilor Flynn and I discussed with the assessor and sort of a follow up action step is to go reach out to Commissioner Santiago and think about ways to spread the word about this a little bit more, because through the military channels, there are definitely discreet people who qualify for this in the city of Boston who don't know that it's an option for them. So I think that was a major thing that came out of the hearing. And I'm grateful that Councilor Flynn for his partnership on that. But certainly we want to spread the word, but we need to have the exemption to spread the word about. And so in order for that to happen, as chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, I'm recommending today that this this stuck it out to pass, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Would anyone else wish to speak on Docket 1210? Seeing no takers. Kenzie Bok, chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 1210. All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. The President. Roll call vote yes. If Councilor Baker is doubting the vote. So, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll on docket one two, one, zero. Thank you. Target 1210. Council Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Baker. AS Council BLOCK. Council BLOCK is Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Campbell. Councilor Campbell. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Sabi George. Councilor Sabi George. AS Councilor Flaherty. Council. 30 Years Council Flynn. Councilor for ten years. Councilor Janey. Council me here. Councilor, I'm here. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. And Councilor. Yes. Yes, Mr. President, do I get number 1210 received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now moving on to the matters recently heard for possible action. Madam Clerk, would you please read docket 0221? Thank you. Docket 0221. Order for a hearing to discuss internal access and digital equity in the city of Boston.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 Budget; modifying appropriations to various budget control levels and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119153

So Project Tunnel and the daily multimodal quarter with the fin map system. Very good. Any questions? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. By John Gonzalez HERBOLD. Hi, Johnson Macheda I O'Brien President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed. Sign it. Now, let's go back to number six and you can read the short title. Agenda item six Cancel 119 157 Authorizing 2017 acceptance of funding from non city sources committee recommends the bill passes amended. Cut from Herbold. This bill authorizes departments to accept several grants in 2017. One in particular shout out to the ability of Stott to accept a $4 million grant to support the software industry project. Very good. Any further questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Beggs John Gonzalez Herbal Johnson Mosquito. Hi O'Brien. President Harrell. High. Seven in favor not. Opposed the bill passed and chair of the Senate please read the next agenda item. Agenda item seven Council Bill 119 146 Amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, including the 2017 through 2022 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Councilmember Herbold This bill is the bill that we sometimes referred to as the fourth quarter supplemental. It authorizes spending for departments during the remainder of 2017, including grant funds accepted in Council Bill 11 9157. The legislation itself impacts the terms of the Seattle Police Management Association and Local 77 contracts, and this legislation is necessary to provide departments the legal authority to spend funds this year. Without it, they either couldn't spend it would have would be out of compliance with state law. Very good. Any further questions? Comes from skater. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Chairman, do you mind if I ask a question? Mr. President, is that okay? Yes, please. Thank you for. A hard one. I don't know if this is more a process question, and so I appreciate all the work that you did. And given this is the last amendment to the budget process. A question just about how we continue to address the questions that have come up around the need for bridge funding, given the RFP process. And in conversations with our state legislative champions in the city, we understand that the new progressive majorities in the House and the Senate, there may be opportunities for additional funding to come in. Is there is there and will there be ongoing conversations about the gaps that have been created because of the RFP? And and do you anticipate a further opportunity to help close those gaps, as the constituents have suggested. The city can take legislative action that impacts the budget at any time during the year. We, as a matter of practice, vote on a budget every two years, the biennium budget, and we adjust it every every year in between the biennium. We also have quarterly supplementals as a as a practice. But if there is an effort on the part of this Council to make different allocations or new allocations, that is a step that we can take. We don't have to wait for another supplemental budget to come along. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very good. Any further questions? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Major Gonzalez Herbold II. Johnson Misgender. I O'Brien. President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and I'm sure he'll sign it. Please read items nine through 12. The report The Education, Equity and Governance Committee Agenda Items nine through 1212 appointments 862 364 reappointment said Heather Lewis, Mark two Laura L'absence sensei and Christopher Admiral Alejandro as members Community Technology Advisory Board for Term two December 31st, 2018.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-D to S-MU-5 (single-unit to multi-unit), located at 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-27-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08302021_21-0759

Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 759 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 1-7 59 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for council bill 759 is open. May we have the staff report and I see we have Jason here. Thank you, Council President Gilmore and good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison with Community Planning and Development will be presenting the proposed rezoning at 2569 South Federal Boulevard, where the request is from SCD, which is a single unit, District two, SMU five, which is multi-unit with a maximum height of five stories. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District two, which is Councilman Kevin Flynn's district. It's in the Harvey Park neighborhood. Earlier this year, the existing church property went through a zone, light amendment and a parcel reconfiguration to create a new vacant parcel. The applicant is requesting this rezoning to have flexibility to construct 100% deed restricted low income senior housing financed with low income housing tax credits. The archdiocese housing will serve as developer as well as the owner and the operator. The proposed Zone District, which is SMU five suburban multi-unit up to five storeys, allows for residential uses in the suburban house. Duplex, rowhouse and apartment building forms up to a maximum height of five storeys. The site is currently zoned, as said in the suburban context single unit. The single unit district allows suburban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. Surrounding zoning in the area includes single unit, mixed use, auto unit and open space. The Ruby Hill part view plane is applicable to the subject site. As a result, the site is subject to a maximum height restriction of approximately 100 feet. The proposed SMU five zone district has a maximum allowable building height of 65 feet, depending on the building form, and therefore the site is not impacted by the Ruby Hill Park View plane. As I mentioned, the site currently sits vacant, surrounded by mostly single unit uses as well as multi-unit and some commercial and retail. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the top left. Nearby, you see examples of single unit, multi-unit and commercial uses, as well as the existing Church of All Saints to the North and the College View Community Center and park to the east. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board and moved forward by committee. Since the staff report was published, we received two letters of support from the College View Neighborhood Association and the South Marly Brentwood, Sharon Park Neighborhood Association. We've also received one letter of support from the Church of All Saints Council and one individual letter of opposition concerned about church overflow parking. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning, this comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies in the comprehensive plan and they can be found and detailed in the staff report . The future neighborhood context is suburban. Within this context, we find a range of uses from single unit and multi-unit residential to commercial corridors and centers, as this rezoning would allow a variety of building forms in a suburban setting. The proposed district is appropriate and consistent with Blueprint Denver's context description. The subject site is designated as a community center a future place type on the Blueprint Denver Future Places Map. This place type allows for a mix of office, commercial and residential uses, where heights are generally up to five stories. The proposed SMU five zone district allows a mix of building forms, and the five storey district height is consistent with the existing and surrounding contexts and appropriate for the community corridor designation and this particular location. Similarly blueprint Denver classifies west of Hester Avenue as a local or un designated street, where these streets are most often characterized by residential uses. Federal Boulevard is classified as a mixed use arterial. These streets include retail, office, residential and restaurants with buildings that are pedestrian oriented with high building coverage. The proposed SMU five zone district is consistent with these descriptions because it allows for additional residential uses at a subject site served by both a local street and a mixed use arterial. The subject property is located within the community centers and corridor's growth area. These areas are expected to see 20% of new employment growth and 25% of new housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is mapped in this area. Staff also finds that the requested rezoning 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 and providing 100% deed restricted low income senior housing, which will provide greatly needed affordable housing options to this at risk population. The application identifies several changed or changing conditions as a justifying circumstance. The application notes that in addition to the recently adopted guidance for this area in Blueprint Denver, the increase in housing prices and aging population have created an unprecedented demand for affordable senior housing. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with a zone, district purpose and intent of the SMU five zone district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of this application. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the staff report, Jason. And this evening, we have three individuals signed up to speak. All are participating virtually. And our first speaker this evening is David Hagan. Hi. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for allowing me to speak right now. Sorry I wasn't paying much attention there. I've been busy reading case law about public comment and when and how you're allowed to limit our public comment. When a government decides to offer public comment period in an open meeting it provides the citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to controlled, disruptive or. Overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. However, when you wrote a public comment were created. Towards greater public hearing. This isn't public comment. Because you're before my First Amendment, just. Open to public comment. This needs to be. A free speech prediction hearing. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint. The content of the speech limit the time. I start allocated. Basically, you can't stop me from speaking. When you put up a public comment time at the beginning of the session, you have to allow us to speak so you can limit the amount of time to 3. Minutes, but you cannot. Limit us from that. From the time we sign up is when we get to go. This is a recap by the end of the line every single week. Or this week. And so we ask that you speak to the reasons for that topic. It's a reasoning for 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park. All right. Well, if you're not going to speak to the hearing at hand, we're going to go ahead and I'm going to move on to our next speaker this evening. We've got Jesse Paris. Yes, there was a care for those watching at home. My name is just personal representative for. Blacks are similar for self-defense because of African-Americans. So success was the only part of a lot of work for a lot of black males. And I'll be the next month of December 20, 23. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. Tonight's our seniors are a very neglected community in the city. We don't allow our elders stays in place. So saying that this is going to be used to provide housing for seniors on the full support of it that all five of the criteria so there's really nothing I can say that's going to change your mind on this. So. Yeah. I'm in favor of the free zone, just in case you don't know. The five criteria are consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, further public health and safety and welfare. Justified circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context and zoned district purpose in that sense. So I'm going to rule that out. I would really appreciate it if you allow everybody that signed up to speak. To speak. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is test. I can still thank you for holding this space to speak. And I would just like to. To reiterate what David was saying in terms of the censorship and the limitations that have been placed on the public in terms of their content and and and even the shortening of time, which has has frequently occurred. I'd also like to speak about the. The zoning tonight, which, of course, is necessary for the housing. Need in the city, specifically the low income housing, because right now we're seeing developments all over the city that have been allowed and have actually been intended to be allowed for for at least two decades, according to some of the plans that I've been reading. And and so, you know, this this notion that we have a limited housing stock and that. We we don't have enough housing for people is an interesting one. Given that the city has deliberately limited the housing stock to only people who are wealthy and can afford it. Most of the people moving to Colorado. Are are able to probably afford the housing, but it's the people who have been here for generations who are being displaced. It's people who are black, Latino and indigenous who are being displaced in this city and segregated. Just like they are in the homeless shelters, which I visited last night. And I don't wish anyone the fate of having to go to a homeless shelter in this city. So I'm happy that this housing stock is going to become available, hopefully through the zoning. I would also like to ask that you please reevaluate and re revisit the criteria, the very criteria that you consistently say have been met. Well, I should back up. You say that they've been met for some of them when they are for developers and for white neighborhoods. But for other ones, you say that they either haven't been met or you've heard too much public comment and you and you deny any requests made by the community. But but I would urge you to revisit the criteria on which you're using, because it seems like some voices are getting left out of that process. And I'm also curious how people can weigh in to the actual planning department's decision making, because it seems like some of these issues that come before you that we we come and we bring to your attention and we raise concern about seem to actually start with the planning board of the city of Denver. So I'm curious if if there's any way for the public to get involved with that process. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening on this required public hearing questions from members of Council on Council Bill 759. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Is there someone here from the archdiocese? They are participating online so we can queue up. Jarrett Leroy, I believe, is present. Okay. Why were cuing them up? Jason, maybe you could address the question that the College View Neighborhood Association raised about set back from federal that they support the project but they would they would surely like to see some sort of a setback from the from busy federal boulevard for the front of the building. What are the what are the setbacks that are what's the range of setbacks for this zone district? Sure. So great question. So, a potentially what we're looking at, it's a it's a 20 foot setback right from wide right of way. And then there's also a ten a ten foot setback. And I did check with David Pellet. Pellet. Yeah. Thank you. And spoke to him a little bit in there. There was definitely some clarifying that had to be done. But I've spoken to to David and he's supportive now. Okay. So essentially what the answer that you gave me sounds like it satisfies the college view, concern about the setback on federal. Correct. And then the other the other concern was the letter of opposition from a neighbor on I think it was on green court at least. So about overflowed church parking. And I guess what are our requirements for parking for a facility of this nature and when it's using a lot that's been split off from a larger lot that also has parking requirements. Are they being met? By this reasoning? Mm hmm. Yeah, they will have to be met. So that'll be all discussed during the site development planning process with the various services. So they will have to be met in order to move forward. Okay. I'm thinking of the proverbial you know, you build a church for Easter Sunday. And. That's when you get the greatest attendance. And there's no doubt that there is overflow parking in the neighborhood on large these days, I imagine. So if there's a who is it from the archdiocese who's online? It's a Jarrett away. Okay. Could could he address that question for us, Madam President? Yes, of course. So the question is, what? What does the church do? What is the church's policy regarding overflow parking versus providing adequate parking on your on your parcel? Sure. Can you hear me? This is Jared. Thank. Yeah. I mean, almost every one of our churches, our parishes is well over part two standards. And we do have significant parking on the property now, um, to, to handle the, the need and even on feast days and on holy days. Um, and even without this parking lot or this lot, this lot is actually undeveloped and it's grass and there's equipment parked on it most times. And it's not really a parking lot per say for, for heavy church traffic. So, uh, we do have parking on the street. I know that's not always on large days. That's not always the, the, the preferred parking, but there is some there along the back side of our the parish lot as well as like I said, there's, there's more than, you know, 170 parking spots available on the property as it is today. And also, could you remind me, because it's been a long time since I had my meeting on this. You had you're applying for a five story. A zone that allows five stories. Is this going to be a five story structure or is it four stories? The current plan is for stores. That was that was my recollection. The reason I raised that is that one of the reasons I was concerned about the five storey height. And I think we need to remind everybody that we go from SMU three to SMU five, where we jump over four. So if you want four stories, you have to apply for five. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seen any other folks in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 759. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. The Church of All Saints has been serving this community since the early fifties, I believe. There are still some people in Brentwood behind it who remember the huge fire that consumed this. I believe it was the social hall in the mid-fifties. And it's an institution in the neighborhood. And this parcel has been vacant, I think, ever since that time. The the archdiocese, through its some of its subsidiaries, also operates a housing for lower income seniors at Golden Spike just down the street. I believe that's a 12 story property. And the reason I raised that, Madam President, because this is one of those instances where the zoning out of a single unit zone district, which the church is on, even though it's not a single family home, zoning out of that blueprint gives us guidance. That uptick in density can be justified in that context, even in the suburban zone. And when I look up around federal north and south, I see that there is increasing density. There has long been density on Federal Boulevard. It's well-served by transit. It's well traveled. It's a state highway. And I believe that this is an appropriate double jump in in density from a single unit. And with with that and having met all the other criteria, particularly changed circumstances, I will be supporting this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I will be supporting it this evening as well. It meets all of the criteria as presented. Council Bill 21, Dash 759 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 759, please. CdeBaca. I. Ortega. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon, I can I can i. Can each i. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torrance, I. Black eye. Clark. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 and 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-759 has passed. Thank you to the staff and members of the public who joined us for that required public hearing or on to our second council member Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 810 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 10.24.078 to prohibit parking of oversized and recreational vehicles on City rights-of-way within residential neighborhoods; and, amending LBMC Section 10.24.078 relating to the oversized and recreational vehicle parking permit process. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06132017_17-0443

