Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to request resolution in support of Long Beach proclaiming April 19, 2017 and every third Wednesday in April henceforth, as Renters Day.

LongBeachCC_04182017_17-0305

The first one up is Councilman Pearce. On renter's day, if we can get that item read, I believe it's item number 26. 26, madam, quick. Item 26 is a communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Durango recommendation to request a resolution in support of Long Beach, proclaiming April 19, 2017 and every Wednesday in April as renter's day. Councilwoman. Yes, thank you so much. I want to thank everybody for coming today in support of Long Beach renters. I know that many of you hear this a lot, but it deserves repeating. 60% of Long Beach residents are renters compared to 35% nationwide. That means that over 270,000 people in Long Beach alone rent. And I'm one of those people as well. With such a large number, it comes to no surprise that renters are a huge asset for our city. They add value to Long Beach workers as Long Beach workers, youth, students, seniors, business owners and entrepreneurs. Too often we talk about renters rights, renters issues, and we think of it in a vacuum. And so today is really about honoring individuals that contribute to our community, that are diverse, that live as renters. And we want to just use today as an opportunity to recognize their contributions, as well as using as an opportunity to talk about issues or challenges that they might face as renters in our city, so that we can begin to have a citywide discussion about the importance of renters in our city. We know that in our city alone, we've had over 40% increase in rents for one bedroom apartments just in the last five years with the highest cost in my district. And I know we have some new development that's happened that could contribute to some of those numbers. But as a renter myself, I know that those numbers are happening on my street every single day. And so I want to thank everybody for coming today. I want to ask my colleagues to support Renters Day as an opportunity to celebrate those that contribute to our community. So thank you so much. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes, I want to also acknowledge and thank council member Pierce for bringing this forward. I think it's really important that we do recognize a day solely for renters, especially as most of our residents here in the city are renters. I, too, also am a renter, and I'm okay to say that. And I care about my city just as much as somebody who owns here in this city as well. And so I hope that we can broaden the discussion and look for more opportunities to kind of bring everyone together under this umbrella. So thank you so much, Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. We'll take public comment now if there's public comment on the renters day item. Now is the time. Please line at the podium and we'll go to this. Please come to the podium. Ready to get. Back to work. What an exceptional opportunity. I want to applaud the Council for this. Before I was a homeowner in this city, I was a renter. And I realized one day when you when you write your taxes or you're paying your taxes, you don't have a write off on a lot of things because you're a renter. When I started working for the homeless in writing up a syllabus in order to help people come off the street, we came up with an idea that that possibly the council might want to look at giving landlords some sort of tax break when they give renters maybe one year off if they pay their rent consecutively on time . Add something more to this that would give landlords an incentive to acknowledge the fact that renters are paying their mortgages. But I wanted to just applaud the council on this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Very good, Hugh Quirke, as he does. I think the concept is a ditsy concept, unless it's accompanied by also a landlord's day, because without the landlord you don't have the apartments to rent, period. That's what seems to escape so many people. And we in the city do have. There's no question there's a housing shortage. No, it's no answer. That's not always will be. And one of the things I'm suggesting this city council do is be honest with the community and print out the articles that have been posted and many times and other newspapers that are very posted once or twice here by sister organizations that we have some of the highest rentals in the country. And the realities are probably 85% of the people that are looking for. Retro space will not find it in this city. And in my view, the first priority of that, of course, is our Long Beach residents. Born in Long Beach or migrated here or migrated here legally. Who are senior citizens. Beyond that, then the city needs to certainly look at what needs to be done. But I think it's to thumb your nose at the owners of the property. It's stupid. Period. And it manifests a lack of mature understanding of what the crisis really is. So if you want to have a day set aside, have it for renters and landlords, or come up with a word that would combine those two. Thank you. Or phrase. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Here I. Am. Hello. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council. Before I start, I'd like to thank the mayor personally for introducing me to Steel Craft. I saw him on television last Sunday and spent a very pleasant day out. There have been great food and craft beer, so thank you very much for that. And now. My name's John Donahue. I live at 3713 East 15th Street in District four. I've lived there for about 32 years. I want you to imagine a headline. Absentee Millionaire Landlord Threatens to evict 92 year old disabled World War Two veteran and 54 year old daughter. I've been living in Long Beach since 1952, and I came here. I rented a furnished apartment with a garage for $50 a month. And today I'm paying 1370 $5. How did this happen? I understand that not all property owners are greedy and only care about profits. However, in January, my landlord notified us that our rent was increasing $150. And threatened to. Evict us if we didn't pay. I consider this extortion. I receive Social Security and a veteran's pension. My rent is now 5050 7% of my income. I'm sure you can clearly see something is absolutely wrong with this picture. And there is a solution for us renters. As renters, we contribute much to this city. And we should look at ways to protect and you should. Look at ways to protect us and keep us in our homes because this is my home and I should not be forced out. So I'm here spending standing with Libra and all renters. Thank you for helping. Us by declaring renters day in. Long Beach. I'm looking forward to working with you to find better solutions to keep people like me in our homes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. But as Angelina Ramirez, we have Latin and Espanyol guys and a number of people. And in English my name is said, I really never mirrors changes. Today I will speak in Spanish because my head is not very clear. It was it's like I keep up. I here is the recommendation. E Paquette then got went to apparently cuatro anos. I'm here to support this recommendation also because I have been a renter for over 24 years primeiramente this movie. And then lastly Dona Vivienne, then a distrito safe. First I lived in District one, now I live in District six. EPS is important that I consider the contribution gas and the person that's been in especially that and I feel that it is important to recognize the can how the people who live in this community contribute to it . It can be important. I can also know Somos llanos. They will not gas that the most estamos para and the poor will never be in there. And also, just because we are not home owners, we are paying to live in a home paren. So pardon me is important because I reckon Oscar at all those to him think if they appoint an economist commits this type of person rent that and that's a reason why it is very important to me that we recognize people who are out there paying month after month for their rent. Yes, important también. Guess who we are? Like contribution. Gael Sassine It is also very important that we can recognize and see the contributions that they make in which of the nostrils cabanas, Castano, Rita Yellow never see the eyes themselves and the yes is then, you know like us. I mean necesitan rent that many of our young ones who are going to the universities and are about to complete their schooling and are about to go out there and rent as well. Parens up body. So let's be the I guess that point is the recommendation and that is the reason why I'm asking you today to to vote for this recommendation. You're not welcome, Professor, if we have been given that says. But I mean, they also they are only apparently so inclined. I'm not going to be able to purchase a home, so I will have to continue renting. So it is important that we have a day like this for us renters. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. My name is David Root. I live in District eight. I am a third generation Long Beach resident, second generation Long Beach renter. I am also a Desert Storm combat veteran and a cancer survivor migrant. Since 2014 of my original move in date has been raised $290. I rent to garages. The rent on the garages is also increased $80. The reason for this rent increase, according to my landlord, is to bring everything up to current market value. As it stands, my rent will be over 1700 dollars a month. Neighbors in my building who were also served with an increase a month after my original increase came. Got a maximum of $125. When I question my landlord about the reasoning for this, she said that like it was just because of the owner wants to bring everything up to current market standard. The reasoning in my mind is I require a service dog due to my cancer. It has been discovered that. Certain animals. Dogs can sense diseases in humans. My wife, who also has a service dog, suffers from chronic migraines and she passes out due to the migraines and the dog alerts her to an onset of a migraine. When we were when we first moved in, we notified them about my dog and under the current. I'm sorry. Under the previous management company, they were fine with that. We paid a $300 deposit, which by the ADA was unlawful, went on with it. Everything was fine. Once my second dog came along, we had him registered, certified everything legal, submitted the paperwork to the landlord. The landlord said, We'll keep this under between us because the new owner will charge you a $2,000 deposit for the dog. When I told them that this was illegal, they said, Well, we'll just keep it to ourselves. To make a long story short, the reason for this. Increase of such a high amount is because they cannot charge me for having a service dog. They cannot request such a very large deposit. And when I brought that up to her, we went back and forth about it and they said, Well, you're going to have to either pay the rent increase or you're going to have to move out. I attended Liberty City College, graduated with an auto body degree intended to start a business in Long Beach. But now with this happening, my hands are being forced to where I'm going to have to move out of Long Beach, which is the city I was born and raised in and I love and I don't want that to happen. Thank you. And, sir, thank you for your service to our country. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, city council members and Mayor Garcia. My name is willing to go AM. I'm currently residing in District seven. I have been a resident of Long Beach for 25 years. Here today, San Juan live in all renters to show my full support of proclaiming renter state Long Beach. And even though the credit reform for rental applications was taken out of the agenda, I still came prepared to kind of talk about how this affects me and my family. The first item that I will be will be referring to is the credit reform for rental applications. Long Beach is currently in a housing crisis. As a tenant, I don't feel stable when it comes to my housing needs. I will be graduating next month from Cal State, Long Beach, and I will join many other families looking for a new place to rent for me and my children as a single mother. My focus right now is having enough money to pay for a security deposit, which can be as much as twice the rent. In addition to having to pay for the first month's rent, paying an application fee every time for an apartment, that's a financial burden to already the high costs of first month's fees. It is very likely that I will have to apply to. Multiple places having to play for an. Application fee each time I apply. This is beyond my means and makes it more difficult for me to provide for my nine year old daughter and my six year old son. In addition, it is not certain that I will qualify for an apartment after I have paid my fees. Another problem is the unintended consequences of submitting different applications. And having my credit check in a short amount of time and the damage that this can cost to my credit score. This just adds another barrier to my housing need. Reforming the credit check and reporting process will make it more affordable for families like my own. In addition to releasing some of the burden already associated with the first month's fees, the second agenda item is about celebrating the contributions of renters by proclaiming Renters Day Long Beach. As a renter, I give to my community in so many ways as a consumer, as a student, as a voter, and as a volunteer. Not only am I a renter by my parents, my grandparents and my siblings all reside in Long Beach. We're all renters and we all contribute economically, socially and culturally. Today, over half of the residents in Long Beach are renting, and we have made Long Beach the attractive place that it is today. Given the current housing crisis and the unmet needs of renters, it is time that we acknowledge, honor and celebrate the contributions of all of them on beach. Why? Jordy and I'm in full support of proclaiming renters day Long Beach. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. She was good. Hard to follow. Good evening, Mayor. And City Council. My name is Wayne Murchison and I live temporarily at 2035 East Broadway in District two. I've lived in Long Beach for over ten years and I've been. Had been renting in the past here in Long Beach. I'm a very active member of my community, social justice, and although I can't vote, I give counsel to others in their voting. So I'm a graduate of Neighborhood Leadership Program as well as Long Beach Rising, and I'm also on the advisory board for Long, Long Beach residents and powered myself as well as everybody else here is here. For it to speak for those who can't be. Here. I've been essentially homeless for a little over five years now, and in that time I have seen many of my friends who have gotten rent increases, forcing them out of their home to. Seek something affordable. However, by the term affordable, the amount they were. Paying was closer to 50% of their take home wage. That doesn't even include their utilities, food. Transportation, health care costs, let alone any emergencies that may come up for myself while at the VA. Years ago, I talked to a social worker about Section eight and was told there was a five year wait. It seems it is. The same these. Days and on top of that, only. Good for six. Months if one was not able to find a place that would accept Section eight. That opportunity is lost and one goes back to the end of the line again. Seems there are a lot of rental entities who do not want to rent to section eight applicants for some reason. It would be nice if we had resident. Resident retention policies policies so people are not displaced at alarming rates. And since there's new development happening, there needs to be more affordable housing created. I was at the Forum Forum. Of Housing Developers. And feel the. City needs to dedicate permanent source of funding for production of affordable housing. It would also. Seem the city needs to. Give developers. More time and land for production of these units and on top, and adopt inclusionary zoning policies. That will help. With building more affordable housing. As the city adopts policies for affordable housing production, our city must produce them for the people who are most in need from extremely low to low income families, not just moderate and. Or. Workforce families. Otherwise, this results in a problem where there's not enough rental units available for low and extremely low income households. Even without. Section eight. I would be very disappointed. If Long Beach. Is creating an atmosphere as expungement for those who can't live here anymore. It has always in the past, it has always been known as a very diverse population. Thank you. Civic time's all up. I got to keep going. Thank you, sir. Time is up. Oh, thank you so much. Your next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Davi Merkle. I live at 1450 Coronado Avenue. Number nine, District four. I've lived in my apartment for over a little two years. And in Long Beach for about 17 years, I'm civically engaged and actually voted for you, Mr. Mayor. I've also voted for you, Mr. Soprano. I'm here today to stand for. Renters in the. Sorry. I'm here to stand with renters and with really bringing in solidarity as we acknowledge and celebrate the contributors. Renters make in Long Beach. My building was sold late last year and was under management by Borba Investment Realty starting in October 2016. Prior to that, I was the onsite manager for two years and was responsible for renting the units in property maintenance. So I have a clear understanding of what is required by property management as far as maintenance and repairs. Personally, I reported these issues to my unit back in September 2016, which involved a bathtub that moved while I used it. I notified them that it might be the flooring, of course, as it is common practice, the property management they just put sunken in. Call it a day. After getting the. Runaround from the management, along with Mickey. Mouse repairs, I finally called code enforcement in January of this year. I was unsatisfied by the servicing and reporting of the corner inspector that finally had to go up the chain to the Deputy Director. After getting through the higher ups involved in demanding quality repairs, it was finally shown that my term actually a 1923 cast iron clawfoot tub, which is sinking down. I have to cast. I have to. Cast. I have. Sorry. This makes me very nervous because of the fact that right now, because the two claws are floating midair without support and framing. It's been over 80 days, and I'm still waiting for completion of repairs. So as I use the shower, I may fall through. To a 2.5 15. Drop into the cross base. Borba has given and has been given an extension while my safety is at risk. I know that time is running out. So basically what I'm saying is that I have been retaliated against with a 60 day notice to vacate and I'm constantly being harassed and have not had peaceful enjoyment of my apartments ever since. I'm on a fixed income and I am permanently disabled. 62% of my income goes to rent alone, not including utilities. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. And please make this a renters day. Please help us out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And before I do the next speaker, just real quick as an announcement, I may have missed it, but item 16, which was the item around the credit check item that was pulled off the agenda. So that will not be heard tonight. I think most people know that. But just the city attorney wanted me to announce that one more time. So that item is not going to be heard tonight. And I'm going to be closing the speaker's list here, unless there's anyone else that's speaking on this item. And this gentleman here will be the last speaker, and then we're going to take a vote. So, sir, you're the last speaker in the back speaker list is closed. Yes, sir. Good evening, city council and mayor. I'm Robert fox live at 2815 east broadway. About six months before Nancy also had passed away, who was one of my dearest friends. She had suggested that we have a renter's day in Long Beach to acknowledge and to celebrate our population. She was one of my dearest friends, and I totally support this idea of having a renter's day here in the city of Long Beach. Bizarre. How, Janine? The reason was I came to this city many, many years ago, decades ago, and I was a renter. I lived at 125 Cherry Avenue, right on Bixby Park. And this city opened its arms to me. I was a renter for 25 years. So I totally understand and acknowledge that being a renter doesn't mean that you don't participate. I found it. Alameda Speech Neighborhood Association from 125 Cherry Avenue, and then I moved to another apartment at 1828 Second Street, and I still was involved. I founded the Broadway Business Corridor Association. I don't want to give you all the things that I did, but the idea was that a renter, 60% of our population here, are contributing people to this city in very, very important ways. And we move on. We do other things. And I think I'd love to acknowledge everyone. The thing that's bothering me of late is there seems to be such a wish for division in the city. And I'm it makes me sad. I've lived here most of my life. And I love the people of Long Beach. Currently, I'm executive director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations. I know every neighborhood in every district of the city, and we have great people here. Whether they're owners of land or whether there's leasehold estate, we all have estates and land and there should be absolutely no difference about how we are treated. Everyone should have respect and grace, and I think the idea of celebrating our diversity is an absolutely brilliant idea. So I support this motion by Janine and Lena, and I am willing to participate in it. I'll bake a cake if that's what it needs, you know. So thank you for bringing this up to just share it. Cherish a part of our community, which I have been a part of for many, many years. Thank you. Thank you, Robert. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. My name is Lillian Couple and I live in and Arthur's district. I'm a renter for 28 years now, and I'm here to support the rent Thursday. So we as renters, we contribute with our economy of our city because of course, we pay our rent and we spend our money here. We work here. So we we want to be recognized because I think we deserve it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Walker Rivera, program director of Libra. And I just wanted to thank the city council members and the authors for bringing forward this recommendation for Renters Day Long Beach. Personally, I've been living in Long Beach for over 20 years. At some point during the during the real estate boom, I owned a home for the majority of my time here. I've been renting and I've contributed quite a bit. I'm actually a product as as well as Wayne is of the Neighborhood Leadership Program of the City of Long Beach. So you all have yourselves, yourselves to thank for me being up here and constantly being in front of you. This is what you created. So. So you should celebrate it because now is now I'm here as an advocate and and as a representative of the community and all the other renters in Long Beach, which is 60% of the city. The majority of the city. And you can imagine that we contribute in so many ways, as some people have already noted, economically, socially, culturally, and even our families live here. We we make the city a lot of what it already is. And as we've been saying, sort of in in our in our lead up to today is we we help make the city of Long Beach work. And so we really appreciate the opportunity for the city to work for for us. And I know that we are here to to talk about the council item that was pulled. But we we want this to be a a sort of a benchmark and something that we can constantly revisit on an annual basis so that you're constantly reminded that we are here that were present and that we're and that we're a majority and that we're constantly going to be advocating so that we're protected just as much as the other population is protected, so that we are seen just as much as the other population is seen, and that we are heard just as much as the homeowners and the property owners and the property management companies and the real estate agents and everybody else is heard. I think that we deserve just as much as as they do. I think that we contribute just as much as they do. And so we we really appreciate that this day is going to be here and set forth on an annual basis to celebrate our presence, to celebrate what we contribute, and to celebrate all that we bring to this city. Again, we we help make the city work. And so we really hope that Long Beach starts to work for us as well. So thank you very much for for doing this, for bringing forth the recommendation. And we hope and moving forward that we can figure out some ways in helping some of these renters save a little money, especially in this time of crisis, through the credit check rental application reform process. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. First you got mayor and city councilman. My name is Latoya Marshall. This is not my first time up here. I come back with questions. Last year, at the end of the year, I had an issue with the Housing Authority. I was told by the city council members. Okay, Latoya, we're going to check into these issues about this. Never once have I got any call back. I have reached out to the multipurpose center Shallowater and have not gotten anywhere. When she said, Oh, Marsha, we will talk on your behalf to the Housing Authority. Allison King No one has reached out to Allison King or my we have about the housing authority appeal. In my case, getting my voucher back, getting me from being homeless. I have two kids, a 14 year old and a child that's going to be two years old, made first. I'm still displaced out of my house. It's been almost eight months. I come back clean to you guys again. City Council members, the Andrews. I don't know what's going on now when I call the housing authority is like Latoya, who like I don't even exist. Like I was not offered, you know, some type of motel voucher to get this matter cleared up. Like, I wasn't told that someone would reach out for the housing authority to get my voucher back for me and my kids could be back in on here it is eight months later and I'm still pleading with you guys, asking you guys for help. Please reach out to the Housing Authority as Alison King. Reach out to the multipurpose center. They gave out $600 million to the homeless. And never once did Latoya Marshall get called and got help that I asked for eight months ago. I'm not trying to be a difficult person. I come up here faithfully with faith, humbly in myself, begging and pleading on the mercy of each and every one of you council members to please stand by. We all say that, y'all, we help the homeless. This is a single black woman trying to get off the streets. I don't been harassed. I don't been assaulted. I you know, I constantly get into it with the police department where I'm getting tickets. This is not a normal thing that a citizen had to go through. If I'm homeless and I'm disgraced and I ask for help in our reach out to the city council members, please show some type of faith or hopefully you guys of some type of humanity. Please. I'm a homeless woman asking for you guys help again. Please reach out to Shannon Crowder, to Alison King for the Housing Authority. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you very much. And our last two speakers next speaker. Thank you very much. My name is Zoe Nicholson. I'm a renter in Rose Park. I bring you a letter from the Human Relations Committee. Dear Mr. Mayor and council members in commission, I meant to say I'm not used to it yet. In recent months, the Long Beach Press Telegram has reported on various aspects related to the state of housing in Long Beach. The housing issues identified include significant increases in the cost of rent, an exceptionally low vacancy rate, homelessness and a shortage of subsidized units. The housing crisis in Lombard seems to be reflective of a national trend that is complex and multifaceted. Over the last several months, the Human Relations Commission has heard from community leaders about issues related to housing, homelessness and potential municipal policies and actions that may help to mitigate this issue. The Human Relations Commission has largely bases its perspective on this issue under the principles of equity, human rights and dignity. Additionally, our Commission is particularly concerned with the disproportionate impact of housing on homelessness and among vulnerable and or disenfranchized communities, including individuals affected by intimate partner violence and people of color. The Human Relations Commission works to develop and recommend programs and plans to the City Council designed to promote full acceptance of our citizens and community and in all respects of community life, and submits recommendations concerning matters relating to prejudice or discrimination. Inequality in equal opportunity in employment, public accommodations, housing, education because of race, religion, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. In this light, the Human Relations Commission strongly supports the city's effort to explore. The feasibility of housing programs and policies such as a standard rental application and credit check process that help to mitigate barriers for individuals seeking to secure and maintain stable housing. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our last speaker on this item. Hi, my name is Bill. Survived Council District three. I've sent a letter to my council member, Susie Price and to Vice Mayor Ross Richardson. Last week. To support this endeavor for Renters Day. I have personal friends that are affected by this, and one thing I'd like to add by this whole situation for the, you know, bringing apartments or homes that people are renting as well up to market rate is that if someone has to leave their apartment or home. And they. Cannot find housing here in Long Beach, we're shedding are good people, good people that are contributing to our city economically through work, through purchasing their groceries or something like that. I recently met a lady who is forced to leave because she's renting a home in Council District three. The homeowner passed away. The children are selling that home now and now she's in a panic because she's trying to look for a place to afford. It's going to have a small ripple effect because that homeowner who owned her home that she was renting owns five other homes. So all those homes are being sold. So I feel for her. I directed her to the resources I can, but it's just that we're shedding the population that, you know, it's human capital and human resources that we're also shedding that people are going out of our city for. So I definitely support ask the council to support this endeavor. The renters definitely contribute in many, many multiple ways that are too many. Too numerous. To name. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember U. Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Pearce for bringing me to this item. I think it's a worthy one. We hear a lot of compelling stories. We've heard compelling stories tonight of some of the endeavors and and the the issues that are facing renters. I was once a renter and before becoming a homeowner, many of us are renters, first of all. And it's an issue that it's not an issue. It's a fact of life, that when we want to continue our lives and eventually end up being into home ownership, there is a process and that process includes renting. And so we all hope for a great experience. I've had a great experience, but not all of us do. So bringing this forward as as one day out of the year to recognize and acknowledge that renters are contributing members of our community, that they are important, that we want them here, that we want to have a great experience in Long Beach. I think it's important for us. So I want to thank Councilmember Pierson, Councilmember Gonzalez, for joining me in this effort. And I look forward to working with you in the future. There are some other items and discussions that have to take place as we move along in this endeavor together. And I'm looking forward to more discussions on this. So thank you very much for being here this evening. Thank you for your civic engagement in being here tonight. Thank you. And I just wanted to also just say, I wanted to I thank you all for coming. I know that there was, I believe, an event even before the council meeting started where you guys, I think, rallied and had a conversation outside city hall. And so just thank you all for being here. Probably, I imagine like like most or all of us on this up here, we've all been renters or are renters. And one, just appreciate everyone's contribution and your and your advocacy including those that came out and support from all sides of the general issue and whether it's property owners and particularly, of course, all the renters that came out. And so thank you. We're going to go and take a vote. And as we do that, I want to thank all of you for coming out tonight and being a part of this renters day agenda item. So, members, cast your vote. Councilwoman Longo. Bush and Kerry's. Okay. Thank you guys for being here. I really, really appreciate you guys coming out tonight. Thank you. Okay. And again, item 16 with Paul that I want to make sure I mention that again. So we've got a couple more items that were asked to be moved to the moved to the start of the agenda.

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations to the Commission on Disability and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

AlamedaCC_12192017_2017-4970

I actually plan to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory, if you would. Yeah. So is there anything else any other council members wanted to share at this time? Okay. I do want to make ten A is consideration of mayor's nominations to Commission on Disability and Housing Authority for you all. I'm sorry, we have a meeting going on. Still, if you all could talk outside. Thank you. I'll be making the Nominations Commission on Disability Jennifer Rohloff and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Brad Weinberg. And then now at 1230, I will adjourn the city council meeting. And I'm sorry, actually, we're going to rise in memory of Mayor Ed Lee. As we all know, he passed suddenly. He honestly was an amazing mayor to work with. I we all reached out, worked with him personally, huge personality, very endearing, and one of the most personable people you will have ever met. So that being said, if you could all join me in a moment of silence in his memory. Thank you very much and goodnight.

A bill for an ordinance maintaining the current classification and pay plan for employees in the Career Service and for certain employees not in the Career Service without pay adjustments. Does not amend the Classification and Pay Plan by making pay range adjustments and pay grade changes based upon the annual market study of prevailing wages in the Denver metropolitan area. The Committee approved filing this item on 5-5-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05182020_20-0370

Provides one abstention. Council Resolution 414 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilmember Black, go ahead with your comment on 370. Thank you, Mr. President. I am clarifying that the Office of Human Resources has asked us. To vote yes. On this. Ordinance. Which affirms that there. Will be no changes to the classification and play paint plans due to the annual pay survey. Because of the city's current financial position. The fiscally responsible. Thing to do is to maintain the 2020. Pay levels. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I just had some questions regarding this. I understand that it's the it's our recommendation to vote yes, because the I can't remember the name of the the board that approves these. The survey asked us to vote yes because they told us to vote no. But I just want to make a comment that working in this city and doing pay surveys are really important. And a lot of these people who are impacted by this, of us voting yes, which will ultimately lead to them not getting a pay increase for those city employees who've been retiring, planning on retiring this year and looking forward to this, this will impact their retirement. And I have asked, oh, each hour and some of it will be annual increase ranged from $2 to $0.69 to 2000. So if you're getting a 2000 pay increase and you are retiring, I'm sorry, that does impact your retirement. So I will follow suit here. But I just want to acknowledge that this is a hard pill for me to swallow for those people who have given their career to the city and county of Denver and who have been waiting for this pay audit sometimes for two years. I know one particular person who has been waiting for this audit for two years. And so I just want to acknowledge that and I understand why we're being asked to because of the time of COVID and because of our tax and our budget shortfall. But at the same time, I just it's really hard for me to understand retiring and not having possibly that $2,000 when you retire. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Kinnick. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a similar comment to Councilwoman Sandoval. First, I feel like the description of this bill is a little weird. It mentions the annual market study of prevailing wages in the Denver metropolitan area. In fact, we do a broader study that includes multiple metropolitan areas. So I'm a little confused by the description, but just so I can just my comments make sense, I just want to explain what this does. It does two things. It says for certain classifications that have lagged behind for two years, which means the midpoint in their range is much lower than the midpoint for their peers. Then, you know, two things happen. One is we move the range so that we match that midpoint that does not have a fiscal impact. You just move it when new people are hired, you know, if they're kind of, you know, in the middle of their career versus if they're a hotshot or, you know, it adjusts where you might get hired at going forward. It might suggest how many steps there are in the scale for people when they get married increases. But it doesn't have an immediate fiscal impact. It just right sizes the scale. And then the second thing it does is for people who've been behind individually, because they're behind that that scale, then they might get a bump to bring them back up to where their peers are. And so I think that I like Councilwoman Sandoval. I believe that we should treat all our employees the same, which means. Is that your salary field, your salary scale should be set where the market is. And so because of the timing of this survey, we have a whole crop of workers who scale will not be adjusted. And that to me does not feel necessary. I would have preferred these two things to be split apart. I would have supported continuing to do the scale adjustment so that as folks are moving forward in the future, this scale is right sized. Will salaries change because of the crisis? Perhaps, but no one knows how much and no one knows when. And no one. In the past, we have not penalized workers two years later for changes. You know that we don't slide people down, right? As the market changes, they may grow less quickly going forward, but we don't take people's pay away except when we do it collectively. Like the furloughs are collective action to say we're going to share this pain across the city rather than making a few workers not not get what they deserve. So so I struggle a little bit with the logic of not adjusting the schedule. However, I do understand about the fiscal impact of the bumps. And I do think that, you know, again, this is a greater good moment. So, you know, I have some heartburn about this approach as well. I did appreciate the department having some dialog with me about it. I will be supporting it tonight, but I just want to go on record and say that I do not believe our charter tells us to stop adjusting the scale for the market when there's a crisis. We may not have the money to pay people, but the scale should still reflect what the peers are being paid. So I would have preferred to go that route. But I understand the difficult moment we're in, and I understand the best intentions that the folks had who brought forward this recommendation not to make any changes. So I'll be going along with it for tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Only to add that what I would I hope even even in a budget circumstance is that we're still asking this question of a pay leveling inappropriateness next year. If this is an annual survey and you do it at the end of the year, will it be done this year? Will it be done next year? And what will that tell us? Because at some point we will come out of this budget crisis and will want to rectify those pay scales to make sure that those employees are paid appropriately. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. So no other questions or comments on this one that wasn't called out for a vote. So that concludes the items to be called out this evening. All our bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Council President. I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the block for the following items. All series of 2020 unless otherwise identified. 477 for 11 for 12 for 13 for 15 for 71 for 76 332 362 389 392 395 178 319 323, 21 322 406 369. And I believe that does it, sir. Thank you, Councilmember. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Black High. CdeBaca I. Flynn High. Fillmore. Herndon High. High High. Cashman High. Kenny Ortega Like Sandoval I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Council President. I. Madam Secretary, please go to the voting. Announce the results. 1339 The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed. One final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 130 changing the zoning classification for 2160 South Grant Street.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3740-3850 York Street in the Clayton neighborhood. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-MX-3 and B-2 with waivers and conditions to PUD-G #20 (urban, mixed-use to planned development), located at 3740-3850 York Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.

DenverCityCouncil_11132018_18-0996

On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from personal or individual attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 996 on the floor? Yes, I will. Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 dash 0996 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing of Council Bill 19 nine six is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Sarah White with Community Planning and development here to present the proposed rezoning at 3742 3850 York Street. The rezoning is proposed from B2 with waivers and a condition to a puti g number 21 in Council District nine in the northwest portion of the Clayton neighborhood. Like I said, the request is to rezone from the old code B to with waivers and conditions. And also a part is currently zoned you a max three to a planned unit development number 20. The PD is proposed to be based on IMX three and UM x three to facilitate the re-use of existing character buildings and future additional development with a requirement to provide public amenities, including open space. The existing zoning. As I said, the majority of the site is currently zoned B two with waivers and a condition which is in the old code. The condition on the site is related to a recorded plat map that is basically means you can't change anything on the site without rezoning out of this condition. And then a small portion to the south is currently zoned you a max. Three as you can see to the north of the site is generally industrial zoning. And as you move further south, you move into the lower density USA zoning of the neighborhoods. And the existing land use in the area pretty much follows that zoning pattern. Industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. You can see here some photos that are existing. These are all of the site as you move from north to south. And then these are some photos of the existing contact surrounding. So this is directly across York from the Coca-Cola plant. There's also some vacant, lower scale multi-unit to the southwest. And then the bottom photo is an example of some of the lower scale residential character to the south. So as you know, the purpose of Pewds is custom zoning and it's to provide an alternative set of regulations in unique and extraordinary circumstances. It's more flexible zoning than what would be achieved in a standard zone district that without multiple variances, waivers and conditions wouldn't be feasible. The proposed feud addresses several unique circumstances, including location adjacent to a major city infrastructure project, which is the new 39th Avenue Right of way, and 39th Avenue Greenway, as well as unique structures that would be difficult to repurpose without customization due to their location on the site and the fact that additional development would not be feasible because the existing buildings do not meet the build two that would be required under a standard new code zone district. So the proposed PD is split up into two sub areas. Siberia is the northern portion and the base zoning is IMX three. The deviations that would be included in Saberi a would be flexibility in the phase development reserve area. So this kind of helps us get around those build to issues with the existing structures. It would also require 1500 square feet of publicly accessible open space at the northwest portion of the site to basically serve as a public gateway into the new 39th Avenue Greenway project. And it would allow some flexibility in the build to to be measured from that proposed open space. Some Area B, which is the southern portion of the proposed PWD, would be based on your max three and the flexibility there. We would require higher amounts of transparency regardless of what building form is to be used. So this is one of an example of a public benefit that we get in exchange for the flexibility of a beauty. Again, flexibility in the Phase Development Reserve area to allow development on the site without requiring the existing structures to meet any build to requirements for additional amenities in the parking lot screening. So basically making a better pedestrian environment along the York street frontage and also flexibility in the demolition of compliant structures. Planning Board saw this at their September 9th meeting, and there was a unanimous recommendation of approval. You will see in your packet several letters of support. We have 15 letters of support from individuals, a letter of support from the Clayton R.A., a letter of support from Mile High Ministries, which owns and is planning redevelopment of the large multi-unit across York. A statement of support from the École R.A.. Another letter of support from nearby International Academy School. And a letter of support from the neighboring property owner to the east. Moving into the review criteria in terms of consistency with adopted plans, we have three plans to consider here. We have our two citywide plans, comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver, as well as the O'Leary and Swansea Neighborhood Plan, which covers a portion of the site. The rezoning is generally consistent with several strategies in the comprehensive plan related to infill development and identifying focal points in the neighborhood. Further information on that is in your staff report looking to blueprint Denver so you can see the site here outlined in yellow. The majority of the site is designated as a mixed use area of change and a small portion to the south is considered a single family residential area of stability. The base zoning of the pudi of IMAX three and are max three is generally consistent with the goals of mixed use areas of change to promote a mix of uses. Additionally, Blueprint identifies that in some cases it may be appropriate to change the zoning in an area to create a better match between existing land uses and zoning . So this is applicable to the portion that is designated as single family residential in blueprint. However, that portion of the site has historically been commercial and has not had residential in it in any recent time. So that is better aligning the zoning with the historical use of the site. Blueprint. Denver also gives us guidance for the use of custom zoning and pwds. As you know, previously, parties were used for a lot of different situations and very specific and blueprint when we updated it in 2000 to give guidance to limit the use of PDS to special circumstances and to make them more standardized, which we have done in our paddy practice. And as I said, this is addressing several unique and extraordinary circumstances. So the request is consistent with Blueprint Denver, both its land use recommendations and the use of customized zoning. The earlier in Swansea a plan you can see here. The site is generally outlined in the box in red, so it only covers a portion of the site. But the portion that it does cover designates again as mixed use, which has a sizable employment base as well as a variety of mid to high density housing options. The plan also has maximum height recommendations and for the site it is a recommendation of a three storey maximum height, which the beauty is consistent with. The request will result in the uniform application of his own district within the party. It also furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption and implementation of adopted plans, and also through the provision of additional open space for the neighborhoods. The justifying circumstance identified is since the date of the approval of the existing zone district, there's been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. The identified changes here one are the adoption of the new code. So as you saw earlier, the majority of the site is still zoned in the old code. So that is a justification for the rezoning as well as additional development in the area and then consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. I'm going to move into the next set of criteria which talk about PDS specifically and how the request is meeting the intent and purpose of the Pudi zoning. So we have an additional set of review criteria on top of the standard five rezoning criteria for PWDS. The first criteria is that the Pudi District is consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts, as stated in Article nine Division 9.6 of the zoning code. So basically what that intent statement for PWDS is that you need to have unique and extraordinary circumstances where more flexible zoning than what is achieved through a standard zoned district is desirable, and multiple variances and waivers can be avoided. It's not intended solely as a vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the applicable neighborhood context or to enhance economic feasibility and also must have significant public benefit. So as I've basically covered throughout this presentation, the unique and extraordinary circumstances that are identified is the adjacency to the major city investment of the new 39th Avenue right of way in Greenway, as well as the desire for the reuse of the structures but difficulty doing additional development on the site when those structures would not meet build to requirements of a standard zoned district. It is not intended solely as a vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the neighborhood context. So the Pudi is consistent with the surrounding industrial and urban neighborhood context as seen through the split of the sub areas and the significant public benefit as I've covered the privately owned but public accessible open space requirement as a gateway to the new 39th Avenue development, as well as a higher standard of street level activation through transparency and additional requirements for parking lot screening with amenities to enhance pedestrian character around York Street are all contributing to the required significant public benefit. The remainder of the Pudi review criteria are outlined in your zoning code, but we do find that the request is generally consistent with those. So given that the request is consistent with all five standard rezoning criteria as well as the Pudi specific rezoning criteria, Steph does recommend approval. Thanks. Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you're one of those four individuals, I would ask you to please come to the front bench. When I call your name, your time will start elapsing. So step right up and go ahead and get started. First up, we have Fred Glick. Hi. Good evening. President Clark, members of city council. My name is Fred Glick. I reside at 1190 Olive Street in Denver, and I am the owner of 3850 York. One of the owners of 3840 York and representing all three ownerships ownership groups here today. Also with me is Craig Burleson, who is the CEO of Inner City Health Center. Should you have any questions specific to their properties? Staff has presented a very thorough report for which we're most appreciative. This is a complicated property, and the proposal before you tonight was developed following what I understand to be a lot more meetings than is typical for a rezoning. Staff worked very hard with us to examine possible conforming zoned districts. But the unique circumstances of the site and especially the siting of the existing buildings and the various easements running through the site meant that there was simply not a conforming district which worked. There are three owners here on the south. We have Inner City Health Center, a nonprofit health care provider, and they're hoping to expand their footprint following the rezoning to serve more members of our community. At 3840 York, my partners and I will continue to house community serving nonprofits and businesses, including the GSA Coalition, Working Families, Community Wealth Building and landed and 3850 York will become my family's home. And with this rezoning, we plan to replace the 19 space parking lot in front with some greenery. We've engaged, as you saw with the Arnaud's from the beginning. In fact, we met with the R.A. leadership before we even engaged with the city. We've engaged, as you heard, with our immediate neighbors and obtained letters of support from them. And there is, to my knowledge, no opposition to this. We believe that the proposed map amendment serves the site well, serves the surrounding community well and respectfully. Ask for your approval tonight. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have, and we thank you for your consideration this evening. Thank you. Next up, Craig Brosnan. Thank you. Council President Clark and the council. And thank you, Mr. Glueck. As he mentioned, I am Craig Burleson, the chief executive officer and director of Inner City Health Center. I am honored to stand before the council again. The last time I was here was 2007. At that time, Inner City Health Center was asking for permission to purchase the properties at 3800 York Street. We had existed in five points for 25 years and outgrew that site, and we're looking for a larger location where we can further expand the services that we provide. As I mentioned, we are a safety net clinic. We provide primary health care, serve over 20,000 patient visits a year and continue to grow. And so that's what brings us here today. As part of this effort to rezone that property, it allows us to expand our facility by another 5000 square feet of space and serve 5 to 6000 additional patients in the next 2 to 3 years. And so, again, we ask for your permission. We think we have proven worthy of the council's trust as a community benefits organization. When we first acquired that site, it needed your permission. And I think we've proven that we've served well in that of that purpose, and we ask that you support us again as we further endeavor to not only serve more patients, but serve as a valuable and much sought out training sites for health professions and as an employer with a growing workforce. Thank you so much again for your support. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Good evening. Members of Council. Council President Clark. Other members of the council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm an at large candidate for office. In 2019, I resigned at 2842. Josephine Street and I'm here representing for Denver. Homeless out loud. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. And Community Action for Commitment for Change. We are in approval of this, as has already been stated. Mr. Gergen has gone through the proper steps to get this order, this zoning change. He's consulted the community. The community is in support of it. A lot of these nonprofits, such as working families I work with as well. These are assets to the community. And yes, I would advise that council approve this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David River. David Roybal 742 West and I am a candidate for District three 2019, also represent West Denver United and Positive Action Commitment for Change. I grew up in this area for a long time. Pass it every day I work in Swansea so it's good to see a project that will bring life and enhance and also say there's a good bus line in the human service right there and it's right in the middle of Swansea and Rhino. I didn't see no support for Rhino, but rock drill is called Rhino. That's like four blocks away. So hopefully Rhino just stays on that side. And then you see we have somebody from Rhino running for mayor. It's like but you know, as coalition has done, it's got a lot of good work and and, you know, it's for this building to be used for non-profits and and, you know, things to enhance the community. I hope you support it. And I hope this the community keeps serving the community well. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, they are. Don't don't freak out with my questions. But I do have questions for Sara. The. The. I find it curious that the Illyria plan has a three story recommendation here. Because the industrial land to the essentially across York is a 75 foot height limit. The land to the north of is 75 foot height limit. Was there conversation in the planning process or any indication that there was there was any sort of, you know, transition to get to those heights? Honestly, I wasn't a part of the 2015 planning process on this plan, so I can't really speak to the intent. It does talk in intent language about transitioning to the residential neighborhoods, but generally this whole area has a recommended three storey maximum height so that the existing industrial zoning is FAA based and would allow heights greater than that. But the plan recommends three. So. But is there any talk about maybe a sort of overlay or something to the impacts? I mean, the idea zoned districts to the. We haven't talked about it. The three stories was sufficient for this request. So we didn't have the conversation about. How far. We from the 38th and like station. I don't know. Off the top of my head. See that's obvious on any of the. It's pretty far. Do you know, Fred. We are almost exactly. If you could come up to the microphone to answer that, be great. Thanks. We're almost exactly halfway between 38th and Blake and 40th in Colorado. I think it might be approximately a mile a little bit shorter once the 39th Avenue Greenway goes in, which will provide direct access. But we're outside the Todd area, as it were. Yeah. So, so. Yeah. I guess the rest of mine is comment. So thanks. Thank you. All right. That was all your questions. Just been asking questions. Yeah. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for counsel, Bill 996 is closed. Comments by members of council. Jasmine Espinosa. So you're just going to hear me do a little thinking out loud? You know, I appreciate the customized zoning that you're approaching and that you're bringing forward, obviously, is a sort of building hugger. I like the fact that accommodates essentially what you have, the existing fabric, the embodied energy that is on the site and what have you . And it's sort of I wish you weren't running into friction on your sort of progressive and creative stormwater ideas like I wish we could grant latitude right now. That said, I am sort of perplexed that that is sort of the timing and the the coordination of, you know, this 300, $300 million investment in the channel, the proximity to two light rail stations, and that infrastructure, why we ended up with a plan that didn't capture essentially density as we got closer and closer, further and further north, you know, in this location and sort of that wider stretch. So it is so I just asked those questions. This is, you know, a great zoning. I'll be in full support of it. But there is some other curiosities here that I a I'm going to grapple with if there were any subsequent rezonings. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very familiar with this area. I had the opportunity to go over to inner city and do a tour several months ago and. You know, to see the the breadth and depth of the work that is done by inner city and the need and the demand for the services. I can see where you all are kind of bulging at the seams. I know one of your neighbors just to the north, Clinica Teppanyaki, is also looking at doing an expansion because their services are also equally as utilized by by the community. We had an opportunity Friday night to talk some time ago about the project before it was filed and learned about the the components of what this rezoning will entail. And, you know, this this site sat vacant for a very long time after the city moved the library out of there. We had some other city agencies that were housed on this property. And to see the effort to revitalize it and bring more life to that area is really important. So I'm going to be supporting this tonight and just want to thank all the community folks who worked with you guys to, you know, bring this project forward. It's not always easy to do a rezoning in in neighborhoods, and it involves having to reach out to lots of different groups. And in this area there were quite a few. So I just want to thank you for your efforts in doing that, and I think this will be a great addition to that. Specific corner that has kind of floundered for quite some time. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega Singh on else for comments, I'll just add thank you to staff. Thank you for everyone who came to speak. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for a rezoning. And I will be voting yes this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. All right. Black Eye. Espinosa. Flynn. CASHMAN All right. LOPEZ All right. New ORTEGA Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please go. The voting announced results. 7878. Council Bill 996 has passed. City Council Sitting ex-officio ex-officio as the board of directors for the Fort Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, Reno, Denver General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement District will hold public hearings on Monday, November 19th, related to the 2018 work plans and budgets for each district.

AN ORDINANCE related to the Municipal Arts Fund; amending Section 20.32.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for expenditures related to public art maintenance; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_CB 118719

All right. A report of the civil rights, utilities and economic development and. Item five I was just testing you your read on. Please read the next report, please. Agenda item five Accountable 118 719 Relating to the Municipal Arts Fund amending section 20.30 2.0 50 of the Shadow Minister Code to allow for expenditures related to public art, maintenance and ratifying. Confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. So this ordinance would specifically address the issues related to the Municipal Arts Fund, specifically the change promoted by the council during the budget process last year. And specifically, this allows expenditures on public arts to come directly from the Municipal Arts Fund rather than the Community Community Reserve Sub Fund. Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. So what? Councilmember Suarez. Baker Burgess Gonzalez I Purple High Johnson whereas O'Brien. High. President Harrell high nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passes in the chair will sign it. Read item six three together place.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; changing the operation of the Rate Stabilization Account, and amending Seattle Municipal Code 21.49.086.G.

SeattleCityCouncil_04132015_CB 118350

So thank you very much. The report of the Energy Committee. Please read item two. The Report of the Energy Committee. Agenda item number two Council Bill 118350 relating to the city light department, changing the operation of the rate stabilization account and amending the Seattle Municipal Code. 21.4 9.0 86g. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Council member so on. Thank you. Brian Burgess. This is an ordinance that will push back the effective trigger date for the rate stabilization account until January 1st, 2016. The reserves in the account have surpassed the upper boundary of under $25 million. But the Energy Committee has been told by Seattle City Light that this could be a temporary anomaly from the early melt of the snowpack this winter and that by the end of the summer this will correct itself. And if we did not push off the trigger date, we would likely have to go through the process of discussing a new rate ordinance which would become obsolete before it was finished. And therefore, the Energy Committee recommends that full council pass this council bill. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. All right. All right. Rasmussen All right. So want. I. Back up? Will you call me back? I got it. Hi, Carol. Hi, President Burgess. Hi. Seven, seven. And favorite and opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item three.

Report from the Alameda Rental Housing Community Discussion Group and Request for Council Direction Concerning Various Proposals.

AlamedaCC_01202015_2015-1209

Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And I was going to do a brief introduction to this item and then turn it over to Jeff Canberra, who is going to report out on the community process that he's engaged in over the last three or four months. So this issue of examining the impact of rising rents in the city of Alameda came out of the city's process of adopting its housing element in the summer of 2014. And there were a number of groups that were interested in seeing the housing element reflect a policy on the impact of rising rents. And in lieu of including that policy in the housing element, the City Council directed staff in July to to study this issue and come back with a proposal on how to how to respond to the issues that had been raised in the community. And staff did come back to the Council in September of 2014. And at that time, staff made a recommendation that the Council appoint a seven member task force that would be charged with answering four questions. And the four questions that the task force was being recommended to look at were the following What is the state of the residential rental market in Alameda? What have been the impacts on rental rates, supply of rental housing and the physical condition of rental housing in jurisdictions with rent control? Stabilization ordinances? What changes, if any, need to be made to the city's rent review advisory committee? And what changes, if any, need to be made to the Alameda Municipal Code relative to residential rental housing? So those were the questions that staff was recommending. The seven member task force be charged with exploring with a report back to the city council with recommendations based on that analysis. I'm. Staff's recommendation was made to the council. There were representatives from the community that were suggesting and recommending to the council that an alternate process be put together, which was a community engagement process, to bring together the various stakeholders and have a community wide discussion. And ultimately that is what the Council. Determined it would do and it deferred and set aside staff's recommendation in lieu of this community process, which Jeff Canberra had volunteered to lead and has been leading for the last three or four months. And this time he has concluded the community work that he has undertaken and he is prepared to present to the Council the process that that he guided and the recommendations that came out of that process. So with that overview, I would like to turn the podium over to Jeff, who will present to the Council regarding the effort that's been underway these these last several months. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter. Mayor Spencer, members of the City Council and city staff. My name is Jeff Canberra and I am the community facilitator for the Alameda Rental Housing Community Discussion Group on September 16th. I came to the council and asked for the opportunity to to create an interest based community discussion regarding rental housing issues. The objective of this process was to establish a structure where the city's tenants and housing providers could work collaboratively to develop solutions to rental housing issues. Drawing on their own experience, research and resources available from other jurisdictions and organizations. Tonight, the group requests the City Council to direct staff to evaluate six discussion points and work jointly with the group in order to create an accurate and complete data recording process to document unreasonable rent increases and provide a neutral and supportive forum where tenants and housing providers can come together and collaborate and arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome. It is not the intention of this group to in any way have these discussion points be developed into provisions that would function as rent control. Tenants and housing providers have expressed the interest to remain actively involved in all stages of the refinement of these points and to work closely with city staff. Tonight's update will involve three presentations. I will briefly describe the process used to develop the six points Angela Hawk about of the Alameda Renters Coalition will provide a tenant perspective. And Don Lindsay, one of the city's major housing providers who has been actively involved in the Alameda housing market for many years, will provide additional support. We will all return to the podium to respond to questions from the council and then turn it over to the city staff in order to continue. The Community Discussion Project involve three public meetings. The first meeting was a tennis tenant focused event where tenants were allowed to present their concerns to the public. Renewed Hope read comments that were received with requests from the sender to remain anonymous. Comments range from specific examples of tenants experiencing significant rent increase. Two examples of maintenance issues and fear of being priced out of the rental market in Alameda due to rising rents. The city's Rent Review Advisory Committee informally presented six areas they were considering for future discussion. These six points were not recommendations to the community. The second meeting was a housing provider focused meeting, where individual property owners describe the types of expenses that they were facing and that these expenses were increasing due to government regulation and voter approved taxes. Owners and managers of the larger properties indicated that over the 8 to 10 year return figures were very low and at least one housing provider indicated that their practice was to take reasonable rents annually. The RAC again presented six informal areas of inquiry and once again I will emphasize these were not recommendations coming from the RAC . Based on the two public meetings and several individual tenant and housing provider meetings. The most pressing issues involved the need for an accurate and reliable data collection point to identify individual situations where a small number of housing providers were noticing significant rent increases and developing a method for informing tenants of their ability to have a rent increase . Case heard by our Rent Review Advisory Committee. At this point, the project focus its efforts on the community's presenting problem and concentrated its energies on addressing these two issues. In the individual tenant and landlord group meetings, participants focused on improving the existing mediation process offered by the RAC. The suggested suggestions coming from the participants. Improving the city's current mediation process coincided with Iraq's areas of inquiry after getting support from both tenant and housing provider groups. A focus group of tenant and landlord interest was created to vet the six points and get authorization to distribute them to the larger groups and eventually to the community. The six points are discussion. Point one involves the failure of the tenant of a tenant and housing private provider to participate in a hearing in good faith. Discussion point to requires mutual participation in the hearing process. Discussion point three requires that a notice of option to participate in Iraq hearing be given in writing with any notice of a space rent increase over a specific defined percentage. Discussion point four would prohibit retaliation for exercising a legal right to Iraq. Hearing discussion point five provides for an expedient hearing process in cases where that would be necessary. Discussion point six. Would establish a minimum rent increase amount in order to participate in a rack hearing. The focus group unanimously approved points one through four for the release to the larger groups and to the general public. Eight out of nine members approved point number five, and there was no agreement on point number six. And it is my understanding that the parties on their own are continuing to have discussions centered around that point. I think it is important to note that the focus group did not directly represent any individual or group opinion or position. However, the group members were representative of the various tenant and housing interests that we believe we have in the city. The third meeting was held on January 7th involving the presentation of the six discussion points that originated in the public meetings and were reinforced in individual tenant and housing provider point of view meetings held after the public meeting. These six points are not to be considered direct recommendations to the City Council. They are presented to the Council in order to get authorization for staff to continue to refine the six points if authorized. A meeting with staff could be set up in the next several weeks. Ms. may talk about we'll be presenting shortly. I want to make sure that everybody's clear that she'll be presenting and then she will introduce Mr. Lindsey. He will then address the council. We will be able to come back up to address questions and then we will be turning it back to staff. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. I'm back. My name is Angela Hawk About. And I started the Alameda Renters Coalition last September. Our membership has grown to nearly 400 members, many of whom are afraid that they could be pushed out of their homes by sudden high rent increases at any time in the current legal climate and just have 30 to 60 days to find alternative housing. There isn't enough diverse, affordable housing in Alameda. This limited supply means that some landlords are raising rents as high as they can, and some landlords are using exorbitant increases to push out existing tenants to raise rents even higher. This is unfair to renters who have little recourse under Alameda Law to stay in their homes. Earlier. We did have a lot more renters here, but there were families here. And as it's gotten too late, they've had to leave. But there's some of them represented, right cases where there were 20, 47% and even 30% increases. And over the last year, during 2014, 40 households felt the need that their rent increases were so high that they made the application to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. That sounds like a lot of people to me who feel at risk of losing their homes. I'm sorry, could I just have you reiterate, did you say last year 40 people made retirement, have filed. 40 households made applications? Maybe not all of them were heard by the RAC. Maybe some of them were negotiated before there was a meeting. Okay. But there were 40 households that actually approached it and had maybe some of them are also from individual buildings where there are multiple units within a building and they all presented at the same time. But they still represent individual households. Okay. Thank you. We recognize that this doesn't resent represent the majority of housing providers in Alameda who make reasonable rent increases and take good care of their properties. However, these exorbitant, exorbitant rent increases are still a problem that the city must address. Jeff Canberra's rental housing discussions have educated the community on the issues at hand. Renters and housing providers were able to join together and discuss each other's challenges. It turned out that many Alameda landlords disagreed with the exorbitant rent increases that pushed families out of their homes. At the same time, it was clear that renters understood the need for reasonable rent increases. This mutual understanding built a strong foundation for renting and property interests to discuss possible solutions. We hope to continue these discussions in good faith. As a renter and Landlord Alliance organization during this period of discussions, the Rent Review Advisory Committee presented details about this, their process and offered some ideas that they thought might make the rec more effective. We were able to discuss these ideas in several focus groups and exchange different points of view on what was feasible or not. Jeff Canberra has just presented the results, the six points that will strengthen the Rent Review Advisory Committee. We believe that they are a starting point for city staff to explore exorbitant rent increases and study solutions that have already been vetted by a public renter and housing provider. Focus group. We hope that such measures will discourage housing providers from making these 20, 30 and 40% increases. However, still more work needs to be done. More data needs to be collected, and more serious study is needed on how to prevent these increases in the first place. I hope the city will take the time to review how other cities have tackled the problem and find additional ways to ensure fairness in the rental market. A stronger rent review advisory committee will tell renters that they might have a fair chance at staying in their homes and will tell the landlords who make such increases that they will have to answer for them on public record in front of a civic body city council. I hope you will direct city staff to review these proposals and offer a report back to City Council within six months. The Alameda Renters Coalition would be more than happy to work with city staff as a helpful resource. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. And I just want to clarify for everyone, this is still part of the presentation. And that's why she was allowed to speak more than 3 minutes and. Now, Mr. Lynch, you may continue. Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council and staff. My name is Donna Lindsay, and I've been in the real estate profession in Alameda for a few decades. We'll put it that way. I have been involved really from the beginning of this process with with Jeff and I, I, I have a few comments on it. I have been totally supportive of the process. I think it was wise to. To get people involved that as Jeff did, that are directly involved either as a renter or as a provider or a manager. And I think that was it kind of we kind of got to it in a hurry with with those kinds of interests being involved in the process. They were true stakeholders as. As we're called. And. And I think through the process that we've all become more aware if we haven't been aware of. You know, the problems that exist and some of the. Details as to kind of where we where we are today. We have explained, I think in in great in detail of the the business of owning and managing renting apartments. It's business like anything else. We've been confronted with rising costs, of course, and we've been involved in changing markets. And there are those here that I'll speak to that. So I won't go into a lot of detail on that. Alameda has a lot of diverse housing stock because, as we all know, the owners consist primarily of alum Edens. And I think that's really important. We care about Almeida. We like owning property in Alameda. And we believe in just the. The idea of fairness, and we definitely frown on excessive rent increases. That's that's not what we're about. It's it's not fair. It's it puts a tremendous burden on a resident to get a huge rent increase. And we're we're totally against that concept. We as a community because we care and because we're special, we're different. We can we can work through these issues, through this mediation process. The the process has worked. Generally, there have only been a couple of cases that have been brought before the council in the last couple of years. It generally generally works well. I've gone through the details pretty, pretty carefully, and we've got history that goes back to 2008 or 2007. I think there were years when the rec didn't even have a case because of the market. And you'll hear more about that as we. Continue to talk this evening. The idea of strengthening the RAC is the we feel the best solution. The word should be out there that the RAC is available. And, you know, if if an increased notice is given, there should be information that tells the resident if that if they have a if they have a problem with the increased it, that they can appeal it. That that's one of the main things that the first thing that we agreed upon is the RAC should have a higher profile and there should be no excuse why I didn't know the RAC existed. So that's that's very important. I think it's moving forward. I think it's extremely important that that we continue to talk to and promote the idea of reasonableness with with all property owners in the community. I think we're we're good at that. I think we need to work to. Kind of fact, I talked to and Angela Angela this morning about this of of forming a coalition of owners and managers and renters alike. Let's form a group and continue to work on these issues and head off the issues really before they get to the RAC stage. We've got eco housing that helps and they've been doing a great job in solving some issues before they get to the RAC. Let's let's add an additional layer of people in the community of owners and let's, let's talk to each other if, if increase comes in and, and it can't get resolved right away, there's nothing better than one owner talking to another owner and saying, hey, this is not the way we do things. So I think that's something we can develop and improve upon. We have great resources in our management companies here. We can work with residents who have a particular problem. That's that's what we do for a living. We we rent properties and manage properties so we we can help relocate. Relocate people. Let's let's let's move forward. Let's strengthen the rack and make it more visible. You'll have you'll have a better way. Of. Assessing. You know, if if if there's a problem, there'll be no excuse for not knowing about it. It'll be there in a year from now or so. You'll have a better understanding of of what's going on in the rental market. Again, just in closing, we're really good and working together. And let's let's move, move forward doing that. Thank you. And at this point, I'll need a motion to continue the meeting beyond 11 seconds. All those in favor. I thank you. Now, honestly, past. So. QUESTION So did anyone have clarifying questions? We do have speakers on this item that. If you do plan to speak on this, please submit your slip. You know, do I have any questions? But I was going to defer to allow me to go first. I've I've got a couple. So this is probably for both our landlord and tenant representatives, if you would. And I, by the way, I appreciate the your involvement, all of your involvement, the three of you. And I should quickly disclose that I met last week, I think it was with Mr. Lindsay and a group of landlords at his offices. And prior to that, a day or two prior, I met with Laura Thomas of Renewed Hope. So I'm trying to, you know, hear all sides of this issue. Thank you all for your work. I know, Mr. Lindsay, you said that this process generally works well, that the RAC process, it's out there when you can get people to talk to each other, that generally works. But I also read in the comments in the report that Mr. Cameron submitted that and I think it was Laura Thomas of renewed hope, said that she had some tenants who in fact chose to remain anonymous because they were concerned with retaliation. It sounds good to say, well, just talk to your landlord. But I think we could all imagine a situation where you felt that talking to your landlord would be the worst possible thing you could do. So how how would you how would you deal with that? The the the issue where some tenants are just afraid to speak up and talk to their landlord about an increase to try to negotiate on their own. And the other thing, and this was one of the five or six points that are proposed is that well, and also I would just throw out my opinion that it's not exactly a level playing field, because obviously the landlord owns that building and the tenant needs a place to live. But the requirement is the same. Each has to show up or they can't avail themselves of legal processes. But under the proposal, all the landlord has to do is show up at the hearing. And then, as we discussed at Mr. Lindsay's office, they could still impose a 65% rent increase because they showed up at the hearing. So if you could maybe merge those two concerns and Angela, you look ready to. James so ready. All right. One of the reasons I started the Alameda Renters Coalition was because there wasn't enough support for renters in this marketplace to empower themselves to use the services that are available to them. I myself endured a $450 rent increase in 2013 that forced me out of my home, and I had to move in with my mother in law, where I currently reside at Bay Farm Island. And when that happened to me as someone who was a good renter and had periodic every year $75 rent increases, and I had gotten a $75 rent increase that year to all of a sudden in August, four months after my initial rent increase to get an additional $450 rent increase felt like a slap in the face. I felt little recourse. And when I investigated the rack, investigated eco housing, I really didn't get a lot of support. And I felt that it might not be kind of me to try to air my my problems in public. And fortunately, I found the strength to negotiate with my landlord so that I could afford to stay in my apartment for a few months before we could make the arrangements to move in with my mother in law. But in that process, I was very much alone, and I felt like this was my problem, this was my fault , that I had no one else to help me. And so out of that, after realizing on all the different social media for Alameda that really there wasn't a lot of public support for renters, that an organization needed to be started to provide that support. And so what we are trying to do and in the process of doing we're an infant, we've only been around since September, is to provide education and emotional and practical support to renters. And that is part of a hopefully a larger picture involving Mr. Lindsay and other housing providers in Alameda to work together to. They have an amazing process where they all talk among themselves. They don't like these exorbitant rent increases. And I'm pretty sure that when somebody makes those rent increases, they hear about it. And I think we can all work together to bring renters to the table, to take advantage of the services that they have and make them more educated consumers as well. So I think that if the city staff comes back with some of these recommendations to make a stronger crack, it will be part of a larger ecosystem of rental housing, and especially if we're working together, cooperate. Lee. Where we can try to decrease these exorbitant rent increases. I mean, there are other problems as well. I'm hearing from renters that even 10% rent increases are difficult for them because they're happening that high year after year. And at this point, because rents are so high. 10% can represent represent hundreds of dollars. And so I'm hoping that we can engage the housing provider community to find ways of easing those rent increases, because we recognize and we understand that significant costs are included as part of taxes, as part of improvements to units. But, you know, what does it say about the provider if they raise rents so high that a person can't afford to live there who has made the investment of living there for year after year? And in this market where there are few rentals available, it is nearly impossible to find a replacement housing within 30 to 60 days . And I was just lucky. I was lucky that my mother in law has lived in Alameda since 1967 and that she had a house for me to go to. I was the best case scenario for that housing provider, and there are people who are definitely not as lucky as I am. And that's why I'm here and that's why I'm started this organization. Thank you. Two quick questions. Did you want to respond, Mr. Lindsey? Sorry, Mr. Lindsey. Yeah. Let's see my comments. If if if I were a resident here and I got a 25 or 30% increase, I wouldn't keep it a secret. Somebody is going to know about it. That's that's sort of my attitude. And if the racks available, I'm going to go to the rack and get it resolved, or I'm going to sit down with it with the owner and try and get it resolved. I'm going to go to echo housing and try and get it resolved. I can't do that. I'm going to go to Rack. If I can't get it resolved there, I'll go to the council, which has happened, what, two times in the last two years in this whole process. So that's my answer to the first question. I'm not going to keep it a secret and worry about retaliation, which is not legal anyway, and it's not right. But I'm not going to be kept secret. That's the second question. That the landlord just has to show up and then can raise the rent any percentage. Yeah, well I don't see those cases at the rack and I've, I've looked through them pretty carefully for the last couple of years and someone comes in with an increase and it gets resolved pretty typically. Well, remember we discussed the Benton. The Benton. Well, we we all know about Benton Street and we all know about Park Street. Those were two different cases that they eventually worked out. Okay. But those those are not. Those are not good. But, you know, we have, what, 16,000 rental units here. And I think percentage wise, it's pretty much new. But I'd just like to address one other thing briefly. There was a case last week. No, two weeks ago. Iraq had seven residents who appeared objecting to an 18% increase. And the owner who lives out of town came in and basically said, no, I'm not going to deal with you. And he left. And that was the end of it. I did talk to I did finally get to the owners after the hearing, although I left a message for them before the hearing. And long story short, a couple of days ago, they agreed to go to the 10%. So it peer peer pressure does work and it's just being involved and working on these things. So that's that's a comment I have on that. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions. To two brief ones? The recommendation is that we enhance or strengthen the process. Can you briefly tell us what the process is now? As quickly as that. Maybe that's Miss Potter. Yeah, I think that. Yeah. Well, just. Just quickly. I think this doesn't really. Matter that. We do have 16 speakers and 3 minutes. That's 48 minutes. I'd like to get to them. And two and one of the speakers is David Perry, the chair of the RAC and another RAC member this evening. But quickly, we have on the housing authorities website there is a rent increase complaint form. If you feel like you've had a rent increase that you want to have mediated, you fill out that form. Staff will take it in and it will. The RAC meetings are scheduled as there are cases that the RAC meets once a month. It is a voluntary process. The tenant and the property owner are invited to come to the meeting. Both sides present their. They're their side of the story. The rack makes rack members can make suggestions about think of this, think of that. And often times most of the time, they're those recommendations are taken and the two parties agree to to go with what the rack has recommended. And typically the rack encourages rent increases that are 10% or less and encourages folks to increase their rent annually so that you have less likelihood that you're going to get a large one time increase. But Rack does not deal with maintenance issues or fair housing issues or anything else. They deal with rent increases and staff can refer people to echo housing. You've heard mentioned several times and other resources that are available to deal with fair housing and maintenance and other kinds of issues. And if it's not result at the rack, what happens? There is an opportunity for if the property owner or the tenant wants to pursue it, to come before the council and staff. Typically the recommendation is to ask council to write a letter to the property owner upholding the recommendation. The council typically votes to uphold the recommendation. A letter is sent and typically those that request to uphold the rack recommendation is not complied with. Because if it's going to be dealt with, it's going to be dealt with. Well, in our experience at the at the RAC or as Mr. Lindsay was just talking about the case that was just heard two weeks ago and following the meeting, the property owner reflected on the recommendations that were being suggested and subsequently decided that they made a lot of sense. And the other question, maybe this is for Mr. Camera. You know, I see a lot of signs in here with some big numbers. You know, can you can you share with us how many tenants came to you throughout this process and said, my rents were increase like over 10%? And can you elaborate on some of that? Was it three people? Was it ten people? Was it you know, so there were some serious challenges with just getting tenants to contact me. My name, phone number and email address were in the papers multiple times, and when I did get somebody that did actually call me, the very first thing that they said was, Can I be anonymous? How do I even get involved with this process? Because I am fearful of retaliation was the number one reason that people gave for not wanting to be involved. And I think that is part and parcel of a few, very, very few bad examples. Benton being one of them, which was the very rare, I think, situation that the council had to deal with, except it also went everywhere. And so now that sends a message, I think, to tenants that if we don't have a process that's that is effective, then they don't have any recourse. So I will I can guarantee you that was the issue that I had to face, which was why it was difficult to get people together. Fortunately, between MM Renter Renters Coalition and Renewed Hope, there was like a safety area where tenants could go. I wasn't even invited to some of the meetings, but the information that came out of them then did come to me. So how many was there? Six over 10%. Was there five or 25% or was there three? I mean, how many people anonymously or that care to identify themselves? So for the people that came forward at the tenant meeting, there were probably maybe 12 to 14 that actually came and either spoke or sent emails in and their increases were in what was the average. And sometimes they didn't I don't have that statistical data and but I think if you look at the rack records for last year, that will give you some insight into that, some of the types of rent increases that tenants were facing. I'd like to move on if we can, and start calling on speakers, please. Thank you very much, David Perry. Then I'll be royal Robert. And then Eric Johnson. Thank you. And I really appreciate everyone being so patient. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council staff. I'm David Perry. I'm the current chairperson of the RAC. This is Royal. Robert's, my colleague is also a member of the RAC. Debbie pretty much answered, you know, the question you had. We both we and staff thought it might be helpful if we gave a very brief overview of what the RAC is and what it does to give context to what is being presented by the task force. And the only suggestion would be, please don't be redundant. I have a lot of other people. Consist of five members. We are not advocates. We all we all have a background in legal backgrounds or real estate backgrounds, background in landlord tenant law, a a passion for mediation. I think we all share that. We had, as was stated, we had spoken and given informational presentations at three of the public task force meetings at which we presented ideas we had batted around informally but had not, you know, drilled down into or made formal in any sense. Some of those ideas have been taken up by the task force. So in order not to be right, I won't be redundant. But I will say that we do support the task force's request that the City Council direct staff to further evaluate those proposals. Thank you. Thank you. One thing I would like to add and thank you for your time is the committee consists of of those five members, two of them are renters. Two of them are landlords and one is an independent homeowner. And those aren't advocacy positions. Those are just to have the balance of the make up of the people that are on the committee anymore. Thank you. One further face to this thing, something. I had a 20% rent increase a few months back. And sorry get you continue. To give another face to this. I had a 20% increase a few months back and my landlords know I'm on the rack. So there you go. Okay. I did not bring it before the rack. And Madam Mirror to indicate I've been in discussions with the city attorney about this matters as I do rent out rooms at my place helps pay the mortgage. I inquired as to whether that constitutes a conflict of interest to which the city attorney had indicated it does not. Given that this discussion is a discussion matter that will affect the public generally. So there is no specific effects, positive or negative to me. It's a fact that generally, which I am a member of. We can share those comments later. Let's continue. The two gentlemen are finish. Thank you very much, Eric Johnson. And then Garfield can cross and then Doyle Saylor. Thank you very much. Mayor Council Staff Good evening. My name is Eric Johnson and I've been a housing provider in Alameda for about 30 years. I hate to admit that, but I'm responsible for 366 apartment units from one end of the island to the other. They're well-maintained. These are limited partnerships primarily. And so they have many owners. And so I'm a general partner and a managing general partner, and those owners are here in Alameda. And I think that's typical of the dispersion you see of of housing providers here in this town, which is unusual in my experience. A lot of ownership in in in the town. Here in the community. So one of the things I wanted to do is look back ten years and look at the end game on these 366 years. So you get a better picture than just the last 18 months of what's going on here. So I went back and looked at 2004 income and compared it to 2013 and come see actual results or accounting is done outside by third party accounting. DCH Phillips City, a well-known accounting firm. They do the bookkeeping, too, which is unusual. So these numbers are our numbers that I don't have any control over. From 2004 to 2013, we saw a steady and typical fall in the purchasing power of the dollar. So we saw the dollar fall 23.3% in terms of purchasing power. You're well aware of that. Doing your budgets, that affects us. Very starkly as well. So in order for the rents to cover the property's expenses rising at this rate over these ten years, nominal rents would need to be 23% higher ten years later, just to stay even. You know, in theory now our taxes went up higher than that. Water bills went up higher than what's, let's call CPI, a nominal benchmark. So collected income for these 366 units overall has gone up 27% in that time period, barely above the 23% of the CPI. So when corrected for actual dollars after subtracting from inflation and I realize this renters look at it effective real rise was about 4%. Over those ten years, 4% over ten years, so point 4% annually over those ten years. So that's what the rental markets look like to people like me that are trying to do the seismic work, repair the sidewalks that we now have to pay for, that the city no longer pays for fix earthquake damage. It it seemingly never happens. We've adopted the international building code for roofs, so no more flat roofs. We have to pitch our roofs. If we replace roofs, that's going to double the cost. So all of this makes it very difficult to maintain sustainable housing. That's what I'd like you to think about when you think about apartments and in your town, do you want sustainable housing? This stuff is old. It's 50 to 70 years old. It's costing more and more to maintain. My thanks to Jeff. I told him this was going to be like herding cats, you know? Ex Speaker Ross Garfield. Ken Cross. Hello, Mayor Spencer. And City staff and city council members. My name is Garfield Cairncross. I've been in Alameda since the base was open. I worked there ten years. I transferred to the United States Mint in San Francisco as a civilian metal finisher. I'm a federal employee. 30 years. I saw lots of retirement. A ceremony today. And, you know, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to be able to retire because of these incremental rent increases that I've received over the past three years. There's a trend of. Receiving 10% increase as the flat rate. Whenever there's a market surge, this becomes an issue here. From what I understand, the RAC was able to provide a one year stay on rent increases after I had received a 20% rent increase. But I didn't know about the rack. And I found out about it through a very ambitious, uh, proactive renter in my complex. About 30 of us showed up that night, and then a rent crisis was publicized. That's what the term was in the press. So, you know, I'm just wondering, you know, is is it going to keep going up? You know, do I have to live in, you know, some small space and pay. Just as much or. More and sacrifice, you know, my health needs. You know, I have to pay for transportation, you know, and. I just don't know what's going to happen next. But I feel a little a little safer now that this study has has been put forward and is in the process of evaluation by. I hope that it becomes in the process of evaluation by this committee or excuse me, by the city council. And I can say that I'm very thankful for for having the opportunity to to to stand before you and ask for the implementation of these six measures that were brought together after this. Merging of tenants and landlords. Thank you. Thank you, Doyle. Sailor. Hi there. Madame Mayor, I want me to city council members. My name is Doyle Saylor, and I'm a Alameda renter. The media likes to tell us the San Francisco Tech workers are pushing up rents, trying to take advantage of lower Alameda rents. I dispute this claim. The National Association of Realtors figures for the year November 2013 to November 2014 for the San Francisco Bay Area. Housing unit sales declined by 20%. But the prices. Went up by 27%. That price rise and housing is not tech workers putting pressure on existing sales. It is speculators pushing prices up as sales decline. Recognizing house flipping is coming to a halt. The same speculative groups have switched their recently purchased stocks to rental income and similarly set prices higher. Additionally, informal interviews with individual property managers report as much as 20% of rental units they manage are being held off market to further enhance price gouging. It is speculators, not tenants, raising rents sky. High. Thank you. Thank you, Jason Buckley. And then Jon Sullivan and then Ken Laban. Hello, Mayor. And Council and staff. You've got me way past my bedtime, so I may be a little cranky, but, boy, a couple of things I wanted to address. One is that, I mean, even with the fact we're looking at 10% increases, which for struggling families whose income is probably pretty stagnant, that's that's a lot. The whole process has kind of been a little frustrating as the Iraq. Really has no teeth. And I don't know what the solution would be, but I mean, I would like to see the RAC get a little bit more reformed. I'd like to see it maybe have some kind of enforcement. Yeah. I'm exhausted. I'm sorry. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Mayor Spencer and members of the council. Members of the staff. I'm John Sullivan. And I've been. Operating. I'm an owner operator of 200 units here in Alameda for over four over the last 20 years, really back about 15 years ago. And we had a market, general market like we had no where the rents were going up. And I at that time representing the Rental Housing Association and CAA and some others got involved in getting together and getting a good rental mediation program going for different cities. San Leandro, Alameda and the. The unincorporated area of Alameda County served three different jurisdictions through different programs. Really? So. So. Naturally, being involved with that stage event. Stayed involved and witnessed the negatives, the ups and the downs and so forth of the mediation programs, how they worked. And they're all outlined really. They're all captured pretty much on that first document on the top of your your list there. So I would like if you would, you know, peruse through that. Now, today, I really feel we have an excellent opportunity to form a kind of a model mediation program here in Alameda, having the benefit of watching how these other programs work over the last 15 years or so. As you know, as long as we learn from it and make appropriate adjustments to suit, you know, our situation and so forth, and a little back up material that would be. And next, I guess behind your program, they're behind your the initial one. And this would be. We had, you know, we always have the question of why. Why can't we, you know, give 2%, 3%, 4%, whatever every year? Well, it's not possible. And the reason the market really dictates that and this what this came from, not me, from another landlord who wanted to show the fact that there's many years, many years when there's no possibility of giving a rent increase. And it shows that in some of these there if you want to browse through them and and it shows the average rent increase over year 15 and to a ten, ten year period. And they're anywhere from a look here for 3.9 to 2.43 and before this bring it out on an annual basis. So the fact is we have to. To really acknowledge the fact that we there will be highs and lows. So the tenant does benefit one day when they're in the low times. Now, one other item that we haven't really one other item that we haven't really addressed, and that is that there are the extraordinary increases of 15% , 20%, 30%. And that happens when an A sale, generally of sale, a piece of property. I really feel any good mediation program should address that. And that's something we should look into and. A few other items and I'll just finish up and there are two other attachments there. One of them is a caution racing wrench in today's market. That's something that we as landlords put out, distributor members cautioning against and, you know, excessive raises, obviously, and trying to smooth out. So it'll make it at least as palatable as possible to a tenant. And so and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak on this. I hope you would, you know, seriously, take a look and consider these items that I have presenting to you and then. Obviously I would be available going forward to, you know, to put any finishing touches to this program that we're you know, we're all into it together. I'd been at a lot of those meetings and talked to different people, and I'm sure we could still work together with, you know, Angela, Jeff and Don and so forth, and that I hope the loose ends and come up with a good program. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ken. Madam Mayor. Council. My name is Ken Godliman. I'm a resident here in Alameda. And I would like to thank Jeff for doing such a beautiful job. Thank you, Jeff. It really helped. Bring people together. As a contractor here in Alameda. I retrofitted and replaced foundations by the hundreds. And I can tell. You that in the last. Ten, 15 years, the cost for that project. Has doubled. Retrofitting a home. And putting new foundation in. Is it safe for our community and it's safe for the inhabitants who live in it. I'm afraid that if there's any kind of a rent control or a freeze on price, it will. The. Devastating for our community. It actually keeps the homes and our community from being safe. And that's where it's at. Thank you very much. Yeah. Bruce Carnes, then Barbara Rasmussen and then Ed Hirshberg. Mayor Council. I'm a small landlord and I have two Victorians who are terribly expensive to maintain and I've kept my rents down where they're not anywhere near market. And a lot of my friends are this way. And I think that introducing something new, I think the peer pressure is probably the best way to go about this. And all of us, lots and lots of small landlords, we live right here in Alameda. And so we're we're affected by the city. We love the city. And that's what I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mayor. Council members. Staff. My name is Barbara Rasmussen. I've lived in Alameda for quite a long time. I've been a housing provider for about 20 years. I want to thank Jeff for the work he's done and say that I support the proposal that he has before you. Thank you. Thank you. Hirshberg. I don't believe he must have left. Moving on then. Laura Thomas, Marjorie Roach and Angie Watson will be after. And then David Howard. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members Laura Thomas from Renewed Hope. First off, I wanted to give you copies of our rent survey updated because I gave you copies back in July. And about 40 more people reached our online survey and answered it in the meantime. I can't say that the results are random because they're self-selected. They're people that, you know, heard about it. Found their way to our Google. Site and filled it out. But what I think since there's three of you that weren't on the council six months ago, I thought it would be good to bring an update. So some of the first responders responded back at the beginning of 2014. And so there's 40 new ones. But I think what you might find really enlightening and useful is the 180 comments that are attached. So everybody that responded to the survey had an opportunity to post a comment and we collected them all. So that will be, you know, I think, help quite a bit in understanding some of the anxiety people are feeling. So renewed. Hope greeted the suggestion of that city task force back in September with a certain amount of skepticism because it didn't include tenant representatives. But we also responded to the desires voiced at the time by both the organizing committee of renters that we had convened, and the landlords and property managers. Who. Wanted to engage in a discussion of the issues and the problems surrounding rent increases. And we chose this alternative because we hope to bridge the divide and we hope to find common ground. As you know, the progress, I think, was kind of difficult and it underlined the disparity in power between the two groups in particular, because it was very hard for us to get tenants to come. And we ended up with a kind of a small core group that was. Brave enough to just sit down throughout the whole process. But what emerged in the meantime was something that we had hoped for, which was the tenant led group, the Alameda Renters Coalition, whose intent is to continue working with property managers to strengthen the Rent Review Advisory Committee and to continue to organize and support renters in Alameda. We aren't going to ask that for the task force to be convened at this point. We will be throwing our support behind the coalition has it takes the lead in organizing tenants. And we'll hope we'll all be working together to bring stable and affordable housing. De Almeida In pushing for the rent stabilization process to be included in the element, I reminded the Council that part of housing element law requires the city to conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock. And that means market rate rentals. You are the only ones that can say that the half of Alameda that is renting can turn to to deal with these economic forces that are assaulting them. And I hope you can develop the proper policies that recognizes the value of our community's social and emotional health. So I hope you will give. Us. Solutions to these destabilizing housing costs your highest priority. Thank you. Thank you. Next was Marjorie and Angie from Echo. Are they? Yes. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Marjorie Roach. I'm from Echo Housing. I'm the executive director. And Echo. Is currently under. Contract with the city. Of Alameda to provide fair housing counseling. And investigation and tenant landlord counseling and conciliation services. We are the oldest approved fair housing investigation and enforcement organization in the state. Our purpose is to ensure that all renters have access to fair housing regardless of race, gender, national origin, disability, familial or marital status or sexual orientation or identity. As tenant landlord counselors, we are not advocates for either the renter or the housing provider. We advocate for the law to make sure that tenants and landlords are aware of the rights and responsibilities. When I reviewed. The Alameda. Rental Housing Community Discussion Group report, specifically discussion point five, it made me aware that some rent increases become effective before they're heard by the rack. In cases such as these, Echo may be able to provide a formal. Mediation. Between the renter and the landlord. This type of mediation, which would be provided, includes a face to face meeting at which would be present the disputing parties and at least one mediator who would be a neutral party. The purpose of this type. Of mediation is to make. Sure that all sides are heard and all parties understand the issues. The mediator would be responsible for. Facilitating the meeting and getting the parties. To speak to each other instead of past each other to come to a mutually agreeable solution. The mediation can. Take anywhere from. An hour to several hours, depending on the complexity of the issues. I have another issue that concerned me with regard to the report that Mr. Camber wrote. Tenants were reluctant to come forward to complain about rent increases because of fear of reprisals or retaliation by housing providers. I want every. Person in this chamber. To be aware of the fact that a landlord may not legally. Retaliate. Against a tenant for exercising his or her rights under the law. This includes exercising First. Amendment rights. To assemble and prevent views collectively and. Joining. Or organizing a tenants. Union. I want to make sure that everybody hears it. If there isn't. Anybody if there is anyone in. This room that has been threatened in this. Way. Please contact Echo Housing. Our number is 855. Ask Echo or 510 5819380. Thank you. Thank you. David Howard and Dennis Cox and Andrew Barr leaving. Good evening, Mayor and council and staff members. I'm an Alameda resident and since 1985 have been either a commercial real estate appraiser or a chief underwriter for affordable housing developed development. A lender. My position is that the evidence is pretty strong, that rent control is a right a solution. It has been tried and failed in virtually every case. The main problem with rent control is that there's no means test. So whoever's in there, it's subsidized. And what turns out to be the case is you're more likely to subsidize an investment banker than somebody who needs to be subsidized. For example, I'll be appraising a property tomorrow. That has a stockbroker in the penthouse. At less than 50% of market rent. Running his stock brokerage business. Out with a wide bank of screens. And so this is what happens with rent control. Another unintended consequence would be my family moved to Alameda in the beginning of 2000. We lived next door to a blighted property that was, I think, nine units. The building was built in 18. 90, approximately. So this building would be subject to rent control. It would have never been renovated. It was a vector problem up until a year and a half ago when the rents got strong enough. This what was really looked like the Addams Family house finally got renovated. And then the last thing I would point out from my experience to two things actually in appraisal work is. When there's an apartment complex that's in a lesser neighborhood, those units will never get renovated, that they will be as bad as can possibly be and be inhabitable. So that's one unintended consequence. The other one is this only protects the people who are there right now because. Once somebody moves out and rent controls in place, the landlord will charge the highest possible rent. That is achievable. First of all, there will be very few units because people don't leave rent controlled units. So vacancy goes way down, which will drive the rent up on the remaining units. So the consequences? It's an idea. It seems like it would work, but because mainly because there is no means testing, you get all these bizarre consequences and it affects the upkeep of the properties also. And then finally, new people who want to move in here, no matter how poor they might be, they're out of luck. Cox. Hey. Of our 11. Rashid Shabazz, Don Spangler. That's our order. Thank you. As far as I know, Dennis Cox is not here. All right. Oh. Okay. The end of our living. Good evening, Mayor. Council and staff. My battery is almost out, so I'm glad I was called. I'm speaking this evening as the immediate past president of the Alameda Association of Realtors. Our current president, Tony Berg, was unable to attend. So I'm speaking on. His behalf for our board. The Alameda Association of Realtors is an organization whose members represent both renters and housing providers. We provided information as requested by the facilitator and only attended those meetings where all parties were invited. We've read the report and we believe the report does not respond to the direction of the city council. The Council has the group to provide. Information. Regarding the depth of the problem, as well as. Demographic information, including the number and type of. Rental units available in Alameda. Median rent for each type of unit and average vacancy rates. What we feel the report does not address the request of the Council. We do feel that it fairly highlights. The rent review advisory committee. The good work that it does and the need to increase the committee's role in this process. The LME, the Association of Realtors, stands ready to be active in any further committees or. Assistance as needed. Thank you. Yeah. Rashid. Good afternoon or good evening. It is late, like another speaker said and past my bedtime. Council. City staff. Beautiful people of Alameda. My name is Rashid Shabazz and I moved to Alameda in 1987. I moved here along with my mother, the beautiful, intelligent Deborah James or Deborah James. And we moved to a shelter on Concordia Street, which was near what used to be the liquor bar and later Rite Aid and now I think is Westbury. We were able to later move to a one bedroom apartment over on Central, above what's called a Taco Bell here across from what used to be Taco Bell and Elmo Mike's. And we later moved in 1989 to what was then the point of Vista Apartments and later Bridgeport. Now, we were able to move into that apartment complex because there had been a situation similar to what we've seen here, where rents were raised double, doubled in many instances, or threatened to be doubled by a property owner, Gersten Company out of L.A. and people came to the city council meeting, protested and ultimately Section eight vouchers were issued and me and my mother was for the move into the Harbor Island apartments or again it was the post office departments that are Bridgeport Apartments. And many people know the story that in 1996, the 15 group, the Florida Slumlords, bought those apartments and renamed it the Harbor Island Apartments. For about eight years, this out-of-state landlord allowed the apartments to deteriorate. There was a Harbor Island task force in which no residents were involved, and this task force and the city allowed them to continue to operate without forcing enforcing any of the code violations, the multiple. Code violations that. Existed. I give some of that history because that was my own experience. And then ultimately in 2004, me, my mother and 400 other families were forced from the Harbor Island Apartments. We know from the USDA or the school district data that nearly two thirds of families were forced from the island because so many children were then placed out of district. So the experience of residential displacement is something I know personally. Our family moved twice after that, and we've been in the same apartment for the last nine years. And fortunately, our landlord, who used to live in that apartment as a resident and now owns it, has not raised our rent for nine years. We are very grateful. That is not a reality for most out of meetings, I'm sure don't have any scientific evidence, but I doubt that the euphemistically speaking housing providers or landlords are able to extend that to everybody. I later with that housing stability was able to go back to school, went to UC Berkeley. I did my housing, my undergrad thesis on. And if I can just wrap up very, very briefly, I did my thesis on housing discrimination against Alameda in black Alameda and it's called Alameda and is our home. And one of the takeaways from that is that this displacement is constant. It's particularly for African-Americans. And so while I spoke out here in September in favor of a task force, I repeat that there needs to be a task force to be able to study this data. I'm grateful for the community process that did exist because it organized people and attempts to engage people. But I'm interested in data. I think that what was proposed, although we had critiques, there were no residents represented by the stakeholders or not residents pardon me, there were not any renters representing I don't know if there is any renters represented on this council or the previous council. And so that doesn't necessarily mean that it is invalid, right? Because if that was the case, then with the housing tenure in Alameda, half of the folks should be renters. Right. So anyway, in conclusion, since you allow me two little extra time to speak. And I'm grateful. For that, I would again hope that we can bring up the housing task force to be able to study and get more information about the actual renter market. What is the state of the market? What are some of the demographics of the housing tenure where people being displaced? How does that impact things like the school district, etc.? Because housing is a basis for many other opportunities that us Al-Amin are grateful for. Thank you. Thank you. The John Spangler and I'll Brian McGuire. And then, Amy, we thank you. Thank you again, Mayor Spencer. I'll be brief because my line is going off in 5 hours. I've been at it since five. I want to offer start, sir, with a quote from Martin, the Reverend Martin Luther King. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. When we first moved to Alameda in 1997, we bought a house. Linda and I owned the house for about 12 years. We sell it. So since then, we've been since 2009, we've been renting. There is a profound difference in. The potential for intimidation when you're renting than when you're dealing with a mortgage. The comments that Jeff quoted and others have referred to are genuine. They're very real. And I'll bet you none of them. None of those comments came from investment bankers. I've been to three Alameda Renters Coalition meetings. None of the people who shown up have said anything about being in the banking business, never mind being investment bankers. A lot of these people are on fixed incomes. Social Security retirement. And when they're faced on a fixed income with a 10% increase. That means they get to choose when they're going to eat or whether they don't get medication anymore. Instead of paying the rent increase. This is a very real conflict. The landlords you've heard from tonight have very real expenses. I've heard a great deal. I've seen a great deal of can they live and work on foundations? I know what the going market rate was when we were on the gold in the Gold Coast. Those are real expenses. I don't want any landlords to starve either, but I don't think it's fair that people who are faced with a 30% no ifs, no ads, no buts increase without any changes at all in the status of the apartment they're living in and no change in ownership and no improvements and substandard conditions should get away with that. That said, I support the process that Jeff undertook. I am very happy to be part of the group that is now offering some support to my fellow renters. And I hope to God that this mediation process and strengthening the RAC works. It is the Alameda way. It would be wonderful to not pursue stronger measures. But. If this collaborative approach does not work, we have a big problem on our hands and I hope this council will be willing and able and ready to deal with the next step if it has to come. Thank you. Good evening, Council Mayor Staff. I could stand up here and tell personal stories about rent increases past, present and future. Notice to vacate upcoming move from the only home my daughter's ever known. But I think some of that anecdotal grounds been well covered. Council has a bigger responsibility than just dealing with this on a case by case basis. Renter initiated mediation is no substitute for an ordinance governing this relationship between renters and property owners. Smart people can and have already told you more about the types of power imbalances in this relationship. One thing, renters hold almost zero market power over their housing costs in terms of choosing one versus another. They can't dictate to the property owner, so they can just act and choose off the menu. Think if you were a teacher or a cop and had to negotiate your pay and benefits instead of relying on collective bargaining. Angela and Arc HRC have started this process, but you really are our union reps in this type of situation. You need to act accordingly. A lot of property owners have, you know, several property owners in this process and, you know, in the discussions have sort of been crying poor and talking about the costs of maintenance and keeping safe, habitable structures makes it sound like property owning property in Alameda is undesirable. But look at the MLS right now and you can see there's almost zero multifamily rental properties on the market right now available for purchase. If they don't want to be property owners and landlords and it's too much of a hassle, there's a line of people that will be happy to pay double what they inherited, double the value that they inherited, that their parents paid for when they, you know, and that they've now inherited and are are making their living off of. They'll be alright by the grace of God. I think they'll make it. I don't personally advocate for the strictest rent control measures due to some well-documented unintended consequences, but you need to take some of the volatility out of this process. Something like CPI plus X percentage with the ability for capital pass thrus is could be a starting point. There's lots of you know, we can learn from other cities. This process needs to have the city's imprimatur behind it. I was disappointed that the previous council kind of pass the buck on this. And I hope you. Consider this and actually work on an actual ordinance and not just rely on a case by case process to try to negotiate this. Thank you. What was your name again? Brian McGuire. Amy. Oh. Good evening, everyone. My name is Amy. I'm a renter. I live in Alameda about eight years. And this few years, you know, I'm a renter, a race two times totally about $300. And I enjoying the meeting like a renter meeting staff about six times. And I listen to every people and less than the owner what's reason they entrees rent binary also I ask my friends they are owner you know and then. For me. I know. You know, you're only the owner. They cost the same, you know, and I think. And no reason to raise the rent. And for me, I think you only raise the one times enough. I don't. I want. Don't want. I hope it can stop no normal or raise the rent or you know, for me, I think I or I want to rent a house. I have a renter's lease, you know it just how much money pay, you know that's how much money. You know it is a Y raise next time. And also I hear my friends, he's a renter, a owner. He said, oh, Amy, I will go to raise my raise their house, rent of money as they I say how much money. They say, oh, 100. I say to you know, oh, what's, you know how they think, how they say, I don't know, you know and I know about they they know why is retired one woman another is a picket dog or stuff a woman I feel you know also care about their you know is. My friends, he's the owner, but he's he, you know, have money. You know, he don't want any money. That's the he just think, you know, see another place how much money or to bail on so I thought well going to so for this is all stories I felt no I hope you know is the city council and a study about that you know. And. If I want to raise money, you know, maybe 2%. And from, you know, just a sink of 2%. I know I've already raised money too much, you know. Only one times. I know, actually, you know, is no reason to raise rent. Well, I hope kids think about this. You know, I have good stages and as soon as possible. Thank thank you. Count that. That was our last speaker everyone. So at this point council comments are actually staff do you want to. Cause. Yeah, I guess what Steph is looking for tonight, you've heard a great deal of testimony. I think on behalf of Steph, I want to thank Jeff Canberra for putting together this process with the stakeholders now that they've put forward. Their product we had staff really need direction from the council because this is such a. It's a very human issue, but it's also, from a policy perspective, a very complex issue. There's lots of different ways of looking at data, what data is being considered and not being considered and the way that gets framed. Can determine the outcome. So what data is being collected and analyzed, I believe, is actually in itself a policy decision because we don't have unlimited resources either financially or in terms of staff time. So what I'm hope what what on behalf of staff who are going to actually do the work, what we're looking for is some clear direction and boundaries from the Council about what it is you're looking for us to do here. And then we'll be able to give you a report back on how long that will take. I'll need to think about it for a week. Like how long will it take to put together what you're asking for? But we do need clear direction from the Council. On next steps, please. I'm willing to jump in. All right. Council members. Who would actually you want me to now? Obviously would like to start. Is anyone else? You guys go to that? Okay. Go ahead. Thank you, Mary Spencer. So and it's been said, but thank you to Mr. Cameron, Mr. Lindsay, Angela and all the other people, all the speakers. Very informative. We appreciate it. I am. And it was said by a couple of speakers and I appreciate everything that was done. And I'm really impressed whenever a community group coming from such divergent viewpoints can get together and find middle ground and, you know, not be at each other's throats. I think you did a good job and I think you may be surprised each other with some of the things you found out. I went back, though, and read the the staff report from September when the staff report was recommended, but the majority of the council chose not to do it. And that's that's fine. I think this has been a valuable process, but I am still concerned that we need I believe we need to answer some of the questions that were posed by that staff report before we move move further. These might be great proposals, the 5 to 6 points. But what was asked in in Ms.. Porter went over them in the beginning is the questions that a task force would have been asked to answer was, is what is the state of the residential rental market in Alameda? And I appreciate everything the the community groups did, but I don't think they had the resources or the time or the wherewithal to answer that question. I think there's been some interesting data presented in one of the online news sources, Michelle Allison, at the Alameda meeting. But I know staff is proposing a consultant to gather that sort of data. I feel like we need to know that to have that answered because it was to know what the impacts of tenants of rental increases are. Trends impacts on residents and families, identifying the root causes for recent price increases, existing efforts in other Bay Area cities to combat these increases, and also how these increases impacted different groups, whether it was by age or by racial group or the type of housing. I think we need to know more of that. As far as what have been the impacts of rent control or stabilization ordinances in jurisdictions that adopted them? You know, of all the speakers we heard only a couple and I think there were landlords even touched on rent control and why that wouldn't be a good thing. So that might be premature, quite premature this time. But I do think the question and it was answered in part by the group, what changes, if any, should be made to the R, a c? One thing that I found, I think in investigating a little bit is that in the RC works hard when they get these cases , I don't think it's the same sort of process for joining that board as other boards and commissions, because as I understand it, there's no term limit. So we can look at that tomorrow and. Okay, yes, good. Yes, we're looking at that. And the so we haven't had a study done. I think that I would want to wait to even explore these proposals and whether they should be adopted until we know a little bit more about what the situation is that we're facing. And I think Councilmember Odie tried to elicit that, that, you know, how many ranchers did you hear from? And I'm still troubled by the fact that we're hearing that some people were hesitant to even be heard. So, I mean, there must be some other ways besides coming forward in a in a public forum. But anyway, those are some of my thoughts at this late hour. And if people want to discuss the specific proposals, I'll come back. But I just feel like we need more data. Okay. And I want to say so the people that are watching us when they watch us on feet, again, it is approximately 15 minutes after midnight . So I know everyone wanted to take on the whole agenda tonight and I'm pretty sure we will not be doing that. So at this point. Member Comments. Next. Next. Council Member. Want to go? I'll try to pick. And I'll try to cover like general comments on on the issue of rent control and then specifics on the six items. I do want to say thank you to Mr. Camera and the group. I was one of those people that was skeptical in the beginning. I thought that the both the referral process, the referral that the staff came up with was the way to go. But I'm heartened by the fact that you guys have tenants and property owners talking together and collaborating and working together. And we did have that six months. And I think we have a path forward with this group, you know, to form the foundation for, I guess what was called a model mediation process. So I'm encouraged by that and I hope we can keep moving forward on that. And I hope that Mr. Lindsay can continue to be the enforcer and keep keep the bad apples in line. But I you know, there's one thing we're talking about Alameda Point tonight and, you know, there's a connection between, you know, the housing stock shortage and rent control. And if we're going to sit up here and say, well, we don't believe we should have rent control, and at the same time sit up here and say we should also stop building housing. We should have no housing at the point we should have moratoriums, you know, on density bonus applications. No, I don't think we can do that. You know, otherwise we're going to end up having a city that's full of tech people that's going to shut out. You know, people like myself, I'm a tenant. One of the people asked, are there tenants? There's two tenants up here that if the other one wants to say who they are, they can do that. But, you know, I'm a tenant and. If that's what the city wants, then, you know, I guess I'll be for it because that's what the will of the people is. But I don't think we want to turn into downtown San Francisco or South a market where we're the only people that can afford to live here, you know, are people that work in the tech industry. So I do want to just second a little bit of what Councilmember Ashcraft said. I think there's no one short term objective that I like to see, and that's this collection of data. I believe that was the first item on the original staff report State of the residential market, quantitative analysis of rental rates, vacancy rates, and so on. And then I think maybe as a long term, because I don't think we can make a decision on if we're going to implement rent control or if rent control is even necessary until we have that data. So maybe a longer term, it could be six months, it could be eight months, it could be however long. Staff recommends we need to have an adequate amount of data to make that decision. Then we have an analysis of rent control as a tool to maintain stable rents and affordable housing. And. I was a landlord tenant attorney before going into government service. And the thing that I saw in my practice is that. Rent control didn't really help anyone except the attorneys. So if we're going to do something, it has to be something that protects our tenants. It has to be something that, you know, respects the rights of property owners to protect themselves from the rate of inflation and earn a reasonable rate of return. Because actually this is an investment for them, but it cannot be a full employment act for attorneys. So we have to be careful as we put that together. I think the other thing that we haven't looked at and I didn't see it in here, I think some of the tenants mentioned it, some type of just cause eviction. You know, there's no there was no discussion on that. I mean, can you pick somebody who's been there for 15 years and then re rent it out at market rents? So I think that's something that we need to look at as well. So just quickly going over the six points. You know. Again. Jeff, I think you guys did a great job of putting this together. And, you know, I'm impressed with the way you're able to bring people together. And I hope we can we can push forward these six points. And I just have a couple quick comments on one discussion. Point one I think we should consider that is parties only, not attorneys. You guys have developed a rapport between landlords and tenants, and I think it's better if in the mediation process, you know, it's still the landlord and the tenant and not not attorneys going at it . A discussion point to participation. You know, there might be I agree with that recommendation, but I think there might be a valid reason why someone may need a continuance. Maybe they're out of town, maybe, you know, they have childcare issues, you know, in building some mechanism where they can do that. And then if the, you know, if the landlord wants a continuance, then, you know, he or she doesn't get their rent increase for that time period where they have that continuance. Discussion point three. You know, I think it's very important that we have this notice. You know, one of the things I've I've heard is there wasn't a lot of tenant representation there, a lot of tenants. And I found this in my practice. A lot of tenants don't know their rights. So, you know, giving something, making it a requirement as when you get a lease that you get some notice that says, you know, we have this rec and we have this process and if you have a rent increase in the future, you have a remedy if you think it's excessive. And I agree that, you know, every time you get a rent increase, this should be a required notice that that's served with every rent increase. And I'm going to skip 2.6 because that's kind of melded into 2.3. But this this percentage, I think we have to be very careful if we set a percentage because we're basically saying if you if you say anything over 10% has to go to the rack, then you're basically saying anything 9.9% or 9.99% or under is going to be acceptable and there's going to be no recourse. And I encouraged by my discussion with Mr. Lindsay also earlier today that you guys are talking about this. The task force is is trying to come up with a number. I think we have to be careful. You know, right now we have no number. We don't want to be in a situation where we're having de minimis rent increases. You know, going to the rack. So I understand that. But we also want to make sure that, you know, we're not giving license to say, you know, anything under a certain number, you know, is not going to have any review on the retaliation. The point was made, you know, this is the law. I mean, that's in the civil code. I don't know if we need a new ordinance to say you're not allowed to retaliate if it's already state law. But I think if we put that in the notice or we put something in there that says, you know, exercising your rights to mediation under the act is not or is actually considered an exercise of tenant rights and cannot be retaliated. And I think that would be sufficient. And then on point five. I agree with that one. And then I think I discuss point six. So again, I want to thank all the folks here that came out and talked. I have an appreciation for all the tenants. Being a tenant myself, I appreciate for the tenants as someone who fought for tenants. I will say I never had a tenant case in Alameda, so I think our landlords are doing a good job. I don't think that we have a widespread issue of exorbitant rents, but I really would like to see the data and that's my suggestion and a thanks everyone and thank you Jeff for for all your hard work on this. Member de sac. Thank you Mayor Spencer for a purpose of tonight. One of the things I wanted to do was review a range of data, largely because that was one of the issues that we had raised way back in November when City Council then discussed how we might approach this matter. So I put together a data table, a presentation, there are just six tables in and the presentation, but I just really want to focus our attention on three of the tables and for what the presentation is about is about, you know, what has been the experience of oh. You want to do this? And then I'll just. What has been the experience of rental households in the city of Alameda? I made comparisons with San Leandro and the city of Oakland as well as Alameda County. But for our purposes tonight, we're just going to focus our discussion on the city of Alameda and perhaps on the website . On our website, I'll post further discussions about comparisons. If we can go to table one. We'll just skip the objectives right here. This is a key table because the data comes from the United States Census American Community Survey, which is a survey of a sample of residents in the city of Alameda over a number of years. So you can see the way that I prepare the data. I look at pre-recession recession and recovery period. Let's just focus on the recovery period. According to the eight U.S. Census acts, the typical health rental household pays 29.4% of their income towards their rent. And the reason why that number is important is because 30% is the threshold for what constitutes affordable housing. Now, bear in mind, this is from samples from the 2011, 2013 period. These could have just jumped way off the charts in 2014. But when you look at the typical that is the median household who rents, they're paying 29.4% of their rent of their income towards rent. So they're just slightly under what the Fed constitutes as unaffordable, which is 30% is the threshold. Next slide. And this is a comparison with other cities, but we're going to skip on table three. I think this this really gets to one of the reasons why we're dealing with with the stresses that we're talking about. Even though the typical rental household pays slightly under the affordable rate, the typical rental household income is $51,700 in Alameda. Relative to the typical household owner occupied household income, which is $113,300. So someone mentioned, for example, that they experienced rents of $450 increase for $50 a month. So multiply that by 12, that's $5,400. So you can imagine 12 times 20, 50 plus 5400. So you can imagine monthly, you know, when you annualize the monthly rent increase for renters, how that really draws down on on persons is constrained incomes. But the important part about looking at the 51,700 is when you look at table for next table. Now, this table comes from an Oakland based outfit that talks about, you know, what is the income that's necessary to lead self-sufficient lives. So in this in Alameda County, if you have one if you're one adult with one child under under five years old, you need $55,700 to eat to lead a self-sufficient life. And that's you know, that's a bare bones income to, you know, that all the frills are not included. Likewise, if you're a single adult with two children in those ages, a roughly $66,300 to who lead what's called what this outfit calls a self-sufficient lives. So you can see that when you look at the typical rental households income in Alameda of $51,700 and compare it against standards like the self-sufficiency standards, that kind of underscores even more how just, you know, slight change in in the rental in the rent upwards as affects disproportionately disproportionately affects renters. So let's go to the next slide. And the other thing, too, is, prior to the recession rent renters in Alameda, the typical renter had $59,700. That was a household income. And then coming out of the recession, the typical household is now as their income has declined by almost $8,000. So you can see that, you know, the rental housing market and the households in it, that there there are special constraints that we need to be cognizant of for the typical renter. But the thing that I get out of this data is that. The typical renter, for the most part, has an affordable rent. But you can't just look at that affordable rent just because it's 29 under 30%. Rent to income ratio, just because it's under what the feds constitute as affordable. You can't say, oh, well, you know, we don't have to do anything because you have to look at not just the rents, but you have to look at their income relative to, you know, what it takes to lead a self-sufficient life in in Alameda County. And also, you have to look at the income in terms of how it's changed in the past six years or so. And so I think what this tells me then is that while the data doesn't speak to any grounds for a generalized approach for dealing with the with a rent issue, generalized approach, meaning rent control, however defined and loosely defined as price controls. I don't think that those data from the households perspective to justify rent control from a generalized perspective. But I think there is enough there to to say that, you know, we do need very particular case by case type of solutions. And I think to me, this data speaks to I actually I think it confirms the six points that were raised through the forum. I still believe that the forum should take those six points and have them vetted more by the Rent Review Advisory Board, but as well as a social service human relations board. And I will say, though, that the six points, in my opinion, need to be strengthened. I think that, for example, if we're going to make the changes that we're contemplating with regard to strengthened rent review advisory board in the relationship with equal housing, that implies that there's going to be a lot more cases involved. And is ECHO or is the rent review advisory board, do they have the capacity to handle the rising expectations that we're creating in doing this? So I think we have to have to strengthen either echo housing our relationship with them or the review when fires report. One specific way of strengthening the rent review advisory board or the echo housing is. We've got the business license fee, you know, property rental property holders of a particular type, hey, into the into the fee. So what we could do is we're always adjusting the fee, you know, for, for, for purposes of inflation or maybe we hadn't adjusted it for for two or three years or so. So, you know, let's just say hypothetically, the fee is $110 or for the for property owners, the business license fee. And independent of this whole matter, we're going to adjust it anyways and we adjust it, let's say, to $125. So what I would propose is we take that increment and we reserve the increment for housing related issues. So and that and so if it's a $10, a $10 incremental change that that we would have made anyways regardless of the issue. But now we're reserving that $10 incremental change. You know, you multiply that $10 times roughly 55,000 buildings that that contain 15,000 rental households, that $10 amounts to ten times 5000, which is what it's $50,000 for. Suddenly, you know, without having added on a new special fee, we would have come up with an amount of money that we can help pay eco housing or rent, rent, review and value board, be able to handle the increased case that's going to come down the pike. And I think it's important to increase the capacity of echo housing is because last year in our Cdhb budget process, we actually took money out of eco housing. You know, it was a interesting discussion that we had, but we ended up taking money out of Eko Housing. But city manager John Russo found ways to backfill that money. So, so, but but the issue though, is the way that we're funding our portion of Eko housing right now, it's, you know, it's subject to the budgetary, you know, things. I think we should continue to fund them via CDBG, but we should also take a look at this kind of approach that I'm talking about with regard to the business license fee when it comes to rental property houses. Now, another specific item to improve the capacity of of of the rent review advisory board or eco housing. I, for example, I believe I don't have to pay a business license fee, though. I live upstairs and I rent out the two houses downstairs. And you look on Craigslist, you know, there's a lot of people, I'm sure, you know, homeowners who are, you know, helping make their mortgage payments, you know, things like that. Well, I think, you know, rent review advisory board, it would be it would be great for them to, you know, to to look at to help us in under in looking at this issue with regard to that particular change that that we might contemplate. So that's that's another way that we might want to take a look at that. Oh, okay. So I do think that we're on the right track. I do think that there are substantive decision points that we can take to strengthen the six points that were were raised. So that and I do think that we can do it in a way that the property residential rental property owners, you know, if they were concerned about an increase in tax. The way that I outlined it well, it increased anyways, but now we're just reserving the increment towards this issue. Like. Vice Mayor. I'd also like to echo, thanks to Mr. Canberra and everybody who stepped forward, participate. It's not been easy and. To see the five points to have consensus of. And the six point that is still being worked on, I think, is I'd like to seize the moment. And City Manager Russo asked for some specific direction, and I'd like to. Make a motion to have a staff of bring back an implementation plan for applying those principles to the Review Advisory Board. Because that first part is protecting and, and, and establishing fairness in dealings. It's a mediation process. It makes it stronger. It doesn't substantially change the process except to strengthen it. So I think that we have to we have to take advantage of the hard work that was done and move forward on that. I think there are questions that were asked in the staff report of a September that haven't been answered and the data necessary to answer. Before you continue. If I heard correctly, you're making a motion. Yes, I will second that motion. But I wanted to add or. Continue. Now. The second part of the motion is to have staff gather the necessary data to answer the questions. It were posed in the. September report. And to use the resources that are. Out here in the coalition, as well as the housing provider group to help gather that information, because that's a group that didn't exist when this was was posed. So that's my motion is to do both. I shouldn't. Sorry. I just want to make sure the motion is. Is that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm not going to stick it out. Someone else wants me. That's what we're looking for right now. So that we can continue the discussion. Yes. Okay. I'll second. And I would like to and I agree. No, I'm sorry. Not for you to continue discussing. You've had no idea. I see. I know. Yeah, but that I haven't had an opportunity to speak at you. Comes back to you to finish up motion second. It comes back to you if you have any other comments. Okay. And I still have discussion. Okay. Okay. Then I get to speak because I've been waiting. You spoke at the beginning? No, but I said that I would if it was more than just a proposal to continue so we could study. They said I had some comments about the proposal. We will get back, but everyone gets a turn. Then we can go round again. Okay. Thank you. That's fair. Okay. I am the other person that rents. I've been renting for 15 years. The same house when we first moved up here 15 years ago. They were my husband and myself and four children. At that point, the renters market was such that we had to pay a fee to have someone help us find a home. However, it changed after that. Our rent decreased. We've actually had a very good relationship with our landlord, who is someone similar to some of the speakers we've had this evening and this. I know some of you have moved here in the last few years and you're experiencing this part of the renters market. However, over the 15 years that I've been renting here, it has gone down and it has now is going back up. And I do appreciate, as a renter not knowing for sure month to month what's going to happen. I personally strongly support the first part of the motion because these are five things that we've had all these people spend all this time on, which started back in September, their house. And for me, I'm very concerned if we're going to have the spend, I don't know how much more time before other people are ready to support the work of the community here. I think it's very important we move along as quickly as possible. On your five points, on the five points that were unanimous, one through four, some of those are law. So there shouldn't be any problem with trying to get us to do those. Eight out of nine, that's I don't expect to get better than that. I do think time is of the essence. And I understand I recognized back when this was sent by prior council to Geoff Cameron, it was to try to get people talking and trying to resolve this. They did their task and now it's our turn to actually take action on what the work that's already been done. So I do strongly support one through four and number five because that was it. They agree. It says no agreement on number six. I would not have that hold up the process. I personally am in favor of 10% to me is too high. When your rents are 2000, 3000, whatever it is, 2500 10% is $200 on a $2,000 rent. And that I think many of us that are renting are paying close to the 2000 or actually higher than that at $200 increase when it's handed to you actually works out to be 20 $400 a year. So for me, 10% is too high to restrict it to that I would entertain. I know there's people think that you need to have a percentage. And I really like the way you guys have all been working on this together, so I don't want to take anything away from this process. But for me, maybe 5%, just not that I'm saying that's the recommendation, but 5% if you're paying $2,100, that's. You know. So for me, that's something to look at. But I would really hope that we could agree to take action on the five things and not complicate, which is why I'd like to break it down. We have the discussion. So I move that we make the five hour. Amend my motion, make the five consensus points. I'm back with an implementation plan in parallel with taking input from the working group as the recommendation comes back on the six. Or consensus come back on the six or whatever it might be. So we can have lots of promotions. But for this, I'd like a clean motion. One through five. Hand it to staff. Let them figure out how we can support the community. Only to second vice mayor's motion. Is that what that was, though? No, it's just the five, for sure. Okay. And then. Six. Could we just do that part? Well, I don't want to hold up the train because people are working on that. Have them work on the sixth. If the staff report comes back and said there's no consensus, there's no consensus. We'll keep working on what we've got the five in the implementation. But the five can move ahead without the six is my point. Oh, that's okay. Okay. Five. Moving ahead without the six. But don't. But include it in there. So that is the process. So there's other things we can include. But to make sure we're. I'd like to break it down so we can get our vote on what we can get. Then we can talk about the next thing. So. Okay. But there's a discussion before we vote. Yes. Yes. Did I get a second for that? Six. Thank you. Okay. So he has a second on that. So now if we could quickly discuss this motion because I want to get this through. Okay. I might ask you. Okay. So on discussion point too. I, I find the language about the tenets failure to appear unduly harsh. And this is what I mean. If you look at discussion point, too, we see that if the housing provider fails to appear or have a responsible party appear, although I think Vice Mayor would like it just to be the parties it was that, you know, no attorneys, just parties. That's and I agree with that. That was councilmember member. I agree. I hold that thought. Okay. So that so if the the housing provider fails to appear, the rent increases is void. If the tenant, on the other hand, fails to appear, the committee will dismiss the case and the tenant will be barred from subsequently challenging such increase before the committee. To my reading, that sounds like forever you can't come back. Whereas the landlord, all the landlord has to do is do another rent increase and show up this time and he or she is able to have the rent increase go through. If I'm reading this correctly, I don't understand why we should subsequently bar a tenant from challenging such increase before the the committee. Or maybe it just means that particular increase. Okay. Okay. So not a future. Not a future bar. Okay. And then in the text of the notice, the suggested text, I, I would like our city attorney's office to work on just making that language as user friendly as possible, because some of the folks who are dealing with these increases might English might not be their second language. We might think about what other languages it should be in. Other people are just challenged by legalese and this is better than some, but it could be better, I think just clearer. And the city attorney is nodding. She gets it. And so then, okay, we're not we're not getting to the the percentage that triggers it. But that's the sort of thing I would probably like staff to study anyway. And then I would also suggest that staff talk with other cities who have these provisions in place to see what their experience has been. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, and we might as well learn from others experiences. Maybe we could do this even better, but I think we are off to a good start. And then finally, should we as a council be asking for this matter to come back within a certain period of time? So we just have a look at how it's how it's working out, how it's been playing out. Um, so before we go on to that, did you want to address this, this motion? Yes, I did. But that's that was a question that you had. That that was my last one. Should we just for council consider should we that that's separate that motion right now. So I'd rather. Interpret it the motion what I'd like to see is a spell out range of possible implementations. I meant I specified two items that I would like, um, staff to take a look at because frankly, you know, if we don't improve the capacity of the review advisory board of Echo Housing to deal with a potential increase in, you know, where we're probably in a worse situation, we've raised expectations, but we haven't improved the operations by which we're going to address those expectations. So I would like us to take a look at the business of those two business license item fees as part of the motion, so that there. Might be would be a separate and then I. Do an amendment. So well, you know, one of the things, if I if I may respond to that is the we give staff direction to to come back with an implementation plan. My assumption is staff is going to refine these, not take verbatim and slap a cover sheet on it and give it to us. I think it's important to have your comment, um, be listened to by staff and incorporated into it is if it's going to be part of the implementation. Just like the point about item number six, is there a percentage there they may come back with saying, well, we could put 5%, but we advise that we don't put any percent because other cities don't have a threshold and the most democratic process allows anybody to challenge any increase. So I think that's the work that I expect staff to do. And I didn't purposely didn't put a due date on because I was going to wait for the manager's response to say, Well, we can do this in 60 days or we can do 40 days. And then we would respond to that accordingly. Okay. So. Ah. Oh. Well I said according to that fairly. If you want the answer. Now, I have to talk to Debbie for a minute. Let me. Let me talk. I don't want it. I purposely put it. Not in there to get your reaction after, should it? So I'm hoping I'm hoping that we can agree here in a manner to support this community work. I actually am very concerned if we take if we if it's going to end, if we make it so complicated, it's going to take 60 days, 90 days to get stuff back. Then it's going to be who knows how many more days before this happens. And this truly to me is a good faith effort. So I'm hoping we can come up with something that's not going to require. The question that. And I personally am not concerned about increase any license fee because I'll tell you, as any runner, I think most of us think when a fee gets passed on to the landlord, it's going to get passed on to us. And so for me, I would rather come up with a way that, as far as I know, is volunteers. We have many volunteers in this community that have already stepped up on this issue. And if there's a way I would rather put out the outreach of I need more volunteers to volunteer on rack rather than starting to increase fees that are going to be passed down. But isn't it isn't it fair to at least have staff look at overstocked, unwanted bonds and the suggestion that rate increases do not affect renters? They absolutely increase effect landlords and they affect renters. So it's something to keep in mind. So here's a question. Are we going to send this back not only to staff, but then the rent review advisory board for their view and input? Or are we sending it back. To staff. To give it back to us and then we'll make a decision? I would think that staff can communicate with them. The our direction is to staff. Um, so we have a motion on. You. Yeah. The answer is 90 days for publication and not for presentation because we have the two week agenda and we have to look at the data issue and what the data is going to cost and we want to be able to bring back to you and we may be able to do that more quickly. What the cost is to determine whether you want us to retain somebody to do that level of data collection. We'll move forward on the five points. There's no question that's easy. We can do. That. And so could you explain your comment? Because I want to I do want to address the five points. First, how much time do you need to do that? 90 days. To do the five. Points, to do the five points and to work further with the community group that's already been established 90 days for publication. We'll have something published in that within 90 days. So when you come back to us in the meantime, then as part of that process. I was not planning on doing that because then I have to we have to write another report and there's there's a limited resources. It's not this is not a huge staff. We will bring you something comprehensive back in 90 days and we will consult with the folks who were already the stakeholders. We will come back to you before 90 days to let you know after we check with various. We don't want to just go to one consultant. We want to talk to a group of different consultants, and we will come back to you, even though it may be under the threshold number. We'll come back to you with a short report about this to collect data. This is what the proposals we got. What do you want to do? Okay. What data are you talking about? Collecting the data that we mentioned in our initial report. Okay. So that is separate. And I want to I want to speak to the issues separately. Well, that's that's entirely your right to do that. But I was asked a question by the vice mayor about how long this dissipated these things would take. So I'm just answering his question. So let's so let's focus on the one through five. Okay. 90 days. You still need 90 days for that? Yes. You need the same 90 days to do your data collection. No, I need to come back to you and give you options on data collection so you know how much it costs. Because if we wanted to, we could do a data collection process that could cost you a half a million dollars. You may not want to spend that kind of money. But personally, I think that once we the sooner we get this going, we will be collecting our own data moving forward. And that can guide the process and we can see how effective this is. And as opposed to looking backwards, I think that we can look forward. So I'm happy to have that conversation in the meantime. But in regards to these five points, does that satisfy. Well, we have a motion on the floor and it's been seconded and I and it was we've. Yeah. Can you repeat the motion please. The motion that I have down includes all six points. Correct. Not just one through five. It includes all sections. And that's still 90 days. And for staff, though, to look at what percentage that number six should what percentage, if any. Will come with a proposal. But in the end, it's going to be a policy determination by the council. Right. Okay. And that doesn't slow down your 90 slow down your days. No. The part that slows me down is the data, because the data is the part that scares me. So we'll keep that separate. I appreciate that. Okay. So we have a motion and a second digit. I just I do just want to hear the motion back to make sure we've got it all. Okay. So. We find it. Okay. So it's to take the five consensus points forward to staff to come back with and then on a parallel track input from the working group on six at the same time to keep them working on it and then. That was seconded by member Odie. And then. County Council member as he Ashcraft asked if there would be no attorneys allowed, just the landlords and Councilmember Matt, R-S.C. agreed. So that was that's not part of the motion. It's my understanding that that would go to staff to look at. Okay. So it's separate. From a separate statutory. Yes. Okay. I wasn't sure if that. Was in the my staff will take all our comments. Yeah. Okay. Yes. So it's basically just that. Okay. And then to at yeah. Have staff gather the necessary data and that's separate. I, I, I backed that out so that we can have that discussion separately. Okay. So thank you. I appreciate that. So we have a motion. Second. All those in favor. I say. I. Others oppose. Passes unanimously. So now we do have other. Did you want to revisit your data at this point on this? Because I did want to get that done. Yes. I think we need to gather the. Hmm. The motion was that we asked staff to prepare a report that answers the questions post September. Staff report. Gathering the necessary data to support those answers. And the response from staff was that this would be something they would be looking a consultant for. And. Also contacting other jurisdictions who have similar ordinances in place to gather data. So we want I'm sorry, go ahead. And I think hearing the manager's comments, because we can ask how much data do we need to answer, these can rapidly inflate itself. So perhaps having gone through this, we can look at having staff come back with us to us, rather than a report with an estimate of what it might take to answer each question. And great range, and then we can revisit it and refine it so that we get the we get the questions answered that really we could prioritize which question really need to be answered. And. And keep within the budget, but actually accomplish. Okay. And I think remember detox information actually goes. To some of this. That he did. The word helpful. I mean, so we and we have other sources that can help provide this information. So information has been gathered. There is a survey out there that was already taken. So actually, some of you can some of you spoke publicly about your comments. You can also submit those to council and staff to support this work. Can I? May I? Yes. All right. I want to be crystal clear, because the data that is selected. Will often determine and color the policy decision. Let me give you an example, and I do not mean this in any way. I was very impressed with the work that Councilmember de Saag does, and he's always welcome to stop being a council member and come work with staff and do those kinds of reports, because that was terrific. But well, he is. And the but the point is the data collected as he. As he stated at the outset, was from the point of view of the tenant. There are other policy decisions. I'm not unsympathetic to that. By the way, I started my career as a legal services attorney. So I want to be clear. I'm speaking here intellectually. There are other data that may have to do with things like the cost of whether or not the apartment includes heating or doesn't include heating and what the cost of heating oil is. It may not include what other jurisdictions do in terms of requirements about soft stories. There are so many different things. If you took it from the point of view then of the housing provider and then what the costs of that are to a city if we don't keep the housing stock. I'm not making an argument for any of that. My point is what data you collect may very well drive your decision. And I don't want staff to be stepping into what is essentially a policy choice. What you choose to collect, I feel, is itself a policy decision. That's why I want to bring it back to the council. And perhaps it would be more helpful to get a an analysis of. What we should be discussing, because you brought two points of view to bear. I was on the council when we put the soft story ordinance into effect and an unintended consequence of that. Spun off of it because of cost. And it was mentioned also the pitch roofs versus the flat roofs. Um, there are other requirements that come up and if we could get the landscape of that so we can have a public. Education of what the landscape is. We might be able to make an informed decision about what data we gather. That and that's what we'd like to do for you, is give you the landscape and then have you pick and choose off the menu what you want us to actually go in and buy. And so I'd like to comment on this in that we have I personally really want to look forward as opposed to backwards and the data that you're going to be collecting, depending upon what it is, is actually data based on a system that we are actually trying to work together and change and make more responsive. And and I am afraid I'm concerned that rather than looking at so so we've had a lot of agreements made and we got behind these agreements. And the data, the relevant data will be, is it working? But we just changed. Is it working? That's that's what we need to know. I actually don't need to know. I think we the reason we're having this conversation is because there did need to be improvement. And now we're hoping moving forward there will be a better relationship that will work. So I'm more focused and I and I really want people to have their energy to focus on how we're going to resolve these cases or this environment that we're working together moving forward. So so that's why that's really my concern. That I hear that concern and I think we can accomplish that same. And as even looking forward, we have to understand what the landscape is. But I want to be positive. I really want to stay positive. And I'm afraid that if you spend too much time looking at this other stuff, we know we needed to work together better. That's what this group told me. And they also told me they are going to be doing that. Madam Chair, I want to stay positive, too, but I do think that these four questions are important, and especially number one, and I do think it helps us know what the current state of the residential rental market is, so that we know that the solutions we're hoping to institute are really going to address the the concerns. And that was what is the state of the residential rental market in Alameda. This could I can answer that too. There are next to no rentals available I would if I could just finish because I think staff did a very nice job of putting this together succinctly . This could include a quantitative analysis of rental rates, vacancy rates, absorption trends, and the length of residency, the race, ethnicity of residents and different types of rental units. The answers to this question will help identify the need and define the problem regarding housing costs. And I also and the second question goes to the impact of what impact rent control and stabilization, for instance, has had. And the other the one other category I would just like to add to for consideration is age, because we have had a number of seniors that we've heard from that they have been priced out of the rental market and they especially tend to be on fixed income. So I do think it's important to stay positive, but I do think it's important to note the situation that we're facing and I'm confident that staff can find a way to get that data to us expeditiously. So I'm not I think that they are overburdened. I think that we have a lot of things we're talking about. Do we have is there a motion of someone that wants to make a motion on this issue? Yes. I'll make a motion that we have staff provide us with an analysis of. The. Of the considerations needed to answer the questions that are in the September. Staff report. Yes. And. The potential costs if they can be identified. Gathering data that might be. Is there a second? Second? All those in favor. I, I. Oppose and. Abstain. And frankly, I'm much clearer as to what maybe. So if you look at these questions, one of them is what changes have any made to the vote? I get to speak after I vote no, I get to explain my no vote. I thought you usually I voted. For. You. You passed. No, that's not correct. Procedure is that. Yes, the motion passed. Actually, there was a change. It was three, three in favor, one abstention and one no, thank you. So when you look at these questions, the reason why I'm voting are the first one. What is the state of the residential rental market now? AMITA I've answered that. I think we've heard there are not very many units. And so for me, I want to have staff focused on things that I think are would be more productive for this issue. That's very. Antisocial. I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. You actually as when you vote no, I get to explain my nova. It's not appropriate for you to speak at this time. This could include a quantitative analysis of rental rates, vacancy rates, absorption trends, and the length of residency and races and ethnicity and age was added to this. So I'll be curious to see how how much this cost. But I think it's very time consuming and I'm not. And for me, the focus has got to be moving forward. We have an issue moving forward. What's going to happen with our rents? What have what has what have been the impacts on rental rates, supply of rental housing and the physical condition of rental housing? Again, these are issues that I think will be better raised moving forward. But people this desire to have their just when they have their disputes that it goes direct and I want to support REC and the community to amicably resolve these and we can do the data collection moving forward. What changes have any need to be made to the city's rent review advisory committee rack? I think motion number one address that. Number four, what changes, if any, need to be made to the Alameda Municipal Code relative to residential rental housing? And again, I think that we had already directed staff to look at that as part of the first motion. Thank you. And I really do want to thank everyone for coming this evening, submitting all of your written communication. And I encourage you to continue to email all of us and work with RAC. I mean, really, I support all of you coming out here and Mr. Camara Bell staff and you know, I agree we're going to make this happen. Moving on. Next agenda item is six I. And is this something that needs to be so? Right now we have one, two, three, four plus all of the referrals. It is 1 a.m. and two. Additional items on the joint. Okay. And there's two additional items. And I would request that we allow staff to let us know what needs to be done this evening and that we move those to the next item. STAFF Could you let us know what items you need to. Miss warmer them? Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The two items that we really need to discuss. One is from the six K, which is the professional services agreement for our audit audit firm. And then also on the SSI, c is the financial report to accept the audit, which is freebie. Okay. And preferably we do three B first because we still have a consultant here from business associates. All right. So counsel. And I think. She's just what would you entertain a motion to? Well, I'm sorry. I had asked earlier about this. So now we are at 1 a.m. address. Let's continue, please. Three B. So to do this procedurally, do we need a motion to move this to the next agenda item? What do we need to do on the next? It's on the next slide. I think you can just just decide to call three B or six K and then I guess the rest. Okay, so count. So Council, are you supportive if we just keep moving to the agenda quickly, can't. We just have a concern about you know, some of the referrals have been on there twice and I know somebody in the audience that waited till late last time to talk about it, and they're still in the audience today to talk about it. So if we want to consider the three or the the referrals that were carried over, I hesitate to want to carry them over to another meeting. In a mirror. So it's 1 a.m.. I would prefer that we get to the agenda items that need to be addressed this evening. Go ahead, madam. It's just a procedural slash, technical slash legal question with regard to hauling over items. We do have a city council meeting tomorrow. So is it altogether politics? Is it altogether. Possible to not close tonight's city council meeting with regard to those items? And are we still within are we brown at correct. And also Sunshine Ordinance, correct if we keep this open and then continue it, keep those referral items open and continue till tomorrow. City Council meeting is that. Closure with the I believe that the technical language of the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance would allow you to continue those referral items to tomorrow. It's just a matter of I mean, people are not going to know that and the community might not be very happy about it. But I think you can do that. Okay. So then do you need us to rule on to have motions on those two items? So could they could everything wait until tomorrow. Preferably to have those two items done and then the other items can be heard tomorrow? All right. So, yeah. All right. So, Counsel, are you agreeable to moving forward with the. The first one would be three be. Is that correct? Yes. And then we're going to deal with the referrals tomorrow belonging. Well, that's a separate. So right now, could we do three be? It could have motion to proceed with three. I'll move that. We proceed with three B second. Just to keep things moving along. I'll second it. All those in favor. I thank you, sir. We'll be proceeding with three B at this point. Okay. So you recessing the council meeting and calling to order the meeting. There you go. So, yes. Okay. Got it. Yeah. I have a quick PowerPoint. Quick. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And members of the council. I'm waiting for. Yeah, there we go. So we have a very brief report about the comprehensive annual financial report and. And the audited financial statements and all the compliance reports. State law requires this annual audit. City Charter also requires that the auditor provide the annual provide for annual audits and financing covenants, and granting agencies require annual audits with some special testing requirements. There are several standards which apply. These are generally accepted accounting principles, generally accepted auditing standards, and that the audit must be performed by a licensed firm of licensed certified public accountants. Now. Find if. So moving right along. Every financial report, every audited financial statement contains three main sections. Next one to the introductory section, which is just a summary of our organization in the context of the results. The financial section, which first of all contains the independent auditors report, which is their opinion, and we always want to see that they give