Okay. Thank you. We're now going to hear those. It's going to take the council requests. And we had a request to hear item 16 at the top of the agenda. So we do. 16, please. Item 16 is a report from Public Works, recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to prohibit parking of oversize and recreational vehicles on city right away within residential neighborhoods citywide. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Is there a staff report on this item? Yes, Mayor. Council members, we have our public works director Craig Beck and also our traffic engineer, Eric with Strom. So Craig. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mayor, senior council members were pleased to be before you this evening to try to bring forward an item that had originally been been requested back in October of 2016. At that time, there was concern about some of the RV parking in many of our parking impacted communities and neighborhoods. Staff spent a lot of time researching what other jurisdictions are doing and what would fit in Long Beach. By uncovering that work, we we found that that the current the way that the municipal code is currently written is a little bit confusing and contradictory. So sometime in March of 2017, we provided a memo, a staff report to this council detailing some of the the conflicts that we see in the code and some recommendations that staff believe they would bring forward to the full body for consideration. So what we have before you this evening is a recommendation for council's consideration. And I'm going to ask the city's traffic engineer, Eric Woodson, to go through that presentation. Eric. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. If I get the presentation brought up. So start off quickly just with. The definition of an oversize vehicle in the Long Beach municipal code. Vehicle exceeding. 85 inches in height or 80 inches in width or. Longer than 20 feet. If there is. A trailer or objects on the trailer, all those features are included within those dimensions. Some of the current issues we face with oversize vehicles are parking impacts, especially in parking impacted residential neighborhoods, visual blight, safety and sanitation concerns, potential citations, issues at driveways, alleys and intersections, and then trash and debris from vehicles left and the right away . There's also concern with Long Beach Municipal Code and the California vehicle code being somewhat contradictory in their requirements. And then oversize vehicle restrictions are not employed uniformly across the city. They're implemented on a case by case basis. So staffers researched ten municipalities within the vicinity of Long Beach to see what each of their restrictions and regulations call for. We looked at vehicle dimensions. Issuance, number of permits issued annually, and also also duration of the permits. So based on the review of those of other jurisdictions and our own recommendations and discussion, we recommend change in the overall length of the oversize vehicle minimum from 28 to 22 feet, excluding pickup sport utility vehicles, prohibiting the parking of oversize vehicles in residential neighborhoods . And any vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods on private property would need to be behind the gate of current zoning requirements. The exception to parking in a residential neighborhood. Would be through the use. Of permits. Maximum issuance of permits would. Be for. 72 hours and 20 permits would be available annually. These products are currently available online, so we continue with the current online system. Other suggested changes to the code, consolidating oversight of vehicle restrictions and permit issuance to the city. Traffic Engineer requiring parking prohibition signs be posted at all city entrance roadways along the city perimeter and freeway off ramps and allowing parking to continue in certain commercial industrial areas, areas on a case by case basis based on approval of the city traffic engineer. Next steps for this process. Amend the musical code to include the suggested oversize vehicle changes and post signs prohibiting oversize vehicle parking at city entrances. Include a mailer in the utility bills of residences and then post on the website and social media to alert residents of the new policy and then meet with the Coastal Commission to discuss the ordinance and draft language and then submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission for Certification. This will be followed by a public hearing held by the Coastal Commission. The fiscal impact of this change would be the cost to for city staff, city crews to install the science courses estimated at $18,000. Complaints would be a complaint based. Enforcement enforcements and additional staff are proposed and it would be expanding the current online permitting system. Happy to take any questions at this time. Thank you. Let me go back to Councilman Price and please, if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. So, first of all, a big thanks to staff for doing an extensive research project to get this item to the place where it is today. I really appreciate that. And I also appreciate that you looked at cities that are within the region that are similar to us in size, might be larger, might be smaller. But that gives us a sense of what other cities that are in the region are doing. And it's it's obvious to me that other cities do have some more consistency than we do in terms of RV regulations. I want to start with fiscal impact. You mentioned the $18,000 for the if we had a consistent ordinance that affected the entire city. But if we were to continue doing individual neighborhoods and individual signage, what would that cost look like? So let me let me try to address that. Currently, what we do is we we approach any restrictions on parking oversize vehicles on a case by case basis. And many times we will either receive a request by a council district or a community group that are citing particular impacts. We'll go out and analyze those particular streets and then we have to put up signs on that street. And where it becomes real challenging is the cost for maintaining those signs. So similar to the experience that we had when we went through updating our street, sweeping changes, if we were to do that on every street in the city on a case by case basis. And I would anticipate we would continue to receive more and more complaints about this. You know, it would be potentially a seven figure number. Okay. And over the years, in terms of the city's history with this topic, has this been an issue that's been a consistent source of complaint in regards to constituent issues? Yes, I know that the council offices have received many complaints, but as a staff have received those as well. And many times we're asked to go out and enforce codes that are confusing and conflicting, and it makes it challenging on the enforcement side. One of the things that we're asking for this evening is, is to really update the municipal code, to make sure that it's clear on what is being proposed and that enforcement of whatever action council takes this evening is easier to do, not only from an education perspective with the community, but as a staff perspective in enforcing that . Okay. Couple of questions on the recommendations. I know that the recommendation is for 22 feet. Can you give me any sort of justification for that number? So the current dimension is is 20 feet. And looking at neighboring cities, many of the neighboring cities did have a vehicle, oversize vehicle length limit. Of 22 feet. So we felt that going to that dimension seem reasonable. This would exempt some of the pickup trucks and sport utility. Vehicles that are on the market today. Great. We also have 72 hours as a maximum for the permits. What's that based on. The 72 hours? Again, we're looking at consistency with neighboring jurisdictions and also vehicles are currently required to be moved after a 72 hour period. So we felt that was also consistent as well. Now, would there be an opportunity if a resident had a need for additional time to request an extension of that 72 hour period? Would there be any sort of a process by which they could petition for an extension? So the recommendations before you do not currently include that kind of an option? I think that that is reasonable. And if council were to take that action this evening, certainly staff would be able to implement it. Okay. And then how about the 20 permits per year? What is that number based on? We took a look at what some of the neighboring cities had, and we also looked at what the current Long Beach municipal code had. Currently, we had 12 permits for a two day duration each, which allowed for 24, basically 24 days of oversize vehicle parking. So we felt that we wanted to be a little more consistent or, you know, increase that number. So we increased it to a three day or 72 hour limit and going to 20 instances per year. What total does that give us in terms of the number of days that you can have an RV parked outside of your home? That would give us a total of 60, 60 days per year. Right. So I would like I have made a motion, but I would like to be a little bit more specific about the motion. I'd like to make a motion and ask my colleagues to support staff's recommendation with with the following caveats that the number of hours that the 72 hour permit could be extended on a case by case basis at the discretion of our Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Bureau. And the 20 permits per year could also be evaluated for an extension on a case by case basis through our traffic bureau, so that if there is an unusual circumstance or something that requires special consideration, the discretion would be within your department. That would be my recommendation. The other final changes I would make from staff's recommendation is I would recommend that I'd ask my colleagues to. Support. Approving this, but not requiring that the oversize vehicle that's parked on residential private property be behind a gate because some homes don't already have a gate. And we don't want people to take on an additional cost. And also putting a gate in front of your property may change the character and the curb appeal of the property. So with those three changes to the recommendations, I move this recommendation forward. Q There's a motion, there's a second by Councilwoman, Mango, Councilwoman Mongo. Mayor, may I interrupt? Just not sure. I'm sorry. On the third. Recommendation or amendment that currently is the gate requirement is currently part of the zoning. Ordinance. So if that's adopted tonight, then it would have to go back to Planning. Commission before we could come back with a revised ordinance just for timing purposes. Thank you. That I would I would be okay with that as the maker of the motion. I'd like to hear from my colleagues if someone would like to make a friendly that's different from that recommendation. But I think allowing that flexibility for our constituents is important. And I might add that our office has received over the last year or so, hundreds of emails in support of adopting a city wide, consistent approach to handling RVs. Because when the police do get called out, it's incredibly confusing what ordinances and what place on what street. So I'd ask for my colleagues support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, go. Yes. I have a lot of the same notes as Councilman Price, specifically with the gate, because there are a lot of communities, even within the districts that are historical districts, that they cannot aggregate actually. And so we have one of those in our area. We prefer that it stay not behind the gate. So I'm really supportive of that. I also want to thank the staff. This was a lot of work and it's been a long path to get here. We really appreciate that. Under bullet three, on page two of the item, it talks about the length being from 20 to 22 feet. It has the ability to exclude pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. I want to take a minute to thank in our our newsletter, we encourage people to make public comment via the E comment. And we get these comments and we get them in advance of the council meeting. And so we can read them and really talk with our staff and the city staff about them if we have the time. And so one of the concerns was that there are some commuter vehicles that are currently in use, specifically the Mercedes sprinter van, which is a seven passenger commuter vehicle that is used by a lot of the van pools. And so my only concern would be if there were vehicles that on a case by case basis fit within this guideline. And with the 20 to 22 feet, I hope that this would not be a problem anymore, but that we would somehow work through what that would look like. There just has to be a process by which an exception can be made. And so with that, and I really want to thank the neighbors who supported a lot of this throughout the last several months. There is also a concern about consecutive use of the permits. So if I applied for a 72 hour permit under the current regulations, would you theoretically be able to stack those four consecutive days? Currently the way the musical codes are written is that there has to be a 24 hour waiting period before refiling for the permit. Perfect. That's wonderful. Thank you very much. I hope my colleagues will support this important item. Thank you. Clinton reports. Yes. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. And thanks to city staff, I know back in in October, I had many unanswered questions around the legality enforcement and the costs. I appreciate everybody's work to resolve these. I want to make clear tonight that this is not banning people from sleeping in their cars and their actions tonight should not be seen as a way to open the doors for more vehicular living restrictions. So I have a couple of questions for staff just to make sure that's clear before we move forward. I know that previously we talked about the code that we should amend was 10.2 4.078. And I want to make clear that we are still not able to enforce that part in our code and that we would be abiding by that. Mr. West. So we would be amending. 10.2, 4.078 and 10.2. For oh in the code. And can you clarify for everybody that that, in fact, does not make it where we will give people tickets for sleeping in their cars? Should they be sleeping in a VW van that doesn't have a permit in a residential area? Those sections of the code don't address those topics. That's true. Sorry. I have a list of codes in front of me. Let me take out the code question and let me rephrase it. Previously, when we were here in October, the concern was that passing this would ban would mean that we were going to be banning people from sleeping in their cars and enforcing that ban. The concern I had at that time is that we could not enforce that ban because of other laws on the books. I know that the city attorney, Charlie Parker, answered a lot of these questions for me last time. So perhaps the city attorney could help me out here. As proposed today, that doesn't address the other laws that. You're discussing. Or referring. To. So I guess my question it it is a bit broad. On your question. And so the Volkswagen van may be under 22 feet and it wouldn't be subject to this. So that may not be a good example. But we are only proposing to amend the two sections. For you this evening and not addressing the other issues that you've raised in. Those laws. This would have no impact. On those laws. That is what I was looking for. Thank you. I did want to clarify for everybody that we wanted at the same time to bring forward a a transitional parking policy that we've been working with churches over the last several months. Our health department, as well as our other staff have been working on that. So just quickly, I'd like to ask if Mr. Modica could possibly give just a brief update for folks on the point of this questioning is just to make clear to everybody that has called my office with concerns that this is addressing homelessness, that in fact, we have another program that will possibly be voted on in the near future. Thank you. Councilmember, I believe you're referring to the safe parking program that the council has asked city staff to look into. But we were asked to look into is is there an ability to go through a process to. Allow. People who do currently sleep in their car. Who are homeless, to to have a space to do that within parking lots? We've been doing the research on that and we've. Produced a memo. Fairly detailed from Health and Human Services outlining some cities that do that, some of the challenges that come along with that and some of that, some of the possible benefits as well, as well as the costs. I do want to point out, though, in our in our review, what we really learned was that people in RVs and people sleeping in cars are two different populations. So people that are in there and have recreational vehicles don't consider themselves homeless for the most part where and they have different standards of living and different incomes than people living in cars who tend to be lower income and do consider themselves homeless. So those are two different populations. We provided that report back to council with the cost impact and so that, you know, that's something the council wants to look at. We can discuss that further, but that's different than what's happening here tonight. Great. Thank you, Mr. Modica. We will. We are working with several nonprofits right now, and we'll hopefully bring that back in the next month or two. So I just want to clarify that there's another process for that. And then my last question is on the location of these vehicles, I just want to get clarity that the item that was before us talks about commercial industrial corridors and that that is still the case, even with Councilmember Price's amendments to a case by case basis that we're still looking at that in those corridors. Can you clarify and define the process for identifying those corridors? It's challenging for me to know if they're not in my district and I'm doing a vote that says I'm going to push them all to somebody else's districts. That's not an impact that I necessarily want to be on the hook for. Councilmember I think what we would do is look at the zoning code. So I think there was a presentation earlier today on the general plan update. And so certainly within the city's general plan, there's designations on what areas of the city are considered residential and what areas of the city are considered commercial and industrial. And so that's where we would start, is in those neighborhoods that are designated as residential. Great. Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate everybody's work on this. I'll be supporting this item. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next up is Councilmember Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank staff for their work. Good staff work on this. There's been a lot of complaints that I have been getting also regarding not only RV but boats, kind of boats that are all over the place. And I think that that is the most prevailing complaint that I got in in neighborhoods around my area. So I'm glad that there is a item in there that includes trailers and boats in regards to moving that. The other portion of it as well. When this came up a couple of months ago, obviously I was concerned about having a blanket ordinance that would cover this issue. But yet we have a big coastal area, coastal. His own that would not fit because of other communities up and down the coast who are trying to address this issue and have encountered some difficulty in being able to adopt an ordinance that would address people's access to the beach because of restrictive ordinances or vehicles being able to stay overnight or for a few days along the coast. So I do see that there is an item or bulletin here or at the end of saying that we are going to pursue Coastal Commission acceptance or at least a hearing with the Coastal Commission to address this ordinance and hopefully work something out between between the cities on beaches, LCP, local coastal plan and the ordinance. So I'm looking forward to that and having having this issue resolved because I think it's important. Thank you very much. Catherine and I will be supporting the. Motion Council in worship. Thank you. Thank you. I want to go back to one of the points made. If they can pull up slide five, I think I can explain some of the confusion on that item. That's possible. And because we've had inquiries at our office, let's see. And I think, right, if you look at the title, it says Recommended changes to the municipal code. Okay. Now go down to the bullet point about the fencing and we have some subject verb agreement disagreement here. So it is not a change. The title says changes and then down at that bullet point. But we're going to go with an existing. So that's where the confusion came from. So I think that's what we need to resolve that it was in the past it's been complaint driven. So nothing has changed to the city attorney's point that it would take a different change than what we can do here tonight to to do away with that. But that's where I believe all the increase to the officers came from. Secondly, to the point of the special circumstances where you have to extend the 72 hours, this has to be seamless because that might be a mechanical problem with the vehicle or something like that. So that shouldn't trigger the use of one of the special permits that has that 24 hour window. So I think that that's what my colleague, Councilwoman Price was was driving it. Finally, on the 22 foot distance, we would ask how that would be measured. And I don't think we have any patrol officers up here who are traffic enforcement officers. But I think you run the plate and the DMV record would give you the length of the vehicle. And that's we just have to I don't I'm not sure how it's done, but we have to determine that. Or else we have people getting out a tape measure every time they go out to look at one of these vehicles. But there's not necessarily agreement on the registration versus what the actual length of the vehicle is. So that's something I'd like to see staff address before we have problems moving forward. I think that's different naturally. Okay. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my position is rather a little bit since the last time we had this conversation initially, you know, I, I said if someone has had their RV, has a had any issues neighborhood, sort of hasn't complained about it, then we should give that person a break. But in thinking about it, over the last few months, my district in particular, we border a number of different cities, Lakewood, who has a different policy than Bellflower Compton, Paramount. We bought all those cities, and I think it is clear that we have a very clear message on this policy. So I do support, you know, having, you know, one clear restriction across the city that that will be very clear to people who live along the borders as well. I think the permits online and free is good and renting an RV for the first time this past holiday, you know, between Christmas and New Year. And, you know, I kept it on my street for a couple of days before and a couple of days after. And I think I wouldn't want to have to take an additional step to go somewhere and get a permit, you know, while I'm coordinating vacation. So the fact that you can, you know, you can get it online is free. And how would this work? We just simply printed out online and posted. Okay. So print out online, print on dashboard. I think that's seamless. That's great. So good work on thinking that through. There's been a lot of chatter on next door and in the neighborhood associations about this concept of a sanctuary district. I've tried my best to try to refute this concept that it wasn't driven by city council or city staff. But can we can I just have city staff respond? Is there a proposal for a sanctuary district anywhere in town that says, Hey, our district is open for RVs and all the rest of them are closed? No. I think you can't get more clear than that. And then my final question is, and it might have been in the presentation, but how long until this is implemented should the city council adopt this? I'm going to let Mr. Beck respond. But if we add the aspect of going to the Planning Commission for. The gate issue, that could certainly. Add several months to the time before it comes back to the council. Okay. I'll just ask ask that, you know, once we get all everything worked out and we do have it ready to go for prime time, that we give a break to the people who, you know, we don't immediately start hammering people who take a minute to adjust to this. So we should have some some warmup grace period. So, you know, people who may not be too happy about this, we get a chance to kind of get in the warm up to it a little bit. So we should we should just, you know, think about our residents in that way. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. Great work to staff and great work to Councilmember Councilwoman Price on this item as well. I will be supportive here, but I do want to mention a few things that my colleagues have mentioned as well. And I look forward first, I look forward to the safe parking program that Councilmember Pearce is talking about because we can't talk about this issue, I feel, without addressing the fact that people are living in their RVs, and I think it is a real issue that has to be tackled and we have to figure out some way to tackle that. And although this doesn't address that specifically, I look forward to hearing more information from her office. Secondly, can you clarify I know that it is included in here as to the commercial use of oversize vehicles. For instance, in the first District, we have the Magnolia Industrial area who where many business owners have overnight vehicles and they have them there at two, three in the morning and they start, you know, at four in the morning. So can you just clarify for me how that would work into this ordinance? Councilmember. I think I think there's two ways to address your question. The first would be that generally in a municipal code, a vehicle has to be moved within a 72 hour period. Otherwise, it can be cited and potentially towed. So in a commercial zone such as Magnolia Industrial, we know that we have oversize vehicles that are used for commercial purpose, but those are being moved constantly. If there was a need to address parking issues, we would look at those particular areas on a case by case basis and devise an appropriate restriction based on the needs of that particular district. I think you're you're very familiar with the area in your district. And I think what we would look at is how if if restrictions were needed, how would they be addressed in MiG? Yes. And I'm wondering if there is a way it seems to me that it would be a case by case basis. But since areas like that are primarily like over 75% commercial, I'm wondering if we could maybe air towards the, you know, allowing the vehicles to be there a little bit longer because they are you know, there's no residential in the area. So I'm just wondering how that fits in. But of course, it's, you know, up to your discretion to to figure that out. And that should be fine. I just wanted to point that out. And then I think those are all the questions that I have, but I think this is a great item. I know many residents in the First District have had the same issues related to just overnight vehicles staying for, you know, significant amounts of time. So. Thanks so much for the work. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman. Awesome. Thank you. And I think most of my concerns have been addressed by my colleagues. I didn't want some clarification on the the was it a substitute motion or the from Councilmember Price regarding a case by case basis? Can can we clarify with that which you actually met on that. An original motion. It's in the original motion so so in the staff report it says the currently currently the city approaches parking restrictions on a case by case basis. So in the original the motion basically it sounds like it does the same thing that we're currently doing. Well, no, I don't think so. I think right now we don't ban our RVs on every residential street. And with the passage of this, we would and then we would allow certain limits to how long RV can be parked outside of a residential in a residential neighborhood and the public right of way for a certain period of time. That particular aspect of the exemption would be subject to case by case determination at the discretion. So if they wanted beyond 72 hours or if they wanted more than 20 permits. So just as to those two areas. But but the idea of whether you can park your RV outside of your home would would be addressed through the change of the ordinance. Thank you for that clarification. And to staff, I think obviously, are we supporting this? I do recall having some some conversation when this item first came before us regarding RV being parked in commercial corridors and business or in impacting businesses. Does this particular item address that in any way? Councilmember Again, we're focused tonight on residential neighborhoods and communities, and then we would look at commercial areas and industrial areas on a case by case basis if a restriction was needed to be added in those those particular zones. Well, I certainly have heard enough from our residents to know that this is this is something that most of the residents in my district would see as something welcome. This is a welcome change. It provides uniform uniformity and clarity. And so I think staff has done a great job on that. I mentioned the commercial corridors because of the potential for the unintended consequences. And I do figure I do figure that we will be discussing that more in the future. So I'll be supportive tonight, but also be watching very skeptically about how those how this policy impacts our business districts as well. Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilman, Mongo. So one of the things that we don't want is for this to be delayed tonight. So I think that I'd like to offer a firmly back to your original motion where we pass this as written tonight and instruct the city manager, help me of what I can do on the gate so that it is a second degree thing, so that you'll bring this back right away as is. We'd still like to address the gate. Being a requirement. So tonight is a. Is. A consideration to request my office to prepare the ordinance as amended by the friendly that we would be going to Planning Commission to amend the zoning. Ordinance to remove the requirement. Of. Parking that it must be parked behind a gate. If you eliminate that third portion. Then we could. Create the ordinance. Bring it back. But you still have to. We'd have to do the signage before you could ever implemented. And we'd also need to go to a Coastal Commission and have Coastal Commission. Weigh in on either accepting it or proposing whatever changes they would. Propose to that before you could implement the ordinance. So having to go to the Planning Commission would not include a delay. Well, because of the. Others, I would say that it does. Include a delay. Of some amount of time. I know. So I'd like to ask that we take that component out and then maybe you and I can work on a separate item that we'll bring back to council immediately to ask the instruction to go to the Planning Commission, asking them to consider removing it. You could certainly go separately to have that item considered at a later date and would amend this. Ordinance if. It was passed almost. So, you know, do have. A. Dual track. Wonderful. Mr. Park. And hopefully, I think as the council process move forward in the other and the signage process, hopefully those two separate items align, you know, as we come out the gate certainly and as an ordinance could come back on a Tuesday after that process. Has happened with the commission. You could. Amanda. That's great. Wonderful. So is that accepted? Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. Next up out Councilmember Pearce. Okay. Let me try this one more time. Just to clarify for the record, as I mentioned, I had a long list of codes in front of me. So Mr. Parkin, the code that I was referring to is 10.18 .040, which we talked about at length whenever this was originally here, which says no person shall user occupy any recreational vehicle, trailer coach van or other vehicle or any public on any public street for human habitation or camping purposes. And when we are here back in October, we had a full conversation about how we don't enforce that because we're fearful that we would be sued for constitutional rights because other cities have been sued. And back in October, I had asked that we address that in our code. So will this policy could we use this opportunity now to remove that from our code since we're not enforcing it? You could add in in the staff report, I think in March of 17, that item was identified and addressed in the. Cases were cited. Okay. I'm not remembering seeing the cases. Well, I would like to ask if could make a friendly to include leaving that portion out. You know, so long as things are, people are getting their permits if they're in that 72 hour zone and they're at least abiding with the law if we're not enforcing it already, having policies on the books that we don't enforce, I'm certain that we didn't. That's okay. I'm not sure I understand what the request was. But let me just make it clear that this item tonight is limited to the issues presented, in my opinion, with what we've heard from residents about regarding traffic safety, visual blight, vehicle corridor obstructions, consistency throughout the state with having the same ordinance in place. I did not intend, nor am I prepared to intent, nor am I prepared to discuss and have received zero notice that we were going to be speaking about ordinances involving people sleeping in their vehicles and the legal parameters of such that it's just not on the agenda. And in my opinion, I think we're talking about two very different issues. And I think that the recommendation that's being brought forth by staff is really being brought forth as a cost savings to the city, as a consistency issue for the city. And I think to conclude that particular item by including issues of constitutionality of other ordinances would just really be out of scope with what this particular item is. So thank you for your comments, Councilwoman. I brought it back up because we had a full discussion about it last time not to try to slide something new. And we will be bringing back my colleagues and I will be bringing back the transitional parking. I'm comfortable with having that discussion with the transitional parking conversation, and I'll have comments with staff as well. I'll be supporting this tonight. I just wanted to make sure that any time that we have codes on our books that we're not enforcing that we've said that we're fearful of us being sued for, that we take the opportunities to address those because that seems like smart governance. So we'll bring it back at the time with the transitional parking, and I'll make sure that you and I have an opportunity to sit down and chat before then. That'd be great. Thank you. Well, there's a motion on a second on the floor. We also have public comment now, so please for comment. Come forward. They give you cookies the address the suggestion this in advance a couple times before in fact last week at the Mac committee and that commission. One of the things this city should take a look at is what other cities have their private organizations that are private companies that do it, but what they build and I'm thinking of that to PCH and Studebaker, the old tank farm, the old electric plants is to build and it doesn't have to be there. A three story, maybe four story, depending on the area it's in building in which people can store their boats on elevated platforms. What the paradigm is, if you have a boat, you call up the facility the night before and say, I want to come down and I'm going to pick up my boat and trailer at a certain time. The next day they arrive, they take it and go out and do it, whatever, and then they come back. So I think that's something we should take a look at. They're highly successful. They're operated. I've not personally been in any of them, but they're in the coastline of this state is inundated with those. And I think if we can put the word out and provide the areas to put them in, I think that would be great. And I again, as I say, it doesn't necessarily have to be close to the water if you've got some places that are up in the knees, Jesus, that doesn't that has the square footage where they can put that in. That would be great. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker Hi, I'm Anthony Cruz with the fifth district. I want to thank all the city council for bringing this item up and also other city leaders. And I'm hello, mayor. And it was I just want to say that I think this is very important. I mean, personally in our neighborhoods that are along especially along the park areas, we deal with a lot of RV issues and a lot looking at, you know, people sleeping in their vehicles. I understand that it is a touchy subject, but at the same time, you're looking at our these and like what one of the gentleman over here had brought up the issue that are not the issue, but the the fact that people in RV do not consider themselves homeless. All right. And I live in a pretty ideal neighborhood. Okay. And I love I love the district. But at the same time, you know, when you're living, you know, in your neighborhood and you're doing what you need to do to to to, you know, be neighborly and love, you know, the businesses and what's around there, you know , then you find these unintentional neighbors, you know, what I call curbside neighbors that are living, you know, in your street that just, you know, sometimes it's cool and a and they they they're there for the time being and they leave when they, you know, leave. But a lot of times they're staying there. They become an intentional neighborhood residents. You know, there's been issue with a couple of them that I have even seen suspicious activity where they come, you know, they have people coming in and out where, you know, they're doing some sort of deal. All right. And it's it's like that's not the neighborhood I'm living. And these people roll in with their wills, come in and and plant themselves. You know, I would like to see some special consideration as well, being in front of a park, you know, I mean, kind of considered like a beach because we're not Crystal Cove, this is not a campground. And to have all these RV constantly coming in and staying there for days, you know, it's a it gets pretty annoying. You know, I don't pay what I pay for my mortgage to open up my window and see our vehicle along my street, you know, there. And again, it is a, you know, only in America kind of problem. But at the same time, it is an issue that does actually affect my neighbors, myself and a lot of us that, you know, that live here as a motorcyclist. You know, also dealing with the safety issue. I see it all the time when I'm riding past RVs and what have your cars cannot see when they're backing out of the driveways. It's a it's also very unsafe, you know, anyways, I'm coming to an end. But at the same time, I just want to say I'm I'm for this. I hope that you guys would consider this and not add too many implementations that would, you know, give them still leeway and freedom to, you know, continue doing what they're doing. Again, I want to thank City Councilwoman Stacey Mongo for her support and help and her awesome staff. They're very patient and they've dealt with me. So I got to say, you know, kudos to you guys. Thank thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And Jenny Hall, back Salters and Belmont Shore. I want to thank Susie Price for all the work that she and her staff have done. On this because we brought it up multiple times and it's very important to a lot of people. So thank you. I just wanted to add a couple of things. That 72 hour criteria, you know, might be a good idea to get some guidelines written down about that, because I can just see, you know, people saying, well, my neighbor got an exemption. I didn't. You know, and so I think that it may not be need to need to be written into it's being approved, but at least there has to be something in writing maybe by the parking group as to what will be approved for an extension and what won't. The other I have a question or I'm not really familiar with this requirement about the gate and all. I just wouldn't want to see people now suddenly thinking that they can just have a 22 foot vehicle parked in a driveway. And then we're trying to back out of our driveway and our neighbor right next to us has this huge vehicle and we won't be able to see who's coming. We won't be able to see pedestrians, little kids. That could be a problem. I just want. To say also that I don't think our city streets are the place for camping or vehicle storage. Just to say that we've had multiple meetings with our police department and the they've said this and also the neighborhood. Watch. Group, one of the cornerstones of that is know your neighbors, know who lives on your street by name, know what their habits are and know what vehicles they have. And we really can't do that with a lot of strange vehicles parked all around our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, council members. My name is Sommer Temple and I am the owner of Downtempo, Storage and Long Beach Shoe Store. Mark here in Long Beach. My father, Dawn Temple, opened the first self-storage facility in the L.A. Basin right here in Long Beach. Nearly 50 years ago, the family, business and self-storage industry has been a part of my life since the day I was born, and I have watched it grow and developed over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not here tonight to tell you that you should or shouldn't pass this RV ordinance. I'm here as a business owner in this city who will be directly impacted and who is intimately involved in this industry. That correlates back to all of this. Right now in Southern California. RV Storage space is tight. RV RV Parking space availability, such as what our facility offers, is not just rare in our city, it's nonexistent. We are completely full, and yet we get 45 calls every day for people looking for RV parking storage. The closing of our tourist RV facility has trickled down to our city. We are getting phone calls from those displaced customers looking for places to store their ARVs boats and other vehicles because they have nowhere else to go. Shane Carson RV storage is being chipped away at as the also cemetery next door reclaims their land that they owned. We have a serious supply and demand issue in this city and surrounding issues surrounding cities. Excuse me. But as land is not becoming available to build Newport for storage facilities on at the same rate that we're losing storage facilities, another example of this of using RV storage spaces in Long Beach is our own facility at 3750 Spring Street at the April 11, 2017 City Council meeting. And sorry, last week that you granted Urban Development LLC the exclusive negotiating rights to develop land for absent that part of our company currently leases from from the airport commission. The person in question currently holds 79 spaces. We didn't analysts of these 79 spaces. Based on current addresses we have on file for them cross-reference them to the district lines and determined by each district the percentage of their costs constituents that would be left without RV parking if this goes through. I came here tonight because I do have concerns about what happens if the ordinance eventually comes to pass. Where can my 79 little customers and your constituents go to safely store their vehicles in the city? And I have to wonder, both sincerely and respectfully, how you can complement, how you can consider both banning RV parking in Long Beach and control at the same time, reducing the amount of RV spaces available here as well. I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Angela Kimball. I live in the unincorporated county island area. I testified before you on this issue. I want to thank Susie Price for bringing us back to the council floor and discussing it. We recently enacted a similar ordinance in the unincorporated county island of Long Beach. It is working. It has been it is effective. There's some bumps in the road that, you know, have to be ironed out as some of the council members, I believe it was. Councilman Richardson said there was a grace period involved to kind of ease neighbors into the new policy. It's this has been a long time coming. It's been a as I said, it's been effective. Yes. RV storage is sometimes difficult to find in your own city, but there are spaces available. My family owns RV. We store it, we bought it. We understood we needed to store it and not impose that upon our neighbors. When we bring it in, we bring it in for 24 or 48 hours. Load it up, go have a great time. Come back, do the same thing. Get it out of the neighborhood. It doesn't belong on our public streets. Our public streets should not be a storage yard. That's the bottom line. It's a public safety issue. We've had people in the past in our community who've turned them into third, fourth and fifth bedrooms. They're living in them with water lines strung across the street, electrical lines strung across the sidewalks, and they tell their neighbors, tough. I have a neighbor who bought a home across the street a block away from me, and she said it was almost a deal breaker for them to buy that home with an RV parked out front where the neighbor had his nephew living in it. And then, of course, about a year later, he goes to sell his house and oh, lo and behold, he realizes, hey, it's not really a good marketing tool to have a 35 foot RV parked in front of your house. I'll go move it near the school so the kids can deal with it. Trying to cross going back and forth to Patrick Henry. Nice guy. But really, the bottom line is the nation's largest RV and camping organization, the Good Sam's Club, they've said it best. The residents want a long term solution to a decades long issue. The public streets are not a place to store your RV. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Ramon. The main thing that I wanted. To emphasize was the same as this the young lady. Who was here regarding Temple. I have a lot of people, friends that are in the storage area, and I just want to reiterate that they all they're all saying and there's like six of them that are saying that there's no room for ARVs in their storage facilities. Now, I hope that before we get going in, we do that there's some kind of a a look see in to see if there is some if this space is available for people to go, we are going to see escalated costs for sure, you know, to store their their vehicles. Another thing that I would like to mention is that it relates to to Jeannie and to Lena Gonzalez, the concerns they have for homeless. And I know we don't want to mix those issues, but how do we discern the two? If someone is is living in their RV and who isn't? We need to kind of have a rule on that, something that that coordinates that. Also I noticed that when we picked the the cities that are about our size. I think that's what somebody Susie Price said that those cities were different than the ones that the first responders were were had chosen for their examples. So I'm hoping that we're not cherry picking. I don't know if that's true or not. I know Eric. He's a good guy. He's not going to do that. But we should have a standard. If we're going to pick on, we're we're going to choose cities of the same size. Let's be standard and pick the let's be standard and pick the same cities instead of play that game. You know, the gate thing as far as as far as what Stacy Mungo has said, if you want to go that route, that's fine. But let's make sure that we give those guys a waiver who are in that area, you know, before implementation, till all that stuff goes that are in those areas. Um, also visit Vitter visitors that come in. I know people don't want to have all this stuff in vacation, but if somebody comes from another area and they just need a couple of days in that realm, in some area, whatever they are supposed to park it, I think we need to probably have a sign where they need to know. I mean, we're going to have the sign saying, you know, you can't park 72 hours, get a permit, but maybe even like an email or an address for them to go to get the permits to make it easier for someone who is who is trying to get a permit and trying to do things a legal way. So, I mean, I'm not going to say one way or another which way you should go, but these are just thoughts that I have. All right. But the next speaker, please. Hey. Good evening. I'm going to have the counter speakers. Listen, these are our last two speakers. Looks like a case of the gentleman in the church. The last one. Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for hearing my comment, Chris. Jake was from fifth district. I'm concerned about. So the gentleman in the red shirt was the last speaker before I cut off the speaker's list. The want to speak on this topic, sir? Okay. So you'll be the last speaker. That's the last speaker. Okay, then. Anyway, so I was concerned about separating the gate issue and I think there might be a timing. Issue that could come up. So is it that we'll see the gate issue reintroduced into this bill, you know, say a week from today or whatever, so that we could see that that would be part of it. Also, does the permit process allow you to take out multiple permits at the same time so that you can depart and arrive? And another concern would be for guests guest permits. Something that would allow them to, I guess, stay maybe move out of the way of the street sweeper and then come back. Right. It may not be practical if you have out-of-town guests and they have to leave for a day and then come back to another permit or something. Given the fact that they you can you can actually get a permit. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All those issues will be. We'll look at those. Okay. Next speaker. I repeat, with black votes matter. And one thing I was trying to find out, because I didn't really know what this agenda was all about. And I was listening as Rahm was speaking. And I remember another time Ramos speaking just like that. And you were joking, shucking and jiving, laughing. And he he got angry and he blasted you. And then he walked out angry. Now it was you work for we the people. You make money and you're the boss here and everything. But you work for us. So why don't you stop doing that? Every time he looked at you, you did. And then he has to look over Mr. Richardson, Mr. Austin, whoever, because you are joking. Now, this is only Republican, but you got to get your votes. Republicans, stop voting with these suckers. Now, listen, you got to be more respectful. Yeah, I think I thank you today for paying attention. They were respectful. Stop that. And what are you still doing here, Miss Karl Marx? I thought you was leaving. I'm done. Next speaker. My name is Sarah erm from Park Estates. Thank you, Susie, for doing this. We've been dealing with this issue for years. I've been there for five years and we've been struggling with the RV issues. It's temporary parking, temporary living. And we have it's an incessant problem. And I want to thank you very much for taking taking the bold steps to get this taken care of. Appreciate that. Just a couple of questions for the people that are visiting. How are they going to print. The the parking passes if they don't have a printer in their RV with them? There's got to be some way for them to print it. And the second would be, as I used to live in the neighborhood, that young or the young lady behind me over in the unincorporated Longreach area we have over there, we had issues or people that had limousine services, so they would drive their limos, their limos are their work and so they're parking their limos and they're definitely longer than 22 feet. And so how are those going to be addressed? Has there been any thought as to the impact that that's going to be on their livelihoods? Just just a question. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. In the last speaker, please. My name is Mark Levin. I live on Flint in the third district and I 100% support this as an RV owner. I keep my RV in storage. I'm responsible. I just want to I appreciate you bring it up to the two questions regarding the permitting process. I just want to would like some clarification that if you need an extra permit that it's seamless and not you don't have to jump through hoops. It's relatively easy to get like the first one. And then the second is the tow permit limit that would limit you to ten uses of your RV per year. It seems a little like some people use their RV several times a month. Some people use their RV for for sports, for their you know, for their kids. I just think ten uses is it might be a little light. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. I'm going to go back to Councilman Price, and I just want to add a short comment. Let me just first say to particularly Councilman Price and concern monger who have both worked on this, very supportive of this. And I just want to also just note and staff and I were discussing this when this issue came before the council, when I was on the council maybe five years ago or so, it was incredibly contentious and unorganized and unproductive process that ended up not going anywhere. And I think that getting to a point where I think the community has been heard and there's been comments and there's been a lot of work done by Councilman Price and Councilman Mongo. I know Councilmember and has been involved on this issue as well, I think is a testament to the hard work that's gone into getting here . It just didn't overnight happen. I think there's been a lot of conversations and a lot of community input on this process, and so I'm very thankful that this process has gone the way it has because the last time was one of the worst possible processes that I've seen since I was on the Council. And Mr. Russell knows exactly what I'm talking about because he was here, too. And it was it was terrible. So so thank you to everyone that's contributed to this. I want to just add, Mr. West, when we're working on the interface for the permits, I think I think you heard a lot tonight about ensuring that it's an interface that is easy to use and is not complex and is hopefully something that for residents that can easily, you know, do go through that permitting process online in a way that it's easy for them to do. So that would be great. Councilman Price. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. And a lot of my colleagues have of share the responsibility of how the item has come before us now, and their partnership has been really, really vital to the process. So it's really just definitely was a team effort. I will say that in regards to RV storage availability point, very well taken. My chief of staff, Jack Cunningham, did have an opportunity to make some calls today. So we know that there is RV availability in very short distance from the city of Long Beach, and Carson has lots of availability right now. So we called and confirmed it today, $130 a month. So if you need help with that or if you're a third district resident and you're concerned about that and that's causing you stress, please contact our office. We will help you do what we can to identify various RV sites. And the original item that I authored and brought in October had a list of storage facilities that you could also call. And at the time, several of those had vacancies as. Well, so we can send you that item or we can help put you in touch with an RV storage yard. So thank you to the residents who came out, and thank you for sharing with us the concerns you have in your community. And I'm glad that we were able to move something forward that addresses your concerns. Councilman Mongo. Yes. I also appreciate, Summer, that you came down for this today. I spoke to Marlene on Saturday, and I do my best within the legal authority to within what Charlie will allow us to share, update her as I can. And I know that you're running the organization right now, and I hope that we can have a better relationship. I know we have some distance in terms of mileage, but perhaps that we can can be on the same page a little bit more with that, because there are facilities even on Carson Avenue that do have availability and there is no intent to want to close down RV storage facilities. But we do need to explore all of our options and job creation within the boundaries of the city, and that process does have to go through certain steps along the way. So I appreciate your continued partnership. Great to see you and your your entire group here today to support and be here to voice your opinion. It's really valuable. And we appreciate you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion and a second and then Mr. City attorney will get to work on this. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. All that came for the item. We're going to be moving on just now. We're going to be doing a public comment. And then I'm going to take the two items on the farmers market and the urban ag item.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 - 2545 East Asbury Avenue in University Park. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 278 to E-MU-2.5 (planned development to multi-unit), located at 2535-2545 East Asbury Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-20.

DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0711

One public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you were promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you will be available for questions of counsel . Speakers will have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. You'll see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. We have a public hearing on Bill 711. It's a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 through 2545 East Ashbury Avenue in University Park. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 711 on the floor for passage, please? Certainly, Madam President, I move that council bill 2711 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash zero 711 is open. May we please have the staff report? Good evening. Council President Gilmore, members of Council Jason Morrison with Community Planning and Development. The rezoning in front of you this evening is 25, 35, 25, 45 East Asbury Avenue. The request is from Puti to 78, which is an old code PED to EMU two and 2.5, which is urban edge multi-unit district up to two and a half storeys. We are in Council District six. So South Denver. In the University Park neighborhood. And the subject site is on the corner of East Asbury Avenue and South Clayton Street. It consists of one multi-unit apartment building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 dwelling units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet. Maximum height. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to correct a discrepancy between the number of dwelling units permitted by the RD, which is 21 units, and the actual number of units in the development, which is 23 units. The discrepancy was discovered after the property owner purchased the property and requested a zoning letter from the city as part of real estate due diligence. The letter indicated that the existing improvements on the property were not in conformance with the zoning established by P up to 78 and that a rezoning would be needed to correct this noncompliance issue. As I said, the current zoning is a former Chapter 59 students party to 78. The site is adjacent to zoning of Eastside to the north and east and adjacent to UTC to the South and GMU three to the west. Digging a little deeper into Puti to 78 PDT 78 is a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district that allows for one multi-unit building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet maximum height. Within the Pudi maximum building coverage, including garages and accessory structures, can't exceed 24%. Front, rear and side setbacks are specified within the pad, and permitted encroachments into the maximum setbacks must conform to those allowed in the former chuck 59 hour three zone district. And that's a multi-unit dwelling, high density zoned district. The site is currently occupied by multi-unit residential. Surrounding uses include multi-unit residential, two unit residential and single unit residential. And here's a bird's eye view of the subject property. And we're looking north in this image. You can see East Asbury Avenue to the bottom of the property and South Clayton Street, just to the right of the property. And these five images are some of the multi-unit two unit and single unit residential adjacent and nearby the subject site. The maximum application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board in July and before by committee back in August. Since the staff report was published, we received one letter and support from the University Park Community Council. Two letters of support from area residents and two letters in opposition from residents concerned about limited parking. Falling home values and increased density. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request, and I'll start with consistency with adopted plans. In addition to comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, there is one neighborhood plan and that is the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007. But first of all, look at comp plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Specifically, the request is consistent with strategies under the equity vision element because it will enable development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. It will also create a greater mix of housing options in the University Park neighborhood. The request is also consistent with strategies under the environmentally resilient vision element for several reasons. The site is an infill location where infrastructure is already in place, and furthermore, the proposal focuses growth near existing bus routes, servicing high capacity transit along University Boulevard , Evans Avenue to the South and Interstate 25 to the north. When looking at blueprint Denver context, the requested rezoning as showed on the context map is urban edge. The requested EMU 2.5 zone district is consistent with the future context that is mapped in this area. When looking at future place within Blueprint Denver The future place of this area is low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses on small or medium lots. Buildings are generally up to two and a half storeys in height. The residential emphasis and the 2 to 2 and a half storey height maximums of the proposed EMU 2.5 zone district are consistent with this plan direction. However, the EMU 2.5 Zone District is a multi-unit district with a variety of residential building forms, including single two unit and low scale multi-unit residential. Blueprint Denver acknowledges that since the future place map in the city is a citywide map, the boundaries of the map should be interpreted with limited flexibility, especially at the edges, if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver as depicted in the map in front of you. The residential alley serving South Clayton Street and South Combined Street acts as the dividing edge between the low residential and low medium residential classification. This rezoning request also furthers many of the goals and blueprint Denver via the following policies encouraging high density development and transit rich areas. Rezoning properties from former Chapter 59 zoning. Diversifying housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle housing into low residential areas and incentivizing the preservation of structures that contribute to the already established character of an area. Furthermore, the creation of the excuse me furthermore the creation of 8278 in the 1990s and able to small scale multi-unit use at this location and a transition to the EMU 2.5 zone district will not disrupt the existing character along East Asbury Avenue. Therefore, the request to EMU 2.5 is consistent with the overall intent of the future. Places MAP and staff finds that the EMU 2.5 zone district is the closest district available that balances plan direction and the existing condition. And finally, within Blueprint Denver, I'm looking at the growth strategy. The request is also consistent with Blueprint's growth strategy, which maps this area as all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. And finally, looking at the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007, general recommendations from the plan include creating a community that accommodates a wide variety of uses. This is done by respecting the urban design and the architectural character of established and preferred residential forms and providing a diverse mix of housing types near transit amenities. The subject site is located in a single family residential neighborhood sub area, which is characterized as having predominantly single family homes and occasional duplexes interspersed. Buildings of one or two stories and height characterize the prevailing degree of development, and any higher intensity buildings should help form a transition between the prevailing neighborhood pattern and an activity center. Staff finds that the request is consistent with both the general and suburb recommendations because the previously established small scale multi-unit use will continue to provide an important transition between the varying neighborhood pattern of single and two unit uses to the east and south, and a higher density activity center about 3 to 5 stories along University Boulevard and University of Denver to the West. The proposed EMU 2.5 zone district is an appropriate zoned district on the edge of this sub area and will encourage any development that results from this rezoning to be consistent with the sub area's urban design and land use recommendations by reinforcing residential character and maintaining the established scale of the primary building forms. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building for use and design regulations. It will also further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans, as well as providing additional housing units that are compatible with the University Park neighborhood and the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010 and the retention of a former Chapter 59 zone district. On the subject, property, including custom zoning, is an appropriate justifying circumstance for this proposed rezoning. The requested EMEA 2.5 zone district is consistent with the neighborhood context description, zone district, purpose and intent and staff. Fine's staff recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. Thank you, Jason, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 711 and we have one individual signed up to speak tonight. And we'll go ahead and maybe have you stop sharing your screen for us, Jason, and we'll thank you. And we'll bring up Jesse Paris. You're on mute, Jesse. Good evening, members of Council. My name is just a microphone and we're almost out loud. Last night I was about to commemorate the party of Colorado and Mile High Note and I will be your next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of the three zoning out. So anytime that the council passing rezoning pertaining to housing I'm in favor of I just kind of question, you know what what's going to be the ammo level for. Sorry. And also, was there a traffic study done? Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Cashman. Oh, yeah. And you saw. I'm showing that you're unmuted, but we're still not. People to hear you. Not yet. Okay. Well, we might need to get Councilman Cashman to come back into the queue here and seen Councilman Flynn. We'll go ahead and go to your questions. Thank you, Madam President. While we're waiting for Councilman Cashman's audio, Jason, can you explain? One of the letters of opposition said that the current PD allows 21 units, but there are already 23 on the site, so it's in violation of the existing zoning. Can you explain that? Is that is that the case? Yes. I appreciate the question, Councilman Flynn. That is correct. So kudos to 78. Allows for up to 21 total units. And as I mentioned in the staff report and during the presentation, there was a discrepancy that was discovered after the property was purchased, that the property has been operating as 23 total units since about the mid to late 1990s. Right. But do we know how that happened? How. You know. I'm trying to get it. Right. Yeah. And so, unfortunately, I don't know that example. I don't know the answer to that question. I did a search in our system and I could not find an issue with with the permitting. It just, you know, something something occurred in the in the 1990s and it's been operating as 24 units ever since. Thank you. And, you know, under this new zone class, would how many units could be developed there? You know, and a lot of it depends on how they're configuring and what the square footage is. But what's your idea of that? Yeah, so I don't know the answer for sure. As you alluded to, it certainly depends on on a new construction. It is my understanding currently that the property owner has no intention to actually develop the site. It's simply to bring it into conformance. But if I had to venture a guess and in talking to my colleagues with Host, we had thought that it'd be about the same number of units. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I am. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman, good to see you back, sir. Well, I hope you can hear me this time. We can? Well, how about that? The miracle of turning things on and off. You know, I'm in. Councilman Flynn literally took my questions right down the list, wanting to see what future. And while it I understand that it's to come into compliance wanted to be clear on on the future entitlement for that parcel it's only a third of an acre but still wanted to get that straight. So my questions have been answered, ma'am. Approaching. All right. Thank you, councilman. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash zero 711 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I believe this clearly meets the criteria we're called to to judge this application. I'm I'm confident that the it doesn't present any kind of dramatic increase in entitlement that would cause me to question. So I'll look forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you, sir. And looking at the presentation as well, it meets all the criteria. And so thank you, Jason, for joining us. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Ashman. I can eat. She was trying to get a muted I. Very go yes. Is not clicking thank you. I Ortega I. Sandoval, I swear. I, Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Park I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. Council Bill 7-Eleven has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill seven and 16 on the floor for passage?

Presentation by Dr. Joi Lin Blake, College of Alameda President, on the College of Alameda Promise.

AlamedaCC_04192016_2016-2804

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to preserve this evening on the College of Alameda a promise. So I want to thank the Mayor Spencer and the City Council for providing me with 5 minutes to give our pitch and promote our program. I've provided a packet for each one of you that outlines a description of the Promise Initiative, the National Promise Initiative. And President Obama has a college for all campaign where he guarantee he wants to guarantee that all graduating seniors have two years of free college upon their completion of high school. And so that College of Alameda promise is borne out of that initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to ensure that we have a better educated America. And so the College of Alameda wants to be a part of that process and that movement. In your packet, you have the promise, the national promise campaign initiatives that are going on in the state of California, and then an outline and background and scope of the College of Alameda Promise program. To date we have at the College of Alameda promise our framework is going to be that all graduating seniors from Alameda High Schools will attend the College of alameda free for their first year. We're going to pilot this fall with Encino High School. We will scale up in at Island next year and then Alameda High School the following year. And then there's charter schools or whatever in Alameda that we'll bring them on board as we go along. Our promise will include not only payment of fees, but it will also include a $300 book grant. And then we have some organizations that are willing to provide each student with a refurbished laptop to bridge that technology divide. One of the. One of our concerns in Alameda, especially on the west side of the college, is when we look at the Alameda Point Collaborative and the transitional housing and the level of poverty in that area, is that one way for those communities to get out of that? Poverty is through education. And so the College of Alameda, we want to be responsive to that and support individuals in Alameda to ensure that they have a higher education. To date, some of our partners are Alameda Unified School District Assemblyman Rob Bond, his office supervisor Roma chan's office. CSU East Bay has guaranteed admissions for students as long as they meet the requirements. I met with the president there. UC Berkeley has a transfer admission pipeline, and so we will work with them to prep to make sure that students are prepared to participate. We're also Pur Force Foundation is providing funding for the initiative tenacity ten Lacrosse, which is one of our new partners at College of Alameda, gave us $500,000 seed money. So we're able to launch and kick off the initiative. Other interested parties are the Jack London soccer group, so they have expressed an interest to partner with us. Mills College wants to do a two plus two plus one where they spend two years at College of Alameda, two years at Mills, and then they will guarantee them admission into their first year of graduate school, which is a really nice opportunity. And then San Jose State is waiting for the new president to get on board and then we will work with them and their team to bring folks on. And so we have a we have right now we're at the beginning the infancy of the partnership, but we have enough to launch and get students started in participating in our program, and we're just really excited about it. When I first started here at the College of Alameda last year, this was kind of one of my visions or dreams for the college. And to show that we are committed to Alameda because folks have told me that we've been an island unto ourselves. And so I want to say I want the community to know that we're committed to them and their students. The students in the program will get intrusive counseling and support services. They will meet with a counselor twice a semester. If they're qualify for financial aid, they will be awarded that as well, and they will have an education plan to make sure they don't take empty units and that they're on track to transfer, get an associate degree or whatever their professional goals are. But we're there to support the students and the citizens of Alameda and their children. And we've prepared a video for your review. And we also have in your packet connecting with community, a brochure about our college and the programs and our student profile. And we're asking you this evening that the city would support the College of Alameda. Promise. Thank you. Thank you. A promise of education in next step to the future for Alameda High School, students starts with College of Alameda and Youth with a host of associate degree and certificate programs. College of Alameda provides high quality instruction in job relevant career training. Right here on the Island College of Alameda is offerings including our career. Technical education programs are unique with many of the programs offered few other places in the Bay Area College of Alameda offers education on a global scale. And to accomplish this, we joined a powerful initiative called the College Promise Campaign. The Promise program was inspired by President Obama's America's College Promise Plan with a vision to make the first two years of higher education free for all students who went to community college. The College of Alameda Promise models this program asserting that students success is greatly improved when financial barriers and the associated stress are removed. The College of Alameda Promise will provide priority registration one year of college without fees and a book stipend to graduates of Alameda High Schools who enroll full time at College of Alameda. The College of Alameda Promise was designed to serve Alameda residents with the most need of the nearly 10,000 students served by the Alameda School District. Many are English language learners, special education or low income. The promise will begin in fall 2016. Serving graduates of internal high in the Alameda Science and Technology Institute, the two schools that serve the highest need students on the island. It will expand to Island High in year two. In Alameda High near three. We anticipate that as many as 667 Alameda High School graduates will attend College of Alameda via the Promise program in the first three years. What kind of results do we expect up to? 20% more students attending college and a 30% increase in retention and graduation rates, specifically among at risk students. More students will transfer to further their educational goals. The promise will also strengthen students access to career pathways, helping prepare them to join the workforce in Alameda and surrounding areas. Funding for the promise is being generously provided by individual, corporate and foundation donors, and we're asking for local and state support as well. How can you help? We ask you to get involved, adopt the promise and support it in every way you can. We invite you to the campus, your campus, and look forward to achieving success together. We promise at College of Alameda. I know my 5 minutes are up, but I wouldn't invite the City Council and Alameda City to participate in our Promise initiative and I look forward to working closely with you. We have a meeting this Friday, the kind of finalize our launch. We're looking at our launch on either May 12th or May 30th, and we'll have the appropriate folks there to help kick it off, all of our partners, etc.. So again, thank you. Are there any questions or anything? Thank you. At this point, I think it's for us to move along because as opposed to be announcements. Okay. So thank you. And regards to us joining the College of Media that will come back to us at a later time. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And I just want to say thank you. And that was it's really inspiring to hear how you're looking at the neediest of our students and and partnering with with the school district in this way. So thank you for continuing to be a valuable resource in our community. Hey, remember days. Out, I'll have you know that back in 1984, when I was a senior in high school at Encino, I did attend classes at College of Alameda with Miss Wise. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to proceed with item three Bee. Proclamation Declaring April 23rd, 2016 as Earth Day in Alameda. And Kathleen Carney of the Library Board will be accepting this and the proclamation. Whereas, April 23rd, 2016 marks the 46th anniversary of the first celebrated Earth Day, a day in which events worldwide are held to demonstrate support for environmental protection.

Message and order for the confirmation of the appointment of Dacia Morales as a member of the Boston Housing Authority Monitoring Committee for a term expiring February 14, 2024.

BostonCC_02162022_2022-0278

for a term expiring February 14, 2024, and docket number 0278. Message In order for the confirmation of the appointment of Garcia morales as a member of the Boston Housing Authority Monitoring Committee for a term expiring February 14, 2024. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel, LRA counsel, LRA. You have the full. Approval of all of the assignments for the. Thanks. Thank you, counsel. Yes, that would that was not console virus mating speech. I should have mentioned that at the beginning. Thank you. Counsel Lara. COUNSEL Lara is seeking suspension in passage of dockets. 027640278. The chair recognizes counsel. Thank you. So. I just wanted to. Great crowd in Boston. And that that has been the structure of our, um, but of our ultimate governing board over the housing authority for many decades now, a thing which other housing authorities around the country and state are only starting to catch up on from a kind of tenant leadership perspective. So just having had the opportunity to work at the VHA with many of the names on the docket today, just wanted to thank them for their tenant leadership. Thank you, counsel. And thank you, counsel. Laura. Uh, Mr. Clarke, um, could we do a roll call vote on a voice vote on docket 027620278. I understand we'll have to do them individually. Yeah, we'll do a voice vote.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents and agreements, and any amendments, to receive and expend grant funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for an amount up to $301,400 for the period of July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, to implement the ‘Outdoor Office’ in Harvey Milk Park and Equality Plaza; Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $40,000, offset by revenue received from the Downtown RDA project area’s 75 percent share of the proceeds from the sale of former RDA property for a transfer to the General Grants Fund (SR 120); and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Manager Department by $341,400. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0559

Next item police. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive an expanded grant funding from the Knight Foundation to implement the outdoor office in Harvey Milk Park in Equality Plaza District one. Councilman, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, that's our staff report. Yes. Our deputy city manager, Arturo Sanchez, will present this report. Great. Thank you. Good evening. Vice Mayor Lowenthal and members of the city council that you have before you is a had a grant that was given to the city in the amount of $301,400 for an 18 month period. The grant is from the John S and James L Knight Foundation, which is based in Miami. Long Beach is one of 26 cities which is eligible to compete in a night city's challenge. The ideas submitted must focus on one or more of the three drivers of city success, talent, retention, economic opportunity and civic engagement. The foundation based in Miami, Florida, has designated 26 night cities challenges challenge cities, of which we are one. As I indicated, the night city's challenge in particular is in its second year of operation and received over 4500 submissions. Of those 158 advanced to finalist. And of those, 37 were selected as winning ideas. Our concept, which was a concept, was was one of the 37 winning submissions. The concept the core idea of our winning submission is to enhance a public space for those who live and work downtown, to engage in a collaborative and creative work in an outdoors and work in an outdoor setting. Building on the ideas of connection, creativity and openness, the concept seeks to activate downtown and bring together people from all backgrounds and walks of life. Amenities such as wi fi, seating, shade, charging stations and programing will be added to the space in order to enhance its usability. Of course, for the city is paramount of paramount importance because of this park and its namesake is that we continue to work on the park to be a memorial for Harvey Milk and it work in conjunction with our LGBTQ community leaders. So realizing that this concept will require close collaboration with our partners from the Harvey Milk Park Committee, as well as the surrounding community. The committee, which takes great care in selecting names of LGBTQ leaders to honor in Harvey Milk Park and holds events at the park will be a key partner in the development of this project as we move forward. It is the first park in the nation named after Harvey Milk, and at this point in time, the only park in the nation that is named after Harvey Milk. And as such, we must we must take great care to maintain that identity and to make sure that anything that we do at the park is folded into that history and that identification that has been created at this park. And so the amenities and the concept that we are pursuing will do so in such a way that it will respect that history. At this point in time, staff recommends that the Council receive and grant authority to the city manager to negotiate the terms of the grant agreement so that we can begin working on this great project. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you. I want to thank your goodwill and our city management staff for being very open through this process. I want to thank as well our Harvey Park Committee for being here and being very patient with us through throughout this night. But also just for the two meetings we've had so far, the open discussions that we've had. I really want to thank you as well as us. Do you want to love and I know Michael is here as well. We really appreciate the synergy that's been happening. I know that this is a beautiful grant that will be added to. Yes. One of the most amazing parks in the whole city, in the nation, and also a space for our LGBTQ community to come together. We just recently had a vigil to host, you know, many of the community members there, but to also recognize the tragedy that occurred at in Orlando. So it's more than just a park. It's really a meeting space for so many community members. But I do ask going forward and I know we've been through this, that any additional grants that would happen in the district, in the city, that hopefully we can get more communication going, that's more streamlined from the city to the council to our community members. But I do have a just an an amendment to add to the recommendation is I certainly want to go ahead with authorizing the city manager to to move forward to expand the grant. But I'd also like to ask that we come back for to include any necessary documents, agreements, including the scope of work for the project to come back July 19th. So that way we're all clear on what the details are of the scope of the project. And so there are no. Uh. You know, mis communications. Everything is just out in the open, and we can certainly understand where the project is headed with this $300,000. Couple of questions that I have is that the 18 months to complete the project, is that, uh, when does that begin? Exactly. My understanding of the 18 month time period would begin once we've executed the contract. As soon as it's executed. So then 18 months from there. Okay. And then the second question I had was in reference to the $40,000 from the redevelopment project area, which is also generated from 75% of the proceeds from the downtown project area. So how do we calculate that 40,000? How did we get that to that number? You might recall that the city council designated when we sold our old redevelopment agency sites through the successor agency properties. We get for every dollar that we sell, we get $0.21 back in the dollar because that would be the waterfall effect that would come to the city of Long Beach. So the city council voted to direct that money to come back to basically 25% of any money that we get. After an escrow from the sale. The successor agency property would be able to be utilized citywide, all 52 square miles. Cities determine where the City Council or Economic Development and property management determines that needs to go. 75% of the money of the 21% would come back into the project area where the where the development is being sold or the properties being sold. So in this case, this would be some of the sales that are being sold in the downtown, the properties, the success or agency properties that have been sold. The 75% of the of that sale price that goes back into the downtown project area is being utilized for that $40,000. Okay. I just wanted to be clear because just to ensure I was getting the figures right and ensuring that the park was getting as much as it could in addition to the grant. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I know our I believe we have some committee members that will come up and speak as well. But I want to thank our city staff again, thank our committee as well as Studio 111 for being very open, as well as Tony Shoshoni, who's the city place owner. I know that there'll be some, some great movement going on and some great marriage between the two ideas. So we look forward to that. Thank you. Councilman Andres. Oh, you were a second. Are you just supporting a fabulous Councilwoman Price? Thank you. I think this is going to be a really great project and I'm looking forward to it. I just I did have a question on page. Three of the staff report. What is the grant match of $100,000? Where does that come from? The grant matches the 40,000 that was just described by the city manager is coming from the waterfall monies that are coming into the district. Oh, I'm sorry. What is the 100,000? Oh, the Bloomberg folks are providing additional moneys to enhance the grant monies. It falls underneath the Bloomberg initiative in the I-Team work that they're doing. So they're providing additional funds to help this project move forward a little more. So is that part of the 3 million grant. Of the 300,000 that we're getting from Knight City's Foundation now? Okay. So I guess I'm. Part of the $2 million that were that they had set aside for their I-Team work. It's part of that subcomponent. Oh, okay. Okay. I see. Okay, great. Do we have a list of other projects that we're working with Innovation Team on citywide in terms of grant allocations from the 2 million? Or it was actually 3 million because we put a million of general fund dollars. Correct. So do we have a list of the projects? I do not have that available, but if we need to, we can provide tff if if possible. That would be wonderful. Think I'm just curious what other projects were funding with that grant. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. My remarks will be quick. I just want to congratulate Councilmember Gonzalez, all the community innovation team. 3111 Everyone has been a part of this project. But what I want to note is, you know, what city manager just mentioned the fact that this is a second cycle of RDA dollars coming back. The money is being looped around. This is important that those dollars that have been invested from that community, the proceeds that are generated from that are being reinvested in that community to do amazing work. And the fact that we were able to leverage that to do something fantastic. I just think that that's tremendously important. And I want to congratulate city staff on following up on this and making sure that this is recognized here, the 75% of all proceeds from former RDA sales. So congratulations, council members and to the community. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez. I just wanted to recognize Porter as well, because I see him in the audience. And I want to thank you as well for all of your work at Harvey Milk, too. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on Item 13? Good evening, Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council, City Staff. My name is Roland, Norway. I'm the chair of the Harvey Milk Park Committee and the Equality Plaza Selection Committee as well. I'm joined by other committee members, Ernie. Deborah, Vanessa and Ron. We're all here in support of this agenda item and the substitute motion. First, we want to thank the city for their continued support that you've given to the LGBT community. We have been very fortunate to work with Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez, Arturo Sanchez and the city. The committee's hope is that this council will continue to work with us and the greater LGBT community supporting this motion again and substitute motion as it has in the past. In the continued spirit also of honoring Harvey Milk and our local LGBT heroes. So thank you very much again. I know. Invite another committee member if he or she would like to speak. If not. Thank you for your attention and your time. Thank you. Vanessa Romain. I just wanted to say thank you to Lina and to Arturo. They've done a tremendous job in bringing the committee together. Tremendous job. And making sure that we are heard. Not only of our excitement. Our frustrations, our anger and all of that involved. So, again, it was a trying time, but I believe that the two of them pulling us together and saying we want to hear what you have to say has. Been the only thing that I can believe that has helped us come together on this Harvey Milk project. So thank you, Arturo, and thank you to Lina. Great. So anyone else? I think we have a couple of others. My name is Ernie Vila. I'm also a member of the First District. I've been around a long time and I've seen. A real involvement in our and our council about what is important to your constituents. At one time, my being a student here, I had no idea what was working or how it worked or anything. But since since then, I've really developed a very strong attachment and belief that we work as a unit. And even though we may have our differences, we also have the ability to compromise and to look forward any movement that's necessary for the development of our beautiful city. Harvey Milk Park is a gift not only to our our our community, but it's also to the gift to our state and to our beautiful country, a beautiful city. And with this new project, we're going to work very diligently to make sure that what is being asked of us through the grant has also been with the favor and the diligence of the gay and lesbian community to make sure that Harvey Milk is honored, as we have done in the past. So thank you so much for allowing us to move forward with this project. Hi, Ron Sylvester. Just want to say thank you to the city for allowing us the opportunity to make a better and more dynamic Harvey Milk Park as well, and to create a space that will house. And welcome our LGBT members. And all members of the community. And again, thank you to Lena and to Arturo for all their hard work. And of course, we can't forget Mayor Garcia, who was the one who envisioned this through the first place. So thank you all. Hi. I'm Deborah. Thank you, Lina. Thank you. Council members and total. Thank you for hearing our voices, too. This is a great opportunity. I. I live in the second district on the promenade. So this is we are excited and president. And I know that the residents are excited. As a member of the Harvey Milk Committee, this is a great opportunity to bring all communities together, especially in this time that we need to have this. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Michael. Good evening, Vice Mayor and fellow council members. My name is Michael Bond. I'm senior principal with Studio 111 and a partner with our partner firm, Berkowitz and Roth Architects. I wanted to also think Arturo and Lena for their support on this. They've done a great job in taking a lot of complicated issues and working them together and having their support. That's really important. As some of you know, both of our firms are actually moving one building away from this site. And we will bring about 130 new folks to this area. And everyone within our company is very excited about this grant. We're very excited to help use this park and support the park. And what was interesting is I talked to a lot of our younger staff about Harvey Milk, and I'd say 75 to 80% of them had never heard of them. So I think this park will be a great opportunity for our folks to learn more about him and his mission. And I also wanted to add that we're all very excited about the Knight Foundation grant and using this grant to not only further activate the park, but enhance the message of Harvey Milk and all of us at our firms. Hope that you will support staff recommendation tonight and move this grant forward. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Next speaker, please. Dennis. Dennis done well, as usual. There's been generalizations and specific civic ideas of how the park should be developed. Except one use books and it doesn't work out. They had a used bookstore. At the pike. $1 for, well, no matter what condition it was in $1 for any book, no matter how big or how small it was and went out of business. Bookstores. The bookstore in Belmont. Your small one is on the verge of going out of business and have plaintive signs in the window saying Support us work. Small businesses accounts. Bookstores do not generate revenue and bookstores have not been very successful. I would like to suggest a few ideas that I think might be successful that had been broached upon, and that I daresay won't be used because they're so radical. However, I would suggest that they have a petting zoo for youngsters there. I would also suggest that they have a waterfall and lake. That has been done with much success. One of the parts I didn't share part, but I'm not sure. But they have a wonderful waterfall, a little river and and a lake. And maybe you know the name of the park. I can't recall it. I just recall it being outstanding as far as one of my dates were concerned. And I loved it, dude. Just gorgeous. I would also suggest because aerospace so dynamic we have. Yeah, the aerospace facility in Long Beach generated so many jobs and had been so innovative. The Douglas Aerospace facility and manufacture of airplanes that they have a jet airplane mounted in the center of the park to a jet airplane being decorative and being an inspiration for youngsters. In the future, this would be at little cost because there are many used airplanes available. The military is trying to get rid of it, get it practically at cost. We're not talking about $1,000,000 or anything like that. We're talking about at cost, even lower than $1,000,000, I suspect. But know those are the suggestions. I have specifics, not just generalities, not just a park of green grass, which we have all all over the place, but something that would really enchant tourists and suggest that Long Beach is really on the go and an adventuresome city that they can have some fun and. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Vice mayor. Council members. Thank you. My name is Cameron Andrews and I'm here tonight on behalf. Of City Place. We support Harvey Milk Park and the Knight Foundation Grant. Harvey Milk Park in Equality Plaza is a dream important to the downtown core city. Places adjacent to Harvey Milk Park and the Knight Foundation grant will provide opportunities to further promote the life history of Harvey Milk and the LGBTQ movement in the community, as well as. Increase activation in the park and the surrounding areas. We look forward to working with the city. And the community on this project and thank you very much for all your hard work. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Let's take item 15. Did you want 15 or 38 to 15?