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary subsequent subcontracts and amendments, including any amendment to the award amount, with the Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency’s (BCSH) California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $1,322,281 for the Encampment Resolution Funding Program, for the period of April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, with the option to renew for an additional two-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 $1,322,281, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0437

Thank you. And 22. Item 22 is a report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with business, consumer services and housing agencies. California Interagency Council on Homelessness in the amount of 1.3 million for the Encampment Resolution Funding Program City. I think there's a. Can I get a motion, please? In a second. Thank you. Any public comment on this? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 22 and person, please line up at the podium in the zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. See none. That concludes public comment. Thank you. Customers in Dallas. Vice manager of any comments? No, thank you. And Councilman, sir? Yes. I just want to thank our Health and Human Services staff for applying and getting this grant. I really just am so excited about the $1.3 million that we're going to get to increase the assistance for our inter-departmental team to address homelessness and doing cleanups around MacArthur Park and Mark Twain Library. And I think this is going to be a great step forward for us to be able to find creative and alternative ways to work, where are in the house community and giving them the support and services they need. Thank you so much. Thank you. And roll call vote, please. District one. I'm District two. I disagree. I District four. District five. District five. District six. High I. District seven. I District eight. I. District nine. Yes.

Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition of Swedish Health Services to vacate the alley in Block 95, Terry’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle (CF 314304).

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CF 314477

Item 12. Agenda item 12. Quick file 314477. Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition to Swedish Health Services to vacate the of BLOCK 95/32 addition to the City of Sale. The committee recommends that as condition. Thank you, colleagues. This is Clark. File through one four, four, seven, seven. It would extend the council conditional approval of the vacation of the alley located on the block between Columbia Street, Minor Avenue, Cherry Street and Boren Avenue. Previously approved in 2016. Under Clerk filed 314304. Again, with all these items for Swedish, they were unanimously recommended by our committee. There any comments on this file? Okay. Well, Clark, please call the roll and the approval of the Clark file as condition. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Must gather. I so want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. I think Council President Pro Tem Peterson. Yes. H in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The clerk files approve this condition and the chair will sign the conditions for the clerk. Please affix my signature to the conditions on my behalf. Okay. Now, item 13 with the clerk, please read the short title of item 13 into the record.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, and (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement. (Economic Development)

AlamedaCC_11072018_2018-6106

There was a there has been sorry there has been a complaint filed with the Open Government Commission related to this, contending that the Council's deviation from the specifics of the agenda title violates our Sunshine Ordinance. We've already opined at the previous meeting that we think the agenda was clear and specific enough to embrace the action that the Council took. And our opinion is and will be that that the Council can consider this item on second reading and adopt the ordinance. Thank you. So we have two public speakers, Don, share it. And then Mark Hersman, if you want to speak on this item, please submit your CIP. Mr. Sharrett. Good evening. Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. You pulled the consent item, which means tonight is the time to react to that consent item. Is that the process? Correct. We pulled it so that we could take. Yeah, that opened it up for discussion for tonight. And we will be voting on it tonight. More than likely. Okay. That changed my whole speech. Yeah. All right. I'll go ahead. Don Shaw, longtime resident in Alameda, a retired educator. The hat I'm wearing tonight is an antique cannabis. Operations around kids. I'm dead set against that. I don't believe that they should open up dispensaries by any school. And the thousand foot limit that was put on that before has just been there for six months. Then three of you turned it around and want to come back and look at something different. Want to lower that distance? I still have a problem with child care centers having cannabis around that. And it's just to me, it just doesn't fit. But I'll go ahead here. You pulled it. Thank you. Congratulations for those who were elected in yesterday's elections. And congratulations for those who were not elected because you put your hat in the ring. I think it's commendable that we had choices in Alameda and I'm glad the election process went forward. We are basically charged and you are charged with doing what's right for all citizens. That's little kids. And not to listen to someone tell you from an industry or someone tell you from another group someplace else on what to do. You are independent thinkers. Hopefully you stay independent that way and can make up your own mind on a lot of these decisions. This is one of them. Why change something that's only been on the books for about. Six months. Why not let it play out for a while and see what happens? Look at other cities that have had similar audiences. San Leandro is a good example. And where do these cannabis places end up? Not by kids, not around daycare centers, not around someone's house who has kids there. So I'm definitely opposed to that. Don't cave in to the cannabis industry. Since day one. You hired a. Cannabis, what I believe a cannabis boilerplate consultant who came into this city and put together what was going to be the ordinances for the cannabis. Take a look at what that was. It was a boilerplate from the industry, as far as I'm concerned. You want to move forward. So why the rush? Why is the fast momentum to change this ordinance? Again, are there some violations, some of the Brown Act? Who is pushing the agenda? And again, thank you for pulling it from the consent. Real fast story was out of Peter Pan the other day and at the Halloween parade, and one of our good citizens was smoking his grass out the window of his house right by that where all the kids are. Thank you for that. Second is, I hope that you really know what you're doing as you move forward with us. And I trust the fact that you'll listen to people and consider your own mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mark Hersman. And then if there's anyone else that wants to speak on this item, please submit your stuff now. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Council. I sent you a letter this afternoon and I would like to read that into the record now, if I may. Dear City Leaders, as we approach final passage of the updated cannabis ordinances, it's come to our attention that a handful of local anti cannabis citizens have made a last minute appeal to broaden the definition of sensitive use sites, which require a 600 foot buffer zone around a retail cannabis dispensary in order to protect children from exposure to cannabis. As you consider this last minute appeal, we ask that you also consider the following facts. It has been two years since Councilmember Odie first submitted the referral to consider cannabis cannabis business presence on the island. We cannabis business operators have been waiting patiently and there clearly has been enough time for public comment on this issue. Retail cannabis dispensaries must comply with the following safeguards in an effort to keep cannabis out of the hands of children. Exterior windows must be opaque, with no cannabis products visible from the street. Signage must be minimal and approved by the planning department and must conform with community standards. IDs are checked at the door by a licensed security guard. Then, upon entry to the dispensary, that idea is then scanned into the customer or patient profile in the computer and recorded as having visited the dispensary. This is a state tax track and trace requirement. All cannabis products are to be tested for purity and potency and label as such, and all cannabis products must be sold in child resistant packaging. Also, the application for a conditional use permit allows neighbors and businesses within 300 feet of operation to weigh in on the establishment of a retail dispensary. As long term Alameda residents and parents of children ourselves, we at Portland Enterprises share these concerns regarding keeping cannabis out of the hands of children. Anecdotal evidence. Com coupled with scientific studies, show that cannabis has real therapeutic benefits for adult patients and a wide array with a wide array of ailments and new uses and discoveries with therapeutic use of cannabis are happening in real time. We are committed to providing cannabis and cannabis information that promotes medicinal wellness and responsible use by our patients and customers. In conclusion, we believe the safeguards noted above provide the best possible balance between safe access for adults who should be free to make choices about how they treat their own ailments and the protection of children. Prohibition has clearly failed, and we are striving to advance a solution that will replace illegal street dealers, many of whom have no reservations about supplying cannabis to our children with regulated and responsible businesses. We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive approach to this issue, and we sincerely ask that you not backtrack on progress at this final hour. Thank you. Thank you. Member, Odie. Thank you, madam. I just had a quick question from staff. Who's doing this, John or Debbie? John, you're doing this. So I think there was a comment from a resident about a thousand foot radius. I'm looking at staff report, page 22. It does say no cannabis business. Engaging in dispensary, retail or dispensary delivery shall locate within a 1000 foot radius of a public or private school. So we didn't change that, even though the state law says 600. And the school district requested a thousand and we kept that. Isn't that correct? And John Lane, assistant city attorney, that's my recollection. I think we did change. I think we went to a two tier system. Right. But the comment was made that we somehow we got rid of the thousand foot buffer between, you know, the thousands to make sure that the never changed risk was not what we did. That's correct. We've always had that thousand foot buffer for schools and see the as a U.S. resolution. That's correct. And that would be for public as well as private schools. So all schools have a 1000 foot buffer or around schools for the location of the retail dispensaries. And can you go over what's this, the footage for the daycare centers, licensed daycare centers. Licensed daycare centers, 600 feet, as well as all other sensitive uses, have a 600 foot buffer zone. And the 600 feet is actually the same as with the state law. Is that correct? Well, the state law is 600 feet in the absence of a jurisdiction. Having any buffer zone. Of its own. So if if the city did not have a buffer zone around sensitive uses, it would be 600 feet by default. But the city has proactively established a two tier buffer system. That's what's reflected in the ordinance, actually. Five M, not five L The ordinance that's being contemplated as item five M would establish that two tier buffer system. And that's the second reading this evening. And the two tiers is that for K through 12 schools, public and private, it's 1000. That's correct. Which is more than the 600 feet of what the state requires. That's correct. And then the 600 feet is for the licensed daycare centers and youth centers as defined in our ordinance. That's correct. And I would like to point out that there has been some correspondence that the council has received regarding whether or not martial arts studios should be considered. Youth centers and staff does believe that there is some ambiguity around that issue. And what we would propose is to come back to council at its November 27th meeting with a discussion about that definition and with some suggested language and a draft ordinance at that time. But staff believes, as the attorney office reported out, that council can move forward this evening with the second read for the land use ordinance, as well as the regulatory ordinance. And then we would come back with an opportunity on the 27th for a robust discussion around clearing up any kind of ambiguities around the definition of youth centers. That's in our existing ordinance. All right. Thank you. Remember? Is that an appropriate motion to give through? Four, five, 5 a.m.. I mean just. It's really it's really covered in five the M the regulatory ordinance as opposed to five L the land use ordinance. So in regards to five L, it stuff's a city attorney's legal opinion that we can proceed with the final passage of the ordinance. Yes. Any other questions from council members? Just want to make sure that since there was a sorry there was a letter sent in and an open government complaint filed that there aren't any other speakers. Before we make a decision on this, just. Do we have any other speakers on this item? Not on the Senate, but on the next item. All right. All right. Thank you. Do we have a motion to proceed with this? So moved. Second. All those in favor. I. I. All those opposed. No. Motion carries 3 to 2. I am. Final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 16 cannabis businesses of Chapter six businesses, occupations and industry to eliminate the cap on testing laboratories allow for two additional cannabis businesses to operate as dispensary delivery delivery required within the zoning district for cannabis retail. Amend the disposition requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of Grand Street. Create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for cannabis businesses. Amend certain portions of the regulatory ordinance to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense non medicinal and adult, use cannabis and modify requirements for off island delivery and make other clarifying. Or conforming amendments thereto. Speakers like.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to Contract No. 34308 with Safeway Sign Company, of Adelanto, CA, for the purchase of additional signs specifically required for the Street Sweeping Sign Replacement project and to increase the contract amount by $800,000, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $3,274,000, for a period ending June 30, 2018. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01172017_17-0029

Motion carries. Fantastic. We have item number 14, please. Item 14 is report from Public Works recommendation to execute an amendment to contract with Safeway Sign Company for the purpose for the purchase of additional signs specifically required for the street sweeping sign replacement project and to increase the contract amount by 800,000 citywide. That's pretty straightforward. Is there a second? Okay. Okay. Councilman Pryce, would you like to speak to this? No Council on the mango. Could the staff let us know what the cause of the increase was? That's a pretty significant increase from the original budgeted amount. It's for our streets. We've been signed, so. I'm familiar what it's for. But didn't we have a quote? We had a quote. I think this is to complete the rest of the signs. Here comes Mr. Beck. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Mongo, this is part of our citywide contract. This is an ongoing, I guess, as needed contract that we asked council to approve. So when we need signs, we have them in place. As you know, we have started a citywide effort to eliminate all four E.M. sweeping times. And the majority of this contract has been used to purchase new street sweeping signs as we go through that updating process. So it's not. More money for the same number of signs of the second phase of the project. Correct. We have just finished what I've called. I mean, it's an ongoing project, but we kind of just finished phase two and we're now moving into phase three. So we started in our parking impacted neighborhoods and are kind of working our way clockwise around the city. Perfect. Thank you so much. Just making sure they didn't raise the price on us. That's correct. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item saying nonmembers, please cast your vote?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; declaring a portion of Lot 31, Block 2, Kramer Heights Addition, Volume 13 of Plats, page 66, that is not needed for street purposes, as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said northern 45 feet of the property to the owners of the adjoining property at fair market value; and authorizing the transfer of the southern 65 feet of the property to the owners of the adjoining property, with covenants on the property to benefit affordable housing; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the transfer of the properties; and directing how the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed.

SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120371

Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120371. An ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring a portion of Lot 31 BLOCK two Grammar Heights edition Item 13 of Pratt's Page 66. That is not needed for street purposes. A surplus to the city needs. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Russo. Again, on behalf of councilmember skater, you're recognized to provide the committee report. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is a great opportunity that's being pursued by the Department of Finance Administrative Services. One of the fairly routine departmental matters that have to come to the council was the city's board of directors for final approval involves the swapping around of a couple of properties for the use of the department. This was scrutinized in a presentation before the committee last week and resulted in a unanimous decision from the committee to recommend full passage to the Council. And I do so move that we pass Council Bill 120371. I think it comes from colleagues questions, comments, concerns. CNN was the piece called The Wrong Passage of the Bill. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Swan? Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Strouse. Yes. Six in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes the General Senate with a plan to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. I items removed from the consent calendar. There were no items removed from the consent calendar today. Item J Adoption of other resolutions. There are no resolutions for introduction and adoption today under item K at a business colleagues. Is there any other business to come before the council? I'm seeing none. I will. I believe that I made this request previously. I'll make it again today.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed twenty-year Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, Colorado (“DHA”), to allow transfer of certain funds from the city’s affordable housing fund to DHA, and for the accelerated development, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing. Approves an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) for twenty years for the transfer of the city’s dedicated property tax from the Affordable Housing Fund to DHA to support accelerated development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing serving low- and moderate-income households, citywide (OEDEV-201843652-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-10-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-8-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0863

Please. Because voting in those results. 3939 as final consideration of Council Bill 394 will be Monday, September 10th. All right. Moving on, Madam Secretary, are you pleased with the next item on our screen and Councilman Flynn? Go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 863. Okay. This is the intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Housing. Authority and Laura Speer. Can you speak to. Thank you. I just had a several questions on the agreement. I did watch some of the committee meeting on this. I'm not on that committee, but. The primary question was the mechanism under which the reasonable distribution. I have Mr. Guerrero here also. Thank you. The reasonable distribution of developable properties that Denver Housing Authority would acquire in order to distribute them around the city. I found to be sort of found it to be weaker than I would have hoped, because it seemed to me that the mechanism requires only a minimum of six. Council districts, which is just over half. Of the city, and it's a distribution by dollar amount rather than by unit amount. And because of the land cost differences in some parts of the city versus others that are more affordable, that that we will end up with what we're trying to avoid, which is a concentration in some neighborhoods and not a not a reasonable distribution which is called for in the idea. So I and I did watch part of the and Laura, you sent an email later this afternoon. So could you explain to me why a dollar, an equitable dollar distribution of no more than 15% of the proceeds was determined to be represent. What's more reasonable distribution rather than distribution of the actual number of housing units that they would produce around the city. Good evening. Council members Ismael Guerrero, executive director of the Denver Housing Authority. Laura brzezinski and I agreed to be tag team, and I drew the short straw in this question. Did she tag you? Actually, literally, yes. Okay. No marketing aside, though, in the in the IGA. As you know, there, the two pots of money that your question refers to, the land acquisition. Yes. Property Acquisition Fund. And because that is in that in the agreement that is land that the HRA will be acquiring land or properties will be acquiring and develop co-development. I'm not co-developing developing in partnership with other nonprofit and for profit developers. We don't have specific sites, obviously, and specific buildings identified for that, so it's harder to get to a specific unit count overall on a site by site basis. However, we feel that the the land value is a proxy for the number of units that will be acquired there and therefore. That will be developed. And those sites. So therefore, if the funds are distributed per the policy goals of no more than 15% in one district, our assumption in the modeling is that sites that are sort of less expensive in certain districts will have I'm sorry that as the as the land price goes, so will the amount of units that we can build on that parcel. So in a downtown area where land is might be twice as expensive will be more or more, but we'll be buying smaller parcels and getting, you know, higher density development in outlying neighborhoods where land is tends to be less expensive. They also tend to have lower densities. So we'll be spending equal amount of of dollars to get the same equivalent number of units. You're referring to zoning entitlements for zoning? Yeah. Generally to the higher density zoning close to the central business district. Lower density as you get into the outlying neighborhoods. Okay. So so we just felt that the land value was a good proxy for the number of units that would be developed on that site. So but in other words, there is no goal to have a reasonable distribution of the actual number of housing units in each council district. I think that that policy goal is reflected in the land value goal. So if it works out, it would just be through this secondary mechanism of the dollar amount that we spent on the land. But it also depends. Apparently, it could also depend on who our development partner is and what they bring to the table. That that's correct. Would that be fair to say? Yes. Okay. Laura, could you answer this one? Don't forget to. Tag. Thank you. The contract says that the executive director of is that of OED and DHC can modify or waive requirements in the scope of work in Exhibit A and also in the definitions in Exhibit B on their mutual agreement without coming back to the Council, except after the fact within 60 days to tell us how you changed this contract that we're going to approve tonight. And I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion that we're sending a contract out the door that by mutual agreement between the administration and the housing authority, you can modify or waive some of the requirements. Can you make. Me more comfortable with that in. Some way? So Laura brzezinski, Office of Economic Development, and Julia, few from the city attorney's office want to add to this as well. Please feel free. But the contract does state that the scope of work can be modified at the mutual agreement of the executive director of OED. Except for the minimum outcomes that are achieved through the agreements. That includes 1200 units produced through the land acquisition, and I think it's 1294 units that are preserved and created through the partnership with DOJ. Mm hmm. Okay, so you just restated what I asked, but why are why are we doing that? Part of the reason that we I. Mean, why most other contracts that we put out when there's when they change, the administration comes back to us with a contract amendment. Sure. So the agreement is built around those minimum achievable outcomes. But some of the path to achieving those outcomes, we know, will be dependent on market conditions that could change over time. So some of the assumptions that are included as part of the scope and the specific projects that may achieve those outcomes are places where we wanted to provide flexibility. I was just going to say, you want the flexibility as long as you're achieving the same contract agreement goals. I keep calling your contract. It's an idea. So as long as the goals remain the same, your flexibility within. The methods for doing that would you would report back to us but not ask us for permission to do that? Well, to some extent, there are there are parameters around what can be approved by the directors. But we are negotiating and proposing through this agreement to purchase the outcomes of the units created and preserved through the agreement. Okay. Thank you. I have one more question. Am I reading exhibit B4 correctly that under the net proceeds member housing authorities, administrative fees or. Costs are capped at 4%. Of the of the. Property tax allocation. And the proceeds of the bonds. The reason I ask is because that's 1% better than what the housing fund we said. I think it is 5%. Eight, 8%. Okay. 8%. That's correct. So what I'm reading that to mean is that DHS admin. Costs that they're allowed to. Load onto these proceeds is limited to 4%. That's correct. That's excellent. Yes. If true. If true, that's excellent. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Ismael, you threw me off by the the the land value thing because some of these parcels are ones that you already own. To clarify, Councilman Espinoza, I was referring to the funds that would be used to acquire new sites to be developed by other development partners. So not that the property specifically. Okay. I do wish that I mean, do we have any any other sort of metrics that allow us to sort of look? You know, we've got the information about housing cost burden, you know, level of cost burden, households at different arms. But do we have there are other factors, right? Proximity to workplace productivity, schools? Do we have I mean, are we sort of heat mapping? So we actually understand that, you know, we're actually have a housing an affordable housing void. And, you know, we have an affordable housing need citywide, but we have population concentrations of people that are having the mean areas where there's there's not enough housing proximate to other aspects that would actually that actually impact the total totality of affordability for that household so that we're actually more strategically placing housing where it is rather than just simply going by by land value or something informing that. Yeah, that's correct. I think we call out other location factors opportunity neighborhoods, proximity to transit and services are some of the site conditions that we'd be looking for, not just the price of the land. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Mechanic. Thank you, Mr. President. I frankly just wanted to comment on this bill, so my colleagues dove right in with their questions. But I actually want to summarize what it does just for the public and for the record, which is that this bill and the companion that goes with it, which is 864 together, double our commitment to affordable housing, which just for the record, is the largest commitment in the state of Colorado, even more than the state's general fund commitment to housing. They have other funds that they leverage, but for a general fund, commitment of funds that, you know, could be spent and other things, this is it's historic. And I think just a few things to make sure that folks highlight is as we move forward, which is that it brings, you know, $105 million forward in advance through bonding, which was something specifically that the community strongly asked for, that we not just do a small amount each year. There's some cost benefit to that, there's some transaction costs and interest cost and things like that. But I think there was some building consensus that it was important to bring some money forward and the administration was able to work with DHS to find a way to do that. Third thing I think is important to highlight is who some of these housing units will serve. It will be a full range of incomes when you look at the full range of sources. So, for example, there is marijuana tax dollars that are being dedicated through this provision and that will include funding for folks of all incomes. But the portion we talking about that the Denver Housing Authority will be focused on with land acquisition will particularly focus on the most vulnerable residents of our city. These are folks who are either struggling with homelessness or who earn so little that they are below what we call 30% immediate median income. These are very, very low wage workers or folks who are on fixed income, Social Security, they're on some form of disability. They're seniors who are who are very low income. So so it's important to know that this package serves the lowest income folks. And then the last thing I want to highlight is that the portion that the Denver Housing Authority is taking on, which we focused our questions on today, but is actually only half, half of this package. But this portion, this half of the package will be affordable in perpetuity, which means it won't expire. We are struggling mightily right now to preserve housing that expires at 15, 23 years and to try to re-up it all and not lose it. And so we will not have to do that with this half of the package. And so these are really important pieces that just deserve highlighting before we gloss this through in our consent agenda. No one has called this out for a vote. I don't think so. It will be a consent package vote. But because it's big and because it's important. I just wanted to take a minute to, you know, thank the administration for the creativity. And I think the marijuana industry who has been very open to a sales tax increase, that won't be easy. Right. We want to make sure that that product stays in the legal market and doesn't get pushed to the black market. So it's a careful balance. And so I want to thank the marijuana industry for their, you know, approach to this and then to the community voices who help to kind of keep us moving so that we wouldn't just rest on the package we passed in 16, but we would work to grow it. So we all committed to doing that. We all had different paths and a lot of the ideas we shared and we researched. Separately all kind of were reflected in this package. So my thanks to those who worked together and to my colleagues. You know, I think that, you know, we've blazed a trail here and we're continuing to grow it. And that's what I continually state. There is no one bullet or solution to the housing challenge we face. But each piece we we expanded nondiscrimination with a week ago to two weeks ago feels like a lifetime already. But each piece we do you know whether it's keeping people in their homes through eviction defense. You have to add up each of our policies separately, together, and then you have to watch how the impact of each one grows as we grow the program. That's how you measure the impact we're having. So with that, I am so excited to vote on this as part of, I think, the consent package. Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just wanted to add my my almond and also exclamation point on a couple of points. Councilwoman Kennedy mentioned, you know, this is this has been a long conversation starting from 2014. And I think our first package of bills in 2016 was a great first step. But I think the community is very clear that this is this is good, but it's not nearly enough of what we're experiencing and the number of people that are being displaced in our city. And so the the administration are our nonprofit partners of VHA. It's incredible. But I also want to say, in doubling this fund, we're not done. And it is going to take the private sector, it's going to take government is going to take nonprofit, it's going to take the community to continue to grow this. And so although I'm extremely excited we got this done this year, I think there's a lot more work that we have to do. The other thing and 2016, it was exciting to pass the first affordable housing fund. The whole point was there was a permanent fund, but that night we put a sunset on it and excited that a part of this package is eliminating the sunset sunset as well, and so excited to move forward and making sure that this is something that's going to impact Denver in the next 20, 30 years. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Flynn, your up. Thank you. Just briefly, I want to thank Ismael and Laura for the answers. I had called this out for a vote because I did have those questions that I thought were were crucial to having the answers. And I got the answers here. So I'm happy to withdraw that request and put us in a black vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. An exciting bill that will move over to the block vote in a couple of minutes. We have one other item that's been called out, which is 746. Madam Secretary, we put 746 up on our screens.

A RESOLUTION urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the City and State emergency moratoriums on evictions through no earlier than the end of 2021.

SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_Res 31998

Agenda item two Resolution 31998. A resolution urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the city and state emergency moratoriums on evictions through no earlier than the end of 2021. Thank you. So much. I move to adopt resolution 31998. Is there a second? I get back in? Great. Wonderful. Okay. Councilmember Sawant, you are the sponsor of the resolution. I'm going to hand it over to you to address this item. Thank you. And God surprise. And I will make the general comments I have and then move the amendment. Is that okay? On the U.S. amendment. No, let's let's address the base the base bill, and then we'll have you do the amendment, and then we can have a conversation about the amendment and do the vote on the amendment. Okay. Thank you. This resolution urges the mayor and governor to extend the moratorium on evictions through at least the end of this year. This resolution last came for a vote to the city council on March 15th, two weeks before the city and state eviction moratorium were poised to expire. At that time, renters were terrified that they could lose their homes in two weeks, and housing activists and organizations demanded that the mayor and the governor extend the eviction moratorium to the end of the year. Minutes before the city council meeting on that day where the resolution was going to be voted on now, Durkan relented and extended the moratorium for an additional three months. And later, Governor Inslee did the same. As we said at that time, this was a victory for the renters rights struggle, but it was also only a partial victory because it was extended. The moratorium was extended to only three months. I proposed at the time and the council unanimously agreed to delay the vote on the resolution until today, June 7th, because the eviction moratoriums are now. I'm going to expire on June 30th unless they're extended. Like in March, if the eviction moratoriums are permitted to expire at the end of this month, it will spell a real disaster for renters, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse survey. 270,000 Washington state renters have little to no confidence that they will be able to pay rent next month, which is 18% of all state renters and 98,000 Washington state renters think it is very or somewhat likely that they will be evicted in the next two months. And already, as a public comment, testimonials have stated, and as I have said in my comments and previous weeks, the data from the real estate industry in Seattle itself shows that rents are starting to skyrocket starting in January already, and that they are projected to increase at a greater rate than the rents were going up in the pre-pandemic period. So renters are facing a dire situation, both in terms of keeping up with the current trend, not to mention the debt that they are being forced to accumulate. We have fought for and won the right to a lawyer for renters facing eviction. Eviction. Defenses for renters and rental assistance. Money. All of those are extremely important, but none of them are an excuse to fail to extend the eviction moratorium when the eviction moratorium ends. Literally thousands of Seattle renters. Could be served with eviction paperwork, which is also known as unlawful detainers. An unknown number will evict moving before they are formally served with eviction paperwork. Then, statistically, half of those actually settled with formal eviction paperwork will be evicted by default because they are unable to respond to the paperwork or appear in court. And only those who make it to the eviction hearing can avoid eviction using Seattle's eviction defense, the right to counsel and rental assistance funds. I oppose evictions because housing should be a human right at the least. At the very least, however, the housing emergency renters are facing due to the economic shock of COVID 19 needs to be resolved before elected officials even consider lifting the eviction moratorium. This is a resolution. It's a resolution urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the eviction moratorium to the end of this year. I want to move the amendment and then I have specific comment about the amended version. So I move Amendment One, which updates this resolution to account for changes over the past three months since it was last discussed. Can I get a second. Second I It's been moved in second hand. So as a result you may address your. Thank you. The amendment adds up to date statistics and also language on recent community organizing. For example, a quote from a Washington Community Action Network outreach letter. Quote, We are calling for an extension of the eviction moratorium to the end of this year, end of the year to make sure renters have time to access rent relief programs , get back to their normal incomes, and can get caught up on rent. We want some important policies in the state legislature, but to make sure those policies are effective, we need to ensure rent don't have time to catch up on rent and code. The amendment resolution also quotes from my Washington Low Income Housing Alliance letter stating, quote, Incredible numbers of renters are applying for rent rental assistance and it will take months to get the funds distributed. Lifting the moratorium and allowing landlords to proceed with evictions a month from now would be grossly irresponsible. And quite frankly, it is. I agree with them. It is not acceptable that elected officials would even consider lifting the moratorium before renters are able to get caught up on their past rent and stabilize their lives after this unprecedented emergency. The amendment also account for the provision in Senate Bill 5160 that shamefully ends the eviction moratorium statewide on June 30th. But to be clear, while the statewide moratorium is scheduled at this moment to end on June 30th, according to Senate Bill 5160, there is nothing legally stopping Governor Inslee from issuing a new moratorium proclamation. And Senate Bill 5160 says nothing about the city's moratorium. So I urge councilmembers to support this amendment. Updating the resolution language also urge council members to support the resolution as a whole. But at this time, I think we have the first vote on the amendment to update the language and then the vote on the resolution as a whole. And I'll just have some closing comments later on. Thank you so much. Perfect. That's exactly how we're going to handle this. So before we call the roll on proposed amendment and one, I would like to offer other council members an opportunity to ask any questions or make any comments about proposed Amendment one as published on the agenda. Hearing no comments or seeing any hands raised for questions. Will the clerk please call the will on the adoption. Of amendments one. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales. Mystery. I. Peterson. I. So on. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I seven and seven. None of those. The amendment passes and the motion carries the amendment as adopted, and the amended resolution is now before the City Council. Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? And of course, Councilor Arsalan is the prime sponsor. You'll get the last word. All right. Scanning the zoom room for any hands. And I'm not seeing any hands raised. So, Councilmember Charlotte, you get the last word. You can close out debate and we'll call this to a vote. Thank you. I just wanted to add, the New York Times editorial board recently wrote an editorial with the Orwellian title To Prevent Elections and Moratoriums. This editorial advocates for ending eviction moratoriums around the country by making the neoliberal bootstraps argument that poor renters need the threat of eviction to be motivated to access rental assistance money. We know that such neoliberal arguments have no truth. And when you look at overwhelming statistical evidence, but we also know that this is the new line of the corporate establishment now. And we are seeing it being used around the country to erode renters rights from Philadelphia to Olympia. And it is being used as a cudgel against any any advocacy of extending eviction moratoriums nationally. The reality is that rental assistance agencies need time to distribute rental assistance funds. Renters do not need the threat of eviction. Renters need some guarantees that they will not lose their homes. And as progressives, we have a duty to push back against this neoliberal narrative. Housing should be a human right and not used as leverage. Like The New York Times editorial board proposes. So I would urge that we send a clear message to the governors and the mayors offices that the Seattle City Council supports renters and community organizations in demanding that the moratorium be extended to at least the end of this year. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember and Salon, for those closing comments. We are not going to call this resolution to a vote. So will the clerk please call the will on the adoption of the amended resolution? Was I. Lewis. I. Morales. That a. I. Peterson. I so want. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez. I wasn't in favor and unopposed. The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Well, the piece that fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Moving on to item three, will the clerk please read item three into the record? The Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Commission Agenda Item three Council Bill 120046 An ordinance relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families and educators during the school year, and amending Section 22.206160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; amending Ordinance 126148; amending a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_10262020_CB 119942

Committee reports of the city council. The clerk. Please read item one into the record report. Thank you. Agenda item one Constable 119942. Amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget. Amending Ordinance 126148 amended proviso and ratified confirming search and prior acts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 119942. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Lewis, you're the sponsor of this bill and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. I'm just. Just. Just one moment. I'm sorry. Is this the time where I'm supposed to move, to amend, or. Or are we going to do that? Councilor Lewis. We can't. Is this. So I see that you do have an amendment. You are welcome to ask that the Council consider the amendment before you address the underlying bill. Or you can address the underlying bill first and then have us consider the amendment. I'm happy to go in whatever order you think would make most sense, that would help the Council have the most productive conversation about about the bill that will ultimately be before us. So if you want to if you want to address the amendment first. Completely happy to to have that happen first. I think I would like to address the amendment first technical in nature. So I move to amend Council Bill 119942 as presented on Amendment One, which was recently distributed. Excellent. We need a second on that amendment. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment one. Councilmember Lewis, please feel free to address Amendment One. Thank you. Madam President, as I mentioned at briefing this morning, Amendment One is technical in nature, and that is the the opinion of the city attorney's office, as well as central staff. And in distributing this amendment last week, clarifies the the amount of money HST is being being given and how that can be spent. Then, you know, a necessary change to make sure that this and that this legislation, the changes, the provisions from the summer session can go forward as we intended to. So I would ask that we we vote on this and then move on to discussing the legislation more holistically. Thank you, Governor Lewis. Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? No hearing. None. I will ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One as described by Council Member Lewis. Our house guests. Her bold. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Rallies. Spider. Wow. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Peterson. Yes. So, aunt. Yes. Council, President Gonzalez says. Eight in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Customer Louis, I will hand it back over to you to address the bill as amended before we hear other comments from your colleagues and is as is required by the rules, you will have the last word to close out debate. Once we've heard from others. Thank you very much, Madam President. And it is good to see that at 201 it was distributed to all council members. We did get the updated framework agreement between the executive and the providers to continue to go through and go forward on this conversation that has been convened to really make sure that we are working together as a council, a provider community and a mayor to start making material progress on getting outreach and services to folks who really, really need it right now, especially now that we are very clearly on the doorstep of winter. This framework and the conversation around it has been very productive for all of us to make sure that we are talking and working through ending 2020 with action and making sure that we are getting these resources out into the field to people who need them, resources around and around hygiene and behavioral, mental health and all the other things that are authorized in this bill and where there is an agreement and a framework to spend these resources and get them out to the folks that need them. But I want to be clear about what this legislation doesn't do. This legislation does not make any commitments in terms of what this city side of things on managing outreach is going to be for 2021. We have a variety of proposals that have come forward. The executive sat down a proposal for the team that they would like to have in a city similar to the proposal that is in this legislation to have a coordinating team that is not out in the field, to have a engagement policy that is centered on provider outreach for folks with expertize and connections in our community to be the the face and the implementers of our outreach policy and for the city to be in a coordinating and service providing role that is enhancing the mission of those providers. This is a is a good start to finish out 2020. It's good that we have been able to convene a conversation where we are moving closer to a consensus in this area. And we will continue to talk about what the model for 2021 is going to look like throughout the fall budget session. But we cannot wait any longer based on the the urgency and the need to really start deploying these resources. That is evident in all the districts of the city, that sense of urgency. So with that, I just want to say this isn't the end, this is the beginning. We have a long way to go still. But this is a good start where everybody has been working in good faith. I encourage everyone to read the framework that was distributed to everyone. I have. I have briefly glanced it, but definitely want to spend more time with that document. But this really does represent a material step forward on a new model of outreach that is no longer going to overemphasize the role of police, no longer going to overemphasize, or rather, I should say under emphasized the need for our service provider community to be the face of these efforts in all the neighborhoods that they serve. And with that, I would move that we or I look forward to further conversation, but we will certainly encourage and hope that we move forward with this today and that we continue to build on this in the 2021 budget and make sure that the resources we have appropriated in 2020 do get out there in the field, as is the expectation of the provider community in supporting this measure today. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, are there any questions or comments on the bill from from my colleagues. Okay. Kids were silent. And then Casmir Morales. Others. I intend to vote no on this bill because what it actually does is shrink the scale of the proviso that was passed by the council to stop the encampment removals or as a homeless activist themselves have said stop the sweeps by almost a third shrinks the scale of the proviso by almost a third from $2.9 million to $2 million. This proviso basically said that the mayor could only use the funds allocated to the so called navigation team, which does the sweeps of homeless people, that it could only use those funds to do genuine outreach of homeless services instead. Councilmember Lewis says that everybody has been working on good faith and I think that's true of the. Workers at REACH and the employees of the Human Services Department. But I don't believe that that's true of the mayor's office, which actually has been an obstacle to getting any kind of change away from a removals of homeless encampments and homeless human human beings. Everything else that has been discussed as part of this bill, such as those shared principles and agreed framework of the service providers. All of which, of course, is moving in a good direction. Could have happened anyway and do not actually require this legislation. This legislation is precisely for shrinking the scale of the proposal. So what the Council is really voting on now is whether or not to shrink the 2020 job, the sweeps ratio from $2.9 billion to $2 million. And the only reason that's being discussed is because Melder can refuse to follow the proviso since it was passed by the city council in August. In fact, as of last Friday, my office checked with city council staff and it's still not being acted on. The proviso has not been acted on. It's true that because the mayor vetoed the budget, it did not legally take effect until last Thursday. But there was nothing stopping the mayor from voluntarily following the proviso earlier. So I don't I don't actually take these claims about a sense of urgency, any serious you know, I don't take it at face value. The only reason Mayor Durkan chose not to follow the proviso was because she was confident the city council would give her retroactive permission to do so. And here is a bill to do just that. I will say also, I'm really taken aback that this retroactive permission has been considered before the mayor actually takes any material steps to follow the proviso in any way. I mean, where is the funding for the service providers to do homeless outreach? Perhaps it would be different if it were December and the mayor had beautiful have dutifully followed the legal requirements of the proviso for two months and was then after that asking for retroactive permission for her slow start. But this bill gives her permission for being laid before she even begins. So what's to prevent her from delaying another couple of months and then bringing another bill retroactively giving permission for the next delay? I mean, we don't know that that's not going to happen. The sweeps of homeless encampments are cruel, inhumane and ineffective. People are removed again and again and again, sometimes from the same locations, because there's nowhere affordable to go. There are no alternatives. There have been well over a thousand sweeps and they're clearly not working. And they are wasting millions of dollars, forcing people to move, losing their belongings and becoming more and more desperate after one traumatic event after another. The mayor should have stopped, start sweeping people years ago, and it's not possible for my office to support a bill to retroactively give her permission for delaying even after a stop. The proviso has been that. So I'll be voting. No, thank you. You council members want Councilmember Morales. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions for the sponsor before I move on. Councilmember Lewis, can you talk a little bit about how Tim described in your memo, in your amendment sorry, is materially different from the HST team that the executive has proposed for 2021 on the 2021 budget. Yes, I can answer that question. This proviso change is not prescriptive in terms of the division of labor as to what these eight years can and can't do. It represents a four employee reduction from the number of HST employees who are on the old navigation team. So it's a smaller team. The team that we got a presentation about three weeks ago is also eight after years. So it would they could use those eight years in any way they see fit. That is consistent with the conditions of the proviso which explicitly says that they cannot be doing direct outreach. So they can essentially be doing things other than direct outreach, like coordinating with providers and coordinating with city departments to provide assistance to the mission of the providers. And it's it's important to note that that $245,000, which is the only amount of money that's released, so only quite a little less than a quarter million dollars is released for the last two months of this year for that HST team that expires at the end of the year. And it does not guarantee that HST will have those eight years any longer than December 31st. That would depend on what our conversations are this fall in terms of what we want, the long term team, whatever it is to to look like beyond that. And that is something I would add that the ongoing work that the mayor's office and the provider community are doing to go back and forth on this is also heavily discussing, you know, what will be the makeup of the team and what will their roles be. And, you know. So can I just. Sorry. I guess what I'm trying to understand and maybe this is a question for Jeff is is Jeff Jeff on Councilman Morales? Jeff was available this morning at council briefing. That was the time to ask questions of council central staff. So so I just want to be clear that I understand the 2021 proposal calls for eight team members. And as I understand it, the roles are team manager, outreach manager, communications manager, field coordinator, data analyst, department coordinator and two systems navigators. Right. That's my memory from the presentation and from reviewing the slides. So those. Are right. So those are all roles that existed on the previous team and are continuing. So I guess what I'm trying to understand is that aside from the the intent to shift, you know, coordinate outreach work, we know how this team would be different from the navigation team. Right. So, I mean, unlike the old navigation team, there are privies or sideboards in the proviso that limit what they can be doing. And I mean, that was important to the provider community since they don't want a team that's going to be out there competing with on the ground outreach efforts with a monopoly of resources that other providers don't have access to. And that is something that under this if if the the team were to have that mission, they would not be able to access this money or those fees. So, you know, I mean, that is a material difference. We will no longer have city employees be agents of outrage and certainly won't have police be integrated as part of that team. That proviso remains fully enshrined in the 2020 package. So it's again, I'm sorry, I'll just one more point, I guess, and I'll I'll wrap up. I just feel like this proposal amends the proviso that we passed this summer by shifting port 9 million away from the navigation team to service providers was the proposal. You didn't support. And I understand. But what I don't see is how this amendment itself does anything more than bring just these 2021 proposed navigation team online two months earlier than proposed. And what's frustrating for me and disheartening is that this legislative body voted to pass a budget, unequivocally stated our intent to shift away from a navigation time model and provide more resources to providers. We voted not once, but twice. So I want to thank the service providers who I know have been having long and frequent conversations with the executive branch. They've really been at the table to hammer out a deal for these dollars to finally get out the door. I want to thank the providers for working on this framework, which is wholly separate from this legislation. Excited to see that. And I and I know that those conversations do need to continue to make sure that the last unresolved issues are met. And my understanding is that there is a commitment to meet again with the executive, between the executive and providers in the next couple of days so that we can make sure these resources get put to their intended use. But I have to say that I believe this legislation, which in my mind disregards the incredible ongoing work that has led to this framework. Really, the only purpose of this is to bring back some version of the navigation team. I said, is also my understanding that a deal with the executive that would address some serious concerns that several providers have. That and a deal to address those issues is contingent on passing this amendment. So so I will be voting in favor of it solely to help make sure that those issues are addressed. Those concerns are addressed, and that deal can happen. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for those comments. Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the work that's been done thus far to get us to this this point. So. You know, first off, many thanks to the outreach providers who worked tirelessly over the last few weeks on coming to this agreement about a new framework for outreach and encampment management. I remember at the end of September, I think it was September 30th when we received a letter from Deputy Mayor six killer about the next steps after council action to override the mayor's veto on three three issues. One of those issues was the end of the navigation team. And in that letter, there was no description on how to activate the funds provided by the Council for Outreach. I immediately reached out to representatives from our provider community with the request that they mobilize to help build something new with the funds provided by the Council. I want to really just thank you for responding with urgency, and I appreciate the many, many hours that you have been spending working with the executive on on the on the framework. Recognize that the framework is a is a beginning place, not an end place. I want to thank also Councilmember Councilmember Lewis for leading the discussion and Deputy Mayor six Kilmer for being a willing partner in the discussions and really being open and operating and in a way that shows, I think, a lot of goodwill towards something that the council, the executive and the provider community can get behind together as a unified front. I understand that the framework that was shared with council members. Again, it's a new effort to do this work differently and for us all to work together to build this new approach in alignment. As I mentioned before, the framework itself isn't the end of the process. It's just the beginning. There is more work to be done to operationalize the framework over the next several weeks and to ensure that the new approach truly serves the needs of people living unsheltered, of groups, of people living in encampments, and of the housed, neighbors and neighboring businesses. This action will reinforce council efforts from September to make available funds to the executive so that outreach can continue in 2020. Again, it's a mark of good faith in which the conversations have proceeded. I think I just want to uplift one portion of the shared framework that I think is particularly important to highlight. It says the city concurs that removals will not be the first response and will collaborate with providers to address obstructions in behavior through thoughtful and respectful dialog and problem solving, engaging both unsheltered and housed residents. Addressing specific neighborhood needs and priorities. And you know. Neighborhood needs. Include everybody to be present in the neighborhood, from people living unsheltered to housed people and people who work or frequent parks or businesses there. And I think this new framework recognizes the value of everyone in in this necessary problem solving model. And really, that's that's what I see. I see this as a shift towards a problem solving model rather than a model that assumes that when outreach is sent out, the purpose of the outreach is to remove the encampment. The agreement also addresses the need to for the city to continue to commit significant resources not only to outreach, but to shelter, housing, trash removal, hygiene, health promotion and harm reduction, including sharps containers and health health outreach in coordination with public health. I'm really glad that this agreement has been reached in time for council to be able to consider what it might mean for the 2021 budget as well. And if we can accomplish this work today from a foundation of shared principles, I think this will help propel us for those ongoing discussions from this agreed upon Starting Point. I've been in ongoing conversations with outreach providers who are on the front lines of this work every day. I know they've indicated their support with the transmission of this new framework. I will be voting to approve this legislation and I'm also marking my commitment to continue to be in conversation with the executive and providers. And as Councilmember Lewis, I do know that you you referenced the receipt of the 201 new framework. Have we have we done what we need to do to include it as a supporting document in the official record? I think that would be a useful thing to do as well. Thank you. And and councilmember horrible. That might be a question for the for the clerk on how we procedurally do that. But I would be more than I'd be totally supportive of that. Mr.. Madam Clerk, I do think there was a question that was deferred by the bill's sponsor to you. I'm going to ask that Councilmember Herbold, repeat the question so that the clerk may have an opportunity to hear the full question and respond accordingly. You are on mute. We received at 201 an updated framework that the provider community has sent to us, and just wondering whether or not there's a way to include it as a supporting document in the official record. It doesn't necessarily need to be an amendment at this point. I think there is another discussion about memorializing this framework through a resolution. But if we could at least ensure that it is attached to the to the materials for for today's meeting. I think that would be really useful. Thank you for repeating that question, Councilmember Herbold. Yes. If the council would like to add the actual updated version of the framework to the record, I just we just need confirmation that all council members have received it via email and after the meeting we can add the updated version to the record as a supporting document. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, can you confirm for the clerk that the updated framework you are referencing during this meeting has in fact been circulated to all council members? Yes, Madam President, I can confirm that the document titled Shared Principles and Agreed Framework for Response to People Living on Sheltered 2022 2021 was emailed by Alison Risinger to the entire council at 201 and I can I can see all of our emails keyed on it. And so can can confirm that even Councilmember Juarez, who is excused today, received it as well. So. Yes, thank you, Madam Kirk. Does that suffice for the confirmation that you need in order to attach this to the final record? Yes, this is the correct and this is information needed in order to add a supporting document. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. And Casmir Lewis, if someone in your office could be so kind as to forward that final document that was circulated to all council members at 2:01 p.m. to the clerk, that would be helpful to them in order to update the record accordingly. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, as chair of our Homelessness Strategies and Investments Committee and Casper Herbold. I want to say it sounds like deputy mayor, six killer and those in HST Human Services Department were involved helping to craft this. So thanks to them. I am concerned about the the shrinking of the city government team that's been involved with this effort. Essentially, it's going from, I believe, 14 offices down to eight figures approximately. And many constituents have contacted our office to share their concerns about the rise of visible, unauthorized encampments. We know that the Centers for Disease Control guidelines regarding social distancing and spacing requirements in congregate shelter models presents a problem, and city has acted to stand up shelters and provide hygiene and outreach. But I believe we need to have that role, a strong role of coordinating from from the city government, city government leadership on coordinating the outreach efforts. And I know we voted unanimously to remove the police department as a standard part of the team. So I'm glad to see this incorporated continuing as part of this compromise. There are times when SPD will need to be involved. I know firefighters are going out to encampments when there are fire hazards. And and so those want to have the police department available just in case something were to arise there. So, again, my chief concern throughout this discussion has been making sure the city government has a strong coordination role. And because ultimately the city and the county governments are responsible for addressing the problems of public health and safety and addressing homelessness. I'm very much looking forward to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority taking shape so that we can coordinate our efforts regionally to tackle this regional problem. So even though I am concerned about the shrinking role of city government and I wish it were a larger role, I hope it can be we can value our city employees in the role and expertize that they bring to the table and see about expanding their role in the future. Today, I will support this compromise, however. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from my colleagues? Okay. Hearing and I'm sorry. Okay. Councilman Moscato, please. Thank you very much, council president. And thanks to the folks who spoke today, especially those who articulated the urgent need for us to get out the door right now. I mean, that's the reality of the situation we're in. The average dollars that we allocated were not given to community partners to help with outreach. And instead of helping folks out in the community, the messages we've been receiving are that council has not stepped in to provide an alternative to the navigation team, which is just not true . So I really appreciate that this is what the providers want because right now they are seeing for a lack of those dollars being allocated to the community, people going without the outreach services that they need, connections to housing and essential support like trash cleanup and making sure that people get the assistance they need to have food and ideally referrals to the right place. So it's in the spirit that many council members have already brought up about needing to just get the money out the door and wanting to see the good work of those community partners get funded. That I'll be looking forward to voting for this and recognizing that this is very much still in alignment with what the principles were from our earlier actions in making sure that homelessness outreach is not being led or done in conjunction with those who are sworn officers, and that there's the appropriate role for our excellent city team to be coordinating behind the scenes to make sure that people get the referrals that they need and into hopefully case management. And that's that's that's an important role for our city to continue to do, but making sure that the community partners with the trusted relationships are out there doing the hard work. So thanks to them for sending in the framework and to all of us, I think this is a good indication of how we can continue to make sure that those trusted partners are getting the dollars. And that's that's really the most important thing right now as folks deal with COVID and and the now, what, five year crisis of housing and homelessness affordability issues. So with that, I'll be voting yes, Councilperson. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, any other comments? I'm going to ask Martin Lewis to close out debate with any final comments and then we will take up the bill. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be I'll be brief. You know, I. Understand we're folks who have some skepticism about this legislation are coming from based on the history of the old navigation team and a lot of the issues we've seen over the last three years around collaboration between the city and the provider community, which I think we can all agree has has not in and of itself been able to solve our homelessness crisis. And we see every day thousands of our neighbors living without basic necessities, without basic hygiene facilities, and without as as Councilmember Strauss often says, for walls and a door that locks. And this bill is not going to solve all of that immediately, but it is a step in the right direction to start this collaborative process of working through this with all of the principal operators in this area. I would note that while we are revising the proviso from the summer, only $245,000 is going back to the Human Services Department, $245,000 for the last two months of the year, and over $2 million is going to be released to our service providers. Also, based on revisions of what that money can be going to, based on collaboration and conversation with providers, on what they really need, based on what they're experiencing right now out in the field. And that includes more money for behavioral mental health services, flexible financial assistance, case management to expand existing case management contracts, housing navigation, as well as technology needs for service providers to enhance their mission in the field. So while we still have a lot of work to do in this, this one thing is not going to solve all of it. This is a really important step forward in continuing to come together to to really bring action and respond to what we are seeing in the city. There were folks in public comment who were stating their frustration about the city having been bogged down in really important disagreements about the future direction of what our homelessness response is going to look like. And this is the first step to all of us realizing our common interest in this and moving forward in a way that can hopefully finally bridge the divide and get people that the really critical resources that they need and that this council has appropriated money to address. So with that, Madam President, I look forward to the vote and look forward to the next steps in working through this policy area through the 2021 budget process. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those closing remarks about this council bill. I want to thank everybody else on the council who also made comments about the bill and look forward to supporting supporting this effort and the long term ongoing efforts that are going to be necessary to really make a difference in this area. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended. Else. Yes, for both. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Where else? As. ROSQUETA Yes. Peterson. Yes. Sergeant. No. Council. President Gonzalez? Yes. Seven in favor, one opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the first please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Other business. Is there any other further business to come before the council? Hey, no other business colleagues. This does conclude items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, November 2nd, 2020 at 2:00 PM. That is it for today. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned.

Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to adopting an amendment to Ordinance No. C-6496, adopted July 5, 1988, and amended on January 24, 1989, July 11, 1989, December 5, 1989, March 20, 1990, July 3, 1990, September 18, 1990, July 2, 1991, July 7, 1992, January 26, 1993, August 24, 1993, June 28, 1994, July 18, 1995, November 28, 1995, October 1, 1996, March 25, 1997, October 7, 1997, October 27, 1998, April 20, 1999, October 19, 1999, October 17, 2000, October 30, 2001, March 19, 2002, November 26, 2002, January 6, 2004, February 8, 2005, November 1, 2005, December 5, 2006, March 20, 2007, May 22, 2007, December 18, 2007, July 15, 2008, September 21, 2010, September 13, 2011, September 11, 2012, October 3, 2013, and September 9, 2014 relating to departmental organization of the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_09152015_15-0893

Thank you. Next. Exciting Vice mayor. The next item is item 17, which corresponds to a dash 12. This is the recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Depart Mental Organization Ordinance. Mr. City Manager, do you have a staff report for that? Ms.. Erickson. Mr. Mayor and members of City Council before you is the organization ordinance which provides for implementation of the budget in terms of any changes to departments and divisions and bureaus in this. The main change was the the reconfiguration of the Economic and Property Development Department. The other items are minor changes. Okay, thank you. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on the item? See. Now, please cast your vote. Motion carries. 18.

Recommendation to Direct the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Delegate(s) to Vote on the ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Consolidation Budget and Work Plan. (Community Development)

AlamedaCC_05162017_2017-4325

Himself on that one. All right. So now that motion carried and 5li had pulled because I just wanted to clarify that's on the direction that we as counsel are giving to our representative to vote at the Joint Air Bag MTC meeting. That's coming up. And my concern was on the staff's recommendation has a letter that they want to send with their concerns, but it also within the body of the report says to oppose. And I want to find the exact language. Okay. Under discussion, it said the city's a bag delegate should be directed to oppose the current proposed budget and work program and approve a budget and work program that reflects the continued commitment to involving local jurisdictions and important regional land use and housing decisions contained in the draft comment letter. However, the recommendation just said Authorize air bag delegate to vote on the A bag and empty consolidation budget and work plan. So I wanted to clarify at least my understanding of this that I would support is that we're directing the delegate to, in fact, oppose the current proposed budget and work program and approve a budget. You know, that said in that paragraph, and I would have preferred having that paragraph be the recommendation that's within and I'm not sure if it's member Ashcroft or member matters matter it. All right. So member matter, S.E., did you have any questions on this? That's coming up. No, it's quite clear with the staff report in the letter and your comment. All right, so then I'm just. I guess I'll move that. Based upon what we just said and start to have a second. Second. All those in favor. Hi. And I want to thank you for taking that on. Thank you. And then Stephanie can send out the letter and our comment letter. Thank you. And now thank you. And then we go to six. Okay. Six B as and boy, did we decide we are doing that for 10 minutes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2016 Budget; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in City employment compensation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118696

Agenda item six Constable 118 696 relating to the 2016 budget amending ordinance 124 927 which adopted the 2016 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in city employment compensation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The Committee recommends the bill passed. Council Member Burgess Thank you. This legislation is a result of our collective bargaining unit negotiations with the coalition of city unions. It moves money from our reserved accounts to the departments so that the salary increases negotiated with city employees can be paid. Are there any comments? Please call the role and the passage of the bill. O'BRIEN All right. So on I. Bagshaw. Burgess Hi. Gonzales. Hi. Johnson I was I President Herbal I eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Moving on to the report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. Alleviating plenty of pause. Do you need to pause. To read it into the record? Yes. Agenda. Agenda item number eight cancel 118702 relating to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement with the City of Kirkland for renewing an independent ethics program for the City of Kirkland and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.

A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle’s commitment to the Climate Action Plan and setting expectations for increasing commercial building energy efficiency through the year 2035.

SeattleCityCouncil_10102016_Res 31714

Agenda. Item three resolution 31714 reaffirmed Seattle's commitment to the Climate Action Plan and setting expectations for increasing commercial building energy efficiency through the year 2035. The committee recommends the full council drop the resolution as amended. Councilmember So what? So for this, I would turn it over to guys from Iran. Thank you. This bill does a number of things. And I just want to give folks a little bit of background here. Earlier this year, the council passed legislation to require mandatory tune ups in existing buildings of certain sizes. And we talk about tune ups. This is making sure that buildings on a go on on a regular basis. And they phased in from the largest buildings to smaller sized commercial buildings. Can we in an update make sure that their mechanical infrastructure has been optimized to minimize the amount of energy that's been used? It was a great step forward and folks throughout the community are planning to implement that. And our hope is that by simply going in and making sure that your existing HVAC and lighting equipment is optimized to work as well as possible, we will start to achieve the energy savings that we need to from the building sector to be on our trajectory to be carbon neutral by 2050. But it's not there's not certainty around that. And 2050 is going to come sooner than we think. And so what this bill does is it recognizes that plan is in place. It calls on the sustainability environment to monitor the results of that, which won't be fully known for another about five years. But if we see that we are not on that trajectory to and the bill defines that to reach carbon neutrality, it would call upon implementing some mandatory requirements for energy upgrades in those buildings at that point sometime five or six years out from now. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Brainard. Any further comments or questions? Councilmember Herbold. Just a question. So the report back that we're asking for is 2022. Can you talk a little bit about what we're. Expecting to occur between now and then and whether or. Not there will be some report back from O.C. on on that work? It just seems like a long time. Yeah. So I don't have it corrected. Sure. Yeah. I don't have the previous resolution in front of me, so I'm going to speak from my recollection here. But there were three essentially tiers of buildings that would phase in from the largest on down to, I think, buildings to 50,000 square feet. Those get phased in towards the end of this decade, I believe, 18, 19 and 20. And so for us to monitor what kind of savings we would need a year of full operation under the tune up to compared to the previous year to see if we're on that trajectory. And as these phase in thing would take a couple of years for them all to phase in to see if the net effect is going to be enough. And so we will certainly be monitoring those. The reality with with these types of changes is that there's a fair amount of lead time necessary for folks to make it . And the reason why we're passing this legislation today, even though there is some really long lead times, is to just acknowledge that if we get to a point five years from now, six years from now, and we're not on track, we don't have two or three years to wait to debate, we want to signal immediately that we're going to switch to something else. But we know that. So for the phase in that's supposed to happen in 2018. I understand that the the the results of. That phase in will take a couple of years. But but there's no question of whether or not the buildings that are required to phase in in 2018 actually do that. That just happens. That's a requirement, though. That's a requirement of both the building size and what the tune up is. The the open question because this was a folks talk about a couple of ways to approach this work. One is requiring that you take certain actions. One is the requirement that you achieve certain energy savings. This was the former requiring them to take actions. But the ultimate climate goal we need is to achieve the energy savings. And we we're hoping those match up, but we don't know for certain yet. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? All those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. I think that will conclude our business. I did want to tell some of our guests on the council member, where is this proposed legislation on the Arch Highway peer? How are we going to describe it that we'll take that up in the next full council, sign a referral calendar would take that up at full council next week. Councilman, where is it? You want to address it? Just something. To say. Please. Could I be excused on December 5th? No, you cannot. It's been. It's been moved and seconded, councilmember. Whereas be excused on December 5th. All those in favor of that motion say I. I opposed the ayes have it is any further business to for the council. I would just like to say I thought we were going to be addressing further the resolution today about. The slice. Of the off ramps on ramps that are going to be saved. And I just want to say for my colleagues that I had the pleasure of going out with Keenan BLOCK to go look at it, because when I. First heard of it. What I heard in my mind was we're going to keep one of those off ramps. And I just couldn't believe that anybody would be recommending that. So knowing Keenan and knowing that he has good ideas, I walked out. And what's impressive about it is that if you can imagine slicing off a piece of bread or a piece of meatloaf, that's what we're talking about. It is the end of one space. I was impressed because it's the vines have grown up on it. It looks like something that totally would fit in with what you're trying to do down at the arboretum. And so I just wanted all of you who came to know that I appreciate the hard work both 50 years ago and also today to retain something that's important. So in case you didn't all come back next week, I just wanted you to know how much. I appreciate your work. Thank you there, Councilmember Gonzalez. I move to be excused on November 28th, December 5th and December 12th. Just from second. November. I'm going to be in Spain. December 11th, 2012, five. And what. 11, 28, 12, five and 12, 12 or 12/2? It's been moved in second. And that comes from Gonzales be excused from 11, 11, 2812, five and 1212. All those in favor say I, I oppose. The ayes have it. Are they is there any further business, Councilmember O'Brien? Well, we're at it. I'll ask to be excused on 1128 also. Where are you? I don't know where we're going to go. I'll second that. All those in favor of Councilmember O'Brien being excused for 1128 say I. I oppose the ayes have it any further business? Confer the council. Mr. President, I would just point out that November 28 is our backup day to adopt the city budget. So if we don't do it on the day it's scheduled, you'll miss the opportunity. And who knows what we'll do? No. We're going to get it done. We're going to get done, which is why the Budget Committee is going to reconvene as soon as we're done. As soon as we're done. So we thank you for being here. We will reconvene and budget just in a few moments. Councilman Burgess wants us there in 3 minutes. 3 minutes will stand adjourn.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute the Twentieth Amendment to Historical Site Lease No. 24291 with Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation to provide for the annual management fee for lease year 2016-2017. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_11012016_16-0993

Motion carries. 23. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to execute the 20th Amendment to historical site lease with Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation to provide for the annual management fee for lease year 2016 through 2017. District three. Get to get a motion in a second, please. Councilwoman Price. Okay. Any public comment on the item? Seeing Nancy's casserole. She wanted to make a couple of comments on that, please. Thank you. So I just wanted to thank city staff for bringing this item forward. I want to thank our partners with Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation. They do a tremendous job managing the property and creating a space that is accessible to the public and the children of the Long Beach Unified School District. They help, through their partnership with the city, maintain this site as a as an asset that provides education, not just on the history of Long Beach, but the history of the region as a whole and our development in this region. And they it has the partnership has proven to be extremely successful. And I'm grateful that as a result of measure funds, we're going to be able to assist in our part of the partnership in making sure that the building, the buildings that they help maintain and take care of and preserve are seismically sound and such that we can invite the public to continue visiting for many years to come. So thank you. And I'd ask everyone to support this item. Thank you, Counsel Braxton. Yes. I'd like to just lay my support and voice to in support of this item as well. I think this is something I know that the foundation at Rancho Elizabeth Alamitos has been working on for some time. And, yes, it's good to see this this this project moving forward. I just wanted to just also we talked about citywide resources a little bit earlier. This Rancho as well as Rancho Cerritos, are also citywide resources that serve our entire city. Anybody who's interested in history, the history of Long Beach. But more specifically to, you know, every child in Levy's unified school district actually has an opportunity to to learn and visit these ranchos at some point during their matriculation through the time. I believe it's the third for the third grade. Fourth grade. But anyway, just one of those comment things. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment on this? Okay. Please cast your votes.

A RESOLUTION requesting that the Washington State Department of Transportation preserve one support pier associated with the Roanoke/R.H. Thomson Expressway; stating the City Council’s intent to fund an engineering study of the pier’s structural integrity; and stating the City Council’s intent that the City accept ownership of the pier.

SeattleCityCouncil_10172016_Res 31716

So the period is closed, so we're ready to vote. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next gen item to the record. Agenda item three Resolution 31716 requesting that the Washington State Department of Transportation preserve one support pier associated with the Renault Carriage Thomas Expressway, stating the city's city council's intent to fund an engineering study of the pier. Structural integrity and setting this city council's intent that the city accept ownership of the pier. Thank you very much, Councilman. Worse if you. This was first of all, I want to thank former council member Jean Garden. She's still here. I want to thank Jean for coming down today and providing public comment. She was one of the people that I spoke to in promoting this. And the resolution states that we as a city value the history of neighborhoods and grassroots activists coming together to fight for their community. The resolution also calls for an engineering study to determine the stability of the segment to be preserved. I want to thank councilmembers Burgess, O'Brien, Gonzalez, Herbold and Council President Harrell for co-sponsoring this with me. I want to end with a quote from my friend and mentor, King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, who sent us a letter dated October ten, 2016. This is truly a legacy worth of celebration. Keeping a remnant of the abandoned R.H. Thompson Freeway will serve as an important reminder of the power of citizen action and the extraordinary accomplishment of Seattle citizens all those years ago. So with that it passed out of our committee unanimously, and I would like this council to support it as well. Thank you very much, Councilman. Was there any questions or comments from any of my colleagues, Katherine Johnson? Thank you. Council President I just want to echo again for the members of the public some of the issues that I brought up this morning in council briefing. I'm going to be voting for this resolution today, but I have some things that I think we need to put on the record that relate to the resolution. And I want to preface my statements by talking about the commitment that I have to making sure that this project is the most environmentally friendly project, which is a bit of an oxymoron because we're talking about a freeway project. My my history with this project has gone back for more than 30 years. My mom was an organizer for the Earth Day 20 celebration back in Wrightsville in the early 1990s. I spent a lot of time going across this bridge, the 520 bridge, as a youngster growing up on the East Side and in my professional career, spent a lot of my time and energy over the last 12 years trying my hardest to make this 520 bridge project, the most multimodal project that it can be, the skinniest project that it can be. But I think that there are some real questions related to the issues that are outlined in the resolution that still, as of yet , we need to grapple with as a council. Some of those questions include the structural integrity of the the elements that we may be saving. The federally approved record of decision related to this project, which we may be violating with the passage of this ordinance. The existing memorandum of understanding that we have with the State Department of Transportation, which we may be changing as a result of this ordinance. And then also, just generally what other issues we may need to take on in terms of structural deficiencies or ownership should this prove to be the direction that the council wants to go down ? So I strongly support the idea of spending some of our council resources to study the preservation concept. And I think that that's important for us to recognize the history of those brave citizens who fought against the Irish Thompson Expressway and whose legacy. I feel like I work on a daily basis. But I also want us to recognize that there are a lot of outstanding questions that we really need to grapple with as a council after we adopt this legislation. And it may not be as easy as it's outlined today. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Any further comments or concerns? If not, I move to adopt resolution 31716. I'm sorry. Oh, I didn't see the hand count. So I'm Herbold. Hey. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make note of some comments from County Councilmember Larry Gossett about this resolution. He wrote to us late last week and reflected on how, as a young activist and founding member of the University of Washington Black Student Union in the late 1960s, he joined many other Seattle residents in opposing freeways that would have destroyed the heart of Seattle Central District. He writes that he vividly remembers going door to door in the Coleman Judkins neighborhood, joined by members of the Black Panthers and others to collect signatures for petitions and urged residents to make their voices heard at public hearings. He describes the anti freeway movement as an effective, inspiring and amazing example of multiracial unity in Seattle that enabled the coalition of community activists to resist the unnecessary destruction of inner city homes. And I just wanted to take a moment to recognize that this movement not only did it an important thing for making sure that neighborhoods were preserved and that we were challenging the utility of urban freeways and that investment in public dollars, but that this was a really important tool for multiracial community organizing during a time that much of the communities were really struggling with issues related to civil rights. Thank you, Councilman. Horrible. Any further comments? Then I will move to adopt resolution 31716 of those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Thank you, Councilmember. Whereas. And before you read the report of the next agenda item from the Energy and Environment Committee, I. Mr. Ward, I do want to say for the record, you are absolutely right. The administrative staff, excluding the council, the full council meeting along with the budget meetings. So we apologize for any confusion there. Those online calendars not legally binding, but still it was a mistake that a person, a human being made. And we apologize for any inconvenience to any party. Thanks for pointing that out, sir. Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee.

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a report on garbage collection in unincorporated areas by the solid waste division of the department of natural resources and parks, as required by the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, as amended by Ordinance 18544, Section 68, Proviso P5.

KingCountyCC_01172018_2018-0062

We have two final items. Maybe we can get through them relatively expeditiously. Both are about solid waste. So I'm not I'm going to skip my introduction and just call on our staff. Mary and John and Terre Rose to walk us through both of these items, and we'll take them up one at a time. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. For the record, I'm here, Rose. And with me is Mary Bergeron of Council Staff Proposed Motion 2018 0062 would acknowledge receipt of a report on garbage collection in unincorporated areas in response to a budget proviso requirement. The materials for this item begin on page 141 of your packet. The Council adopted a budget proviso as a part of the 2017 2018 biennial budget requiring the executive to conduct a public outreach process, prepare additional analysis on recycling rates, and provide a report to council prior to advancing any proposal to reduce garbage collection frequency from every week to every other week in the unincorporated area, the proviso is written such that if garbage collection frequency was not planned to be reduced, the report to council could say this and no further analysis or reporting was required. On November 15th, 2017, the executive transmitted a letter to the Council stating that reduced garbage collection will not be pursued from every week to every other week in unincorporated areas of the county, from the state through the end of 2018. And the executive's letter, as transmitted, satisfies the terms of the proviso the Council will have the opportunity to set longer term policy direction regarding garbage collection and recycling rates within the context of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is anticipated to be transmitted later this year. That concludes my staff report, and I'm happy to take any questions. Okay. I'm sorry. Could you say your last sentence again? There's a little. Sure, sure. I was just mentioning that the Council will have a property opportunity to set longer term policy direction concerning garbage collection and recycling rates within the context of the comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is anticipated this year. Okay. So this is just I need to get up to where we're at. We are item eight Web page area of 141 141. And the motion is on page 147. That's what I'm looking for. It's a so the motion is to acknowledge receipt of the report. That's what we are being asked to do today. Is there comments or questions about this item? Councilmember two. Thanks. So the report that has come back to us that we are accepting now says that it won't we won't go to every other week garbage collection for the duration of what period. The letter filed with the clerk is from the date. So November 15, 2017 through the end of 2018. Through the end of the year. Okay. But after that, and there hasn't been any commitment one way or the other in terms of from solid waste on the issue. Correct. Okay. Just want to make sure we have all the facts. I have some comments. We're just accepting report and I know some comments. Are just or something you report. So if you have comments, now would be the time. Okay. So just real quick. So again, this accepts the proviso I sponsored and it essentially requires the division to either do significant outreach if they are going to go from one week to two weeks or to delay the policy until after the current by any. And so the division is acknowledged and I think it's great that they're not pursuing every other week garbage collection policy through the current year. But I just want my colleagues to know that when I was first elected to the council, illegal dumping was a huge issue in my district and it continues to be a huge issue in my district. Rates at the transfer stations, combined with growth, have just created a situation where all the people are going out to the unincorporated areas and dumping their trash or washers and dryers or even cars in some extreme situations. So as part of that response, I sponsored legislation that created a voucher program to help low income residents clear dumping grounds. And in the first year, over half the vouchers had been awarded, which just goes to show the extent of the problem. Also, I represent a lot of neighborhoods that are, you know, very unhappy with frequent odors coming from the facilities that we have out there. Of course, in my district, the landfill material composting is out there. There's a lot of odors coming from those facilities as well. And so switching every other we garbage collection is probably going to drive up the collection of work organics which are sent to my district for processing and increase the smell. And with the current rate that the folks have been contacting my office about odors, I'm not comfortable with a every other week policy change going forward until there's a plan to really address the odor concerns. You have no idea how many thousands of emails I get because of the odor related problems down there in that quadrant of the county. So I had a chance to survey my constituents with my newsletter here just last year, and I wanted to get a sense of how they felt about this issue. And and well over half of the residents surveyed said they would be unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with this policy change. And you can understand why. I mean, it's you know, that, you know, you've got situations like, for example, you've got all kinds of critters out there in the unincorporated areas, especially rural King County. And if you're leaving your garbage out for two weeks as opposed to one week, there's a greater opportunity for critters to get in there. There's smell issue, there's rodents and sanitation related issues. And and it's just it's just one of these things that and it's also, you know, even if the containers increased slightly, you still got an issue. You know, we're going to charge them the same amount for the same, but we can charge them the same amount for half the volume being reduced from their house for or from their home. Right, if they're only coming every other week. So those problems that I really have and so I just don't think this is a place to experiment and we'll be very dogged in pursuing that. Continuing on beyond the by any means. I know all the waste understands and appreciates. I just wanted to get that information out. Thank you. Yes. And I would urge we accept the report. Okay. You can simply thank you. Well, I just want to say I agree completely with the previous speaker that we are per capita. We have lots and lots of families out there. And because there's more families with more people in the house that you are going to have more garbage than. You know, averaging a, you know, one or two person household. And as he said, garbage shows up elsewhere. And it has gotten, in some cases, so extreme that we've had to hire a helicopter to come in and bring large items out that have shown up in all kinds of crazy places, which is not safe for other people and just makes it an eyesore. So I think, Councilmember, one of the things that your people need to know that the current garbage plan would take the at the height of garbage piled councilmember, the height of garbage piled up now can go up to 780 feet above sea level. But the proposal is it would go to 800 and I think 20 feet above sea level. So that they're complaining now just wait unless we change our plan. But the plans before us, we'll have an opportunity to talk about that. The other thing is that because of the garbage issues, we do have beer cans available and I think it's $4.99 more a month if you want a beer, garbage can. So for those people out there that are having problems with the bears, you can under our contract ask for a beer, garbage can. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If there's no additional commentary, I would accept a motion to approve motion number 2018 0062 of the do pass recommendation. Gladly. Madam Chair, would we propose motion number 20180062 with a do pass recommendation? But we would also ask that it be removed from the consent agenda very well. Any other comments or questions? I'll ask her to please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. All right. Councilmember Gossett. I. Council Member Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Councilmember Staff members. Councilmember one right there. Madam Chair, I. Madam Chair, the vote of Seven Eyes, No No's, council members Cole Wilson and one. Right. They were excused. All right. By your vote. You have. We have passed proposed motion number 2018 0062 of the do pass recommendation. That is to accept the report and it will not be able to consent calendar. So I'll move on to the last item on our agenda today, which is proposed motion number 2017 0505.

AN ORDINANCE granting Swedish Health Services permission to construct, maintain, and operate a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street, for a 15-year term, renewable for one successive 15-year term; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120133

Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120133. Granting Swedish health services permission to construct, maintain and operate the tunnel under and across Miner Avenue. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you. As chair of the committee, I'll address this item as well as the other two items following it items 11 and 12. I'll just make my remarks all at once. But we have separate motions for each bill colleagues. These all relate to the already approved construction of additional medical facilities for Swedish health. In 2016, Swedish received from the city conditional approval for an early vacation, a tunnel the SkyBridge, to facilitate the development of a new medical office and support of service building pursuant to Swedish 25 major institution master plan. Construction on the building has been delayed, so this legislation enables adjustments. So a clerk file one. Excuse me. Council Bill 120133 would grant approval of a term permit for a pedestrian tunnel under Miner Avenue. S Conceptual approval for the tunnel was already granted in 2016 with Resolution 31700. Then we've got council. Hold on a second. Let me just make sure I got the order right here. Well, let's go ahead and just stick with that council. 120133 would grant approval of the term permit for a pedestrian tunnel under Minor Avenue, as conceptual approval for the tunnel was granted in 2016 under Resolution 317010. Are there any comments on this bill? Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. LEWIS Yes. MORALES Yes. RUSSELL Whether. I. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ All right. And council president Fred John Petersen. Just. I. Hate in favor and and opposed. Thank you. The next item on the agenda item. 11. Will the clerk please read the title into the record?

Recommendation to declare the City-owned property located at 1675 Santa Fe Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7432-006-914 as surplus; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement, with Woodcliff Corporation, a California corporation, or Assignee, for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $1,200,000; and, accept Categorical Exemption CE 17-168. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_08152017_17-0685

What a fantastic conclusion of public comment. Thank you so much, Zoe. So at this point, we'll move forward. We have item number 16. Madam Clerk, would you please read. A report from Economic and Property Development recommendation to declare the city owned property located at 1675 Santa Fe Avenue as surplus and execute any and all documents necessary with Wood Cliff Corporation for the sale of subject property and the amount of 1.2 million. District one. Now there's a bunch of these, right? There's more than one. Is it possible to like. Councilwoman, you wanted to speak to all of them at once? Yes. Just know we're going to have to take them each individually on the sale and the vote. Yes. Well, I was just thinking the comments. Right. That's fine. The comment? Yeah, well, no. I think. Councilwoman, you've got the. Floor. Thank you. Well, Sergio, if we can go over just a quick staff report on this particular. Location, I just want to make sure. I'm wrapping my head around what will be happening there. Sergio Ramirez. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and honorable council members. The this item and. Actually the following three items pertain to the disposition of successor agency properties. As you know, we are in the process of selling former RTA properties per the Longreach Property Management Plan. These properties were taken out to RFP back in March 2016 but unsuccessfully sold in that time. Subsequently, the properties were assigned to Leon Associates, a professional real estate brokerage firm, for the solicitation of offers via the open real estate market. The subject property before you is approximately 38,000 square foot lot 1675 Santa Fe and is owned industrial Leon Associates received an offer for 1.2 million from Wood Cliff Corp. for the development of an industrial incubator industrial complex. By the site. If approved, the plans will be submitted to development services for approval through the city's entitlement process. And we recommend approval of the disposition. Thank you. I just had a question as to what. We what we're defining as incubator spaces is. Definitely the the applicant has has agreed to try to promote the sale or lease of these spaces in compliance with the livable well West Long Beach implementation plan to try to encourage entrepreneurs and startups for these spaces. Okay, great. So it is what I'm thinking. It's an entrepreneurship incubator and from what I understand, I think would Cliff is the same. Group who constructed the Michelle Obama library. That is correct. The owner of Wood Cliff is actually a developer, a contractor, general contractor. And acted as a general contractor for the Michelle Obama Library. Wonderful. Okay, great. Thank you. Very much. I appreciate the work on this. Fantastic. Is any public comment on item number 16 saying nonmembers, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications. (Community Development 236)

AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8434

Public hearing to consider amendments to the Community Development BLOCK Grant Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2019, 2020 and 20 2021 and authorize. Sorry. My eyes are going. The city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. Thank you. And who's presenting this item. At Lisa Fitness? We're adding. Pronounce it. Hello, Miss Fitz and Miss Butler. Hello. Hello. Hello. This is Lois Butler and Lisa Fitz will be presenting this item. Perfect. Nice to see you, Ms.. Butler. And welcome biscuits. Hello. Hi. So, good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. Staff. Oh, I do have slides. Yes, we're putting them. Thank you. We can arrange that. So my name is Lisa Fitz, and I manage the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program, also known as CDBG. Do I have control over the slides? No. We can advance them for you if you. Okay. So I think we're at like number four. If we could go to number two. That would be great. Okay. Thank you. So CDBG Cares Act funding. As you know, the city of Alameda receives CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD. And in September 2020, HUD announced that the city of Alameda would receive an allocation of $597,112. This is in addition to the first tranche of CARES Act funding that the city was awarded in June of 2020 in the amount of $683,116. Next slide, please. So the purpose of tonight's hearing is threefold. First, to accept and allocate the recently awarded funds. Second, to reprogram entitlement funds for the purchase and installation of community cabins. And third, to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. Next slide, please. So staff. For this for the CARES Act funds staff proposes that council accept and allocate 100% of the new CARES Act funds to public services that provide food or shelter to families and individuals who are vulnerable and in crisis as a result of the coronavirus. So please refer to the five programs shown on the screen. It should be noted that both emergency rent relief and emergency case management were approved and included in the current fiscal year action plan. Tonight, we are proposing to remove those from the current plan and have them funded by the Care with CARES Act funds instead. By doing this, it frees up money in the entitlement. I would like to also point out that the services on the screen would be offered through the end of the fiscal year. And if HUD continues to offer or continues to waive the 15% cap on public services, then safe parking and day center operation services could potentially be funded through June 30th of next fiscal year as well. In the event that the expenditures for next fiscal year are constrained by the 15% cap, then staff will propose to reprogram any remaining funds and will present recommendations to council with the action plan that will present to you in May. Next slide, please. So CDBG entitlement funds for the current year. Entitlement Funds staff proposes to amend the action planned to program $200,000 for community cabins, leaving the remaining $961,057 untouched. Please note that just last week HUD notified the city of a $230 typographical error in its award letter, resulting in a new total allocation of $1,161,057. Staff will reduce administrative expenses by $230. Next slide, please. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Ms.. Fitz and Madam Cook, do we have any public speakers on this item? Yes, we have one. Okay. But before we take our public speaker at counsel, any clarifying questions of misfits? Okay, let's. Let's hear from our public speaker. And I. Have. Yeah, Mr.. De. I'm sorry. And this way. Councilmember Desai. Yeah. Just to go on. Okay. Good. Clarifying question. In terms of the community cabins, do we have any are there is has any thought been given to persons who are in the parking program, transitioning them to the community cabins, making them available? How how what kind of thought are we giving as to who is eligible for for for that? That's a great question. So tonight, actually, we're really talking about allocating funds for the potential purchase of the cabins before the program is designed fully. We will have to identify there are few steps that will be taking, including contracting with a social service agency to provide services. But realistically, we expect that the cabins would become could potentially become shelter to people who are currently living in their cars. And quick question, how many cabins. Does $200,000 purchase? We expect that it'll cover it will provide 12 to 15 accounts. Okay, great. Thank you. Bank accounts for birthdays. Any further clarifying questions? Council. Okay. Madam Kruger. Public Speaker. Herman Read. Good evening, Mr. Reid. And just go ahead. There you go. Hello? Can you hear me now? Yes, you can. Good evening. Good evening. And thank you very much for for taking my question. I just had a question about the community cabins and where will they be located. That's a great question, and that's something that is currently being worked out. City staff has said that it's no excuse the interruption and this is perfectly appropriate. Your your answer. Public comment is normally public comment and not Q&A. However, I think we can apply common sense and I'm sure that would have been part of your presentation and maybe in answer to a few future council questions on this item. So go ahead. Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. So, yeah, there will there are like I said, in response to Councilmember de Sox question, there are a few steps that have to be taken before my money will actually be expended. We would have to identify a location. I will have to contract with a service provider. We'll have to assess the location to meet HUD standards. So at this time, the location is it has not been identified. Thank you, Miss. And that was was that all of our public speakers? That was all of the speakers. Okay. So council member Odie has to stand up. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Miss Butler. I'll miss your presentations when I don't hear them anymore. And thanks misfits for your presentation. I think in this particular topic you'll have one of the most heartwarming but probably one of the most frustrating jobs. Because, you know, every every dollar that you give benefits an individual in need, yet there's never enough to go around. So I appreciate all the hard work you've done to serve our community and serve some of our most deserving. And I think what's what's important to me about this agenda item is it shows what government can do. I mean, government should be there for the good of people, and it has a purpose to help people and serve people. And that's why, you know, I always get emotional during this presentation, even after six years, because, again, I think it shows what we can do and it goes to the core and the heart of who we are as individuals and our belief that our government can actually spend money and make things better for people. So tremendous thanks to you all and all the hard work you do and all the tough decisions you make. Thank you, Councilmember Ody, and other comments. Discussion. Vice-Chair That's why I guess I'd be happy to cosign everything Councilmember Odie said in approval of the item. Give me a minute to make my comments too. But Councilmember, despite Councilmember Vela. I was just going to second. So we have a motion of approval. We have a second motion by the Vice-Chair, seconded by Councilmember de SAC. Any discussion? Yes, Councilmember Vela. But hence you go first and I'll go next. I just want to just thank staff for their work on this. I know that there are a lot of moving parts, and certainly I think we've made it very clear, at least from the council perspective, of our desire to fund these things and to put housing and transitional housing at the top of that list. So I want to thank staff for making sure that the money and the funds that we're receiving are going directly towards that. So that was my comment. Thank you. Councilor Rivera. And I was just going to say that I found out last week that there's your double use, a countywide sales tax increase passed just barely by the skin of its teeth, because on last Wednesday night, we had our Alameda County mayor's covers meeting and our guest speaker was Cory Abbott, who is in charge of the county's program on homelessness. And so then I asked her the question because she was talking about these Project Roomkey hotels that are being purchased by the counties and by cities. And so I asked her with funding from Measure W, could that be used to help purchase some of these properties? Because I still have my eye on the Marina Village in and I know we're on the short list. We didn't quite make it, but we're on the short list and and her face just fell and she said, well, you know, I don't think Measure W passed. And then I felt terrible for even asking the question, but the next night I was checking results and I looked and it had gone ahead just barely. But it needed, you know, 50% plus one vote. And it got more it went vote over 50%. So I quickly emailed her and I said, Am I reading this correctly? Mr. Abbott emailed back and said yes and I look forward to working with the city of Alameda on the allocation of these funds. And I will let you know that the mayors of Alameda County, most of the mayors, I'd say serve ten or 11 of the 14 have signed a letter to the county board of Supervisors asking that the mayors have a seat at the table when the county is determining expenditure and allocation of these funds. So we can just make sure that our needs in cities are known. So that's to be determined. But, you know, I think it's it's good news, certainly, that I mean, obviously, it's a sales tax and the revenue has to come in. And so that would be right away. But it is an ongoing source of funding, so we don't count our chickens before we hatch. But I'd say they're incubating right now. So with that, I'm very favorable and very excited. Councilmember Odie is right. This is what some of the good thing government should be doing. We hope to see even more of that in the next four years coming out of the federal government. But we've had our motion, it's been seconded. Maybe we have a roll call vote. So thank you both for your good work on this. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Next. Right. Hi. Judy. Hi. Vella. Hi, Mayor. As the Ashcroft high that carries by five eyes. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Fitzsimmons better always great to see you and thanks for your good work. Okay, counsel, we move on to item six D.

Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay Parkway. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017]

AlamedaCC_04182017_2017-4046

Thank you all so much. Thanks to the entire city council for staying and including this and the nine, A, B, and C, thank you to the city staff for staying so late. And thank you to my sisters from the Golden Gate, Audubon Society. So there were some visuals, maybe that we don't need. There was a map that might be helpful, basically. Right. This is to us to ask the staff to prepare a report on just two places geographically for you. You know, maybe you have the map in front of you. It's essentially 23, 50 Harbor Bay Parkway. It's a small piece of land. It's actually two parcels. Right. And on one side is Shoreline Park, small, you know, grassy park with the bathrooms. The other side is a concrete extension of that park shoreline part of the map. So I don't know if we can pull up the map item. I mean, I don't want to lengthen things. There's also a darling 10/2 video of a girl on a bike. So anything you want to do. But it is helpful to place it geographically. Parcel one personal one is 1.17 acres. It's zoned commercial for an office building or a restaurant. Right. That's clear. Parcel four is what we're talking about. It's a strip of land right in front of the bay. And I sent you all a memo, and I don't know if you remember reading it. I certainly wouldn't imagine that you would remember it at this moment at 130 on or whatever the heck time it is on on Wednesday. But I did write up the memo. I went through planning documents and went through B, C, C amendment agreements and amendments. And I did that precisely to ask that you when you directed staff to prepare the study, that you put a timeline and a deadline on it. We're in possession of these documents in. One of the things I cited is actually a public document. It was a letter from Dan Reidy of Harbor Bay Associates when they zoned parcel one to be commercial. He literally referred to this parcel four as parcel one is next to the strip of land reserved for the Shoreline Park. So I truly believe this parcel is dedicated land to our city. And if I wrote the memo, hopefully to hasten that study, I think it's in our hands. Our staff has written many of the B, C, D, C amendments. So I think we could set that. The other thing I wanted to say is I wanted to ask that you make this a high priority and why would I do that? You have all these priorities. This well, this is why I was going to put this more diplomatically to city council meetings ago at 11 at night. But it's too late. To be that diplomatic OC. Why should this be a priority? Parcel one is owned by Mina Patel. She is its own commercial. The last commercial development she brought to our planning board was for a five story building. Our planning board okayed that. She planted that building right on the property line of parcel four. Now, if that's a public park, I don't think we allow that. And the former city council approved that plan. So I think it's time to really clarify. This is Parkland. You know, Patel still owns the other parcel. Let's make it clear, it's adjacent to a public park, if that's what the study brings back. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy Margolis. She's our last speaker on this item. In case you're not sick of me yet. I am Cindy Margolis, the executive director of Golden Gate Audubon. And I strongly urge the city to take this under consideration. What Pat has just talked about, this is really important. You almost had a giant, ugly motel planted in the middle of one of almeida's gems of a shoreline park with a vista facing the bay. And in San Francisco. And it would have obstructed that entire shoreline. If you don't take proper possession of that land and claim that for the city, with all of the covenants that would govern how a park property would be treated, you, that could happen again. But for the grace of a decision by Bccdc, the city was spared that decision, and it shouldn't be up to Bccdc to make those decisions that should be up to our city. So I encourage you to do that. Thank you very much. And we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Um. Member matters. Do I think we should do it? I want to know. So I move the referral. And the utilities. The rest of us have made comments. What did you want to set a priority in your motion? I want to hear some rationale. For any specific. So I spoke to our city planner, Andrew Thomas, about this because I wanted more information. What he informed me is that this is actually this strip of Shoreline Park and the city attorney may have even more clarity on. It is something that the city would require the developer of the adjacent property to pay for developing as parkland and improving and maintaining. And so we have had some pretty lively discussions about our budget, our upcoming budget and the fact that it's not unlimited, that we'd like to do things with it and we need to do things with it. So I could not support the city taking on a responsibility that rightfully will belong to a developer. But I would love to hear the city attorney's amplification. If I may, just briefly and frankly, I didn't go back and look at all of my notes on this, but we have done some some preliminary research and all of the documents as well. And first of all, this that's why I want some clarity from you all what we're looking at, because this strip of land that has been mentioned is actually already to be dedicated to the city. So we have there is already a public access easement across it. So we have our public has free and unfettered use of this property. There are minor improvements on it. But the idea is that when a developer, as we've done throughout throughout this area, when a developer develops the adjacent property, we typically require that they do some additional improvements to this this strip of land, which is why we have not yet taken the property. We can take the property, we can accept the property. We all again, we have an easement already, but it has just as councils have determined that they wanted to wait until they had a developer who could add some improvements before we accepted the fee title. Never matter. I think one of the original format of this council referral was to direct staff to bring back a report on the request. And I, I appreciate the the explanation, but it's buried in the minutes. And it's also maybe it's not what you would do if you were writing a report. So I again, I would like to know. And the referral says direct staff to if you read the referral, it says direct staff. Find out what steps it would take to acquire this property and what considerations are. And we would get that in a report. And then we can decide what to do with it, that we're not deciding whether to take it tonight or not. We're seeing what the rules are around it, and we're saying that we're interested. So, Councilman Madras, my my point was and I'm sorry, maybe I was unclear because it's so late is I'm just trying to understand if you're interested in it. Only that strip. If you're looking in some at some broader piece of property. That's what I want to get clarification. That strip. Just the strip. Okay. And because you want cost estimates of a purchase, I mean, that's more. Well, I understand you can take title. All right. So I'd like the analysis of what the status is. All right. Vice Mayor? No, I think I think the the other thing that would be helpful is just what is the you know, if we take title, which it seems like we can as as right. We can take title what the costs would be to fix up the park or maintain it or both. And then also, you know, if if we lose the ability to get those improvements from somebody who develops the property later on. Yeah. I guess that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. I guess that's what I'm concerned about, too. I mean, in my day job, every couple of months, the city of San Leandro wants to take title to East 14th Street, but they want Caltrans to improve it and make it pristine. So, I mean, the question to me is then, I mean, if we already have a right to take this title, I'd rather take title when it's developed and then we're not paying for it to be developed. Then take it now when it's raw and then we have to pay and foot the bill to to develop it. So, you know, that's my concern. I'd rather take something that we don't have to spend any money on. So. So I was hoping to be able to have staff give us the information of what the status is, what the you know, the questions that vice mayor raised and then have that discussion and then we would give direction. At this point, we wouldn't be making a decision on the merits. Is it? QUESTION Thank you. Is it is this issue even right? Because I thought that we've heard that the hotel owner is planning to make another application. I mean, I've heard it. That could be part of the information you provide. But this isn't supposed to be a discussion on the merits right now. This is actually just supposed to be that we would be directing staff. To decide whether whether we direct them to or not. And. Yeah. And what priority we would assign it. I know we are. We are. We are happy if three of you are directing us to do that, to come back with a report on what the current status is, that's not a problem. I just wanted to make sure that we were looking at the right amount of property. So it's only the strip. Okay. And it wasn't just the currency, as I like other questions. So if if there's if there is a new proposal that's submitted, perhaps we could roll this report in. Presentation that is made relative and that application. Rather than asking staff to spend. Staff if if. If. A new application. So my concern honestly was when I went back DC My recollection of the hotel and the presentation. Really suggested that this is not property, that the city has access to, that their gift to the community for their trade, their benefit to the community was this. And it wasn't really made clear that this is actually something the city already has a right to. And they weren't separating that right to this property and the additional benefits they were making it seem as though this whole strip was a gift to the city, which isn't true, which is why I think it's important that that's actually my in bringing this, because I think it's very important that if a developer is going to be supposed to be giving us a gift because it's for the public benefit, because they're within 100 feet of the water, that it actually be a real gift and not something that we already can take right frame to. So. So perhaps what we're also seeking is it appears as though there's our our city attorney's interpretation is different from the developer's interpretation. So I think it would be helpful to get guidance of that in either case. So such time as the project comes back now. So the priority I would agree that it be. So I don't want to wait until they this developer I if they end up doing an application of that, like you said, then then we can look at if it makes sense to include it then. But otherwise I would like us to resolve this issue. So that's very clear. That's very clear. So that we as a community know, is this our. Property, whatever the cost? I have a question for city. Do we have a timeline on how you have this information readily available that you would be basing your analysis off of in terms of whether or not we we actually could take it by. Right. Or. You know. Yes, we started doing we started pulling together the document so we could do it relatively quickly, at least to confirm to you what the city's rights are. If you want us to do additional analysis about us of potential improvements or things like that. We haven't begun that. Analysis. I mean, I'm sorry. But then my my concern then is, you know. The last in line now bumps the others. So, I mean, I, I don't know if this is any higher priority than any of the others that we've we've approved, especially given the fact that some of those have of lingered for months. So, I mean, I don't know which one I would push aside in order to do this one. Maybe my colleagues could suggest one. I don't know. Well, that council member matter. I made a motion. Why don't we see where that goes? That might. Well, I just want to make sure I will appreciate the motion. That includes the question the council member, Villa Vice Mayor Villa asked, and also it considers the question if we take title to it, does the A future developer still have to provide land to the improvement to it? Or could they. Or could we compel them to or could they provide that as a as a benefit, a public benefit? So that's emotion. That is there. Well, are we going to discuss where it goes priority in terms of priority? That's the second version. I'm going to suggest a priority if you go back to that. I don't think this is more important than homeless homelessness or social services or the other or the Amex development. Those are those are front line issues. And I think it's a medium. Miriam? Yes. Okay. So there's emotions there. Second. A second. But all those in favor. I. I. No. I suppose I can afford one motion carries. Thank you though. Was our motion to continue going through all these referrals or is it just the first three? So you did. Okay. A full agenda. Okay. The nine are that it. But before we did that. Okay. So you make your notes. Yes. I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn at this time and bring back these other referrals. It's 135 member matter. I see. Um, can I make a motion first to table the remaining? However you want a word that. I'd like to suggest and make a motion that we table. Um, what. Is to. Nine DNF? Okay. What does that mean then? When do we hear those? You know what? I'm actually I want it. And if it's a motion for reconsideration, definitely have to be someone who voted against it, considering that. No, the motion to adjourn because before you you all voted to hear all the agenda items and I voted no. How is the work as a. So as city attorney, I. I didn't. Okay. So you do need it does need somebody who would be changing their position, which could potentially change the result, who has to bring a motion for reconsideration. There was this a motion for reconsideration. And we're at 1:30 a.m. to adjourn at this point to table this points. I think the if I'm successful in getting a motion to table the remaining agenda items. Then we can adjourn without having to vote on. A motion for reconsideration, a motion to table. I think you could I think with the council member matter, he said is correct. If you vote to table, then there's you finished your agenda. So that was a motion motion to table. And I want a discussion, though, on this, because we have kept the housing authority executive director here all evening long and her item is next. And I actually think that we would do well to 90 here. 90. Okay. So you have a motion that very. Okay so if you want to. In and. 90 and then we table. The rest. I'm willing to do that. I withdraw my motion. To the motion to hear 90 and then table the rest the second. Second. All those in favor I any oppose. Okay, we'll do 90. Okay. This was my referral. Um, the referral is to propose to return the City Council to its role as the Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And my request is that a request that the city council direct the city manager and city attorney to present to the Council the steps necessary to reinstate the

A RESOLUTION superseding and replacing the language in Statement of Legislative Intent, 281-1-B-2, adopted in Resolution 31795.

SeattleCityCouncil_06042018_Res 31817

Adoption of other resolutions Agenda item three Resolution 31817 Superseding them and replacing the language and statement of legislative intent 2280 11b2 adopted in Resolution 317 95. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. Two to the purpose of this resolution is to supersede the statement of legislative intent to a one dash, 1-b-2 that was included as part of last year's budget deliberations. The reason we're replacing that SLI is that we've had further conversations, the executive and made some simple modifications to the scope of work in that SLI, including language that adds a stakeholder process, including a stakeholder process, including service providers and labor representation and human service civic leaders. With this would do is two basic things would clarify the report back from the statement alleged that intent would be discussed in councilmember mosquitoes, housing, health, energy and workers rights committee. And it adds that the report back shall include a summary of that stakeholder process. The the bill that's on the referral calendar actually need to substitute of version D two for version d1b to have the proper version in front of us. And you should have received that via email before noon today. So I will avoid the chastising after the meeting on this one. Only that. Okay, let's do the amendment first and then we get have some discussion. So I'll move to substitute version d1b with version D 2/2. Has been moved in second to a minute by the substitution as described by Councilmember Brian. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So now we have an amended version of it. And Councilmember Mosqueda, does you have a comment? Sure, please. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thanks again for your work to shepherd this statement of legislative intent through last year. I'm really excited that the stakeholder group has been convened, happy that the executive wants to make sure that we are being explicit in our in our commitments to making sure that we're bringing folks to the table by updating this resolution. I also think this ties in very nicely to the conversations we've had over the last few months. Our intent is to make sure that we are serving the most vulnerable, those who are homeless, those who might be on the verge of falling into homelessness by making sure that they have access to highly trained , highly skilled and highly trusted workforce. We talked a lot about this as it related to the employees hours tax and the spending plan. I think that the work that you have begun here is incredibly critical for us to create trust. Right now, many of these entities have a 30 to 40% turnover rate, a 30 to 40% rate and vacancies in terms of trusted partners. We also know that some of these critical positions, such as a chemical dependency counselor, which requires a master's degree, often starts around $33,000 a year. And in a city like Seattle, when we have a crisis of homelessness, we have to both be looking at creating the housing, building the housing that our community needs, and also making sure that there's a stable workforce to provide services to this vulnerable population. So I'm very excited about this. I think this directly ties in to workforce stabilization and happy to have this in my committee. I appreciate that. Thank you. Casper and ROSQUETA, any further comments or concerns if not? All those in favor of approving the amended resolution. Please vote i. I. All those opposed guys have it. And the resolution is passed and will be signed. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda. Agenda item for resolution 31818. Retiring, introduced and referred. Council bills, resolutions, quick files, and appointments that have received no further action.

AN ORDINANCE related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code; amending Sections 22.206.200 and 22.208.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119407

Please read item number 31 into the record. Jan item 31 Cancel 119407 in relation to monitoring, inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code, the committee recommends the bill passes amended with a divided report with councilmembers Harrell Herbold, Juarez, Michelle O'Brien and Swanson favor and councilmembers back shall Gonzalez and Johnson opposed. Thank you very much. Any comments on this council, Bill? Councilmember Johnson, you have the floor where. I'm quite a role, so I won't belabor the point and just say I'm planning to vote the same way I voted this morning, which is in opposition and we've got a good role. So if anybody wants to know why I'm voting no, you can go back to the 1030 meeting and check out the tape. Thank you for that. Any further comments on this council bill before take the role? Okay. Here we go. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119407. Gonzalez No. Herbold I. Johnson No. Whereas Macheda. O'BRIEN All right. So want. Make sure. They. President Harrell, I. Six in favor. Three opposed. The bill passes and shows. Sign it. Let's go to item. Let's read items 32 and 33 into this one.

A bill for an ordinance approving the First Amended Service Plans for each of the West Globeville Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2. Approves two separate First Amended and Restated Service Plans for the Title 32 districts, West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2 in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1334

I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1188 has passed. Thank you to Fran and the members of the public who joined us on that hearing. Next up, Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1334 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 21 1334 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1334 is open. And just want to remind folks before we have the staff report that we do have a face covering mandate in the city and county of Denver and in our building. And so I just want to remind folks to keep your face coverings on. We're glad to welcome Michael Carrigan this evening for the staff report. Go ahead, Michael. Thank you, Councilmember. Good evening, council members. I'm Michael Carrigan with the Department of Finance counter bill 21 1334 is for an ordinance approving 2/1 amended and restated service plans for the metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of a site known as Fox Park. The districts are called West Global Metropolitan District Number one in West Kill Bill West, Global Metropolitan District number two. The districts are already organized and existing metropolitan districts and their original service plans were approved by council in March of 2016. The first amended and restated service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of the Boards of Directors pursuant to the requirements of Special District Act Sections 32, Dash one, Dash 201 and more particularly 32. Dash one, Dash 204. Colorado Revised Statutes. The two metropolitan districts will aid in the development of Fox. News for your. It's not the the presentation is not the correct presentation for this hearing. I do not have a. Not notice that I'm sorry about that. I don't know how to like. Have a staff member come help us with that. I believe Jen can go ahead and do that. Thank you, Councilmember Black. When you say. And I guess they let us know we were aware there. We don't necessarily have a presentation so we can take the presentation off so we won't have that coming up. Gotcha. Okay. Very good. The two metropolitan districts will aid in the development of Fox parts of Fox Park, which is which is a planned as a residential hotel and commercial mixed use project adjacent to the 41st and Fox commuter rail station. At full buildout, Fox Park is anticipated to encompass 6.2 million square feet of mixed use development and accommodates a daytime population of 3300 people. The inclusion area for the two metropolitan districts remains the same as was first approved by council in 2016. The amended and Restated Service Plan contains the District's purpose, powers, requirements and Financial Plan and are based off the city's newly proposed model service plan to address a number of issues, including a more robust disclosure requirement. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations and policy and other applicable law. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. It is anticipated the West Global Metropolitan District number one, will ultimately include all commercial property located within the Fox Park Development and West Global Metropolitan District. Number two ultimately encompass include all of the residential property located within the project. The metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion, operation, ownership and maintenance of public infrastructure and services within and without of the service areas, including without limitation street improvements, traffic and safety signals, water improvements, sanitation improvements, storm drainage improvements, parks and rec facilities and landscaping improvements. The district will be required to recorded a disclosure notice upon all property within an inclusionary of the districts. The metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills for district debt, operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill levy, its operations and maintenance mill levy cannot exceed ten mills. The districts will have a 40 year maximum imposition term for a debt in the levy. The metro districts will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the direction of the city. The total estimated costs for the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $350 million. The amended and restated service plans anticipate that the districts will issue approximately $150 million of debt over multiple issuances to align with the construction phasing of the development. The district's financial plans indicate that the districts are able to retire the proposed debt within the limitations established by the service plans. Staff recommends approval of the first amended and restated service plans. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Michael. And didn't mean to make that more stressful than it needed to be for you. So great job on that. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. The first two are here in chambers. Josie Curran, Dan Clarendon. Now you can correct me on your last name. If we have Josie here. Jose down now. Yes. I'm just here to answer questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next speaker we have in chambers is Mack Ryland. Good evening, counsel. Matt Ruland, general counsel for the Metropolitan Districts. And I'm here to. Answer questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. We're going to go ahead and move on line. We have Jesse Perez signed up. And it looks like we might have had Jesse leave the meeting. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Jesse. So. All right. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1334. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks. On a president. Did you say one five mils or five zero mils when you were saying it? I couldn't tell if you said 15 or 50. And I just needed a clarification. Thanks. Michael Carey from Department of Finance five zero 50. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Michael, a couple of questions. I'm looking at the presentation that was given at committee while you were going along. And just a couple of questions says the original service plans under a previous owner was based on a public infrastructure investment of just under $12 million. And then this one is the restated. One shows an estimated cost of public improvements of 340 million. That's like. Math on the fly. It's like 30 times or something like that. Yeah, about 30 times. And what accounts for this? So it's my it's my understanding that the original service plan was entirely dependent on a development plan. It's completely different than than what was contemplated. Obviously. I understand that the first developer was never really intending to build anything. They were just trying to get as much entitlements as possible and then turn around and sell the property to another property owner. Okay. I see that that first one that was the one that included Mike Shanahan. Not aware of that. Is Mr. Ruland or someone from the could you answer the question is what accounts for this massive difference in in public investment. From the original to the current. Your other question, Mike Shanahan was not part of the original. Okay. But the biggest difference well, one of the cost of infrastructure has changed a lot. And in the. Interim. Sorry, could you slow down and speak of. Cost of. Infrastructure has. Changed significantly, has gone up quite a bit, but most of it is because of the enhanced development costs of the actual infrastructure being put in, not the dollar for dollar. And the project is much more robust and much more dense than what before. It was originally anticipated to be a single family residential development and it was much it was done prior to even really understanding what was going to be there. So we've done more of of speculation this is being done off of the intended development that's before you. Okay. And the projected debt issuance is $150 million. That is total. The capital I that's the 30 bills, correct? That would be what if there's a combined cap of 50 mills. Ten of which would go towards operations and. You're issuing debt for operations? No, I'm saying of the 50. Mills that is allowed, ten of it would go towards operations of. 40 and five, a regional. Possibly five, but that's. Above the 50. We're anticipating 34 debt, though. You are. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That was my next question, actually. So you're capped at 50 mills. Of those ten are the owned M five mills. Is the regional region. Five is above and beyond. That's if the city decides to have us impose that. The city informs us to impose the regional level, and we do so. So it's really 55, correct. Okay. So where does the rest of the money come to build the $340 million in infrastructure with a debt issuance of only 150. It'll either come from two financing through direct or through developer costs. And that's our next hearing, correct? Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Chris, never Chrissy in the audience to come forward and talk about this is sort of in in response to Councilman Flynn's question about the infrastructure and how the traffic demand management for this area and specifically for this site changed those numbers from the first application that came before council to this one for this metro district. So, Chris Nevett mayor's office. Nice to see y'all. So are you referring to the the first concept plan for for this project back in whenever it was 2017, 28? I am because it's my understanding that back then the whole next step study was not done. We didn't have the traffic demand management plan in place in terms of how developers in this area were expected to use traffic demand management as a tool in terms of trying to figure out how to essentially reduce parking on the on the development sites, but also how any new roadways built, create a different standard, if you will, for what can be allowed at additional sites in this area, including this one. Thank you for the orientation, ma'am. So the original. We're going to go ahead. And former councilman, if you could put your mask on. We're we're trying to obey the mask mandates that come forward. So I wanted to just remind you about that. Thank you. I figured I was six feet from y'all and. Justin closer to the microphone. Your model, the right. Behave yourself. Okay. So the original plan, when it came forward to us, clearly imposed a challenge with respect to managing the traffic. Exactly, exactly as you said. And we did not have a next step study about how we would address those challenges with traffic. We had no transportation demand management requirements. We definitely did not want to have traffic from this project in the surrounding neighborhoods and caused major issues, particularly with respect to emergency service vehicles, because there's only two point of access in and out of the Fox Island area. And so we set that project. In motion with a cap on the total amount of traffic to be generated not just from this project, but any project from the total amount of traffic to be generated from new development. And with that, we set in motion the next step study process, which concluded just a little bit earlier this year, which told us what is the new pieces of infrastructure that we need to serve this area. We also established a transportation demand management requirement. Again, not just for this project, but for all projects in this area. And that very much was the pilot program for the Transportation Demand Management Program that we have now citywide. So we we've we used the kind of experimented here in Fox Island and now have a citywide transportation demand management program. And then as this project has moved forward, what you're seeing tonight is the tax increment financing. The metropolitan district levies a whole financing structure to build the components that the next step study said that we need to build in order to serve the rest of the area. So we'll continue to have transportation demand management keeping a lid on the amount of new traffic generated from development here. But we'll also be building new not just roadway infrastructure, but multi-modal infrastructure to serve both this project and other projects in the area as well. So how much how much of that? New infrastructure that you're talking about is being imposed on this particular development project or this developer that has changed the the mill, the financing of the project, essentially. Right. This project is actually taking on an enormous amount. So the next step study identified four key projects. One was the 38th Avenue, Park Avenue, Fox Street. 25 off ramps. It's a complete mess there. And we refer to it as the, you know, boulder ized way as the cluster. That's a mess. We need another new point of access for the area. We also identified and this was a key innovation from the next step study. A new access on the south from Huron Street going over to 38th Avenue and then 44th Avenue. Is what is not a killer. Correct? I'm sorry. That one. It's not vehicular access. It's more pedestrian by. No, it's it's. It's vehicular access. It could be it could be bike ped, but it's, you know, to be maximally effective, it's it's a it's fully modal across all modes, you know, vehicle of emergency avenue. So jumping 38th Avenue and then the 44th Avenue bikeway, which is really the main multimodal connection between the sort of the the the other quadrant of Globeville on the east to connect through to Fox Station. That's a key project. So right now that 44th Avenue bridge over I-25 is kind of a miserable experience. And then traveling west to get the Fox Street and then down to the station, that's not very pleasant either. So the next up study identified those four projects. This project will completely design and reconstruct the 38th Avenue Fox. Park Avenue cluster. We need to go through a process to figure out feasibility, cost, etc. of a of a new access, an entirely new multimodal access for the island that may be up in the north by a bridge or a tunnel. It may be the the Huron Bridge. So they will construct both of those and they will render to us complete design of the other key components that they don't construct. So the 44th Avenue bikeway, we'll get a complete design of that, be able to pursue that on our on our own. And depending on what the the new complete new connection to Fox Island is, we'll be able to take the other one and have that as complete design as well and seek funding elsewhere to do that. So as we're seeing other sites developed in this area, are other developers being asked to contribute towards offsetting the cost of that infrastructure that you just talked about? That that is a great question. And the. Is the short answer? No, the simple answer is no, because there's a scale issue. So there's a project only of a certain. All of those sites were significantly observed. The ones that have been resolved by this body, that have been brought forward by the planning process. Yeah, you're you're absolutely right about that. I mean, they have we have rendered considerable with your permission, we have rendered considerable value to those sites. Some sites are quite small, so we've got a couple of townhome projects and we can hardly sort of ask a townhome project to make a major infrastructure investment. But without getting into too much detail, there are two large sites that occupy the southern part of the island, and those were big rezonings, as you say. And those occupy what used to be large format industrial parcels. So big sort of multi block parcels. Those projects are all delivering an entirely new street grade back to the city. So we don't have 40th Avenue west of Foch Street. We're getting a 40th Avenue west of Foch Street. We only have half of a 39th Avenue west of Fox Street. We're getting all of 39th Avenue, west of Fox Street. But wouldn't we be doing that anyway? No, ma'am. We have no way to do that. We would I mean, that would require acquiring the land, designing, building those roads. So what I'm asking is, wouldn't we be asking a developer to do that anyway? I know I've seen projects around the city where. There is no. Right of way infrastructure, curb, gutter sidewalks, etc., where the city demands that the developer do that. So you're saying that that's part of what we're asking them to do here. But we're also not asking them to contribute to the the other infrastructure that provides greater access in and out of this location. That is correct. So so we're requiring them to give us gallop, go back to create a new here on street, to create a new 40th Avenue, create a new 39th Avenue. And they will also be creating a right in right out on 30 Ave with Gallop go. But we are we are not there. They are currently not part of the the deal, if you will, to reconstruct those two big projects that this project will be constructed. So all of that is to say that the increase in the infrastructure costs is part of why we're looking at 350 mills instead of 150 million, essentially. And over the course of time in doing this project. Keep the debt. 150 million. Sorry, not mills, but million. Yeah, that's what I meant to say. So the 150 million of the debt is anticipated to be used for parking garage, public infrastructure for the project. The other infrastructure components this Christmas talking about. That's part of the development agreement. That's a separate ordinance before us tonight. And that is being financed through TIFF proceeds and then through the developer developer dollars. But just for the metro district, under $50 million of. Debt is for. Parking garage. Public parking garage. Okay. Thank you. I think the explanation of the additional costs that this particular site in the developer is incurring is an important part of the bigger conversation, because we've got other bills on the same site coming up tonight. But I think that helps clarify what some of the additional costs are to this particular development site. Yes, ma'am. They're they're shouldering a very substantial burden. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. If I could get the representative back up. I just want to clarify. If I heard you correct. What I thought I heard you say was that the previous plan was single family homes. Assisted single families going to be commercial if they were going to be residential. But it was substantially less dense and less robust. Yeah. I'm looking at an article from Denver right from 2000th June 2018 that we had resounded for 8 to 12 stories, 660,000 square feet of office retail, 85,000 pure retail, and about 3000 residential units. Can you give me a comparable estimate of square foot of development we might expect for for now from that would justify the figures we're talking. Well, I think once again, I think. What justifies the figures is the increased infrastructure. More so than. Anything, the as Christmas and the access points in the road infrastructure is significantly different than what was anticipated in. 2016 when these were approved. But you have no numbers at this point of development on site. The developer reports here. It had 6000. 62 million square feet. Of office space. What if you wouldn't mind reintroducing yourself for the record, please? Jose Caetano developer sold the previous site plan even though it was his own and entitled to that maximum. The owner was only contemplating 2 million square feet and total of that development. When we acquired the property. We understood the full potential of the of the entitlement and zoning and took it up to 6.2 million square feet, 6.2 million square feet. So that and that exponentially increased the and this is the the necessary infrastructure and street grid, water, drainage and parking, parks and connectivity around the property, just like Chris said. Great. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Cashman. The public hearing has closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1334. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. This is a really complicated one for me, because these developers have gone above and beyond what typical developers across the city have done with community members, and they've worked diligently to craft agreements with the neighborhood that no other developers have tried to do. However, on principle, I cannot support this mechanism for paying for private development, metro districts, special districts, and the two financing which will come next, are problematic for so many reasons. What we create when we create these special districts is a city within a city, and then we give or allow this city within a city to control itself and use city debt while pulling that through the financing away from the rest of the neighborhoods needs. And I think that that is not the best way to go about private development. That's what we should do when we're, you know, being responsible cities. We should do the infrastructure. We should pay for the things that we need to keep the areas safe, to make it accessible, to make the recapture those roads. And so I understand that we don't have the desire nor the funding to be able to do this. And so we lean on developers to do it. But in the long run, we don't address our goals as a city. For example, 1% of this project's budget is going toward affordable housing, and 27% is going to private parking or parking in general, which doesn't help us meet our climate goals. This is a TOD ish area where we have rail very close, and so those $2 or those dollars that end up getting taken away from the rest of the surrounding neighborhood, those tax dollars that the people within the project end up having to pay later on down the road. That is not going toward our broader goals as a city. Additionally, I think that we use this complicated structure and pass down the burden to the to unknowing people. I know we're trying to disclose when we sell property, disclose better that this is a special district and the taxing is out of our control after they purchase their properties. But we know that across the state buyers and harmed in the long run when the taxes go up and they have no control over it and they have no ability or recourse to go to the city and control that, the developer gets to control all of that. And so for those reasons on this one and the tariff, I will be a no tonight. But I do want to thank the developers for doing what they've done to engage with the community around the community benefit agreements. I do challenge my colleagues to think about how we fund our city's needs differently and how it's not sustainable to continue to rely on private development to do these things that we need for our city. And perhaps we should be doing the things as far as infrastructure is concerned that we need and then allowing developers to do what they have to do. So we don't have to create these types of metro districts to authorize the debt to be able to get it done. Thank you. That's it for my comments. Thank you. Council members say to Barker Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So metropolitan districts are a creation of state legislation that gives local governments an additional financing tool to determine how development within their jurisdictions can be created. And it's the dollars from the development that are actually retained within the development that allow those mills to be captured, that pay that debt. So it's not like the rest of Denver taxpayers are paying any costs towards this project. It's all dollars that come from the development site itself. I think we would all like to see reduction in parking, but. There is private financing that is part of this development. And banks will not loan money to a project that is without parking. They don't want to be stuck with a project that can't park itself. And it's part of the reason why the city has gone through this extra work in creating the next step study and looking at how developments not only in this area, but we will be seeing huge developments along the I-25 corridor where this particular process of doing the next step study is going to be vital to ensuring that we're not continuing to see gentrification and displacement, but really impact on existing infrastructure, roads, water, sewer, etc., etc.. So in this case, the developer is bearing those costs. Yes, it does get passed on to the end user, but this is how projects are getting financed across the state of Colorado. So I just want to express my support for this project for the extra miles that this developer has gone in working with the global community and creating the opportunity for offsite affordable housing that will be part of this, as well as many of the amenities that will be on this site that will be accessible to residents of the global community as well. So with that, I just want to express my support. Thank you. Thank you. Council member State Abarca or Councilmember Ortega and Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you back in the queue. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to also point out that we have multiple special districts and tive financing across our city to look to to determine if those mechanisms for creating development and needed infrastructure have achieved development without displacement. And what I have found in my research is that we have not used this in a way that has prevented displacement in any of the places where it's been done. And so and we need to also be cognizant of the fact that it will, in most cases, catalyze further development and increase displacement because it changes the whole ecosystem. It is on an island, but not on an island. It will affect everything outside of its space. It will affect the values of everything around it. And that will catalyze more displacement in our communities. And we have to be also cognizant of the fact that we're locking in the current linkage fee with this project, 125% of it. We are increasing the linkage fee on large developments because we know we haven't captured what we should be capturing to pay for affordable housing. And this feels like it's premature. We should have waited until we locked in a new linkage fee so that they would be accountable to that linkage fee, because we don't know if the new linkage fee is going to be 125% of the current linkage fee. And so I wish we would have waited on this part of the deal, because I do think that this development, the size of it, they should they should be accountable to the the the linkage fee that we're working on to truly mitigate and create affordable housing. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And I'll go ahead and weigh in on this. Green Valley Ranch in the far northeast would have never been built if it wasn't for metro districts. The city would not have had the capital to invest in that infrastructure. And we've got another example in the far northeast, the Gateway Improvement District that is right in the middle of the Belo community where I've lived for 25 years. And we did not see displacement with that Gateway Improvement district either. And so I think we've got to go in to these sort of projects with our eyes wide open as to what the city can accomplish as far as infrastructure and work. We're going to have to partner with developers or metro districts to quite honestly do that work. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 1334, please. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. FLYNN Hi. Hamden Hi. Catherine. I can eat I. Ortega Sandoval I saw you, I. Torres Hi. Black Eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the levy of property taxes; fixing the rates and/or amounts of taxes to be levied, and levying the same upon all taxable property, both real and personal, in The City of Seattle, to finance the departments and activities of City government and to provide for the general obligation bond interest and redemption requirements for the year beginning on the first day of January 2020; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119691

One opposed bill passed in show Senate. Thank you. Thanks for staying here to please read items 33 and 34 together short time if you can. Agenda items 33 and 34 Council 119 691 relating to the levy of property taxes. The committee recommends the bill passed Council Bill 1196 and 82 authorizing the levy of regular property taxes by the city of sale for the collection in 2020. The committee recommends the bill pass. Any questions or comments? We're good. Okay. Please call the rule on the pass of council bill 119691. Pacheco I Siwan Bagshaw High. Gonzalez Purple High. Juarez Mesquita. O'Brien High. President Harrell High nine in favor nine opposed. The past and shortsighted and any questions on number 34. If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Pacheco. I want. I beg your. Gonzalez Herbold i. Suarez Macheda. I. O'Brien. High President Harrell. I favor, not oppose. The bill passed in the show senate. Please read the report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $50, offset by the First Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department for the Harvey Milk Flag Raising Event; Increase appropriation in the General Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $150, offset by the First Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department for the costs associated with the First District Harvey Milk Flag Raising Event; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $200 to offset a transfer to the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department and the Public Works Department.

LongBeachCC_06152021_21-0548

Communication from councilman's in the House, recommendation to increase appropriations in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $50 for the Harvey Milk flag raising event. And then the public works department by $150 for the costs associated with the Harvey Milk flag raising event. Item 21 Communication from Councilwoman Allen and Councilwoman Zendaya's recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a contribution to Partners of Parks to support the Juneteenth 2021 celebration. Communication from Councilwoman Zendaya's recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $1,095 to support the Long Beach Blues Society. Blues for All Event. And Item 23 Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Allen Council and Super Nine. Is this part of the transfer? Item 23. No, I'm sorry. Item 25 Communication from Councilman Super. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $500 to provide a donation to the Long Beach Fire Museum. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Mozambique councilman's Sunday house and a second councilman Alan Thompson day has anything. Yes. Think in the year. Once again, I would like to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for partnering and supporting an Juneteenth celebration and also to all my colleagues, including Councilwoman Allen, for supporting this event. I'm happy to contribute the donation to support the city's upcoming Juneteenth celebration, which will be this Saturday on historic Pine Avenue starting at 11 a.m.. You can still get tickets by going to Albee Juneteenth dot com. I look forward to seeing everybody at this great event. In addition, I also wanted to. To tell you about. How about our next event? As we all know, it is widely known that music helps heal the mind, the body and the spirit. After a year of staying indoors, then going through so much stress, pain, we we are finally approaching the light at the end of the tunnel. And I think that it is important that we do our best to help our Long Beach community in this transition, not only through a speedy and comprehensive economic recovery, which we are working on, but also by providing events like these that are meant to celebrate life and community. And it is in it is an absolute pleasure to be supporting this summer concert series. I want to thank the Long Beach Society for all the hard work that they've been doing to organize such a beautiful event in our first District. For those that who don't know or haven't heard yet, this a first Blues for All event will be next Saturday, June 26th, at our very own Cesar Chavez Anthem Theater. If interested, please make sure to sign up. More information will be provided and you can contact my office or it will be definitely posted on social media. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. We just got some great news out of Washington this afternoon. The United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution designating Juneteenth a federal holiday. So all it needs now is to pass the House and be signed by President Biden to become our 12th federal holiday. So this was really exciting. Thank you, Mary, in Dallas, for bringing this forward. I like it that folks are calling this our country's second Independence Day. So just here in Long Beach, I want to thank the organizers, especially Karl Kemp. And I would love to see the annual Juneteenth events in Long Beach just become a beacon for the whole region. So I look forward to seeing everyone out there on Saturday. Thank you. The Councilwoman seen no other speakers. I don't believe there's any public comment. Members, please do a roll call vote. District one i. District two, i. District three. I district for my district by district six. I District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes the funds transfers we have now. Item 23, please.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PD14-029 and award a contract to Legacy Inmate Communications, of Cypress, CA, for providing inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0832

Item 12 is a report from Police and Financial Management recommendation to award a contract to legacy inmate communications to provide inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail. City Summer. Thank. There's been a motion and a second set of staff report. There is not. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 12. Is there. They don't see us. We certainly can have one. Deputy Chief Robert Luna can address it. Well, I have some council members that would like to address the issue, and perhaps there are questions for Deputy Chief. Councilmember Price. Thank you, Deputy Chief Luna. How many other local city jails are offering this service? I guess two inmates. It's kind of like a Skype. Is that what it is? We've provided the video services to vice mayor and members of the City Council. We've provided the video service for the last ten years, and I don't know exactly how many other cities offer this. We can definitely research. That for you and get back to you on that. And since I'm not familiar with what happens at our local jail, is this something that is a remote access or does the visitor have to be in the jail facility to have the contact via video? The current system that we have, you have to be in the facility to facilitate this. The new system that we're going to, which we're pretty excited about, you can remotely do this from other locations. That's one of the benefits that we get from the new system, other than I mean, there's different things that we're getting with this new system. Like I said, we're excited about our number one. The current system only offers two languages, and the new system will offer actually 20 languages, including Combi. So does this impact at all the inmates access to the telephone? Because I know that in some city jails, most facilities, they have limited access to being able to communicate with loved ones, which is part of the punishment. So how does this affect that? The current I'm sorry, the new system that we're going to will give more access to the prisoners because the you'll be able to get it in from different locations. I notice that it says in the in the staff report that 72% of all the revenue generated is going to go to the prisoner welfare fund account. What is that account? Are you talking specifically the prisoner welfare fund? What does that go to? Yes, that's used to purchase items or make repairs that benefits the inmates while they're in custody. And there's no it says there's no fiscal impact on the city's budget. How is that? Why is that? We currently do not. Pay for. The current system. As a matter of fact. The current system, as it sits now, ranges between zero and 42% of the funding that goes to the welfare fund. And that's exactly how the vendor draws the money for it. With the new system we're going to, 72%. Of that will. Will come to the prisoner welfare fund. And this is a service we provide so that we're user friendly for the inmates. I mean, what was the. What was the. Intent behind this to make it more accessible for them to talk to their loved ones? Ah, yes, absolutely. I have no further questions. So Councilmember Price raises a couple of questions for me. And I'm wondering in this might be helpful. There's no there's not very much background or explanation in the staff reports. So at this juncture, I'm curious, why is this service being considered? Not that it's not valuable or necessary just to understand why are we considering this right now or how did it come about? Okay. Well, the the new the current system, the new vendor provides similar services to the current vendor. So the basic operation will remain the same. But going to the new vendor, number one, the current vendor offers two languages. The new vendor offers 20 languages. We also the there will be an increased commission rate that will be paid to the prisoner welfare fund. Currently, the current vendor ranges between zero and 42%, depending on the service. The new vendor, 72%, will go to the prisoner welfare fund. Web based teleconferencing also is added. As stated earlier, the person doesn't have to come to the public safety building to talk to speak to their loved one. And the. Last is the. Ten new video stations, 36 new mounted jail cell phones, three which are free to inmates for their free calls, three phones mounted on wheels to allow inmates in isolation to make phone calls. So it does increase the accessibility to the inmates to use the the video teleconferencing. Thank you, Deputy Chief Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. So who who actually will be monitoring this site? I mean. Now, when a prisoner uses this system, there is no expectation of privacy. So the person in custody and the person out of custody who's talking to the to the prisoner understands that there's no level of privacy. The video is recorded for a limited time, 90 days, and our detectives have. Access to it, if so needed. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. Deputy Chief Luna. Sorry about my voice. Deputy Chief Luna. Would you say that this system actually increases the security and access for our prisoners so that there's less necessity to have the one on one face to face contact and all of the risks that come with bringing people in and out of the jails to talk with their loved ones. Yes, it does. And one of the reasons we've had this system for the last ten years is we were trying to prevent any contraband from entering the custody facility. And by doing this, it prevents any either weapons and or narcotics from entering. The Long Beach jail. Thank you. Councilmember Price. I guess the question I have and you've been doing it for ten years and apparently it's working, but is there any sort of limitation on the number of calls or access that a prisoner can have because that's inmate. That's actually considered a privilege. And so does the severity of the crime impact, how frequently they can, you know, videoconference with their loved one. Does everyone now get as much access as they want? Are there any limitations to their access to the outside world? Do we now? If we don't, that's okay. I'm just curious because I know that a lot of times you get court ordered phone calls or you get a certain number of phone calls a day. And so for increasing their access, you know, my question would be, you know, why are we doing that? Is that because we're trying to be more inmate friendly as a city? Yeah. I'm going to have our jail administrator come down and answer that specific question for you. It's inmates. Says Rollie Siebert, our jail administrator. Now. And this is for anyone that's serving time at the jail arrestees, as well as people who are sentenced under AB 109, correct? Yes. Right. So convicted folks, as well as people who are pending trial on open matters. We don't have. Convicted folks. In our jail. It's pre-sentencing or pre arraignment pre-sentencing. Yes. So that means they're convicted, they're awaiting sentencing. Go ahead and answer that. They're pretrial and the video conferencing is limited by our visiting hours. So the inmates will be allowed. Actually, the people from the outside will be allowed to set up the visits through the Internet to visit the inmates. The phone system is going to be virtually the same, except the city will get a higher percentage of the of the revenues in the prisoner welfare fund. The rates are going to remain exactly the same. And so it's no it's no real change other than video visitation for the parents, grandparents, etc.. They can't make it to the jail. And we only keep the people for up to 4 to 6 days, depending on when they're arrested. Okay. So that the amount of stay that they would have access to this is 4 to 6 days. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. I think if the I think where the debate just ended. So I think we're good here. Councilmember Austin. Yeah, I agree. I just was wanting some clarification on terminology versus inmates versus arrestees and what that meant. And I think that was clarified. I'm ready to vote. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion of the. I'm sorry, members, please cast your votes. I'm a yes. Motion carries eight zero.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Manager to work with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) to form an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Committee and develop an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Master Plan.

LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0981

It's item 35 with it's a recommendation from the office of Councilmember Rex Richardson, Councilmember Roberto Ranga and Councilman Al Austin with a recommendation to request city manager to work with the Gateway City's Council of Governments to form an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Committee and develop an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Master Plan. Councilor Richardson, Thank you. So the hours late, I want to acknowledge Executive Director Dick Powers for for being here tonight. The Artesia corridor is an incredibly important corridor. It's an alternative to the alternative to the 91, the 91 corridor. And when you look at Alameda all the way to Orange County, you've got the cities of Compton, unincorporated Rancho Dominguez. You've got about three miles of Long Beach. You've got a you've got Bellflower, Lakewood and Cerritos. And so we have a unique opportunity here to join those cities in doing those agencies and begin a discussion about the long term vision of this corridor. We've had a discussion with with the COG, and they are fully prepared to step up and quarterback this process for us with Long Beach solidly in leadership. So I'd like to ask Mr. Powers just to give us some remarks. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Council members, before Mr. Power speaks. I've just got to throw a shout out. Dick and I have worked together for a very long time in Paramount. Dick is one of my mentors. He's been the executive director for 20 years since it's been founded. He's been a city manager at Garden Grove in Norwalk and the Paramount redevelopment director for a long time in Paramount. So Dick, welcome to Long Beach. And Dick is also in line to be president. That's right. I would say the most important parts of it. He lives in Long Beach. Every resident of the second District. Yes. Thank you, Pat, for the kind words. Kevin Richardson and I met and he was ironically advancing an immediate solution to our first project. Which one was going to go first? So that's our teachable moment. For the longest time, you know, the Congress done the highway corridor planning and funding. We were tasked originally through federal legislation to do subregional planning, and that includes all the highways which we've focused on for the last decade or more 1791, six two, five, four or five. The COG is also the funding conduit for those regional projects. The Artesia. Boulevard Corridor will be the first one, along with the Florence quarter and to the north where we would take much of the what we learned of this over 17 and 1965 corridors having a policy committee of elected officials a where each city. There everybody at the table. And the public works officials all performing attack. One of the big. One of the things we. Have learned in our 20 years with this large base of. 28 cities. Plus three case supervisors districts, if we have 100% consensus and a plan, we've always gotten the money and there is always be a first that that's. MTA give us allocate. Us. $8. Billion of measure over time. So that's the pattern which we would use in the Artesia quarter. All of the usual. Engineering. Issues of the quarter would be looked at capacity, lane improvements, esthetics, landscaping, lighting. But we're also adding a new component, Complete Streets, which would include including pedestrian and bicycle planning in that mix. There's a concept called first mile, last mile where street designs now would look at how does the how does the homeowner get from home to the bus stop, say, about last mile? So the. Street would then take. That into consideration. It may be just as simple as having a bike rack at the bus stop so that the person that lives within a radius can walk to not get the car out of the garage at all, to go walk from home to the bus stop. So all those things will be taken into account in our cheeseboard for the first time in the Cox Regional Planning Process. That's pretty much all I have to say. If there's any other questions, we're ready to go. Thank you. I just don't think I made the motion so, so moved. Because when the motion in a second comes from Boston. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Powers, for being here. And during this meeting, as long as you have. He is a true man of wisdom, and we appreciate his great leadership on the Gateway Cities card. I'm on the caucus as a city representative, as is Councilmember O'Donnell, and I believe Councilmember Urunga will be joining in his place very, very soon. I look forward to supporting Councilmember Richardson's vision along with the other cities along Artesia Boulevard, because it is certainly a vital arterial for for for many of the cities in this region. And so I look forward to working with you on that. Likewise. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good to see you again, Dick. Okay. There's been a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. To make her the motion in the second. Yes. Okay, Rick. Cindy, thank you. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Thank you. Now, do the second public comment period. If there's any, please come forward.

AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; providing a defense to evictions occurring within six months after the termination of the Mayor’s residential eviction moratorium as amended by Resolution 31938; amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119784

Agenda Item three Constable 119 784 relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing access to evictions expiring within six months after the termination of the marriage residential eviction moratorium as amended by Ordinance Resolution Resolutions one 938 amending Section 22.206160 code declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three fourths of the City Council. Thank you so much. I am going to move to pass council bill 119784. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill and so we have several amendments to go through. And so my suggestion is that we go through the amendments first and then we can have a discussion about the bill as amended before we take a final vote on on the bill. So I will go ahead and kick off that conversation to make a motion to amend the Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Colleagues, as a sponsor of this amendment, I'll address the amendment first and then we can engage in conversation. Amendment one is a very non-controversial amendment. It is a variation of technical changes. So these amendments would make a grammatical correction revised references to the date of the mayor's eviction moratorium to include a reference to council's amendments in Resolution 31938. And it also adds additional findings showing compliance with Governor's Order 2828. I'm happy to entertain any questions or comments about Amendment One. Hey hereand seen none. I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One. Don't. So the line. By. Strauss. I heard all. I. Whereas. Suarez. I. LEWIS. Hi. Morales. I. Mosquito. I. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. The pushing carries and the amendment is adopted. I'm going to go ahead and call on Councilmember Peterson now, who has amendment to. Thank you. Council President So the viewing public right now might not know that. We did talk a bit about this this morning during council briefings. So bear with me as I repeat some of my comments here. But just to set the table for the three amendments that I have today, I really appreciate the council president working really hard on this legislation. Council Bill 119784. I agree. We need to do what we can as a city government to prevent addiction. I'm proud to join with my council colleagues and the mayor to support multiple relief packages and changing regulations to provide relief. This includes funneling millions of additional dollars to an eviction prevention and rental assistance. I also want our compassionate policies to be sustainable. Some constituents, just like the people who called in today, some were in favor of the legislation. Some were opposed to it. And to reconcile these opposing views, I put forward these amendments which which I believe will be helpful for the sustainability in the legislation. I started by considering the approach we took to amend the legislation for our moratorium on evictions during the coldest winter months and then to consider differences with the current COVID crisis. So the First Amendment before us is to exempt small landlords defined as those with four or fewer units. Do I need to move the amendment? Yes, you do. Before we discuss it, if you can say the magic words to put Amendment two in front of us, that'd be great. Yes. I moved to amend Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment two on this agenda. Okay. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you can now address Amendment two. So this is similar to this situation when we were considering the winter months ban on evictions or moratorium on evictions. At that time, we heard from lots of landlords who own a couple of units, three units for units who are struggling to pay their mortgages, their property taxes, their property insurance. And they're there. They're opposed to this bill, the ones who are a lot of the ones who have written to us here. And so this exemption would be in the same spirit of what we passed during the winter moratorium. Happy to answer questions. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I would just say in response to this, that, as I mentioned during council briefing this morning, I am not supporting Amendment two. And I'd like to talk a little bit more about why. So we know that over 50% of Seattle residents are tenants. These people live in small, medium and large multifamily buildings throughout the city, and many of them are feeling the negative impacts of this public health crisis that has also caused an economic crisis of mass proportions. That economic burden is being felt deeply by low wage workers who now find themselves many for the first time in their lives on the rolls of unemployment. Many of these folks are renters who would benefit from this law in particular. So this amendment, however, as proposed by Councilmember Peterson, would strip many of those renters of the ability to assert this defense if and when they needed it in the six months after the eviction moratorium declared by the mayor is lifted. The intent of this bill is to provide access to an additional eviction defense to as many tenants as possible, regardless of whether the tenant made a choice during better economic times to rent from a corporate landlord or a small landlord. So unfortunately, I believe that this amendment creates too much of a carve out that may result in leaving thousands of renters without access to a meaningful opportunity to prevent their eviction in a court proceeding in the six months after the termination of the mayor's residential eviction moratorium. And for those reasons, I will be voting no on amendment to and would ask my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment as well. I just wanted to share those comments with folks before I invited comments from my colleagues. Anyone else want to make a comment? So seek as members talent. Lewis and Herbold. So Converse Floor is yours. Thank you. And I will also be opposing this amendment, which would potentially strip down to the thousands of renters of their protections against eviction, especially in the context of a pandemic and a global recession that is going to be as deep or deeper than the Great Recession. My council office has been contacted by hundreds of renters over the years, and we've seen that the big corporate landlords are far more likely to be responsible or violating renters rights. However, we've also seen that the worst landlords usually divide their properties up into multiple alliances and even have those alliances owned by other LLC and so on to obscure who owns what. This provision makes it very difficult for renters to know if they are protected by the law. Even in the rare cases where the eviction might actually be pursued by a smaller landlord, council members and elected officials need to decide who most need our support. Families who are on the verge of being evicted, losing everything, especially in the context of tens of thousands being in that situation. Many likely becoming homeless as a result, having damaged credit and having debt on their hands, possibly dying. You know, are we going to stand up for them or somebody who owns four or ten or 100 rental homes? I think that's another important point. Who is exactly as my landlord is, is a very subjective issue from their own admission, at one of the two rental organizing townhalls that my office organized in April, we had a small landlord tell us who attended the town hall happily and told us that they had worked with your tenant who has been laid off, and moreover that they proactively approached the tenant to negotiate an agreement that works for both tenant and small landlord. And I would really urge all landlords to negotiate such agreements with tenants and be on the side of tenants and not on the side of big property management, corporations and landlords. Obviously Council member Pearson is choosing to represent landlords and it is unfortunate that the amendment was presented even at the winter evictions moratorium legislation that my office put forward. And it was unfortunate that council members, some council members voted yes on that amendment. That amendment was bad then for renters and this amendment is bad now for renters. Peterson talks about reconciling between the interest of landlords and renters, but this is not a neutral issue. As Jessica Westergren, who's been a member of the City of Seattle Renters Commission, said in public comment today. Now there's somebody who owns multiple buildings of apartments is not the same as a working class renter who is barely getting by and who is now statistically probably likely to have lost their job or their income, even if they haven't lost their job. I do not think we should be making it easier to evict working class tenants. In fact, we should learn from what happened in the wake of the 2007 2008 Great Recession, where nearly 8 million middle class homeowners were stripped of the only equity they ever had. But homeownership has not come back. There's not going to come back any time soon. And so because we can see that crises such as the Great Recession and the recession we're heading into now will, unless we have a movement fighting back, be used not only to, you know, to deny renters and working class people of their rights during this pandemic, but also to extract more from them and extract austerity in different ways. And that is why it's important that we stand against this. I thank you, Councilmember. So for those comments, I'm going to call now on Councilmember Lewis and then I think I had Cousin Herbert also in the queue. So because remember Lewis. Right. You know, I want to say, Councilor Peterson, for bringing this forward for our consideration and appreciate the spirit in which it was introduced. You know, I supported a similar amendment during our discussion of the winter eviction legislation. I think it made sense in the context of that policy and that we were wading into new territory. It was a proactive policy about clear policy preference, and it was we were shaping the first in the nation ordinance to accomplish that policy goal. I think the circumstances are different for a lot of the reasons that Councilmember Gonzales articulated earlier, namely that we have widespread and massive uncertainty over 1.4 million Washingtonians who are on unemployment and have lost their jobs or are facing significant insecurity above and beyond the precarious situation that a lot of folks were in before this. I think given that and given that our policy goals here are different, this is emergency legislation not to be in effect in perpetuity, but to be in effect for a brief period of time. It is designed to make sure that we have folks inside able to remain in place, to not be in a position where they're experiencing homelessness, to make sure they're in a position where they can be isolated for public health reasons, to observe the social distancing and other guidances that the government has applied, and that that certainty in their ability to do that won't be impacted by the uncertainty that an eviction proceeding could introduce into that. And we know that that risk of displacement will persist after the orders are over. We aren't going to come out on the other side of this and then all of a sudden be in a position where the economy will spring back. It's going to be a long and difficult recovery. So a buffer period between the end of the orders and coming back, I think would be appropriate. And I think that exempting such a large number of units would undermine some of the public policy rationales of this emergency legislation. So I'll be voting against this amendment. But I do appreciate the underlying rationale for bringing it forward. I just think that given the scope of what we're focusing on, it's probably not the best approach. And you've got to remember, Lewis council member Herbold is still with us. I am, indeed. Thank you so much. So as a councilmember who in the winter evictions legislation did vote for an exemption for small landlords, I want to speak to the reason why I'm not supporting that now. As Councilmember Lewis just spoke, I think the the what we are the policy and the reason for the policy that we are contemplating right now is very different in light of a health emergency and the impacts on the general public's health. When people are homeless. And then secondly, I want to just sort of have a mea culpa as it relates to my support of this amendment for the winter election or winter evictions legislation. At that time, I was I had conflated Stsci, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, rental housing registration program requirements as it relates to small landlords and large landlords. They CCI holds information about the sizes of the number of units in buildings. Nobody holds the information about whether or not somebody is a large or small landlord. So I don't believe there would be a way for a tenant to be able to assert that their landlord was a large or small landlord in exercising this defense. Because not it is not information that the city collects. The information that the city collects relates to the numbers of units in individual buildings for purposes of assessing an inspection fee. And so that, I think, is another another reason to not support this at this time. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any is there anyone else you'd like to speak? Councilmember Strauss, I see your hand is up, please. Thank you. Council President, Council Member Lewis and Council Member for summarized my thoughts as well. Councilor Peterson, I appreciate you bringing this amendment forward. I did also vote for the amendment on the winter evictions and because that is a permanent policy that is put in place and this policy is temporary in nature. I will not be supporting the amendment and thank my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Any colleagues, any other comments on this amendment? Councilmember Peterson, it is your amendment. So I like to give the sponsor of the amendment the last word. So if you'd like to give us some last word on your amendment before I call it the vote, please feel free to do so. Sure. I just appreciate the process. I'm glad that I brought it forward. I'm glad that people are able to air their their views on how it is different. And I see that rationale respected as well. I'm ready to call for a vote on the amendment. Thank you. Peterson I want to sort of echo that the sentiments of some of my colleagues who appreciate what was potentially motivating your desire to want to bring Amendment two forward. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion as to as to this particular amendment. But but I appreciate that we can engage in a in a respectful debate about those differences and ultimately move the policy forward still. So thank you so much for for reaching out to me personally and having a conversation with me about the fact that you were bringing forward this amendment in the others and giving me an opportunity to have an offline conversation with you about that. I appreciate that. So at this point, I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two. So want. No. Strauss. They? For Bolt? No. Juarez may. Lewis. Nay. MORALES No. Macheda, though. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez now. One in favor, eight opposed. Thank you, Madam Kirk. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Consumer. Peterson, I know you have another amendment for us to consider, so I'm going to hand it over to you to make the formal amendment or discussion on Amendment three. Excuse me. Yes, Amendment three be. Yes. So I would like. So this amendment is about the either doing good faith efforts to show that the tenant has applied for rent assistance program more with more more flexibility. From the perspective of more flexibility, they simply self-certify. I'd like to move amendment. Three be. And I know that there's a proposed revision from Councilmember Herb that we can discuss in the mix of this. But I'd like to move Amendment three B so we can discuss it. Second. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill with version three excuse me, Amendment three B as described by Councilmember Peterson. And so I'm going to. Because Mr. Peterson, did you want Councilmember Herbold to make remarks before you make yours? I'll I'd like to set the table first, and then I would welcome her revision discussion group. Yes, that's right, Peterson. The floor is yours. On Amendment three B. Thank you. So this this Amendment three B would basically say that the tenant the tenant would have to show or say that they have made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance from a public, private or nonprofit rental assistance program where they can submit a declaration or certification stating that they have suffered the financial hardship and is therefore unable to pay rent. Let me explain how it got to this. How it got to this point. So, again, was looking at what we did during the winter eviction moratorium weekend, which I which I ended up voting for. There were several amendments to that. There was at that time a what we call a means test. So we basically were saying those who were had no income, low income or moderate income were eligible for that. The winter eviction ban, however, a means test today may not make a lot of sense if somebody was earning 80% of area median income back in 2019 for their tax return there. It may not be now because of the COVID emergency. So the means test was not practical right now. Then the idea was to link it to COVID, a hardship that's occurred. However, the direct link to COVID in terms of the 10% stake in the hardship due to COVID was removed with the substitute version. So that's how I without that, I was looking for a way for the tenant to simply, you know, the whole idea is prevent the eviction. So the idea is to have them seek the financial assistance and rental assistance. All these programs that we've been talking about that that are available. And you simply state that there was a good faith effort to seek that rental assistance in conversations with some folks, including the council president, who wisely pointed out that not everybody is eligible for these programs, there are barriers to these programs for certain certain folks. Then it came to this saying that or simply self certifying that there is financial hardship. So that's how this amendment has evolved. And I think that there's a further evolution here that's about to take place. But Councilmember Herbold proposed provision. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I did want to reiterate that this morning I had indicated that I might be willing to support a Self-certification Declaration pass. Initially, I thought that you were intending to revise your amendment in such a fashion that you would bifurcate the requirement just to, in good faith, access, rental assistance from sort of this new option to provide a declaration asserting financial hardship as the reason for the inability to pay a rent. And so when I saw the revised amendment that kept those two things coupled in a sense, in other words, put them in the same amendment, it led me to the conclusion that I couldn't support it because it was it still included the language around the need to access rental assistance as one of the ways to prove financial hardship. And so I know that that that there has been conversations this afternoon about a potential amendment concerning vision for your proposal that might create a is an amendment that would be more palatable to me would have to be one that would allow for a declaration and self-certification, but not require as sort of exhaustion of an administrative remedy to go through the process of showing that you were trying to access rental assistance. So so I appreciate, again, the the intent that you have here to create some sort of requirement on behalf of the tenant to to give assurances that they are, in fact, experiencing financial burden. And I'm going to sort of leave it leave it at that and open it up for additional comments and see if perhaps Councilmember Herbold wants to speak up at this point. You're on mute. Are you inviting my amendment? Council President? Well, I think yes. Sounds like we are. Fantastic. Thank you. I moved to amend version two of Amendment three B. This is the version noted as version three. Perhaps you want to before I read what the the content of the amendment is. Should we check to see if there are any objections to waiving the rules for this amendment as well? Yeah. So so I'm going to I know that, Councilmember Herbold, you have this proposed amendment to the amendment. So in order for us to consider this amendment, the council rules will need to be suspended. If there is no objection, the council rules relating to circulation of amendments 2 hours before the meeting will be suspended. So hearing no objection, the rules are suspended. And now, Councilmember Herbold, you are free to move your amendment that would amend Councilmember Peterson's Amendment three. Be fantastic. Thank you. So I move to amend version two of Amendment three, be it is this is the version referenced as version three. It amends the last subsection two and it deletes the words has applied for or made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance from a public, private or nonprofit rental assistance program or the tenant. If adopted, this. Subsection two would. Still include a declaration or a self-certification, asserting that the a tenant has suffered financial hardship and is therefore unable to pay rent. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment three. B Councilmember Herbold, would you like to speak more to your amendment? Thank you. I really appreciate Councilmember Peterson's bringing both versions of these amendments forward. My my intent in the amendment to that most recent version three B is really just to streamline what it is that we expect a judge to to take a look at and confirm the that the certification being signed is something that a judge can can review. And the disruption in such a certification is is considered perjury, whereas the determination of whether or not somebody has made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance in projects, a certain amount of of complexity to a judge's decision in this area. And again, this is intended to really streamline and and. Lift the burdens on. On the court for. For making these determinations. Thank you. Got some verbal. Because Mr. Peterson, please. Yes. Thank you. I, I welcome this as a friendly amendment and appreciate how this has evolved by with the conversations. I just wanted to clarify. My intent was it would be. Good faith effort to obtain rental assistance or to submit for her, provide the declaration so they can detect and do either one of those. So there were a couple different paths for them, but I understand the trepidation of some appearance of adding a barrier here, which I do not want to do. So just wanted to clarify that. Thank you for that. Clarify clarification. I really appreciate councilman for her bold your your partnership in advancing this amendment to amendment 3bi think it's a a a good fix that does streamline things. And while I appreciate that Councilmember Peterson's original amendment included the word, or it still made me nervous as to how that would be applied in practice by a judge or how it would be utilized by landlords in eviction proceedings. And so so I think this is a much cleaner approach. And certainly one of the things that they could put into their self-certification or declaration is a representation that they try to access rental assistance and weren't able to secure it. There's a whole host of other things that they can put in that declaration. So I think this is an elegant solution to the the the I think underlying issue that you're trying to resolve. Councilmember Peterson, through your original Amendment three B, for the benefit of my colleagues, we did have a conversation with with the King County Bar Association's Housing Justice Project lawyer and who we heard in public testimony earlier, he indicated in terms of sort of on the ground perspective, having experienced representing tenants in these court proceedings, that that that they believe that this is a good solution and would not present any additional barriers to access the eviction defense and is have confidence that a judge would see a declaration signed under the penalty of perjury as acceptable evidence to be able to support making a case if this defense is asserted in eviction proceedings. So I feel comfortable with that representation and and feel comfortable moving forward with this with this amendment as proposed by Councilmember Herbold. Because. Any questions or comments? Council members want. Thank you. I think that comes from the herbals version. Doesn't mitigate the problematic nature of Councilmember Peterson's original amendment. But I will still be voting no on this amendment because fundamentally, I find it disturbing that. Council members are evoking this idea that, you know, this sort of boogeyman of a bad tenant who is going to skip out on rent. And I'm sure that I mean, I wouldn't say that that never happens because I don't know, maybe it does. But the point is policymaking has to be based on statistical evidence and statistical evidence overwhelmingly, not just mostly, but overwhelmingly shows that evictions, even before this pandemic absolutely target the most vulnerable in our society. The Losing Home report showed that black community members, especially black women and single mom households, were the ones that were most targeted. And I would say just based on that statistical evidence and based on the fact that now vast majorities of working people are going to have job losses and income losses, obviously people who are going to be taken to eviction are those who are suffering and have suffered financial hardship. And the only impact of this amendment is to force people who are already losing everything to go through one more dignity and humiliation. As I said, the amended version does mitigate this, but the effect of it is still a pointless indignity being inflicted on a tenant who is already in dire financial straits. It really literally accomplishes nothing other than being odious towards working people who are already facing the recession. I don't understand why this so-called good faith effort burden is not being put on landlords. So I just for all those reasons, I will be voting no on this amendment. I think you guys remember. So what? Any of my other colleagues. I want to make any comments. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Just clarifying. We are about to vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Peterson's amendment. Is that correct? That is correct. You are tracking. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay. So just so you can see the process point, how we voted on the amendment to the amendment, I believe we just voted on the motion to put it on the table. Maybe I'm on. No we we we've moved and seconded to consider Councilmember Herbold amendment to Amendment three B. So we're now going to vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Council Member Peterson's amendment, but we haven't yet voted on. Councilmember Peterson's version will be next as amended. Parliamentary procedure is the best. The best. All right, folks. Are there any. Okay. So are there any other comments on the amendment as proposed by Councilmember Herbold? Okay. So let's see. Here I am. Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to version two of Amendment three be? Want what. I. Strauss. I. Herbold. I. Juarez. I. Lewis, I. Morales. I. Macheda I. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries the amendment as adopted, and version two of Amendment three B, as amended, is before the Council. So now, colleagues, we are considering Council Member Peterson's Amendment three B as a met as we just amended it. And so are there any further comments on the amendment as amended? Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment three, be as amended. So on? No. Strauss. Right. Herbold, I. Juarez. I. Lewis. I. Morales now. Macheda. I. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez, I. Seven in favor. Two opposed the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Okay. So we are going to move now to amendment number four. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment four on the agenda. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. And so Amendment four colleagues is a amendment that would remove that court ordered plans. So we are simply removing the requirement that a judge order a payment plan as the only remedy available if the eviction defense is successfully asserted. We heard again concerns from folks over at the Housing Justice Project about the sheer volume of applications for assistance to the home base funds. And and as a result of sort of the sheer shock of numbers of receiving 7000 applications and really kickback housing projects estimation that they might be able to help 2000. It really created a lot of concern for folks who are providing direct services and that that a payment plan would be realistic in every single case. And so instead of requiring that a payment plan be instituted and potentially creating some kind of inadvertently creating a legal financial obligation, that instead we should allow a judge to continue to have discretion in terms of identifying which remedy would be most appropriate based on the facts of the case if if a defendant is is successful in asserting an eviction defense. And so I think it is more appropriate for us to allow a judge the latitude that they need based on whatever the record is in front of him or her to craft appropriate remedies. A rental payment plan could be one of those, but it could also be something, something entirely different. So. So as a result, I am advancing this amendment to remove that requirement from the substitute bill. I'm happy to take any comments or questions on that particular amendment. Second. Any additional questions or comments on that? All right. Hearing none, I would ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of Amendment four. The launch. I. Strauss. I. Though I Juarez. I mean. Lewis. I. Morale is. High. Mesquita. I. Petersen Petersen. By. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor and opposed. So much the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. I understand that there is one last amendment is Amendment five and it is sponsored by Councilmember Peterson. So I am going to hand it over to him. Thank you. Council President Yes. Amendment five is a reporting requirement that we would be adding to the bill. So within two months of the effective date of the ordinance, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection and the Office of Housing will provide a report to City Council on the implementation of this ordinance. And it's you know, the data is hard for them to to gather. However, they're going to come back to us with what they can gather on the eviction statistics, who's using the air defenses. And we'll be able to digest that information and find out the how the ordinance is working while we're in the middle of the six month period. And so I would like to officially move this amendment and to know that Councilmember Herbold will have a similar revision to my amendment, which I welcome. But let me go ahead and move the version to understand. Your options are five. Or we're moving version. Yeah. Moving version to Amendment five a. Right because the previous amendment passed from me. So this will be moving find a. He. Just a sec. Although. Yeah. Pardon me. I'm being told by several staff I should be moving amendment at five feet. Excuse me? I was. I was strategically pausing to give you an opportunity to shuffle through your paper. I do believe it is Amendment five be. Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment five B again, Councilmember Herbold, I understand that you have a proposed amendment to this amendment to align the amendment to the Revised Amendment three. I've never said the word amendment more often in my life to consider this amendment. The Council rules will need to be suspended if there is no objection. The council rules relating to circulation of amendments 2 hours before the meeting will be suspended. Hearing no objection. The roles are suspended and councilmember verbal that you may now move your amendment. Right. Well, I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. I was not intending to remove an amendment. And. An alternative to Amendment five, given I have some concerns about Amendment five, but. Just based on the fact that I, I understand that I want hold information about what happens in eviction court. They only are they only get involved in these matters if there is a violation of the law. And so people don't call the eye for assistance in court. When there's when there is an eviction. And so I was not planning on supporting this amendment, nor was I planning on offering a an amendment to this amendment, although I recognize that. The script that we've been provided says so. So I think. What? So. So. I think I understand, if I may. Yeah. Just a minute. Just a minute. Because we're entering into parliamentary nightmare land. So I just want to before. Before and I. And I just thought Asha's email as well. I Casmir Peterson So I just want to clarify, Councilmember Ruble did not intend to make an amendment to either version of Councilmember Peterson's amendment. Is that correct? I did not intend to, but I feel obligated because everybody thought I was going. No. So I. Have a script that I could I could, in. Good sportsmanship. Offer the amendment. I do have reservations about the amendment, though. I don't think anybody on the on the in the meeting today is clamoring for for four more amendments. So if you do not wish to advance your amendment, you and that is your call. The difficulty, though, is if a majority of councilmembers do support Councilmember Peterson's amendment, it can't pass without there being a change to it because of our previous amendments. So why don't we have a conversation about Amendment five and then we can sort of assess whether or not there needs to be shifting in terms of your position around introducing an amendment here. So we have also received notice from our very capable council central staffer that we moved the wrong version of the amendment. So I'm going to ask the clerk what our options are if if Councilmember Peterson has already moved version five be what we are required to do under Robert's Rules of order to put that to rest and be able to consider the appropriate version. This is Amelia. The council can decide as a body to withdraw the motion, which is the motion to amend the Council bill to their version five B if they want to withdraw it, as long as it has no objection. Okay. And then from there, if there's no objections, you can move forward with the correct version of the amendment. Kate, is there an objection to withdrawing a proposed amendment? Five. Five. Be hearing no objection. The motion to consider proposed amendment five. B is withdrawn. Councilmember Patron, I'm going to hand it back over to you to make the appropriate. Yes, thank you. Just for the viewing audience to explain. Basically the there were versions A and B, because they were contingent upon what would happen the previous amendment. So it sort of changes the ordering of the ordinance and the lettering and numbering of it. So what I'd like to do is correctly move. Five, a version two and some five. A It's a because we passed the previous amendment I had. So it's we're going to go with a and it's version two because we passed Councilor Herbold revision to my amendment, which removed the reference to seeking a good faith effort to seek rental assistance. So that's why we're moving a version that our central staff circulated, basically just to align us to where we are right now in the process where we're no longer considering the good faith effort to seek rental assistance. That's out. That's why we have version two of five A, which I'm now moving. He's their second. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to consider a proposed Amendment five, a version to Councilmember Peterson. Do you have anything else to add? Yes. So again, this is simply a reporting requirement to have the departments stsci and office housing come back to us with information on how it's being implemented. And they will use the data that's available to them is limited. But I still think that if we are going to pass an ordinance that is making these changes, that it's it's helpful for us to hear how it's going from the departments. Thank you. Okay. And now I'm going to open it up for debate and discussion. So, colleagues, anyone like to comment? Councilman Morales? Yeah, I. I'm nervous about this amendment. I think, you know, this is a this is an emergency time right now. We're talking about protecting people who we all know are experiencing deep financial problems right now with an inability to pay April's rent, probably not able to pay this month's rent or next month. And so there's no question that the protection that this bill is intending to provide is going to be necessary and useful. I think this kind of an amendment really just kind of opens the door to removing the defense of, you know, if it's not used enough, then why are we doing this? I think we will know if this is a useful bill or not. If it gets used and if it doesn't, then we don't need it. But if we do, if people do need it, it's really important that it's there. And I don't know that having a reporting requirement to tell us how much it was used is is a useful. A step to put in place right now. That's all. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I don't have any objection to the city receiving the information. I think all information is healthy. And I would not presuppose that we are asking for the information because of some. Future intent to argue that we do, we need to use a lot of too much or too little. I think analyzing the impacts of of our our ordinances is a is a good practice. My my concern, though, again, is Sky simply does not have this information. They the superior court in county superior court is the body that would have the information, the filings that tenants make as it relates to the the defenses and the use of this particular address cause. And whether or not a certification was filed, CCI simply does not have that information. And I'd be happy to, you know, to work with the amendment sponsor to try to figure out how we could get this information from from King County Superior Court in the future. But I just don't think that this is a mechanism that's appropriate to put on CCI. I'm just concerned it burdensome to them. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. I would just add that I think I've heard some of the similar concerns that Councilmember Herbold has heard that again, in in in many instances, we do ask for report back specifically for new policies where where we want to be able to assess the effectiveness of the policy. When you look at our labor standard laws, for example, almost all of them include some level of evaluation of how the law is working or isn't working. And and I've had the benefit of being the sponsor of some of those report back requirements, not because I had an intent to unravel the law in the future or make some argument that the law was being used too often. But frankly, because I think it's helpful information and data to continue to fine tune the policy, to make sure that that those laws are actually meeting the needs of the people that it's intended to to benefit. And so I think in this instance, again, I'm not sure it makes sense to require Stsci to go through the extraordinary effort of monitoring the King County Superior Court eviction proceedings and filings for a period of six months. It's a it's a short lived eviction defense. And and I think that I think that what we're trying to accomplish here is creating maximum access to that. And while I appreciate the desire to want to be able to have some sort of a metric associated to it, I'm just not sure that CCI has that. They, as a fully funded agency, has the capacity to to do this body of work. And I'm not sure that I want them to be investing their limited resources in this body of work when this law is intended to be in place only for a six month period of time after the conclusion of the eviction moratorium, as declared by Mayor Durkan. So that's my position on this particular amendment, and I see that Councilmember Mosqueda has also raised her hand before assures. EU Council President. Thanks to the sponsor for the clarification on what the minutes intended to do. I'm a little torn as well, and I believe that getting the data is important. I heard that there might be follow up conversations to be had about how we can ensure that folks are getting access to these services. One thing that I will note that I thought was missing from the report back, if we were to go down this route, perhaps not through CCI, but through another body. Reporting back to us is how race and ethnicity will be reported. Given the latest numbers that we saw on Friday. We know, for example, that Hispanics are four times more likely to be admitted to the hospital due to COVID and two and a half times more likely to die due to COVID related death. So I think as we think about the protections that we're putting into place under this emergency that is covered as we think about getting feedback about these programs and any future reporting back, I would like to see race and ethnicity reported back. I agree with the council president in that as is probably not necessarily the right body to do this, but I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was put forward. And if there are to be future conversations, I think, as Councilmember Herbold had indicated, that there are the race and ethnicity element be something that we include as a requirement for reporting back on these various protections due to the disparity that we see and how COVID is affecting various communities. Thank you very much. Thank you. Government was great. And I think I think that the bigger issue that councilmember her boldness flagging is that the city of Seattle does not track any of this information, period , because we don't do we're not in the business of arbitrating being the arbitrators and the findings of fact of eviction defenses. And that is something that is within a different jurisdiction being King County. And we do not currently have any sort of data sharing agreement with them or data sharing plan with them related to that information. And so I suppose that the worry really is, is are we setting up for inherent failure or are we setting them up to require them to expend resources that they may not have accessible to them, to set up a data collection process for a for a defense that's only going to be in existence for six months by definition in the ordinance. Council stressed. Yeah. Thank you. Council president in my I have regular meetings with CCI and while I truly do appreciate the desire for data so that we can create good public policy, I'm not sure that data that is hard to hard to identify for a temporary bill is the best use of time. And I will reiterate to Stsci my request for additional work on the tree ordinance that I made last week. And I will I will be voting no on this bill so as to ensure that they have staff time to create the tree ordinance that I am requesting. Thank you. All righty. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote on this particular amendment. So will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment motion time if we version two. And I want to know. Strauss. May. HERBOLD No. That's a tie. HERBOLD They. Thinking Juarez may. Lewis. Thank. MORALES No. Must get to know. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez. No. One in favor eight opposed. He the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Okay, colleagues, I think that completes the list of amendments that we have on this particular bill. I want to thank you all for slugging it out with me. I know it's 4:30 p.m., so let's go ahead and move along here. Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Lewis. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to make a couple of comments before the vote. I fully intend to vote for this legislation, and I appreciate you for bringing it forward. You know, as one of the two writers on the council, I think it's critical that we extend protection to renters in this time to make sure that we can keep people inside, especially in this time of uncertainty in addition to public health threats. I just want to clarify, too, for the people that commented earlier when we did have public comment that addressed this bill, there there is no city law that's authorizing, condoning or calling for people to not pay their rent. Just because there's a moratorium on evictions does not mean that the city is seeking to condone folks not paying rent, nor is a rent strike, an official city policy. And I think that that's important for members of the public to know this council, for the record, additionally to everyone earlier who was talking about as an alternative to this moratorium, putting money into rent support, as was alluded earlier by Councilmember Herbold and others on this council, has put millions of dollars into rent relief before and during this crisis. With more on the way, rent relief is a criteria or is a priority of this council and continues to be and will continue to be. But we face the problem that we have 1.4 million Washingtonians that are unemployed and that state and federal unemployment and relief has been slow coming. Hard to access. Glitchy websites have been crashing and we are in a period of immense and extreme uncertainty regarding how people are going to immediately make their rent. And it puts a lot of Washingtonians in a position where while they could ordinarily, dependably be able to pay their rent on time, it might take some folks a little bit more time to do it. And while I'm sure that many of the landlords who commented earlier and who have been contacting my office, I'm sure that I completely believe all of their representations that they are exceptional landlords, that they're working with folks to cut them some slack. But we cannot make policy as a city council that is just going to trust that folks that are facing completely unique hardships are not going to be put in a position where they are going to be on the street and in a precarious position during this public health crisis and then later during the slow and circuitous recovery. I did also want to flag to a lot of the landlords who commented earlier. There are a lot of actions that the city and the state has done to help to alleviate the pressures that landlords are facing . And there are delayed payments of property taxes that King County is doing. We have delayed we are delaying payments of the taxes. Given the hardship of the current crisis, the city is delaying utility payments for folks who have who have to pay utilities. All of these things are designed to try to defer some of the costs of landlords. While we know full well that because of the nature of what's happening in the marketplace, some rent may be deferred because people are going to have trouble paying rent or have to wait for relief to come through before they can do it . And I just want to state as the tenant who is currently in a state that has an eviction moratorium, I did pay my rent. I paid my rent because I'm in a position to pay it. I will continue to do it because that's an obligation that I assumed when I signed a lease. I am not refusing to pay merely because there's a moratorium in place, and most of my fellow renters, if they can pay, are in a position to pay, will pay. Renters are professionals. Two of us are. On the Seattle City. Council. Some of us as renters are gig workers who are suffering and are on the margins. Some of us as renters worked in restaurants and have been unemployed for weeks now because that industry has fallen off a cliff. We are not a homogenous group and if we're in a position to pay, we are going to pay. We are not going to hold out purely because we are in a position where there's a rent moratorium and there's a perception that we could we're not going to do that. It's just not something that is going to happen. But we do know that there are going to be lots of people who aren't in a position to pay because they're suffering from these hardships they just enumerated. And we as a council will continue to support, rent support for people to make sure that they have the resources to meet those obligations. We're going to continue to work with our federal and state partners to expand unemployment, to expand relief, to make sure that people. Have the resources to pay their landlords. But I did just want to take this moment to clear up some of those misconceptions, to explain why I'm going to vote for this legislation today and to say that I want to continue to work with everyone who testified publicly before my colleagues on the Council to make sure that we can continue to fight for relief and continue to fight for protections for renters, as well as get through this crisis to make sure that those deferred rent payments not forgiven, but deferred rent payments will be made ultimately when we get on the other side of this. So thank you, Madam President, for bringing this forward, and I will be voting in favor of this legislation. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis. Well-stated. Colleagues, any other comments on the bill as amended? That's what I want. And then Councilmember Strauss and Casper Mosqueda, Councilperson lawyers. Thank you, Brazil Mosquito. I am very happy to vote yes on this legislation as a step towards preventing the deluge of evictions. At the moment, the emergency eviction ban ends. Tens of millions of renters across the country are unable to pay rent because unable. It's not like they are willfully refusing to. They are unable to pay rent because they have lost work hours or even jobs through the COVID emergency and recession. In the first week of April, 31% of renters were unable to pay their rent in full. I have not seen many statistics come out yet, but I'm sure that the crisis faced by renters is continuing, especially in the light of the new data that we've seen that the federal stimulus checks have not reached a majority of working class households who are actually eligible for it. And we know that that problem is translating into the impact on lives of tens of thousands of people, working people in and many of whom are renters in total, the vast majority of whom are renters. And this would mean that tens of thousands of renters in Seattle are unable to pay their rent right now. It would be completely unacceptable for them to be evicted with everything that it entails. As I mentioned earlier, in 2017, according to the Losing Home report, nearly nine out of ten renters who were evicted ended up homeless. Many of them were children. They were disproportionately working class people of color. Four of the evicted tenants in 2017 committed suicide. That is why I arranged strike movement nationwide. As I said, there's hundreds of organizations that are involved in demanding that rent, mortgage and utility payments be suspended or, in other words, canceled during this emergency and also demanding that rents be frozen for the rest of the year, meaning no rent increases for the rest of the year. And as I have mentioned in the past, that online petition that was started by activists in Washington state and now has been signed by over 3 million signatories nationwide. And our statewide petition has been signed by more than 9000 Washingtonians. And it's really interesting to see how something that is politically impossible in one moment becomes commonplace in the next. Only a few months ago, our movement fought for and won the ban on winter evictions. It was a fight in the country, and now cities and states across the country in the context of the pandemic have banned evictions, at least temporarily, and are now extending those rights with legislation like this one that we're going to be voting on. You know, Councilmember Peterson has proudly pointed out the amendment he made in the winter evictions ordinance to exclude renters who supposedly have smaller landlords. But as Councilmember Herbold, thank her for noting this. And as I had noted at that time, unfortunately, the majority of council did not agree with that at that time, which was actually the truth , which is that renters cannot. It is it is virtually impossible for renters to prove that their landlord is a, quote, unquote, small landlord. And. At that time that amendment passed. Unfortunately, the majority of the council voted for it. But now it is important to the majority of the council stood against that. And it's becoming increasingly clear to millions of people that the private market has completely failed to make housing a human right. And socialists have already always pointed out that the private market will not meet human need. But that reality has now magnified by so many orders of magnitude in the impact it has on human misery in the context of the pandemic. And as far as rent strike and the demand of demands of renters are concerned, here is the reality. And this is the better reality. Once the eviction moratoria are lifted, there will. If renters don't fight back, if renters don't get organized, they will face a massive wave of evictions throughout the nation. We saw that, as I said, in the Great Recession with home ownership of middle class households being completely destroyed by the big banks and the big mortgage holders. Already right now, we are seeing big landlords and property managers not complying with existing law. I just got an email from a renter today who said that they had already faced a rent increase from Cornell and Associates, which which is a big property manager in this area, and that is violating the governor's order . So renters are already being forced to fight to end existing law enforcement alone. What will happen when those emergency orders are lifted? And so that is why renters need to get organized. And that is the purpose behind the nationwide strike movement, which, as you know, including hundreds of community organizations and demonstrates organization. And lastly, I will say that in addition to fighting for renters rights, we will need a massive expansion of social housing which cannot be accomplished without progressive revenues. And that is why we really urge the Council to support the Amazon tax proposal by Councilmember Morales and myself. And again, I'm happy to vote yes on this legislation. Thank you, councilmember someone. I think I will need a reminder as to who was next in line. Was it Councilmember Strauss? Yes, Kazmir Strauss. And then Kazmir Mosqueda commerce supporters are. Thank you. Council president. Just wanting to say, you know, this is a crisis, an international pandemic that we are responding to, where we do not we are not conducting life as normally as we did, you know, months ago. And I want to just thank everyone who is participating and looking out for their neighbor, looking out for themselves. When I read Danny West Needs a tale of two landlords. Granted it was regarding commercial landlords. There's a clear difference between people who are living in Seattle and part of our community and folks who are not. And I want to just take a moment to think. Any person, whether you're a landlord or any other business who has looked out for your neighbor and allowed payment plans or not gone through evictions or provided affordable below market rate housing. I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for pitching in. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Customer Mosquito. HQ Council President. Just want to offer a note of appreciation for all the work that you've done on this legislation. I know it's been many weeks of stakeholder engagement and we're planning drafts on the legislation. We heard initial feedback from the tenants, advocates and Washington Community Action Network about the legislation related to removing barriers for tenants experiencing economic hardship due to their documentation status, or working in the gig economy where it would be really difficult to prove or provide documentation of financial hardship due to COVID impacting their ability to pay rent. So I really want to appreciate all the work that you've done as the bill's sponsor for incorporating this feedback. This legislation would provide a protection for tenants who are most impacted by the economic effects of COVID during the months when they are most vulnerable for six months and for six months after the civil emergency has lifted. We know that this is just one piece of the puzzle. We also need rent and mortgage forgiveness at the federal level to protect both tenants and small landlords. Rental assistance on a massive scale with federal, state and local support and more investments and dedicated revenue for building affordable housing to make sure everyone is able to stay home and stay healthy. I want to just underscore the point that I think a lot of folks made on that national call last Friday, and I've tried to really hammer home not all landlords are the same. And that is why we know it's important for us to get federal assistance for small landlords, for housing authority entities like the Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority, and for our nonprofit housing providers. So having that type of assistance from the federal level with support for Representative Ilhan Omar, as Bill is going to be critical and that not all tenants are treated the same. Right now we have statistics from pre-COVID that show that the type of folks that are already experiencing housing discrimination and who are more likely to face eviction are women, are people of color, are immigrants, are the LGBTQ population. And so with COVID, we are wanting to double down on our commitments to protect these already vulnerable populations. I really appreciate the effort that you have put forward into this legislation to work with those stakeholders to move forward, this commitment to lift up our protections for all folks, especially those who are experiencing this type of discrimination even prior to COVID. Thank you so much. Having to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. I appreciate your support. Any other colleagues have comments on the bill ackman. Okay. I will close out debate before we call this and bill to a vote. So, colleagues, the bill we have before us today is and is in direct response to the COVID 19 crisis. When this crisis started to unfold, we saw thousands of workers. And indeed, now we know it's well over a million workers who have abruptly lost their jobs. Workers who are hourly wage earners with the hospitality and tourism industries hit particularly hard in some instances in that hospitality industry in the first week alone. Their unemployment filings went up by over 600% during the month of March. We saw unemployment filings more than double in one week, only for that number to increase by 842% the following week. Last week, the Seattle Times reported that more than one in five, more than one in five Washingtonians have applied for unemployment benefits. And we know this number would be greater if everyone actually could apply. I'm proud of our city interstate for its quick science driven response to contain the spread of the coronavirus and flatten the curve. The declaration of states of emergency and the actions by the mayor and the governor to put moratoriums in place against residential evictions in mid-March will keep many people safe and housed and appreciative to them for those actions that they took. And I'm also appreciative to the Attorney General General's office for doing enforcement. However, we know that the moratoriums will expire at their earliest in sometime in June, and it is unlikely that the civil emergency will be lifted at that same time. Recovery is going to take time and we know our economy will be back in phases, not all at once. And with social distancing protocols, they will it will continue to present issues for whether or not we will come out of this economic crisis quickly or slowly with the likelihood of the moratorium on evictions being lifted before the conclusion of a civil emergency. There is that window of time where many people remain vulnerable if they are particularly impacted by this pandemic. This legislation before us today can help people stay housed, and that is the bottom line. This bill expands on the city's just cause eviction ordinance, similar to the defenses created by that by that ordinance. This legislation creates an additional tool a defense a tenant may utilize in eviction court proceedings. But it is a time limited tool. This bill. Which would cover that period of time between the end of the moratorium during the civil emergency and once the married. If there is the civil emergency over, it will make this tool available to those who need it for a period of six months after that date. This bill is not an extension of moratoriums by the mayor or the governor. In fact, it does not prohibit landlords from taking actions associated with evictions like filing of unlawful detainers, issuing determination notices, or initiating a writ of resolution. I want to make that really clear, because a lot of the testimony that we've been receiving in the public makes it seem as though we are getting rid of all of our landlord tenant laws. And that's just simply not the case. What we are doing is we are enhancing existing landlord tenant laws to benefit tenants who are going to need additional time to get their feet grounded and to be able to continue to dig out of this economic crisis. So I want to make sure that we are rooting our policy in in those real renters stories and who is being impacted by the reality of this economic crisis and and that intersection between that economic crisis and and housing stability. So my office undertook the effort of collecting stories of people who've been impacted by this crisis. Of the people who responded to that story collection exercise, we learned that nearly 64% of the respondents lost their jobs due to this crisis, with many waiting several weeks before unemployment benefits would come in, an additional 18% of the respondents have their hours or income severely reduced as a result of the business closure because of the pandemic. And some tenants share that. While some of their landlords had graciously reduced their rent, most people just didn't understand how they would ever be able to pay the rent on May 1st. And in fact, we've heard some stories of people skipping meals each day to save money for rent, utilities and other expenses. After that, seeing their hours were severely cut. People share with us that they were at risk at losing their health insurance because they'll drop below full time status. People shared with. Best quote. I just don't know. I'm terrified. We just moved into this apartment after escaping from a horrible landlord. Now we're finally somewhere safe, and now we're afraid we're going to lose it already. If we do, we don't know where we'll go. I can't move home. Due to abusive, dangerous family, we feel completely helpless. Another renter shared with us that they live with four people. All of them are out of work due to COVID. Many do not meet the standards for unemployment, and at this time they don't know how they'll make how they pay rent in the month of May. These are real stories from our constituents throughout the city who would see relief potentially out of this law if we were to pass it today. So these these are the these are the stories that we need to root this policy in. And the weekly stories we hear about our state's unemployment system working overtime to keep up means we know tens of thousands in our city are still waiting to get those promised benefits. This legislation ultimately is a way to have more time for people impacted by this crisis to figure things out. These individuals and families will have a longer road to recover from this crisis. And many of us, as counselors articulated by Councilmember Lewis, have been advocating for more rental assistance and additional mortgage relief and a deferral of property taxes to help renters and small landlords alike. And we will continue to work with our state and federal partners on making sure that those needs are met through COVID 19 relief packages. I know I'm committed to doing that. I know that folks on this council are committed to continuing to do that. And with that, I'm really excited about calling of this particular council bill and to a vote. So with that being said, I will ask the clerk, please call the role of passage of the bill as amended. The launch. I. Strauss. All right. Her bones. I. Suarez, I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Mesquita. I've. Peterson. I. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor then opposed. Thank you. Clerk The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please the fix my signature to the legislation on behalf. Thank you, colleagues, for that wonderful conversation. I think we're we're we're we're doing something really important for thousands of renters across the city. So thank you so much. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items four through six into the record?

A RESOLUTION adopting revised rules for City Council quasi-judicial proceedings, and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_Res 31602

The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 27 Resolution 31602 Adopting revised rules for City Council quasi judicial proceedings and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. This is largely a clean up bill. That was the work of the result of Martha Lester, one of our last pieces of work before she left us on the council. She staff the committee on a quasi judicial matter over the past year or so in the process. As you may imagine, she notified all sorts of things with our quasi judicial rules that could use them clean up. And she went in there and did that. There are a few areas where it wasn't clear on the unique matter we were staffing how to respond, and so we interpreted during those rules. But she made some recommendations on how we cleared that up. And so those are all passed out of committee. Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting Resolution 3160 to vote. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read item 28.

Recommendation to adopt resolution closing to vehicular traffic a portion of the public right-of-way known as West La Reina Way, between Del Rey Court and Chestnut Avenue, and adopt and accept Categorical Exemption No. CE 42-12. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03102015_15-0205

Item 15. Item 15 is a report from Public Works. Recommendation to adopt resolution closing to vehicular traffic. A portion of the public right away, known as West La Reina way between Del Court and Chestnut Avenue, and adopt and accept categorical exceptions. Numbers C 42 Dash 12 District one. Who's been in motion and a second. Unless there are any questions any member of the public that wishes to address counsel, please come forward. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and City Council. I'll be very fast. I just want to thank everybody for this coming up. We've been waiting a long time for it. We're very grateful to Larry Rich for written in writing the grant. That will allow this to happen and we really support it. So thank you very much. Thank you. And. Members cast your vote. Motion carries six new items. 16. Item 16 is a report from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance establishing a Small Business Recruitment, Retention and Growth Pilot Program. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.

Petition of Swedish Health Services for the vacation of the alley in Block 95, Terry’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle.

SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CF 314304

Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution that is adopted and the chair will sign it. Next report, please. The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 12 Clerk filed 314304 petition of Swedish Health Services for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 95 Teri Second Edition to the City of Seattle. The committee recommends the full council grant the application as conditioned. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So this is part of the expansion for Swedish Hospital. This plant on First Hill, it's part of the plans that were included in the major institution master plan, which came to the council recently. The alley in question is and it goes to the property bordered by between Columbia and Cherry and Miner and Boren. The Swedish hospital did a great job, in my view, of working with the local community to determine a set of public benefits that both met the local communities needs and I think the needs of more broadly of the city of Seattle. It's a good example of public benefits provided offsite, which is also more feasible because of Swedish the expanse of the campus. A couple examples of the projects that are included in the public benefit. You can see them all if you go into the documents. One is completing the what's called the first hill mile. This is a kind of walking circuit that the neighborhood has identified as part of their neighborhood plans. It's basically what Swedish would be doing would be upgrading the sidewalks, signage, curb cuts, those types of things for street frontages both adjacent to this project, but also stretches beyond Swedish Hospital into the neighborhood to make a nice one mile loop that people could walk on in the neighborhood. And also folks that are staying in Swedish or recovering it Swedish could use. There's also public art locations and access points on the project. I'm also wanted to say that I'm excited to be supporting Swedish for variety of reasons, including the fact that my kids were born there. And but they've also done a lot of great work to show their continued commitment to our community, including recently updating their charity care program, which serves as a national model for really doing work the way a nonprofit hospital should be doing. I also just want to say that during the comments at the committee, we had representatives of the first Hill neighborhood come in, speak directly to how excited they are for the public benefit that's coming. And so it's it's great when you have kind of community unanimity around a process like this. It makes our job easier. I will be happy to support this. Thank you. Councilmember Bryan, any further comments or questions? Those in favor of granting the petition as to please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item.

Petition of Seattle City Light, for the vacation of portion of Broad Street, between Harrison Street and Taylor Avenue North.

SeattleCityCouncil_12102018_CF 314387

Bill passed chair of Senate. Please read agenda item number eight. Agenda item eight. Clerk File 314387. The petition gives me the petition of Seattle City Light for the vacation of a portion of Broad Street between Harrison Street and Taylor Avenue North. The committee recommends the petition be granted as condition. Jasmine O'Brien. Thank you. So this is the opposite end of the street vacation process. The one we just did was at the very end where we pass an ordinance to finally approve everything that's been done. What we're doing on this agenda item for Seattle City Light is before they've done any of the actual work, we're granting conceptual approval to what they propose to do so that they could get the street vacation. This is a relatively small portion of a property often known as the Broad Street Substation. It's near the Seattle Center satellite. See Light has a substation there and Broad Street runs adjacent to it. All of Broad Street is being vacated in different pieces as we that street is no longer used as part of the redo from Mercer Avenue and the new tunnel that's going to be opening. This is a little portion adjacent to the substation that they would like to use to expand the facility a little bit. In exchange, they're proposing to provide public benefit in terms of upgrading some of the public right away to have a little more pedestrian friendly environment and some more green space there. Very good. Any questions on this, this file? If not those in favor of granting the position the petition. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries, the petition is granted and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Please read agenda items nine through 14 together.

Resolution in Support of the Out of Hospital Birth Access and Safety Act (H.2341/S.1519) and Recognizing Black Maternal Health Week in the City of Boston. On motion of Councilors Mejia and Lara, Rule 12 was invoked to include Councilor Arroyo as a co-sponsor.

BostonCC_04132022_2022-0513

05130513. Counsel is me here, and Laura offered the following resolution in support of the Out of Hospital Birth Access and Safe Act. 2341 The Senate 1519 in recognizing Black Maternal Health Week in the city of Boston. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes. Counsel me here. Counsel me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And before I go on, I'd like to add Counselor Arroyo as an original co-sponsor. Mr. Clarke, please add Counselor Arroyo as an original co-sponsor. You have the floor councilman here. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I. When I gave birth to on the lease, I was considered a late H mom. I was 40, and I had gestational diabetes and a high risk pregnancy that ended in a C-section. And navigating the VA system was a bit traumatic considering all of the complications that I faced. But what I did not know was my rights and what I should be asking for and advocating on behalf of. And, you know, this conversation in terms of black maternal health is an issue of equity. And I think we have an opportunity here in the city of Boston to really lean into the conversation and help support the advocacy on behalf of this issue. We know that home births here in the city of Boston, not in the city of Boston, but just in general over the past years have risen dramatically. The new Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports showing that between 2019 and 2020, home birth rates rose 47% in Massachusetts alone. Out of births, births either at home or in birth centers are safe and beneficial and a valid reproductive choice that is currently denied to most birthing people here in Massachusetts because of certified professional midwives who attend low risk births in homes and birth centers, are not licensed in Massachusetts, despite being licensed in 37 states. And so had I had the option to have a home birth, probably my situation would have looked very different. Fortunately, there's legislation in the State House titled The Out of Birth, Hospital Birth Access and Safety Act has been filed, which seeks to establish within the Department of Public Health a licensing process for professional midwives and add them as medical slash MassHealth providers. Passing this legislation is crucial for supporting birthing people, closing the crucial safety gaps and expanding access to out of hospital birthing options, meeting people where they are and accommodating the needs of birthing persons to ensure that they feel comfortable, safe and well taken care of. It is crucial that we're making space for people with different preferences when it comes to birthing, and this legislation seeks to address just that. It also is very timely that this legislation is in the State House and we're currently celebrating Black Maternal Health Week in a time when historic and systemic inequities have resulted in the risk of death and severe mobility being two times as likely for black birthing women compared to white counterparts. And we need to be doing more to support this legislation to recognize black maternal health month. And I think it's all 365 days a year, especially as home birth rates have risen here by 36% among black birthing people in the United States and between 2019 and 2020. And for all those reasons, I'm excited to support this initiative and also just want to shout out this year to Brazil, who is leading now here in the city of Boston to have a birthing center right here in Boston. And I also want to give a shout out to Nurse Tiffany, the so who is in the labor and delivery, as well as Emily and Esther for all the work that they have been doing in this space. So just wanted to thank you both for your leadership and also to my co-sponsors for joining me on this. So I ask that we suspend the rules and pass this resolution. And I hope that my colleagues who have co-sponsored will rise up to the occasion to say a few words, too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Here, the chair recognizes council. Borough Council. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you, Councilor, for including me as your co-sponsor on this resolution. I am very happy to hear the share of Ariel's name invoked in the City Hall chambers as the shearer was my boss, the Boston Public Health Commission, when I worked there. And she taught me pretty much everything I know about home birthing. And I think that the city of Boston is incredibly lucky to have her working to open the first freestanding birth center in the city and ran by a black woman. Nevertheless, I'm excited that the Boston City Council has an opportunity to publicly support the out-of-hospital birth. Access its safety act and to recognize black maternal health week. This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart as a mother. When it came time to make a decision about my birthing plan, I was bombarded with research and data that made it very clear to me that the decision to have a child, especially as a black woman, was a dangerous one. The United States has the worst maternal health mortality among all wealthy nations in the world. And it's the only nation with a maternal mortality rate has been rising every year. In Massachusetts, like Councilor Richard Black, working people are two times more likely to die or have a near miss than their white counterparts due to structural or interpersonal racism. And I know that it's kind of daunting to listen to that data and to listen to those facts. But there's a bright spot. And that bright spot is that most maternal health deaths are preventable, which means that we can do something about this crisis. When I decided to have a homebirth to give birth at home, I did it because I knew it would be the safest, most affordable option for me. My midwives and my doula were essential in ensuring that I had a joyous birthing experience. And our current laws in the state of Massachusetts make it so that experience is not accessible to everyone. I believe that all people deserve to have a birthday experience where they feel listened to, affirmed and cared for. And we should work to make that possible. Regardless of whether people are giving birth at home at a birthing center or at a hospital and working towards this like CC will make that possible. By supporting this resolution, we're acknowledging that the importance of safer, more equitable access to midwifery care options and the impact that offering those supports will ultimately have on the maternal health outcomes of black. And all birthing people in the city of Boston and across the state. Thank you, counsel. Our the chair recognizes counsel. Royal counsel. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Counselor Miki and Counselor Lara for sponsoring this and bringing this forward. And for all the advocates who've been doing work on this. When I did the racism as a public health crisis, I dug into a lot of different health metrics and things that impact health. And one of the most striking, disappointing and painful ones was the inequities that we see in black maternal health. Even in the Boston, where our hospitals are considered world renowned, we have these wide gaps and inequities in these unnecessary deaths. And frankly, it's it's painful to know that our children and their parents are experiencing outcomes largely due to the fact that they are black. And so we need to get to a place where we prioritize this, where we speak on this, and we move on this in a way that effectively addresses a very real issue. I hope to see real action on this because these numbers are scary. They are very disappointing. And we are in the year 2022 and this needs to be more of a focus issue. So thank you to those who have raised it. And thank you to those who continue to advocate for these kinds of protections. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Arroyo, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counselors and counselors. And you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I just rise in support of this resolution. It is. I just want to reiterate that the numbers are scary, that black women are dying at rates that are should make us really jolt. And the number of stories from people in my own family, the number of time that I have had to exercise my strength as a lawyer to make sure that hospitals aren't discriminating against not only black women in the maternal health space, but in hospitals in general. So we have deep, deep health disparities where that we need to address. And there's so much work being done at the state level. At the state level, great advocates, which is why it's really important to help black women in spaces and legislative bodies really pushing for a black woman in our health. So just want to rise in support of this and rise in recognition of black maternal health. So I think thank you to the sponsors. Thank you, counselors. And, um, anyone else, so to speak, on this matter? The first the first hearing I had as a city councilor four years ago, I sponsored a hearing with with Mayor Janey, Councilor Janey. And we had this discussion on the health care of African-American woman. And as we as we recognized black maternal month this month. I just want to say thank you to the sponsors and the tremendous work that you're doing on this subject and to our city officials as well for the focus that they're out there doing as well. But this is an important issue, and we need to work together to make sure that the health care and services are available to everybody equally, especially especially women in need, women of color as well. So. Thank you to the sponsors. If anyone else would like to sponsor this, raise your hand, please. Please. Howard Councilor Baker. Council. Council President. Council. Fernandez Innocent Council. Florida Conservation Council. Murphy's Council. We're all pleased that the chair. Um, docket 0511 will be referred to the committee in Boston. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um, docket zero five. Oh, yeah. Dark 0513 councilors McGwire, Laura and Arroyo. They seek suspension of their roles in adoption of 0513. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed saying, Hey, we have it. The resolution has been passed. Mr. Clerk, please read doc 0514. Oh, we did that one. Mr. Clarke, please read docket 0515.0515.

Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Golf Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Library Board.

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1230

All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. With that, I'm going to very quickly introduce you to my nominees for the golf commission, which is one position and two nominees for the library board. You will have a chance to meet them and vote on them at our September 21st meeting. And I am elated at what a robust response we have had to announcements of opening on our boards and commissions. People really want to get involved in their community and we have a tremendously talented, very generous community. So I am delighted to nominate Robert Lattimore to the Golf Commission. Mr. Lattimore is about to retire, but he has been working in finance, helping low and moderate income businesses and individuals build their businesses and be successful. And he also has been involved in the first tee program with minority young golfers for many years. He has experience as a PGA marshal at Pebble Beach and also a U.S. Golf Association scorer. He he didn't grow up playing golf and but he started in college and never put his clubs down since then. Then he, I think, will just bring a lot to the golf commission and really excited to nominate Mr. Lattimore. And we have two openings to fill on the library board and I am nominating Miss Dimple Kanji and she is by profession. She's a pharmacist. She actually works at CVS in Alameda where she tells me she's been given lots of COVID vaccines. Hooray for you as a 16 year resident. And she is the mother of a kindergartner and fourth grader who are very involved in the library and library programs and just have participated in all kinds of programs. And she has a lot of great ideas for making the library more accessible to everyone, including geographically, including out in the the West End, where maybe something like a bookmobile out at Alameda Point might be a way of bringing the library to people who can't come to the library. And then I'm also nominating Miss Sarah Strickler, who's a works for Google as a a service designer, and that's a designer of people's experience with various products. And and she spent a lot of time looking at case studies about libraries, how to make them more user friendly, how to make them more efficient and friendly to the staff, to all users, and. Just lots. Of enthusiasm. I love the fact that she's a Googler and she's young and all that, but she loves to just go and sit in the library and read books, actually flip the pages and read books, including cookbooks as a way of relaxation. So thank you. That is those are my nominations to the Golf Commission and the Library Board. It is my fervent hope that I will have a nominee for the Housing Authority Board and also nominees to fill the positions. Vacancies that are coming up on our Commission on Persons with Disabilities when we meet next time on September 24. So thank you very much, everyone. And now we will move on to proclamations and special orders of the day. And so I have a special announcement I want to share with you or news, I should say, which is I know you're aware we're Californians. We know that it seems like half our state is on fire. And there's been some really massive fires and fires that have joined fires and gotten even larger.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of The City of Seattle a waterway permit for Waterway 3A in the Washington Park Arboretum.

SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_CB 119482

Agenda item ten Council Bill 119 42 authorizing the Superintendent Parks and Recreation to execute and except for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle in watery permit for Waterway three A in the Washington Park Arboretum Committee recommends the bill pass. Whereas again, as stated, this is another waterway permit in the arboretum. And as stated, the legislation authorizes parks to execute a waterway permit with the State Department of Natural Resources. The term of this permit, again, as the former permit, is five years and the committee recommends its passage today. Which any questions or comments not? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gonzales. I. Oh. Sorry. Somebody sent her. Suarez. I must get to Orion Swann. Big shot. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 11.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on Success In Challenges, Inc. and the Long Beach Freedom School.

LongBeachCC_08182015_15-0825

Item number 23, communications from Councilman Al Austin and Councilmember Rex Richardson. Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on success and challenges and the Long Beach Freedom School. Gentlemen, also. Thank you. And it is a real pleasure for me to recognize a nonprofit in our city that is doing exemplary work with with our young people, with families, particularly in the North Long Beach, Uptown communities. Success and Challenges is a Long Beach based nonprofit grassroots social service organization. It was founded in 2001 by our own Reverend Leon Wood and its executive director, his wife, Paula Wood. In 2005, successive challenges established the Long Beach Freedom School, the first of its kind in Southern California. Today, there are dozens of Freedom Schools operating throughout Southern California, impacting thousands of young kids. The Freedom School is a six week summer reading enrichment program that is part of the National Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools Program. It's based on a motto of high quality literacy programs parent and family involvement, civic engagement and social action. Inter-generational Leadership development and health and mental health and nutrition. In addition, Freedom Schools to Freedom School Success and Challenges provides a number of other valuable resources and services to the community, including Saturday Tutorial Academy, Youth and Art Program and After School Program at the North Point Apartments. Providing homework assistance, enrichment activities and healthy snack to a population of more than 500 at risk youth. Mr. Mayor, a city council. I just felt compelled to recognize this exemplary work from a couple who have dedicated and dedicate and do dedicate so much of their time, their heart, their resources, their their, their intel and collaborative approach to bringing our community together. And I wanted to recognize success and challenges. And more importantly, Mr. Leon and Paula would I'd like to bring them forward to say a few words after Mr. Richardson. Councilmember Richardson. I want to thank Councilmember Austin for for taking the lead on recognizing freedom, schools and success and challenges. I got to tell you, this is an organization that finds this program finds its roots in the civil rights movement, the Mississippi Freedom Summer program in the 1960s. And here here we have it today. It's a high quality program that really works with with with our youth from north along the north Long Beach area. We've been tremendous supporters of this program. It's bounced between all corners of North Long Beach. It's been at Hamilton, I think it's at Perry Lindsay now. And so this is a program that we're all we're all tremendously supportive of. My predecessor, Councilmember Neal, is now on the board, I believe, and we're in and his his wife, Tanya, was, I think was she the fundraising chair this year? So so this is this is very much so an important priority to North Long Beach. Just a couple of weeks ago at our state of the ninth District, we recognized the now president, Paula Wood, for her leadership here with an Empower Uptown Community Partner Award. And it was the first first of its kind. And we had to obviously go back to Dr. Wood and Mrs. Wood for this award. So it absolutely makes sense. Again, I want to thank Councilmember Austin for his leadership. I really want to thank you for your hard work in keeping this program going for so many years. Thank you so very much. I would like to know where. Go for it. Thanks for doing the video first. Okay. On the screen, you'll see some of the highlights from our summer program that we just completed. Like the council member said, our program was at Perry Lindsay this summer in North Long Beach and in our district, actually. And we served 110 youth and the program is a six weeks program. It finished on August the seventh. And so these are some of the highlights from that program. While we're here, I'd like to introduce some of the staff that work our hard working staff that I have behind the scenes. I'd like to introduce our program director, Yvonne Nuttall Pace. And our sister site coordinator for Freedom School this summer was Vicki Oliver's. And our youth organizer was joined on the block. He works very hard with our teenagers. And so I was going to just take a lot of what I was going to say, our council members covered . So what I would like to do is just kind of have a very quick, brief remarks by each one of our staff and how they're involved with Freedom School and what keeps them coming back every year. Ms.. Ms.. Oliveira is actually a kindergarten teacher, but every summer she manages to arrange her schedule so that she can be involved with Freedom School. We are the longest operating Freedom School in Southern California and we've been operating now for 11 years. The program is free to the families that we serve, but we do have to raise a lot of money in the community to serve about 100 children. It costs us about 85000 to 100000 each year. And so we have a gala that we put on in the spring. And this year we were very pleased and honored to have Mayor Garcia as our guest speaker for our gala in the spring. And I'd also like to thank Councilman Urunga for his support with this program as well. And many people in the Long Beach community as well, we really have reached out and so many of the community leaders have come forward and are working to help us put on this program, either financially or serving in some capacity as a reader during our R&B portion in the morning or coming in the afternoon and providing skills where they can help with a craft or a special project. So just briefly, I'd like to have Ms.. I'll start with Ms.. Yvonne. It's an honor to be here today to talk about Freedom School. Freedom School, I mean, a lot to me, cause I started off as a college student. Going back to Tennessee for training, and it was extremely a lot of work. And for the 11 years I have been a part of this movement, it has been awesome. I have taught students, they came back and now they begin to be certainly the interns. So now we actually have our scholars that grow up in a program and come back and actually do the work as well. So it's just a love and a joy. Each scholar walk away with six books from our program, and they actually began to build their library and me as a mother first. It was a great opportunity to have my daughter there in the program. She'd been a part of the program now for ten years, so just extremely blessing. I turn over to my sister. Thank you so much for your time. Reading is Power and Language Freedom School. We encourage reading over the summer six weeks reading program. As an educator, I am excited to be part of the program. Been there for 11 years and will continue. Working in the community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having us. As a fellow. Long Beach native, born, raised and educated, I feel it's my duty to give. Back to my city. So this is. What keeps me going and keeps me. Helping the youth of the city. Thank you. I'd like to have our youth center here. Stand up. And we have come here. All right. And I won't take too much more of your time. But I did want to mention, I think Councilmember Austin mentioned that we started an after school program this year. We were blessed to get a contract to do an after school program about the Northpoint Apartments. And we completed a full year. We served over 70 to 100 children every day there. And we also, while we were doing Freedom School, we had a summer enrichment program going on at North Point as well. So we just want you to know that we are out there. We're actively engaged working with the youth in Long Beach, and we encourage you to check us out at our website. WW W dot success and challenge dot com and look up information about our programs and we hope that we've maybe inspired some of you who might want to call and volunteer. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor MacGregor. Thank you, Mayor. I want to extend my congratulations to the previous group for all the work they've been doing around the community. And of course, Reverend Leon and his wife, Paula. I've known them for many, many, many, many years. And you continue to be an amazing couple with all the work that you do. And I congratulate you on this presentation tonight. And I join Councilmembers Austin and Richardson in this recognition. And congratulations to you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I also would like to thank Councilman Richards in Austin for bringing this to the nation tonight. I would really want to give a special thanks to Dr. Leon Wood. And Paula was for all they have done for our youth and family throughout the city with this program. You know, it's educated on many levels and most important, it restores hope in many lives that participate in this. And I really don't see how Dr. Woods can be in many places that he goes to and still run a school. So efficient as this. Dr. Woods, I'll take my hat off to. I can't say I take my hat. I don't have it on tonight, but I just give you all the thanks and pleasure for that. Thank you so much, Doctor. What you and your wife and your staff, you guys are doing a great job. Thank you again, Councilman Austin. Yes. I'd like to also just just close by asking the woods and the staff and all the children to join us down here for a photograph. I can't tell you how important this Freedom School is and just how I've personally witnessed over the last few years young people who have come through the program and now who are coming back in and acting as as kind of camp counselors and leaders and inspiring young people, paying it forward. And so I loved to hope that this Freedom School is around for another 11 years and another 50 years doing and continues to grow throughout our city doing positive work for behalf of families throughout Long Beach. So if I could get Councilmember Richardson, the mayor, to join us up front for a photo, please. Okay. I'll call for public, obviously the vote real quick and also the photo call for public comment. Okay. Great. Please cast your vote and I will do the photo for to receive and file on this. Motion carries eight zero. Okay, we'll do the photo. What I'm doing. Why don't we just. Why don't we? Come on. Hey, man know. They always made me think. You look good. Yeah. Look good. You go out on the ground. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great job, Dr.. Okay. We're going to try to get through a couple two quick items as well, and then we'll get to our budget hearing. Since we're on a roll here, so why don't we go ahead and do item 22? Actually, let's actually let's do 24, which I believe there's a folks here for its 24. 24 is a Cultural Heritage Commission ordinance. So why don't we do 24 since I know there's people here for that and and then we'll go from there. So, Madam Clerk, item 24.

A resolution approving a proposed Sixth Amendment to Emergency Occupancy Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JBK Hotels, LLC to provide temporary housing for individuals experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 health crisis. Amends an occupancy agreement with JBK Hotels, LLC doing business as Aloft, by adding $2,447,200 for a new total of $13,267,500 and six (6) months for a new end date of 12-31-22 to provide 140 rooms to people experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 crisis, in Council District 9 (FINAN-202262777). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-27-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22. Councilmember Ortega called this item out at the 6-6-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 6-13-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0557

All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember Ortega, what would you like us to do with Council Resolutions 557 and 558 this evening? Thank you, Madam President. I want to invoke our Rule 3.7 that allows a member of council to hold those bills. I was not here when the issue came to committee, and I had a brief conversation with Brady Fisher this afternoon and received some information that I want to be able to digest and make sure that I've asked all the questions. A lot of them are related to what kind of exit plan that we will have ensuring that. Number one, the city general fund won't be expected to pick up the tab after all the federal funds are gone, but also to make sure that we are doing the right job with the people who are staying in many of the motels that we have contracted for during COVID. So I am invoking that rule. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Kinney. Thank you, council president. I very much appreciate this rule as a compromise we did with the administration about going from two readings to one, reading four contracts. And it is not up for debate. But I did just want to ask before we move on, if I can just get clarity on whether or not this one week delay will have any particular impact on folks being able to stay housed? I just wanted that to be known if anyone's going to be displaced because of this one week delay. I hope that's not the case, but I know we sometimes run down to the wire on these things, so I'd just like us to know before we move on, if that's okay. Sure, that sounds good. And we've got birds coming up here, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. Thank you. Hi, I'm Britta Fisher, the chief housing officer for the city of Denver. And it'll be cutting it close. To our contract date. But we've had a good relationship with the hotel, and I believe that we'll be. Fine in keeping people safely sheltered. Got it. I don't want to rehash our entire debate at committee. I would encourage anyone who was not able to observe it to maybe check back in. But one of the things that we discussed is the fact that the COVID emergency is still very much active, the number of city employees, one of whom will be presenting to us tomorrow remotely because she has covered it, is staggering the number of people around us. I believe I think last time I looked, the positivity was at 11%. I didn't look today, but hospitalizations have been up by several hundred percent. It was it was it was definitely going in the wrong direction. And so the urgency of continuing to protect really medically vulnerable residents, mostly elderly, but also people with oxygen mobility, disabilities, just a lot of vulnerability remains a challenge for our city. And I just want to say how important I think this contract is for that. Obviously, we're not voting tonight, but just because it is so front and center right now that the risk continues to be there. I just wanted to put it on the record. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember each Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President, since Director Fisher is here. I am not going to ask him anything, so please feel free to said. I wanted to thank two groups. First, I want to thank you and the Department of Housing Stability and I want to thank the folks who are representing of Dona, the Upper Downtown Neighborhood Association, including the the residents of the Spire. I've had multiple meetings with, with host and and multiple meetings with OB Dona and some of those have both groups. Some of those were separate. But but I really want to I want to thank the donor members for their collaboration and their willingness to have a reasoned dialog. I also want to thank housing stability for for helping with some of that subject matter expertize. And because I don't I don't know everything. It is very complicated topic and and so thank you housing stability for providing that subject matter expertize and helping us on council. Also our residents both who are in the aloft and those who are adjacent to. You'll have to understand some of the complexities that that this contract considers. Thank you, council president. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And for the viewing public. When the council member invokes our council rule. 3.7, no motion is required. And so Council Resolutions five, five, seven and five, five, eight have been postponed for one week. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens?

Message and order to accept for the benefit of the City of Boston Police Department, a donation of Bicycle helmets from the Boston Police Foundation, valued at Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two Dollars ($14,732.00) for the purpose of providing protective gear to the Boston Police Department.

BostonCC_03162022_2022-0378

Stuck number 0378 message in order to accept for the benefit of the City of Boston Police Department, a donation of bicycle helmets from the Boston Police Foundation valued at $14,732 for the purpose of providing protective gear to the Boston Police Department. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Counsel of Clarity, Chair of the Committee on Public Safety, Criminal Justice Counsel. Farrelly You have the floor. The President. As Chair, I rise to ask that the rules be suspended to pass Star Code 0378. It is a message in order for 14,732 to provide helmets in much needed protective gear for our police officers, particularly for the bicycle unit. And I know we all know as district and at large councils how popular that division is in all of our neighborhoods. So if we can get these resources and these helmets out to these officers as the weather is changing, so we get to see these cyclists out in the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel Clarity. Counsel Clarity. Removed suspension of the rules. Passage of docket 0378. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. The ayes have it. The docket has passed reports of public officers and others. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 03790380 together. Docket number 037. A notice was received from the City Clerk in accordance with Chapter six of the ordinances of 1979 regarding action taken by the Mayor on papers acted upon by the City Council at its meeting of February 16th, 2022, and docking number 0380 notice was received from the City Clerk in accordance with Chapter six of the

Amends a contract with Mortenson/Hunt/Saunders (MHS) by adding $20 million for a total contract in the amount of $385 million for material and labor cost adjustments associated with the completion of the Hotel and Transit Center Program. There is no additional time added to the contract (201204956). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends a contract with Mortenson/Hunt/Saunders (MHS) by adding $20 million for a total contract in the amount of $385 million for material and labor cost adjustments associated with the completion of the Hotel and Transit Center Program. There is no additional time added to the contract (201204956). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 4-14-15.

DenverCityCouncil_04272015_15-0222

we have had a lot of change orders, changing conditions in that time, labor and materials have gone up. That certainly is adding to increased costs of could those have been avoided? Well, better plans would have meant fewer change orders. I do want to mention that at one point when we set up a the airport, set up a change order committee, and they came to us informing us of this. And I asked at that time, Patrick Hack was the finance director, and I asked Patrick, I said, you know, I don't like change a lot if you decide you're going to do something one way, I would want to be sure it was absolutely necessary to change. I said, Who on this committee would approach things conservatively, i.e. most like me? And he sort of smiled and he said, well, he said, I will tell you who would who would represent your point of view. I would. That's Patrick Hecht speaking. Well, you know, Patrick Heck is nowhere around now, so that leaves concerns for me on change orders. I mean, I don't know if there's anybody there really watching each particular item, but I do know we've come up with on this particular contract a $20 million deficit. There are other things I started to think now those are the things that perhaps we couldn't have controlled. But there are things that as you look at construction projects and I say this more in just in case any of the candidates are watching, certainly for the citizens in this room. These are some of the things I hope that people will start to think about that also add to the cost of construction. First of all, the 1% for art does and. You might still want to do it. You might want to scale it to the size of the project. I don't know. But that is not set in concrete. It's something that you can always evaluate. Incentives were built into this this contract, I think at least 5 million, I think they mentioned. Do we give incentives for meeting time points when we have cost overruns? Should incentives have that extra part that it has still has to be a not only totally at the end on time and on budget, especially that on budget. One thing I have never been able to get a handle on is what the increased cost for the various levels of percentages of goals are in the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program. Now, I'm not saying that you don't say it's not worth doing, but I am saying it is absolutely inappropriate to me to have a program that continues to grow where nobody can tell me what the cost is. In construction. So those are some things I hope that the candidates ask questions. And for those who are elected here, I hope they will take up the banner of saying we want to keep costs under control. These have gotten too high for me. 500,000 or 500 million was what it was supposed to be. That's. All, I'm willing to go. And so I'll be voting against this. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. We had some lengthy discussion about this when it came to committee, and I had some additional questions. So I sat down and met with our folks from the airport to walk through my questions and concerns. And we have to finish this project, no doubt. And it's one that I think we're all going to be very proud of, and it's going to provide an additional service to our airport by folks being able to come in and attend a conference and not have to leave the airport and fly out quickly. For folks that may be delayed and may have to spend the night at the airport, sometimes the airlines will put you up for the night. So this might be one of those opportunities where you don't have to travel far. But I think the important thing for me is looking at the cost and they are what they are. But it's important for us to actually know all the real costs. So when you hear that the cost of doing, you know, the the hotel project is only now at 544 million. That doesn't factor in. The bridges and the roads that had to be done. And, you know, so for me, it's. Looking at the big picture, we would not have otherwise done those roads and bridges if it were not for doing this project. And and so when we talk about what the total cost is, it's important for us to know all of those costs. And I was able to sit down and and look at what those all are. And, you know, I'm supportive of the project moving forward. Not happy that it's cost more money. But we also know that because there's so much construction going on in this city, that. Everybody who's building is having a hard time trying to find workers to do their projects. And when they have to travel 25 miles out and pay the cost of driving back and forth, that adds to the cost of construction for this particular project. So my only point in in making comment is that when we talk about this project, it's important to know the total cost of what we have had to spend to do this. I do have one question and I'm not sure who from DIA can address this, but given the fact that we're adding $17 million in 2015 and. Kim Dae mentioned that it's coming out of IP funds. I'd like to know what sippy projects are not going to get done in 2015 because we're having to use. $17 million of CIP monies for this to complete this project through the end of of the timeframe. So, Stu, are you the one that wants to answer this question for me? This is Stew Williams. Good evening, members of Council Mr. Williams, senior. Vice president of the Hotel and Transit Center in special projects for Denver International Airport. The actual funding of the shortfall for the Hotel and Transit Center program is coming out of cash reserves, at least initially. How that's handled out ultimately is part of an overall debt structure, or whether it will just be done through cash has not yet been determined. So at this point in time, this particular cost did not bump either projects out of the list. Okay. I'm just a little baffled because I thought when I had asked the question in committee, Kim Dae had said that it would come out of the CIPA budget. It's basically. Being reimbursed from reserves and then into the. CIPA. But it wasn't like the line four line that we had to deduct to a particular project for this. It was part of the CCP plan. So we're keeping a copy budget hole by taking the money from the cash reserves and replenishing that. That's correct. Okay. So. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you again, councilman. Thank you. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in Councilwoman Ortega in in supporting this bill. We could spend a lot of time talking about the the costs associated with the hotel and transit project and what costs should be rolled into the price tag and what costs shouldn't be credited to that account. Because, as Councilwoman Ortega points out, some things were added to the scope of the work out there that aren't part of the hotel and transit center. We could also talk about the costs of the various sort of add on features of the program, the MWB program, the 1% for art. We could also talk about the impact of the the rise in construction pricing. There's a there's there's plenty of grist for this particular mill. But I think what's important to understand here is that we are facing a certain amount of cost increases to complete this project. And what the team out at DIA has done has very elegantly tied up the end game for this project neatly in a package. So we know now precisely the cost that we're dealing with. And all change orders are wrapped into even though we don't may not know what those change orders are, all the change orders will be wrapped up into this price. And so we can move forward with the last was it six months, eight months of this project and know exactly what we're getting and know exactly what the price is. So there may be question marks that, you know, the lines of inquiry we could pursue with respect to the financing and construction of this all along. But here at the end game, I think this is a very elegant solution to get us to a neat, tidy and expeditious conclusion to this project. And so I hope everyone will vote for this final package. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments or questions on two 2229 Madam Secretary? Raquel Potts. No. Carnage. Layman Lopez AI. Montero Nevitt Ortega I. Rob Shepherd I. Susman Brown. I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 11 Ice, one nay. 11 eyes, one nay. Council Bill 222 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, that was the last one. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the all other bills for introduction are already published. Councilman Shepard, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions 206 and 248 series of 2015 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN Hi, Brown. Hi.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy in connection with a Retail Sales Tax Incentive Agreement with HTL Automotive, Inc., dba Hooman Toyota of Long Beach, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083; and Authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to implement a 15-year Sales Tax Incentive Agreement with HTL Automotive, Inc., dba Hooman Toyota of Long Beach, for the relocation and development of a Toyota dealership to be located at 3399 E. Willow Street. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_09012015_15-0846

Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you again. Where there's good amount of hearings this morning or this after this morning's evening hearing. Number four, it's going to be morning by the time the meeting's over. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy in connection with the. Retail sales tax. Incentive agreement. With whom? In Toyota of Long Beach, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083 and authorize the city manager to execute all documents necessary to implement a 15 year sales tax incentive agreement. With whom? In Toyota of Long Beach for the relocation and development of a Toyota dealership to be relocated at 3399 East Willow Street, District five. This item requires an oath. Thank you. If anyone's going to speak on this, please, please rise to you. And each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. So help you God. Please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council again. This item will be held. The staff report will be done by Mike Conway. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This target in Vail involves a sales tax sharing agreement with HTL Automotive, also known as human Toyota. This item was previously brought to City Council on October 21st, 2014, authorizing the city manager to enter a retail sales tax incentive agreement with human Toyota to offset certain expansion costs for relocating the former beach Toyota dealership from the traffic circle to Redondo and Willow at the former Cadillac site. Legislation that became effective as of January 2014. Amends Amend the government code section 53083 to require a public hearing for any actions by the city council that result in a city subsidy. Consequently, this retail sales tax incentive agreement is being brought back to city council in conformance with the new legislation. So as background, Hooman, Toyota acquired Beach Toyota in 2008, whom and also acquired the former Cadillac site and two adjoining properties that Redondo Avenue on Wall Street for nearly $17 million in 2013. Cost to reconstruct and remodel. Two of the properties are estimated at $8.4 million, bringing total project costs of nearly $25 million. Reconstruction of the former course Cadillac site are underway. Since 1996, Beach Toyota was a party to a retail sales tax incentive agreement with the city, and that agreement was amended to expire in September of 2013. The sales tax base for the expired agreement was $135,000, pardon me, in November 2013, whom and Toyota approached the city seeking to reinstate the expired retail sales tax incentive agreement to assist in offsetting costs related to the relocation and reconstruction project. Staff brought forward this request to the City Council on October 21st, 2014. Raised the base from 135000 to 270000, above which sales tax revenues can be shared. It is estimated that over the 15 year term of the retail sales tax incentive agreement, that the city will save approximately $8 million in whom and Toyota will receive approximately $4 million. In order to protect the existing businesses in Long Beach, preserve and grow jobs within the city and enhance future city revenues. Staff request that City Council conclude the public hearing and authorize the city manager to enter a sales tax sharing agreement with Taylor Automotive. And this concludes my report and answer questions. Before I go back to the council and close the hearing. Is there any public comment? Seeing none. Councilwoman Pryce. Okay. So just making the motion the second of the motion to be comments. Now, councilman Mongo. Our community has been so excited for this new location. I know that the construction has taken quite a long time, but this new location will bring a lot of opportunity to the city in terms of an expanded array of opportunities of different types and brands of cars that you'll be able to purchase. And so while it has been quite a wait, it will be worth the wait. We're excited to make this again another opportunity for more jobs and more revenue to the city. So excited about this opportunity. Thank you. Councilmember Brown. I just had a question for staff. You mentioned it, but I just wanted clarification here. This this item came before council and on October 21st, I believe, was the date you gave. And that is six months prior to the special election where and after which I took office. So I had nothing to do with this item. Okay. That's correct. Okay. I will not be supporting it tonight. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There's motion on the floor. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries eight one. Okay. Thank you. Next, we're on to our final hearing of the night, which is the continuation of the budget hearing. Some turn this over now to Mr. West.

Petition of City Investors IV, LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley in Block 89, D.T. Denny's 5th Addition to North Seattle, bounded by Westlake Avenue North, 9th Avenue North, Denny Way and John Street.

SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CF 313894

The Report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 22 Clerk File 313894. The petition of City Investors for LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley and block 89. Denise fifth addition to North Seattle, bounded by Westlake Avenue, North Ninth Avenue, North Denny Way and John Street. The committee recommends the full council grant the petition as condition. Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. The petitioner is seeking a subterranean elevator case as a part of a commercial residential project with two towers on an entire block in the South Lake Union neighborhood. The block is bordered on the South, by Denny way, by John Street on the North Lake on the East Ninth Avenue on the West and unimproved alley runs north and south, and it bisects the entire block. Generally, a full vacation is necessary only when a building is proposed atop the right of way, and when the petitioner seeks to gain an extra land area in order to increase the building floor area. But the vacation is not sought for those reasons, and instead is requested to allow the construction of a garage and loading access area and a single location from John Street under the block rather than using the alley. Given the traffic conditions on Denny Way, Daly is not usable for through traffic. The alley would instead continue to function as a public pedestrian access area, open space, and would continue to contribute to the network of open spaces in the neighborhood. For that reason, under the street location policies, public ownership of the right away is a preferred method. The public benefits that are being proposed includes the alleyway right away will be improved for pedestrians and bicyclists and will not be open to motor vehicles, landscaping and public improvements to the triangular portion right of way at the corner of Ninth Avenue and Denny Way will be constructed at the petitioners expense. Green Street improvements will be provided on John Street and a voluntary step back and streetscape improvements has been offered and will be constructed on Denny Way. Street streetscape improvements on Ninth Avenue, North and West Lake Avenue North will also be constructed at the petitioners expense. One of the concerns that came up is that because the Surface Alley right of way will still be in public ownership, but the abutting properties will be designed in such a way that it makes both the public and the privately owned areas appear to be one. It will make it difficult for the average person to know what is public right away and what is private property. So what the Transportation Committee said and requested at the committee meeting was to include a condition, and you'll see that condition now set out in the vacation petition itself or the is the planned use and development agreement that it is Section seven that the applicant has to incorporate clear and obvious design cues to delineate, delineate between the public property and their private property. The condition requires that the applicant work with the Design Commission and the Commission for People with Disabilities and the Department of Transportation to include design elements in wayfinding signage to more clearly defined public space. At the committee meeting, Councilmember O'Brien abstained from voting on this matter. I don't know if the language has included in the property use and development agreement would satisfy his concerns. Certainly it is a strong statement of. Ahmed out of the petitioner that they do clearly delineate between the public property and the private property, and that they work with the design commission, the Commission for People with Disabilities, and has started to ensure that that does happen. The rest of the committee members who attended did support approval with that condition being added. Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of granting the petition petition as conditioned vote I by those opposed vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as conditioned and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Immediately following this council meeting, the council's central Waterfront Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Committee will meet and that meeting will begin at 325. Are there any other items to come before? Oh, that's right. Item number one. Yes. We'll return now to item number one on the agenda. If the clerk could read that in. And thank you for the reminder. Agenda item one Council Bill 118578 relating to the Construction and Land Use Fund, adding a new section to 2.202.070 to the Seattle Municipal Code introduced November 30th, 2015. Thank you, Councilmember Lakota. Second time is the term and more prep for this time. Okay, so this bill amends this year municipal code to allow a transfer of funds from the construction and land use if authorized by ordinance. Among other things, the Construction Land Use Fund receives revenue from judgments for construction of land use code violations. Generally, judgment revenue is used for cost recovery. This bill, however, would enable transfer of revenue from judgments related to the Cicely properties for other uses. Right. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 118578. Back shot by Gordon Gonzalez, Carol Licata, Rasmussen and President Burgess seven in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Now, is there any other business to come before the council? We will adjourn and then reconvene in 5 minutes as the Select Committee on the Central Waterfront. Thank you.

Recommendation to refer to the Public Health and Housing Committee for consideration of renaming a section of Channelview Park to Ashlee’s Park in memory of Ashlee Armond pursuant to Administrative Regulation AR8-7.