Recommendation to adopt resolutions authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit two grant applications to the California Youth Soccer and Recreation Development Grant Program, offered by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services, for the Seaside Park Artificial Turf Sports Field Conversion Project (Seaside Park Project), and Phase 2 of the Ed “Pops” Davenport Park Sports Field and Recreation Project (Davenport Park Project); accept, if awarded, California Youth Soccer and Recreation Development Grant Program grant funds for up to $600,000 for the Seaside Park Project, and up to $1,000,000 for the Davenport Park Project; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the projects. (Districts 1,8)

LongBeachCC_01172017_17-0028

Motion carries. Thank you. We will have item number 13, please. Item 13 is a report from Parks Recreation, a marine and public works recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to submit to grant application to the California Youth Soccer and Recreation Development Grant Program for the Seaside Park Project and Phase two of the Davenport Park Project, District one and eight. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Can we hear a staff report, please? Hi, Marie. Sure can. Marie Knight, our director of Parks, Recreation, Marine, will deliver a staff report. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the Council. The item before you tonight is to adopt resolutions authorizing staff to submit to grant applications to the California Youth Soccer and Recreation Development Grant Program, the California Youth Soccer and Recreation Event Development Grant Program, funded by the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 provides funds to acquire and develop neighborhood, community and regional parks and recreational areas for land, air and water conservation programs. The departments of Parks, Recreation, Marine and Public Works are requesting authorization to submit a grant application for $600,000 in grant funds to be used for Seaside Park Project and a grant application for $1 million in grant funds to be used for phase two of the Davenport Park Project. The Seaside and Davenport Park projects were identified as being the most competitive projects at this point for this grant funding source. Both of these projects meet the grant criteria of creating new opportunities for youth sports in underserved areas. They are both shovel ready. And have matching funds for non. Construction costs and include. A water conservation. Measure as part of the project. The Seaside Park Project. Well, convert. 0.4 acres of existing unsafe dirt sports fields. Into an artificial. Turf sports field. While the city council approved. Funding in the fiscal 2014 year and fiscal year, 15 adopted budgets is. Anticipated to be sufficient. The additional grant funding will supplement the Seaside Park project. Phase two of. The Davenport Park. Project. Includes a multi-use. Sports field perimeter walking path with exercise equipment. A shaded. Outdoor assembly area, space for necessary parking. And a new alignment and park entry off. Of 55th way. These two projects are in response to increased demand for soccer, football, baseball and softball programing in our community. And we're here to answer any questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you for the staff report, Marie. I have. A couple of questions and. I'm glad we are going. After as many grants as possible, especially in these two areas. So thank you for your work on that. Very quickly, I wanted to ask the supplement. This will supplement what has. Already been. Allocated. In what way will it supplement this scope of work? So we've had in the. 2014 fiscal year. There were a total of three soccer related projects that were. Partially funded. And so. As we look to build the first two, which. Are Seaside. And Admiral. Kidd, those will actually be coming to the council in a several weeks for award of that. Those projects. We looked at. Being more competitive with these grant funds. And so the funding. That is currently available, we utilize that as. Matching funds to supplement what the request was. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. And then the scope of work is just for the artificial turf. I know at some point we had. Talked about adding lighting. It's not for any of that. Would it just be the turf? Is that. Correct? Correct. The two grants themselves are for the fields, the athletic fields. They're not for anything. Else to do with either the two projects. Fields. Perfect. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. And I wholeheartedly support this this motion. I want to congratulate and thank Parks, Recreation and Marine for their efforts in identifying this grant. And Prop 40 has been very, very generous, particularly to urban areas throughout the state. I can recall working on that several years ago, phase two of Davenport Park. We're very excited about the possibilities there. I want to commend our city staff for their efforts to get us in a position that we are now shovel ready to to fulfill a promise that has been made for several years to the residents in a district in North Long Beach to complete phase two of Davenport Park. And so $1,000,000 will take us a long way, I think looking at Craig Beck, that will get us a park develop there. And we are now shovel ready, very close to getting there. And so this is very, very encouraging. So you have my full support and if I need to write a letter of recommendation or support, I'll be happy to do so as well. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just add a comment that, you know, congratulations to both the council members on even embarking on this and to staff because both of these are in some of the most open space, disparate areas of town, and it's going to go a long way. Should these grants be awarded so best? Best of luck to both the council members and to the community. Is there any public comment on this item? Hmm. My name is Latoya Marcia. I come in as a concerned parent. I see a lot of funding going into these parks and recreation, all the grants to, you know, for the youth and none of the money gets spent the way that it's supposed to be spent. Yeah. I want $1,000,000 to do turf for a part. But you know, the. Community. The taxpayers, we all. Say, yeah, we want this. Because our kids are at these parks. But then when we go to these parks, we don't see new turf. We don't see new skyline. We don't see many of the things that the grants are supposed to be used for. I you know, I resided by Martin Luther King Park, and it was funding as opposed to went towards the Martin Luther King Day Parade all the way down to carnivals for the kids. And when Martin Luther Day Parade came, they didn't have anything at all for the youth or for the kids. So how is it that you guys, you know, make these suggestions every then you don't really even check in and see if these findings are going towards the place that they should be going. It seems like whoever is in his district. Is using the money or the finding for their own advantages, and it does not go to the community. So if we say, Oh yeah, go ahead and give these guys $1,000,000. What happens when the funding is not being placed in the parks, in the community like it's supposed to be done? Because you guys do not seem like you are being accountable for anything that I do. Regardless if you are covering the grants or not, it still should fall in your hands because you are supposed to be the ones that oversee the things and you do nothing about it. You are overlooking. They are just going on to the next agenda. If you are for the people, start being for the people, not for the money. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I'd like I'd like to reintroduce Ms.. Marshall to you. She is a former Wilson High student, graduate of the Honor Roll two times honor roll student at Wilson High School. Before the tragedy struck, when she her mother passed and at a series of tragic events can happen. And you look up and you wonder if you can even remember your last name. So before we dismiss her, she is a Wilson High former student who is now speaking as a homeless citizen, still a part of Long Beach. And I agree. I didn't know what she was going to say, but I agree. If you can find money for the youth. The youth will one day be 30 years old and statistically speaking. A percentage of your youth will be homeless. How can you not have done more? To make sure that the city has an ongoing 24 hour a day, seven day a week, 2365 day a year homeless intervention program. How can you not have that when the money has been given since 2007 forwarding to 2000 to 2017? But the money, I understand it's coming from another grant program, but that same money that's coming from another place is similar to the money that you have received for the homeless for years. The Long Beach Rescue mission is no longer doing the services for the homeless that it used to do. Now you are without a standing hallmark that used to work for the homeless you have before you are proposing now. What is it about that proposal that does not allow you to see that we can implement this? Because the youth, some of the same youth that would be kicking the soccer balls are going to be homeless. These same youth are going to be homeless now. Some of them are wandering around that very park. Now unwelcomed. Several of the homeless people had children whose children were taken from them at MLK Park, at Lincoln Park. Taken from them and put into foster care. Because their parents had no homeless housing. So you took the children and left the parents on the street. I'm what I'm trying to do is just to get us to connect the dots. We have got to begin to connect the dots. And you may say this doesn't it's irrelevant. What you're saying is really relevant. Just connect the dots. Thank you, Councilman Austin. My name is running. I'm okay. Go for it. Thank you. It's fine. Continue. Proceed, please. My name is Roman. I'm from District five, and I'd like to compliment Councilwoman Staci Mongo for her efforts in this area. Are you happy we're speaking to the grant application? I understand, but for El Dorado. Okay. With respect to the grant, the. With respect to the grant, there are three artifacts that I would like to address. One is the request for status that Councilwoman Mongeau issued on about a year ago and a staff report that was done by the Park and Recreation and approved audit report that was done a short time ago, not too long ago. One of the problems that we were having this this this issues of grants and everything has a lot of history behind it. Three city officials have been fired from their jobs because of this. And some of the information that residents have received has been incorrect, actually deliberately manufactured. And the city, the residents have known it for a long time. They brought it up to the city. We have a lot of mistrust, at least the residents have. And one of the purposes that, um, that the residents were trying to get when Stacy, when Councilwoman Mongo issued the request for status, was transparency. We're trying to get that. But one of the problems that we're seeing is we keep seeing the end around and people trying to go directly to adding more parks and getting more money . I have I really love the way that Maria is doing her work. Know what I trust more with the parks? Right now, I'm just nobody. And so all I'm trying to say is that one of the main things that that I'm concerned about is the funding that is necessary for for District five parks. We are about, what, $8 million under sustainability already? Right now, we can't even water our parks. And so I'm hoping that that whatever you end up doing here with with the city money, that's going to be I guess matching doesn't come out of the District five funds. Okay. If it doesn't, then I'm cool. You know, I'm actually like to have grass if I can. And I'm I'm working with the sir. We're talking about a grant application. I understand. District one in district eight. I understand. I prefer grass. Thank you. Okay. I prefer grass. I work with the. The soccer leagues, and they prefer grass as well. So you should know your audience as well, although you're trying to do these type of things. Understand that the players also prefer grass as well. We know where the statistics come from. 34%. Because I'm in touch with all of the the people. Thank you for we'd like to work more closely with the parks. Thank you for your time, Councilman Austin. Thank you. Is there any other speakers here on this item? Okay. Final speaker. Thank you. Okay. Karen reside. I reside in district one. And I also want to specify that I've been a volunteer for Partners of Parks for almost six years now, and I'm a part time staff person the last six months. I just want to. As I see. How hard the Parks and Rec staff and what a fabulous job Mary Knight has done to really move forward initiatives that the community wants in terms of park expansion. I came before the city council about four years ago and talked about grants and how the city didn't apply for nearly enough grants that they were qualified for. And I'll tell you, Department of Health and Parks and Recreation has really gone and put forth a tremendous effort to go after more grants, and we're beginning to see the fruits of that. When department applies for grants, that grant has to be specifically laid out how it is going to be spent. There's very little deviation from that process. There are also audits over in on any grants that are over a specific size. And I have not seen any ill conceived behavior from any city employee, and I've done. Work with several city departments. So I trust implicitly the city staff to handle and manage these grants really well. And I commend all the city departments and how they handle their grants. They do an excellent job. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes. Oftentimes we sit quietly and we allow public comment, but I don't I think we need to address the misinformation out there from time to time as well. And I want to commend the last speaker, because I want to, first of all, say that our Parks and Recreation Department is is recognized nationally as one of the best in the nation. I think some of the comments were, we're misinformed about how park dollars are being spent for projects. There is accountability, as was stated, built in from the granting agencies. Oftentimes our public agencies, the state of California and the various departments or agencies within the state. Our city auditor audits our Parks and Recreation Department. Public information is there. You can research it on a comprehensive annual financial report to see how dollars are actually being spent. You pay attention to our budgeting process because we budget dollars that go specifically toward park projects and programs. And then I would invite you and encourage you to attend your parks, recreation and Marine Commission meetings, because the commissioners are working on parks issues all the time. Ask for phase two of Davenport Park. I can't speak about every project and every park in the city, but I know we have great professional staff that keeps each and every one of these council members very well informed and up to speed. And we're briefed sometimes monthly or twice, more than twice monthly on current projects that are going on. And I have quite a few going on in my district at this time. I know we have allocated or secured about $1.6 million prior to even discussing this grant for Davenport Park Phase two. And that money has been allocated toward planning and development and some environmental cleanup and also for accountability. Ms. Knight, can you explain how the money to be spent thus far specifically, or do I need to call public works down here for that? I'm going to ask my colleague. Craig Burke, who took. The lead on. That for the Phase. One project to explain that. Phase to. Two. Good evening. Council Member Austin and City Council. Specifically to your question this the city's been working to do a landfill closure at Davenport. So there's a couple of components to the Davenport, the overall Davenport effort. First, I guess we could call it phase one, which was a project completed by the redevelopment agency some years ago in advance of prepping the site for phase two, which is the subject of discussion tonight and is exactly what the proposed grant funds would be used for. The city has gone through a landfill closure process with the state. We are in the final stages of getting that certified, getting that closure certified and completed and once, once done will be, as you indicated earlier, shovel ready for the development of the park project to provide more space for the community in that area. Thank you. And have we all or spent the money, as was intended to spend the grant money that we received thus far? As with all our grants, as you mentioned, there is a lengthy financial process that we go through. And the short answer is yes, we have spent the money as indicated in the budget and and for the purpose identified. Thank you staff for that that clarification. And I just again wanted to clarify that misinformation out there. Thank you. Thank you. And seeing no further public comment, members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in General Fund (GF) in the City Prosecutor Department (CP) by $18,000, offset by the projected Third Council District FY 17 office budget surplus to support the funding of a Neighborhood Impact Prosecutor for a one-year period of time.

LongBeachCC_12052017_17-1095

Councilman Austin motion carries. Item 32. Communication from Councilwoman Price recommendation to increase appropriations in general fund and the City Prosecutor Department by 18,000 to support the funding of a neighborhood impact prosecutor for a one year period. Councilman Price. I asked my colleagues to support me on this item. Any public comment on this? It's going to hit. Let me begin by saying. The a large part of what I've got to express. I've already communicated to the good council person ahead of time. I've got a great deal of respect for her. I think she rises to the level. Of the two individuals that were on Meet the Press. This past Sunday. I don't know if you watch that, but if you haven't. Senator Collins. Senator Feinstein, that's that's my standard of what I expect out of public officials. As I expressed earlier. The concept in chief that she wants to put in place is excellent. The problem is the problem is and it will become a problem for her in her other job. As I see this. Is here is the city prosecutor and I in the emails I sent her, I said a couple of weeks ago , I think it was about three weeks ago, that she should give him a very wide, wide berth. And that was before I knew the full details of another issue that the California Bar Association is now looking into, as will probably the U.S. attorney. It just unfolded, I think, in the last couple of weeks. And I can see. What? Now you face her in discharging your responsibilities down in Orange County when she's trying to prosecute someone. And that the defense attorney in that case. Or bring up. And refer to collusion or. A fellow traveler that she has. Whose conduct will probably result in his. If not suspension. If not suspension. Quite possibly removal from the bar. For what has unfolded. I'll send you an email on the details of that in the next couple of days. But. Hold off on that this. And in the meantime, distancing yourself as far as you can from our prosecutor. Thank you. Thank you. Those in the public comment, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to item 34. I'm sorry I I'm 33.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend $25,000 in grant funding from the Knight Foundation Fund via the Long Beach Community Foundation to prepare a comprehensive update to the City of Long Beach's existing Bicycle Master Plan (BMP); Authorize City Manager to execute an Amendment to Contract No. 33842 with Alta Planning & Design, of Los Angeles, CA, for the BMP update, in an amount of $200,000, for a total amount not to exceed $500,000; and Increase appropriations in the Development Services Fund (EF 337) in the Development Services Department (DV) by $200,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02232016_16-0178

And with that, we can move to the next item. Madam Clerk. Report from Development Services and Public Works recommendation to receive and expend $25,000 dollars in grant funding from the Knight Foundation Fund to prepare a comprehensive update to the existing Bicycle Master Plan and execute an amendment to contract with ALTA Planning and design for the Bicycle Master Plan update for a total amount not to exceed $500,000 citywide. Mr. City Manager. And we have a small attic. Yes, this is all part of our city livability initiatives. The bicycle masterplan is part of our circulation element with the general plan. I'm going to turn this over to Development Services Staff. Lisa Fallon. Linda Tatum. Thank you. Mr. West. Mayor and City Council. The item before you is to accept a 25,000 grant from the Community Foundation to amend a contract with ALTA planning and design and to increase appropriations of development services. This is to allow us to update the Bicycle Master Plan. Alta has a good scope of services provided with a large community outreach service outreach program to a number of different groups. And a lot of strategies will be included in the master plan. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second itinerary. Public comment on this. CNN. Please cast your votes. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Admiral Lowenthal, I'm sorry about that. That's okay. I just wanted to compliment our staff for all the work that they've done on this. I know it's it's been a very, very long narrative, and every bit of work that goes into it is something that's a source of pride for me. We continue to be proactive in our efforts to help our city to be recognized as one of the nation's most bicycle friendly cities. And this new master plan will continue to serve as a guide to developing and maintaining our bikeways and bicycle friendly roadways. I, I don't get tired of saying this, but our city is an example of our ability to connect our urban communities with our suburbs, suburban communities. And this updated plan will only increase those possibilities for us. So for me, as I wrap up my tenure here this summer, our commitment, our continued commitment to adding on to our bicycle infrastructure is a constant source of pride for me. So for that, I thank you. Thank you. Can I get emotional? Okay. There's emotion any second on this. Councilor Richardson's. You have any comments or. No? Okay. I see no public comment on this, right? No public comment. Please cast your vote. Motion carries. Excited Report from Economic and property development. Recommendation to execute a First Amendment to agreement with Long Beach Transit. To extend the agreement for six months to provide sufficient time to optimize the Belmont Shore Employee Rider Pass Program City District three.