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0926

The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. Item 15, please. Item 15. Communication from Councilwoman Price. Recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Government Personnel and Election Oversight Committee for considerations of renaming a section of Channel View Park to Ashley Park in memory of Ashley Almond. Thank you, Councilman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our office has received hundreds of emails in support of this item, and I look forward to having it go through the process tonight so that we can get feedback and public outreach and input on this proposed item. I want to thank, first of all, Officer Rich Almond, who is one of the officers who works in the East Division as well as I'm sure he sports and other divisions. But Officer Almond is a tremendous resource for the community and he and his family. Suffered a tragic loss when their daughter Ashley lost her life at this location. And the location serves as a place of refuge for a lot of people. And it is in his honor and in her honor that we ask the Parks Commission to consider this item. And I want to just stop for a moment to see if there's any public input on this item and to ask my council colleagues to please consider supporting this item, having it through the process. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a motion in a second on this, please? Mr. Mayor, I would motion I put it on the council chat. Okay. I have I have a motion. I'm happy to motion, if that's okay. Yep. I have. Kelly. Councilwoman Pryce and Councilmember Austin, please. Thank you very much. Let's do a public comment. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 15 in person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. See. Now, that concludes public comment. Thank you. Oh, couldn't do or call the police. Oh, I'm certain, Councilman Allen. I just want to say thank you so much, Councilwoman Price, for bringing this forward. Just reading this was really emotional for me. I went to high school at Long Beach Poly with a dredge. I was a police officer with them. And I just know how tragic. Losing his. Daughter was. And to honor her in this way is just tremendous. So just couldn't be more. Just honored to see you do this. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. And I will be supporting this today. Thank you. And I come from an astronaut. You were the second of the motion. The additional comments. No, I a second of the emotional support support and I look forward to this deciding going through the process, coming back in giving further comments. Thank you for looking forward. It's great. Thank you very much. There's a motion and a second and we'll do the roll call vote. Councilwoman Cindy has. I. Councilwoman Allen, I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman Sabrina. I count women. Mango I. Count women. Sara I Councilmember Muranga High. Councilman Austin. High. Vice Mayor Richardson high. The motion is carried nine two. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and do item 31, please.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to prepare an application for the 2020 SAFER Grant for submission by the March 12, 2021 deadline. For this funding cycle, the grant will provide $4.8 million to cover the cost of 12 FTE entry level firefighters for Engine 17 over three years to fall within an estimated timeframe of mid-FY 22 through mid-FY 25. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03092021_21-0206

16, please. Communication from Councilman Super not Councilman Allen. Councilman Price, Councilwoman Sara Recommendation to direct City Manager to prepare an application for the 2020 Safer grant for submission by the March 12th, 2021 deadline. Citywide Construction Grants. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and I always appreciate the opportunity to extoll the virtues of Fire Engine 17. First, I'd like to thank my council colleagues for joining me on this agenda item Cyndi Allen, Susie Price and Sally Sara. As the clerk just read, the recommendation is pretty narrow in focus. We're simply directing the city manager to prepare the application for submission to FEMA next week. If there, I'm open to a further discussion on funding, but tonight the urgency is to get this vote accomplished so the application can be submitted. Following in the agenda item. Within the discussion, we included what the grant is. It's a grant of $4.8 million over a three year period, and that actually cuts in half the cost of operating engine 17 over that three year period. So it's a significant grant under background in the agenda item. We kind of explained the response zones for four engine 17, a very wide area squarely in the center of District four, also directly impacting Districts five and three, also measuring it diagonally from the north west. It spans from the Redondo Avenue in the 405 all the way southeast to seventh in Bellflower, a huge, huge area and but citywide. Having engine 17 in place cuts those response times citywide by a huge amount. And within Seventeen's area, it's up to a minute and a half that it cuts down with it with it in inaction . We also look through an equity lens at the item and we mentioned that. Engine 17 response areas includes a zip code of 90804 and 9081590804 is the most densely populated zip code in Long Beach and Engine 17 response area also abuts the response area of Engine ten. Engine ten is located in District six in central Long Beach, and it is one of the busiest engine companies in the city. And when I say that, that that's an historical statement also, I think probably for over 50 years, Engine ten has been either one or two in total number of calls in the area. It's critically important because twofold when Engine 17 is not in place. Engine ten is responsible for calling on parts of Engine 17 area. So that takes that very busy fire engine out of central Long Beach out of their area of response. The statement of urgency I already mentioned, and that was that this application has to be submitted next week. I also didn't mention in the agenda item, but I'd like to make a statement about the intangibles not measurable, but I think they're very, very important. And Station 17 is located right next to the Captain David Rosa Training Center. So every recruit that trains that are training center gets to watch Station 17 on a daily basis. And I think it's critically important that these recruits, these rookies, see a fully functioning fire station, one that includes a fire engine. And just as a side note, there are training center. This is a second training center we've had in the city of Long Beach, and it's been there since 1964. The first training center in the city was located right next to Engine Hour Station ten, where those recruits got to see that busy fire engine functioning on a daily basis. I'm not going to take my first 5 minutes. I'd like to reserve some time for any type of discussion after and emergency. If you'd like to go to public comment that that works for me. That's great. Let's do that. Let's do is there I think we do have one member of the public and then we'll go back to the council. Yes, we have Rex Pritchard. Yes. Rex Pritchard, president of Long Beach Firefighters. I too want to thank council members, supervisor Alan Price and Turrell for bringing this item forward. It is urgent as the date for submission is this Friday, and this is an urgent action that, again, I'm going to just keep my comments brief. Council member Super nine made very good points and our ability to bring nearly $5.2 million to help fund resources. The International Association of Firefighters work diligently with the Biden administration in making the 2020 Safer program even better than it was in 2018. And we appreciate everything the Biden administration did in allowing the no cost sharing aspect coming forward so we can support and encourage council members to support this item. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. We have a motion that comes from a supernova and it's a second by Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to support Councilmember Superdog in this item and in supporting this motion. Engine 17 has been a priority for Councilman Superdog for really since since he started his service on the Long Beach City Council. And as he mentioned, it services multiple different districts, a number of different diverse communities that have different response needs from the fire department throughout the city. And I think that having a plan for Engine 17 on a short term plan and a long term plan is obviously in the best interests of the city, but also in the best interest of our fire department and our residents, because having Engine 17 there will take the stress off of the nearby stations that are now doing a lot of the responding and have been for some time. And the response times, although they've gotten better, certainly need to be a focus and a priority for our fire department. So I do know that District three among other districts would be a beneficiary of a long term restoration plan for Engine 17, and therefore I support that item on behalf of my district and of course, on behalf of the city. Councilman's in the house. Thank you. I really want to thank Council member Steve Bernoff for championing this item. I know that this is something he's very passionate about and I really admire his commitment to maintaining these emergency services in this community. I know that we are really going through a difficult financial situation as a city, but I'm certainly hoping that this grant funding will help to address these issues, that we can explore this as an option in providing these services to our residents in the fourth District and the surrounding communities. Thank you again, Mr. Cooper. Now, council members are not for championing this item. Thank you for asking. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and to Councilmember Supernova for bringing this item forward. As you all know, in our budget, our discussions in the last year, we had a considerable amount of conversation about super grants in our past super grants and the potential for future super grants. We know that this grant comes with some some level of risk. But at the same time, we do value and pride ourselves as being a city who puts public safety as a high priority, and particularly our fire department, as they seek to save lives and be heroes every day in our communities. We went through a period of time, I would say ten years ago or so, where they were cuts. We lost an engine 17, we lost engine 12 and rescues as well. In this council, previous council worked through Measure A to restore of many of those services. We do not want to reverse course. We want to continue to provide the excellent public safety services that we promised our constituents. Now, this the safer ground is, I understand, a little bit different than the one in 2018. I wanted to give the city manager an opportunity to explain the differences between the 2018 SAFER Grant and the 2012, and specifically where we're both the flexibility of how is this 2020 Saber grant more or less flexible than the 2018 Super Grant? And, and then allow you to answer that question. But I also want to just make a statement that I think. It is certainly worthwhile to apply for this grant as an option to consider. This is I mean, it doesn't hurt to apply for especially for money from from the federal government. We do know that there are strings attached. But this is this is a prudent move, I believe, to to help us outline a strategy moving forward for our fire services. I'm a city manager. Can you answer the question? Yes, it does have slightly different scenarios compared to the 2018 grant. It is a little bit more flexible. We've outlined a lot of that in our memo, but I'll have Lynda Tatum talk about the specific comparison between those two. Good evening. Council Member Austin and other members of Council. Probably the the two most significant differences in this grant is that it it gives the city more flexibility. As you recall, the last grant had a very specific timeline for performance. And in this case, while it does have that same three year timeline for performance, there is the ability for the city to request an extension of the grant without any penalties. The current grant establish essentially says that if you can't perform, you'd have to return the money. So that's one significant difference. The other difference is that with the staffing, the staffing level requires you to add in, in this case, the 12 positions. We're asking for it, ask you to add those 12. In addition to whatever the budget positions are, the 2020 grant says it's the the 12 in addition to whatever the staffing level that is in place at the time of the grant application. So that again is, is, is, is significantly that's a significant benefit to the city and requires us to add fewer staffing. So those are probably the two most significant components that differ from the grant. But overall, we feel that it's a lot more flexible than the 2020 grant provisions. Well, thank you for that clarification. And yeah, I have no further questions. So my comments. Thank you. Councilwoman Allen. Yes. I thank you, Mayor, and also thank you, Councilmember Supernova, for bringing this forward. And I agree with all of your comments. I'd like to see us apply for this 2020 Safer grant. It's more flexible and it has fewer requirements than previous grants. And if we were awarded the ground, it's almost $5 million, which is a lot of money. I do understand some of the risks, given our fiscal position and future uncertainly uncertainties. But nevertheless, I think this grant is a huge opportunity and I am confident that our city staff can find fiscal opportunities to ensure that we can take full advantage of this funding opportunity. I know that there's an urgency to get this application done because we have a deadline just right around the corner. But just because we're applying for the grant doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to get it. So in the event that we do get it and it gets approved, does that mean that we have to accept the grant? Let's remember, this is America. No. So this is an application process. We would then, if awarded, bring it back to the council and you would take a second vote to decide whether or not you're in a fiscal position to accept the grant. And we expect that if they stay on schedule to happen in September. Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much. I look forward to supporting this. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Happy to support this application. I certainly want to lift up the improvements to the program. I remember, you know, we've we've had this discussion probably over the last decade about the safer grants, the fire safer grants and the challenge that they provide. Glad to hear from Mrs. Tatum about some of those improvements. And we want to continue to work with the federal government to continue to improve the program. But I think this is the right thing to do. And Councilmember Supernormal, good job on the tap on the equity lands. I really appreciate seeing that your item as a well thought out item and I love the way that you presented it. So I'm happy to support this thing. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Super. Nice council member, Superhot. As you know, I've been a champion for the Safer grants since I've been added to the Council. I think it's a great source of revenue to support our first responders and a way to expand. I appreciate that we're going for 4.8 million. But if you look at the SAFER website, there are entities and cities that have received significantly more than that. And so if we're going to go in, make sure we know that we're going all in, that some cities get upwards of 8 to 13 million. And I know size does matter, but if there is a need that fits in the grant and we're going for it, let's just be sure that we have a really great write up and ask for as much as we actually need and can use. And we have a lot of need right now. So thank you. Super not for bringing it forward and I look forward to finding out the outcome. Thank you. Councilman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank council member Superman for bringing this item forward. And I'm happy to sign on to support this application to the SAFER Grant. Given the equity lens and its impact in District six without Engine 17, it takes Engine ten, which is as Council member Superman shared earlier out of a very already busy and high need area. And so I also just think it's great to explore grant opportunities and to address increasing needs given our current situation with the pandemic. And I really look forward to making sure we meet the deadline and and hearing that we received guidance so that it can come back before council for us to do another look at it. So thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes council comment. And we have a motion on the second controversy for now. Please, let's catch the votes. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. Catwoman price. I thank you district for. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I District eight. Hi. District nine. I'm ocean cares. Thank you. Every time certain item 18.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Belmont Plaza Pool Demolition Project, and consider Statutory Exemption SE14-01. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0272

Item 15 is a report from the City Manager Development Services and the Parks and Recreation Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Belmont Plaza Poole Demolition Project. So moved here, there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Mr. Vice Chair. Before we make a motion, I would like to add one thing for the public record. Absolutely. Ms.. BULLOCK Thank you. If I may, I want to make it clear that the the activities that we're conducting under this demolition are required activities that are necessary for all demolitions. They are not mitigation measures in any way, shape or form, and that all necessary actions will be implemented in compliance with local, state and federal regulations. I just want to put that into the record. As we expected. Yes. Thank you, sir. Great. Thank you. Seeing no public comment on the item and no council comment. There was a motion on the floor. Please vote. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Came next item, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0864

Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. As any public comment on this hearing. Seeing none. Please cast your vote. And I'm a yes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. Let's have hearing number two. Please report from economic and Property Development recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution. Continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for the period of October 1st, 2016 through September 30th, 2017, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one year term. District three. Thank you. And there is no oath required here. Is there a staff report? Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the City Council providing the report will be Jim Fisk, Development Project Manager. Honorable Vice Mayor and city council members. This item is the annual approval of the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area and report and ongoing assessment. On August 2nd, 2016. City Council approved a resolution granting approval to set today's date for a public hearing. The recommended action on this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment nor significant changes in proposed activity. Therefore, staff requests that City Council receive the supporting documentation of record. Approve the resolution, continue the levy of the assessment, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for an additional year. That concludes my report. Thank you. And Councilwoman Pryce, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Jim for the excellent work that he does with this particular committee and with the entire Belmont Shore area. And just without him, I think we'd be in a lot of trouble because he keeps it all together. He's like the glue and we're very grateful for that. So thank you, Jim. And this this item is an incredible contribution to the city, and I'm happy to support it. And I asked my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you. As any public comment on this item. Seeing none. The hearing is closed. Please cast your vote.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Community Development 24062814)

AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1067

And these are a really good fit for young or emerging artists. Not all of them have are operating under nonprofits. So making this change would give the Public Art Commission more flexibility to fund emerging artists. The park, however, still intends to maintain that nonprofit requirement for grants over $2,000. They would just do that through a series of public art guidelines rather than written into the ordinance. And finally, the current ordinance requires that any expenditure from the Public Art Fund be approved by City Council. The park is recommending that City Council approval only be needed for expenditures above the purchase authority of the city manager, which is $75,000. So this would allow the park to make small changes to public art grants and to implement smaller grants and grant programs in a more flexible and efficient manner. Of course, City Council approval of budget appropriation from the Public Art Fund will continue to be required. The image here shows the fabrication of Palomar, which will be a 12 foot tall bronze squid that will be located at Alameda Point near the heated building. In retrospect, the installation of this artwork this winter or next spring's next. So in April of 2021, the Planning Board also reviewed the proposed changes. They made some excellent recommendations which are listed here. We've incorporated these comments into the draft revised ordinance and in May the Planning Board voted to recommend City Council adopt the proposed changes to the ordinance. There was one concern that the Planning Board actually brings to City Council for consideration. Specifically, they were concerned that the ordinances exemption for 100% affordable housing might result in less public art and affordable housing projects and therefore inequitable outcomes for the folks who live there. One suggestion that the Planning Board made with that was that that exemption only apply if inclusion of the art is an economic impediment to project development. Another way to address this might be to direct the Public Art Commission to consider proximity to affordable housing or other equity measures when selecting public art. And both of these ideas are listed as alternatives in the staff report. Next slide, please. So staff recommendation is that City Council adopts the proposed city wide text amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance to modify public art requirements. This image shows a new artwork entitled Beacon by artist Stuart Godfrey that is planned for Waterfront Park at site. Next slide, please. So that concludes my presentation. We're going to end with a piece entitled Title Art by Adrian Segal. This is an 84 foot long concrete sculpture that will be placed at 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway overlooking the bay next winter. And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time and welcome any questions. Thank you. Let's. Are you getting my echo or. Okay, I was. Thank you, Miss Jerky. That was. I love all the visuals in. In your presentation, so thank you for sharing that exciting public art with us. I have one question. What is Deaccession? So the exception is the removal of public art from the city's public art collection. Okay. Okay. Have we done that? We have not done that yet. Generally, there are a variety of ways that you can do that. You can sell the artwork, you can. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to you might have to destroy the artwork if it's degraded to such a point that it that it can't be restored. But there are a few different ways to handle that. But it is a process that's governed by state and federal law and is a lengthy process. Wow. Okay. Thank you for that. And madam, quick, do we have public figures on this item? We do not. Okay. Well, we'll close public comment then on this item and we'll just go straight to council questions, comments, a motion. Councilmember Knox, I think Councilmember de SAC. Thank you for all the great work. To you. I know that it's been a lot of work that's gone into this and to our various boards and commissions. I did want to just make one suggestion. I am prepared to support it. With that, I would like to propose one minor change, which is that while I am in support of being able to move forward within the under the the sorry without council approval onto the city manager's spending, I do think that there should be a requirement that the City Council is notified of what that is and what it looks like, so that if a call for review is needed because the folks who are going to get the calls if something goes in that has a negative impact on our on our community, are going to be the council folks. And it won't be a good look to say, Oh, sorry, we just didn't know about it. I am doubtful that we will get too many calls for review, but I think it might be a way to to balance that that need of just making the council aware at the same time that allowing that the expenditure to move forward quickly without having to delay for council approval. But other than that, great work and I'd be happy to. So I see the city attorney. So I would say, Mr. Sheen, thank you. Thank you for that. Just look at the right side of the screen. I was waiting for Miss Florida State to remind me. Yes. Councilmember, I just have a quick question. Your direction can be implemented two ways. It could be by a council direction, two staff or it could be it could be also done by actually amending the ordinance. That's before you tonight. Do you have a preference on which way you like to proceed? I think if we could move forward with this as a first reading, with that minor adjustment as first reading, I'd like it in the ordinance because I think it's just clear to have it there rather than hoping that somebody remembers that that was the direction, which I'm sure all of you will, but someday you all of you will have found even better jobs. Okay. And would that still constitute a first reading Mr. Show? Yes, it's a minor enough. I just want to make sure we capture it if we're going to modify the ordinance. I always want to make sure we capture the. Juror. Counsel's direction. Councilmember Knox, why, if I may, may I suggest that the modification be in subsection F of 30 dash 98.10. That is the subsection that talks about city manager expenditures. And perhaps we just add a sentence to reflect your direction, which is that any approvals of expenditure by the city manager shall be the city manager shall promptly notify the Council of such expenditure. Does that work for you? As long as. I guess. My only question is if the city manager's approved, the expenditure is there. Has the expenditure been made and therefore isn't called for review? Because my interest is in giving giving future council people the ability to to raise their hand and say, whoa, that is really offensive. I can't believe nobody cut that. I think we should have a discussion about this before it gets spent in and and put up in town. Let's say I'm just using a very hyperbolic example. I'm sure Governor Christie would never do that. But I'm just saying, you know, they did. So I guess my question is, is there a place is there a place before the city manager or is it possible to give the city manager the ability to approve it with a ten day? You know, it doesn't go into effect for ten days or five days. I don't think it has to be like weeks and weeks and weeks of review. I just want an start in it. Let's hear what the city manager has to say. Mr. LEVITT I've done not on public art, but similar type of structure where I have to inform the council ten days. And I don't know if you can put by ordinance or direction. They inform the council ten days prior to approving the purchase, saying I'm intending to approve the purchase. If a council wants to appeal that approval, they can do it within that ten day frame and then it doesn't actually get approved and signed up and it goes straight to council. That would be perfect. It. And this butler. Do you want to hear about minor, minor changes? Like, for example, we came back to council for 15,000, a 1500 dollar increase in to pay for overages on one of the contracts. Do you also want to hear about those? What and. Before? COUNCILMEMBER That's right. Answers I think you're talking about actual installations, aren't you, that things that you would be concerned that neighbors might complain about or. Um, but, you know, to to Ms.. Butler's question, what would you what would you say? I. It might get too complicated to start trying to put together a list of what is and isn't. To me, I'm much more interested from my standpoint on this one. This is approving their work gets approved and it's a $55,000 artwork. I just think that should be alerted rather than he used to come here. I'm just saying give us the heads up that it's coming forward. If it's if it's an overage of within 10% or something like that, and it's still under the thing, you know, I don't think this isn't about is it worth it? It's it's much more about the artwork. So I think that in this Butler's example, no, I wouldn't personally need to see that. I just don't know if it makes it too complicated to try it out. Okay. Let's go back to Mr. Leavitt. Yeah. The way I understood the concern was it's about the artwork, not necessarily the expenditure being five or 10,000. It was artwork and the impact or concerns that could grow in the community. And if that council member wanted to bring up for review, that would do that. And that's what the ten day suggestion was regarding. So if there's a way to phrase that so that it's not change orders and things like that, I think that that would be great. And then just take me one step further. Councilmember Knox Right. So say the someone in the public says, I hate that it comes to the council. What is the council do? I don't think somebody in the well, I mean, somebody the public could say that they hate it. It doesn't go up. So this is this is before the before the city manager has been authorized to make the payment to make the payments. So this is basically right now, the Public Art Commission makes a decision and then comes to the council for our vote of approval. What's proposed is we don't ever see the artwork if it's under the city manager's threshold. I'm saying give us the opportunity to at least see the artwork and have a Oh my gosh, we shouldn't be putting that up then if it's up, it's already been paid for. So we're outside of this process. It's no different than what happens if it happens today. Okay, I see what you're saying. I just like I said, I should have had a really simple way call for review is to counsel people. We have a process for that. And just I think we should just I don't see it getting used very often, but I can see it being the kind of thing that people wish it had existed. And it does become that one problem in 15 years. All right. Other. Councilmember. DE So just maybe two or three points. The first point is it sounds like we're almost creating a whole new animal called public art. A call for review. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying. I'd be careful about that. The second thing is, do we have a sense if we could sample the number of projects that required public art? Do we have a sense, at least, you know, as to and I'm not asking you to be precise, do we have a sense as to how many were below 75,000 ? Because I kind of want to get how many and what's the universe. So what percentage tends to be below 75,000? Do we do we have a notion about that? Miss Butler. Mr. Key. The the expenditures from the Public Art Fund are typically what we're talking about right now in terms of bringing to council. And we have at this point given $150,000 grant, one $50,000 grant, and I would say the rest were under 75,000. So that includes two or three public art grants and then about 16 small grants between five and 10,000. That's my sense is I got to believe that, you know, where we're giving, you know, kind of small things that are like below. It's just that's just my hunch, which kind of like. Suggests to me that a lot of the I don't know. You know, I think my thing is I sure hate to give up counts of a prerogative as if it was my for good. If I don't want to give it up, it's getting late so that that's just I do sense. And with this because the public art fans are not always going to be spent on an installation of an actual physical art piece. Is that correct? It could also be performance art. So is that something that would come to the council if it's under the city council, a city manager's approval threshold? Councilmember decide. Oh, I just have another question. And so if you wanted to answer. I thought you were going to answer mine. No, no, I'm not. Okay, well, let's go sequentially. Where is is that councilman, is that what you would contemplate any expenditure under? I would have it be any expenditure under the for for a new piece of art, for a newly approved piece of art is how I would say it. So again, back to Miss Butler's example. If the price goes up 1500 dollars, I don't want to have to I don't think we need to be reviewing that type of . That that physical art as opposed to, say, the waterways project. That rhythmic, I. Would say all of it. All of it. Just I don't expect it to be. I'm just saying. Give us the opportunity. Is that kind of Councilmember de point? Yeah, we do. Currently, the buck stops here and I think we're just giving us ourselves the opportunity to raise our hand and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, I've got a problem with that. Whether it's dance or sculpture. I think that the form of the art to me doesn't. Change. That doesn't change that. There could be a concert. To account for her death. So I think my basic question is, has there been any harm in the fact that we know that that the counts I mean, have we somehow slowed up the process? I guess what's what's. Kind of like behind I mean and I don't mean that in a nefarious way, but but what's the source of what I mean? Yeah, I hope you get my question. It's getting late. And I to go with Mr. Leavitt and then this butler. And you're muted, Mr. Levitt. I'll defer to Ms.. Butler first. Okay, Miss Butler. So we've had to come back on change orders. And for small grants like the small grant projects, we couldn't go forward. It was the small grant projects. We were giving out $2,000 grants and we gave out 20 of them for 2000 or less. And so that project could not go forward until we we came to city council and said, we're doing this grant program. We had a 1500 dollars change order that happened. And I. I'm not sure, but I believe it was over the break. I know that the city manager has powers over the break, but we had to wait for that to go forward. We we have another change that we would bring forward to you. A change order that we would bring forward to you. That will take at least a month. It usually takes about six weeks with what the staff reports. I think if anything, it's it's really that change orders that really get get us hold us up. So and and the small grants. It would be nice to do those if if there's a choice. If I can comment on that, my. And thank you, Mrs. Butler. My two comments on that would be. Okay. I could understand change orders because when it comes to change orders, what that means is we have an art that we have adopted and accepted. So it's somewhere or and for whatever reason, you know, they they they are they spent $3,000 more. So I can understand how we don't. But but in terms of. New art, even if it's like. A whole slew of 15, $3,000 each art. I still feel like that's the council prerogative. So I'll just leave it at that. Okay. And the. Mr. Levy, we'll hear from you and then we're going to take a vote, because we do have one more item we're trying to get to before midnight. And this is huge. So, Mr. Levy, then Councilor Spencer. Based on the comments I've heard, I would recommend that maybe you just changed the ordinance to that under 75,000 or let's say 10% for change orders the city manager could approve. But for original art, even small grants that has to come to council that I maintain that. There's a thought councilor for her, Spencer. Though I do have concerns about not having an ability to review proposed projects. However, I think the city manager's comments might very well guess that. Okay. Okay. Let's count through our days, I guess. But I do want to say I hear what Ms.. Butler is saying. So if if they want to come back in one year or two years and say, you know what, this is still a problem, then okay, then let's deal with that. But I do agree. I like with the city manager, it's suggested. Would you like to fashion that into a motion? Oh, you know. Slate will Councilmember Harris does or or Councilmember dogs played fascinated film who. What are the difference time zone. I know. I think I'm kidding. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry I wasn't clear on that concept. Do we? Okay. We have had a proposal from the city manager. I mean, would you be able to read that back to us? Well, I think it's just an interaction ordinance. Do we need that language specific language city attorney? That's a question. Yeah. Councilman. So I just I haven't heard from either you or the vice mayor about whether you feel that everything does need to come to us for approval. I would not. Kind of. Yeah. I would not bring change back in the thing. I guess we have a public art commission. I think they're pretty confident. I have a lot of faith in staff who works with these issues day in and day out and. You know, I made this proposal, so I. I just worry that we can get down into the weeds and really delay projects. And so, no, I didn't see it as such a compelling need. And, you know, when it comes to art, it's just, you know, it's so subjective. Eye of the. Beholder. What standards are the the council going to to apply? So I. I was comfortable with the staff's proposal. But I, you know, I'm hearing the city manager's proposed modification, which I think is reasonable. So that's where I am. And. Vice Mayor, did you want to add anything? And I'm fine with the city manager's proposal and proposed modification, I should say, rather than proposal. I do get concerned with the amount of things that potentially would be run by the council and can come through here. I think there's a lot of other items that we are dealing with. I do hear Councilmember Knox weigh in his concern relative to the kind of the outlier situations that might exist. But I feel like it's not enough to really convince me to want to legislate around that issue. Or to allow for that issue. And I think that it could ultimately and I guess my concern is that it could ultimately result in a lot of things coming to council as opposed to finding a way for that one issue to get raised and then for us to address things as they actually arise. I don't I just feel like we're kind of ledges that we would be trying to address an issue that hasn't really come up and would be a rarity and potentially could be. Misused, I guess you could say, resulting in kind of more things coming to council than are needed. Councilwoman Maxwell, I see a question. And you're. Just a little confused because currently everything comes to council staff proposal, nothing comes to council. We've got two people saying they want everything to come to council, not YouTube, not sorry, I'm sorry. I'm putting the pictures on the screen. That's terrible. But I hear council member de-stocking her expense, are saying they'd like to have everything come for approval. I'm hearing mayor as the know. Okay. I'm sorry. I was comfortable with what staff was proposing. That all our comes accept change orders. No, under the threshold that is the city manager's. Expenditure authority. Misunderstood him. Sorry. And I saw that the way that the mayors. Reiterating may look back over the the staff report to pull that. Out, waiting for the city manager to jump in. And say, manager, feel free to do that. Are actually Mr. Key and Ms.. Ms.. Butler. I don't want to miss sides. Can I just say, like the City Planning Board, all of our items can be appealed to the city council. So there's a ten day period after approval that they can be approved uphill to the city council. Yes. Okay. It's cancer. It's 25 seconds. Explain something. When I as a council member approve of an art, I kind of feel like Santa Claus. I kind of feel like I'm bequeathing I'm helping bequeath this something that's going to be of artistic benefit. So I just don't want to give up that. That's my point is I just don't want to give that up. And so to me, you know, appealing just doesn't work. I'd like to approve art. Okay, fair enough. Let's take a vote. Where's the emotion? Let's vote on it. Mr. Shannon, did you want to add something before we vote? May I read the wording of the change before you vote so that you know what you're voting on? Or we still need a motion. So maybe. Well, I think we want to hear what it is that the proposed. Yeah. Let's hear from. You. So I think the change will. Now I'll read the whole paragraph. The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda Public Arts Fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the city manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy, the city manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two council members may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall become final and effective. That's fine. And just to clarify, but that's. Three. Days ago. So that's the change orders. So so we still have authority over everything else? Yeah. Okay, good. Yeah. So. Here, change orders. Okay. Okay. So that's been moved. Maybe we have a second. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Okay. And just so I'm clear. A vote not to approve that proposal would leave the ordinance. With what? With coming back to council for everything. Change orders included. Is that correct, Miss Butler? Status quo. Yes. That part of the ordinance. Unless you don't vote on the ordinance. Okay. Well, I would like us not to get into the weeds that much, so. Okay. We have a motion in seconded. Right. Correct. Remind me who made it again. Any customer based on the motion councilmember. Her sponsor. Seconded. Okay. Vice Mayor. I thought the proposal was to not just have that for the change order, but to have it for for everything. And then to go to the call for review for everything. The I understand that it's only for that one provision. That was my recommended change to what was previously proposed. So I'm consistent. My change proposal was consistent with what the city attorney read. Okay. And this is. Okay. And this is actually you're amending the ordinance to add this language, correct? Yes. Okay. And Mr. Shen directs us again to the provision, the particular section. In subsection F of section 30, dash 98.10. Which is on page nine of 11. I'm sorry. I am not finding that this is in the witch exhibit. It's in the ordinance, which I don't think it has an exhibit. It's not. It's neither exhibit. It's sort of the fifth link down. It just says ordinance. Well, the ordinance is four pages long. Sorry. Sorry. I was on that roll. It just jumped to a different item. Sorry. Sorry. Yes. Okay, let's do nine over 11. Okay. And so. F. Mm hmm. So she has to office expenditures that exceed the purchasing power she managed for the authority of city manager to. So with that. Okay. Our sister. Okay. And we're. Saying. This motion is to remove change. Orders from. Well, the council would be approving. Correct. So maybe I'll just reread the whole paragraph because this motion changes this paragraph completely. A lot of people were nodding and you don't. Okay. Okay. You go ahead. I'll just read the whole paragraph. Some of the council's clear. The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda Public Arts Fund consistent with the purchase purpose of this article, comma. Except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager Spending Authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with the approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two councilmembers may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall be final and effective. Okay. Let's have a vote. Any more questions? Council. No, I was okay. Not fake calls from then by super villain. I'm not sure if I'm going to be trying to decide if I'm going to support this or not, because it's actually the almost the opposite of what I was proposing, which was that we be notified by art but let it go through and not be notified about to change orders. I feel like this is this is reversing the recommendation that I supported when I was just trying to give us a little bit more whatever. And so if we could if there is support of a majority of the council, which I think since shaking heads there is. With, would you like to attempt to find the amendment, actually hold that from the amendment, if possible, from the amendment. Let's hear from Vice Mayor Vella, because you look concerned as well. I actually don't think it's a friendly amendment. I think it's a separate defense. So you don't think so, do you? Okay. That's why I. Think it's a good. Alternative. Substitute motion. Substitute motion, I think because anyways, I well. You you can propose a substitute motion and if it's seconded, that will get voted on first. If I recall policy procedures correctly, if you want to make such a motion council member. That's why. I ah. Advised Mayor Villa because no. No I'd like counsel over, not wait to make the. Determination just as to have specific language. I would just ask if the city attorney is their language. You could quickly just shift to make it so that our word, the notification is for any approvals under the city manager's spending authority. Any art approvals, but not change. Order. Yeah, just change orders are within his authority that we've already approved the art. Those don't need to come to us like that. Thank you. I hope. That is. What I thought I heard. So, Councilmember. I want to be clear so that what I read to you does not allow the city managers to approve any new artwork. What you're saying is that you do want the city manager to produce, which is the staff. Which is the staff recommendation. Okay. All we were trying to do is just give a little like heads up. We've approved this. You got ten days to say, Oh my God, I hate that. Bring it to us. So allow the city manager the authority, but simultaneously bring that notice to the City Council within ten days of the decision being made. Eric had language that I think is needed. Did. Yeah. You know. Mr. Levitt, can you can you restate because I did. I will see if I wrote it down. Could you restate it one more time? Well, I was focused on allowing you to continue to seem to approve the artwork based on what I was hearing and then do what my my recommendation was consistent with what the city attorney read. But it sounds like the majority of the council wants to go a different direction maybe, or some councilmembers a different direction. I think I, I think you may have a three vote majority. Councilmember Knox. Right. For the. The. Art approvals under. Yeah. But the standard for. The. Mediation with notification. So I'm prepared to read something new if that's helpful. And we're prepared to hear. Something is so. Okay. Rebecca, on page nine of 11. So replacing paragraph F again. So right now it. Reads The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Public Arts Fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within the city manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy. The city manager should notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager for any new artwork or project. Any two council members may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no, no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall become final effective. Do we need the date by which the city manager notifies the council so that we're not. Time to do the for review. Has it passed? It's ten days from his notification. Okay. It doesn't matter until he. Until he tells us something. It doesn't matter. Got it. Ten days from the notification. Okay. All right. Councilmember Dogfight, is that your emotions? My emotion. Okay. My emotion. That I am. Establishing emotion of my values. Seconding Councilmember De thought. Your hands up. Just a quick comment. I just hate to give up my council prerogative when it comes to approving public art from the Arts Commission. Understood. Thank you. May we have a roll call vote, please. I'm so invitation no or censor my next fight. Hi. Fella. Hi. Mayor. As he Ashcraft. High, that carries 4 to 1. Okay. All right, counselor. It is 1155, which I think is a bit late before midnight to hear the Sunshine Ordinance item. Would you agree? So with that Councilmember Knox way. You're muted. I'm sorry. The long way. A long way across my screen from my mouse. Can I move that? We continue item 60 to a 659 meeting on September 7th. Yes, that we can do that. Correct. Clerk right. There. Yes. You need a second for that motion. Nice for. Villa. Okay. Thank you. May we have a roll covered Annapolis member guy? Oh, hold it. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Shin. I'm sorry. September 30th of Friday. Council member. He said seven, I think. Oh seven. I'm sorry. I haven't heard you. And I think it's important as a meeting date, but I remember. It. Is getting late, people. Okay, Counselor, it is not. My. Her center. I know it's right. Sorry. As I. I carries by five. Thank you. Well, then. And actually, council and staff. I want to thank all of you. You've done a tremendous amount of work since the beginning of this year. Actually, since the beginning of this pandemic. I kind of feel like we have been doing double duty. We've had a lot of heavy issues coming before us. I feel like we're getting things done and I really we couldn't we couldn't do it without each other. So thank you for the role that staff plays. We have a very hardworking staff and we stretched some really thin and we're so grateful. And so to all of you, enjoy a month off without council meetings, get some well-needed rest and relaxation, come back revitalized because we've got more important work to do. But again, I really we don't always agree and see eye to eye, but it is an honor and a privilege to serve with all of you and to serve with the staff. And so thank you very much and have a great summer. We'll see you in September. Take care of you. Goodnight.

A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and UWG 8, LLC. for the City to purchase the property located at 700 W. Colfax Avenue and 1449 Galapago Street. Approves a $3 million purchase and sale agreement with UWG 8, LLC. to acquire property located at 700 West Colfax Avenue and 1449 Galapago Street for approximately 12,700 square feet of office space and a detached parking garage for office support staff for the district and county courts in Council District 10 (FINAN 201841586-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-27-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 13, 2018 Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 20, 2018.

DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0590

Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Blackwell, you put Council Resolution 590 on the floor for adoption. I move that council resolution 18 dash 0590 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not going to go into why I am voting no, because I explained that last week and so I just wanted this called out so I could be a no vote on the acquisition of this property at 700 West Colfax and 1449 Galapagos Street. Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions or comments? Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega Sassaman. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Flynn I. Gilmore. Herndon. High Cashman. High Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results. One is. Missing. Somebody. 12 eyes one day. 12 eyes when they counted. 590 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Nu, go ahead with your questions on resolutions 842 856 857 858, eight, 59, eight, 60 and 861.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7142 for construction of the Naples Island Seawall Repair Phase Two Project; award a contract to Reyes Construction, Inc., of Pomona, CA, in the amount of $13,881,331, with a 13 percent contingency in the amount of $1,804,573, for a total contract amount not to exceed $15,685,904; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_06112019_19-0558

And we're going to go ahead and go back to item. 42. Report from Public Works Recommendation to award a contract to raise construction for construction of the Naples Islands. Seawall Repair Phase two project for a total contract amount not to exceed 15,685,900 for District three. Thank you. Let's begin by turning this over to our staff. So, Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. So tonight before you is a pretty significant project. We wanted to give you a very quick update on. So the Naples Sea, I think a lot of us have been down to Naples. It's a beautiful part of town. And we walk around those seawalls and most people don't recognize that those are actually public walkways. So those are not part of people's houses. Those are the public domain, which is why it's such an open, inviting area to go down to. And so we've been assessing those Naples Sea walls over the last several years, and they're in need of repair. There's seven different fit or six different phases, and two of them have been the most critically identified as really in need of repair, specifically for seismic and for other types of of degradation. And so in 2009, we started this effort and identified the issues. We did our six total plans, and then we actually completed phase one in 2015. And so we're here to talk about phase two. The scope of work is we really need to protect homes. It's on the left side. As we protect our existing infrastructure and homes, we then demolish what's there already and then we create a new walkway and a new seawall that goes along with it. So phase two is a little bit different than phase one. The project actually is not one single area of the canal. In fact, it's three separate landmasses. It's a little bit bigger than phase one. It's another 240 feet. And it's more complicated because the sheet piles have to go down 4.4 and a half feet to accommodate those rougher waters. There's 60 concrete piles that support larger docks, and there's two new pump stations as part of the project. And so this is a more complex project, a larger project, and it's about 17.9 million total funded out of Thailand. So these are not funds that are general funds that could go to streets and roads. It's all out of the tidelands. So you get a sense of where the site is. So we're looking at Treasure Island and the entrance to the Naples Canal is where we would be doing the work. That's the next vulnerable part. So a lot of what we're trying to do is to replicate what we did from phase one. So we learned a lot from the community outreach and a lot of the technical issues there. But we did learn some things from phase one, specifically about the utility conduits, about some of the desires of the residents to plant some technical issues with our access platforms and also our pile caps and some of the some of the issues to make sure people aren't just sitting out there in a dangerous condition. So for construction timelines, we're really excited to be here in front of you today. So summer 2019, we would go out and start working with homeowners and do all the project submittals that are necessary and site preparation. We then would start the project in early 2020 when you install those huge sheet piles and push them down into the water. And then 2021 and fall would we would have substantial completion. So tonight before you is a recommendation to adopt the plans and specs. It's about a contract of $13 million with a 13% contingency. And with that, we're available for questions. Well, thank you. Great presentation. I want to turn this over to Councilwoman Price first. Thank you to our staff one for working so hard and learning the expertize on this project, but two for conducting so much community outreach on this. Many people don't know that the first phase involved a whole construction scheme that was different than anything that we had done before, given the materials that we were using and the type of construction that was required. And so we've had to utilize a lot of lessons learned from the first phase to make phase two be efficient and cost effective as best as we can. So I appreciate the the expertize that's been developed by our Tidelands team to make this happen. I'm also very mindful that as we look towards our climate adaptation plan and talking about our climate adaptation challenges in the future, making sure that our sea walls are structurally sound is a very important component for all of our all. Of the. Coastal communities throughout the state, but especially, of course, here in Long Beach. I do want to thank the residents. I'm not sure how many of the residents are here, how you guys, they really have worked very hard on this project, attending monthly meetings for years, especially. Maureen Poe is here. She really has been a champion for the entire neighborhood in making sure that she advocates for the residents in regards to this particular project. This project is really important to the city because every year, especially around Christmas time, tens of thousands of people come to Naples to visit the area, to enjoy the sights . And we need to be able to provide an environment that is safe and a public walkway that is structurally sound. So I'm very grateful for the work that's been done on this. And I want to thank the residents who are here. I also want to say, I know that we're we're still talking about some of the aspects of the project that will need to be fine tuned and based on. Cost to further. Identified. And I think if we can have consistency to the extent possible with phase one in terms of the railings, that will be very important, even though it may not be as cost effective as going with a different type of railing. I want to make sure that we have consistency and are paying attention to the esthetic needs of the community in that regard. So with that, I want to thank our staff for being involved and helping with this project. Councilor Pearce. I just want to add a few comments. First, I just want to thank staff as well. I think a lot of folks don't realize how important of an infrastructure project are or Master Seawalls project actually is. The first phase was incredibly complex, but we also, like Councilman Price said, learned a lot. And I think the Tidelands team did a great job of working with the community and the project. Beyond being a large project within our Tidelands is also it's just a massive infrastructure project and also a public safety project. We have to ensure that the seawalls are are not just strong, but are also protecting not just the property, including including the cities, but the people that come to visit Naples and that are walking through the canals every single day. The other thing I wanted to add is I will I just want to to our staff. I, I had communicated a little bit with Councilman Price today, and I agree also the issue on the railings and the the fence or the railings, whatever you want to call it, I've had some communication with some folks that live there . And I think that the consistency I know while there is a difference in in price, I think it's important that we keep the consistency the same. And so I just want to make sure that we continue that we have a commitment from staff that we are going to look to ensure that that happens to the best of our ability. Mr. MODICA Yeah, so we absolutely agree that it would be nice to have consistency. We really like the design. It has to do with whether it's a horizontal fence or a vertical fence, as we've been working on this project and costs have been kind of creeping up on us as they do with every every cost, the cost of every project, the cost of steel. First and foremost, we wanted to make sure we got all of the project done because the safety came first. But we would really like to find solutions to get back to that original fence. So the project is bid actually has the vertical fence in it. Our plan is halfway through the project. We're going to see how we do and if we can make the change order and get that upgraded fence, we would love to do that. So it's about a half million dollar change order. We're open to that and we'll just do the best to make sure we don't run into any problems. And then we hope that will work out quite well. And just it's not just I understand that. And so I'm I'm glad that we're going to hopefully commit to doing that because it's not just about what we're installing. It's a completely esthetic change to where currently is there. And so I think to go from one kind of traditional classic look that we've had to then completely change that I think would be not consistent with just the look of, of the whole neighborhood. So I just want to make sure that we're as committed to that as possible. Please. We are very committed. Thank you. And and so with that, obviously very supportive of this project. Is there any public comment on the Seawalls project? And seeing members. Please go ahead. And Castro votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. And we are going to hear the other. We have another item 25. That's right.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting easements granted to The City of Seattle for installation, operation, and maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters, and appurtenances necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle; placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119412

Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Council Bill 119412. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the City of Seattle for installation, operation and maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters and AP contents is necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle, placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the local easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle public utilities and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I'm enjoying how slowly we're all talking. So the first bill counts. The bill, 11 9412 accepts easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation, operation, maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters and other appurtenances necessary for water utility purposes at various locations throughout Seattle. And the legislation itself does not have a fiscal impact at no cost to the city. And so with that, I move passage of Council Bill 11 9412. But. Very good. Any questions or comments on this bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien Lecture. Gonzales, Herbold II. Johnson, President Harrell I six in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair Senate. In Council 11. 9497 read into the record. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you read the both in the record together. My apologies. Please read the item number 19 into the record. And let me. The bill passed in. Show us. Please read religion 19 a record. Rhythms of today's.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and any amendments, to accept and expend grant funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, in the amount of $491,211 over a three-year period, to implement a feasibility study and randomized controlled trial to evaluate the Long Beach Justice Lab Multi-Disciplinary Team, beginning April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2021; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $491,211, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03132018_18-0237

Okay. Motion passes. Okay, great. We're going to do the mix up. Items are going to be 23, 24 and 33, which have all been requested to get moved up to 23, 24 and 33. I think we'll probably do 23. Can we do 23 fairly quickly, Steph? Okay. So Madam Park. Report from City Manager Recommendation to accept and expend grant funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the amount of $491,211 to implement a feasibility study and randomized controlled trial to. Evaluate the Long. Beach Justice Lab multidisciplinary team citywide. Thank you. Mr. West. We have a quick staff report by the team director, Tracy Klinger. Honorable mayor and council. Thank you for. Having us here this evening. In January. 2018, the Long Beach I-Team launched, as you know, the first of its kind justice lab to provide new tools. For first responders to divert. Offenders out of the criminal justice system. The lab has several initiatives. One of the four most prominent ones is the MDT or multiple distillery team, which convenes. City and county departments to better coordinate. And reduce the burden on individuals. Accessing and navigating services such as mental. Health, substance. Abuse and homeless services. In addition to Datamart, as. Part of the city's data driven justice brings together multiple datasets to cross-check information with police, health fire, the city prosecutor. And other departments to help coordinated to help coordinate. Excuse me, much needed wraparound services for residents. If you recall, in November, the City Council authorized the city manager to receive a half a million dollars in grant funds to implement the MDT and Data Mart. With this new grant funding item in collaboration with Cal State, Long Beach and UCLA will conduct a feasibility study to evaluate the effectiveness of the MDT. Team based. Method of. Service planning and care care management. I would like to thank the team for all their hard work. This new funding secures a total of $1 million in grant funding toward the implementation. Of the Long Beach Justice Lab. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Tracy. Mayor Garcia, innovation team. I'm very supportive of taking a look at this work and I'm glad that you've been able to identify the funding. So please continue to keep us keep us updated. Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you for bringing this, and. We're excited for the opportunity. Thank you. Councilman Pierce. I feel like it's late. And I want to congratulate you guys on the good work. I know we heard about this at the mayor's state of the city. Do you have any of the numbers in front of you right now on do we have the numbers on the high frequency offenders? Yes, we have about 875 high. Frequency offenders that were. Booked or cited 11 or more times over a five year period. Currently, we're. Looking specifically at 22 cases. So the multiple dictionary team, our approach is to look at a small. Number of cases at a times. Triaged around them. So currently we're looking at 22 cases, 22 individuals that cross sector the various city departments for services. Okay. Thank you so much for that. Thanks for the great work and keep it up. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Mayor Tracey, I just want to congratulate you guys for the fine work you're doing. If I knew anyone know how to get money. Your group knows how to go get it. Congratulations. Thank you. And I'll just add, obviously, I know there's a lot of work happening around the justice fund and I appreciate all the the interviews. And I know we're also been involving just the community that's interested in the justice lab. Want to make sure to me, one of the most important parts of the of the initiative is the putting the mental clinician in our city jail, which we have never not done before. And so do we have an update? Is the grant going to address that or is that moving on a separate track? It's a separate track. However, we do have the Emmylou finalized and the clinician will be in the jail. Jail effective April 2nd. Oh, that's great news. So, so so this you're talking like in a month? Yes, in less than a month. And it is. Funding through the innovation fund. That's funding that that pilot program. Okay. Well, I want to congratulate you guys. And I know the chief in the police department for working on that. I think that's going to be a very, very important move in the right direction at the jail and certainly to ensure that we're providing the right services for folks that need help, particularly those that are that are at that time. So I thank you for that. And I'm sorry, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I'm sorry you're on, Mr. Mayor. And I was thinking about court. I was. I did want to acknowledge the I-Team because they came and did a presentation at Public Safety Committee, and it was a fantastic presentation. I've been using the information from the presentation as talking points at all my community meetings. I would like to let you know that I think probably after six months of having the clinician in jail in the jails, we'd love to get a report back on some of the data and how many people were routed into services and what types of services and all of that. So I'm sure you have some data tracking in place, but if not, I think we'll be looking for that information about six months out. We'd be happy to provide that update. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilwoman, is there any public comment on that, this item? Seeing none, sir, you know. Okay, no public comment on this item. Please go and cast your votes. Motion carries.

A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2017; and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments.

SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_Res 31682

Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item six Resolution 316 882 Identify and propose comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption 2017 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. Council President So each year, community members and departments come to the city and ask us to study amendments to a comprehensive plan process. That's commonly called the darkening process. When the Council takes action and asks the Department to study these items to be included in that potential discussion for the next comprehensive plan, we pass a resolution. This year. We receive 14 applications for the darkening process. We move four of those applications for for further study. And in addition, during the. Discussion. We discussed two changes in addition to those. For one of those changes was an amendment offered by Councilmember O'Brien to have the Planning Commission and staff of the Office of Planning Community Development consider health impacts of residential land uses adjacent to transit, freight corridors, highways, industrial lands, etc.. And then secondly, I offered an amendment which will give a little more specific direction to the Industrial Lands Task Force being convened by the mayor, asking them to evaluate a couple of parcels that we chose not to docket to consider new types of industrial uses. So again, the outcome of today's resolution, should it be adopted, is that the planning staff will then spend the next year studying these items and come back to us with the recommendation about whether or not to include them in next year's comprehensive plan process. Thank you. Councilman Johnson, any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote. I. All right. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Next report, please.

A bill for an ordinance approving the Parks, Trails and Open Space Program Plan. Adopts the Denver Parks and Recreation 2A Five-year Plan (2020-2024) to utilize the funds from the 2018 Ballot Measure 2A Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, which is dedicated to the improvement and expansion of Denver’s parks and recreation system. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-4-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0538

Nine Eyes Council Bill 488 has passed. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 538 on the floor for us? Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 538 to be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 538 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I know we've got a lot of folks moving out, but if you could keep it down, we'll go ahead and get started here. Madam President, pro tem members of council. My name is Happy Haines, and I'm proud to be the executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. I'm not here for the stadium district tonight, although it's a lovely plan. Congratulations. You. We thought it was loaded, but apparently not. All right. Thank you, Laura. Delighted to be here this evening. I know it's been a long one. We will be brief tonight because I think all of you and many members of the public have already had a chance to review the details of this plan for continuing our legacy of tremendous parks in Denver and in preserving what we already have and in really planning for the future with this new source of funding. And I'd be remiss if I didn't start out first with a big thank you to the voters of Denver who saw fit to pass this initiative and obviously with the also for the leadership of our President, uh, um, Councilman Clark and all of the members of council who really played an important role in moving this to a initiative forward to the public. So thank you all and thank you to members of the public. So continuing the legacy. We'll do a brief recap. I think I should just go this way. Uh. A brief recap of the public engagement process that included in a relatively short amount of time, not the 18 months that you just witnessed in the Stadium District plan. But really, I want to point out that this public engagement sat on top of another almost two years of planning. That was a part of our game plan. So in many ways, this is the first step towards implementation of our game plan. And you will see throughout the the two way plan very specific references and ties to our new game plan. Thank you very much for passing that recently. So we had held by five town hall meetings across the city. We had an online survey that was open to the public for the month of March. We included also an online survey of our capital, our six year capital improvement plan proposal, and which is very much a part of this plan. And we provided opportunities in all of our recreation centers. And thanks to Denver Public Library for once again hosting, being a host really to this city, as they so often are, an opportunity for citizens to come to their public libraries and weigh in on various, various topics. We had over 600 survey responses specifically to this plan. And in in in those meetings, the town hall meetings, the general conclusion was a very strong affirmation of the proposal that we put in front of the public about the framework for the plan, which was maintaining our legacy. And I translate that as a message from the public when they voted for this. Take care of what we've already got. We like it and we value it. And number two, as a growing city, we need you to have plans for how we're going to meet the future needs of the residents of this city. And so we received much affirmation throughout the public process for that framework of the plan overall, a strong agreement with the criteria that we recommended for how we would prioritize the projects. And while this roughly 37 and a half million dollars a year is a tremendous boost to our department, we recognize that it is there will always be more projects to that people want to see than the resources that are available. And so we proposed a number of criteria and a highlight and particularly a couple of them. First and foremost, equity and as a strong driving principle for how we would prioritize projects and secondly, sustainability. There were other criteria like do we already have projects underway using other resources and processes like the bond process, neighborhood plans, existing neighborhood plans that are there. So all of these information. All of this information. The facility and condition assessment reports that we have so using at our disposal all of the data to help us make decisions about moving forward. We got lots of individual suggestions in addition to the affirmation about the general approach. Lots of people weighed in with their specific suggestions, their specific parks, their specific recreation centers and so on. All of those were captured and remain a part of the lists that we will continue to use as we as we move forward each year with projects to propose the key themes for maintaining the legacy. And so these key themes were the things that many people repeated that repeated over and over again in both in the survey and in the meetings. I won't go through all of them there in front of you, but they they they really underscored the values that people place in so many of the diverse assets that we have in our parks, in our recreation system, and in our mountain parks. This is just a pie chart of our budget. I think the point of this chart, if nothing else, is to to recognize that the two way funding is an additional resource to an overall budget. We approached the planning for this to to think of this as an additional source of funding and not as a stand alone program on its own. So these dollars, as you can see, the the part of the chart that's outlined in Gray is a significant addition to our budget. And so but we looked at it in totality as a $133 million of of a budget for our department. That will include general fund. That includes two way. That includes the the funds that you see, the capital improvement farm, the lottery funds, the winter park funds. And so as we looked at projects and as we look at how we move the department forward and how we maintain and extend this legacy, we looked at all of those resources together. And we we looked at an investment framework in categories that would help us think about the best ways to spend the dollars, both in maintaining the legacy our parks, deferred maintenance enhancements, facilities maintenance and deferred maintenance, and then around planning to ensure that we're we are extending that legacy, that we have the tools to continue to create the masterplans that help guide our investments and the resources and how we spend those those dollars. Land acquisition was a strong message. People want to make sure that we're growing our park system in a growing city. And so the the funding would would also be in that category. Resiliency is a new way of looking at our city and the important role that our parks particularly play in the environmental health of our community, as well as the individual health of our community. Protecting our water resources, protecting our air, addressing climate issues. And so there will be a number of investments in that area. And finally, how we program and activate the spaces. It's it isn't just the physical improvements, but it's how we envision people using all of these facilities and ensuring that we have the programs and the activities to be able to activate the spaces in the parks and both indoors and outdoors. And what we what we find in, particularly with the two way funding, is an extraordinary opportunity to really focus much more on our outdoor recreation with our mountain parks as an important asset that is underutilized. We want to take advantage of really focusing far more on our outdoor recreation opportunities and finally to continue to provide opportunities for signature projects like the Paco Sanchez, um, playground and Park. And I, and I'll point out, and I know Gordon will talk a little bit more in detail about the signature projects don't mean just brand new and innovative ideas. They often mean projects of such significant scope that in the past, our capital budgets or resources wouldn't have allowed us to do a major improvement like this without spreading it out over many years and phasing it. Now we have an opportunity to do significant projects that make a difference and not phase it over several year periods. So some of these may be signature park projects may be in existing facilities as we look to make improvements over time. I will turn it over to Gordon Robertson to talk about the plan and a little bit more the plan summary in a little more detail. We also have Mike Bouchard with us today and a number of other members of our Parks and Recreation staff that I want to acknowledge for their tremendous help and support. It was a team effort takes a village in. And I'm pleased to have so many members of our village here tonight following our brief presentation here. We will be available. All of us are available to answer questions. If you have questions, they will be for Gordon Robertson. If you need answers, they will be for Mike Bouchard. Good evening. Councilmembers Gordon Robertson, Denver Parks and Recreation. And I guess thank you. Happy. I'm going to be just briefly going through the financials of the plan with you where you can see before you on the monitor is our plan on a page. It outlines our five year expenditures by the framework that happy just went over. The first orange line is our fund balance. So we will be committing 10% of the fund in any given year to be in a fund balance in case of emergencies. And we'll grow that over the first three years to be the full 10%. And if it's used, it will be then replenish then in the next year. So that's the fund balance line across the top, the orange line. The next line is our acquisition and park development. New park development. Line item. And as you can see in 2019, that's at 19.5 million. It's a substantial amount in the first year and then it goes down to 12 million and then we estimate a roughly 10 million in the year in the out years beyond. Well, we'll gauge kind of how our acquisition goes and see if those funds are needed additionally or maybe less. So the next line item is our capital maintenance budget. That's our capital deferred maintenance. We have a roughly 12 million plus in cap for deferred maintenance. We're going to add to that number of roughly 7 million in 2019. And then that will grow over time to just over 8.2 million, almost 8.2 million, in addition to the 12 million that we get in our general fund, our entire annual cap. So again, in the out years, we're assuming it'll grow at that rate. But if we if we find that deferred maintenance needs more dollars, we can always add to those dollars in those out years. Our capital expansion budget is broken into the framework that Happy went through, from planning to outdoor recreation to resiliency and signature projects. And you can see that in the first two years, we're very specific about the kinds about the projects that we'll be doing in those areas. But in the out years, we really can't commit to projects in years three, four and five. It's just a bit of an unknown to commit to a project that far out. But you can see we've listed projects that are high on our priority list that will be competing for those funds. And then there are other projects that aren't listed there yet, but that may come up over the next few years that may end up being funded in those out years. But in the first two years, you can see the projects that we're committing to in each of the in the areas. And then lastly, the green line items are operations and maintenance funding. That was the 19% of the two way funding, and that is broken out in salaries and benefits for additional staffing in contracted services for things like pruning of trees and additional portal lights at parks and those kinds of contract services. We also have materials and supplies for our staff. And then lastly, capital equipment. It's easier to see in 2019 with a pie graph kind of how and where the money's been divided. So as you can see in year one, we we put a lot of money into acquisition. There's a lot of good reasons for that. We have a pent up demand of properties that need to be acquired from years past that we when we couldn't afford to purchase properties. So there's a lot of opportunity to create to acquire land in the first couple of years. It also doesn't take a lot of new staff to acquire land, which is something that we'll need as we as we go into more projects. Deferred maintenance is the second largest piece of that pie. And then capital expansion, the new capital projects is the next largest. But if we go to the next year and I'll spend a little more time here in 2020, this is probably a more normalized expenditure strategy where acquisition, deferred maintenance and new projects are kind of equally balanced. And then the remainder of the funding goes to fund balance to salaries and benefits, contracted services, material supplies and capital equipment . But you can see the three largest pieces of the funding are going to be acquisition, deferred maintenance and capital expansion. So those are that is the funding for the first two years. The other three, three years beyond that are really our estimates of where we think we'll be and the kinds of projects that we think we'll fund . But of course, every year will be coming to you to update this, and we will be very specific as to what we'll be doing in the next year. So with that, I will be closing our presentation. I thank you very much. All right. Great. Thank you. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. And so I'm going to go ahead and call all six up Bart Berger, Jesse Parrish, Kate Fritz, Jeff Shumaker, Beth Moisi and Paul Lopez. And we will start with Mr. Berger. Thank you very much, counsel. Madam. Madam President, my name is Bart Berger. I am the founder of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. And I really want us all to go home. So I'm going to be very brief. What I want to do is to thank this council for the support that the Denver Mountain parks have finally gotten . When I first started this effort, the Denver Mountain Parks were a curiosity and idiosyncratic addition into the mountain, into the park system. And that's no longer the truth. Part of what we're going to continue to do in the Mountain Parks Foundation is to also work with Happy and the Parks Department to increase activation and to to to expand that to include education. Outdoor education is really crucial in what I call cultural and social sustainability. I want to thank the members of council specifically. I want to thank Councilman Flynn, who made being here today part of the two way vote. So thank you for that. And I want to I want to also thank when New and Mary Beth Sussman and Paul Lopez who are going out, because now you get to be ambassadors for the Denver Mountain Parks for those, and you get to go train your replacements and tell them to get with me and so that I can give them my speech. So that's all I have. Thank you very much. 50, 65 years ago, I thought the Denver Mountain Parks were the did not have a dedicated funding source. But it occurred to me that the Denver parks have never had a dedicated funding source. And now we've got it and you're responsible for that. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Parish. Keep an H to my name. Oh, sorry. This is Jesse. LaShawn Paris. Represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movement for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May election. I almost got 15,000 votes with no money. This sounds really good that we're preserving our Parks and Rec for future generations. But the fact still remains we have an urban camping ban. It is illegal for on house neighbors to occupy these parks. It's illegal for you to lay down, cover yourself from the elements, wear anything besides your own clothing so we can keep pat ourselves on the back about these park and rec investment and plans. But the fact still remains, we still have an urban camping banner needs to be repealed. So until that urban ban is repealed, we are not letting up and could keep doing all this work on the parks and on the bricks. But what good is it if our on house neighbors are now able to occupy this space? If we're really working to build an inclusive and welcome welcoming city, then we need to include all members of our community and not exclude them because of their status or their situation. Thank you. Kate Fritz. My name is Kate Fritz. In January, I succeeded Bart as the chair of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. And it's always nice to go second because he doesn't get to steal. My thunder quite so much. As a preliminary matter, I would like to thank each and every one of you for your support of the Denver Mountain Parks and in ensuring. Their sustainability for future generations. Both the Foundation and I personally support the plans put. Forth by Parks and Rec. For the use of the funds raised by two. Way. We believe that the plan addresses not only the needs of the Denver mountain parks importantly, but of all of the parks within the city. We were particularly gratified to. See that. One of the line items included in the plan is for busses to get kids who would not. Otherwise be visiting the. Parks up there, to be. Able to do outdoor recreation and education. And that is one of the. Things that as the board chair of the foundation. I believe, is critical. And this plan enables that. It gets kids into these parks and allows. Them to be activated. In a way that they never have been before. And that is thanks to your support. The foundation. And I believe that the. Plan is both comprehensive and equitable, and it ensures a continued focus on making Denver's parks sustained an integral part of the health. And well-being of the. Citizens who live here and the people who visit. I had the opportunity. To participate in the two way stakeholder meetings as well as to visit the most recent Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting, and am satisfied that the Department engaged in the development of this plan in a very thoughtful and very measured manner, and that it is pragmatic and practical and attainable. And so I would encourage each of you to support it. And thank you again. Very much for your support of Denver's mountain parks. And I look forward to seeing you all soon. Next up, we have Jeff Shoemaker. Thank you, Madam President pro tem and members of Council Shumaker two times in. One night should never happen. I too. Thank you. 11 months ago we stood here and asked you to let the voters decide. And you did. And for those of you that are watching, listening tonight who voted for Measure two, I thank you as well. This is a long time dream of my family of the Greenway Foundation, the Colorado Parks Foundation. And it's an exciting night. I will not go on too long. I want to thank Happy and I want to thank Gordon and Michael, Fred, Doug and everyone here. Your leadership, their leadership is paramount. And without question, they understand the responsibility they've been given. And I am extremely impressed by their focus and their passion and their determination to do no small things. But at the end of the day, it started here in this chamber less than a year ago. And I'm grateful to each and every one of you. And now let's make stuff happen. Thank you all very much. And our last speaker is Beth Misty. Good evening. I'm Beth Mirsky. I'm with the Downtown Denver Partnership and I'm speaking on behalf of the partnership. We are here in support of two AA and the five year plan. This plan presents real opportunities to realize goals outlined in the outdoor downtown and the game plans, which the downtown Denver Partnership was very much involved in. We're looking forward to seeing investment in projects such as the Urban Forest, Skyline Park and a downtown signature children's program Playground, among other projects such as the 5280. The there is a robust, I think, public process in all of these plans now to our downtown plan, as well as the game plan. And and then there's this program this spring. So I urge you to support it. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Kimmich. Thank you. Madam President, I want to thank the staff who shared a pretty lengthy response to a set of questions that I had. And I just got it today. So I think I've absorbed it, but I had a couple of follow ups. First question was about how the 2019 budget amounts work here. So we're halfway through the 2019 budget year. You presumably already have this money in the budget, but maybe it wasn't line item out. Is there a supplemental needed or tell me how the current year's budget works. Given that you're just now releasing the plan compared to what was in the budget book. So just help me understand process wise. I'll take a I'll take a crack at it. Gordon Robertson. Different Parks and Recreation. Our goal is to in many ways, well, one is land acquisition. So some of the funding will be utilized to acquire land. Other funding is being added scope to existing projects so that existing staff can implement the funds this year. With that, this really I think budget manage I think is your question more around kind of how the line items get set up in budget management for people. So earlier an appropriation item was brought to City Council, so you all approved the appropriation of the full 37 and a half million dollars. Our aim is in the 19 budget is to spend those dollars in those categories. And, you know, we've already brought one to you in the acquisition. The proposal is to use these funds for the acquisition of the property in southeast Denver. And we figured it would take about the same amount of time to get this plan approved. It would take us that much time to actually get some of these other expenditures under way. But the first year our existing projects, so many of them we already have under contract, so we can add scope contracted services the same way we do a lot of our work by means of uncle contractors. So we have the ability to add scope to those contracts and and the idea being to try to get instead of saying this was great and now wait until next year's budget before we start anything, we wanted to get things moving. And so citizens could see relatively quickly the focus again on some staffing. It'll still take, you know, a few weeks or a few months to get staff in place. But particularly because we use a lot of on call staff who if we figure we're going to be able to get moving on some of our park refreshing and just, you know, getting out into the parks and doing some improvements right away that that don't take a lot of planning and design and so on up front. That's great. And maybe I do just need to hear back from budget afterwards about the fact, for example, if you're hiring a staff person, you're only going to use, you know, one quarter of your FTE. I just want to make sure that we don't lose any of the 2019 funds because you weren't able to spend them on a full FTE. No, no. The good thing is, is that the funds are rollover. They do not even even those that aren't just for capital. That's correct. Okay. That's huge. All right. Yes, super. That's great. And and they were very good in working with us and recognizing that that would be that would be an issue. And so so we won't lose those funds. We're going to do our best to spend them. But we recognize that that may not be possible for a lot of different reasons. Super. My next question is about the process going forward. So like let's use dog parks, for example, one I'd love to hear, I didn't see that in any of the slides. What is the intention? But for example, acquisition might result in buying something for a dog park or development might be something about developing a dog park. So I guess what I'm curious about is as we go into the next budget cycle as a council and we have some priorities, for example, that we want to talk about with the department. Mm hmm. What does that look like in terms of being able to say, hey, we think this is really important, it fits within some of these things, but we want you to use some of your acquisition funds or some of your development funds and really speed up the implementation of dog parks. We've been delayed, you know, so and so I'm curious both about that actual topic, but also just thinking about it as an example of how we influence the more detailed , granular level of this in an annual process. Sure. Great question. It is, by the way, on the on the bottom of the slide, we did point that out and it. And it's because it came up in many of the meetings and surveys which slide. The one that's on the screen on the very the very bottom line. I didn't see it in the dollar amounts list. Oh, no, no, no. So but these that is a much greater we do have for 19 and 20 a much more detailed. So. So what you have in front of you is a summary budget. There is a much more granular level. I don't think it specifically there is one at a granular level for dog parks, but I could be wrong. There are projects on the list. I mean, someone can just send that to me afterwards. And over to your the point I think of your question, which is how each year do we get to these decisions? And it'll be very similar to the process that we use every year for our annual capital improvements budget. And that's one of the reasons why I mentioned earlier. This is simply another resource to add to the overall process. But the you know, we will build a, you know, a budget proposal. We will use the the usual sources, which is suggestions from all of you the bond list, as you know, where there were many projects that didn't get funded. That's a. So we look to those things the the what citizens have already told us that they wanted and maybe haven't been funded in in the past. And that we also recognize there will be some new things as we move forward. There will be new projects that, you know, that get, you know, a project like the the district that you just heard. They may come up with some ideas. We intend to move forward. One of the items that we're very excited about or are continuing with master plans in in neighborhoods and in parks that don't have them. So we'll have a whole bunch of new ideas and projects coming out of that process. So it'll be a very dynamic breathing process as we move forward each year. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem happier? Gordon Maybe. And we've gone over this before, but just because we probably have a wider audience here, could you briefly talk about the strategy for identifying and acquiring new parkland in under-par areas where we have residents who are well outside a ten minute walk and also address a strategy if there is one, which I didn't see. But I know you've thought about it for providing larger parks in areas where there's a greater population within within that 10 minutes. In other words, a five acre park in a neighborhood of 5000 people is probably not appropriate just as a 100 acre park in an area where there a thousand people would be too much. So what are our strategies when we have areas already developed where there's, you know, commercial, residential, whatever? In Southwest Demmer, I see some in Park Hill, I see some in South Central Denver, substantial areas without ten minute access. Let me let Gordon Gordon's team is working on the acquisition strategy piece, and I think you can. And I congratulate you on identifying the parcel in in Councilwoman Black's district that we recently moved on and and hope to see more of that. As you know, we won't solve the problem overnight, but we are actively working with the National Recreation and Parks Association, with ULI and with Chester Public Land on a grant that we received to do a study of Denver and how we can implement a strategic acquisition plan. That effort is currently underway. We're going to go visit Seattle and Austin, who just finished their plans last year and learn from them. And then we're going to complete our plan here locally. But while we're doing that, we're certainly looking at properties that we can purchase like we did in University Hills. So we are actively working on that with real estate. We have a team in Parks and Recreation that works with real estate to identify property and opportunities and that is ongoing. But we are looking we have a map that identifies the deserts in our city where we don't have a ten minute walk to our neighborhoods. So we know the areas where we're looking. And as opportunities come up, we have the ability to to move. But in the meantime, we're doing a strategic plan citywide that we will hope to finish mid-next year. Okay. Do you have a time out? Okay, Minister, thank you. And you'll share that with us. And I would add to that that in addition to the point you made is in addition to the ten minute walk, which is a proximity right criteria, we also take into consideration the density right in an area. So, you know, the acres per thousand people and and the development pressures so the the southeast site in council women blacks district is a perfect example of you know, there are equity principles. There's a there's the ten minute walk standard. There's a, there's a if we don't do something soon, there won't be any land to apply any principal to. And, and so those are all the things that will be in the mix as we think about trying to guide our acquisition strategy. Thank you. And we're not making any new land, are we, then? You know, we just came back from Copenhagen when and so they actually did create new land. And so I'm intrigued by that as a potential strategy. They're filling in, like filling in wetlands and stuff like that, I suppose, but we don't have any such recourse. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Well, I can remember when Sal Carpio was talking about Emerald City over the Sphere Boulevard. Cloverleaf? That was a long time ago. I'm happy. I just have one question. And it's about whether or not we can use these dollars to be doing actual planning. Or do they. Are they concentrated on capital? Yeah. No, the the dollars can be spent on planning, which is really the most important first step in, uh, in a capital strategy. And we think very important. That's where we engage the community on what they want to see and go through the kind of process like we went through with Paco Sanchez Park where, you know, we heard from residents about what they wanted to see, what are the amenities, what are their, you know, interests in terms of activities. So planning and design are all an outreach for that effort, are all important parts of the process and are eligible for funding under this. And so I guess I'm I'm struggling with trying to understand how we move projects forward before we just keep piling on, you know, planning, but yet, you know, certain projects kind of lag behind because we're not putting the actual capital dollars into some of them. So how are we like determining what those priorities are and how much does the the new equity framework that, you know, city workers, city employees are now doing the training around is sort of mimicking the Seattle model. Play into those conversations. Is very important. And as I mentioned earlier, equity is probably the the strongest principle that guides us in the decision making about how to how to move forward. We are a part of that overall the overall city process and defining um, equity criteria. So neighborhood them, you know, demographics, income, number of children. Um, the, you know, so a lot of, you know, a lot of things go into determining equity principles as, as well as others. And that's and that's an important part. So when we bring, for example, each year when we bring our capital improvement budget to you, we include a set of principles that guided us in our thinking. And so it includes all of that criteria on, on how projects were selected and why some, you know, rose, rose to the top over others. Um, one of the things I wanted to mention is I sat in on a process looking at red rocks and you know, this was around sort of the historic preservation of Red Rocks. And one of the commitments that I think we all walked away from was that we would be seeing some design guidelines for Red Rocks. And I know we've been moving forward with the camp. I understand there's some efforts to replace the the stage. And I would assume that, you know, joint parks and rec arts and venues effort. But I guess I'm just wondering kind of where are we in the design guideline process for for Red Rocks as one of our mountain parks that we've been anticipating would would be coming forward to guide how we do a lot of the construction work that obviously, you know, needs to happen. We want to keep it fresh, upgraded. I know there's some discussion now about replacing the the ramp on the West. This was at the east side of the that. That's correct. And we do have in in the proposal, um, a specific budget generated for a master planning for all of our, for our mountain parks in general. It would include all of those various facilities, including Red Rocks. And you want to add anything to that. Yeah, but it seems like we did a lot of that planning through that process. And it's the design guidelines that are really important at that particular venue that will help guide any of the work that's that's even happening now. Um, and so without that, you know, we want to continue to maintain the, the character and the uniqueness of that iconic venue. We care about Red Rocks as much as anybody, and that conversation is ongoing with the community. Out the request for design guidelines. As you know, there are design guidelines for the venue itself, and so that guides whatever work happens there. The request currently is to have those design guidelines filter out to the whole park, the landscape, really. And that's a that's a trickier conversation to really create guidelines around the landscape of Red Rocks. But it's something that we are working with the folks that are interested in doing that to find out what they're really goals are so that we can make sure it's the right tool because design guidelines might not be the right tool to really kind of expand on to a landscape from what is a constructed venue. So it's a tricky conversation, but we are happy to engage in it with the community. So I think would be helpful to as those conversations continue to get updates on where we're at in that process. Sure. So that's my request to you. Thank you. And thanks for all your work on this. A strong game plan and a lot of incredible input, not just from people who served on the committee, but tons of people throughout the Denver community. And I know that has helped shape and guide what some of these priorities are. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 538 has closed comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I want to thank you all for the plan for this wonderful, dedicated fund for our parks. I'm very pleased about the game plan and very pleased how quickly you actually formulated from the game plan, how we're going to go about this spending, this dedicated fund. And I'm looking forward to, course, what it means for our parks to suddenly to finally have a dedicated fund for our parks and all the new parks we're going to find, whether we build the land or not, and also the activation of the mountain parks. And I'm still pulling for that regular shuttle for families from our parks here to our mountain parks. I read a story once about children in Brooklyn that didn't know that they lived beside an ocean. And I'm sure that there are children in Denver that do not know about our wonderful mountain parks. And it will be wonderful. And I know you let us know at committee that the money can be spent on a feature like that and that you all are going to look into it. I'm very excited about that. So thanks again for all the work you're doing and I look forward to seeing our parks thrive. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. I am happy to see this move forward. I just can't I can't believe my eyes after all this time. I'm just surprised. Well, I know why we didn't do it sooner. Because we were in the middle of a recession. But somebody's always talked about is a dedicated part fund. And to see this moving forward and to see this parks, trails and open space program plan to have a game plan and actually have dollars to go with it is is different. We've had plans. You've had so many plans that are just gathering dust and gracing bookshelves throughout the Web building. Now they're going to come alive. And I'm happy to support this. And I tell you what, all the good stuff happens when you're gone, doesn't it? So the Llama Lincoln Park neighborhood plan is not the neighborhood plan, but the park plan. That master plan is going to happen. Lincoln Park is one of the only llama. Lincoln Park is one of our oldest parks. And it sits there and it's so underutilized. And there's we've seen what we can do when we actually put planning to the process of the playground, turned it around. Historic park. You look at sunken gardens and look at sunken gardens to check out what it used to look like. Right. And if you had a plan that really addressed and brought back that old sunken garden, now, it was pretty extravagant then, but the reflection pool, the pavilion and all that that got filled in because of the polio scare. Right. Imagine if you still had that. This is one of those things that creates that reality, our mountain parks and trails. I'm just I'm happy to see this come on our time. So please move forward as you move forward. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Flynn Hi. Cashman I. Can. Lopez I. Knew. Ortega I. Assessment I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Nine Eyes Council Bill 538 has been ordered published on Monday, June 24th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 547, designating the River Drive River Drive Historic District as a district for preservation. On Monday, July 22nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 449, changing the zoning classification for 2701 Lawrence Street

A resolution approving a proposed Consent Agreement for Voluntary Access between the City and County of Denver and National Jewish Health to conduct air quality monitoring studies in the Globeville, Elyria, and Swansea neighborhoods. Approves a non-financial access agreement with National Jewish Health (NJH) through 12-31-19 for continued access to city property for purposes of conducting an air quality monitoring study in locations in the Globeville, Elyria, and Swansea neighborhoods in Council District 9 (ENVHL-201845753-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01022019_18-1266

. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Miss anything. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilman Ortega, you can go ahead with your comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill that it's actually an agreement, a consent agreement with National Jewish Health that will be doing some air monitoring at a number of city sites in the global Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods and Exhibit A in the agreement has one of the names of the parks. That is not accurate. I did talk with the mayor's office and with Environmental Health today, and we're going to allow this to move forward tonight. They will file an amendment that changes the name of the park to correct it, and that should solve the problem. This was actually brought to my attention by one of the residents in the community. And so I think to honor the park name change that we did a few months ago, we wanted that to be consistent. So that will happen and we can allow this bill to move forward.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt resolution approving the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area program and assessment for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau for a one-year term. (Districts 1,2,4,5)

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-0989

Great. Well, thank you very much again, guys, and thanks for coming down. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to Madam Cook to hearing one. A report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and adopt resolution approving the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area Program. An assessment for the period of October 1st, 2015 through September 30th, 2016, and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention Visitors Bureau for one year term districts one, two, four and five. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to city staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. I believe Steve's going to have a very exciting presentation for us today about all the great work that our CVB does and his partners here in the audience. But first, I'd like to turn it to my Conway to give the staff report for the hearing. Mayor Garcia, members of City Council, the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau promotes and markets the city of Long Beach as a tourism destination, using funds generated through self-assessment of hotel properties located in Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area. The Self-Assessment District was established June 21st, 2005. City Council action this evening request approval of the continuation of the program in assessment and to authorize the city manager execute an agreement with the CVB for an additional one year term. The CVB continues to promote and market the city of Long Beach at an unparalleled level of excellence at its helm as its President and Chief Operating Officer. It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Steve Goodling. All right. Thank you, Mike. Hi, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Council members, city management. We appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening and present to you an update of what's been happening in the last 12 months. Also, honestly, I think it's the best private public partnership that I've had the privilege of being part of. It's between the business improvement district and the moneys from the city. It truly has helped us create a really strong economic environment within our city. That economic environment is over $300 million impact out of the top five industries in Long Beach. Tourism is the second. Manufacturing, which includes the port is the first. In addition, this last year, another benchmark is over 23. Almost $24 million was collected in bed tax. This is Council Member Andrews favorite favorite number four. For every $1 that we receive in the city contract, we generate $6 in return and we're really pleased with that number because I think it shows the efficiency and and the effect of what we're able to accomplish. If you look at the last five years, in 2011, it was 17 million, then 18 million, then 19 million. Last year, 21 million. This year, 23, almost 24. In five years. That has been a $6 million increase in total collections or a 35% increase as a city. And with our hotel partners and our entire hospitality community, we could not have achieved those successes without a really strong, dynamic relationship with our partners in the city. But also the economy has been extremely strong as well, and we've all benefited as a city and as individual businesses because of that. One of the key marks that helped us, that helped separate us from the competition was the opening of the Pacific Rim. This occurred roughly 18 months ago. Since that room opened, we've booked an additional $100 million in economic conventions. And basically what we're hearing from the clients is this room separates us from the competition. They can come in. It's turnkey. They don't have to spend a lot of money for extra rigging, lighting, sound. It's all they have to do is tell us what colors they want. And $100 million is a really, really significant number in terms of our overall outreach when you think 300 million a year. So that room has done a significant, significant job for us. In addition, on a smaller scale this year in our city, we will have four holiday events, corporate holiday events that normally actually never met in our city. They were outside of our city because we didn't have the facilities large enough to accommodate from 1200 to 2000 and more people. But the Pacific Room is making a huge headway into into this other segment, which is bringing additional people from the Southland into Long Beach and seeing all the transformations. At this time, I'd like to show you a video and you can hear from some of our other clients what exactly the Pacific Room is doing within our niche. Long Beach is on the map in a way that it never. Has been before. Amazing. Breathtaking. I love this space. It was one of the. Most diverse, flexible meeting spaces I believe we've ever seen. An incredible array of different types of venues and options of flexibility. Astonishing. I've never seen anything like it. The wow factor was throughout the entire night. They've made lighting a turnkey event that you can change your mind in just a few minutes to change the whole design. Literally, there are millions of colors and combinations and all the things that you could do with a light. 180 pin point light. So you're going to have 180 tables and it could cover the whole table or we can make it too small enough to cover the center. There's a particular color for your brand, your association, your conference, ask for it and you shall receive it. I was completely blown away. The functionality, the production equipment. There, there's nothing like it that I have seen so far. The group with any budget can impress in. This room such a. Great venue. You can use it for. Just about anything from a general session to your. Closing night party. You can use it for a concert. Or even a welcome reception where you're just doing. Cocktails, great food and networking. I was talking to colleagues in the UK about it before I came and showing them the video and they were all gathered around the computer going, Oh my. God, this is huge. We have a lot of members of our association that are Hollywood studios, TV companies, other creative companies from around the world. So it gives them a chance to show off their creativity. Using it, using the facilities here. It's going to save the meeting planners a ton of money to the fact that they have all the rigging and lighting that's going to be included. What is innovative about this space is the ability to transform the environment into an immersive media based space. The way they can drop the drapes and the lighting and the ceiling that they put in is just incredible. What we've created is essentially a technical ceiling, so it's a large metal structure and then a surrounding curtain wall essentially comes around and creates the sidewalks. The graphic ability of the curtains with projection is really unless you can walk in there and feel you're in a fish tank if you wanted to. I was here earlier when it was just a bare arena, and then when I came back it was like I stepped into another world. A planner can craft an event with very little effort now and totally cost effectively. Can really wow and not have to worry about thousands and hundreds of thousands of surprise dollars. It is a big palette to tell a big immersive story. It's an event planner, event producer. Event promoters dream come true. And an attendee a dream. Come true to experience all that. Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, also Councilmember Andrews, you were three that were on the council at the time. Your vote helped us achieve $100 million economic impact. So thank you for that support and will continue to deliver on that. In addition, this past June, we were in Washington, D.C. The mayor cleared his schedule. Mayor Garcia, we appreciate that there is no mayor of any city that actually goes back to Washington to meet with clients. They usually meet with everyone else but clients. Right. And so for Mayor Garcia to be with us, it made a large impact. And we had at that time over eight customer events, 300 customers and 28 partners from Long Beach. Traveling with us to D.C. recognized it. It was a flutter in both social media and also on the ground. In addition, last week we had a site inspection. The mayor had a chance to spend time at one of our events with a meeting planner and her son and mayor. We're pleased to report that as of today, we're about 95% probability of booking an 8000 room night convention because of your efforts. And and it really did your your dialog with the planner and her son at that time meant a lot, and it actually made the city more personal for them. And then when they came out and saw the city, they felt everything was the perfect fit. So thank you for blocking that time. In addition, another great community event this past year was we had the opportunity to host the World Games for Special Olympics, and Jane Netherton is a board member of Special Olympics in Southern California, also a board member of the CVB. And our past chair and Jane reached out and asked all of us if we would be glad to host the athletes coming in from China. And as you can tell from these pictures, we had a full community turnout. There is Councilmember Urahn shuffling in a little bit and Lew and Bynum and then. DH I'm sorry, but somehow the Chinese got the things behind the ears. But anyway, but we really, really appreciate all of you coming out this summer and welcoming the contingency from China. They had a blast. They had a phenomenal experience. And they left going back to China with a really, really warm spot of Long Beach. And that went a long way, especially considering they're one of our major trading partners. Jane Netherton on our farewell. It was a tearful farewell morning, but Jane also has a few words to share on Special Olympics and the event itself. Jane. Thank you. Steve. Mayor Garcia, council members. I would like to also add my personal thanks to all of you. The city, the city departments, Parks and Rec was amazing. They came out and one of our days was in Eldorado Park and it was just outstanding. Fire and Belize, we had so much cooperation. It was it was really great. There was an issue on transportation. I'm not sure many of you heard about it. But on that Tuesday night when our athletes were supposed to be delivered to us, that did not happen. And so about 230, 330 in the morning, we managed to get taxicabs and I wonder how we did that. And some shuttles and we brought our athletes to Long Beach to where they were able to sleep in the beds in the university that we had arranged. The next day, the Chinese consulate came out to Long Beach personally with his staff to say thank you to Long. Beach for making. That extra effort so that their contingency from China did not sleep on the floor in a gymnasium. And he was very grateful for that, but made that personal trip out, which I thought was a big step and just, I think Long Beach and said, if we ever need to get older of and we have cards and he would look forward to helping us any way that he could. Also, the Council of Council Member, we have a commendation from the county for a Long Beach as being a host town. They had us at their meeting the host town chairs and presented the accommodation for the city of Long Beach, which belongs with you, Mayor Garcia. And it just shows that they are they acknowledge we were we were the top of the top when it came down to what we ended up doing for three days. It was all about Long Beach and how well they were received here. So thank you all for making that happen. In addition to Special Olympics and host town. And thank you, Jane. Jane's heart and soul was in that and it was evident throughout the entire time. And it really was a complete community effort. The Queen Mary, the aquarium, everyone everyone came came to the table and actually helped make it just a memorable time. This past week, our hotel community also came together as another community initiative, and the police department came to us. And they had also spoke with Jane earlier about the special victims, those of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and elderly and children crimes. And when these things occur, they need a place for safe haven, sometimes immediately, because they're trying to extricate them out of an environment. And so they wanted some place that they could put them with budgets being constrained as they are. They had asked if there could be help in our hotels, have stepped up to the plate, all of them. There hasn't been one that said no. And they have said that they would provide complimentary vouchers for our police department to use so that when there are experiences and we have to find a safe home for an evening until they can relocate these victims into a better environment, they have accommodations in our hotels here in Long Beach, so we'd like to thank our hotels for doing that as well and for the police department for reaching out on that issue. I in other community. Yeah, it's. Another community effort which which we really like. Everyone understands social and how social media has really changed everything that we're doing. And so we wanted to reach out to the community and say, Hey, show us your Long Beach. How do you see Long Beach? And so we, to our surprise, had 38 submissions for a video contest. This video contest last spring culminated in a social media reach of over 15 million. And what does that exactly mean? Let me give you one example. Chaz Curry, who's a gentleman sitting here. Chaz was our award winning video for the entire contest. And Justin Rudd told me that Chaz, his video was the quickest viral upload he's ever seen in his history. And he had over a half million views of his video and 15,000 shares and look at all the likes he had. I mean, it was an amazing success. And and Chaz brought that into our contest. There were others, too, like Charles Whitehead. And Charles also came to council not too long ago, presented this great song. And of course, many of you said, go talk to the CVB. He did add. And we liked we liked what we heard and we liked where Charles was going with it. So so we encouraged Charles to enter into this video contest. Well, long story short, the videos were so phenomenal and the quality was so phenomenal. We had asked everyone, do we have the rights to your material? And they all, of course, said yes. And so we amalgamated all these different videos into one community video, which we took with us to Washington, D.C. to showcase Long Beach. At this time, we'd like to share with you are what we consider to be our community. Video of Long Beach. This place just south of L.A., where the people. So I mean, it's up for you to see. You could take the family tree like the Queen. Membership and the Aquarian. Once a year you'll see. Cars, racing, industry, people come. From everywhere. Check it out the way. You go to see the show. The place you want to go. A lot of people want to be here in. Down in the water. Here. You can see the skyline. You can even see the. That's been all the time. From the shoreline could take off on. Oh. Hang out with me. People seem to be in this way. The market. The people want for me. Just see something's always going on. Be. Be understanding that we're way downtown with our town. I go in. Downtown. You might. Long Beach. You might just be in Long Beach. You might be in Long Beach. You might just be in Long Beach. You might. Thank you. And also, could we thank Charles White add again and Charles Curry for these great, great templates. They gave us the opportunity to create this great city video. So, Charles. This year is also an exciting year of new firsts. The first was the Formula E race. Formula E is coming back again. We are the only city in North America this year. Monte Carlo, Beijing, Long Beach. Nice combination. And so. So with Formula E, we also had another new event this year and it was called Powell. And Powell hit the seat, hit the streets and hit the scene rather quickly. And we like to thank Pat West and city management for helping us work through this very quickly and getting all the permits done. And John Hall is here as well. John and Julia Wang and also Ron Nelsen from Long Beach Museum of Art. They brought this concept to us. We fell in love with it. We said, okay, how do we run with it? And so we worked with them and won the permitting and everything else. And then we we also took ads out in the Los Angeles magazine. We wanted the folks in Los Angeles to know that actually, we, too, have our own vibe and our own in our own hipness. And quite honestly, it was quite fun because L.A. came down afterwards and wanted to meet with Powell and see if they could expand beyond Long Beach. And and the reality is, is they're very happy in Long Beach. And so. I told them now. And and Jasper Wong, who is the founder of Powell, actually said he felt more at home here than in his hometown in Hawaii. So, Mayor, you, Mark Taylor, our city management team, everyone made him feel welcome. But you saw all the great artwork that was left and they're coming back again next year. In addition to the ads that we took out in L.A. magazine for the summertime, promoting promoting Long Beach and encouraging people to come down to Long Beach and see these ads. We also worked a collaborative effort with the Queen Mary and the aquarium this year. And for the first time, we had four pages in the Sunset Magazine and in triple j's West Ways Magazine, promoting Long Beach as a destination with the aquarium and the queen. So there were a lot of firsts this year, and those were all wonderful. I add at this time, I just would like to to conclude by saying what we keep hearing from our customers. And I just heard it again last week. We had, you know, we had the Unitarian Church here, and they were blown away at how this community espouses a lot of what they espouse. And they've never seen a community work together between elected city officials, city management and also the private sector. And I hear that weekly. And so one, we'd like to thank all of you for helping us in our effort to sell and promote Long Beach. Pat, Tom, we'd like to thank you as well. And SMG, the operator of our convention center, has been a wonderful partner as well, making our jobs a lot easier and also all of our hotel partners if our board could stand and just be recognized. And if the board could stay standing and if staff could stand. Please. And lastly, with over 400 business members and the second largest industry in our city, could all of our partners stand? Be. I will share with you together. And I hear this constantly. It's this. It's this grouping that makes it insurmountable and hands down, we continue to win because of it. So anyway, I'd like to share our customers comments with you. And again, thank you for your support this year. We really appreciate it. All that you may have heard about Long Beach in the past, that's out the door. That's passé. Long Beach is a real gem, one of the best kept secrets in the convention business. A little mini paradise. Long Beach is Southern California personified. Talk about a great package. Have all the big city. Services and amenities that you need. But you have this wonderful small town charm. There in a resort location. But at a convention center. The nicest thing is that it's a wonderful city. Two steps out. The convention center. You're right down. On the water. Everything is close enough, you know, within two, three, four. Blocks to find anything you could possibly need. There are hotels are so close to each other, it's almost like a campus. There's so much to do here. You just walk out the front door and take a look. Are we going to go there or they're there? Everything's at your fingertips. The aquarium, the Queen Mary. There's music. There's arts. There's places to go and dance. The hundreds of restaurants. And everything from your basic and expensive restaurant to. You know, your beautiful four or. Five star type dining. Restaurants. Long Beach is the only city where you actually leave your blinds open in night because of the lighting. Transportation in and out of out of the city is very, very important to us. There are three. Different airports that attendees can plan to from first tier, second tier, third tier and little itty bitty country towns. Which had great access to all parts of the world. When you experience the center, you'll recognize right away that it's not your typical normal brick and mortar convention center. I have two conferences in most convention centers in the United States. This is the only one that has this much versatility within the center already built. And there are so. Many great spaces, whether you're looking for something inside or outside. Small, medium, large. You can find it here. People love. The space. They come here and they love the casualness of it, and people just want to hang out here. The layout of the center is very easy. A lots of little, almost cozy little places for people to gather and can be. I saw more people networking within the convention center and not within the hotels. Our people loved it. We had all kinds of tables set up outside. The weather was gorgeous. The weather's always gorgeous here. We had to do a party for, you know, 10,000 people. And it turned out to be one of the most successful parties in our company's history. What attracted us to Long Beach was, number one, the people. Everyone was super happy to have us and they knew us and people. Who are working in the restaurants and working in the hotels all the way up to the mayor of Long Beach from top to bottom. Long Beach is a unique venue that people will enjoy and want to come back to if you want to be assured of sunshine. Of happy people, of great service and a variety of things to do before and after your meeting. One which is for you. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give Long Beach a ten. If it weren't a ten, we wouldn't be coming to Long Beach. I think Long Beach really is the total package. I wish I could put every convention I ever planned in Long Beach. And if. And if you if you couldn't read that last meeting, planners from the National Retail Federation. Right. What great clients to have in our city. So anyway, thank you again for your support. We've appreciated it greatly and thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. We have a couple comments and I'll close. Close us out, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we could not have a better cheerleader for our city. I know that the mayor and I talk often about what a great job you do, Steve. And so earlier when we walked in, we thought, oh, my gosh, what's on the agenda? Why are all these people here? So I'm glad it's for a good thing and nothing that caught us by surprise. No one can turn people out the way you can as well. But I wanted to thank you for all your hard work, your board, your staff. You have a very hardworking board. Of course you have a hardworking staff. But a lot of times board members are there to give you advice. But you have a very active board, and I see how hard Jane works and Bill and others. And so there is something to be said about your leadership that you're able to draw that out of your board as well as your staff. And we get a lot of high praise. I know Steve said quite a bit about the high praise we get in other cities in our ability to host conferences, but we are quite unique here, you know, saying that we might be a boutique conference culture conference community might be appropriate. This is a place where conferences can come and feel like the star of the show. And because they're not paired with two and three other conferences happening in the West Wing, in the East Wing, it's just them. And so I think that's something very special and you're able to capture that and all of the renovations that have taken place at the Convention Center with the city's partnership and this council and previous councils, really my entire nearly ten years here, I think we have delivered a beautiful project, a beautiful gem. And I want to thank you for showcasing it, taking the show on the road and bringing more and more people to come here. I do want to thank you. You didn't mention it, but it is our next big thing that your ongoing support for our soon to be constructed pedestrian bridge, which would link the performing arts theater and the convention center. And that's something that's much needed. Of course, people find their way around, but for us to be able to make this easier, that connectivity easier, is going to be something magnificent. And I think it will open up other demographics of conferences, visitors and users just because we added that amenity. So thank you and keep reminding us that we need to keep investing in our CVB. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilwoman Mongo. I really want to thank our hotel partners for what you're doing for the victims of crimes here in Long Beach. That's really remarkable and first rate. And it's it's not often found in local areas. And so to have that partnership with you is amazing. Thank you. To our cab partners and supporting the Special Olympics. I remember the morning that I heard on the news that all those other cities were sleeping on gym floors. And I was really proud to know that our convention and visitors bureau, our team of people, comes together to find solutions. We never let bureaucracy get in the way of finding solutions that make sure that people feel welcome here in Long Beach. And then finally to the staff of the CVB for taking my endless calls and questions, ensuring that any policy we make here doesn't impact our convention business, and that any potential convention or meeting I ever attend . I always solicit them to come here. And I know you've done a lot of packages and many of them have resulted in great bookings and some of them haven't yet developed yet. And I look forward to each and every one of those organizations finding the right time to come here and saying, You know what? Long Beach is the best place I'm going to fall in love with Long Beach. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to echo the comments of my colleagues. It's a real pleasure to have all of you here tonight. So thank you. You do turn out in large numbers. And I did say to the vice mayor when I walked out. I think I'm missing some big item on the agenda or something. What is happening. So thank you very much for being such a positive energy to our council chambers this evening. You do amazing work and you do amazing work as a team. Certainly you're led by Steve and he does an excellent job setting the tone for the organization and everyone who's associated with it. But really, the commitment that you all have to providing the best service experience for those who visit and those who do business here is it's just infectious every time you come and speak to us and every time any one of us experiences one of your events or program. So thank you very much for making us look good. And I know I've said to Steve many times that I speak for my colleagues when I say that we're here to be ambassadors for you and everything that you're trying to do and we support what you're trying to do for the city. I think it's it's fantastic. I will say, Mr. Whitehead, the next time I would like to see Belmont Shore, Long Beach, you know, something like that, aquatics, capital, you know, something like that. Maybe we can do a different video focusing on our love for sailing in the third district. But I think that is such a catchy song. My kids actually sing it because they watch council meeting on occasion, and the last time we played it they were so excited that they were singing it for a few days. And so I love that. I love the local energy and that that the heart that comes from what you guys are doing. So thank you very much for being here and for starting our meeting off on such a positive light. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gringa. I guess you should also include a town. Long Beach town. Long Beach. Westside. Long Beach. Yeah. I mean, we have, I think more than anything else, it's an expression of how what a great community we have in Long Beach in regards to not only the people who live here, but the people who work here. And, of course, the CVB and the great work that you do in being able to market. Long Beach is all about branding and marketing, and if there's any one thing that I want to say is that we've done this with a measure that we passed in 2012 measure and that raise the salaries of hotel workers. And the sky did not fall on the opposite. It grew and it's looking better all the time. And we have people who love Long Beach, who want to come here, want to spend their money here. I have the Coastal Commission here. They're going to spend their money up all this week here. But it's it's it's it's a measure of how resilient Long Beach really is and how the business community, the hotels, can really step up and deliver. And it's and it's all because Steve Gooding is just a great cheerleader. And I'm looking forward to a result of our minimum wage study because I know we're going to step up again and we're going to do just as well, if not even better and greater, for the community of Long Beach. And I want to congratulate you on the job well done. Looking forward to having the National League of Cities in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman Andrew. Yeah. Oh, thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm getting the same comment that I council vice mayor got when a councilman asked and I was walking in the door and he looked up and saw a guy with a crowd and I said, Oh, it's a Steve Goodman show. So you have to understand, when this young man goes places, Steve, you and your staff, it was a dollar. Now we're going to put two and and we won't be able to get in here next year. But again, you and your staff, you guys are just fantastic. And I just I couldn't believe, you know, we get a large crowd when there's a lot of madness going on. But tonight, this is joy, you know, and everyone that's here, you'll enjoy this. And if you get a chance, please go to some of our convention centers, go around to the hotels, support the city of Long Beach , because this guy Guillen, hey, I tell you, he's the best. Thank you. And your staff again. Good luck, big guy. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. I just wanted to chime in and say, Steve, where there is Steve, this is this is fantastic. You come here every year. I see all the support you have. It's broad, it's diverse, it's Long Beach. And we we had a chance to see and listen to Mr. Charles's video before, and we enjoyed it. Right. And we did say take at the CVB. So we're I'm really pleased to see that not only did you watch the video, you embraced it and turned it into something else. Right. And and that was really cool. So thank you so much for that. And Charles, you know, I would say that I think we got our own song up in Uptown. What do you think? We think our Uptown Funk. Uptown Funk. I think we got our own song. Thanks a lot. Thank you. What do they get ready for? For their for their comment and the singing councilman Ringo, that was nice. Just just to wrap up for let me just start by thanking just the whole crew that's here from. I see so many of our games from our hotels that are here and our convention related business leaders, a lot of workers here from from a lot of our hotels. And of course, Steve and the whole CVB team and the board, you know, we have a world class like tourism team that I think everyone kind of knows that. You hear it when you travel, you hear from other convention folks, you hear from other cities. And we're just really lucky to have all of you just kind of promoting Long Beach every single day. And I you know, I've said this before, but like, you know, I have officially, you know, deputized all of you as ambassadors for the city of Long Beach because there's nobody in the city. I said I've said this many times. There's nobody in the city that is promoting the city more than you guys. You guys are promoting the city every single day. And that's a great thing. That's something we're very, very thankful for. It's an honor for me to help lead, you know, that that promotion and that and that ambassadorship. And you're all a really important part of what we do. And, of course, Steve is I would say is, you know, he's in the show business. This is your you're the best show man in the show business because you do a great job of selling Long Beach everywhere. Let me close by saying what's really exciting to me is, you know, a few years from now, three or four years from now, when you show that video, you know, downtown Long Beach is going to look pretty different. And it's already looking different, but you're going to see a very different skyline when you show this video three or four years from now. And I think that's something very exciting for our hotels and for the community and for those of us that live in the neighborhood. So it's a very, very evolving downtown. And you'll be able to add some more lyrics as we as we do some different venues. All right. Good. Well, thank you all again for coming out, Steve. Thank you. The board really appreciate that. We have a motion in an hour and a second on this. This is a hearing. I know. So if there is, I'm going to close the hearing, if there's any public comment on the hearing. Great. With that, if I can just please cast the vote. Motion carries. The companion item to this is item 24. If you can just read 24 quickly.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Promenade Hospitality Group, LLC, dba The Ordinarie, at 210 The Promenade North, for Entertainment with Dancing. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_09102019_19-0884