Message and order for your approval a Home Rule Petition to the General Court entitled “Petition for a Special Law Re: An Act Relative to Certain Affordable Housing in the South Boston Section of the City of Boston.”

BostonCC_06082022_2022-0707

All those in favor of approving the meetings from the last meeting say I opposed. Say nay. Thank you at the meeting. The minutes of the last meeting stand as approved. Communications from the Toronto the mayor. Mr. Kirk, can you please read docket. 07070707 message in order for your approval? A Home Rule petition to the General Court entitled Petition for a Special Law enacted relative to certain affordable housing in the South Boston section of the City of Boston. The chair recognizes Council Arroyo, Chair of the Committee on Government Ops Counsel. Arroyo You have the floor and you can present Flynn. As chair of the committee. Could 0707 today. This Home Rule petition seeks to allow the Boston Housing Authority to take part in the redevelopment of the Mary Ellen McCormick developments using federal funds. Previous reforms to the Commonwealth contracts and procurement and award laws do not allow a path forward for the VHA to participate in this redevelopment effort . Without the development, this project could be struck with an overly structured bid process, meaning would have a separate general contract and subcontractor selection. And I believe this would not be a fair and transparent process for the city. In the past, the VHA has filed similar legislation, namely for the Whittier Street, Bunker Hill, Orchard Gardens, Mildred C, Haley Aurion Heights and Franklin Hill. Family Developments. The passage of this docket today would ensure the residents of Marilyn McCormick, a fair and transparent process, will revitalize in the current development. Due to the matter of urgency with the state legislature ending their sessions in July as chair of Government Operations Committee, I seek suspension of the rules to pass 0707 today so that we can get it up there before they end their session in July. But I am more than happy to, and I've been told by the administration they're more than happy to once we get to the procurement process. Part of this is to have a hearing to discuss that path forward. But this allows them to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel. Royal counsel. Royal seek suspension of the rules. Okay. The chair recognizes counsel, clarity. Counsel for the office support the chair in this effort. I served as Chair of Government Operations and led the effort to do the previous ones that he had mentioned also was born in the old have a project which is the Mary Ellen McCormick. And that development is in dire need of a rehab and revitalization as well as the opportunity to build additional housing there. So look forward to having this expedited and obviously get the briefing as soon as possible to get the update as to where they stand. Thank you. Mr.. THAT Thank you, Counsel. Clarity. The Chair recognizes counsel and counsel. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to rise in support of the Chair's recommendation. When I worked at the Housing Authority to chase these specific types of home rule petitions through the State House, and they are totally critical to the revitalization of public housing. It has to do with the fact that the law is written in a way where if you're paving a road, great, and it's designed to help us get the lowest price on paving the road. But the kind of iterative process that we do with our housing communities around exactly how we want them to take shape, basically, this fails the bid process prevents the kind of the kind of adjusting of the program over time that we want to see. So it's important for the housing authority to have the flexibility that the home rule petition creates. And I would say that it tends to take a little while to get them through the state legislature. So I think time is of the essence. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. The chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I just rise in support of this. As you know, Marilyn McCormack is in my district. We've been talking about the the redo of Mary Ellen McCormack for a couple of years now. This this actually makes it real. So we just wanted to show my support. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Baker. I'd also. Echo what Councilor Baker and. Council clarity and my colleagues council and council Bach as well. Council royal and but especially thanking council baker and council of clarity for the work you do with the residents. And Mary Ellen McCormack. It's an important development that wonderful people. So I want to say thank you to Councilor Baker council floury and the team for the important work that you're doing. Councilor Royal. Seek suspension of the rolls and passage of docket 0707. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say they have it. The docket has passed. Mr. Carr, can you please read Dawkins 07080708.

Resolution dedicating the intersection of Savin Hill Avenue and Sydney Street as Hero Square on behalf of Donald Vincent Baker's service and ultimate sacrifice for the United States of America in the Vietnam War. On motion of Councilor Baker, the rules were suspended, the resolution was adopted; yeas 12.

BostonCC_06152022_2022-0769

Council Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Councilor Fiery Cancellara. Councilor John. Please. Out the chair, please. Councilor Murphy. Dawkins. Dawkins 0768 will be assigned to the Committee on Small Business and Professional License. Mr. Kirkby, please read 07690769. Councilor Baker offer the following resolution dedicating the intersection of seven Hill Ave in Sydney Street as a hero square on behalf of Donald Vincent Baker's service and ultimate sacrifice for the United States of America in the Vietnam War. Thank you. The Chair recognizes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you please add Councilor Aaron Murphy to this? Mr. Clarke, please. That council, Murphy. So, Adam, the chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Thank you, Mr. President. Normally, hero squares are designated for men and women who who die in service. My Uncle Don came back while he, in 1968 was wounded and nearly, nearly didn't come back. And the miracle about him was and I kind of learned this from hanging with his friends. And, you know, you have conversations at the funeral about about veterans. And the special thing about him was they had they had projected that he probably would have only lived another two or three years based on his injuries. He was hit with shrapnel in the back and the arms practically hanging off and wasn't expected to really live. So this is a way for for me and and my family to honor him in a in a hero square. It it'll be different will be the it'll be the blue side. But my my Uncle Don was pretty special. He was someone that at 13 left his family to go travel with the carnival. The world of mirth. He was. He was. He was a heavy equipment operator, was in Vietnam. Building bases and airfields and that sort of stuff. He was older when he when he went over. And it was kind of a shock to to his family. That was. I was six months old at the time. But you can imagine what it's like for a family. In our family. We grew up spring on grandparents around the corner. Everyone right there. So you shared the pain, you shared the trauma of the whole experience. And so I appreciate just being able to do this and just be able to talk about about him and what. What a good person he was, the way his affect on other people and the impact that that he and his brothers and his friend and friends, his crew had in my neighborhood and by extension, Dorchester and other places. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Baker. The chair recognizes counsel. Murphy. Counselor Murphy, you have the floor. Thank you. So I stand to support Counselor Baker's dedication of the intersection of Seven Hill, AV and Sydney Street as Heroes Square on behalf of your Uncle Donald Baker's service and sacrifice in the Vietnam War. So I definitely want to thank your family for that. The Hero Square program started in 1898 with the mission to educate communities about the history of service in their own neighborhoods. We want everyone to learn about the sacrifices made by service members and our communities. And Commissioner Santiago in the Boston Veterans Services Office does a wonderful job with these heroes squares that where we've been spending the last few years rededicating. So this dedication in Seven Hill is a great way to engage Dorchester residents with community members like Donald Baker. To learn more about the story that Councilor Baker just started to share with us, whose courageous acts of service led to the ultimate sacrifice with a spinal cord injury. So I do believe that this will ensure that the name Donald Baker will always be recognized not just in that neighborhood in Dorchester, but across the city of Boston, which he deserves. So I stand in support and thank you, Councilor Baker, for letting me join you on this. Thank you, Councilor Murphy. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counsel for Larry. Would anyone like to have their name added? Please raise your hand please at council for Charity Council. Royal Council. Bar Council. Brighton Council. Councilor Fernandez Innocent Council of our Constitution. Council. Me here, please. The chair. Mr. President have. The chair recognizes counsel. I'm sorry. I should have said it at the beginning, but I would like to suspend in pass if possible, and if I want it to read. Can I just read this also here? This is this is the letter that the Navy sent my Aunt Dot when he was hit with concerns. I confirm on behalf of the United States Navy that your husband, Donald Vincent Baker, was U.S. Navy was critically wounded in action. On May 14th, 1968, at Donghai, Vietnam, he sustained shrapnel wounds of the back arms, face and legs in sections of the spinal cord. Six During the enemy artillery attack. During the enemy attack, his prognosis is poor. Your husband is presently hospitalized and they go on to say that he'll receive the best care. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Baker. And I know the incredible sacrifices and contributions your family have made to our city and into our country as well. Counsel Baker I know what Counselor Flattery and Murphy know it, but I'm glad you were able to highlight the incredible, incredible sacrifice and service of your family counsel. BAKER And we we appreciate that. Counsel Baker is seeking suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket 0769. All those in favor say I. I also say need to vote. Mr. Carr, can you please take a roll call vote? Roll call vote on docket 0769 Council. Arroyo Yes. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Baker. I counseled. Baker I counselor book counsel advocate counselor. Brady Counsel Braden I counsel Coletta. Counsel Coletta yes. Counsel Fernandez Anderson Yes. Counsel Fernandez Sanderson Yes. Counsel Flaherty. Counsel 30 years counsel Flynn yes. Counsel Flynn Yes. Counsel Lara. Counsel Larry Yes. Counsel Who's in? Counsel Who's in? Yes. Counsel to me here. Counsel Media yes. And Counsel to Murphy. Yes. Counsel to Murphy. Yes, sir, I can. Number 0769 has received a unanimous vote. The resolution has been adopted. Mr. Kirk. Please read of 0770. Dr. Numbers 0770. Councilor Fernandes Anderson offer the following resolution to acknowledge, condemn and apologize for the role played by the city of Boston in the transatlantic slave trade and the ongoing detrimental impacts experienced by the black people of Boston.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a second Cooperative Agreement, and any necessary amendments, with the California Department of Transportation, for the design and construction phase of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project (Project), located from the I-710 to its terminus on the east side of the Los Angeles River; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 33938 with HDR Engineering, Inc., of Long Beach, CA, for engineering and architectural design services for the Project, to increase the contract amount by $22,550,235, for a revised contract amount not to exceed $29,526,622, and extend the term of the contract to August 30, 2024; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $26,900,000, offset by $12,900,000 of Measure R funds from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MR306.19) and $14,000,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program funds from California Department of Transportation [STIPL-5108(199)]. (Distr

LongBeachCC_05182021_21-0460

31 Adam 31 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to execute a second requirement for the California Department of Transportation for the design and construction phase of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project, District one and two. Mr. Monica, do you have a report on this or is this different from the one that we postponed? The one that we postponed had to do with the entitlement process. This is a word of funding from Caltrans to proceed with the project once it's entitled. Right. Can I get a motion in a second place? Give a motion by councilors and they have the customary ranga. Do I have a public comment? I might add. So they do on this list? Yes, we do. Alex. Please begin. Alex, turn. Please begin. Alex. These are either. Okay. We're going to go we're going to go ahead and go to a vote of the council. Please. Call. Councilwoman said they have. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilman Price. Mr. Mayor, can we have the motion and the movement and seconder. Sure is in Dallas and Durango. Okay. Thank you. As women said they have. I just want to know when. I mean price. I recommend Sabina. And. Councilwoman Manga. I has a woman, Sarah. I'm Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. All right. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. Well, she carries.

AN ORDINANCE, granting permission to 2001 Sixth L.L.C. to continue operating and maintaining a utility tunnel under the alley between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue, north of Virginia Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 119437; and providing acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120300

A report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee agenda Item ten Council Bill 120300 An ordinance granting permission to 2001 six LLC to continue operating and maintaining a utility tunnel under the alley between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, north of Virginia Street. The committee recommends the bill pass. Elsewhere. Peterson Thank you. Council President Colleagues. Council 1 to 0 300 renews a permit for a utility tunnel downtown. This bill was passed unanimously by our committee. Thank you. Think you. Are there any comments for Councilmember Peterson? Not seen it. Oh, get service. Get it. Wants to thank you. So I'll just do it for her. Will the clerk please call? Wait. Is there anything else you want to say, Counselor Peterson, before we go to work? Okay, great. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales as. Councilmember Mosqueda. I. Councilmember Nelson I. Councilmember Petersen. Yes. Councilmember Silence. Yes. Council President Was I right in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation. We'll be on to item 11. Will you please read item 11 into the record?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a contract with Rabanco, Ltd. to provide recycling processing services for the City of Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06082015_CB 118396

Please read item 31. The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 31 Council Bill 118396. An ordinance authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a contract with Banco Ltd to provide recycling processing services for the City of Seattle and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the Council bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you very much. This action will authorize Seattle Public Utilities to execute a new recycling contract. And by way of background, the City of Seattle contracts with a private entity to process our waste stream recycling. And right now, we recycle 56.2% of all of the waste that we generate. And we currently have a recycling processing contract with Republic Services, and that began in April of 2009 and extends until next year. But Seattle Public Utilities went out and looked at whether or not they could have a more competitive contract. And I want to say thank you to my colleague, Councilmember Harrell, because both of us agree that as they go out looking for a new contract, we wanted to make sure that the employees were well cared for. And indeed, that became part of the requirements of the contract. So we were looking for the most advantageous contract for the city, the most money that we could get from our recycling. But we also wanted to make sure that the employees were giving a livable wage and that they continued to have permanent employee employment opportunities as well as good benefits. So SPP went out for bid. They received two responsive proposals from Republic Services and Recology. Both were competitive. We are recommending a new five year agreement proceed. It will be effective a year from now. April 26 ending in March 20, March of 2021, with two three year options to renew at the city's own decision making. So the agreement will continue to process all of our current recycling materials, including paper, plastics, metals and glass. The committee recommends do pass because ratepayers are expected to save over a million and a half dollars by doing this. And we say thank you to Tim Krul, who's here in the audience with us from Seattle Public Utilities, as well as Hans Van Dusen, who is also very responsive to our concerns. Thank you. Questions. Comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Okamoto I Rasmussen so want. I. Back shot I garden Harrell Lakota I O'Brien I am president Burgess I and I have in favor and and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 32.