Let's give them a round of applause. And thank you to our Cal State Long Beach students for being here. And they're observing one of our meetings. So thank you. And if we can have the item read, please. Hearing number two. Report from financial management. Recommendation received supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Promenade Hospitality Group at 210, the Promenade North for Entertainment with Dancing District two. There is an oath required for this. Well. Any witnesses, please stand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God that it. Well, thank you. With that, I'm going to go ahead and have our assistant city manager, Tom Modica, introduce the item. We'll have Kevin Jackson do that. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Tom. The staff presentation will be conducted by Deputy Finance Director Sandy. St Palmer and Emily Armstrong. Business Licensing. Division. Good evening, honorable. Mayor and. Members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for entertainment with dancing for Promenade Hospitality Group LLC doing business as the ordinary. Located at 210, the Promenade. North. Operating as a restaurant with alcohol in Council District two as a new business in the downtown dining and entertainment district. The ordinary was required to conduct a sound study of the establishment. After review of the application and sound study, all of the necessary departments provided their recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet, as well as the police department stand ready to answer any questions Council may have. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you for that. Are there any applicant comments on this item? No African comments are needed. Are there any? I don't think there are any appellant comments either. And so with that, let me first do public comment. We do have I think Ms.. Cantrell wants to speak to this hearing item. Is that correct? No. Okay. Then I will turn this over to Councilmember Pearce. No major comment. There have been any issues. Have been a great. Addition to the. Promenade. Councilman. Councilman Price. Okay. Then with that, I will close council deliberation and ask members to please cast your votes. My system's rebooting, so I'm a yes. Motion carries.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) in Chapter II (Administration) and Adding New Sections 2-90.3, 2-90.4 and 2-91.18 Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2034

Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, Michael Roush, appearing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office for the City of Alameda. And before you tonight are a number of proposed revisions to the city of alameda sunshine ordinance. Sir. Oh. Just by way of background, the this sunshine ordinance was first adopted by the City Council in 2012. It occurred after a year study and the involvement of numerous citizens and reticent residents throughout Alameda. It is codified in chapters 2.91 and 2.92 of the Alameda Municipal Code. As set forth in the ordinance. The the ordinance has a number of purposes. Generally it its intent is to demonstrate the City Council's commitment to an open, transparent and democratic city government. And also it ensures that residents have the time to access public information and opportunities to address both the elected and appointed officials. As part of the Sunshine Ordinance, there is an Open Government Commission which meets periodically. It was established by the ordinance to oversee and enforce the Sunshine Ordinance. And with respect to these particular amendments, the Commission reviewed these changes over a course of several different meetings, and we had lengthy discussions about the wisdom and the wording of the ordinances and the amendments. And those are before you this evening. Although there are a number of amendments to the ordinance, many of them are housekeeping rearranging where different sections of the ordinance now will be placed. But there are five major proposed revisions. Those having to do with the use of electronic communication devices at meetings. Whether or not policy body members should be able to present comments at meetings when those members are not present at the meeting. Well, another ordinance or another amendment dealing with public comments by members of policy bodies. Also concerning whether or what restrictions should be on opinions of public concerned expressed by public officials or public employees, and then also certain training requirements that the ordinance currently provides. The first item concerns the use of electronic communication devices at meetings. As currently proposed, the use of electronic communication devices such as iPads, cell phones, etc. would not be able to be used at any meeting for the purpose for any purpose other than accessing materials at a member's iPad or laptop. The idea being that there would be a concern on the part of the public that policy bodies are receiving or transmitting information that is not available either to the public or to other members of the policy body in question. And therefore, a a somewhat we would call a bright line rule saying that those the use of electronic communication devices, except for the limited purposes indicated is prohibited. Can you clarify what you mean by agenda materials there? Agenda materials would be those materials which would be contained on the member's iPad. So for example, you know, because we have issued iPads to the various policy body members, when you go there, you can get you you can look at the agenda materials in the backup information. And that would be the purpose for which you could use the your iPad access that information and that information only. The commission felt that that that was somewhat too limited and indicated that it felt that it would be appropriate to allow the use of electronic communication devices to access information on the Internet. Broader than just what would be on your iPad with respect to agenda materials staff as recommended. However, that it be more limited for the reason that I just mentioned, because of the concern that there might be the perception, if not the reality, that information would be transmitted to and from the policy body by persons who are not present, or that information would not be shared by the other members of the of the members a body. Another item has to do with whether or not a policy body member should be able to make comments at a meeting at which the the member is or not present. The concern has to do with the fact that those decisions that policy body members make, whether it's city council, a planning board or other such bodies, that those decisions should be made after hearing all the public information, all the public testimony and all the evidence. And if that policy member is not able to hear that information, then the question is, should written comments that the member provides ahead of time be submitted and be considered by the remainder of the of the Commission or the member of the policy body and the staff recommended? And the commission, the Open Government Commission agreed that that that should be prohibited, that those kind of comments should not be submitted if the member is not present at the meeting. Okay. Can you clarify if those comments are providing information as opposed to an opinion and a conclusion? I think the idea is a very fine distinction to try to make between information versus opinion or or a conclusion. I think the idea is that that the information, no matter no matter how it's characterized, it can be seen as perhaps being persuasive or more persuasive than other information. And that member would not have had the benefit of either hearing what the other members had to say about the item or what members of the public had to say about it. And therefore, it's premature to venture, whether it be an opinion or information without having the benefit of being present and being able to digest and respond to that information. Member Thank you. I guess my question is how would that be any different than any other member of the public? I mean, I can understand you may be influencing, but they're not there. They're not voting. I mean, that's the most influence that they could that's the highest level influence they could have is voting and standing next to their colleagues. But, you know, we're kind of saying just because you're on an A board and maybe you can't make the meeting, then you're not allowed to send in your opinion and you know, have something noted in the record. I mean. It seems a little restrictive to me, you know? I mean, how would that how is that different in your mind? It's clearly more restrictive. They currently exist. Again, the the concern that that had been expressed to to our office from different different departments and what the Open Government Commission considered was the fact that in order for in order for the that it seemed in not improper but it may seem not appropriate for a board member who did not have the benefit of hearing all the information to provide information to that particular body ahead of time. When that information or additional information may have come to light, that may change that person's opinion. And while it is true that the other commission members or the other policy body members may be able to say, well, that person may have changed his or her mind. If he or she would have heard all that. The concern would be that the opinion or the information expressed by that body member may get more weight than a member of the public would. Again, these are these are all policy decisions that are being set forth here in front of the council. And it's obviously up to you all to decide which of any of these amendments you feel would be appropriate to include. All right. So let me ask you. If a board member or policy or a member of this committee does have some information and will not be able to attend the meeting, and I'm going to say separate from an opinion, but just knows of something, for instance, a fact. Who do they share it with or nobody? Under under their proposal, they would not be able to share that with anyone. I mean, they could strike that. They could certainly share it with someone other than sharing it with the the body who is considering the matter. Certainly, they can have a conversation with, you know, a neighbor. And it would. But it would not be it would not become part of the public record upon which the decision would be presumably made. If I might add, I think what could happen, though, if there's a fact that's out there, that person could. Clearly call the staff member who is serving. The body. And allow let them know about a factual situation that might then that. Staff member could provide to the entire. Body. Okay. So I appreciate that member already. Thanks. But I. You know, again, how is that any different from that person giving a letter to Mr. Forman and saying, Mr. Forman, go to the planning board and read this on my behalf? I mean, I think it's kind of or submitted. Let me just add one thing there, and I'm sorry Mr. Ash was involved. In all of this. But number. One, you don't have proxies. So all of you who are. Sitting here on the dais do not have the ability to appoint a proxy to sit in. For you or to provide any information or whatever. It's very important that it be the individual people who are appointed. Who are the people who listen, debate and vote on whatever it is that. Comes before them. And you don't go from the dais to the. Podium and address the body. So you are I. Think the problem becomes and it is a policy decision, but the problem becomes you are really opening. The door for there being. Confusion about what your. Role is. And there is additional weight that's. Given to a member of the body. Who would be addressing their fellow their fellow members than just a member of the public. And so your obligation is really to be serving, as you all do, and you sit here and you listen and you debate. It's not like phoning it in, if you will. So I don't believe that was really the question. Thank you. Member de SOG. And my question. To me, this is an important question. So this. Cheat right here. Yes. Is specific you. Meeting. Right. Way in which information is or is not transmitted. Transmitted in meetings, which has a definition somewhere. But we'll all agree that. I agree with. That. Right. Thank you. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. And in response to Councilmember Otis question, I mean, I suppose theoretically a member who is not going to be present could give his or her comments to a third party. And without indicating where the source of that information came from, that person could come to the podium and and read that information and and the rest of the can of the body would not know where it came from. So it could be transmitted that way. So, yes, I mean, that that certainly could happen. The the concept here is that. The information would not be specifically from the absent. Member of the board or commission or the council, and therefore it wouldn't carry quite the same. Input or wait. Member. Odie, I'm. Sorry. One more have we had? Is this a problem that we have? Or is this? I'm aware. That we had one such issue at. The planning. Board and the planning board member was told. They could not just submit. Comments and not show up. That's the only one I'm aware of. I'm not sure if there are any others that have come to light. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it wasn't. And and we were asked about whether or not that was prohibited. And we had to advise the department at the time that no, there was no express prohibition. And from a policy standpoint, whether it was good or bad policy. So we approached it with the Open Government Commission, and the commission felt that it was better to exclude it. That's before you all tonight. Thank you. Oh, no, I'm trying to make the presentation. In the next slide. The next item has to do with public comments made by policy body members and the Sunshine Ordinance. Recognize, and I think we all agree that every member of a policy body retains his or her full constitutional rights to comment on governmental action. What this what this substantive change is, is that if the city council itself has taken a formal action, has adopted a policy or a position that is of some is of some substance, this recommendation is that an advisory body as a whole would be prohibited from taking formal action. That would contradict that. This the staff's feeling was that if the council has adopted a policy or has taken a position, that it is not appropriate for a an advisory body to take an action as a whole. That would contradict that. The commission, the Open Government Commission did not agree with that. So that's sort of an issue that's up in the air. Again, staff recommendation is that this body, the council, established that policy and that it it, you know, the wagons should be pulled in the same direction. And to have advisory bodies going a different direction doesn't show the kind of unity that we feel. The City Council would expect its advisory bodies to have. Member de SACS. So similar question as before. So this slide again is in the context of a public meeting. That correct? That is correct. That in other words, this this would prohibit X, Y, Z advisory body from taking it and adopting a resolution, adopting a motion or whatever that would be in contravention to a policy or a position that the City Council had adopted. Okay. Thank you. Member Authority. Thank you. I guess another question is staff is again. Has this happened? Have we had instances where, you know, we have a planning board running amok or. Depends on if. There was. I mean, after. There was some context to this. And my recollection is it had to do with it involved, if I'm recalling correctly, the Park District property where the council had had taken you know, had taken the position in terms of what the disposition of that would be. And one of the advisory bodies felt that there may have been some other course of action that may be more appropriate and took action to write a letter, etc.. That was, if not directly in contravention to what the council had done, that Lee certainly raised the issue that they were in disagreement with it. And I think the thought was, at least on a staff level, that that was not something that should be done. That was before a decision was made. No. Well, it was it was after the council had taken action with respect to its position or policy, with respect to that matter. Vice Mayor. Is. I'm. The question I would have then is how can an advisory body do its work and advise the council if it's expected never to contradict foreign policy? I think there's a difference between the advisory body taking action to make recommendations to the city council saying we don't think this policy is good because and making those kinds of recommendations to the council as opposed to saying, we don't think this is a good policy and we're going to write a formal letter to, you know, whatever other agency might be out there saying that we don't agree with the city council. I think that's the difference that I'm that we're trying to draw here. It doesn't mean that they can't disagree with you. It's simply a matter of how that is communicated and to whom it is communicated. And if I can jump in here really quick, again, it's I'm I'm. Getting my recollection on this particular issue. And my. Recollection is that it was the. Park and Rec Board. I think I believe that's correct. And the city was in in litigation with the East Bay Regional Park District over Neptune Point. So any issues related to whatever was going to happen with Neptune Point that would have worked its way in the authority given to the Park and Rec Department. Had. Already been done, had come to the council, the council had made a decision. We were in litigation. And then the Park and Rec Board decided. To opine as to what the council should do differently. And I ask the question because the scenario that you described is the statement that's in the ordinance, and we can I'd like to discuss that during discussion, after hearing public comment, the statement that's in the ordinance. Prohibits any action. One seems broader than the other. Think it's what is. Including giving advice. And and perhaps that that language should be tailored. So it's more specific because the intent was not to curtail the ability of advisory committees to. I'm just making a comment. We'll discuss that one. Fair enough. One more question on that. I'm sorry. And we're already. So that that outside communication, was that or was that to the council or was that to some third party. Or. No, it was to the council. They wrote a letter to the council. Another area, again, gets gets into areas that certainly there are, you know, areas of of disagreement about things of this nature. The general principle, of course, is that public employees cannot be disciplined for expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. And the ordinance recognizes that. The ordinance also recognizes that advisory board members should not be discouraged from expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. What we have tried to do is to tighten up the the ordinance here to make it more clear that if a public employee or an advisory body member renders an opinion, that it reflects that it is the person's personal opinion and does not represent that of the city or the employees department or the members board. And because the ordinance I think is currently drafted, that was a little bit it wasn't written as clearly as it could have been. And so we have tried to tighten that language up with respect to those matters. Can you clarify, is this in the personnel handbook? I would think that it would be appropriate to be the personnel handbook somehow communicated to employees there. Is it there? I do not believe that it is expressed strongly in any kind of personnel handbook, etc.. There may be some general language in the city's personnel rules, or perhaps in an MRU, but I'm not aware that it is in any personnel handbook per se. Okay. In which case you're expecting personnel to read the Sunshine Ordinance to find out what they're allowed to do and that alone. I can chime in there. They are required to read it annually. Anybody that's in the city's conflict of interest code is. Required to read it annually, though. And as you do, and all the board and commission members do. So. Not every I mean, just by way of clarification, not every employee is required to read the Sunshine Ordinance, just those who filed the Form 700. They are certainly encouraged to read the Sunshine Ordinance. And again, these, as you know, as as attorneys well know the whole issue about what a public employee can be disciplined for with respect to making comments about public matters is a very, very gray issue. It's gone up and down to the Supreme Court many times. And, you know, what we have tried to do here is distill as best we can what the current state of the law is, recognizing that there are incredible nuances in terms of what an employee, a public employee at least, can and cannot be disciplined for. We've just tried to lay out in general terms what those parameters are. Member. Thank you. Another clarifying question. Thank you for your indulgence. So were public employees, advisory board members. These are different. Correct. So who would be an advisory board member? Any of them? Any of the the board members to which you appoint planning board members, civil service board, park and Recreation Transportation Committee, any of those. Any of those persons would be considered advisory boards. I mean, maybe this is rhetorical, but isn't the point of being on an advisory board to express your personal opinion on matters of personal public concern? Yes and no. And there isn't any difficulty with that. The the difficulty arises where the statements or the statements might be made and made in context, where it gets construed that that person is representing the city's position or the advisory board members position rather than the person or persons personal opinion. And again, it's it's a it's a fine line. And and and the line's not always bright. But what we have tried to do here is to make the line a little brighter so that advisory board members know what their rules and regulations are, recognizing that, you know, the council, certainly under the charter reserves the right to remove a an advisory board member or, you know, any any cause other than, you know, an unlawful cause. Member, De Saag. Thank you. So when a person is part. Of an advisory board and comes to city council to talk on a subject that might be substantively different from the advisory board on which she or he serves. Is is that person still have to make some kind of declaration that this is my own personal opinion and not reflective of the advisory board that I am a part. That would be the ideal situation so that if a an advisory board member appears before you to express his or her opinion about a matter about which you are deliberating, that that person would identify doesn't necessarily have to identify him or herself as a member of the board. But if he or she does that, we would hope that that he or she would also say that I'm doing this as an individual, recognizing that, you know, you know, who's on the board. I mean, it's it's sort of a, you know, it's sort of a facade in that way. L All up question Some advisory boards are advisory to city council but are not necessarily made up of persons who were appointed by council. Is that does this slide cover that person as well? Yes, because a sunshine ordinance defines. Those. It uses a term policy board member rather than advisory board, but essentially it's broad enough that it would cover those situations where persons are appointed or serve on boards or committees that aren't necessarily appointed by the full council, but might be, for example, appointed by the mayor. Thank you. And continuing with the the angels dancing on the heads of parents. This is this is a this is sort of a a take off or a akin to what we have just been discussing. And again, this was another section of the ordinance which in many ways duplicated this, the ordinance section that we just talked about. And again, the commission recommended that this section be deleted from the ordinance because it felt it was a somewhat duplicative. And B, that the employee, you know, to the extent that you want to provide rules about what employees should and should not do, it ought to appear elsewhere rather than the Sunshine Ordinance. That's certainly a valid recommendation. We were the snap was reluctant just to take it out of the ordinance. And so we put it into a section that is in a better place, as it were, within the was within the Sunshine Ordinance. But it is very much akin to what we've just discussed. And the last big ticket item here are the training requirements. As as the city clerk has indicated, the ordinance requires persons who file form 700 to declare under penalty of perjury annually that they have read the ordinance, and that those persons must also attend annual training on the ordinance. Because there typically are relatively few changes to the ordinance. In fact, these are the first ones that have been made and in three years now we are suggesting that the training occur every three years rather than annually. Persons would still be required to declare under penalty of perjury that they have read or reread the ordinance. We would have the we have a training video that we have on file and persons who are elected or who are appointed and are required to have this training would then be required to view that video in order to meet the requirement. Thank you. And with that, that finishes my presentation. Our recommendation, of course, is that the the council introduce the ordinance with the staff to recommend the changes. And I'll be glad to answer any other questions that the Council may have. We do have two speakers. So if you have a clarifying question that matters. I do. Thank you, Mr. Roush, for the presentation. So I think I just have one question from the staff report and that's on page three where this is having to do with the use of electronic communication devices other than for the purpose of members accessing agenda materials, etc.. And my question is, how would a provision regarding the expanded use of electronic devices or maybe narrowed use of electronic devices be monitored and enforced? It's basically an honor system. You know, I don't think that this counsel has any interest in having a electronic communication device. Police, police the activity. I think the idea is if the council establishes that as its policy, it's going to be presumed that that this council and all of the other policy bodies will honor that. If, you know, if someone doesn't, I suppose then someone felt that there was a problem. They would file a complaint with the Open Government Commission and it would be investigated. But I think as a you know, as a matter of course, it's an honor policy that that but I think the the public and the staff would expect that the the policy and body would would follow. Thank you. And can you clarify in regard to that same topic? But we could or could not access. Would we be able to use a calculator? I would say the answer is no, because, again, a a calculator is an electronic communication device. And if I if reading the words, literally, the answer would be no. All right. And what about Google Maps? Would we be able to draw look up a map of the site that we're looking at? That's not an agenda item. If it were not included within your agenda materials, the answer would be no. All right. I appreciate that. And I'm going to call some speakers now, John Klein and then Paul Foreman. Thank you. Hi. My name's John Klein. First of all, I want to say I'm a consumer of public records and that your city clerk does a fantastic job of delivering them way ahead of time. It's sort of like I sent in a request to go have a cup of coffee and sit down. There it is. I mean, it's not quite that fast, but pretty close sometimes. But the city clerk's office is doing a great job. I wanted to address specifically. This is not within the items that you're thinking about. Tonight. But it's section 2.9, 3.2. It's the timeline for filing a complaint. The complaint must be filed. If you think there's been a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, a claim that must be filed within 15 days. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. And my question would be, if you filed a complaint within 20 days, do you reject it? And then what is the what is the recourse that the got the complaint and has is the recourse to the Brown Act. And then they must go to Superior Court to enforce a violation simply because it's run under your own rules. And that might suggest that your rules are infamous, impermissibly too restrictive. But a larger issue is I'm a fairly new in Alameda but I know of this that you have several sort of like what I call quirky little timelines. For instance, at the Rack, you must if you have a complaint on rent increase, it must be seven days. Well, again, what happens at the 10th day? Are you just out of luck? That doesn't seem quite right. Then you have seven days to appeal a rack recommendation. Okay. That could be a little longer. But the flip side to you can appeal it to the have city council, review it within seven days. That could be a little longer. The flip side of that, the council has no there is no timeline for the council to issue its ruling on whatever that appeal is. And so that's. That's a hole that needs to be in in that particular aspect. But I think that's it. So as far as I don't understand the need for the 15 day limit. Perhaps I'm sitting at home looking at a council meeting from a few months ago and I see something, you know, I see a Brown Act violation. It's it's too late. And that doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem that. But it seems to me that the only recourse at that point is to the Brown Act and to Superior Court. And that doesn't seem correct. Thank you very much. Thank you. Paul Foreman. Madam Mayor. Members of Council. The first part of my talk. Presentation is not going to be public comment. It's going to be representing the position of the Commission. I hope it will be treated in that manner, although I don't intend to to speak long. The second part will be my personal opinion, and I will let you know when I've crossed the Rubicon there or whatever. I think counsel has described the situation well. There are two points of disagreement between the commission and the staff. I hold up the quotation marks because one thing that I wonder is who is staff? I don't know who I'm arguing with. But the two items are the one involving the use of communication devices, which I'm going to speak to. And the other one involves the the a advisory board being able to take a position contrary to council in a public way, which I'm not going to speak to. Irene Deeter was to speak to that when we were dealing with it last month. But she can't be here today. But I think she has communicated her thoughts to some, if not all of you. Now, the Commission certainly agreed unanimously, I would say, with staff's provision to move this section from findings to its to a substantive art. And we also agreed that things like emails, texts, instant messaging during a meeting should not be allowed because it's a public meeting and all public comments should be available to the public. However, the Commission felt that the subsection in the findings and even the new subsection as drafted is too narrow and does not reflect today's technical technological reality that elected and appointed officials should be able to use their personal smartphones or iPads or laptops, assuming and they seek to access information relevant to the subject matter that under discussion, for example, an official may want to access electronically a portion of the city's municipal code or other data on a city website that is not on the agenda. You may want to view a Google Map satellite view of an area of the city that is proposed for development, even though such portion is such a portion is is not part of the agenda materials. He may want to review historical information relevant to the issue. You've been talking about some historical information here. So for that reason, we have drafted language that the use of electronic communication devices other than for purposes of a member's accessing agenda, materials that are on a members iPad or a laptop computer or accessing information available on the Internet shall be prohibited during meetings. So we are allowing you to access the Internet for informational purposes. Now, staff continues, as you know, to recommend their language, saying that if we our language is used, there will no longer be a bright line. And our position is the commission language is just as bright as that of the staff clearly stating what is or is not prohibited insofar as monitoring is concerned. There's lots of possible violations of the Sunshine Law, which are not very monitored for. I don't know what Councilman De Saag is looking at now. But that's just an example. I'm not trying to play it because you happen to have a laptop out there. But, you know. But there may be a discovery request. I'm looking at this unsigned ordinance. All right. But the point is that there might be a request for emails. There have been discovery requests made for emails. And we may discover in that that an email was sent during a meeting. And then that's how it would be, you know, reveal. So we would like you to consider the commission unanimous decision. Now, my personal view and how you can time me has changed since voting. Since voting for the broader language, allowing agenda and internet viewing. I would prefer the members use of their devices be allowed for any purpose other than sending and receiving communications. I think you should be able to use it for note taking drafting their statement of rationale for a vote, etc.. Also, I would redraft this section to remove any reference from devices to devices at all. The issue is not the devices but one of having private communications with others concerning city business during a public meeting. In this day and age, the use of a computer type device during a meeting does not create the impression that one has been using it for some nefarious purpose. I'm sure it never crossed anybody's mind that Tony is now communicating with Roland Colin during a meeting. I just. Don't. Which I'm not. Let's be clear about that. Okay. I keep picking on him, but that's because we know how honest Tony is and we would never think that. And in this day and age, just because you look at your iPhone, it's not assumed you're doing something nefarious. My own personal view is I would change Section eight to make it much shorter and much simpler. And it would say this, you know, here I should have given you this just because my. My language would be. In order to ensure that all communications to members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public. Members are prohibited from sending or receiving emails, text, instant messages during the meeting that pertain to the business thereof. Anything else you can do? Including emailing your wife that you're going to be late tonight. And that's my view of it. These are wonderful devices. If they're used correctly, they're going to help you in your decision making. And I don't want to limit that. One last thing. That is, we never we got these responses from staff, but they never discussed them with us. If Council sees fit and you want to send us back to the drawing board, only this time ask for a working session between the commission and whatever members of staff are involved in this and try to work out new language for you. I think that would be a good idea. So anyway, I think I can speak for the commission in saying we're perfectly willing to do that if you'd like us to. Thank you. Any questions? I'd be glad to answer. A memory. I tell a point of information management is your watch. How's your. What is your suggestion on how we go through these? I mean, one at a time or. I just want to clarify. So. Mr. Foreman is on the commission, so. I really understand. All right. And Irene. Called me. I appreciate that. I'm sorry. Okay. Just trying to move along. So I would suggest that we actually go through each item separately, have that discussion, decide each item. But our what our decision is and then move on to the next one. That's good. So that we can discuss each item. Thank you. All right. So and can go through the presentation in regards to the issues that you wanna look at the ordinance itself. I mean, I was suggesting calling the staff report. All of the staff report. All right. So. First item on page six is use of electronic communication devices at meetings. That's what I believe is the first one on the list. Not Mayor? Yes, vice mayor. I think that distillation that we just heard is at the root of the problem. If there's private discussions that are going on that the public doesn't have knowledge of. I think that should be called out as being prohibited. As far as receiving and looking, searching for other information. I'm torn a little bit on that because the public should see the information that's been discussed before the meeting. That's the purpose of the notification and we should be making. The determination is based on what has been presented publicly for discussion. But on the other hand, if if we need more information, there's something on Google Maps that should be there that should not be entered into the discussion unless the public gets a chance to look at it as well. So I think the. What we should at least we should clarify the the prohibition of the. Nonpublic communications which amount to discussion with with the body members. And I'm I'm fine with leaving. Limited to. Accessing what has been. Put out in the public as materials for that meeting. If we need more, we can ask for it and have that noticed. And sent out member Ashcroft. And at this point, I'm just going to go around and then we can discuss after our positions. All right. Nebraska. Yeah. So I. I'm not comfortable, what with the expansion that I've heard discussed of the use of electronic communication devices in meetings for much the same reasons that the vice mayor just articulated. The. The public is entitled to know what we base our deliberations in our decision making process on. And if there is, you know, in the course of preparing for meetings and we're reading material and we feel that there is there's more information that's needed, there's a way to let staff know that and and to get that introduced into the public record. But I. I would not support the expansion to be able to pull up from the Internet right there at the meeting with no advance information to the public. The kind of information that is suggested in this handout that Mr. Foreman just gave us, and I certainly appreciate all the time and thought. That. Went into the comments. I probably would have been even more comfortable if there was something that, you know, showed all the names of the commission as this having come from them. But. And in any event, I just. The Brown Act still governs what we do. And I can't square this particular amendment or revision with the Brown. Thank you. And before calling them memory, it's my recollection that the commission did have a recommendation that was broader, that was brought, and that staff is contradicting at this point. In regards to your comment of having them approve that statement. And. You know what? Remember what their recommendation was? Does anyone? It wasn't here. It's on. It's on the staff report. The the taped one, not the PowerPoint on page two, I believe. What was it? Go ahead. I guess I can read it. The commission never felt that this subsection as drafted was too narrow and did not reflect today's technological reality that elected and appointed officials should be able to use their personal smartphones or iPads during a meeting to access information relevant to the subject matter than under discussion, but should not be allowed to use such devices to send or receive information to or from inappropriate sources such as third parties. Rick. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you. So that in my opinion, that was exactly what the Commission had said. Member Audie. Thank you, Madam Chair, I. You know, I'm more inclined to support, you know, the commission's recommendation. And, you know, perhaps Mr. Foreman's suggestions have some merit, too. I mean, the way that the the the staff said it, we have to turn them off. So we can't turn them off and still access our agenda on our iPad at the same time. So there's a direct contradiction there. And I do remember it was Mr. Foreman who said it or someone else. But, you know, if you have a family member that's, you know, having a problem, I'm not going to turn up my phone and not know that somebody's having an emergency. I do think it's inappropriate for, you know, for example, me to text, you know, council member Ashcraft and say, you know, can you believe so-and-so said that, you know, we need to do whatever, whatever. You know, that's inappropriate. And, you know, the the fictitious that did not happen conversation that Mr. De Saag was in. Unfortunately, we might want to put that. But that actually. Said those type of things, I think, yeah, we shouldn't be doing that. But you know, if we're having a discussion on the investment strategy and investment policy and the staff report says the investment policy is on the city's website and we have to look it up on the website. We should be allowed to do that. I mean, if we hear something in public comment and maybe we say, well, that person's clearly wrong, you know, we should be able to go to the Internet and look it up. Or if someone says, you know what? I remember there was one instance a while back what proposition? We required us to do something. You know, and we should be able to look that up and, you know, provide that information or say, you know, wait a minute. You know, The Chronicle says. Blah or. You know, amend the minutes from a year ago because, you know, the clerk's not going to pull up minutes from a year ago. We can pull it up really fast on our on our our iPads. But that's not something that's in a packet. I that's. Why. I heard him comment. After. I mean, so then I'm going to stop in the middle of before I'm trying to prepare my remarks and say, Laura, can you can you get these minutes from 2014? And when, you know, I could just look them up, get my point and, you know, write what I'm going to say. So, you know, I'm more inclined to lean towards what the commission recommended, but still with some restrictions that, you know, the five of us aren't allowed to text to each other or email to each other, or there may be an email that somebody wrote me that I want to refer to that, you know, maybe a public comment or triggered my memory and I forgot to write it down that I wanted to talk about it and I should be able to talk about it, you know, but I shouldn't be sending an email to Janet or the attorney or Ms.. Ott or anybody else, you know, during during the meeting, you know, that I totally get. But. You know, we should be allowed to research some information, whether it's Google Maps or the municipal code or whatever else, historical information, those type of things. Amber Daisuke a. Great. Thank you. I guess my biggest concern is the inability to use calculators because Excel spreadsheet is a calculator in effect. And to me, this is important. I mean, way back in 2003, when we were an incredibly important discussions about refinancing bonds for at the time the Alameda Power and Telecoms Telecommunication Project. You know, in looking at the data that was before me, I just ran some quick numbers on the amount of customers that that were expected. And if you believed what was in the packet, you would have had to have believed that we were going to suddenly get a 61% increase in in subscribers over a short period of time. And I had I think those were calculations I made on XL then at the meeting. And to me, it's like that was struck at the core of whether for that specific matter, that struck at the core of whether or not it was indeed feasible. And you could only do that with, you know, some kind of tool. You could have done it before the meeting, for sure. But I can't recall if the meeting if the numbers were presented at the meeting. So I don't know. I can't recall. But it it's really hard for me to you. I mean, this not being able to use certain electronic devices. I think that's really I think the public wants us to be the best council members as possible and they want us to be armed with whatever tools that are necessary to make the best decisions possible . And at the same time, there needs to be safeguards with regard to, you know, relaying information in ways that the public does not have access to. It's a fine balance, but at this point, I don't think that the balance has been struck yet. So. So I would agree with member Ody and member de Saag, and I think that everyone expects us to be able to use a calculator. I think it's a very extreme position to recommend that we are not allowed to use calculators. I and and also I personally use the laptop and I don't require print hard copies of most things. And in order to come and all of us any research we do at home, any notes we take on a tablet or anything to suggest that we can only look at our notes if we put them on a hard copy, we can look at them if we take notes on an iPad. Or to me, that's completely contrary to a prior report we had in regards to being green. I think we do want to be green. I think we are encouraging the use of this iPad. In fact, if the city is not going to allow us to do anything but review that, I'm not sure it's worth the city's money to even give us these. I think that the city does loan these to us to be able to access calculators. The emails that we receive, we don't have I don't ask staff to print out every email that would be voluminous on some issues to access. And, you know, without repeating everything, we're sorry and they succeed. Personally, I, I do support the. The Commission's recommendation. Except actually, I think I agree with having the focus. I would rather have just focused on the issue of communication between members. Actually, communication during the meetings that I don't think they should be used for communication with anyone else during a meeting. Actually, not as anyone else I would. In regards to texting, if you receive a text from a family member or something like that, I don't have a problem with that and I know many of us are here to when I am or whatever. You may very well have a family member that you need to communicate with. And I don't think that by serving on the council or any of our boards, you should have to not not have access to a family member or whatnot. But I do think that and I think we all agree it's inappropriate for us to communicate with each other or someone else, you know, to receive information in regards to an issue. So with that being said. Should we frame a motion on this? Someone want to make a motion? I have a quiver. So I heard a council member disagree. I thought you stated the issue very well. And I. I do think I agree with you. The public wants us to be well prepared and to use tools, but with some limitations. So I would be interested in hearing from you. I'm assuming if you threw that language out, you might have some ideas of some limitation language you might put in there. And by the way, I agree with the part. I was actually surprised about the calculator, the language I had. I don't have specific language, but what I was impressed with the final paragraph in Mr.. Form Foreman. Foreman's letter, and I was impressed because to me it kind of, you know, it satisfies Occam's Razor. You know, the things that are the most parsimonious are probably the most or whatever are probably better. And I retrieved the members are prohibited from sending or receiving emails, texts, instant messages, etc. during the meeting that pertain to the business thereof. But I mean, yeah. But yeah we're going to receive stuff from people. Yeah. Yeah. Shouldn't be sending. Parts of consent. Across the. Ocean. Well, but to the mayor's point, though, you probably want the because you you made the reference to text messages for emergency purposes. And I still would like, though, to hear of the the city attorney to weigh in on what about accessing information or Mr. Rausch accessing information that the public doesn't have access to that we might be basing our decisions on. So, in fact, in regards to that, if we take notes at home and we bring them here in a hard copy, how does that differentiate from something that I'm retrieving on a computer as opposed to printing it out? I think that if there is a consensus on on this council that this language needs to be looked at a little more thoroughly, clarified somewhat. My recommendation would be, rather than have you all try to wordsmith it tonight. That will be here once you all have made comments on it. Let us take it back to the Open Government Commission with those comments in mind and bring you back something that that may be a little more workable from your point of view. You know, we were you know, we were working off what the you know, what the prior council had adopted. Staff was a little concerned about going further than what that council had done. If this council is comfortable with expanding it and clarifying the language, let us work with the Open Government Commission to see if we can come up with some language more acceptable rather than, you know, rather than try and come up with the precise language tonight. If that's the council's desire. So member body. Thank you. I mean, I'm okay with that. I think the commission, according to the staff report, you know, they had ideas. So I mean, they should be able to go back and put their ideas into some type of language. And, you know, my suggestion would be to kind of incorporate what Mr. Foreman had to say. You know. Certainly have heard some good suggestions tonight in terms of not making it quite so narrow and to allow the use of things like calculators, allowing family members, you know, to to communicate with you all. I think there's some some definite wordsmithing we can do that will accomplish what I'm hearing the council saying. But rather than spending time trying to do that tonight, let's work with the commission. Have you who've you've appointed to come back with that language and hopefully it would be your preference. Thank you. But hopefully it's not like a laundry list of things that you know can be done and can't be done because, you know, then we're expanding our ordinance and, you know, general statement of policy concept. We will keep it as succinct as possible. You know, not having, you know, A through Z. Yeah. Vice mayor and having heard the discussion or the comments of my colleagues and. Again revisiting the wording that hits the prohibition of. Nonpublic discussions of agenda items I think is the core list in all the things that are permissible. But I'm hearing that that's not what we want. But I would like to have the commission consider. Some language, its guiding language, not prohibitive language around. The balance between what the public would see as the presentation. It starts the discussion. But accommodates the need to go back and look for something that may not be included in the packet, such as previous meeting minutes, expanded maps, etc.. So those are the two points that I came away with, hearing what my colleagues said. Mine is actually much broader that we would be able to use them for anything we could do at home and just not have to print them out and then have access. I think that because again, people may feel comfortable printing stuff. The rest of us, I think, may not. But that that doesn't. Whether it's just on a computer or it's a hard copy, it's still the same. But I'd still like to have that that clarification that is part of open government. Right? When we have an agenda item, here are the materials that start the discussion. And everybody, the public as well as us sees that they prepare their own notes. But something to express what you just said. But in the context of we're starting from a common place of information that's been gathered by our staff to discuss this item . But I think that's what we. So I'm not sure what that is different from what currently happens. We receive an agenda that has documents. Is that not the starting point that you're referring to or are you referring to something else? Well, I that's exactly what I'm talking about. And that's what I think. I think the vice mayor articulated it very well. And I would I. Would I appreciate that. I was asking him to clarify. That's what I. Meant. I actually wasn't asking you. Thank you. I wasn't waiting to be asked. And I understand that. All right. Let's move on to the next item. Policy body members submitting written comments were not present at the meeting. We wanted to speak to this. But we don't it. There's nothing on definition a meeting in policy body. Well, this was. I'm I'm not okay either. So that item, I think, was just more for information purposes than anything else we're not recommending. And the commission did not recommend any changes there. We included that because the Commission had a somewhat lengthy discussion about it and staff wanted to make sure you were aware of that discussion. But there really aren't any substantive changes relative to that. Item number two. Thank you. Okay. So before we move on though, is everyone agree in agreement with leaving that as is and I'm okay. All right. Thank you. And public comments by policy body members. Is that another item or is that the same? Actually, every. On mine. No, it's all right in that president meeting. I recommend there should be no prohibition where a staff is recommending a prohibition would be prohibited. Okay. So this is where the commission disagreed with the staff. Though the commission recommended that there should be no prohibition and staff recommended that there should be. Well. Yes. My opinion on this is that I like staff's recommendation and I like staff's recommendation because it's similar to. When Council is going to be part of a meeting. But they're like, they might be in another state. They have to go through this whole process of agenda raising themselves, making making themselves readily available so that the public can kind of know where, how and where that person is and how that person is going to get involved. This basically says, well, you don't have to have that process. You know, you can just phone it in basically. And you know what? You have to show up. If you want to be part of the meeting, you have to show up. I think that was the prior item. Yeah, that was. Okay. So know that this has to be reality and that was actually the one pertaining to whether or not you can send that take some formal action that contradicts counsel's adopted policy. Oh, so number three. Okay. Okay. So Tony was a member Dave I was referring to. Oh, I'm. On the staff report. Okay. I for flirtation. But you're in number three and I think we might have skated on to number four. So now I think. I'm actually following the presentation. Okay. That's how. We doing on. The presentation. There is an item that's policy body. So that was the one pertaining to whether or not someone that's not present. Good comment. And I think we all agree that that's okay to leave that that if you don't attend, you don't comment or. I'm a little concerned that people check their right to speak at the door when they become a member. But and I actually would agree with you on that. I don't have a problem allowing them to. You know, but the example in the staff report, you know, if you disqualify yourself because of financial conflict, well, you know, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that. So it's a little bit yeah, you know. I mean, to me, I don't know that we have a problem and if someone is not going to be able to vote, wants to express an opinion. That a constitutional right. And I think the risk of having them carry a little more weight than a public person. It is is not very great compared to the lack of someone's ability to say something. So clarify member. Ashcroft. Yes. So can one of the staff attorneys or the attorney remind us, is there a case law that that speaks to this? There really is not. It simply was. It's a policy issue as to whether or not. Aye, aye, aye, aye. Policy board member who is not present should be allowed to provide information to that persons policy board if he or she is not present. Now the way it is written is sort of notwithstanding that if the item concerns a person's personal residence or the person's business. Much like the rules are with respect to conflicts of interest, that person would still have the right at that point to provide information to that person's policy board. So there is an exception. It's not a you never can do it. It's simply if if the item involves the property next door to me and I can't be there to the meeting, I would still be able to provide comments to the, you know, to my to my board. But the general rule is that if you're out of town or on vacation or whatever, then you would not be able to submit comments to your board. There's no I'm not aware of any case law that says anything. This is strictly, you know, does this council think that's a good idea or a bad idea? And that's where it is. And would disagree. So my take on this is that is just being practical, is that as Woody Allen says, you know, half the battle is showing up. So if you show up, then you not only get the right to vote, but you get the right to express your opinion. You mean it's not fair that if you don't show up and it's a controversial item and you don't happen to show up, but you get to insert your opinion for the public for the public record, you don't have to vote on it. Oh, you know what? I sent in my. To me, that's not fair to me is, you know, you're appointed or elected officials or commission and you show up and you vote and you make your opinions. Me if you're not there to get. Any other comments. So I'm sorry. Just yeah, I kind of would think that it would be the flip side that, you know, if somebody has a financial conflict, you know, I don't really want to hear their opinion because I think they're conflicted out from from sharing it with their colleagues on the board or the council. But, you know, otherwise. It's kind of a free speech issue. I don't I don't again, I don't think you check your your speech rights at the door by joining a board or commission. Did you already speak on the item member Ashcroft? No, I don't think I, I, I, I think part of the problem I may be having is that we're mixing a couple of concepts into one provision. So board member with a disqualifying financial conflict of interest. Shouldn't be allowed to. I mean, a conflict is a conflict. But under any circumstances. But then this and this other question of whether a member of a body is physically unable to attend. Should they be able to submit comments that they feel strongly about, presumably in writing, I guess. I don't see the harm in that, but I'm not sure why we're why those two belong together. So. That's the that was the staff recommendation. So that's why I was commenting on it. So staff, I don't know if you want to respond to her comment, but I would agree that this member already and vice mayor I'd rather have it. I don't want to quash someone's First Amendment right to speak. The wasn't trying to mix the metaphor. I was simply trying to indicate that. In the situation where a person had a conflict of interest that would otherwise caused a person lead the diet and leave the room. But if that person had a personal I mean, if the exception under the APC would allow the person to come down off the dais and address the commission. And I was analogizing that if that were the situation where the board member were not present. But was in the same situation as if the person could address that body. If that had been a conflict of interest, then it would be okay to submit the information because the person's personal interests would be involved as opposed to not being involved at all. So it was it was perhaps not the best analogy, but that was the best I can come up with to try to indicate where that exception would apply. So if you want to work on that language and bring it back and I think separate the two comments so that if I for at least a majority of members, say that if assuming there's not a conflict of interest and the person just happens to not be able to attend the meeting, then they can in fact submit something their comments in writing to be considered. It's written today. They'll write. Well. Maybe I misunderstanding is. The that the language in there right now is simply create an exception as to when the person could. I think what we're looking for from the council is does the council feel that it is appropriate for a board member as a general principle to be able to submit comments, even if that board member can't attend? And if the answer is yes, then we can do away with this whole section. If the answer is no, then I think the language as proposed covers that. So I don't think the language is where it has too many negatives. I would propose that it be rewritten so that it's it's actually more of the positive that a member of a policy body, as you want to say, who is unable to attend, may submit written comments regarding and unless they're disqualified as opposed to the no member. I think that's what you're saying is if you're a member of a party, you can present your comments if you're going to be absent unless you are disqualified for some reason. Or are you asking whether the the ordinance needs to address it at all? Well. Well, what what I was trying to say and perhaps I didn't say it as artfully as I could, is that the way it's drafted? Is the general rule, is a board member who is not present, can't submit any comments. The exception to that would be is if the item before that board pertains to that person's personal financial. Interest, then that person could submit comments. Now we could take that out and just say you can't submit comments and the story. Or I think we're saying the opposite, that they can submit comments. And then we then we can just delete this whole section and we don't need to rewrite it. If the if the. Correct. All right. Better still. Okay. Is everyone good without them? All right. Very good. Okay. That's really clear. Yeah, I just. I mean. Yeah, that's. If it's okay, it's okay to submit the comments. That means this section can go away. Excellent. All right, moving on, then. Of course, the next. Okay. Next is the body. Public comment by members of the boss the body. So this, I think, was the letter that we were talking about earlier, that this is that paragraph, this provision. All right. So in regards to whether or not we think of public bodies should be able to weigh in on an issue. Anyone want to discuss that one? Madam Mayor? Yes, Vice Mayor. Given that the Council can. Remove any member of a board and given that staff can. During the deliberations of the of the advisory body provide them with the information of what is city policy. I think given those two, I, I, I think that the recommendation of the Open Government commit commission should stand. I don't think there should be a prohibition. And that's kind of the American way. If there's egregious problems at the council level and it's I think it's the duty of. Boards commission citizens to speak up. And we have a history, a recent history, civil rights history is based on those changes that were based on people by changing the status quo. So I don't think we have anything that approaches that here. But I think to put that prohibition here maybe doesn't belong in an open government policy. It might work the opposite. Remember Ashcroft? And just to refresh my recollection of the the letter and I know I was on that council, but the letter that the Recreation Parks Commission wrote said just sent to city council members, was it published? Was it sent to another governmental entity like the Park District? But what happened? Well, it was public. It was sent to the council. It was publicly available. And so the Park District would have received it. But I. Frankly don't remember at this point in time. Whether it was it was individually sent to the Park District as well, but they certainly would have had the ability to see it. And do you remember anything specific? It was not specifically sent to the Park District. It was was provided directly. Okay. Well, I mean, in in that case, and I, I will hasten to say that I am really reluctant to craft a code section or a provision that focuses on one instance that we can all recall that clearly. I mean, there in the case of litigation, when we're in litigation. Press litigation is going to be in closed session. So I mean, a commission, I, we wouldn't want things to be done that would be undermining our position in litigation. At the same time, in a city of any size and, you know, we're pretty good mid-sized city, there are going to be a variety of differing opinions. And so then to the point the vice mayor made about the council always has the prerogative of removing a board of commission member. My only question would be, is there language somewhere that is clear enough about when you do cross that line and get into the territory where you might be removed? Because we certainly wouldn't want to impose something. As drastic as removing someone from a commission without their having notice of what could get them into hot water. Did you see. Something? I don't. And I actually don't see why there should be a prohibition based on pretty much that same line as that. The situation that was described was a legitimate difference of opinion and a legitimate advice, in my opinion. And. I think this seems to be. And trying to squash that. I'm concerned. Mary Spencer, I'd love it if you would just let us to have a little bit of a discussion, a back and forth. I know you want to get to the people that we. Have and members that haven't said and I. Know and I and I think that they will do that. Lined up your comments. Absolutely so. So I'm vice mayor. See, I understand and I think I agree with you on that particular instance with the letter. Can you envision just in a broader sense, because if we're crafting a policy, it's going to apply to more than just one instance. Can you imagine an instance where we would even want to weigh in on this, or should this not even be a part of the mentioned ordinance? I don't think it should be a part of the Sunshine Ordinance. I think it's part of the handbook for new commissioners and what their duties are, what their responsibilities are. It's like the council has and and take it out. All right. I'm going to call on another member at this point. But I do think there's value to discussing things. Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, I'm kind of. Seeing both both sides there. I think if a council sends a I mean, if a commission or board sends a letter to the council that says, we disagree with what you do, I don't think we should stop that. I mean, if they're sending a a letter to an outside organization that undermines, you know, our policy or undermines our, you know, position in litigation, you know, then I think that that's not appropriate. Do we think that we have that the remedy of removing them from that board or commission is sufficient? I mean, I guess that's something we'll have to decide, but. Yeah. That's kind of where I am on that because you know. How many staff shouldn't be advising? Bodies to send out, you know, say, for instance, that letter was sent to the Park District. You know, staff should stop that from happening. I mean, the council spoke, but, you know, someone disagreeing with us. And then, you know, I kind of wonder, you know, if we still have ultimate say over some of these these decisions that we make a policy and say the planning board decides to do something contrary to that policy . You know, we still have the ability to reverse what the planning board did. So. Yeah. Everyone should just be reasonable. You know, when they're on a commission, they kind of know what their role is in there, you know? But maybe. Maybe that's why we have a bunch of regulations. I don't know. All right, member de Saag. Well, I think there is a possibility for or this kind of language. There is a possibility of of members of advisory boards that report the council sending information that can be construed. For. That can be construed as a certain position of the city, which is not. And I think. We need to be able to have language that sets ground rules. Ground rules can be, you know. Such members have to be clear that whether this is a personal opinion or what is the received, what is the what is the official position of the city? Because I look at this as kind of a sequential issue. Members of policy committees, legislative bodies, advisory committees are there to vet a range of issues and then submit to city council their recommendations. That's the next process. And a city council then makes makes a decision. And when the decision is made. Then Figure two speaking, the ship is going to move in a certain direction. So we can't have that direction undermined by contributions, further contributions that suggest that. The City Council's position is otherwise. So there needs to be some kind of language that guards against that possibility. People can continue to express their their their views on whatever. They just need to be clear that as to what is their personal view and what is the city official position. And they need to be clear as to whether or not they are using, you know, city official letterhead or not. I mean, you know, actually, that was another example. I mean, I don't think it was that bad. I mean, but I do believe the planning board several months ago sent a letter to Caltrans, which I thought kind of odd, but I believe it went from the planning board and I thought it was odd, but, you know, it happened. But, you know, the the injury that it caused, I don't it was it wasn't big or it didn't matter. But but it did kind of raise my eyebrows like, hmm, that's interesting. Why is the planning board getting directly in touch with with Caltrans? I believe that that had happened several months ago. So. But I do think that I do see the reasoning for why this is in place. So. May I just ask a question of Councilmember Desai? I just wanted to stay on what he talked about because the one thing and the vice mayor raised the specter of civil rights. Please let me continue. You know, I have right. I have a First Amendment right to. I just. Just let me finish this one side and you get the resolution for free. Well. If we hadn't have it. And we let. The mayor. So I think. And then will you let me get back to addressing councilmember design, because I do have a question. For each of us have a turn. And that was a yes. You would said, let's let each of us have a turn. Okay. Thank you. And I'll take mine after use. All right. So in regards to my comments on this item, I would agree with the vice mayor. I have concerns about limiting the free I would say the free speech and also the ability to do their job. The another body. So if they determined to send a letter, then I think there are other ways to come back. If you think it's inappropriate that are that are a better way to address this than to limit their speech. And I and I do agree that in regards to. Oh, this country works. It makes sense. And I personally do want to hear from other advisory boards if they have an opinion that goes to a decision that was made by council. As time passes, that decision may be changed by input from a board that would then demonstrate that we should reconsider. And I think that's how that decision, how decisions get reviewed as as time passes. And I think that may have actually happened in regards to this incident as time passed. So. Now. Now we have. I think we ought to. Maybe three different opinions. I'm not sure. Brody, would you like to weigh in more? Are you going to let me, though, address Tony? Council member Dysart, Mayor Spencer. I'm don't mind waiting till after Councilman Brody, but I'm hoping you're not trying to yell. I'm trying to. See where we are as a council on this issue. Because he was not clear. So when I heard what Councilmember De Sykes said, I think it was very convincing. So I'm kind of leaning more toward. Now that we don't want to restrict. Nobody from saying something inside but outside once the ship has sailed. You know, but. Someone wants to write a letter and say, you know, we disagree with you. You can't say you made a stupid decision. I think they should have the right to do that. And in this situation, it's my understanding it was a letter to council. All right. So Member Ashcraft, thank you. So actually. What when Councilmember Desai was speaking. One thing that occurs to me is that in general, I do believe you get in line behind what the city's official position is. I think in litigation it's especially sensitive. And in this case, even though the letter was written to the council, it sure did get out there in the public realm and in this day of Internet communications. Yes, sir. Opposing party. The Park District did get hold of it. So I'm. But then I would probably go on to ask. And what was the harm that befell the city as a result of that? Because the concern I also have and and I think the mayor was actually starting to say something about this, is that in the history of this country and in the history of civil rights, governments have made decisions that weren't always the correct decision. I'm not I'm not referring specifically to this park district one. But. But so how then do citizens have recourse in in actual real time? Because and in this case, by the way, it wasn't a matter of voicing an opinion as time passed after the fact. It was contemporaneous with the litigation going on. But I, I do think that there should be some. I think. Policy. That I think all I'm saying the test by which for me, the test by which in in this context speech is good speech or or not encouraged speech is simply. A NYC board member who writes a expresses opinion to council or some other entity on a subject matter ought to be clear as to where the Council's position is, and to be clear as to if the person is expressing a personal opinion on on the subject at all. But but what if they use things like letterheads? That's that is an expression of the city council. And so it's I think I think there there is a fine line because I believe the planning board's letter was done in letterhead. So I think I'm not discouraging people from expressing their individual personal opinions. I think this whole thing of making this into some kind of, you know, like I'm Joseph Stalin, you know, I'm not here to quash individuals personal liberties. I'm just saying that in order for our government to act effectively, you know, once a policy is set, you know, we ought not to encourage things that could potentially cause harm to that policy and therefore create whatever safeguards we can. And again, striking a balance between, you know, free speech and and the need for in all effective policy implementation. So this policy speaks to appointed policy bodies as opposed to individuals. And that's the nexus that, you know. We have a number for members. Well, in in the case of the letter, it was written as the body. Oh, well, in that case, then that's. The in that case then if that's an expression of the body as a. Whole. Right, that's the situation. Well then that's different than that. That ought not to be encouraged, because then that really is countermanded. The City Council's position individuals can express their personal opinions separately. But once the once the city council has made a decision. And. That's what. I think, unless they're complaining to the council. I mean, I think the body should be allowed to anyone should be able to complain to us and say we didn't like the. Vice mayor. And I think the problem that I have with outside communication, like a letter from a board to another agency that is contradictory to city policy that's been voted on by the council. If they're representative representing that as city position, then that that should be prohibited. But short of that. And that and that to me is is is where the action of of the council to address the the makeup of that body comes into effect. I think the people. If they're if there is criticism and a I think the instances of that are are are. To me that not they're they're not him. Frequent enough or. Or have occurred to the point where we need to put that in an ordinance. By fair or I'm sorry, November day. To me, I think the simple test is whether it's an individual or the policy body as a whole, whether they're expressing and whether what they are expressing is conveyed as official city policy. That's all. If to the extent that they refer that they are or are not reflecting city policy, to the extent that they're clear, that's good enough. So as long as they state. Okay. So I appreciate that comment. So as long as they state what the city's policy is and what they're disagreeing with so that it's clear to the reader, like. I don't want someone to write, send a letter to Caltrans to suddenly say, you know, we are not for sustainable communities. We don't want a policy body that writes that because we are for sustainable. All right. So do we all agree with that? As long as they clarify what the city's position is and then what they're disagreeing with. That's fine. So that's clear. To the writer. Still sending out contradictory. I think. Letters to. This is this is one that's going to go back to the drafters. Yeah. I guess. Clarify for me. Hypothetically, you know, we decide some transportation issue and the Transportation Commission writes to the act and said, you know, we disagree with what the council said. We think we should still do X, Y and Z, that that's not appropriate. You know. And but. That falls within what. Yeah. But then them complaining to us and saying, you guys, I know I'm perfectly open to any criticism. I think we shouldn't stifle any criticism. But on letterhead like Councilmember de SAC said, you know that that's problematic. Vice mayor. Of. All right. So I think you. Want to. See. I am city manager. Wanted to. You know, I'm shaking my head that I agree. I think the internal dialog is fine. I think that external dialog is definitely problematic. And I think you gave a very good example of particularly in some sort of funding scenarios that would be really problematic. So then if it could come back to us for that clarification? I think so. Limited. But we're going to have to circle back and we can see then. But it would be that I'm understanding correctly that the letters that the policy body could send a letter to council with which the policy is that their concerns are with the policy as opposed to to a third party. If I can just add. Something in clarification. So. There's also an issue of what the authority of the advisory bodies. Are. And the advisory bodies are in the process. And I think Council Councilmember Desai talked about the sequential. Nature of it. It is not. Within the authority of advisory bodies. To critique the final decisions of the City Council. Which is the final policy. Maker that they are. Unless you ask them to. They are they are asked to get information. Upfront. And provide you with a recommendation which you then consider and you make a decision. Then it's not for the. Those. Those advisory bodies. They're not the policy bodies. You are the policy the advisory bodies to critique every decision. That you've made and send you. Publicly available. When they send you a letter to the. Council, it is public. So regardless of what agency they send it to, it is public. And so if you wanted to ask them to go back and take a look at it, as you've already done with the. Open Government Commission here. Tonight, go back and give us some more information and come back again. But then when you decide it's not for them to then re agendas it and say, well, we're not so sure that we thought they did it right. You've made the decision and if something else comes up, then they it works up. So it's an issue of what their authority. Is as well. And I. Clearly seen you. Struggling very mightily with not wanting to. Squelch free speech. And I think you're really onto it about the. Distinction between. Individuals and the body and what the body's. Role authority is and how confusing and. Undermining it can be if suddenly you've got every one of your advisory bodies. Issuing opinions. About. If they think you did the right thing or not. All right. So at this point, they have to come back with something based upon our comments. Thank you. And we're going to move on to the next. Is it opinions? Opinions of public concern. Is there an issue on that one? Brown. Okay. So the Commission recommended that that section be deleted in its entirety, but staff thinks that it should be included. If I can jump in. Here, I think this one really is very. Much tied in with what we've already. Discussed. If council is agreeable. And we can come back with language. For both of these unless you have some additional. Funds. So just one question member. ASHCROFT I'm struggling a bit with why. We would lump public employees and appointed officials in that I mean. It. In the same provision it just. Well. I understand we all are expected required to read and, you know, be conversant with the sunshine ordinance. But. Maybe it's not a big deal, but is it? I mean, separate paragraphs are they belong together? Well, for whatever reason, this section, which is now suggested in to 91 dash to 91.18, was in the 292 section. And for whatever reason, it kind of merged both the public employees and the public officials together. And so what we tried to do was was separate the two. So there would be different standards applicable to public employees as a versus versus public officials. And the commission felt that we were we were probably didn't need either. And our suggestion was, well, if we're going to keep it in, let's at least put it into a section which made more sense. So that's. It is somewhat redundant to what we have up in the the previous section two 9117. It's simply that 17 doesn't direct doesn't address public employees. It addresses only members of the policy body. So that's why it might be if if the council feels it's important to have anything in this ordinance about what public employees ought to be able to do or not do, then we need this. If the council feels we don't really need to address what public employees can and cannot do, then we probably can get rid of this section because the public official portion of this has really been subsumed in the prior section. Is that, if that makes sense? ASHCROFT Well, it just strikes me that a public employee would be possibly subject to discipline for doing something that they're not authorized to do. I'm just not sure. And I would hope and believe that that's addressed somewhere else in our. Well, I mean, there's certainly case law that attempts to define, you know, where that rule or where that line is in terms of what a public employee can do and can't do. It's it's not a bright line. And it's you know, you go all the way Supreme Court to decide, you know, whether or not a particular action or statement that was made by a public employee can or cannot be disciplined. Difficult to try to distill that into three sentences to be put into a sunshine or so. Maybe the better course of action is, as the Commission recommended, and that is do away with the public employee section and handle that as disciplinary matters elsewhere. I agree. I would. I think we all agree with that. Thank you. Dan. Thank you. Hey. There any other? Training. Okay. I'm on section ten oh actually two Dash 92.2 responsibilities and stuff. The only comment I had was on here when a member of the public submits a request for information to any employee. Could you tell us can were your. Yes. Well on I think it's 2-92.2. In the order in the ordinance. Yes. What's coming up here next is the training. Yeah, I didn't. I thought we were on the Stanford verdict to dash. Nine two, you say? I think if this is asking us when we when there's a public information request is sent to any employee or elected official that the employee or elected official shall respond to said requests within three business days. I actually don't think that that's what we do. I think if an employee or an elected official receives a public information request, that we then send it to the attorney who handles it. So I don't think that this is accurate. I don't think we would want any of us or an employee to respond within three days. The the subsection D of 2-92.2 though I would like clarification or have that reviewed. Yeah. I think I think the mayor makes a good point here that. When we looked at that subsection D of a 292. It's 2.29, 2.3, 92.2. The language that had been written had, you know, stated that any paid or elected agent of the city, which really made no sense at all. So we changed it around to any employee or elected official of the city. Then to have that person respond. But I think you're absolutely right that as a practical matter. You know, it usually is going to be responded by a city staff member, whether it's the city clerk or the city attorney's office. So I would suggest that that language be revised somewhat so that the response doesn't have to come from the elected official, but it would come from the city. A city staff member who's designated to respond to Public Records Act request. Our responsibility is to forward it to. The city attorney as well. So if that could clarify that. And we can we can we can revise that language to reflect the reality of the practice rather than this technical issue. So sort of a clarification. Yes. Permit the elected official references in those two places in subsection D. Right. We would we would take that out and put in there a more appropriate person to respond to Public Records Act requests within the three day period. But I still think it could say that. But if an employee or an elected official receives the request, yes, we forward it to someone else. Because I do get requests. Sure. Yeah, I have received. Yeah. Fair enough. It's the response, really, that is important. But the receipt. You get those all the time. Sure. Very good. Can here. Mm hmm. Any other points that House members want to clean up at this point? Vice Mayor Two more points, I think. I would ask that the Open Government Commission look at the timing that was brought up by one of the speakers as far as. Making sure that there's a reasonable amount of of days that are allowed. And then I was looking at some of the discussion at that commission meeting, and there were there is a requirement in to dash 93 six or a it's not on revision. It's it's in the actual the body of the bottom of the ordinance about an annual report. And the commission seemed to be kind of struggling about how to go, about gathering information to put into the report, what's their responsibility. And if they can come back to us with their thoughts being is that they are the the commission actually having to do the work and. What they might suggest to us that might look like, other than the very broad language that's in that reporting section right now, it almost implies like there's monitoring, constant monitoring of of violations. And it's not it's I think it's meant to be received violations. But I would like to have their thoughts on what that report mechanism might be. Any other member comments on this item? We decide what we're doing on the training. Last. Or is it the rate every 3 to 3 years? Does anyone disagree with that recommendation? Okay. I think we all agree, but that's all right. Yeah. And a little uncomfortable changing, you know, deadlines at some point, you know, if you sit on your rights, you kind of lose them. So I mean, we have to have a cut off that. 15 days. I mean, if you can't look at 2 minutes and 15 days. I mean, you got to do it. Same thing with the rent ordinance. You can't wait two months to file your complaint. You know, if it's that urgent, you got to take care of it. If. In the last full of deadlines. And if they're not met, you lose those rights. And that I mean, unfortunately, we have to draw a bright line somewhere and we do so. So in this document, is it the 15 days? Because I appreciate the comment from the speaker in regards to Iraq, but I think that that will be discussed, that you're discussing that policy. But the deadline that's in here is that the 15 days. Yeah. Did anyone want you want that expanded or. I'm sorry. I think I'd like to get the commission's view on it. I think it's a little tight for something like this, that Iraq is completely different. As far as the the urgency is go. I think this takes a little more study. So I'd be willing to look at a longer period, not an open ended period, but something a little more generous than two weeks. Mm hmm. All right, what about as a yes? Number 38? I mean, the that's the the commission, you know, that's kind of their role is to look at the ordnance. I have no problem with them looking at it, but I'm not going to give direction that I want it to be. It changed. Yeah. So I'm comfortable expanding that, giving them more, giving, you know, more time. Did you want to remember what they thought? No. Just a general comment, if we're ready for that. Well on this issue that the vice mayor did raise that number. Did you want to comment? Oh, I'd like to hear what the commission thinks about time to come within. Because after all, they are an advisory body to us, so probably we should. Try not to. Overly micromanage them. All right. So if that could be of no share with the advisory committee, then come back. That'd be great. Thank you. And now just general comments. Yeah, just general comments. Real quickly. You know, in my opinion, the Sunshine Ordinance, which was brought up first, I believe by then council member Eileen Itam, really is a game changer in Alameda when it comes to public meetings. And, you know, people just don't realize that. It used to be that we would get our information packets on the Thursday before the Tuesday meeting with the Friday city hall being closed and the weekend being what it is. So you really were scrambling on Monday. And you can imagine that now, you know, all the information packets come out, what, 11 days or 12 days before giving public ample time and council members ample time and staff member ample time. I think from the big picture of things, I think we need to keep in mind that that it is a game changer in terms of improving public dialog and input. I think the matters that we're dealing with tonight, I think they're important. But I think, you know, we. Struggling, as probably does the community and our appointed commissions, to strike the balance between, you know, the practical realities of running government with decisions and policies and making sure to strike that balance with get it continuing to get on an ongoing basis public input. So I think with the Sunshine Ordinance, you do see something where we it manifests that that struggle that we're were engaging in in trying to strike that proper balance. But I think, you know, stepping away from the details of tonight, I think we need to remind ourselves that, at least in my opinion , this really is a game changer. And so it is worth going over the details that we have gone. I mean, the general comments on that item. All right. So before 1030, we need to have a motion to consider remaining items. And at this point, we have 60 on the wetlands with one speaker six E site B strategies, six F lease with KCI mini storage and six G lease with power engineering. And my question to staff is going to be which of these items do we need to address tonight? We absolutely need to do six F and six G. We would like to do six E and we could do 60 at the you know, we can move that one. That's the only one we have a public speaker on is 60. And that speaker's been here since it's now 1030. And that is actually, I think, someone that we asked to come back before. Well, it absolutely had to be heard. Yes, I appreciate that. You know, I wasn't going to to vote for this motion, but I want to talk about site B so I move that we continue after 1030. Up, but it's actually in motion to consider the remaining. That's right. Yes. To address all the remaining. I do it. But I'm going to do it. All right. Do you have a second to address all the items? Okay. All those in favor. I. Oppose? No, no. So it needs four votes to pass. So if someone wants to make a motion with fewer items like get a pass. If we can continue the meeting to cover the items that were expressed by the city managers having to do. What must be done tonight, six F and six G. That's correct. So I can. All those in favor. I, i. That motion passes. And I'm sorry, Mr. Bellinger. We will be doing wetlands in the future. Oh, that is musician. And now I'm going to take a break. We're going to take a recess. A short recess. Right. Your vote on that last one. Yeah. No, it was direction to staff to just come back with. Are you talking with unanimous? I want to know all. Of us who we are. Yes, I just was offering. Your items and. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, it's okay. So recess. So where are we really not hearing this? Oh. You are actually. Native. Yeah. Well. It's f Angie. Is. F into. Oh, she said she said E. Yeah. We have different understandings here, folks. You said E. Yeah, I think I think G he's thinking about. He said. He said the ones. They were confused. That was. That was. But you. But didn't you say you also would like me to be. Very hard to be done. F. Right. Because it releases microphones like. Well, if we get through F or 11, we could start. If we get. Okay, if we get through. Though we're on a recess, let's resume this conversation after. Okay. So let's let's. Make it short. Sorry. Jennifer Gray. I don't think. Now after the recess. And for those that are watching, it's 1037 on our clock here. We're going to start with 6f2. Introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute the documents necessary to implement the terms of a three year lease with CCI mini storage or building. 338 608 and 6883c collectively located at 50 and 51 Western Avenue at Alameda Point.

AN ORDINANCE relating to regulatory business and professional license fees; adjusting business and professional license and registration fees associated with the regulated activities of alarm monitoring, trade shows, residential sales, tow companies, used and recycled goods, adult entertainment, and price scanning; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 6.08.010, 6.10.010, 6.20.040, 6.204.030, 6.204.080, 6.214.270, 6.250.060, 6.270.060, and 7.04.645.

SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119111

Those in favor of filing. Clark 314. Clark file 314383. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that file is placed on file feed read agenda items nine through 12 the short title as well. Legend Item nine counts bill 119111. Relating to regulatory, business and professional license fee, the committee recommends the bill pass agenda item ten Council Bill 119112 relating to pet adoption fees and other animal control fees. Committee recommends this bill pass agenda item 11 Casper 119106 related to fees and charges for permits and activities of the SEAL, Department of Construction, inspections and related fees by other departments and technical corrections. The Committee recommends this bill pass and Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1190 99 relating to street and sidewalk use committee recommends the bill pass. Okay, this should be pretty perfunctory. Comes from a did you need to say anything on these? Do not. Okay. So please call the roll on agenda item number nine. Johnson Marez O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez I. Harris Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119112 Johnson Suarez. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez Hi Harris Talley Herbold Hi. President Arrow Hi. Nine In favor and unopposed. Bill Pass and Chair was silent. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119106. Johnson. Hi. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119099. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzales, I. Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. I nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair of Senate please read items 13 through 15 into record and a short title please.

Presentation by the Oakland International Airport on Anticipated Air Traffic during the Closure of Runways Number 12 and 30 for Maintenance (Tentatively September 4 to September 18, 2017) and Fleet Week (October 2 to October 9, 2017). (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC_07052017_2017-4428

Thank you. Was there a different one? All right. So five innocent, Nancy, five is Anne Frank. And now proclamation special orders of the day, three A We have a presentation by the Oakland International Airport on anticipated air traffic during the closure of runways number 12 and 34, maintenance tentatively scheduled for September 4th through September 18th, 2017, and during Fleet Week, October 2nd through October 9th. Thank you. Though Mayor Spencer and council members understand there's a presentation that will come up on the screen. Oh. Thanks. All right. Well, thank you. I'm Hugh Johnson, senior aviation project manager in the Aviation Planning and Development Department at the Port of Oakland. And I'm here to present a material about the Runway 1230 rehabilitation project we have planned for September. I'll try to go through the material relatively quickly. If you have any questions, please let me know as we go along. So first I just want to indicate this is a project that we do every 15 years or so. It's a payment rehabilitation. We have an asphalt concrete runway that requires an overlay and at the same time, it needs a runway light rehabilitation as well. So the lights typically last 30 years. In this case, we have a series of runway, centerline and edge lights that also have to be repaired in sequence and just in advance of the paving project. We have a few images here that indicate the current condition of the runway is already cracking and we're doing regular maintenance on a weekly basis. But we've reached the point where we have to do an entire pavement overlay. This image depicts the entire south field, a pair of runways, and then the two images on the bottom depict either end of the runway. So what you see above is in yellow. It's a temporary runway that we will build using a a taxiway for the main runway, and that temporary runway will be used while the main runway is being paved. This is a rather unique approach to doing these types of projects, and it was brought to our attention, our air introduced 15 years ago last time we did this and owe a debt of gratitude to Alameda and to San Leandro for bringing that to to the concept. Quick points we've coordinated. This is essentially going to be a two year coordination and planning effort for a two week construction project. We've coordinated with a number of lines of business at the FAA and other at the ATO, ATO as well as community outreach meetings. We held a community outreach meeting in February. We've met with San Leandro City Council a couple of weeks ago here today, and we've made ourselves available for community groups or neighborhoods that want more information. We've also we're also doing outreach through our regular aviation stakeholder committee meeting. We have one coming up, I believe, next week. We will touch on this in the Noise Forum. And I think there's a Fleet Week presentation also scheduled for a couple months from now. And I mentioned the tax away, which is an alternative approach to performing the work. And our intent is to do the painting for two weeks in September. I'll just go through this very quickly. So this colorful graphic depicts essentially a weather chart for the months of the summer months. And as you can see, we have a real advantage to doing this project in August or September. After that, the likelihood of rain starts to pick up. And we don't want the rain overlap with when we're doing especially the markings or even just the paving and light work. This is a graphic of the entire airport. The main thing I want to highlight here is we will have all departures still in Southfield. And but we will have a few large aircraft arrivals in Southfield on the temporary runway. That's different from the way it was done 15 years ago, where it was just a departures only runway and all arrivals came into Northfield. So we're going to use our field for the larger aircraft that require the additional length that we'll have in Southfield on the temporary runway. We have a longer runway, even on a temporary runway in Northfield. There's a lot of numbers here. The main thing I want to point out is on the left, the arrivals for Northfield, there will be 108 commercial jet arrivals and all of the heavy jets will arrive in Southfield. And and then about 60% or so of the commercial jets will arrive in Northfield, and the remainder will be able to be accommodated in the south on temporary runway. This is a maybe a familiar graphic for the noise forum. It shows a typical 65 C.M. Contour for the airport. And this next graphic shows how it will change representative life for those two weeks. And as you can see, there'll be a minor shift in self-heal, fewer operations in Southfield. And then you see the extent extended noise contour in Northfield, mostly due to the arriving aircraft in Northfield. A very, very minor extent into the golf course area and some of the communities there. And then on the whole roots, the focus has been to make sure that we keep our roots on 98th Avenue. There have been some recent discussions about a possible access point off of Harbor Bay Parkway, and we're still in discussions on that to determine where that will come out. And last point I want to make is that we are reusing the asphalt grinding from the runway on our stability berm and essentially reusing all of that material. Thank you. Any questions? Council members. So I want to thank you, Mr. Johnson, for coming down here and making this presentation. Thank you for sharing it. Thank you. All right. Next, we have coverage. We have a motion for the consent calendar. Accept items. If0 we have oral communication. Or I'm sorry, work oral communications, not agenda. Do we have any speakers on that? We have three speakers. Oh. Okay. Okay. The first one is for a referral to be heard this evening. I see it didn't have a name on it. If someone recognizes this writing, they can come on up and speak. I'm sorry. Could the lights be turned on? All right. I know it's Vernon, and then go ahead. I know that we might have a chance to be heard later on tonight, but if the city council meeting has to go past 1030. I would really hope that we could. Actually have our the referral heard this evening. Thank you. Gray Harris. Stepped out. Ken Petersen. Gray hairs. Can Peterson. Come on up, Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Council and staff. First thing has to do with the questions of sound. We've had many complaints about people not being able to hear, and we're told that if we can't hear you, just let the assistant city clerk know and they'll up the volume. The other thing is they have auxiliary hearing devices and we just try and three of them and they're just marvelous. Everything is so crystal clear. They work really beautifully. We have three of them down here. Oh, all right. I see. We have three people modeling them this evening. Thank you. Yeah. Let us know how they work out. That's really dangerous. People will know what's going on. And I just did another thing that we can't fix, and that is when people are talking, they turn aside. You can't hear because these are directional likes. And so if somebody's going to talk, you need to talk into the microphone and not lean back or off that way or talk into the lectern. As far as the sound of the people sounding like they're mumbling with a mouthful of mush, there isn't a lot that can be done about that. I think that's inherent in the system, and I don't think that it used to be like that. We have a new system so as to improve it, but going back ten years ago and things were much better. Thank you. So that's the kind of opening things that the housekeeping. But I want to talk about things that happened the first meeting in June. And good thing I didn't come to the next meeting because I would have said among a number of intemperate things. But I'm going to talk now about yourself. Madam Mayor, I'm going to use the third person because it's talking about you. And what happened here is that you have been subject to scurrilous attacks, vilifying you. And they're false. They're not at all true about and about you or your record. Back in 2009, the school board when you were a member, had an option to have an anti-bullying program, and the anti-bullying program was supposed to take care of all students of what are called those media, California protected classes. Those are people with disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual and gender orientation and sexuality. All of those are required. They're also required to be addressed and taken care of. And so all students are protected under Title nine in the Department of Education, the United States Department of Education. Now, the things that were proposed was it classes for only one group of those protected students, and they excluded everyone else. Now, the mayor at the time, the school board member, was urging the inclusion of all of the classes and particularly the racial and religious. Thank you. Your time is up. Yeah. I appreciate that. Gray Harris, is she here? All right. Thank you. Then let's move on. Do we have a motion for the consent calendar excluding five, F and five? And as in Nancy, that were pulled? I will the approval of balance of the consent calendar. Thank you, sir. Second. All those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Five f. Recommendation to award a five year contract for an amount not to exceed a total. Five year. Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists Inc for. Citywide urban. Forest maintenance services. Vice Mayor Pull this. Did you want to speak to it? So I had one question that I'd asked the city manager about earlier that was answered, which was why the total expenditure of $8 million. And that's because it's there's an option to extend for four years under the term. My second question has to do with why the golf fund fund to 80.5 is being included under the financing for this provision? And if and and how much of that how much how much of the funds are actually going to be used for this and if it includes maintenance of trees at the golf course. Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. We're asking you to basically approve this avoiding of this contract and the numbers actually, as you mentioned, the 10% contingencies that explains and the five year contract, which means that what those numbers are the way they are as far as the golf. The golf course. This is something that is within the. As far as I understand it, it does cover the the trees in the golf course areas. And there is also the there as you can see, there's some private trees that are belong to that are within jurisdictions of what used to be. And and there's also the work that is other work that is done for parks and recs. So it's in the contract. So that so the trees in the front, the golf funds being used is how much? So I'm I have to look at the numbers. I don't have the numbers right on the top of my head. But so is success will. Be pro-rated by the number of trees and the funding associated with it. Okay. And then I thought we have a contractor that's taking care of the golf course. Does that contract not include maintenance and care for the trees there? That's something that I would need to get back to. I don't have the actual information on that. These are probably under the city's jurisdiction or it. Can we have public commons sized. Cities, trees at the beginning? Perhaps someone might want to take out a public speaking slip. To speak on the item. You need fill slips or. You need to fill out a slip if you'd like to speak on it. I would like clarification relative to this before I feel comfortable signing off, because I think that there has been questions about the usage of golf course funds in the past for things not having to do with the golf course. So I would like to understand and get information. Right. Unfortunately, I understand this staff report is not clear enough on that. I need to get talk to your staff and get back to you. So if there is someone that could help address the answers, it'd be nice if they could fellowship it. So I guess Mary Ashcroft, if first of all, may ask the city manager, city manager, is this is this time critical? Yes, it. Is. Actually, it is. Yes. Mm hmm. So. As much as I appreciate potential Golf Commission members speaking, I think for the basis of my vote, I probably need to hear more information from staff. But I. Could you speak into the mic if you'd like to comment, please? Well, I was just thinking maybe we can just table this one and we can do a little research internally, and then we can come back to you tonight for an answer to that. Tonight? Yeah, I may be able. To do that. Well, we do have one member of the public to speak. And I'm sure he'd be allowed to speak then, too, unless you want to go. I'll take my comment as appropriate, so I'll go ahead and call Joe Van Winkle. So I believe the amount is actually indicated far down in the contract. If you read the details. And I think it's about 90 $600. And it's not actually my understanding is it's not actually for anything on the property, but rather adjacent to the property on Otis that runs along the golf course. And I think this has to do with the historical negotiation of that agreement. And I'm sure if staff gets a chance to to look at it, they'll be able to verify that. Can you all hear if you can? I hear you need to raise your hand. All right. I need the sound turned up so we can hear. I can speak. Louder. Thank you. Okay. So, first of all, in the very small print, at the bottom of that contract, way down below, there's an attachment that has all the amounts for all the different line items. And you'll find something down there. I think it's 90 $600. It doesn't specify that it's coming out of the golf fund. You have to kind of. Infer that by the location. But it's basically the strip of property that is adjacent to the golf course. It's not on the golf course. It's the Otis. I think it's Otis as it runs along there. And as part of that contract agreement, they made the contractor contribute some amount for maintenance around the golf course. So that's kind of like a business park amount. Thank you very much. All right. So that's five F. So as staff. So do we have a motion to accept this at this time? To approve it? I appreciated the assistant city manager suggestion that we. Moves a little later in the. In the agenda.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to adjust certain rates for natural gas service to reflect market conditions by implementing Gas Rate Schedules 1 through 5, 7, 9, and special conditions and incentives in Exhibits A and B. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05192015_15-0436

Item 16 report from Long Beach Gas and Oil. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to adjust certain rates for natural gas service to reflect market conditions citywide. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wesson, as you had a quick staff report from our gas and oil director, Chris Garner. First, I have to confess, hearing all this talk about health food being your gas meal director, I'm craving a Tommy's chili burger really bad right now. But starting tomorrow, it's going to be all celery. Just don't have it on my desk. Okay. No mayonnaise. As you're aware, there's heightened concern nationwide regarding the failings. Excuse me. Utility infrastructure, be it natural gas, water, electricity, sewer, etc.. After the major natural gas pipeline explosion in a neighborhood in Northern California in 2010 that killed eight people and destroyed nearly 50 homes, the state has pushed for greater reinvestment of gas repair money into the replacement of older or susceptible natural gas pipelines and Long Beach. We've been doing the same with our own 1900 miles of underground natural gas pipelines in Long Beach and Signal Hill. This rate adjustment before you tonight will help us continue the progress we have made to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas to 150,000 gas customers. In addition, this will allow us to increase our level of service provided to our customers as we look for ways to shorten appointment windows and decrease wait times in our utility call center. For the average residential customer, their monthly gas charge or monthly gas bill will increase by an estimated 1.40 $0.06 per month. This proposed rate adjustment is consistent with the provisions in the city charter that require that the gas rates be market based and comparable to those charged by other gas tools in Southern California. That concludes my report. Thank you. Any council comment? I have a motion in a second. Seeing none. Oh, okay. Customer Supernova. Just a question. Thank you for the report, Mr. Gardner. I understand we that our last rate increase was. Just seven months ago. What can you predict how soon we'll have another increase? It's very unusual for us to have more than one rate adjustment in a year. What we do for the teachers, we compare our rates with Southern California Gas Company on a regular basis. It was unusual this year because they adjusted their rates more than once, largely due to increased pipeline investment that the CPC is putting on their plate. In addition, the provisions of the cap and trade in 2015 natural gas utilities were included for the first time, and so there's been some adjustments on rates in that regard, but I suspect it will be at least one year before we come back. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN, please cast your vote. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item, please. 17. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to submit a grant application to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District in the amount of $623,600 for the implementation of Phase two of the de Forest Wetlands Project.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Preschool Program; amending Ordinances 124509 and 124749, by amending the action plan and the implementation plan; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118679

The report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Agenda Item two Council Bill 118679 relating to the Seattle Preschool Program amending ordinances 124509 and 124749 by amending the Action Plan and the implementation plan and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you very much. This is a bill that basically amends sort of implementation of our Seattle Preschool Program, Action Plan and the implementation plan. During the committee discussion, I sort of describe this as some of the most important social justice work that will do for our future. Our goal right now is to serve 2003 and four year olds in 100 classrooms by 2018 and after one year. Right now, we have about 256 students enrolled in 15 classrooms. And so, as you may recall, the major focus of this action plan in education is to narrow the opportunity and achievement gap that is clearly present in Seattle's educational system. And we recognize on average that children from low income families and children of color have fewer opportunities to become appropriately prepared for the social and academic academic challenges of our K-through-12 system. So in a nutshell, our department and the executive and our council have sort of looked at this beginning of the program and how we can improve it. And through that discussion, we've made several changes or amendments, and that's what this legislation does. I'll just describe a few. For classrooms. In terms of those that are in the school buildings, we are creating a circuit selection and enrollment priority for children eligible to continue in this in that school for that particular kindergarten . We've created a selection enrollment priority for children whose siblings are enrolled in a school building where an SP classroom is housed. We created an option for classrooms that are offering Head Start or ECP or dual language programs or special education services. Select a percentage determined by deal on an annual basis for children in those classrooms. We are allowing Diehl to begin development of a curriculum waiver process for high quality providers. There are some stipulations on that, for example, that if there's added curricular more than five, it comes back to the Council for authorization. Again, we're trying to make sure that we ensure the high quality standards of this curricula that it is rich for all of our students. We're requiring that DL submit a report to the City Council upon the conclusion of the enrollment process each year to describe the demographic information for children who are enrolled. And we want to be very intentional about the demographics we are trying to reach. And last, there are some pretty strong recitals in the new language where we are being very, again, intentional about the opportunity and achievement gap and how we are trying to address that through this legislation. I want to again thank Councilmember Burgess for his continued work on this area. Certainly has shown incredible leadership in making sure that we improve this pre-kindergarten program. The council, the committee recommends for past passage of this, and I ask for your support. Are there any other comments on this particular bill? Having a concert in rehearsal. I have a question of just reading, not looking at the bill itself. Reading at some notes on the bill. I have a description of the amendment that removes the requirement for organizations to provide two or more classrooms. Can you explain that for me? We have obviously, we've all heard about the very dire space needs that are that's created when there are competing needs for school classroom size. And I just want to have a better understanding on how this amendment deals with that. Sure. So one of the challenges that we had where some providers had two locations, but they're spread apart in the city, they're not in the same building. And what we found is by requiring each one to have two, there could be someone that just has one that we really want to capture. And so we thought that the imposition that they have two locations by by eliminating that we could actually capture more good providers that are out there as we expand this program. So we thought it was to some extent sort of artificial because again, a provider with two or three locations, they may be all over the city. And the thinking that we wanted them in one location truly turned out to be not necessarily needed. Can I add? So as a means to expand for those providers? Yes. Councilmember Gonzalez. If I could just add on to that. So one of the things that we heard from Diehl when they came in and made the presentation around this particular issue, is that it could prohibit that two classrooms minimum requirement could prohibit organizations like the Hosea Marta Daycare Preschool program that's at its center like myself, from participating in our preschool program because they only have one classroom, for example. Right. So I think it's I think there's a couple of different things. I think that there's certainly space restrictions that are in play when we're talking about pre-K classrooms in within the Seattle Public School System Framework. But then there are all the others who aren't part of the who aren't using space at public schools that are being sort of overly restricted by this particular limit that would otherwise be able to participate but aren't able to because they just don't have more than one classroom. So this this amendment isn't designed to address the capacity issues. It's designed to allow for more expansion in those organizations that have the room for an expansion into their facilities. But it it doesn't it it doesn't. It's it's the ID of the the the room within their facilities. Without a look at how many students are going to be actually using the the rooms. It's a capacity sort of a it's it's not based on whether or not there is physical space within a facility. It's just the desire to be able to move into a program that wishes to provide the service. It's not. The amendment itself is not designed to address the issue that I'm flagging. So let me tell you, I was almost tracking with you. And then I lost. Basically, we did require a provider to have two locations and we found that to be somewhat burdensome for some of the providers that are out there that we want. So we're saying one location is acceptable now. One classroom. One classroom is acceptable. And we think there's some really good providers out there that only have one classroom that we want to capture in our shuttle program. Okay. I think and I think to address the capacity issue, to sort of phrase it a different way or try to phrase it a different way, is that in a lot of ways, it does deal with a capacity issue in sort of an indirect way, because what we are doing is we are allowing more more classrooms to be opened up in different locations, but but alleviating the burden of requiring providers to have at least two classrooms. All right. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for those questions. I actually enjoyed the discussion and it gives me actually the opportunity to point a few folks at Deal, the Department of Education, Early Learning, Duane Chapelle, Monica Lang, Gary Sid. I was struck with Sid's name. I'll just say Sid Sidora, which Erica Johnson and Elena de la Cruz. This legislation came with quite a bit of discussion and amendments in both Council member Burgess and I put together several amendments, apparently, as well as resulting from a very rich discussion. And again, I think in light of recent data looking at the disparity in education, what communities are adversely affected, look at looking at early brain development. These amendments are addressed to it. Are intended to address it very intentionally, particularly for lower income and kids of color. Having no other comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill. You have a comment? Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say it's fine? No, I'm sorry. My peripheral vision on my right has to improve. I keep. I'm over here looking at that. The better looking side here should it? Katherine Johnson Are we okay? Thank you, counsel. President All I wanted to offer is how regularly I hear from members of the public about their interest in the elements that you have brought forward today and highlighted early on, which is the geographic preference for kids who are going to either be enrolled in the kindergarten on site or whose siblings are already enrolled at the elementary school. That element really makes it a lot easier for families. And I continuity really helps. I think kids transitioning into kindergarten, it makes it a lot easier for them to have spent some time on site in advance as as I get into that with two kindergartners this September, I hear that from a lot of my cohort of folks. And so I wanted to say how much I value those two elements that we're adopting today. Thank you very much, Katherine Johnson. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brian Berkshire Burgess High. Gonzalez Herbold High President narrow high eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.

A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code to establish the Urban Edge Singe Unit B1 zone district. Approves text amendment #7 to the Denver Zoning Code to establish the new E-SU-B1 zone district and other associated amendments in Articles 2, 4, 10, and 13. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11092020_20-1027

12 Eyes Council Bill 966 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill? 1027 on the floor for final passage. Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 1027 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. You've got either Herndon or Hines. Herndon. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, the combined public hearing for Council Bill 1027 and Council Bill 1028 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either, either or both items after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each. May we please have the staff report and we have Liz Weigel up. It evening. Thank you, Madam President. And Council members. Can you see my presentation carefully? This presentation will cover both the Text Amendment and Map Amendment, both of which are sponsored by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval in order to allow accessory dwelling units or to use in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. The tax amendment creates a new zone district, the ESU B1 district, which would allow accessory dwelling units on single unit residential lots with a minimum lot size of 2500 square feet. The map amendment reasons all single unit residential districts in Chevy Park to allow accessory dwelling units. While I'm presenting the two amendments to concurrently text amendment must be considered for approval first. This will allow consideration of the MAP amendment pending the establishment of a new zone district. The proposed rezoning is located within Council District one in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. It includes the area in Chevy Park that has residential zoning. This includes approximately 1400 parcels bounded by Federal Boulevard, Osage Street, 52nd Avenue and Interstate 70. The proposed Map amendment intends to rezone properties between federal and town that are currently ESU dx2 ESU d1x properties b between Tyrone and Paco Street that are currently ESU B to the proposed ESU b one zone district properties between Pecos and Osage that are currently ESU d t s d once the proposed zone, districts are the same as the current zoning districts, except that they would allow accessory dwelling unit use either within the primary structure or in a detached structure. Similarly, the new ESU b one district would retain the same standards of the ESU district, but would allow it to use. I'll go over the existing context. The proposed rezoning area is currently if you be if you Denise had access I mentioned all three zone districts are single unit residential districts and they allow the Urban House primary building form with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet. The district also allows the suburban house primary building form. There is a view plane in this portion of this area that starts at the park at 4/51 Street and extends towards downtown. This results in building height limits, ranging from approximately 34 square feet at the south end of the park to approximately 75, 79 feet towards Interstate 70. This range of heights generally exceeds the allowable maximum height for both the current and proposed zone districts and does not. Impact the rezoning. In terms of existing land use. The area is predominantly single unit residential land use that you can see in yellow. On this map. There are a few public and quite public uses throughout and the proposed rezoning is adjacent to a commercial office mixed use, parking, open space and some industrial uses. Here are some images from within the. Proposed. Rezoning, with examples from each of the three zoned districts. And here are some images from surrounding areas. The Council office worked closely with the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association and began outreach for this rezoning last fall. This outreach included fliers canvasing two town halls and an online survey. We also took the text amendment to the agency's Zoning and Planning Committee in July of this year. The application was formally submitted in May of 2020, and on September 16th, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. 12 speakers at that hearing, ten in support and two in opposition. CPD has received a letter of support from the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association. We've also received 26 comments in support from members of the public, citing a desire and appropriateness for its use in this neighborhood and the importance of use as a tool to promote affordability and aging in place opportunities. We've also received six comments in opposition, citing concerns around parking density, neighborhood character and short term rental. Because this rezoning is legislative, you know, it is only subject to three review criteria shown here. Text amendment is subject to these same criteria, so I will discuss them together. But the first is consistency with adopted plans. So we do find that the press text and map amendments are consistent with several strategies from current Plan 2040 shown here, and there are a few that I'll call out specifically. The amendments are consistent with the to these two equity strategies because the text amendment creates a new zone districts that will allow any use and the map amendment enables it to use in the entire neighborhoods. Use can provide additional housing options, including those for seniors and families, and they can provide residents more flexibility to remain in their homes. The amendments are consistent with our climate strategy because they will allow additional housing units on lots with existing houses where we have existing infrastructure and services such as sewer, water and transit in place. In Blueprint ever the theories called out as an urban edge context. The proposed zone districts are consistent with this plan direction, which would remain predominantly residential. With. A single and two unit uses. The proposed. Zone. District are consistent with the future places mapping, which is called out as low residential and described as single and two unit and places where accessory dwelling units are appropriate. There are some residential collectors and arterials in the area, but most of the. Streets. In the rezoning are on designated locals. Under. The Blue Point growth strategy. These areas are expected to see 10% of job growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The additional accessory dwelling units permitted. By the. Rezoning would be consistent with that growth strategy. The amendments are also consistent with additional strategies and blueprint. These are detailed in the staff report, but I'll briefly summarize them here. A policy for of our land. Usain Bolt form section states that we should diversify housing choice by through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all our residential areas in the city. Policy 11 recommends that we implement Blueprint's plan recommendations through large scale legislative legislative rezoning, which should include community input and be guided by our equity concepts. Now Policy five focuses on the importance of mitigating involuntary displacement, which I'll discuss in the next few slides. So similar to the reasoning you just heard text amendments and a large map amendment should be guided by our equity concepts and blueprint over the first of which I'll go over access to opportunity. This is a composite score that includes our Neighborhood Equity Index, also proximity to high capacity, frequent transit and access to centers and corridors. The Chevy Park neighborhood has moderate scores in this category, with access to rail transit lower and access to centers and corridors marrying throughout the neighborhoods. The text amendments create ECB. One will create a new zone district within our urban edge context to allow to use, which would allow more residents to live in neighborhoods with access to amenities and quality of life infrastructure. The proposed rezoning in Chaffee Park will bring more residents to an area that has access to health care, high life expectancy, and it does have access to bus transit and corridors and centers in some portions of the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning will not have a direct impact on creating new corridors or centers, as it will only allow residential uses. The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement, and this is a score that includes median household income, percent of renter occupied units, and the percent of residents with less than a college degree. Chaffee Park is more vulnerable based on median household income and education levels, as shown in bold on the slide. It does have high homeownership. The text amendment will allow more properties in the urban edge context neighborhoods to establish an 82 on their property, which can be an important opportunity to build wealth and help keep current residents in place. It also provides more options for households for. Vulnerable. To displacement to stay in the neighborhoods. The proposed map will similarly provide opportunities for existing homeowners to supplement their income, while also increasing housing options and allowing a greater range of incomes to live in the neighborhoods. The third equity concept is housing diversity, and this includes five measures, including the percent of middle density housing, home size, diversity of bedroom size, ownership versus rental housing costs and the number of income restricted units. Chevy Park is considered not diverse for the three measurements shown in bold. The text amount amendment will expand housing diversity by allowing a new housing option that is typically smaller and a different price point than existing single unit homes, often found in urban edge neighborhoods. The map amendment to allow it to use will introduce a new housing type to Chaffee Park and bring more renters to a largely owner occupied single unit residential neighborhood. The last equity concept is jobs diversity. This map shows the mix of jobs and areas of the city with the dominant industry depicted by color. Chevy Park shows a greater proportion of retail and manufacturing jobs compared to the city overall. The text amount map amendments will have a negligible impact on jobs for the city because their residential district. And I will also cover housing inclusive difference. This plan was adopted in 2018 and contains recommendations that are relevant to the Text and Map amendment. The plan recommends expanding the development of accessory dwelling units as they incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. It also promotes their development as a wealth building tool. For low and moderate. Income homeowners. The proposed text and Map amendment expand access to A2 use and are therefore consistent with these recommendations. In terms of the additional criteria, we define that the amendments will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new development within the urban edge zone districts. The proposed Text Amendment and Map Amendment will further public health, safety and general welfare by implementing Blueprint Denver. For. Excuse me, the proposed rezoning. We'll also improve public health outcomes by allowing more residents in an area that has higher life expectancy and access to health care, plus. Transit. Centers and corridors. It will also further the general welfare of the city by providing more housing, diversity and opportunities to help residents at a range of income levels continue to live in the neighborhoods. Given the finding that all review criteria have been met, staff does recommend approval of both the TEX Amendment and the MAP amendment. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Liz, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1027 NOR Council Bill 1028. And we have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. And we will start out with Jason Warnock. Hi there. Sorry about that. Good evening. My name is Jason Hornick, and I live at 50th and Decatur Street. I'm on the board of the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association, and I'm the leader of our ADU Task Force. So I'm delighted by the opportunity to speak in support of both items on this historic bill. This vote is the culmination of a two year effort that began when multiple residents approached the R.A. asking how they could build an ADU on their property. After consulting with CPD and examining the comprehensive plan, we realized that the best path forward would be to pursue a mass legislative rezoning with the help of our city council office . With their leadership, we performed extensive outreach in the neighborhood, and I'm very proud that we were able to show that a majority of our residents are in favor of this gentle increase in density. The physical character of Chaffee Park hasn't changed that much since it was built in the 1940s. But the situation around it has changed quite a bit. This neighborhood was on the edge of town. It was built, but it's now just two neighborhoods away from the downtown of a major American city with miles of sprawl on the other side. Even though Chaffee, the park's built environment, remained stable, despite all this external change, our land values have skyrocketed, which has caused economic and social instability for our residents. Under our current zoning code, our residents only have two options to deal with this instability. Stay and try to keep up with their rising property taxes or they can cash in and sell their property and move away. We're trying to give people a third option, one, where they can capitalize on the increasing land value without having to move out. An option that could allow them to alleviate the pressures of increasing housing costs and provide care for their extended family without sacrificing their independence. An option that won't benefit them. It won't just benefit them as the. Owner of the property, but will benefit the person that rents it as well by providing them a reasonably priced home. This option allows us, the residents of Chaffee Park, to do something this city has been struggling with for years, providing more housing. Legalizing 80 years will give us that option. So I won't directly benefit from this bill as I won't be building an ad on my property. But I strongly believe that my neighbors should have the right to do so if they choose. Because I realize that this is bigger than me as an individual and it's bigger than us as a neighborhood. It's about the city and our land use values as a whole. We're growing so fast that attempting to live the same way we did in the past is actively harming our future. So our comprehensive plan clearly recommends that 80 years should be allowed by right everywhere in the city. I'm extremely proud of the work we did to get here tonight, and I'm very thankful for our council, women's leadership and courage. And I'm hopeful this process provides enough proof of concept that it should be legalized across the whole city without having to duplicate this effort neighborhood by neighborhood. So we can instead use that time to figure out ways to make them more affordable for the people that need them the most. And that will be our next effort. So if you vote yes, of course. Thank you very much for your time. Have a good night. Thank you. Our next speaker is Frederick Glick. Hi. Good evening. My name is Fred Glick. I reside at 3850 North York Street in the Clayton Neighborhood Council District number nine. I'm also a property owner in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. I'm here tonight to urge you to support this combined text amendment and map amendment to allow to use throughout the Chaffee Park neighborhood. The application before you tonight represents the outcome of an admirable and amazing public process in the R.A. and Councilwoman Sandoval and her staff deserve great respect and gratitude for their efforts. There are a lot of good reasons to allow aid use throughout the Chaffee Park neighborhood, providing opportunities for residents to age in place, helping homeowners to build their equity in their homes, enabling multi-generational and extended families to live together. The residents of Chaffee Park have also made clear that they would like the benefits of increased density, including opportunities for neighborhood retail, which would be made much more viable with increased density. When I participated. In one of the public. Sessions organized by Councilwoman Sandoval's office in the Arno, I heard people express fears that they wouldn't know who is living in their backyards. As the owner of an aide to you. I'd like to make sure it's clear if you choose to have an aide to you. You also get to choose what you do with it. Rent it out. How does a family member use it as a. Home office. Store? Old newspapers in it. We rent our Adu and we used. A web platform to take applications and conduct background checks on. Prospective tenants. We interviewed them called references. We chose who to rent our you to. In approving this application. You begin to fulfill the Denver Rite Mandate to allow. To use throughout the city the one off rezoning to allow you to use on individual properties the city is seeing more and more of are a barrier to those hoping to have a to use. Not everyone can readily afford the fees required and navigating the city rezoning process. Isn't necessarily easy. These one off. Rezonings also consume considerable city resources, which I cannot believe the city comes close to recouping through the fees charged. In many respects, the application before you tonight is about equity and opportunity. Many residents, including in my own neighborhood of Clayton, see the borders between where 80 use are allowed and where they are not as arbitrary. Many of my neighbors who are on the wrong side of the line would like the opportunity to have an ADU to house an aging parent, to generate additional income to do their part to help alleviate the housing supply crisis Denver faces. I hope you will not only approve this application, but also look at it as a model of what should come next, whether citywide or neighborhood by neighborhood. The ability for residents to have air to use should not be reliant upon whether they can risk the fees required. Whether they come to feel. Comfortable navigating the rezoning process. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nola Miguel. Good evening, councilmembers. Nolan Miguel, 4930 Vallejo Street. I also live in Chevy Park and I'm part of the R.A. and I'm actually interested in this reason, both for personal reasons and for systemic reasons that I think are important for the whole city. I would like to build a Grammy flat and I say Grammy because that's what my kids call my mom. And I would like her to be able to move in my backyard, ideally or any place close to us. And we have been looking around the neighborhood walkable distance from our house. Where my kids to walk over to. And there's nothing in the neighborhood that's affordable under $400,000. We've been looking at ARIA, at the condos there, looking for housing there. We're looking over $400,000 for all of those options. She retired. About two years ago. From. The University of Wisconsin and would like move here because. All. Of us and especially her grandchildren. And we need a different a different type of option. We're also, you know, we have a pretty big lot. It's 10,000 feet. I'm very interested in the idea of activating our alleyway. It's a huge amount of space that it's unused and activated. Throughout the neighborhood. I also think that we have plenty of parking. I just just say that throughout the neighborhood and in our front and back yard, there's parking. Systemically, I think of as many have said so far, we really need affordable housing and rental options outside of just building large, large apartments. And this is a great infill option. Also very thankful to Councilwoman Sandoval and her office in figuring out a solution for the east part of the neighborhood. I'm really thankful that we could do this as a comprehensive neighborhood and appreciate all your work on this. Also, just 80, you should be across the city. It's the reason we've been looking at it in D.C. for a long time as well. But our little there's so many pressures in D.C. with with investments happening right now. That putting another thing in there just didn't seem like quite the right time. And we really would like to see this be across the whole city instead of being neighborhood by neighborhood. Also, those support services for low income homeowners is critical. Critical. We could I've looked into how much I could get for a loan, how much we could if we could figure this out. And we couldn't do this without the investment from my. Mom. To be able to build this. So I think it's critical to have investment strategies to do some of the West Denver Renaissance programing. Also, just to use, if possible, to have a structure that could be a one story garage and unit on the same level. That's really the most affordable. Thing to build. Thanks very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lucia Brown. Hello. My name is Lucia Brown and I live in the Baker neighborhood in Council District seven with John. And I'm also president of the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association. And. We've had 80 youths in Baker forever. We had carriage houses built and so even before 80 were allowed in the zoning, we had them here because of grandfathering. I have a carriage house in my backyard and we converted. It was my husband's office for 16 years and we just converted it over to an apartment. And not only does it provide more necessary housing in Denver, it's an extra source of income. And so I'll when my husband retires, we'll still have some income coming in to the house. And I know that there are people who are concerned about like short term rentals and issues like that. But because Denver has such strong short term rental laws with the property having to be the primary residence, there really would be very little negative impact. And also the area of Chaffee County, I don't think would be a high demand area for short term rentals. It's not like it's close to downtown or close to a lot of amenities. So it would probably be more profitable for the home owners to lease long term. So I just want to be on the record as saying that I fully support this text of amendment change and I agree with NOLA that this should be done citywide and not neighborhood by neighborhood. It's a no brainer way to do gentle increase in density and allow for different kinds of housing options and allowing people to age in place. It also deals with being green, you know, more dense. It lowers your carbon footprint. So that's where I stand. And I appreciate the council allowing us to speak on this issue. All right. And hi. Everybody. Hello. Thank you. Next up, we have Susan Powers. Good evening, everyone. First of all, I wanted to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for bringing this forward. This is and actually also thank the Chaffee Park Neighborhood Association, because I think they're the most thoughtful, I know in the city. And how often do you have the R.A. coming here saying, yes, we have. We we approve this, we we recommend this. So I'm I'm I'm speaking as a property owner as part of the RDA Denver development within Chaffee Park. But I guess those percent 11 1475 Dale Gagne, which is District nine, the area Denver development, which is the 17 acre redevelopment of the former Mary Kress Convent, is immediately adjacent to this area. It's it's part of the city and in Chaffee Park is not part of this rezoning because it's being built out in in in ways where we have adus already there. And I am going to say, too, and if she's still listening to this, that we do have an affordable co-housing unit available. So I, I think I have to make sure that I let that person who was speaking earlier know that she maybe her mom can move in there. But I'm here to support this. We've been we've been involved with with this neighborhood for over 15 years, with the Mary Kris property. And we have intentionally developed it as a as a mixed income project will end up with for 40% of the units as as affordable as it's developed and finished up in the next two years. But I think that having the 82 option here is, as everybody has said, is gives people who are long term homeowners in the Chaffee Park neighborhood who are you know, it's the neighborhood that is being impacted by the growth that's coming from the south, the ability to stay in their homes, build a unit that might provide them with the income that is necessary for them to carry to carry on their normal life. In this in this neighborhood. We've I've watched this for the last however many years as as things have jumped across I-70 and have been concerned about whether the character of that neighborhood was going to change, to continue to change. And and I think this is a way to kind of counter some of that gentrification. So I hope that your support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alison O'Kelly. Thank you. Can you hear me? All right? Go ahead. Perfect. Thank you. So, my name is Allison O'Kelly. I live in the 4800 block of Decatur Street in the neighborhood as well. I bought my home a little over seven years ago right before a property values started skyrocketing. So I was I was lucky to be able to afford a house at the time. And I'm lucky now to have realized some of those equity increases that Jason spoke about earlier this evening. I speak today in support of the neighborhood rezoning of the neighborhood. I do want to make sure I disclose that I do work in affordable housing. So I would support this gentle density increase in any neighborhood in Denver. But I do in particular as a resident of JP Park. I think that creating this neighborhood zoning allowance makes it possible for us to do so without creating the administrative burden that has already been discussed but is put upon the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as any residents who would like to build an ADU. And so I think the fact that we're doing this is a neighborhood wide proposal has been a really smart thing. And I also agree with recommendations that this become a city wide approval rather than additional neighborhoods needing to go through the process that we did. I think that the height and setback limits on buildings that were discussed in the presentation earlier will ensure that there aren't any abuse that would cause negative impacts on the adjacent homes like I know a number of neighborhoods have been concerned about before ideas came in and they saw what the limits were on those. I also think that we can ensure community access in safety to the neighborhood because as NOLA said earlier, we have fairly wide streets and a lot of space for parking. Most of the houses in our neighborhood have parking both in the front and in the back. So access to those units is not going to create additional traffic and it's not going to create. A lot of mobility. Of the residents. I think that not everybody in the neighborhood will be in a financial position to start building 80 years if this is approved. I myself wouldn't build one anytime soon, but I think it's really important the opportunity that's going to provide to increase affordable housing in the neighborhood and homeownership stability. I think those of us who have elderly relatives in the neighborhood or in the broader metro area see this is a great opportunity to discuss with those family members the possibility of senior family members downsizing and being able to combine homes in a way that works for the entire family. And while I don't see myself doing that soon, my family, my parents live in North Glen and they're very vital seniors now. But things can always change. And I like the fact that we can look at this together as a potential opportunity down the road. So I do want to thank our council member and Naomi Grant as well. And I thank all of you for your time and hope you will support this. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Paris. It's getting in the middle of the council watching at on her. So Black star maximum for self defense. It makes it harder for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado email lines. And I live in district eight and Christopher Hamm is district and I will be the next member in 2023. I support this rezoning tonight and are one of the many hopes as our push for the green for city council our laws last year. And I am very familiar with this district because I've marked this area. Two years in a row for candidates that ran for office, most recently in the state Senate. So on the safety part area. So I'm a councilwoman and I support this rezoning. I believe that this should pass tonight. I just got a few questions. I want to know that some of the comments or lack of the opposition at the planning meeting and what were the six? Not as an op ed or comments at the at the hearing that the company had in regards to these animals. I support it. I would like to see them in every district in this town, as Laura and others have already stated. So if someone can please answer my questions, I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1027 and or Council Bill 1028. Give it another moment for any hands raised. All right. See? No questions of members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1027 and or Council Bill 1028. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So thank you all. It's an honor to be here before you today with this application. As it's been discussed, this is the first time an entire neighborhood has been zoned to allow accessory dwelling units. And honestly, I wouldn't be here today with all of you if it wasn't for the residents of Chevy Park. They came together and approached me before I was even sworn into office to talk about how we could get this done. And one of the things that we found out early on is that you're voting on two things. You're creating a new map and then you're creating a new zone district, because on the east side of town, the parcels are so small that there was not actually a zone district that would allow accessory dwelling units. So I had to create I had to slow the process down a little bit and work with community planning and development and create equity throughout the whole entire neighborhood. So the whole entire neighborhood would be able to allow it, have the opportunity to have accessory dwelling units. I would also like to think my aid council I'm sorry, my aide, Naomi Grundy's, who graduated with her master's in land use planning and she and I came up with an idea and how to get involvement from the neighborhood. She worked on a survey that was really well received and did a lot of the back work, which I call talking to neighbors and explaining this in a way where it's digestible. I feel like a lot of times when we're talking about rezoning and we're talking about land use, we use terminology that's not very accessible. And those in the city and county of Denver or those of us on city council, we understand it because we have lots of meetings with planners who explain it. And so I feel like it's my job to be able to explain it to everybody who would be impacted by these rezonings. So thank you, Naomi, for your steadfast leadership on this. And I would also like to talk to Jesse's concern. So some of the people who were opposed to this were nervous about having strangers in their backyard. They were nervous about parking and they were nervous about change in northwest Denver. I was born and raised. There has been a lot of change. The built environment has changed drastically since the 2010 zoning code, and so a lot of change. Change can be challenging and it can be a lot of fear based. And so we listened to everybody, and I made the tough decision to move forward on the application based on a lot of the equity concepts that you would have found in the document that Liz presented. And we also met with the city assessors to make sure we talked about taxes. We met with the fire department to talk about Allie with we met with Rene Martinez Stone, who runs the West Denver Collaborative, Renaissance Collaborative, who works on building 80 years in West Denver to figure out how we could work all together in TAPI Park. I had this survey in English and Spanish. We had our fliers done in English and Spanish, and so we had two responses in Spanish. So that shows me that it's working as long as they can have access to the information. And with that, if anyone if my colleagues have anything, any other comments, I would absolutely, really appreciate your support. This is a big deal for those who have housing over there. And I'll give a personal example. I have a cousin who has Down syndrome who lives in this neighborhood, and I would like his caretaker to be able to live there. We are making succession plans for him. He's one of my dear cousins. He's exactly my age in 40 and been working at McDonald's. And I would like Ben and all my other relatives who live in Chevy Park to stay in this neighborhood. So with that, I would ask that you support this initiative to help create some gentle density in Chevy Park, and I feel like it meets all the criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And seeing other hands raised for comments, I'll comment. I would hope that all of our colleagues do support both 1027 and 1028. And just want to give you a huge congrats, Councilwoman Sandoval, because this was a heavy lift and your leadership and your community engagement and to have seven speakers here to all basically be in support of it goes a long way towards your community outreach and engagement. And so I just want to sincerely congratulate congratulate you and the Chaffee Park neighborhood, too, that they're going to have this additional tool for general dental density in the neighborhood. And with that being said, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1027, please. Sandoval, I. Where I. Torres, I. Black. I. See the buckets, I. Clark. I. When? I turned in. I. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1313 Ies Council Bill 1027 has passed. Counsel Woman Black, would you please put Council Bill 1028 on the floor?

A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure. A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure which adds a Land Acknowledgement to follow the Pledge of Allegiance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1163

So I last saw Commander John Shillington, Governor John Evans and Major Edward Wynkoop for peace talks. The tribe believing they had reached and complied with peace with the U.S. Army, set up camp at Sand Creek near Fort Lyon. Only two months later, John Sherrington would carry out the Sand Creek massacre. This work is important. It's relevant not only to know our own city's history, but how it was built and how we improve upon that past. I will continue to work with the Denver American Indian Commission and the Native community over the long term to ensure the content of the land. Acknowledgment remains up to date and relevant, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this resolution. Thank you, council member Torres, for your leadership on this and happy to support it. The next item up is Resolution 1080. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Resolution 1080. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really just wanted an overview on how Head Start here at Montessori has been recalibrating during COVID. We've had a couple of constituent calls and I want to understand what is happening with funding right now during COVID. How are we allocating it when we're not able to accept kids at in-person? All right. We've got Mr. Al Martinez up to answer your question. Thank you, Councilwoman. So funding has continued uninterrupted and will continue uninterrupted for the foreseeable future. We are in the process of awarding amendments to the base contracts that were funded as of July 1st. But you're absolutely right. Services have been interrupted. Interrupted. We have many programs that are operating under the strenuous conditions. We have some programs that operate in in-person learning, some that operate a hybrid model, which is a combination of in-person and virtual learning. Some are doing 100% at home learning, and so it varies across the seven delegate agencies that we fund. But funding has not been interrupted at all. We have a bill that another set of amendments that will be coming through that will be awarding Head Start COVID funding, which will support some summer operations that were funded just a few months ago, that took place a few months ago, when most as our programs are not open, they were allowed to request funds to open under COVID, and we gave them that permission and now we're going to give them the money that was associated with opening. So it varies really across the agencies that we fund. We also have vendors that are providing services, whether in health, mental health. Some of these services are being provided remotely because with the rise in cases we are vendors are not allowed to go into the Centers for the Health Department role. So I think under the circumstances we are doing a very tremendous job in meeting the needs of the families that we serve in Headstart. Is it possible? And thank you for those answers. Is it possible to see a breakdown of the 321 children that this is paying for, what kind of service they're getting, if it's the in-person, the hybrid or the virtual? Sure. It would just take it would take me a little bit of time to do that, because they're the mile high. Early learning has children all across Denver. They're in multiple neighborhoods and in zip codes. And so but I could surely put that together and give you a good idea of how many are in need or two or five at which center, how many are in need of two. One nine, you know, just throughout their primarily though in northeast Denver and southwest Denver that's out there traditionally where they have been located. But I could do that. I just need a little bit of time. Thank you. That would be really helpful just because I anticipate our modes of providing services changing. And I would love to just have an accurate count of who's getting what and what there's a gap for or what we need to be putting in place. So thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. That's it for my questions on that one. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. The next item up is resolution 1111. Councilmember CdeBaca. Go ahead with your questions on that resolution. Thank you, Madam President. Same situation here with Save Your House. They used to provide respite care, housing, and I'm wondering if the contract is exclusively the caseworker in the caseworker services or if housing is included and how caseworkers are doing their work right now during COVID. All right. I believe we have Rachel Goldberg here ready to answer or Erin Hall. I would direct that call to Erin Hall. She's the program administrator over that contract. You might have to mute Aaron. Yes, you're right. Go ahead. Oh, sorry about that. And actually, I might defer to Erin streaming, who is another. Person that can speak more globally because it's not just specific to the screen. It sounds like you want to know more about caseworkers and how they're doing their work. Nope. Specifically on Savio House, it doesn't have a number of how many kids you're serving here, so that would be helpful too. How many kids are you serving? How are you guys pivoting during COVID? For the caseworker caseworkers? And is this including respite care? Thank you. I can answer that question. First of all, Savio House, just to kind of give an overview, they have two branches overall. They do have their treatment side, which the treatment side did use to operate a residential treatment center. The contract that this money is through is with their physical fiscal agent side, which is the Saville Management Group. And so this money actually funnels through Savio House, through our Denver Collaborative Partnership Program, which is actually Denver County's CSP, which is Collaborative Management Program, which is funded primarily through House Bill 1451 that was created like 15 years ago. So that's the structure. So Savio House actually doesn't provide the services there, the fiscal agent for DCP, so that the money through this this grant through the feds, federal government comes through the state and then through the county, and then we give it to Savio House to manage. They do not provide respite care through this money. They provide intensive case management and family advocacy that could include services in the community, that could include possibly sometimes rental assistance. That also could include some of the impacts that cognitive has had on families. It's really needs based on family to family. There is a lot of flexibility on what we can and cannot provide under this program. And that was part of the motivation to have it go through DCP, because we can have access to provide services to families outside of the child welfare system. So how many families is it serving this year right now? It's 35 families, right. Currently this year. So and the the grant is anywhere from 20 to 40 is how it was written from the federal government. And is there a way, since Sabio is just the fiscal aid, is there a way to get the report from the direct service provider on what the funds are being used for? Yes. Yes. Yeah, we do have a budget. I can follow up with them to get a breakdown of how the funds are spent. Some. Thank you. That's it on that one from. All right. Great. Thank you. The next item up is Bill. 1110. Councilmember CdeBaca. Go ahead with your questions on Bill 1110. Thank you, Madam President. I mean, there's a lot of good stuff on here tonight. And I was a former youth provider, so having been a provider for summer youth employment and right in the middle of their shift to DPS being the prime contractor, essentially, I'm curious about how DPS with partners was able to recalibrate during the COVID summer and how these dollars were paid out to youth. I know we're extending it, so I imagine there were some complications, but I really would just like to know how we recalibrated. Where did the money go and how many youth were served? Thank you. Thank you. Councilman CdeBaca, this is Tony Anderson. I get to be the director of Workforce Services for Denver Economic Development, an opportunity. Really appreciate the questions and the call out in the opportunity to talk about summer youth employment program this year. As you would all imagine, it was an interesting summer and we are really proud of what we were able to do in partnership with Denver Public Schools. I have Eric to be adored here joining me and will look to him to talk a little bit more about the program, specifics and total number of serve. But essentially, we're here today for tonight asking for an extension of this contract for two reasons. First reason being to extend the amount of time that the youth have to actually complete the virtual job readiness training. I'll talk about what a normal summer looks like and provide a little context to this. But essentially reason one is to give the youth more time to complete those virtual job readiness assignments. And then the second main reason was the major change. The contract is to allow a bit more proration to pay the stipends to the youth based on the exact amount of time that they completed of the virtual job readiness training . And so going into this summer, we had a $1,000 stipends available for up to 325 youth to complete this virtual job readiness training, which was done through the Google platform, through Denver Public Schools. And essentially what we wrote in the contract is they could get 50% of that that stipend if they completed 50% of the training. There was kind of a 1 to 1 portion and then a202 portion that they could get the additional $500 giving that $4,000 in their hand for completion. And what we found is we had to use that completed 75%, and we had some youth that completed 25%. And rather than give them zero or give them just 500, instead of that 750, you know, the the spirit of the program this year was to get us get the full 325 youth enrolled and get as much of the dollars in their hands as possible. And so, you know, for us, a normal summer looks like in, you know, January, February, March, it's heavy recruitment of the youth and the employers for the placement. You know, April, maybe comes that time where we're matching up the youth with those employment opportunities and those work experience typically start in June and run June, July, August, giving us September for kind of final invoicing and then October for a final report. And as you would imagine, COVID 19 and the timing of that, which hit right in March, left us scrambling a bit. And as we saw other cities really canceling their summer youth employment program, we were determined not to do that. And so we spent that kind of March and April period trying to figure it out and landed on what I think was a really fair and equitable solution across the board for folks. And what that did is and it sent us back into recruitment mode into that May and June and enrollment time period. And so youth just got a later start. Youth were starting in July and August and you know, just to allow more flexibility, which again was the entire spirit of our summer youth employment program. That's why we're coming forth with this extension request. And I'll pause there and hopefully Eris can jump in and talk about where we are today. Otherwise, I can definitely give an update. Yeah, sure. Absolutely echo the challenges that we face in terms of designing all the contract negotiations that took place as a result and then just the implementation. And I think it was a lot for us to expect our participants to continue to move into the virtual space and have all that screen time, etc.. But they're doing it right. Most of our youth onboarded in July. They just haven't completed the pace that we expected. So we're currently serving. Yeah. WhatsApp is looking for the numbers. How many students are currently in the process of receiving their dollars? That's 106. 106. Awesome. Awesome. Well, I will touch base with you guys when you start administering the rest of those to find out completion percentages and what was more or most common? Where did they stop at? Just because, you know, I still am engaged in the youth development world and very curious to see how we continue with this. So thank you. That's it for my questions on this one. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, gentlemen, for joining us and answering those questions. The next item up is Bill 1106. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council Bill 1106 on the floor for publication?

Recommendation to Accept the Status Report of the City’s Economic Recovery Task Force Activities. (Community Development 256000)

AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8435

All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Fitzsimmons better always great to see you and thanks for your good work. Okay, counsel, we move on to item six D. Recommendation to accept the status report of the city's economic recovery task force activity. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Yeah, thank you. Did you come up with me? Yeah. Not yet. It's just showing you muted. Hi, Miss Amanda Turkey. Give it a minute. And there. You must have the equivalent of my iPad there. Did you go? Muted. Muted again? No, no, you're good. You get and your screen sharing. Amanda Kirkby will be giving the report. All right. Good evening, Mr. Key. Evening, Mayor and city council members. And thank you, Lois. So, as Lois mentioned, I am here tonight to give a status report on the Economic Recovery Task Force. Next slide, please. So, as you all know, when shelter in place hit in March, it was very necessary to maintain our public health. But it did have a pretty major impact on our businesses and workers. The city took a series of immediate steps to help, and I'm not going to go through all of these here, but they're listed up on the screen. These actions were done under the leadership and support of city council and with the hard work and collaboration of a number of different city departments. Next slide, please. So while these actions were important and necessary, they were primarily reactive in nature. So in May, the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel advised directed city staff to create a COVID 19 economic recovery task force. So it's a ten member task force with members appointed by the city manager. So the goal of the task force is to kind of move a little bit beyond these reactive steps to create a short term mid-term strategy for economic recovery in Alameda. And the Economic Development Advisory Panel also directed staff to focus on our most vulnerable businesses, workers and residents. Next slide, please. So the task force has been meeting since July, just about every other week. We've contracted with the consulting firm Strategic Economics and Beacon Economics to facilitate these meetings and to assist with our data analysis. One crucial source of information for this work has been a series of focus groups that we've been conducting with the sectors listed on the slides. So these groups are really critical to kind of getting in on the ground, understanding of what's going on with our businesses and what their needs are. And you'll see those little stars next to housing and transportation. Those are there because we had not finished those focus groups when we wrote the staff report. So that information is not included here. But I'm happy to answer any questions that council has about that. So next slide, please. So I'm going to go through some of the preliminary findings of the work that are really kind of set the stage for the development of the strategies. And it's tricky. I hate to do this to you, but will you excuse my interruption because I've just been reminded and I don't know how this happened, but it's almost 11:00. So council we have to vote to approve considering new items which are six e. Remember, we have to hit open six F just to continue it and then we have nine A and ten A and so I need somebody to make a motion on that. I move that we work until midnight to get through the rest of the agenda. Okay. So we have a second to that. I'll second, but I'd like to encourage us to be concise with our comments so we can get through the entire agenda. It's a good point. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. May we have a roll call vote with. Council over Jason Knox? Right. I. o.D i. I may or as the Ashcroft, I get carried by five hour rate. And again, I apologize for the interruption. Mr. Keith, the floor is yours again. Okay. So one of our earliest findings was that we heard from the public health department that even with the vaccine, we can expect social distancing measures into 2022. So we heard this pretty early on, and this estimate had a pretty significant impact on how the task force was thinking about the timing of the emergency and the timing of our recovery. We're also seeing a pretty big racial hellscape related to the pandemic in Alameda County. Latin Mex population has the highest rate of infection, followed by the Pacific Islander and black residents. And the black population has the highest rate of deaths due to COVID 19. We're also seeing greater job loss among women, people of color and those without advanced degrees. So we're seeing more women, more black workers, and also more workers with a high school education or less who are filing for unemployment. Next slide, please. From our businesses and nonprofit owners. We're hearing about a lot of confusion and frustration around our county health orders. So couple examples of this are new health orders will be issued on a Friday and that doesn't leave businesses much time to prepare for any changes. Uncertainty about the timing or future health orders that can make it difficult for businesses to plan for reopening. And then also some frustration about the differences between the county and state guidelines, which can cause confusion, which when new changes are announced at the state level, but they don't apply to Alameda County from businesses that have reopened. We're hearing that expenses have increased significantly due to COVID 19, and that has to do with the cost of PPE, the cost of cleaning, and in some cases having to hire staff in order to enforce public health orders. At the same time, their revenues are down because capacity is limited and demand is also down. So we're hearing from many businesses that they're dipping into savings or going into debt to make ends meet. And the ones who were lucky enough to receive federal, state or local aid report that that money is is quickly running out if it hasn't already. So as a result, unless unless conditions change, we do expect to see many more business closures this winter. So one thing that really is making a difference to businesses is access to outdoor spaces, including shared public spaces through the Commercial Streets program. However, there are concerns about the viability of these spaces with winter approaching, and of course, there are many businesses who can't bring their work outdoors. Next slide, please. I'm sorry. Next slide, please. So the hotel and tourism industry has been majorly impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic due to the loss of business and recreation travel. These are they're actually expected to be one of the last to recover with full recovery, not expected till 2023 or 2024. In terms of office space businesses, we're hearing that the impact of the pandemic has been very uneven. There are some businesses, particularly in the life sciences, that are still viable or even thriving, but others who are really feeling the impact, for example, or co-working spaces have still not yet been able to open. In the long term, we're hearing that while there is going to be an increase in remote work, that there will still be demand for physical office space in Alameda. There's a couple of reasons for that. One is the importance of in-person work for creativity and innovation and accountability. Another is that businesses are reporting that their employees actually do want to maintain some kind of presence in the office. And maybe that's not a full week, but maybe that's two or three days out of the week in the office and two or three days at home. And then finally, we also heard that the office stock in Alameda is well suited to COVID recovery. It's low density. There's not many elevators and there's plentiful parking. Next slide, please. So in the childcare sector, we're seeing that many childcare providers have shut down or are experiencing reduced enrollment. And there's the kind of describe the strange phenomenon where they heard a lot of interest from parents at first about when are you going to open up, when can we send our kids back? But when they actually opened, enrollment was much lower than had been planned and they actually had to shut down some of their programs. So there's a real concern that when the pandemic lifts and the demand comes back, that these programs may not be there anymore. One thing we heard across the board in all of the sectors we talked to was about the importance of Internet access and tech literacy for businesses and workers. So we heard this with childcare. You know, they hadn't had ever expected to have maybe support online learning, right? So a lot of them had to expand their Internet capacity to work with that. And we also heard that workers, and particularly those without college degrees, sometimes lack the skills and access to technology that is required to file for unemployment, apply for new jobs, or even just connect with other workers. And finally, we heard a lot about mental health challenges for businesses and workers. And this was another thing that was across all of the groups we spoke with. You know, these folks are under tremendous stress. They are worried about losing their jobs. They're worried about losing their businesses. The business owners are worried about their employees. And everyone's really concerned about making ends meet. And at the same time, they're worried about getting COVID or bringing COVID home to someone who may be more vulnerable in their family or their household. And then on top of that, on top of all this, a lot of these frontline employees are in the position of having to enforce public health orders. So they are dealing with angry or just noncompliant customers. Next, Chris. So during the task force process, it became clear that this wasn't there was a need for immediate assistance assistance. This wasn't something that could wait until after a plan had been developed. There were also a number of activities that were already in process in the city under the leadership of city council and in a number of different departments. I'm just going to go through kind of some of these interim measures here. So the spend local campaign is something we've been working on to try to boost sales for our businesses over the holidays. That's going to be launching on Saturday. Another thing the pandemic really brought out is the importance of businesses talking to each other across, promoting learning from one another, advocating. And so as a result of that, we've been we worked with the Chamber of Commerce to launch a Personal Care Services Coalition. There's also been a massive citywide effort to permit alfresco dining through our Commercial Streets program. And then in terms of mental health, we've been working with a local councilor to schedule a series of group zoom based counseling sessions for business workers and owners that we're hoping to launch in the new year. We have also set up regular, consistent briefings with the county health department, and we've invited other Alameda County cities to join so that we can ask clarifying questions, we can share feedback from our businesses, and also just kind of help to spread the word about public health orders. So as a result, in part from these meetings, the county health has moved to announcing changes in health orders, usually a couple of days in advance so that businesses have time to prepare. And the county has also worked closely with the state to clarify or to provide clarity around the difference between state and county guidelines when those are released. We've also been increasing our communication weekly, bi weekly emails to our businesses. We did a webinar to help provide businesses with assistance and tips on negotiating with their landlords under COVID 19. And finally, as a council as well, we placed a cap on the third party delivery fees for restaurants. So rather than these 25 to 35% use, they're capped at 15%. And that cap went into effect a little over a week ago. Next slide. So in terms of next steps, we're here tonight to provide city council with an update and get your feedback and comments. And then we're working to develop strategies and put together a report during December and January. And we hope to be back in front of you in February or March for approval. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thanks. Thank you, Miss Piercy. And I just want to note that these regular briefings with county public health actually came about because of the initiative of our own Lois Butler, economic development director. And I know that because every other week there is a county public health briefing for elected officials. And at our last briefing two weeks ago, Colleen Chawla, the director of the county health care services agency, announced that they are now doing these briefings for the economic development directors around the county. And then that was all initiated through the efforts of Alameda City of Alameda. So I think it's probably both. Lois but their enigmatic. Amanda But I think Lois, your name was even mentioned. And so that is not only to the benefit of our businesses, but also countywide. And we just really need to be making sure we're as proactive as we can be. This is the information. Some of the information sharing really made a difference, like not announcing these changes to the county public health officers orders on a Friday when, you know, restaurants and venues like that had to struggle to, uh, to comply. So I think this is really perfectly timed and personally perfectly timed item. Thank you so much for presenting it. Counsel We're being asked to accept the status report, but any comments or questions before we go on the air, before we vote? And then let me just ask really quickly, do we have some of the speakers on the side and. Have one. Of my questions first? Councilmember Odie. I just had one quick question. I wonder if you could share a little bit about the, um, the business assistance program that the county just announced that I think the application deadline is closing at the end of the month. And how are our businesses can kind of access more information on that? Yeah, absolutely. So Alameda County announced the Alameda County Cares Grant program. It opened yesterday. They're providing $5,000, one time grants to businesses located in Alameda County, unincorporated parts of Alameda County. As you mentioned, this closes at the end of the month. We've sent out we have it up on our website. We've sent it out in numerous locations, but I can try to grab the website to read off here if that would help. And folks can always contact us in economic development. We can point them in the right direction. Have we done any work on that type of outreach in other languages? Because a lot of our businesses are owned by folks whose English is not their first language. Yes. So the application provided by the county is available in multiple languages. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. And we are definitely sharing all of those all of those options. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying questions. Council Vice President, swing by. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciated this a lot. My my one question was, as I was reading The Bullet about experiencing a wave of small business closures, have we done any or considered doing any survey of our small businesses to kind of find out where they are? Both. Are they even surviving? We just got a I just saw all these is on the risk of closing for good apparently according to the news tonight and kind of what their needs are like. Obviously, people are going to want to be a little careful. But I remember talking to businesses. Restaurants were opening over the summer and they were talking about how it's nice they're not making enough money to cover their costs. And they also have these 4 to 6 months of costs that they're going to have to pay back someday and kind of getting a better understanding of what the size and scope of that is so we can maybe make some survey. Question is, have we done are we going to be doing any survey of our smaller businesses, especially in our Main Street shopping areas? That's a great question. When we started this process way back in the spring, there had been a kind of a wave of surveys that had gone out around that time. And we looked at that data, but we were also hearing a little bit of survey fatigue, which I think is why we went more in the direction of focus groups and then also listening to people at our town halls. But I think I think that ongoing outreach is going to be really important to the strategy moving forward. Like we can't stop listening now. So I think incorporating a survey into it in the future is a great idea. Thank you. It's great work. So thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. And that's a great answer to Councilmember Avila. Okay. So the website. The County Grant program is actually administered by the East Bay EDA. So the website is East Bay EDA boards back slash grants for anyone who's looking for that. But my question was, you know, I've noticed with a lot of these small business grants, for instance, with the city grants and then also with the county grants, it's for businesses and it caps them at 25 employees. One of the feedback things that has come up is particularly for daycares and preschools where they might have two locations on island or something like that. With the new COVID requirements, they are having to reduce the ratio of instructors to youth. And so that means in many cases, if you have more than one location, you're going to be exceeding the the the maximum number of employees to qualify. And so my question is, having gotten the feedback that that preschools and daycares are potentially threatened, have we looked at that or have we how have we responded or how are we looking at responding to helping those businesses stay afloat? So with the Alameda Strong grant, you can have two locations and up to 50 employees. The criteria for the East Bay Eddy County Grant was done without input from the cities and so we weren't able to influence that. But with the grants that we have going forward, hopefully we can. Have that additional requirement. One of the things that I did want to let you know is we have a council item coming December 1st, but I understand what that council item, it's for a matching grant from the county. We have to follow the county's criteria. And so we may not be able to include that criteria in with with the request that we will be making. So we can speak to that later. And I will follow up with the with the SBA, EDA, to see if we can shift that criteria. Thank you. And have we do we have industry specific groups like are we. I guess my concern is I think that there's been a lot of outreach. And I know, Lois, you you've personally gone out and talked to businesses on Webster and Park Street, and so is your staff. My question is, what are we doing and how are we reaching out to businesses that are not located in our business districts? So we have used our business license list to try to hit as many businesses as possible. Some businesses exclude their email address, and so we're not able to contact them. But if if they have listed their email address, they should be receiving an email from us when these announcements are being made. Also, through our focus groups, we've been able to contact additional folks and they have been passing the word as well. So for you, that's for rebels. Okay. Thank you. Miss Bella, would you say that the majority of our business license licenses do include an email address? I would say so, yes. Right. Because every day. Did I see your hair? No. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. I understand that we have a public speaker at least. Correct. The spacewalker. She has lowered her hand. So I believe we do not have a public speaker now. I'm sorry. No public speaker. Okay. All right. So any further discussion before we have recommended acceptance of this report tells everybody. I just moved to recommend the acceptance of the status report. There's a lot I'd like to say, but I also want to get onto the rest of the agenda. So. But thank you, Lois, you and your team for everything you've done. All right. And so we can do this by a motion. A motion to recommend. Yes. So, yes. Yes. Okay, we're moving quickly, people. So that was seconded by Vice Chair. That's what I believe. Yes. I'm reading it as such. A move by Councilor Brody, seconded by vice mayor. And that's why we have a roll. Call vote, please. Councilmember Jason Knox. Right. All right, Odie. Hi. Right. I may as the Ashcroft. Hi. That carries by five. Five. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Butler. Ms.. Gherkin, great work and so well needed and timely. So thank you. Keep up the good work. We are now moving on to item six E. Our city manager, Eric Leavitt, is going to recuse himself because he lives in proximity to this project. And there he is. Assistant City Manager Sherry Burton is going to take this staff report. It's very. Welcome. And you want me to read the title? Yeah, actually, I believe they've already passed. I promise. We might as well. Carry the procedure. Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance approving a Third Amendment to the development agreement by and among the City of Alameda. To our partners ILP and Alta Vista Owner, LLC, governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to extend the completion deadline for the Clement extension improvements by one year and authorize the city manager to grant an additional one year extension without further action by the City Council. Our Planning Board.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; establishing Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a legal holiday for certain City employees and a legal parking holiday; authorizing memoranda of understanding between the City and certain City unions to add Indigenous Peoples’ Day and Juneteenth as a paid holiday; amending Sections 3.06.015, 3.16.131, 3.102.010, 4.20.190, 11.14.277, and 14.12.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_03292022_CB 120286

Thank you. This is mine. So I will go ahead and first move. I will move to pass Council Bill 120286. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as a sponsor of this bill. I will address this item. Council Bill 120286 is legislation that would authorize several actions related to our two new city holidays. As a reminder, December and December 2021, the city enacted two ordinances relating to two new holidays ordinance 126505 Establish Juneteenth as a legal holiday for non represented city employees and a parking holiday for the public. Ordinance number 126516 Establish Juneteenth An Indigenous People's Day as legal holidays for city employees represented by the Coalition of City Unions. Although the city has already established Indigenous People's Day as a day of observance, observance and legal holiday for city employees represented by the Coalition, legislation is required to expand this holiday to non represented city employees and establish a parking holiday. The proposed legislation would authorize the following actions. Number one, establish Indigenous People's Day as a legal holiday for city employees on the second Monday of October. Number two, establish indigenous people's day as a parking holiday. Number three, approve a memorandum of understanding with three unions to establish Juneteenth, an indigenous peoples day as a new paid holiday. And four make technical updates to facilitate observance of Indigenous Peoples Day. Direct costs would include additional pay for minimum staffing requirements and the loss of on street parking revenue for the parking holiday for each car for up to about 132,000 for each parking holiday. Completing the establishment of Indigenous People's Day as a new holiday will demonstrate the city's commitment to honoring the culture and contributions of indigenous people. The establishment of both Juneteenth and the Indigenous Peoples Day will also signal a commitment towards achieving racial equity, working towards an anti-racist future, and ending the historical and continued harms towards black Americans and indigenous peoples in this region and the United States. For next steps after Council approves the bill today, the executive will transmit and the executive will later transmit separate budget legislation to appropriate funding to cover the direct costs. Those are the costs that are just shared with you. Is there any comments on the bill? I would just like to thank Councilman Morales for bringing the Juneteenth to us. I believe it was in her committee and we passed the legislation. So thank you, Castro. Morales So it looks like both holidays will have free parking, so let's be thankful for that. So anyhow, thank you. Not seen any more comments or hands raised. Well, clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Council member Strauss. Yes. Council member Herbold. Yes. Council member Morales. Yes. Council member. Must gather. I Council Member Nelsen I Council Member Petersen High Council President Juarez. High. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the bill? Ah, to the legislation. Thank you. Moving on to our second item from the Economic Development Technology and Select Committee. Madam, click, will you please read item two and to the record.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to adjust rates for natural gas service to recover current and future costs related to Assembly Bill 32, the California Cap-and-Trade Program; and increase appropriations in the Gas Fund (EF 301) in the Long Beach Gas and Oil Department (GO) by $1,800,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02092016_16-0118

Motion carries. Next item. Report from Long Beach Gas and oil recommendation to adjust rates for natural gas service to recover current and future costs related to Assembly Bill 32, the California Cap and Trade Program Citywide. Thank you. Can I get a second on this? Can any public comment on this item? Please cast your votes. It was a question of accounting council it. Yes. Just a quick question of staff. What will this mean to ratepayers? I'm going to turn this over to our interim director of Long Beach Gas and Oil at Farrell. No relation to our port commissioner. And Tony Foster. Councilmember we're looking to add. Per therm 0.0 to. $0.07 per therm, adjusted from 0.02 to $0.03 per therm. Okay. We're going to see an average bill increase of about $0.67. Okay. That that helps. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Please cast your votes. Council Supernova. Motion carries.

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a Cedar Hills Tonnage and Capacity Report prepared in accordance with the 2017/2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0264

All in favor say I any oppose those are approved. Turning to the consent agenda, this would be subject to signature accounts from up there. I would you put that before us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the consent agenda. I was five and six be approved. Thank you, Corporal Kolawole. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, Duchin. Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, Councilmember Kowalski. Councilmember Lambert, Councilmember McDermott, council member of the Grove Councilmember phone right there. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is three eyes. No, Nos. Six excuse. All right. So these two things that we've given do pass recommendation on those items. Should they be expedited, Erin? No art regular calendar consent for council. We have two substantive items today to take up and that is the confirmation of our decennial charter review commission. I see we have a number of nominees here in the audience and we'll do a panel once we get going. Of of you. I think there's five or six. Raise your hands if you're a nominee. I think I recognize. Oh, we've got better attendance than that. Outstanding. All right, May, due to panels in your packets, there are responses to committee questionnaire for folks to get an idea to help move that along. And then I hope that we'll be able to take up our harassment and discrimination ordinance by Councilmember Cole. Wells So that'll be the second hearing on that item, see if we can't move that today, but so that we have a little bit better attendance, I think folks are coming. I've heard from Councilman one right down who is has a breakfast on these days down federal way and and that he's does regularly and he's running a little bit late and may have to dial in and I think we'll get some better attendance here in a couple more minutes. So we will recess for let's try 5 minutes and reconvene at 945. Thank you. All right. We're coming back into session after a short recess. We've got a number of colleagues who have made it to the dais. And we will turn now to proposed motion number 2018 0274. That's item seven on your agendas, which is a motion which would confirm the appointment of members of our Decennial Charter Review Commission pursuant to Section 800

Recommendation to adopt resolution Version A or Version B regarding a proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April 8, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of Long Beach an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, relating to Marijuana Business License General tax; and request the Office of the Mayor to designate persons, or associations of persons, to write arguments either for or against or both for and against the adoption of the measure placed on the ballot. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0022

Okay. Now we go to item 15 luxury. And 15 is a report from the city attorney with a recommendation to adopt resolution version A or version B regarding the proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April eight, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the vote. It's voters of the City of Long Beach, an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the municipal code relating to marijuana, business license, general tax parking. And they are members of the City Council. Before you tonight, you have a recommendation as requested by the Council with two options for submission to the voters in April. The first option would place a tax on the sale of marijuana at 6%, and option B would be a variable tax, which would be a maximum tax of 10% . But the Council would have the discretion to set that initial rate at 6% and thereafter vary the tax not to exceed 10%. There's also a square footage tax for the cultivation sites, and we would stand ready to answer any questions that you have. Mr. STEELE. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. PARK. In regard to the second alternative that you mentioned and regarding the taxing, so explain that a little bit more. So we would set the tax initially at 6%. And then based on revenues and things of that nature, we would have the ability to adjust that. Yes. Under this proposal or under version B, the the approval of the voters under Prop 218 would authorize the council to establish or set the rate as high as a 10%, the initial rate as requested by the Council. We came back with the initiated 6% and then subsequent to that, the council could move up or down at the desire of the council, but it could never exceed 10% without going back to the voters. Okay. And are there automatic triggers in that moving up or down or that the council just deliberates? And what was. That similar to the version? A There is. Is an automatic adjustment for CPI. But other than that, there is no automatic. Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Mr. Parkin the proposed square footage fee. Is is that something that you observed in other cities? Councilmember Lowenthal State law prohibits cities from charging certain types of nonprofit organizations a business tax or fee based on gross receipts or income. And although some some businesses, all businesses are currently required by the CAA and the MPAA to be not for profit, these businesses are not necessarily non-profits as designed as defined by the state constitution, the municipal code in the IRS. Therefore, a tax rate per square foot for those religious and charitable, charitable nonprofits has been developed. So it was a way to actually. It's a way to make to create a tax that would apply to all businesses operating in the city of Long Beach. And it's consistent with the taxing structure that the business license division uses currently for other other kinds of religious and charitable nonprofits. So you're not proposing an either or. You're proposing, in addition to the 6%, the $30 or under version A or $50 under version B. It would be one or the other, not both. I'm sorry, not version A and B together, but if it's 6%, it's $30 per square foot. If down the road it was raised to 10%, it's $50 per square foot. Under version eight, it would be the $30 per square foot adjusted annual CPI. Under Version B, it would start at the $50 per square foot increase for CPI. So in terms of the actual dollar amount for the square footage, I know and I appreciate you sharing that with me. I understand where the need comes from or the requirement anyway. So I'd be interested in a lower amount, I think. You know, in speaking with members in the in the community that are looking to operate and give back by way of tax receipts or by way of tax revenue, I get the sense that $30 is is a lot, especially per square foot, for an operation where 100% of what's cultivated in that square footage doesn't necessarily produce something that they can sell. So I'm I don't see the calculation here on how you came up with $30. I'm not necessarily looking to question that. I'm suggesting that it appears to be high from what I'm hearing from the community. The information we were given by the business license division is that that's consistent with what they do for other kinds of for other kinds of businesses. There aren't a lot of others to compare. However, the example that they used was manufacturing. If, for example, you have it's two different kinds of operations, one is retail and one is cultivation or storage. So is this. So the the fee itself, the determination of the fee itself is something that was proposed by the business license division. And is this per year the square footage fee? It's per square foot. How often? Every day. Every month. Every year? Well, annually. Annually. Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. I will wait to hear from my colleagues. I need to rethink this. Thank you. Jimmy. Miss Parker, just. Mr. Parker, just so I understand, is there's a $30 per square foot fee annually. That correct? Yes. In the cultivation area. That's correct. So 4000 square feet would be. No, 4000 square feet. $30 would be 30,000. Should be less. I don't know that that. That strikes me as a little steep, Mr. Moon. Yeah. If. And just to reiterate, I want to be sure I heard correctly. It's not either or. It's both. Correct. It's the under version. Either case. Really? I'm sorry. It's either 6% or. No. It's no parking. Amy said both. No, it's either or. It's. If you're a cultivation site, there's a square footage, there's a fair square footage fee tax. If you are a retail operation, there's a gross receipts tax. So but but an entity can operate as both. But the intent is not to is not to tax. If there isn't if there is a business that operates both a cultivation site and a retail operation, the intent is not to tax twice. Okay. Which would you tax the retail side or the cultivation side? I think consistent with what business license does with other operations that are similar, they would tax the retail site. Okay. If I operated both if I had both you you would tax the retail site. So if I if I were one of the operators, I had a retail site and I also cultivated on site or off site , what would my tax be? Would it be the 6% or would it be the $30 per square foot? I think that your tax would be the gross receipts tax, the 6%, although that's something we can clarify with financial management. Okay. That's it for me right now. Thank. You know, I think there's some confusion here. Can you walk us through the differences between these two ordinances? Once again. Version version A is an ordinance that fixes the tax rate at 6%, so that there's so that there's a clear expectation of what the gross the gross receipts, taxes version B proposes to set a maximum of 10% with an initial rate of 6%. The purpose of that is to give Council some flexibility, as was requested, so that if it if it appears that there are additional additional factors that need to be taken into consideration, the tax rate could be raised by ordinance of the Council up to a maximum of 10%. Prop 218 requires a vote of the people that establishes the tax. So in order to in order to be able to do that and get it on the upcoming ballot, the maximum tax was set at 10% grade. And then on the the per square foot charges, they 30 and 50. 30 or 50. I'm surgeon age 30. Yeah. Correct. We're talking about the square footage v 34, version 1854, version B. 30, 30, 30 is four. It reflects the 6%. So it's supposed to be parallel to the 6% gross annual receipts seats tax. Okay. 10% would be the maximum under the under version BS, maximum 10%. So if we started out with an initial rate of 6%, even under version B, we would want to make the per square footage tax consistent with the rate on with with the 6% gross annual receipts rate. So that would be a maximum rate. Does that make sense? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. DeLong. Thank you. So if you had two locations, so you had one that was the retail operation. And three blocks away you had a couple cultivation sites, or would you pay a gross sales at the retail location and then you would pay a square foot at the gross facility that was several blocks away? That's right. I think if you had a if you had a cultivation site and maybe I didn't understand the question when it was asked previously, if you have a cultivation site and the cultivation and that is your operation, then you'd pay the square footage fee. If you have, in addition to the cultivation site, a retail site that's separate that that's retail and a cultivation site. You're performing two different operations. That's the parallel to the manufacturing example that I talked about earlier. That business license occasionally has to deal with. So that's the parallel there. So you would pay both. You would pay both. So now let's say that year you move your operation, you find a larger facility, you've got the kind of the storefront in the front, right, and then in the back you're going to have the grow facility. Would you not pay both? If you're if you're co-located on one site where you would pay the the percentage of your gross sales and then you'd pay a square foot for their growth facility. Yeah, I think in that example, you would pay both because you're still performing both operations, you're still cultivating and selling, but. Hopefully. You'd only pay the square footage on the growth facility area and the retail store. You would not have to pay the $50 square foot because you're paying a gross sales. That's correct. Okay. I thought that's what you meant. Thank you. Thank you. I swear to you. Okay. Thank you. Just one clarification and then a question. And just to be clear, so, for example, let's say we went with a version B that square, because just because you're listing the square foot in version B is 50, that could be 30 as an example as well. Right. Okay. Correct. Then secondly, back to the $30 a square foot cost. You say that's being compared to other businesses. What other businesses are are we comparing to? Because that's actually. That seems. That there's actually a fairly small range of cities that have taxes in place. The lowest seems to be 2.5%. And the highest is in in the range of ten, 10 to 15%. City of Los Angeles, for example, is 6%. That was how the 6% figure was originally arrived at. And the $30, the $30 square foot fee was used in a previous ordinance. It was the recreational marijuana ordinance that was passed by a vote of the people in 2010 as Proposition B. It's on the books in the Long Beach Municipal Code, but it was never activated because state law never state law was not passed that allowed that to become a law. So that but that that parallel between the 6% and that and the square footage fee is in that ordinance. So that's that's really the model that we had to look at that and the model of other cities. Councilmember Longo. I'm okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Well, this is certainly a dynamic policy area. And so version B, my understanding of it is it basically gives the council the most flexibility, right? So so it sets a maximum tax rate, but we could have it anything up to or anything less than in any given Tuesday, we could basically vote to lower the tax that we felt was appropriate. Is that correct? That's correct. And version A, we're adopt that. And we decided that there were some unforeseen challenges or law enforcement needs or what have you. And we decided we wanted to increase attacks. We would not be able to do that without going back to the people at a regularly scheduled election, which might be a year or two in the future. Is that accurate? That is accurate. Right. Well, my thought is, I think we do need to have the most flexibility and certainly I'm not sure what the right tax rate is tonight. 6% seems to be like a good starting point, but I wouldn't want to bind future councils. Tonight it was very shifty here. Mr. Mayor, I see that there must be some way to combine this with fireworks. Figure that out. Yeah. I wanted to ask the city attorney a couple of things. Who. Who are we taxing in this scenario? Since nobody legally can operate Long Beach right now. I know that that the ordinance would not become affected unless and until there is an ordinance adopted by the city council pursuant to the process that you discussed at your last council meeting. And is there language to that effect any place? Yes, there is. In both versions. There is. Yes. What you've got attached here is. An on page on page eight, which is in version B, the it's section K titled Operative Date. And I think the version A. Sometimes we do it also in Virgina. It's also on page eight. Okay. Obviously, it has to be very clear in any ballot measure that there are no existing businesses that are in existence currently. Okay. And we don't apply a gross receipts tax. I think I remember we had this discussion. Mr. Johnson had brought this up as well. Los Angeles, I think, does and has caused considerable problems with their businesses because it's considered a a terrible burden. So do we. We don't do gross receipts tax on any other business. I know we there is in the ordinance that I mentioned earlier, Proposition B, that was the recreational marijuana tax. No, I'm talking about current businesses in Long Beach. No other type of business currently is taxed on gross receipts tax. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Then I am going to ask the question at some point, could this tax be challenged discriminatory? Because no other class of business in Long Beach, when you apply for a business, you pay a business license and it's based upon the number of employees. We don't do gross receipts tax on anyone. Well, there are a number of other cities that have done it on this. I know this. I understand. But we also got Sudan. What some other cities did, too, as well. So I'm just you know, we're setting out proposing a tax rate that we don't apply to any other business. And obviously, this wouldn't keep us from applying gross receipts tax on any business in Long Beach. Correct. But that's why I don't want us to go there. Okay. Because I am concerned this opens the door for other businesses to be taxed in this scenario. My other thing, it's not very clearly stated in any place. The county tax rate is 9.5%. Correct. The sales tax rate? Yes. Sales tax rate that they would have to pay. I've done a lot of reading with the Board of Equalization and they've indicated that they would have to pay, that they do have to pay a whatever the prevailing tax rate is for your county, which is 9.5%. So you're adding a 6% to 10%, which would mean they're going to be taxed 15.5 to 29.5%. Right. That would be. Correct. All right. Okay. We'll keep going, because in the ordinance, it also says the administrative fee to be added. Do we have any concept what the administrative fee would be for each of these? The administrators is going to be developed along with the ordinance, the regulatory ordinance. And I think that that at that point, there would be a better idea of what those costs would be. But the intent, I believe, from the council last week was to include enforcement costs in addition to other kinds of costs. So we don't have any idea what it is, but it could be quite substantial, especially if this council moves in a direction to limit the number of these facilities. That's because it does say that we'd be able to recoup enforcement costs. All right. And that this is more rhetorical than anything. But there's no other medicine in California that's taxed. There's no other medicine in California. This tax just simply isn't enough. This is medical marijuana. I've contended all along that we need to treat it like that. One of the things that I think needs to be clarified for voters, too, is that because this is very similar to oil revenue, it's unpredictable because we don't know how much the sales will be and how much will get than this. The revenue could not go into the general fund necessarily would have to be used as one time revenue. Or you can have a baseline, you know. Well, that has, I would think, needs to be spelled out, Mr. Mayor, because if you're going to ask the voters to approve something, we certainly don't want to be disingenuous and make them think it's going to go to for police, fire recreation, when in fact, if we then look at it as one time revenue, it can't be used for ongoing police and fire and recreation costs because we can't do certain portions of our oil revenue for that reason. And I understand Mr. GROSS isn't here, but I don't know Mr. West if if he's weighed in on this. But part of the argument is going to be, obviously, to the voters, how are you going to use this revenue? So I don't know that we can really promise it can go for police services, fire services, recreation services, because that has not been the Council policy on unpredictable income for revenue. That's rhetorical, but I do want to address that. I think that that's not quite correct. We pig oil at $70, everything below $70. I know that. No, no. Let's be fair. Is for ongoing. So you could do the same thing here. You're going to have some. It may be material. It may not. You'll find out after some experience. You could always set some level of revenue that would you almost assured you're going to receive and that would be used for ongoing. So I understand your point, but it's not all or nothing. No, I didn't say it was all or nothing, but I do think that the voters deserve clarification as to how they run to the ballot to go vote this on people, by the way, who from every testimony we've been given can the least that can afford this because they have medical problems, then I don't want us to be promising this is going to pay for fire and police and whatever. Once you say that, then this becomes a specified tax and not a general tax. So and that requires a different threshold. So yeah, two thirds. So I'm that that's why I ask if we get some clarification, where's this money going to go or not. And so that the taxpayers can know that and especially the people going to be taxed there last night and I don't know, the city attorney can opine on this, but one of the arguments I've heard repeatedly from against the taxation of medical marijuana is that what it can do is, especially if we are limiting the number of outlets for this, it can force the people who need this medication to go seek illegal sources because they don't have to pay the taxes and all the extra money isn't added on their stuff. So I just say that I understand that, you know, I mean, I don't understand why the rush is to put this tax right now , since we haven't grappled with how to get people back into business. But that would be a concern, too, that, you know, we're penalizing a group of people that we are saying publicly we're concerned about. But at the same hand, my understanding that this what's the enforcement mechanism about taxing an entity, it's up to us to go do the audits. But if people are out there selling other in other venues, they don't have to pay a tax on it, correct? No, they don't. If they're not allowed to illegally operate in Long Beach, how is it that we are we have access to their books to tax them. And this has happened in other occasions. I just asked this has been an issue about taxing medical marijuana. We're not talking about recreational marijuana. We're not talking about full legalization. We're talking about specifying going after a group of people whose use is dependent is going to be dependent on these facilities that, you know, if we're adding all these extra costs and tax onto it, the incentive for someone to get it and another source is much higher. Than we tax aspirin. So that's an over-the-counter prescription. Medicine is not taxed in California. An aspirin is not a prescribed medication. You can get it over the counter truck got hold of equalization tax. Exempt from sales? Yeah. Yes, exempt from sales tax. Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I was listening, you know, as some individuals have come to me and it seemed like to me that some of the dispensary, you know, lobbyists talk to me about what they said they wanted to be taxed. But what I'm listening to, it seems like they're really trying to as they try to tax them out of even going into business. So I think it would be nice to kind of hear from them and see where they're standing because I don't know, this is new to all of us, you know, trying to get some dispensaries here. But I think we should be fair to, you know, each parties once we find out what we're which way we're going, especially if we're going to put this on the ballot, they want to be taxed. And I think they should be because fact that they're going to make money. But I think the city should make something from it also. But I don't think they should be, you know, out so much from that because the fact that, you know, this is this is new to us. And I think we have to really find a way to do it and do it right. So that's all I'm saying. Mr.. AUSTIN So isn't there a tax on aspirin? I think I was actually queued up here. I favor the the the approach, and I do appreciate the comments of all my colleagues. Councilman Reshevsky Lipski, you bring up some very good points, but I favor an approach that gives the city the the the best amount of flexibility should this go to a ballot initiative. I'm really interested still to hear from the public on this as well. But, you know, I think version B provides that for us and we can get into, you know, what it's going to look like later on and how much it'll be and how much the the the, the, the other fees will be. I don't know that that that's going to going to going to going to resolve the issue that's really before us. I mean, we, we sent staff back to give us options. They've given us the option. We have version here before us. We have version B before us. In my opinion, version B gives the city the best flexibility and the opportunity for future councils to to deal with this issue. I think effectively should we come back and I once we have an ordinance in place. To sort out. Well, I just want to echo what Councilmember Austin says. My preference would be that the city have maximum flexibility. And let's remember why we're doing this. We're doing it. We're doing this to recoup some of the costs associated with this venture. There's going to be cost on police activity for sure. The police are going to have to monitor some of these, just like a bar, just like when a bar opens. We have a copy. There's fees associated with that. This is essentially the same venture and alcohol is taxed, right? So but probably probably at a higher level when you would add up all the fees, I would imagine, Jerry I don't know. But that's not so important as we're we're trying to recoup some costs here. We're trying to be reasonable. We're trying to give the community what we believe they want, and we're trying to think it through. But let's not just chase our tail here and say we can never do anything. Back to you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Austin, I believe you wanted to make a motion. Yes, I'm sorry. I'll move to to approve version B because the city council. I'll second that and I'd like to hear from the public to take. Councilmember long don't I just. I would like to. We have a motion and a second. We'll take public comment. Please identify yourself when the light comes on. You've got 30 seconds left. Larry. Good. You clerk has the address. Having listened to the dialog over the last 10 minutes or 20 minutes on this one thing, it's clear. Everybody said this is a new frontier. So I'm going to make a suggestion following the suggestions and the council in the way it dealt with the last item as it read now reads A ballot is to be placed on it, to be placed ready for the ballot in 2004, April eight, 2014. I'm going to make a suggestion that what you do is amend this to allow you to follow and learn from a very highly successful paradigm that was used to address major problems years ago. If Mike Latin is correct, formerly known as the conciliation trade, intended to try strike that continuum a.k.a the Council of Trent and I would suggest you set the date for April 8th, 2044, that will give you ample time to sort through all of the issues. And some of the points I think you should consider is number. And I don't think enough time has been allowed for this. There's a reason. There's a reason marijuana is often referred to as dope. We've got a lot of dope, had a lot of dopes. I. It'll give you time to reflect on the very sage advice from your chief of police relative to how ill advised the path is that you're now taking. Some of those already doped up would point to Colorado. And watch state of Washington. But you've got to understand, those are entirely different paradigms. Long Beach is a city cheek to jowl in terms of neighborhoods surrounded by some of the worst criminal and gang activity on the face. Of this country. Period. Consider also that marijuana is generally recognized as a gateway drug. The next thing that will be you'll be dealing with will be cocaine. Meth labs like are now inundating the high desert area. I think there could be a case made for medical marijuana under strict conditions. You know, I've always said if we're going to sell it, will sell it from the top floor of the parking garage or the police department's parking garage. But make no mistake about it, 99% of the activity will come from marijuana for recreational use, which will be out of control. So I would suggest you adopt it. Change it. Come back with a date of April eight, 2044. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council Vice Mayor and Staff Jina Nam. I represent the Long Beach Collective Association. As Councilmember Andrews succinctly put it, we have yes, as a as a organization, supported taxation, but we are concerned about the level of taxation that may be voted on through this, these two versions, particularly with respect to the square footage. What we anticipated or we hoped was that the city would focus on a growth sales tax. We were supportive of that of something, whether 6% or 8% or higher, 10%. We always stated that that we can live with pretty much because the the state already taxes the sales. It considers these transactions as sales even though it does involve non-profits and it does involve a prescribed medication. But nonetheless, the body does go by gross sales and there's a way of tracking that and taxing that. So we were okay with the city implementing something that parallels that. However, certain things that come to mind, for example, in terms of of how gross receipts are defined within this measure. We have collectives and we have members of the collectives. They can come in and they present. Really what it is, is a donation for the medication. There's a suggested donation, but if they don't have the money for it, they're given the medication for free. Alternatively, some will come in and they'll want to barter, barter their their services. They may want to come in and help clean up the collective or help cultivate or do some other services at the at the particular location. Well, the definitions of this version, either version, that would be then within gross receipts. So then how do we how do how do we track that and then pay a tax on that when that wouldn't be considered as a sale under the Bowie rules? But then now under the Long Beach rules, it would be a gross receipt and therefore taxed. So there's that. Then also with respect to the square footage. Again, we have definitions of square footage that includes areas of the dispensary that may not be used for anything, including garages, carports, porches, similar structures, parking structures. So then if we have if we're providing parking to get the people, the patients offered the streets and now they're parking at the location, are we going to be paying square footage tax on that as well? According to this definition, it does look like that it will be. So there are these number of concerns within this, these the way that the definitions have been drafted that really give us pause. And the next speakers will address the actual fiscal impact. Thank you. Thanks so much. Good evening, counsel. How you doing? Hope you had a good holiday. I didn't prepare anything. Really. Make sure. Just identify yourself real quick. Adam Hijazi. I'm a registered voter in the city of Long Beach and part of LBC. So I didn't get a chance to really specifically, you know, get into what the impacts would be with that, but just off the face. So you have Virgin and Virgin B, which is going to be 6% plus $30 a square foot on the cultivation sites, plus $6 a square foot on the collective side on the retail. So the retail would be getting taxed at a 6% rate and would also be getting taxed at the square footage from a collective perspective from what what the ballot was saying. Now, Virgin B, which gives the flexibility, as you're saying, council member Austin from 6 to 10%, then it's at $50 a square foot for the co-op. I'm sorry up to. A m I didn't get a chance to really read it and see it 100%. But from what I saw, he did say $50 per square foot. If it is up to then. So under version B, as I understand it, if it starts at $6 that it would be $30 a square foot as it is in version eight. But if we moved it up to $10 or 10%, it would be up to $50 a square foot. Correct. That that's. Not correct. The way the version V currently states is that it is $50, as the Speaker said, and up to 10%. But Mr. parking it could if the council wanted to modify that too with a range like like the the percentage of the gross receipts it could be as well. There could be an amendment by then. Well, let's continue with public comment and then we'll come back to the please. Correct. So sorry, you've got version B, it's got 6 to 10%. That's where the flexibility is going to come in, 6 to 10%, which is fine. We understand there needs to be flexibility now on the square footage, $50 per square foot and then on top on the retail is going to be $10 per square foot. Now, you know, you have an average collective to say just from the experience is going to be from 3000 to 10000 square feet. And that's kind of what happened during the process that was put into place. So, you know, taking an average of 5000 square feet, if you go with plan B with $50 a square foot, you're talking about $150,000 a. I'm sorry. $250,000. Now, that is just a 50,000. That's just a $50 square foot plus, whatever, $10, you know, it is going to be for, you know, the collective side. And also, that's not including the 9.25 or 9.5% of the bill we tax. Also not including whatever payroll taxes that will come into place, you know. So you've got to be really, you know, critical with, you know, how this gains the tax. Now, the 6% to 10%, there's a range. It's completely, you know, understood. But I mean, 6% was L.A. did a lot of research into it, and they came up with 6%. And I believe between the city attorney's office and whoever they were working with that came to that that could work. Now, you know, the square footage, you know, I mean, we would hope that, you know, I think something that possible you can realistically where the city will optimal get the amount of optimal tax without taxing businesses. I mean without overtaxing businesses and pretty much pulling out of business would be anywhere from maybe 10 to $15 a square foot on the cultivation side, plus all those other taxes. I mean, so we really haven't had the chance to go through it all, but it would be pretty much heavily taxed. And, you know, it can eventually be an increase in the mayor's and, you know, California state law. You want affordable, quality and affordable meds. And I just kind of think that would be highly taxed with a $50 per square foot, even 30. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm probably probably just as turd as me as I am of you tonight. Disability rights. I do want to thank you, Jerry. Jerry Gypsy has pretty much expressed as much as pretty much everything I would like to say. I think she's absolutely correct. My God, people want to suck these patients dry. I mean, I have. Maybe you don't have the experience. I do. I have people calling me, begging me, help me. My mother has cancer. I have somebody who's sick. I've got someone who's got M.S. I've got I get these phone calls. And these are people who are in my. Sorry, I'm. Excuse me. I get I mean it. I cry when I hear these people. I mean, they're in tears begging me, help, help me. And, you know, where do I go? Where do I get some some sort of medicine to help, you know, help my mother or my my child? My child that's got seizures that I mean, it just breaks my heart when I hear you guys talk. You're mercenary, for God's sakes. It's like you want to suck these patients dry. And, you know, I mean, you can charge these guys all you want, but my you know, they've got it here. There there are patients that come in that can't afford it, so they give it to them. You want to charge them for that, too? I mean, I want you to really think about what you're doing. Are you helping the people that are really sick, the ones that are needing it, the ones that have disabilities in there? Out there, you know, someone just said it's 99%. No, that's not true. There are some people who do abuse the system and who do recreational use. I'm not going to say that's not true. But there are people, legitimate people that are sick out there. Please don't bleed them dry. Please don't bleed. These people are here to try to to to put forward a legitimate situation that they can give these patients access. Please help them. Okay? Please. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Bianco, member of LBC, a members of the council and vice mayor. I've heard a lot of good things up here tonight from certain speakers on other subjects just other than ours. But we're trying to create something here, fellows and ladies. And if you if we get taxed to the max with everything somebody has to absorb, like she was saying, he's going to have to absorb that cost. Next thing you know, people that really need the thing, need the help for it, they're there. It's just, how can I say this without getting everybody mad at me? It's ridiculous. You know, I understand the fees to this, to that, to this, to that. But this $30, $50 a square foot. I mean, you can ask any, let's say farmer, he's not going to get 100% back to every tomato plant plant either. Are we in the cultivation business with the marijuana? So, I mean, it's like, I don't know, I wish you people, guys, ladies would reconsider what you're doing here tonight. As far as this taxation thing goes, we really assumption as a group that if we got things in place, we would be able to do things for the city with the city donating, being involved, helping out charities, helping out whatever needed help with it. Looks like that's getting taken out of our hands. That's fine and dandy. Please don't make it. We're. We're in a position to where it's like it's cheaper for these people to go buy in an alley than come to a safe access place because of all the exorbitant fees we got to absorb to be able to to to give them their medical their medical cannabis. And like I said, nobody's going to to say 30 and 50. So I don't know. Like I said, you're never going to get 100% back. So where do these how does this how do you figure this out? How are you going to apply all this? You know, that's that's my major. My concern is I'd rather give it away, make it as cheap as possible. But I don't want to be forced to look people in the eye and say, hey, I got to do this because I got to pay that. And they're going to look at me and say, Why are you paying it? And they have to tell because that's what everybody wants us to do. Alls we want to do is be a service for these people, and you're going to make it really tough if you keep adding on all these fees, this that this year, all we want to do, get this thing open, get it rolling, provide a service to the people that we want that we want to do it with. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and take it behind back to them. We're going to go back to the maker of the motion who has some additional comments and thoughts. Councilor Brosnan. Yes, and I do appreciate the public comment. Appreciate the comments coming from my colleagues on this and the staff work on this. I mean, I appreciate understanding what other cities are doing in terms of putting taxes on on these businesses. I mean, Oakland, San Jose, Berkeley, we have the figures in front of us. I'd like to if my who's Councilmember Lowenthal is amenable to reconsidering the motion on version B, the cultivation growth facility piece instead of $50 per square foot, can we say up to $50 per square foot to give the Council the flexibility and discretion to work within that range? If that's something that is? First of all, I would ask the city attorney. The city attorney first. Yes. The the motion would be then to not to exceed 50 similar to the 6 to 10%. You're going to do a maximum of $50 per square foot. Correct. And in doing so, at what point does the council determine what that is? Well, the way I understand the amendment to the motion you were, you're just setting the what the maximum established fee could be. And the council needs to decide whether you would want to be at least starting it. Initially, your tax rate is 6% if it's not amended. And so so at this point. You're free to Austin in addition to that. So setting the upper limit at $50 for the maximum of 10% when we look at version A for the 6%, can we start that at 15 instead of the 30? I'm okay with that. I'm fine with that. So up to 30. But we can start that at six at $15. I think it's up to 50 now. So there are two different versions. So under the 6% rate version. The motion was under version B. So under version B, currently it's going to be $50 and starting at 6%. So I believe. Up to $50. That's correct. And I think. Think got comfortable I can't remember what I was saying is that under version B could have been 15 to. Start. 50. Yes. So there's a range. So you're looking at 6 to 10, 15 to 50. That's I think the rate that correct. Okay. Is when. We don't come back and have that $30 as a starting point, that. Works for me. Okay. So as a maker, the motion and then the flat and then the the second accounting move, although I think we're in agreement there. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, you know, you know, listen to this. You know, like I said, this is new for the city of Long Beach, but I think we got to get it right. You guys in really certainly listen to these, the percentage of what they're trying to do, you know, after it just seems like it's just out of proportion. And I think that we're going in and what we're doing here, I think, is what we're going to make even the dispensary's you could even cause them to go crooked, look like they're working for us. But the percentage you will put it on them, I just think, are we going to do it? We got to do it right. Because you say we have sick people. We're talking about a dispensary. We're talking about individuals who need you guys. I just don't know. I'm just saying what I feel and I just think it would be the right thing. We do it. We got to do it right. We don't need to sit around and keep it. We put too much on this and then what's going to happen. They need to get their money, too, and it's going to cause a whole you talk about crime, it's going to you know, like I say, it will take care of itself because they're going to make their money just like they said, we want to tax them. Well, let's be fair in all of this, because what I'm listening to just doesn't seem fair. So if we're going to do it, let's do it right, you guys. Let's get it right the first time. That's the difference between. These two income. Do you have any suggestions? I mean, you may have. Sorry. May I follow up with Councilmember Andrews? Sure, I have. I have one speaker right before you and then I'll go to. Would you mind? But just for him to elaborate in terms of getting it right, I wanted to know what the alternative is, because I think lowering it is. It's. More akin to what the speaker's requested. Having zero does not seem like an option that the city attorney has provided us, because it would not, according to them, not be legal to tax a profit. And so that's where the per square footage fee comes from. So did you have a suggestion for what it could be? I think what they're saying, you know, like I say, you know, we started six, which seemed like a go to ten and all of a sudden we're talking about 250 some thousand. If in this situation it goes to that because we can be flexible with this. If they make more, we get more. But first, let's see where they start making it. I mean, sounds like you guys said that they're going to start making all this money. We're going to get this tax. I don't know where it's going to start, but I think we should be really. But you guys, we've been going with this one. I'm in two years. I think, you know, you five and it's going to happen whether we like it or not. But I think at least we should give them a chance to do what we know is right and get these sick people some help. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So. Oh, wait. Okay. So we have we do, however, have some other speakers. We do have a motion on the floor. Just as a reminder, we're doing the motion on the floor is a version B, that's from 6 to 10%, from 15 to 50. And I go over to council worship scheme. By senior members of the council clarify clarifying the motion. Is there a starting square footage as it started? Is the initial will be 15 or the initial was 30? I didn't hear the initial 15. As we're speaking. My question is on Prop 218 requirements about specificity. When you do a a rolling amount that you know do. I know. I know. But it has to be very clearly stated that it gives the counsel the discretion and that there has to be some criteria. Otherwise, it's just, you know, you're putting a figure out there that asking them to vote on that. It's not very specified as to when that can be used. In other words, if you're going up to $50 a square foot. Under what conditions does that have? I mean, when does that happen? What what triggers? You can go up to 50. Currently the it would be up to the discretion of the Council to verify and determine that an increase would be warranted and that at that time you would have whatever evidence or documentation you want to justify the increase. What we're asking for under Prop 218 is the authority to tax at that upper upper level. And so the assurances to the people that are voting for this is that that tax or that rate would never exceed that unless a vote it goes back to a vote of the people. And that will be specified in whatever ballot measure. That's correct. It would be a maximum amount, yes. Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal and then Councilman Johnson. So I think you I wanted to just clarify that having heard council member Andrew's remarks, I appreciate that and agree with that. And I think we're accomplishing that with the range that we've come up with. So thank you. Thank you for raising that. And that's it for me. Got to Bird Johnson. Well. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I need some clarification on the motion. So what the city attorney had before us was not a range of caps. In other words, no higher than 10%. It could be 9%, could be 1% if we want to later on. So this conversation arranged itself is actually putting a floor saying that tax would be no lower than 6%. Is that is that your intent or. You're asking the maker of the motion? Yeah. I mean, what they really proposed was that no higher than 10%, but we would have full discretion to lower it to whatever we wanted below 10%. 6 to 10. Okay. So I guess the city attorney. So would you had originally proposed it would never go below 6%. The council would not have that discretion. We initially proposed an initial rate at 6% to a maximum of 10%. Correct. The question under Prop 218, if it was asked, is, could you lower attacks? And I think the answer to that is yes. You can always lower a tax without going back to a vote of the people if it was the will of the council. Okay. So the motion is basically version B, except the cultivation grow facility square footage. Fee would be $15. Is that accurate? Yes. It started 15. It could be no higher than 55. Thank you. Councilmember Neal. Q Mr. Vice Mayor, Mr. City Clerk, can you clarify what has to happen tonight to make sure that this even qualifies for the ballot? I can I can do that. Vice mayor and members of the council, essentially tonight, what you need to do is you need to adopt a resolution calling for the election on April 8th. And with that, you need to adopt the text of the measure that will be presented to the voters. And with that, we would then have a call for argument writers that would be date, that would be made right after you take item 16. And those are basically the three parts that need to be taken care of. So if we can't come to an agreement tonight, then there's no chance of having this on the April ballot, correct? Unless you had a special meeting between now and Friday to do that. Thank you. Got to remember the long. Call for the question. Good questions being called. There's no objection. We have a motion on the floor which has been just been repeated recently with public comment. Members, go ahead and please cast your votes. 15. I'm sorry. I know the question was called, but the issue of the $10 per square foot. Mr. City Attorney on the collective side, what is that for? Is that in addition to the cultivation grove? So if is that on the retail side? That is on the retail side and that is on in the books to address in the event that there is a501 C3 charitable or religious organization that is goes into the business of distributing medical marijuana, that would be the only alternative for the city to tax that entity on a square foot basis. They could not do a gross sales tax on a501 C3. It's my understanding there are no see three currently operating. But this is a what if. Just in case. So that's correct. Like fireworks of a community organization got involved there. Okay. So it's not in addition to the 10% of gross receipts, correct? Just for 523. That's correct. The $10. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. One motion on the floor numbers. Please go out and cast your votes. I mean. Yes. Motion carries eight votes, one vote no. Okay. Thank you very much. And Mr. Clarke, we're going to move on to the next item. I do have one sec before we do that. The mayor did have an announcement after this item, which I want to read. A little bit after. You want to after 16 to 16, the.

Recommendation to request City Manager to investigate the feasibility of establishing a Safe Passage Plan in collaboration with the Long Beach Police Department, other appropriate City departments, Long Beach Unified School District, and relevant local organizations, and report back to the City Council in 60 days.

LongBeachCC_06212022_22-0698

Item 29 is a communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation two requires city manager to investigate the feasibility of establishing a safe passage plan and report back to the city council in 60 days. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you so much. So, as many of you may know, last month, one of our local high school students in north London, Long Beach, was brutally attacked while walking home from Jordan High School in route to Colin Powell Elementary School. Our children, as we all know, our most valuable and vulnerable members of our community, and they should not have to endure violence or intimidation walking to and from school. Safe Passage programs are interventions designed to keep students from harm and ensure that they arrive safely to their schools and to their homes. Safe passages are also linked to decreased violence, decreased criminal activity, bullying and increased attendance among students who've been served such programs as has actually existed here in the city of Long Beach before, but most neither no longer operate or exist or on hiatus or have been on hiatus due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Our Long Beach Recovery Act dollars have been set aside some to implement some version of Safe Passage this summer. But these funds will only serve areas near Cabrillo Poly and Milliken High schools. I'd like to see this expanded, obviously, and I like to see a plan that utilizes the best practices of previous programs, along with input from our community members, local schools, obviously our police department and others to devise a manual outlining how neighborhood associations can also establish their own safe passages within their communities. Not only will this activate our communities, but it will also offer a more equitable approach to safety for middle and high school students citywide. Today, I'm asking for a feasibility study on safe passage and creating a Safe Passage plan in hopes that we can get it in our communities as soon as possible, hopefully before the start of the new school year. And in closing, I'd like to thank the community members who come out and support, as well as ask from our council colleagues and would like to open it up also for public. Comment as well. Absolutely. We can go to public comment. I mean, public comment on this. We have eight. Patricia Long. Dave San Jose. Charmaine SIM. Sydney. Ken Faye. Franklin SIM. Please approach the podium. Julie Jones. Carlos Valdes and Rene Ruiz. Patricia Long. I'm Patricia. Lang from College. Triangle Neighborhood Association. And I want to really thank. Councilman, our. Councilman, Mr. Austin, for bringing this to the council and also to the city. This event that occurred about one month ago has really devastated our neighborhood. That and the issues that our younger students have when they walk to Colin Powell on Long Beach Boulevard, where they're approached by sex workers on a regular basis. So we really appreciate the fact and I understand that there might be some money involved with this, but this issue is paramount to trying to make safety for our neighborhood. Coolidge Triangle and also Longwood. We have the support of Teresa Gomez. She has come to our neighborhood. Meeting. And she has inspired us to reach out to the city council and also to the city of Long Beach to help us with these issues. We also have support from College Square, that's north. Of us and. Also neighborhood that would like to be involved in this for us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next picture, please. Yes. I'm Dave San Jose. I want to thank you, Alison, for bringing this forward. This is probably one of the most important things we can do in the city. The children are our future of Long Beach. And so if there's any ways that we can figure out to make children safe, we live in different times now and the times we live in. I've been here since 1940. I've never seen it like this. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. So before anything serious happens, I'm sure you can figure out ways to make it safer for our children because they are our future. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, your police. So I can face extensive criticism. First, I want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this opportunity for the city to engage in the Safe Passage plan. I'm very familiar with it. Due to the work that I've done with LAUSD and as well as with the Chicago Public School System. Um, we're in both cases, um, a lot of the racial tension in LAUSD, the example would be in Watts and in Chicago would be the South Side. It dropped a lot of the activity over 20%. So it's obviously over respect to best practices. It's a it's a method that works. I think that it's it's very tragic that, you know, a young girl leaving school, I think, and unfortunately has to, you know, have someone try to abduct them and and do God knows what with them. I think it speaks to the previous gentleman's sentiment about where the times are going. I know for a fact, just two months ago, my two nephews who go to school at a charter school on Long Beach Boulevard and 16th Street, they were there along with a few of the other black male students. They were attacked because of an incident with someone from a different ethnic group and where gang members walked onto the campus and just attacked the young black male students on the on the campus. So I think for will respect the safe passage plan. Um, you know we really have to engage with the community and not just in the sense of us that are active and, you know, come down to city hall and come to, uh, you know, speak on these things. But really, um, you know, these young men who are committing these activities that make it unsafe in the space, they are participants and, you know, organizations that don't have representatives that come down here to speak. And I think that in order for us to really facilitate a more safe requirement, I know with respect to the Safe Spaces plan and the Watts example, they hired ex-gang members to stand on guard and post within the corridors around lock in other schools. They were having a lot of these flare ups. And I think that for us to really want to see the tension to decrease, we would have to do something similar. And that involves engaging with the street culture, both on the African-American side and on the Latino side, because these are the two prime, uh, groups that a lot of these, uh, unfortunate moments are happening with. So we'll have to facilitate. I'm engaged with a group called Long Reset that was engaged in a lot of intervention work. So would love to support and thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'd like to thank all of you for considering this item, because it's very important for our children and our neighborhood, not just the schools that you mentioned earlier, but all of the schools need programs like this. And if there's funding involved, please try to find money for this. I know we as a community can come together and try to motivate our members to volunteer. I know it's going to take coordination with lots of organizations the police, the schools, the public, the neighborhood associations. But I think working together, it takes a village to save our community and we can come together as a village. If you as a city council can, please give us the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, City Council. My name is Umar Joy, a fourth desert district resident. Darrell Supernova is my councilperson. Thank you. Councilmember Al asked him for this agenda item. Safe passage for students like me is critical. I'm a seventh grader at Stamper Middle School. My community is pretty safe, but not all students in Long Beach are that lucky. My hope is that the city manager will find solutions or find solutions in the coming weeks for all Lumbee kids to be more safe. What happened to a teenage girl in North Long Beach is unacceptable and is very frightening. One problem I would like the city manager to look at is the moms in Bear. Bay. At Edison Middle School. A group of moms saw a problem with gangs and drug selling sells near and indecent, so they brought walkie talkies from Circuit City, not Amazon lets and stood out on the corners with walkie talkies helping the students near. Let's find ways to bring families and communities together to fix our problems. Thank you again. Council member Austin for for bringing this agenda item. I hope all council members please approve this agenda item for students like me. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. Thank you. Also to councilman and council member Al Austin for bringing this agenda item and for the community members that came out. I really. I, too, like my mom or dad, live in the fourth district. But I've gained an affinity for the residents in North Long Beach and what they're going through there. And I want us, if we can, to imagine, you know, the street where the robbery or abduction happened. It's actually a nice street. It's tree lined. And a lot of good people live there. And just to imagine someone coming up in a sedan getting out and grabbing your daughter. That's a tough thing. And. Some have mentioned. The moms brigade and. I learned about the moms brigade from a ninth District resident who came who came to Edison Middle School, which is really first district. And they were having an issue with drug sales there and with gangs. So the moms got these walkie talkies donated by Circuit City, and they would stand out and they would stand at different corners . And what it did was it created something where they didn't have to have have to engage, but they could provide as witnesses for what was happening. And they were on a radio frequency so police officers could hear what was going on. And one mom might say, oh, I saw this happening. Did you see it? And then another would say, Yes, I saw that, too. Well, now you have a coordination with officers, but it also is involving families inside of that process. And I would like Tom and the team, if they could, to look into that and see if that's something that we can do. What I loved. About it is that. It was at no cost to the city. And that's important because we've got we've got budget talks coming up soon. What's also great is it puts more eyes on the street. If you go to North Long Beach. Or Long Beach Boulevard, what's happening with the human. Trafficking and prostitution? There's not all eyes on the street. I went there recently with my wife and we were doing trying to. Inform the community what was going. On so they could see it. And you should have seen the cars stop and pull over and just and gawking. There's a real problem there. And we've got to we've got to get our arms around it. And I just really appreciate, again, you bringing this agenda item forth. And I really want to thank the community for coming out. Want to inspire you guys to stay engaged. And thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Carlos Valdes, College Triangle. I would like to begin by thanking Councilman Al Lofton for listening to residents longstanding concerns about safety and security, and most importantly, bringing your children's safety front and center. By now, all of our council members are aware that the community is west of the 710 Freeway, and North Long Beach has been plagued by human trafficking, exposing children to the realities of what happens between prostitutes and johns. They see them in the act. They see the youth condoms left in the streets. They've been approached both by pimps and johns on the way to school and prom. And most recently, the teenager was assaulted in the failed kidnaped attempt both Coolidge Triangle and Longwood Neighborhood Associations. Choose to be proactive and not reactive. And we need your active participation. Establishing a safe passage plan built on the city's commitment to maintaining a network of strong, sustainable neighborhoods and will bring families, local partners and stakeholders together to keep our community safe. Our hope is the Safe Passage plan will focus on soliciting public participation to deter criminal activity and ensure that all children are able to walk to and from school safely as we continuously reinforce our community meetings throughout the year. The safety of our neighborhood is a collaborative effort between law enforcement and residents. By putting the power in the residents hands, we hope to increase engagement of our residents who share in vision of bringing safer neighborhoods North Long Beach or Long Beach Boulevard. Establishing a Safe Passage plan will provide an opportunity for community dialog that will continue to foster a culture of safety along the Long Beach Boulevard corridor. As our new councilman, I'd like to thank you, Austin, for your leadership championing action that is long overdue. And thank you, council members, for your consideration and partnership. And thank you to the gentleman from Long Beach. The Long Beach reset that I get that correct for serving something greater than yourself. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Renee Real, along with Neighborhood Association President. Last Monday, over 25 to 30 leaders from the North Lawn meet from the eighth district and the ninth district met with commander, police commanders, the bell. We had a long discussion about how we want our communities to be safe. We talked about policing, and one of the ideas that was discussed was safe. Passage for. Our children walking to and from school. And we also had over we submitted what actually I submitted to Austin a or a petition from a resident that has about over 100 signatures requesting for safety. And so, again, we're here to support this agenda item, the Narnia, the North Long Beach leaders, the resident and European Council member asked him for bringing this item on to the city council. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment? That concludes the public comments. Great. I'll I'll just you know, I'm happy to second this motion. Thank you, Councilman Austin, for bringing this forward. Just a few. I would say, number one, that was a tragic set of circumstances with the young lady. I had a chance to talk with her, talk with her family afterwards. And I agree. More needs to happen. I think we should also sort of highlight some of the good things that the city is doing in terms of the safe passages. And I want to ask the city manager if you can just update, because we funded a new Safe Passage program, our Jordan High School Recovery Funds. And I know that there's a LIMBERG program, but I don't know about Colin Colin Powell, if that was included. Could you could we give some updates on where we are? So Kelly Collopy is here to talk through a little bit of what's currently there. And then we also have our deputy city manager, Meredith Reynolds, who can talk to some of the Recovery Act programs. Thank you. Good evening, council members. So we currently have a Safe Passage program at Washington Middle School through Calvert. We just received a $3.9 million grant to extend Calvert, which will include the, um, which will include the Lindbergh Middle School. Yeah. The overall grant does cover 13 different communities, of which College Triangle is one of those. And so we are looking at different opportunities to support the many communities within that space. And then the Jordan High School is funded through the Recovery Act. At this time, I'm not aware of the additional space. Great. So let's make sure, you know, we get a good report on where all those sources of funding funding is. I know when we did last year, there was sort of in response to some of the crime that we saw increasing right at the height of the pandemic. We asked to identify funding sources to expand the Washington program to other neighborhoods. So what were the neighborhoods we were able to expand into? And we got we received this grant right last. Last week, correct? Yeah. So that give us just a general update on what are the types of activities we're going to be able to see and what are the neighborhoods included in this $3.9 million grant? Yeah. So the, um, the different neighborhoods are Adams, Carmelita Coolidge, the Crow's Triangle, um, the Forest Park, uh, grant area, grant Community, Highland Park and Lindbergh and North Long Beach. And then in Central Long Beach shall be central in Rose Park, St Mary's and uh. Zafar Yeah. So lots of different, lots of different areas, lots of different communities. But the council districts are in one, two, six, eight and nine, so they are pretty spread out across the central north, um, north areas and some of the west. So the key things that will be happening is we have developed a gun violence response protocol in partnership with the police department. So if there is a violent action, then the police department will respond and then they will call our team out to respond and work in wraparound services to those impacted by the gun violence, as well as to engage and bring to do work with peacekeepers. So those peacekeepers are trained in interventions and to really those peacekeepers will be available with those within those communities, um, to support the communities after, after something, you know, some sort of violent, um, event happens and then so there will be trained intervention this. And then from there we're also going to be doing a lot of community work together. So you'll find in the Washington neighborhood right now that there are a lot of community activation. The community, the community members are very engaged in the Safe Passages program as well as a lot of other activation activities. So those are all part of this grant that is forthcoming. All right. So so I'll just I'll just say it. Certainly, you know, the pandemic is hard to show sometimes all the work that's happening, but it doesn't happen overnight. You know, this was 2020 when we began talking about expanding the program in North Palm Beach. 2021 was the city council gave direction to make it happen. We went through the grant application process. We received recovery dollars. That was one part of it, and that was 3.9 million we last we announced last week. The good news is, for all the programs and the violence prevention, we want to do the funding's there. That's the big part. And and if you want to see a reference, just look at watch the neighborhood or do the event the event we did at Coolidge Triangle at Coolidge Park maybe a year ago. So more of that activity can come. So I certainly support this. I think one thing that one gap that I do see is Colin Powell. So I know Jordan is funded. I know Lindbergh is funded, but Colin Powell certainly needs to be. So we have to figure out how to either, you know, include it in recovery funds or some other way. But that area needs to be included. Okay. All right. Thank you. Next is Councilman Juvenile. Thank you. And I'd like to thank all the speakers here tonight and especially my enjoy. I'm already getting text messages and what a great. Job you did. So congratulations. Thank you, Councilman Austin, for bringing this very important item forward. And I stand in support. I do have some comments. I've been asked to read. On behalf of Councilwoman. Price. I fully support this item and. Thank Councilman Austin for bringing it forth. For over. Ten years, I've been involved in a Safe Passage. Program and activation program. I run an elementary school that is located in a high. Gang activity area. I found the program to be very effective in activating the area, increasing community presence and allowing children to have a safe pathway to and from school. I think the key to the programs like this is working with local community based organizations and parents group groups to ensure that the community is represented along the pathways . Engaging the community in these efforts is critical to the success of the programs, and I encourage our city's health department. Who's overseeing this and other violence prevention prevention programs. To look for more ways to incorporate the local community based organizations. End of quote. I'd just like to add something else here, and that is our school just. Ended in Long Beach Unified last week. Parents have already. Reached out. To me about school security issues. So I'd just like to encourage any community based organization. Or individuals to go ahead and. Reach out to your. To your council office. If you don't. Know that school board member and whatnot. And we can certainly connect you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Sorrell. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes. I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing this forward and amplifying the ongoing concern around safety. I think that it was thank you for all of the public comments that were made today. And I think that I wanted to also make sure to share that it's something that builds upon what was brought forward back in 2021, February of 2021, and how we're able to accelerate violence prevention in addition to safe passage, but generally in our communities. And that was the, I think, request. Part of that was to look for additional funding, which was mentioned earlier. And that's where we're able to capture the additional need that was, I think, mentioned earlier. I think as well as requested. So I appreciate the conversation that happens at the neighborhood level as well as the community level for ongoing conversation and exploration to make sure that we're working to make everyone in addition to our youth, safe as well. And, you know, one of the things that I also wanted to see if we can hear a little bit more is I do hear there is concern around how do we ensure there the program is working collaboratively. Can you share again, Miss Colby, how this program, as far as this grant I think you mentioned, is it the CAO VIP? Can you share a little bit more about how that would work? You mentioned peacemakers or peace civilians. That would be key peacekeepers. Excuse me. And so this is a partnership with many of our departments across the city, as well as the community members. And so, you know, included in this is workforce and the connection to employment opportunities for our youth parks and activating spaces and, you know, the library and activating those spaces as well as the response and engagement with the police department. So there are many different opportunities in the Washington neighborhood. The community members are very engaged as well in the planning in terms of, you know, the activation of spaces as well as, you know, as well as the Safe Passage program. So there are we have a strong connection and the grant is all of these are listed. And in terms of the types of those activities. Can you mentioned the central Long Beach areas that you'll be also expanding to, in addition to what was mentioned in North Long Beach as well. Yeah, so Center Hellmann Rose Park, Saint Mary's and Sophia Green. And I just want to mention how how proud I am to have brought this item forward with Vice Mayor Richardson, as well as councilmembers and Diaz and Councilmember Allen last year, in order for us to explore the funding that the Health and Human Services Department worked hard in achieving. So I'm really grateful for all the work the department staff have done with your leadership, Ms.. Calliope in receiving that $3.9 million grant to the Health Department for us to do the violence prevention in addition to the safe passage work. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you again. I want to thank the community for coming out. We've been listening and looking at creative ways to address your concerns. But obviously there's a void and a real need to address safe passage in our our communities. I want to be really clear. It was mentioned on a couple of occasions. This actually item builds upon, you know, our violence prevention plan or healthy and safe communities. Tonight's agenda item specifies safe passage for students coming to and from school. I want to be very, very clear on that. I know our healthy communities, safe and healthy communities plan through our Recovery Act specified three high schools, Cabrillo High School, Millikan High School and Long Beach Poly High School. It did not mention Jordan. It didn't mention, you know, some of the other areas in North Long Beach. And so the item tonight, it was really to build upon the Safe and Healthy Communities Act, but to specify safe passages to and from school for our students. And I think I want to make sure that we distinguish that and be clear. I heard from public comment. It does take a village is going to take us all and everybody every adult should take on the responsibility to to defend and protect our children in the city. And so I certainly am encouraged seeing that community organizations want to be involved and engaged. And this doesn't necessarily mean that everybody's going to get paid. We can create a volunteer brigade throughout our city to ensure safe passages for our children. And so, again, one of to clarify some some points here, but again, thank you to the community for coming out and support and the support of comments from my colleagues. I look forward to getting a report back very soon from staff. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sunday House. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Orson, for this item. I think it's very important that we really, really take into consideration the preventative measures that we can put into place. I think that, you know, that's something that's very important. I'm so sorry about this incident that happened to this young lady. It was just heartbreaking. I'm I'm so happy that besides the fact that I do believe she's will forever be traumatized by it, because I will be I you know, I'm really glad that there was an even more severe outcome to this. But when things like this happen, they teach their teachable moments. And I think that that's when, you know, we are able to come together as a community and try to prevent further things from happening like this. So I think that it's very important. I know to me, my community is as I mentioned before, we have been working on preventative measures with with county on being able to make a safe passage to to our schools, because that's mostly where our our youth go to is, you know, to and from school. So thank you to all the incredible work, Kelly, that you and your team have done and can. He needed to do, not only in my district, but citywide. And I think that that's what we need to continue working on and protecting our children as best we can. So thank you. All right. Thank you. Before we go to the vote, just again, we certainly hear you and there's a lot of activity happening and we hear very clearly safe passages is what they're looking for. Can we clarify, is Jordan included in the recovery funds? Jordan is currently included. In the recovery fund. Okay. And Lindbergh is in the new grant, red Corvette grant. And we want to explore adding Colin Powell. Yes. And so we do have within the recovery fund the opportunity for at least one other middle school. That has yet to be assigned. So we can be working at those different middle. Schools. Fantastic. And there may be some economies of scale because Jordan high students and the Colin Powell students, sometimes it's the same household, so the same route in some ways. So we just need to make sure a lot of these boulevard is covered. Okay. Thank you so much, members. Please cast your vote. The motion is carried.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft an amendment to Ordinance No. C-7814, which describes the requirements for service on the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Advisory Commission.

LongBeachCC_11222016_16-1045

We're going to go ahead and move on to number. 15. Communication from Councilwoman Price. Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft an amendment to ordinance number c7814, which describes the requirements for service on the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Advisory Commission. Can I get a motion in motion in a second? Councilman Price. Thank you. This is just a cleanup item. We're just changing the residential requirement to be in at large as opposed to a resident from any particular organization. Thanks. Any public comment on this? Mr.. Here, please come down. Larry, could you click as the address, as I suggested to counsel in the Council of Advisors office that. This item be held over pending a review by the city auditor. I have attended a number of the meetings and certainly the commission does a credible job. But. It never struck me until somebody pointed out. At a different hearing. The inherent conflict of interests that now exist. And we need to make sure that does not exist. We have. Members that are residents. Members that are property owners, business owners. But we have a situation where we have. One is a landlord and the other is a tenant. Other the landlord. So that raises the red flag to. Any form of equity. I.e. You've got to vote this way or your rents going up. So I think to make for the integrity of the process. Let's first. See what the city auditor finds and get some direction out of the city attorney's office. So the. Cloud of hankie. Panky does not exist. I think. And I think that would best serve. Not only the business businesses there, but the residents and the city as a whole. It's just a question of ethics and that I don't know why. No one's ever caught that before, but that's certainly not a terrible situation. And waiting a couple of weeks to examine the facts is not going to rock the boat rushing into it. Ignoring that fact would not speak well for this city council. Thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.

Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six-month extension for the filing of the Group 4 Surveillance Impact Report (SIR) due on September 1, 2021.

SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CF 314483

Agenda item two quick file 314483. Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six month extension for the filing of the Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1st, 2021. Thank you so much. I move to approve Kirk file 314483. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to approve the quick file on the handing back over to Councilwoman Pierson. Thank you, council president. This is the second of the three files related to technology. This clerk file 314483 provides a brief extension to our Seattle Information Technology Department for finishing the thorough review of various surveillance technologies pursuant to our city's surveillance technology ordinance. Essentially, Seattle. It needs more time due to delays lingering from the COVID pandemic. The good news is that we've already made substantial progress during the past year reviewing, amending and approving two batches of technology reports what we called Group two and Group three, which covered 12 technologies. So this clerk file provides a few more months for the remaining batch. When we had approved a previous six month extension Seattle, it provided notice that they might need a few more months, but we decided to approve extensions only in six month increments, so this extension will give their thorough process a few more months. This is also related to the next clerk file, which will divide group four into two groups for a and four piece that are easier to review. One of the technologies that has attracted interest is the Traffic Management Tracking Card, a second term that's currently examining the possibility of discontinuing the use of a single car, but will still plan to have a stop. Provide a status update on that technology at our September 15 Transportation Utilities Committee. So again, this clerk file will be approving a few months extension for Seattle to finish the next batch. Thank you so much. PETERSON Are there any additional comments on the quick file? Sharing them with the. Please call the vote on the approval of the quick file. Ms.. Gather I. Pietersen. Hi. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Lewis. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. i7a favor and unopposed emotion carries. The court file is approved. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; returning positions to Civil Service status; amending Section 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; transferring a position; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119193

Agenda item three accountable 119 193 Related to city employment, commonly referred to as fourth quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance designated positions is exempt from civil service status. Returning position to Civil Service Status Amended Section four point 13.0 Attendants Civil Code Transferring position and ratifying confirming reception barracks all by two thirds vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass for back. Thank you very much. What we do annually is to review the Civil Service status and exempt status of city employees. And this recommended action will make six positions exempt from civil service status and return one position to actual classified status. And so it's there's one one position in our start, two in human resources to in i.t our information technology and one in Seattle City Light. Those are all outlined in the ordinance. And then the exempt position will return to PCD and we recommend the approval of this ordinance. Very good. Are there any comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Macheda O'Brien St John Gonzalez Purple Johnson, President Herald. Height. Eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and show assignment please read agenda item number four the short title.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Title 18 in its entirety, and adopting local amendments to the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Codes and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, all of which are known as the Long Beach Building Standards Code, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11122019_19-1118

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. When to go hearing hearing item number nine please. Report from Development Services and Fire recommendation received supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and declare ordinance amending and restating Title 18 at a Long Beach Municipal Code in its entirety, an ordinance amending various sections two titles three, eight, nine, 14, 18 and 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution making express findings and determinations relating to the adoption of more restrictive code provisions where appropriate. And adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Okay. Emotion in a second, Mr. Modica. David Cram, superintendent. A building and safety will be presenting. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. I'm David Cram. I'm superintendent of building and safety for City of Long Beach Building and Safety Department. And I have a privilege tonight to present to you the 2020 Long Beach Municipal Code update, which staff worked on it, and it's in front of you tonight. I have a short presentation to make. Every three years, the state of California adopts the. Latest edition of the California Building Standards Code and Uniform Housing Code to establish a uniform standards for the construction and maintenance of the building. Electrical Systems. Plumbing System. Mechanical System. Fire and Life Safety Systems. A 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Codes, was adopted by the California Building Standard Commission and published in July of July 1st of 2019. Multiple development services bureaus and other city departments, including building and safety, fire prevention, code enforcement planning, public works and other. And the Office of Sustainability have reviewed the codes and recommended the proposed local amendments. State law requires that the codes become effective at the local level. On Jan first of 2020. The 2020 Long Beach Municipal Code update involves some technical provisions of the codes. It involved some administrative provisions of the code codes and also some general cleanup of the language. When you update the codes in one section, obviously it has an effect in other sections. So to this rigorous process, staff has been able to update and upgrade our codes throughout, which impacted Title three of Language Municipal Code, the Revenue and Finance System Title impacted Title eight Language Health and Safety Code. It also impacted Title nine. Long Beach. Public Peace. Morale and Welfare. Title and also Title 14. Long Beach. Municipal Code. Streets and Sidewalks. Majority of the changes that were involved were entirely 18 alien courts, which as a result impacted other codes and other provisions. Some more notable items under the Building Codes era would be the sort of which will take permitting the expedited process that we are implementing and also upgrade and changes to the flood prevention and flood. Review of the projects that are in flood district. It also involved fire code, involved some other elements of the code enforcement. Tyler, 21 of the longest municipal code zoning, was also impacted or changed when it comes to the harbor permits and reference to the structural design requirements of the roof. Support for the photovoltaics systems. Final 18 covers, basically building and safety and health, but also includes the sustainability sustainability provisions of the code, such as electrical vehicle charging policy that we are coming up with, and also the solar photovoltaic systems. In order to put a staff to put this common issues in front of you. Several boards and several committees and commissions were consulted with, including Board of Examiners and Appeals and Condemnation. There were several meetings that staff presented the code updates to them Sustainable City Commission, Planning Commission and also Industry Partners for archery in order for his staff to produce recommendations together. The recommendations in front of you tonight are basically. What is putting that in his staff report. And rather than me going through the detailed discussion on the recommendations, uh, the trial code update changes are recommended for approval tonight. Uh, these code updates makes us. Design and construct per the latest and greatest standards that are available in California. And the is basically conclude my presentation for tonight and I'm available for any questions or answers that you may have for us. Thank you. There's a there's a motion in the second Mr. Goodhew wrest control. You speaking on this item? No. Members, please go ahead and pass as the votes. Cast your vote. Ocean carries. Okay. CHEERING, Please. We're going to do a hearing here in ten.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to revoke Water Aerobics Fees for seniors that were included as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Master Fee and Charges Schedule for Belmont Plaza Pool. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_01192016_16-0044

Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here as well. Thank you. Next item, please. Report from. Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to revoke water aerobics fees for seniors that were included as part of the fiscal year 2016 master fee and charges scheduled for Belmont Plaza Pool District three. Thank you, guys. Guys, I need to obviously keep going on the meeting so if I can have everyone that if you guys want to chat outside would be great please. Including our own staff. So. Mr.. Mr.. Mr.. West. Steve Scott, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. The item before you tonight is to revoke the water aerobics fee for seniors at the Belmont Plaza Pool. Recall back in October of last year, the City Council directed staff to take the necessary steps to revoke the senior aquatic aerobics fee at Silverado, MLK and Belmont Plaza pool . So the action tonight is to revoke that senior fee at the Belmont Plaza pool. That concludes my staff report. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none are actually. Councilman Gonzales, you made a motion. Do you want to speak to this? No. Councilman Richardson? Nope. Kevin Andrews. You know, I'm very happy to see this on the agenda. And thanks to our great city council support and we were able to waive the senior fees. For all our pools except Belmont. Tonight, I hope that this will pass and so that no water aerobics free. From all. Seniors. At City of Long Beach. Thank you very much for bringing this item to the diocese. Thank you. That's a public comment on the item. Please cast your votes. Lowenthal. Motion carries.

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Five Dollars ($39,155.00) in the form of a grant for the Recording Risk Grant, awarded by the Council on Library and Information Resources to be administered by the Office of the City Clerk. The grant will fund the Preserving Boston’s Voices project: Digitizing the Boston 200 Community Oral History collection.

BostonCC_08102022_2022-0938

Thank you. Docket 093530937 will be referred to the Committee on Public Safety. Criminal Justice. Mr. Clerk, can you please read docket 09380938 message? An order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $39,155 in the form of a grant for the recording risk grant awarded by the Council on Library and Information of Information Resources to be administered by the Office of the City Clerk. The grant will fund the preserving Boston's voice, this project digitizing the Boston 200 Community Oral History Collection. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council BLOCK Chair of the Committee on City Services and Innovation Technology Council of Barking of the Floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. On behalf of the committee, I'm seeking a suspension of passage of this docket today. It's obviously less than $40,000. But I wanted to inform the the council about what it's really for. So this project, it was described in the brief description as preserving Boston's voices, digitizing the Boston Community Oral History collection . But the details on that is actually that the city archives that they want to provide digital and public access to this community. Oral history recordings, which were created by the Boston Bicentennial Commission between 1974 and 1976, in which period the Commission recorded oral histories with a wide cross-section of Boston's residents, including members of Boston's black and immigrant communities. Due to their age and over a decade of storage and poor environmental conditions, these tapes are at serious risk of degradation and cannot currently be accessed. Transcripts and partial transcripts exist for approximately half of the recordings and show the interview. Content includes immigration, the African-American experience in Boston, Boston's social movements, urban renewal and a wide variety of local history topics. This project will preserve the recordings through digital reformatting, produce descriptive metadata for the recordings and make the recordings available to the public in the Boston City Archives Digital Access Portal. So I think it's a really important, vital project. It's also exciting because it's the type of thing that we'd like to do 50 years on today, doing a bunch of oral interviews with Bostonians in the coming years. So it's a it's a nice model for us. I've had the chance to read a few of the transcripts from these, and they're just like so full of detail of kind of Bostonians perspective on their lives back in the seventies. And I just want to commend our archival staff has done an exceptional job applying for grants. They really hold a really precious treasure trove together a little bit too much with duct tape and chewing gum. And I'm hoping that a design process that we're currently in is going to give them some better facilities overall. But in the meantime, they've secured this obviously relatively small grant, and we wouldn't want to lose any of those tapes. And so I hope that the council can support this motion for suspension passage. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK each seek suspension of the roles and passage of docket 0938. All those in favor say I oppose. Same day the ayes have it. Docket zero 948 has passed. Mr. Clerk, can you please read docket. 09390939 message in order for your approval, in order to fully authorize the creation of a sheltered market program during the pilot, which ended on June 2022, we learned that this is a powerful and necessary tool to advance our administration's mission to foster equity in city contracting.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. concerning on-call airside facility maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for $2,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, to provide on-call airside facility maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport (201952422-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-17-21.

DenverCityCouncil_03302021_21-0270

Q It has been moved and we've got the second by Councilmember Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I called. These out in a block because they represent $180 million worth of uncalled. Contracts for the airport. And the only. Requirement. Or specification around them is general general construction. And like other. On call contracts like. This, we will receive quarterly reports from the airport. I have a problem. With these contracts. In general, I always vote against no when the daddy ones come through that look like this and I'm going to. Vote no on these tonight. I've talked to the airport about it. They you know, we're all on the same page. They understand that. My concern here is just around transparency and our budget oversight as a council. And so I just called them out so I could vote. No, thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no other hands raised. We will go ahead. And Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca. I, Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. 1191 NAY. 11 I. Council Resolutions 20 1-0270 through 20 1-0278 have been adopted. That concludes the items to be called out. All all bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise. This is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Let's get to the president. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 21 025 620 1026 920 1-029131.024831.0263310280 20 1-0199 821 Batch 019 921 Dives 024 320 1-024 420 1024 520 120261312026 720 1-028 520 1-028731021 921. Dash 023 320 1-023431017 421. Dash 0221 to going back. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second there by Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black eye. CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines, I. Cashman. Hi. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. Sorry. 12 eyes. All right, 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a combined public hearing on Council Bill 156 amending the Denver Zoning Code to establish a new active centers and corridors design overlay zone district, create consistency with the shopfront form

A resolution approving a proposed Purchase And Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Community Education Centers, Inc. for the purchase of real property located at 4280 Kearney Street. Approves a purchase and sale agreement with Community Education Centers, Inc. for $1,300,000 to purchase property located at 4280 Kearney Street, known as Tooley Hall Residential Reentry Center, a community corrections facility, in Council District 8 (FINAN-201952877). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-13-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12232019_19-1340

Councilman Hines has called out Bill 1330 for an amendment, and Councilman Ortega has called out Bill 1341 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Anything that I missed. All right. Madam Secretary, if you please, put the first item on our screens. Councilman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Resolution 1340 on the floor? I move that council resolution 19, dash 1340, be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council of Council and Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a bill that is basically approving the purchase of Toy Hall, which is one of our local community correction facility locations in Denver. And I am not supporting it because there was no RFP process in selecting this location. We voted some time ago to take steps to divest from the two companies that have contracts with ICE that operate detention facilities in various locations around the country, including in Aurora. I am in agreement with the policy decision, but when we moved to do this, we did not have a plan in place, excuse me. And so now we're kind of scrambling, trying to figure out how do we take care of the people who have been in these programs. This is one measure to acquire a property from one of the very companies that we have said we're going to divest from. They own this property. And I just also want to send a clear message that I hope as we move to terminate the four contracts at the other with the other company, Core Civic at four other locations, you know, at some point we're going to be asked to extend those contracts, which I think is is the right move to allow us to finish work that a zoning committee has been working on to make some changes to our group Living Ordinance. But in the interim, I hope that there is not some expectation that Denver is going to acquire those properties as well. We need to figure out what is the fix with our zoning code so that we have greater flexibility and are not beholding or just expected to be put in a box where we have no choice but to turn around and buy the properties from the very companies that we're saving or divesting from. So I'm voting no on this tonight. I won't make comments on the other one. The other one that we'll have a vote on, on final reading is the actual transfer of the funds that allow us to move forward with this acquisition. So on the no vote on both of those and we'll vote on them separately, Frank. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. Seeing no other comments on this item. Madam Secretary, call. Ortega now black eye seat Abarca i Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Hines, i. Cashmere High. Clinic. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announced results. 12 hours. One day. 12 hours, one day. Council Resolution 1340 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilwoman Torres, do you want to go ahead with your questions on 13? 13?

Adoption of Resolution Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c). (City Manager 10021030)

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1395

system. But it does offer a small amount, a modicum of rent increase based upon the based upon the rules, the Berkley style rules that are in place right now. So while we can't adopt any changes to the moratorium on rent increases, nor can we adopt any changes to the moratorium on on evictions. With regard to the former, I think, you know, out of concern for the smaller mom and pop landlords, we're going to have to begin to have that conversation because I think many are beginning to hurt along with the tenants. So so we're going to have to come have some kind of discussion about that. So with that, I'd like to move five G. Well, let's get the vote first on the balance of the consent calendar and then we'll come back to 25g. So, Madam Councilmember, Herr Spencer, you had your hand up. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm happy to amend my motion to include 5G. So that's the entire consent calendar. Okay, we could do that just as our seconder. Willing to second he is. All right, then maybe we have a roll call vote, please. I have. Spencer. I. Not quite I avella. I. May as you Ashcraft. I. Carries by five eyes. Look how easy that was, everyone. Okay, so now then we're going to move on to item six. And ma'am, can you explain this for us? Yes, this item was continued from the last meeting and it was on the consent calendar. The last meeting in the public comment was already heard. So now the council members will hear it and have 5 minutes to discuss it, which is the amount of time allocated for consent calendar items. And I can introduce the title. It's a. Recommendation. They do authorize. The city manager to execute the Sixth Amendment to the agreement with Cultivate LLC to increase compensation by 60,000 for total aggregate compensation, not to exceed 354,000 to continue providing technical planting planning support to the City of Alameda. General Plan Update through Housing Element Adoption.

Recommendation to adopt the Mayor’s proposed budget recommendations, as amended, to the Proposed FY 21 Budget. (A-1)

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0860

Great. Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you read the first budget? Number one. A report from Financial Management, a recommendation to adopt Mer's proposed budget recommendations as amended to the proposed FY 21 budget. There is a motion any second on budget item number one. Ms.. Yoon, please read the full motion into the record. Yes. Are you all able to hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. The following are Mayor Garcia's proposed budget recommendations. In Motion's language, any use? 500,120 from reserves to structural restore position proposed to be contracted out in parking citations and customer service, public works surveying and parking meter collection and maintenance. The impact of the restoration across all funds is approximately $950,000. The reserve use of $500,120 is to cover the general fund group cost portion of the restoration in FY 21 with structural offsets for fiscal years to be identified during the budget process to be used $247,840 from reserves to structurally restore the proposed reductions to library services and maintain the existing library structure of five days a week until such time that all libraries can be reopened safely per public health guidance with the opportunity to discuss expanding primary libraries to seven days per week with structural offsets for future years to be identified during those budget processing fee use $188,000 from reserve to implement the proposed new structural new youth sports registration fees with structural offsets for future years to be identified during the budget process to be used 300,000 from the reserves to structurally add the justice fund to the budget in FY 21 with structural offsets for future years to be identified in future budget processes is 40,000 from reserves to structurally add the language access program to the budget and fy21 at $200,000. The proposed FY 21 budget includes a proposed one time of $160,000 for the Language Access Program for an additional 40,000 is needed from reserve in FY 21 with structural offsets for future years for the full $200,000 enhancement to be identified in future budget processes. F is $100,000 from reserve one time support to create Public Health Council to facilitate education concerning workplace safety and health guidance and industries impacted by COVID 19. G Use 100,000 from reserves for one time. Support Hire an economic equity specialist to address income inequality by exploring and supporting public banking and universal basic income. Each year, $250,000 from reserve for one time support to create a right to council program to keep people housed in safe conditions in light of the national eviction crisis brought on by COVID 19. I request City Council and city manager to look at job training for disadvantaged workers and explore and support penalties for workplace non-compliant. G. Request the city manager to actively recruit new individuals with mental health and social services, training for the newly created civilian positions that respond to calls for service pay. Request the city manager to review all 911. Calls for service and explore transitioning non-emergency calls for service to new models and staffing that focus on public health and mental health services. L request City Council and City Manager to begin work on a new five year infrastructure plan to begin in 2023 when additional measure revenues materializes. And request the City Council and City Manager to begin implementation of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan with a study on the city's dependance on oil production to transition to cleaner energy and more sustainable funding model and to develop long term alternative funding plans for critical programs, services and obligations currently dependent on oil revenues. This plan should set clear goals, a timeline and should be completed in 2021. And request the City Council and City Manager to evaluate and begin a zero based budgeting approach for fy22 with earlier community outreach and participation. O Use 1.7 million a projected new measure b funds in FY 21 to support local arts organizations and the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center. The proposed allocation of funds are as follows $841,500 or 49.5% for the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center. $64,731 or 3.8% for the following organizations. Camerata Singers of Long Beach, Long Beach Playhouse, Musica Angelica and International City Theater and Long Beach Opera. $129,462 or 7.6% for the following groups. Long Beach. Museum of Art. Long Beach Orchestra. Museum of Latin American Art. Musical Theater. West End. $17,000 or 1% for the Measure b Budget Stabilization Fund. P for any use of reserve, priority of use is in the following order. Until there is no funding available in each reserve, then the measure B's Budget Stabilization Fund. The item must be in measure be authorized. Use the unfunded liability reserve, operating reserve and then the emergency reserve. So that concludes the mayor or is recommendation in motion language. And also I wanted to comment that the DLC did have one change to the motion about Measure B, an allocation to the arts so I can be tossed here or at the next day. Thank you thank you this year and and obviously and I support that one change was made in partnership with the BBC. There's a motion in a second. Please roll call that bill, please. Mayor. Can we please get the second door on the motion? Councilman Pryce. Thank you. District one I. District two i. District three, i. District four. Right. District five. By District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the organization of City government; adding data reporting responsibilities to the City Attorney’s Office; and adding a new Chapter 3.46 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120247

Agenda Item 27 Council Bill 120247 An ordinance relating to the Organization of City Government adding data reporting responsibilities to the City Attorney's Office and adding a new Chapter 3.46 to the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you so much, Governor Herbold, you are the chair of this committee. Would you like to address the item first? Actually, I think I would like to hand it over to the sponsors to address. Thank you. Great customer. Lewis, would you like to go ahead and make some remarks about the base legislation? I know you have an amendment that you'd like to have us consider, but perhaps you can address the base legislation before we consider the amendment. Certainly, Madam President, I mean, this is the much discussed data reporting and transparency legislation that would require quarterly reporting of certain important metrics from the Seattle City Attorney's Office pursuant to certain funding decisions that we made during the budget cycle. I do think part of the confusion attached to this is that if we had been successful in having this legislating happen concurrent with the rest of the budget, maybe it wouldn't look strange. To be doing it now. But in any event, this legislation matches certain new funding additions in this recent budget, with certain reporting requirements similar to other sources that affect notice and reporting requirements. It is incorporated into the Seattle Municipal Code. I think I can leave it right there for now pending the discussion on the amendment and I can make further remarks later if that is helpful as well. Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Appreciate it. Colleagues, we're going to go ahead now that we have the base legislation that to consider before us is described, Councilmember Lewis, I think it would be appropriate for us to consider the amendment and have a discussion about the amendment. And then once the amendment passes through or does not, we can then have a we can open up that conversation to the bill as amended or not. So consider, Lewis, when you go ahead and make your motion for us to consider the amendment, and then we can discuss that amendment and then and then open up the discussion to the broader bill after we consider the amendment. Thank you, councilmembers. I have an amendment I would like to propose. It did not meet the council rule of distribution prior to 12 noon and would request that the rules be suspended to allow consideration. Thank you, Councilman Lewis. If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow to allow an amendment that was not distributed by noon, as customarily was just. Mentioned. Carry no objection. The council rules are suspended and we cannot proceed with consideration of the amendment. Councilor Lewis. Now you have to move the move the actual amendment. Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I do move to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 247 as presented on Amendment 1/2. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the Council Bill as presented on Amendment one. I'm going to hand a back over to Councilmember Lewis to address the amendments. Thank you, Madam President. And this is an amendment that was recommended after consultation with law. I do apologize not distributing this amendment. Prior to noon, there was some confusion on whether I would be bringing it or whether Councilmember Peterson would be bringing it. But we did sort that out and I did so distributed. The impact of this amendment relates to a mandatory language that Council President Gonzalez passed into this legislation during the committee meeting last week, creating a 90 day notice requirement for material changes to the free file diversion program. This would alter the language to be notification to the Council of such changes within 90 days of implementation, rather than wording it as 90 days before implementation. This is the preferred language of the law department just to make sure that this legislation does not potentially run afoul of the charter requirements on giving full supervisory responsibility of pending legislation, including the possibility of of a diversion. Investing that in the city. Attorney I don't believe the practical effect of this amendment is going to be that significant, though it is possible that it could certainly create a looser notification requirement than the current language, though I think the important thing indicated here is that there be an expectation of notification and I am sure that that is going to be something that the Council will be very assertive about, making sure that there is close consultation on how these investments are being are being spent. So this is the preferred language from law just to make sure that we do not inadvertently run afoul of the charter. And I do believe just erring on the side of being cautious and staying within our oversight and due diligence. LANE This language is more appropriate, a more appropriate modification of the legislation. So with that, I don't have anything else to add. Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Are there any additional comments on Amendment One? I haven't seen any other hands raised. So let's go ahead and pull this to a vote. Well, he's called the role on the adoption of Amendment One. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Let's get up. I. Petersen I. Strauss Yes. For both, yes. Whereas I counsel President Gonzalez I it in favor and unopposed. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted and we now have an amended council bill before us. Are there any further comments on the amended council? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Do you want to say thank you so much to Councilmember Lewis and his staff for working with my office on this bill? It was a pleasure to co-sponsor this bill with you. That is really at the core a good governance transparency bill that requires some reporting that is transparent to members of the public on a set of programing that we have been consistently asked to fund and to expand. And as a result of those budget implications, I do think it's appropriate for us to request, regardless of who the city attorney is, information about the effectiveness of that program in a way that is transparent, consistent and where expectations are the same in this sort of cross branch setting. So appreciate an opportunity to work with you and with you in your office. And of course, thanks to Brianna Thomas, my chief of staff in my office, for all of her good work on this as well. And huge thanks to Councilmember Herbold for allowing us to have a hearing and and shepherding us through the legislative process. We appreciate your graciousness in allowing us an opportunity to have that conversation in your committee. Councilmember Lewis, any closing remarks? Thank you, Madam President. I do just want to briefly we've been discussing this a lot, and I made extensive statements in briefings. So I just want to cover some of the top line edits I alluded to in my remarks before the amendment. I do think that the timing has been somewhat unfortunate given that this legislation appears deep, coupled from our budget, which has invited all sorts of strange interpretations and strange bedfellows opposing more transparency, including a daily newspaper. I would say that I just want to emphasize the coupling of this legislation with the unprecedented additional investments in the city attorney's office. This incoming city attorney is going to have more resources available to her than any of her predecessors, including new positions to facilitate the collection and dissemination of data which this legislation is structured to complement. So this is not some new mandate on top of existing resources. This is new requirements for the office that is directly related to personnel increases and funding increases that we just put into this budget with something like this in mind at the time. So I think that that's just important emphasized. That is a $38.5 million budget that the city attorney's office is going to have for 2022. It's a 9% increase from the previous biennium and certainly warranted given the situation that we're in the city and the need to make sure that all of our officers that engage in public safety work can be successful. The implication that this council is being insufficiently supportive of that incoming office is frankly just not borne out by the statement made by the budget that we just passed earlier this month. So I do I just want to signify that despite the tension over the course of the last week regarding this legislation, I remain dedicated to working with the incoming city attorney to address a lot of chronic issues in the city. This data transparency is going to be a big part of allowing the council and the city attorney to work together to really refine and address the best strategies to address some of our public safety challenges. And it is my hope that we can move forward in that spirit despite this disagreement over this legislation this week. So with that, I don't have anything else to add. Anti-consumer Louis for closing out debate. Appreciate your leadership on this issue. Will the Court please call the roll on the adoption of Council Bill 120247 as amended? The words. Yes. Morales. Yes. Skinner I. Peterson No. Strauss. Yes. Verbal? Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzalez and seven in favor one opposed. The motion carries and I'm sorry yes the motion carries the council bill is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it will the first please to fix my signature. It's in the legislation on my behalf will please read item 28 into the record.

A bill for an ordinance adding a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats. Adds a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-25-17.

DenverCityCouncil_11062017_17-0709

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Dear again, direct your comments to members of Council as a whole and refrain from any personal attacks. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 709 on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 709 be ordered published. It has been moved in second it. The public hearing for council bill 709 is open. May we have the staff report from Councilman Black? Is your night and Dr. Jenny Conrad and Dr. Avery. I'll let you introduce all your folks who were with you. Thank you. And since this is my bill, I'm going to give the staff report, along with two veterinary specialists. So, Councilwoman Black. Just one more thing. I don't mean to interrupt you. You're you're on a roll. I saw that. This is we're going to vote on this for publication tonight. This is first hearing. There's going to be another hearing next week. So I'm sorry, another another vote next week, not another hearing. So it will be the it will be the final vote next week. So I just want to make sure that's clear with everybody. This is just for publication. Will next week be Councilwoman Black's week as well? Yes, there were. Anyway. Thank you all for sitting here. I know you all got here early to sign in, but this is what we do on Monday nights, and this actually is going to be a short night some nights we're here till two in the morning. So before I start, if you are in favor of this, will you please stand up? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll just have a few brief remarks and then I'll invite you to say a few words before the public hearing. But I first learned about this from Dr. Lav Izzo, and I was shocked to learn about the horrible and unnecessary procedure that actually cuts off the tips of cats toes, causing them pain, often disabling them and resulting in other bad behaviors like biting. For many years it's been sold to cat owners as a simple way to prevent cats from scratching furniture. But owners haven't been told that the procedure actually cuts off the tips of the toes of cats. It's painful, it's cruel, and it's unnecessary. Yet it is legal. It's often disabling and does cause other bad behaviors like fighting and inability and unwillingness to use a litter box. And many cat owners who have cats that develop those habits actually are relinquished to shelters. But there are also humane ways to train cats so that they can stay in the home. And decline is not the solution. The federal government actually prohibits it for large cats and wild cats and nations and cities around the world have banned the procedure. And so why are we doing it here in Denver? Well, I think that until the veterinary community is willing to ban this cruel and inhumane procedure is up to us to do so. So with that, I'd like to invite Dr. Jenny Conrad up. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine and founder of the PAs project and she is the person who successfully got the federal government to ban cat decline in large and wild cats. And also Dr. Aubrey Lab Oso, who everyone knows, he's quite famous here in Denver. He's a community activist. He's been a veterinarian for more than four decades and has accomplished quite a lot and is very involved in the Denver community and is the current director of the Pop Park Project. Go ahead. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And thank you, Mr. President, and council members, for allowing me to testify on this very important issue. My name is Jennifer Conrad. I'm a veterinarian, and I am the founder and director of the PAS Project. The PAS project is the world's largest nonprofit dedicated solely to ending declawing. Now, as you know, declawing does no good for a cat. It is the amputation of a cat's toe bones, just like the cigar cutter would amputate my fingers. It does not keep cats in their homes because they begin to have problems. They come home from the surgery. They go and dig in the litter box. It hurts. They will never use it again. They now have to resort to biting because they have no other mode of defense. We know that declawing a cat does not help human health. The National Hemophilia Federation Federation and the American Cancer Society do not condone declawing as a way to protect human health. But what we what I want to discuss with you is things that you might not know that declawing bans are a win, win win situation. Declawing bans are a win for cats. They're a win for communities. And they are actually a win for veterinarians. It's obvious why a declawing ban is a win for cats. Cats are allowed to keep their claws. They're more comfortable, they're more confident, and they do not have the risk of having a lifetime of being in pain from ten toe amputations. Declawing benefits communities because declawed cats are not flooding the shelters like you might hear from our opposition. In fact, the Park Project sponsored eight ordinances in the state of California, and in those eight ordinances, we banned declawing outright, with no exceptions, except for, of course, like your bill says, that if it's medically necessary for a cat in the case of like a tumor or something in the toe. But our experience in California was very interesting. We found that if we looked at the numbers of cats who were relinquished before the ban went into effect the five years before versus the five years after the ban went into existence, we found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished. And in Los Angeles, which is a city of 4.2 million people. Very big city. We found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished in the five years after the ban by 43.3%. That amounts to tens of thousands of cats lives saved by a declaw ban. We also found that the cat adoption rate went up twice in Los Angeles after the ban. With these two astounding facts that happened in Los Angeles. We can only surmise how many taxpayer dollars were saved. So again, declaw bans help communities. Now declaw bans also help veterinarians. Veterinarians, I'm sure you've heard, have always said that they're trying to talk everybody out of declawing. They're always saying, oh, we only we try and talk everyone out of it. We rarely do it. It's it's a last resort. Well, isn't the ultimate way to talk someone out of something say it's illegal? I can't. It's animal cruelty. So I think the declaw bans help veterinarians. We also surveyed veterinarians who have stopped declawing. And we have found that they across the board have said that they have a larger clientele because they're not declawing they have more loyal clientele because they're not declawing and that they've actually increased their revenues because they're not declawing. So declawing certainly helps declaw bands, certainly help veterinarians. When I started this campaign, it was 1999 and people told me, it takes 20 years to change the world. Are you committed to this? And I said, I am because I am a veterinarian. I went to school to protect cats, not to protect couches. I am now here in Denver 18 years later with pending legislation in the province of Nova Scotia, the state, the states of New York, New Jersey, West Virginia and Rhode Island all. Listening to what Denver does tonight, I. I'm very hopeful that veterinary medicine will change instead of being what we call compassionate veterinarians, because compassion has a wide berth. You can declaw a cat with compassion. You can kill an animal with compassion. But if we change veterinary medicine to be guided by empathy, I think that there's no question that declawing would be illegal. I like to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King when he said that the greatest happiness you will ever know is when you make someone else happy. And I like to apply that to animals. And I certainly hope that tonight we make a lot of animals very happy. And I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Council President Brooks, it's nice to be here again, but let's get real. You really want to know how this started declining? It started actually went up when some sleazeball in a dogfighting cult cut off a cat's toes and tossed it into an enclosure so that it would beat the dog to fight more aggressively. That's how it started. Later in 1952, a veterinarian found out about it and a doctor Meisner wrote an article and submitted it to the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, saying that declawing is a simple and practical way to protect fine furniture. That's how it started. So that's where the AVMA is sorted. Sort sordid history began with mutilating cats. Now, now, some 65 years later, 19 million cats in the U.S. or declawed by 21% of veterinarians, 95% of whom still do it to to protect furniture. But you know what? Think of all the countless millions of furniture that's now projected and all the stuff cats we now have that we can put on those that furniture, because declawed cats are not real cats. They're ornaments. You know, a couple of weeks ago when we did, we're in safe house. Well, Councilman Cashman, Safe House Committee, the Colorado Very Medical Association, said, you know, we are against. We are against declawing. But, you know, we don't like regulation. You know, you guys just leave us alone. We take care of it. But you know what that means. Everybody up here kind of vacate. We don't need you know, you can't someone we don't need you because your regulators, we don't need that. You know, we might as well do, too. Let's repeal the Civil Rights Act. Let's repeal the Immigration Act. Let's repeal the Child Safety Act. Let's repeal violence against women because we don't need regulation while we're at it. While we're at it. Let's go on and decriminalize dogfighting, too, because now, you know, every if we if we decriminalize dogfighting, then, you know, we really don't need to worry about mutilating little cats because anybody can do it. But whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. That gets into my pocketbook. Let's CPMs pocketbook. So maybe that's not such a good idea. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to have public comment next. And I think we have 15 speakers. And if you if you have something to say that someone else has said. Keep your comments brief. You don't need to say the same thing over. We've already had public comment at our committee meeting, so we ask you to please keep it brief. And with that. Great. So I'll call the first five speakers up. We're going to need this front row for all of the speakers. So I'm sorry, but you'll have to find some space over here. We have some space over there. I'm going to call the first five speakers up, and the first speaker is Debbie Ortega. I saw you're okay. You didn't look great. I was going to be like, wow, this is a first. Okay, first speaker Gina matera, chairman say COO Jean. Hmm. HOVEY Okay. Thank you. Rhymes with Van Jovi. Okay. Jean Hovey. Dr. Andre and Jen West. Dean Yes. Yep. That's great. Okay. We'll have, uh, Gino Metro golfers. Good evening. My name is Gina montero. I live at 80 West Cedar Avenue in Denver and I'm speaking in support of the ban or the bill to ban declawing in Denver. Dr. Llamas, though, has cared for my pets for almost 30 years and he declawed one of my cats. She may have been the last cat that he declawed before he instituted a ban in his clinic. At the time, I thought Dr. Lorenzo and I were making a decision for a routine procedure, but I didn't know the true extent. Of the harm that was in store for you. I didn't fully. Appreciate the procedure or understand that decline was an amputation. I grew up with cats and had never declawed a cat before, but I knew people who had and I didn't see the true damage that it caused. When I picked you up at the clinic that day and saw her bloodied, bandaged paws. I immediately regretted the decision. When a bruised paws didn't heal well, bled for several days and she. Never fully. Recovered. She avoided putting weight on it and she never walked the same again. Her personality changed, too. She became less playful, endless social. I vowed that I would never decline another cat. Boo died six years ago. But I'm still haunted by my decision to mutilate the paws of my sweet, healthy cat. And she lived the last ten years of her life in obvious pain. I'm currently caring for a rescue cat that has had all ten of her claws removed. She's completely defenseless and she can't scratch herself. She was surrendered to a rescue because of behavioral problems. And she does require more care than cats that I've had who haven't had their claws removed. Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name. Is Chairman. Sekou. I'm the. Organizer, founder for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. You know, this, it seems like on the surface is a very simple thing. Because nobody really wants to decapitate cats. Unless you're in the business of decapitation. And then, of course, you make money and then. You know, there's there's a whole. Myriad of stuff in the medical community of giving. People operations. They don't need to know about it. So it's not unusual that this would happen. And. There is a caveat in this thing. Now you have senior citizens who have animals who they can't necessarily take care of because of their fixed income. So the costs of maintenance of these pets are prohibitive for them to have lifetime pets around. And so. Many times. When these cats or. These animals are taken from them, it has a. Deplete. It has a killing influence on the senior citizen because now this is their best friend. This is the one that makes them. Feel good when nobody else will. This is the one that's around when nobody else is coming around, including their own families. So we're in this. Do we have room where poor people on fixed income will get the opportunity to have the necessary resources to do the maintenance on these comfort animals that they have that they can't afford. That they can't afford. So and so. I'm sitting listening to folks about this. And. I would hope that as we go about this process of making a decision about this thing, that something in this bill because I know you guys are going to pass it. You're going to do that because it wouldn't have got to the floor if you didn't have the votes already. So somewhere in this, there has to be a provision for people who are on fixed income, who have to who have to maintain these pets to provide. A service for them, for these comfort animals that they are certified. Would have and will have the opportunity to hold on to these animals. So that their life is not impacted. Because when it comes down to folks, I mean, I. Represent senior citizens. I don't. Represent cats. I don't. But they have a very important role in the life of the people that I represent. So consider that as you go about doing your deliberations, and I'll just tell you straight up, I'm diametrically opposed to the mutilation of any animal. Period. Because that's anti-human. And we can do better. Than that. That's all I got. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sekou. Jean Harvey. Hi. Good news for the chairman. Declawed cats tend to have more health problems as they age, so senior citizens will do better with cats that have their claws. A recent study published just this year. Is State your name for this? Oh, sorry. Yeah. Jean Hovey. Yeah, I'm a doctor of veterinary medicine. I live on South Williams at the Harvard Gulch bike trail. There's been a lack of recognition and a refusal to recognize the long term side effects of decline. Veterinarians don't understand or don't want to see that these cats are debilitated some months, sometimes years later, and they don't attribute that arthritis or that sudden decision to start biting or that failure to use the litter box that crops up five or ten years later. They don't associate that with decline, but in fact, that is part of the problem. A study just published in March found that declawed cats are three times more likely to have back pain, seven times more likely to house soil, which is the polite term for peeing and pooping outside the litter box. Four and a half times more likely to bite, three times more likely to be aggressive and three times more likely to barber, which is pull their hair out due to stress. So some personal research I did in addition to the surveys in California, specifically declawed cats in shelters, the percentage went down following declaw bans. And one thing that was very interesting was that the percentage of cats declawed cats in shelters was by far disproportionately older, showing that these cats don't develop these problems right away. But years later, that's when they get dumped because somebody that was not tolerant of claws is going to be less tolerant of peeing on the carpet. So I hope you guys understand that there is no reason to declare cat that are. There are more than a dozen humane alternatives. There's no excuse for this mutilation any more just because people don't want to bother to train their cats. We need to have some responsibility. And the veterinary profession has failed miserably in policing itself. And, you know, they can say, oh, we don't think you should do it. Well, there's no enforcement power there. You guys have the enforcement power. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you if you all could hold your applause just so we can get through. I do appreciate I know there's some good testimony up here, but just if you could do it, that'd be great. Dr. Andre. Andrea. My name is Dr. César Andre. Hard one to say. Good evening. I'm a veterinarian. I have ten years experience as an officer in the Army Veterinary Corps. I'm now an active and owns several veterinary businesses in Colorado. As a practicing veterinarian, I absolutely oppose the routine decline of cats. But I am also in strong opposition of the proposed ordinance. I considered a privilege to stand in this room with probably everyone who is in support of welfare of animals. However, my concern would be the unintended consequences if this proposed ordinance was passed. My experience tells me that veterinary medical decisions are as complex as any may between a human physician and their patient. A veterinarian acts as the advocate for the welfare of both the animal and the animal's human family. Similar to many other veterinary medical decisions, a decision to declare a cat is affected by many human and animal factors . The well-being of the animal and their human family is best defended by providing owners with education about alternatives to decline, appropriate training for friendly cats, and well-informed discussions between that pet owner and their veterinary medicine provider. When adequate procedures medically and ethically appropriate, the use of modern surgery, surgical techniques, advanced equipment and effective pain management as utilized in all other veterinary surgical procedures can ensure that a declawed procedure has the best possible outcome. Not only does this best possible outcome scenario include a successful procedure and a pain free animal, but also a cat that is able to remain with their family and continue to develop and enjoy a unique human animal bond. The proposed ordinance oversimplifies complex decision making, hinders my ability as a veterinarian to counsel and educate my clients, and forcibly obscures the holistic view on which my medical practice is centered. The number of de claws performed by veterinarians is declining as we are able to provide education and guidance on alternatives. While I applaud the desire to protect the welfare of animals, the measure does might do the opposite. It attempts to replace sound veterinary medical advice within the context of a veterinary client patient relationship with legislation, while at the same time removing the right of an individual pet owner to choose the appropriate medical treatment for their animal. The right of the individual to make a medical decision, no matter how difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient, is one that is crucially important. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Andre Ginn Western. Good evening. My name is Jen Weston and I live in Denver. I'm at 4740 Willow and I live in Stapleton. I am also a certified veterinary technician, and I have been I am also one of the owners of Northfield Veterinary Hospital in Stapleton as well. I am not a vet. I did not go to vet school, but I have been working in this field for about 18 years come January and I have been in almost every single aspect in a veterinary hospital other than being an actual bat. More importantly, I actually own a declawed cat who is 23 years old and she was declawed 22 years ago when it was just a normal standard. You took your cat to the vet? Most of my parents did, and my cat was spayed and declawed at that time. She's 23 years old now and she has pretty significant arthritis, probably something that will eventually be a cause for euthanasia for her. I also have a two and a half year old daughter, and every single time my daughter touches my cat's front feet. SCHWEITZER Because I think that it is probably a source of pain for her. When I was 16 years old and working in a veterinary hospital, my veterinarian at the time handed me a pair of nail trimmers and instructed me on how to declaw cats. And you honor them as well. Again, I was not a vet, did not go to vet school, but probably in my time, in my three years there, I probably declawed over 100 cats. And that is something that I live with to this day, knowing that I perform the surgery in accurately and probably caused a lifelong of pain to these cats. So my my experience and working in veterinary hospitals in Denver in the last ten years. So I do agree that veterinary declines have decreased. However, I don't always feel that that education is there. I think veterinarians are very compassionate people, and by nature they are very much into people pleasing and providing great quality of care to the owners and to the pet as well. And sometimes I think that we are they are either bullied into doing the declaw against probably their own wishes or do it sometimes even for income reasons as well. So I urge you guys to support thespian as well. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Weston. All right, I'm going to call the next five. So, you up here. Thank you so much for your testimony. Will French, Saraswati, Kirsten Butler, Andy Nigro and Dr. Robin Downing. Will French. You're up first. Good evening. My name is Dr. Will French Address is 191 Yuma Street. I'm a veterinarian and the president of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. CVM opposes the decline of cats, but we also oppose the proposed ordinance. Some of the unsubstantiated state statements that were made, particularly in committee by Dr. Lav, is that while they may make make a dramatic point, are simply inaccurate. One of the studies that he references actually points out that the majority of veterinarians do not perform death claws via the guillotine method, but in fact uses scalpel blade, which has much more satisfactory outcomes compared to those illustrated by Dr. in presentation. Additionally, when asked about complication rates, specifically long term chronic lameness veterinarians report that fewer than 1% of doctors have those complications. I appreciate the council members comments at the Safe House Committee regarding that. A fundamental function of government is the regulation of professions that can't regulate themselves. In response to that statement. It is important to be aware that the veterinary profession is indeed regulated by the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine under the Department of Regulatory Affairs. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is a seven member board of veterinarians and public members that licenses veterinarians, investigate complaints about the practice of veterinary medicine, disciplines, violators of the law and or board rules, and makes rules and regulations that govern the conduct of veterinarians. And it is also important to know that the veterinary profession is already effectively shifting practice by educating its constituents about declawing cats. The number of d claws and doctors performing d claws is rightly dramatically declining. Another fundamental purpose of government is to protect, protect and preserve individual rights and the right of an individual to make a medical decision, no matter how ethically difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient is crucially important. If Dr. Lorenzo would like to identify and present to the State Board cases of D clause that were performed without adequate pain, control or surgical technique, I would gladly stand with him in front of that group to testify as to the pain and suffering placed on those animals. If the project would like to collaborate on an educational campaign to for landlords about the problematic nature of requiring residents to have declawed their their cats, the CVM would gladly engage in such efforts. Decline is an extremely complex issue and a blanket ban is simply bad policy that will fail to bring about desired change. Changing hearts and minds about this issue is admittedly harder work, but it is sounder policy and a path that we are committed to not simply banning it in Denver alone, which may have unforeseen consequences contrary to the welfare of cats. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms.. French. Sarah, sweetie. Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Sarah Swann, and I live in Fort Collins. I am the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. A certified animal welfare administrator, a retired veterinary technician, and a lifelong lover and protector of animals. I am giving comment today in support of Councilwoman Black's bill to prohibit declawing of cats, or, as we refer to it, amputation of toes. My first experience with decline was at the age of approximately nine years old, when my parents had our family cat declawed as a convenience. Immediately upon my cats return home, I knew that something terrible had happened to her. Sadly, I had many more experiences with declawing and the nine years that I worked in veterinary hospitals as a veterinary technician, one of my jobs was to assist during declawing procedures and to provide care for the cats post-surgery. I witnessed pain, confusion and suffering from every cat that had this cruel procedure done. As the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. I made the decision early in the organization's life to require adopters to sign a contract stating that they will not declaw their adopted cat. Despite this, we have no trouble trouble adopting out nearly 2500 cats and kittens annually. Even more importantly, I'm aware of only a single cat. Of the more than 14,000 we have adopted out over the last 11 and a half years ever being returned to our shelter because the owner didn't have the option of declawing opposition to the ban will lead you to believe that decline keeps cats in homes when in fact data shows the opposite is true. The cruel procedure of decline is done at the convenience of pet owners and at great risk to the cats. Decline does not keep cats in homes. There is a famous quote that states the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way that its animals are treated. You have an opportunity to improve the treatment of animals, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. To be the first city in Colorado. To prove that the lives of companion animal cats are not just important but protected. I urge you to pass Councilwoman Black's bill. Thank you. Thank you, sweetie. All right. And thank you guys for holding your floss and some of you slipped. Okay. Kirsten Butler. Good evening, counsel, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about a declawing ban in our city. My name is Kirsten Butler and I am a certified veterinary technician here in Denver. And the simplest terms, I provide nursing care to your furry family members. In regards to surgery, I do not performance. That is the job of a veterinarian. But it is my job to prepare patients for surgery, keep them alive and manage their pain during surgery by monitoring anesthesia and care for them as they recover. Having run anesthesia on declawed procedures, I can tell you it is an awkward and disheartening feeling to keep something alive while is mutilated in front of you. The post-operative care is equally as awkward, placing compression bandages on bloody paws and then apologetically replacing those blood soaked bandages as they will inevitably be shaken off by the patient who is painful and dysphoric, having woken up missing a third of the digits they want to sleep with. I did my job. Those patients survived. But a little piece of me died on those days, and I chose to no longer participate in this procedure. As veterinarians do, I, too, took an oath upon completing my education, and I, too, am expected to adhere to a strict code of medical ethics in regards to my patients. Part of that code of ethics is to alleviate the suffering of animals. And following this code in regards to declaw procedures, I have risked insubordination and have limited my job opportunities by choosing to no longer work for practices that condone this unnecessary and painful surgery. We are here today because as veterinary professionals, we have failed. Surgery may seem like a quick fix when weighed against the time it takes to have conversations and discussions with our clients about anatomy, behavior modification, medications and pheromones, impregnated products and the overwhelming ness of the everyday. We forget sometimes who we actually work for. First and foremost, our job is to advocate for those who cannot speak. Our patients, no piece of furniture is worth taking away an animal's ability to ambulate normally, just as you would not cut off your child's fingers for drawing on the walls. In closing, I ask, is it really enhancing your relationship with your pet or is it really saving the life of the patient if all you are doing is condemning it to a life of pain? Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Ms.. Butler. Okay. Andy Nigro. My name is Dr. Andy Negro. I'm a veterinarian, have been practicing in the. Central Denver area for about. 13 years. My address is 3214 West 26th Avenue. First of all, I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm excited that this issue of a declaw ban is being discussed and getting his due attention. In thinking about how best to voice my opinion, I chose to point out the simplest and most basic issues. How does the declawing procedure affect cats? While some will attempt to suggest that does not. I would challenge you to think about the basic nature of cats. If you have a cat at home, this may be an easier thing to understand. If not, please go online and youtube cats playing. Every single one of these videos that you will see will involve cats batting or grabbing. Toys. Pouncing, climbing, kneading. The point is this cat's paws and claws are truly the essence of who they are as animals. I will argue that a reasonable analogy would be a dog as to licking, chewing and playing fetch as a cat is to climbing, kneading and scratching. To put a medical perspective on this. Cats are digital grade, meaning that they walk on their toes. So essentially like this, where other species like humans are plant degrade, so they'll kind of do a heel strike. The bottom line is, is that by taking away the ends of their toes, we are affecting them and they were affecting them so much more than most realize. Those in opposition to the ban suggest that this procedure is a medical decision that should be left to the veterinarian and client. I'm proposing that this is not a medical decision. Is a discussion regarding issues of convenience to me a medical decision? That involves surgery. Must address a medical problem. As it relates to this issue. There is no medical problem here. I'll leave you with this. Why is it reasonable for us to remove the ends of cat's toes? Imagine starting to consider this practice in this day and age. It would be ridiculous conversation that would be shot down immediately as cruel and unusual. This is something that somewhere along the way somehow became acceptable. We have the opportunity to question this. Thanks so much. Thank you, Dr. Negro. All right, last in this group, this is Dr. Robin Downey. Good evening and thank you all very much for this opportunity. I'm Dr. Robin Downing. I practice in Windsor, 415 Main Street in Windsor. I'm an internationally known pain management expert. I'm a board certified specialist in physical therapy for animals, and I'm a clinical bioethicist. And this issue of ten toe amputation in cats needs to be assessed from all three of these perspectives pain, biomechanics and bioethics. Pain. When we perform a ten toe amputation in cats, we cut nerves. And there is no way that any veterinarian can assert credibly that they can eliminate all the pain of a ten toe amputation at the time of surgery. But more importantly, because we cut those nerves, we have the opportunity for those cut nerves to develop a condition that in humans is called neuropathic pain. This is a perpetual, self-sustaining pain phenomenon. Humans with neuropathic pain will tell you that every step is torture, and even when they're not on their feet, their pain can be excruciating. Biomechanics. When we perform a ten toe amputation, we're not just removing a piece of bone. We're cutting ligaments, tendons and all the attendant structures. At the end of the toes, this alters the architecture of the feet forever and changes the biomechanics of the front limbs. When we change the biomechanics of the front limbs, we actually change the biomechanics of every single joint from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. Bioethics. There are four foundational principles in clinical bioethics respect for autonomy, non maleficent's, beneficence and justice. Respect for autonomy means honoring the preferences of the individual. I would argue that no CAT would have a preference to have ten to amputation. None Maleficent's means do no harm. It is inconceivable to try to argue that a ten tone amputation does not cause harm. Beneficence means acting in the patient's best interest. Again, indefensible to argue that it's in any cat's best interest to have attend to amputation. And justice, as applied in veterinary medicine, really reflects fairness. I would ask, is it ever fair for us to perform a ten toe amputation in a cat? My respectful answer is, I think, a self-evident no. We need to remember what the Buddhists say. While pain is inevitable, suffering is optional, and you all are now in a unique position to prevent unnecessary suffering. By banning this barbaric and arcane mutilation procedure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Downing. Okay. All right. Well, we're getting there. We're getting there. We'll let you clap at the end when we vote. Okay. The last five. Thank you all for being up here. I'm going to bring the last five up here. Uh, Reverend Roland Halpern, Erica Rambus. Lynn Decker the second. Lisa martin. And Senator Hamlin. All right. Okay, Reverend. Good evening, President Brooks. Distinguished members, thank you for having me here this evening. My name is Roland Halpern. I live in Denver, Colorado. I'm an ordained animal chaplain and a member of the Association of Professional Chaplains. I serve as the Colorado Faith Outreach Volunteer Leader for the Humane Society of the United States. I am on the board of the Colorado Voters for Animals, and I also serve on the board of the Colorado Council of Churches. We've heard a little bit of about ethics this evening, but I want to talk a little bit about morals. Genesis 125 reminds us that on the sixth day, God created the animals of the Earth, even before He created man. And God saw that it was good. And Genesis 131 reminds us that when God look back on all he created, he saw that it was very good. God gave man hands just as he gave cats claws. It was very good. And it is for a purpose. By unnecessarily declaring a cat. Are we saying God got it wrong that he didn't know what he was doing? As far as I'm concerned, if someone places their couch, their curtains or other material things above that which was created by the divine, then maybe they just shouldn't have a cat in the first place. Defiling God's creation because we might perceive it as a nuisance is simply wrong. Not one sparrow falls that goes unnoticed by God. And an injury to any of God's creatures is also felt by him. We were reminded that is the merciful that will receive mercy. And I hope in making your decision on this, that you are merciful for our feline friends. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend. Erica Rambis. Good evening. My name is Dr. Erica Rambus. I am the medical. Director at the Feline Fix 2600 West First App, or I'm sorry, West Second Avenue in Denver. And I have been practicing veterinary medicine in Denver for over 20 years. As veterinarians, we take an oath. And this oath includes the words to protect animal health and to prevent and relieve animal suffering. I find it hard to believe that. Any veterinarian who is amputating the distal toes of their feline patients. Is fulfilling and honoring this oath. I had very. Much hope that my colleagues would step up to the plate and do the right thing for these. Animals without the need for legislation. But that's not what's happened. Or how much more time did we give them to do the right thing? And more importantly, how much more suffering has to take place before. We as a profession and. We as a society stand up and say enough is enough. Are most of the public. Knows by now that this procedure is wrong? They know it's. Cruel, and those that don't yet know are looking to their veterinarians for guidance. Veterinarians should be. Leading the way when it comes to animal protection, not following behind and certainly not opposing it. The time is right for this legislation. The time is now to please end this barbaric procedure in our city once. And for all. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Rambis. All right. I think this is Win Win Decker. I'm missing the first little bit. Good evening, council members. My name is Command Sergeant. Major Mike Autumn Bin Decker the second. I am with the ninth Brigade Station and Suleimani, Iraq. I lost one of my toes in combat against the Islamic State. I was a volunteer. Every day I suffer in excruciating pain with my loss of my big toe. When I came back from my last tour, I returned back home and from a village called Abu Mohammed. When I returned from that village, I came with my small cat, a ginger cat by the name of Abu. He is now an American. He loves pork and he loves tearing up my house. I'm a career military man. I love this cat with all my heart. I will kill for this cat. I almost died for this cat. That's how I lost my toe. The thing I can tell you is to declaw cat. To remove a part of their body is mutilation. I see in the Islamic State mutilate innocent women, children, homosexuals, animals. And it is wrong. The same applies to our animals, our friends. Boo is my son. I love him. He is an American and he raises hell. But he is my child. And for you to sit there and not to stop this butcher ism would be a travesty to us in Iraq. Zero. Zero cats are declawed. As my journal once said, the Prophet Muhammad said, to file an animal is considered a blasphemy against Allah himself. This is a muslim in Iraq where they have total disregard for animals. Everybody knows about Iraqi police dogs and Iraqi alley cats. But we as American citizens who are free and have the right to fight for those that are persecuted and killed. But we stand back and we allow innocent cats to be mutilated. This is wrong. I can understand doing it for medical purposes such as a tumor. Or possibly they got ran over. I could accept that. But because you have a couch, you have curtains. I have a flag for the president of the United States. Abu climbs up it every day. I have no problem with that, because my love for him is more greater than the love for myself. So the fact I tell you is to please make sure to pass this ban, because the fact is, Abu, who has traveled 11,000 miles, depends on you as a new American for you to protect him. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your service. All right. Lisa martin. Hi. My name is Lisa martin. I'm from Golden, Colorado, and I have been involved in Cat Rescue and fostering special needs cats for 18 years. Currently, with every creature counts and work of Fort Lupton, Colorado, in the past year I have fostered about 15 declawed cats, and these cats have been already surrendered to the shelter. We got them from at least once and by the time I get them to foster them, they've been surrendered at least once or twice. When I bring them into my homes, I find that they have chronic pain. I have a cat right now that can't put her right front foot down and she's on pain meds all her life. The other issue that I see with the cats because of the pain is they don't walk very much, so they're very sedentary. They just walk from their bed to their food bowl. They end up obese, they end up with diabetes. They can't clean their rear end. So a lot of cats end up with infections that we can't clear up. And it's pretty disgusting and they're very hard to get adopted. The other thing that I see with these cats is they feel very vulnerable and very defenseless without their claws. When they're in homes with little kids and other pets, they tend to bite, they tend to hide, they tend to become very scared and skittish. It's very hard to find them homes because they need a very quiet home where they feel very comfortable and they don't have to worry about feeling defenseless. The last thing that I see with just about every single declawed cat that I have fostered in 18 years is litterbox issues. It's painful to dig in the litter box. A lot of them have aversion from when they were first declawed. It's very hard to get them to start learning to use the litter box. I have to retrain them. We tried different litters, we tried different litter boxes. We tried potty pads. Oftentimes we can't find a solution. So these cats are next to impossible to get homes for. So people like me end up with these cats. So I. I hope that this. Does not I hope that this will be the ban will be. I'm sorry. I'm hoping that the ban will be go forward because it's so hard to find these declawed cats homes because they are pretty much unadoptable by the time we get them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Martin. All right, Santa. How much? Good evening, council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Snow Hamlin. I owned and Record Company, which is a Cat Cafe located at 3929 Tennyson Street. We foster cats who are up for adoption and we're in the business of providing a joyful experience to the people of Denver and of Colorado as far as the relationship with Cats goes. As the only Cat Cafe in Colorado, we have served over 25,000 people this year alone from all over the state and have helped facilitate the adoptions of over 400 cats. Based on my experience with working with rescue cats and our customers. I have three main observations to share with you. Number one is our customers are often surprised to learn that declawing is painful for cats and can lead to negative behaviors. This is because the practice has been normalized in the mind of the public, and many vets do not provide full disclosure to their clients or discuss humane alternative options with them. Once customers learn, the full extent of the damage, decline can do often from me and from our partnering rescues. They no longer are interested in declawing their cats. We would not need this amendment if all vets were upfront about the negative consequences of decline. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Number two, and related to my first point about education, I strongly believe that it will abandon Denver bill, even if it does not prevent all declawing in Colorado will serve as a strong signal to uninformed cat lovers that this is a cruel and unnecessary procedure and it will lead to better informed decisions in other Colorado cities. Third, and most important, cats who have suffered the pain and trauma of being declawed are not happy cats. We have hosted such cats at the cafe. They have trouble adjusting to human interaction. They often end up leaving because they bite. They have a harder time finding new homes. Declawing a cat not only does not keep a cat in a home, it does a permanent disservice to the cats chances of being accepted as a desirable pet for the remainder of its life. I urge you to vote in favor of this anti-growth amendment to protect our furry companions who give us so much love and joy so they can continue to do do so. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ms.. This concludes our speakers. Thank you all. You can head back to your seats. All right. We'll head into the question portion of our our public hearing. Councilman Herndon, you're up. Mr. President, I got a handful of questions. Dr. Conrad, if you mind. Coming up, Aubrey, you could come up. To. The College of Veterinary Medicines. CVM I think we had two doctor speak either one I'm fine with do we and Councilman Black do you have any idea how many or maybe this might be for Alice, how many declines in Denver that we perform annually? Do we or anyone do we believe it's a lot? Do we believe it's a little? Any idea? Are there any way do we have. That's a good question, unfortunately, because it's gotten such a stigma. Now, Councilman Herndon, there is don't acknowledge that information if you ask. It was a survey that was done just a couple of years ago by the Colorado Veterans Medical Association. In a survey was a subjective survey. It asked, do you do decals anymore? Well, not many. So we have no idea. And we're not going to be able to get into those practices to find out those records. We don't know. Okay. In our recent year there, this was a I admire your passion, but I heard you keep saying we do this out of convenience. I had a conversation with a cat owner who said a cat scratched my baby. And so I had the cat declawed. So I don't I don't believe that that particular instance was out of convenience. Is that a safety? So what would you tell that that cat owner who was concerned about the safety of their baby and they felt that decline or or getting rid of the cat would be the only two options that they would have. Well, I would say, first of all, it's not the only two options. There are humane alternatives. There are vinyl claw caps that you can place on the cat. You can train the cat. But more importantly, I would tell you that it is well documented that declawed cats bite more because they've been robbed of their primary defense. So in a sense, by declawing, you're actually giving that mother a false sense of security because now she's jeopardizing her child to be bitten. So I don't think that it's the right answer. And remember that declawing is illegal or considered unethical and most of the rest of the world and there are babies, there are grandmas with thin skin, there are people with HIV, there are people on Coumadin, and they're living with cats with claws. So I think that it that it's not a matter of declaw or get rid of the cat, it's a matter of declaw or humane alternatives to declaw and keep the cat. Okay. And from that, I will just say that that particular incident, the cat didn't bite the baby afterwards. But I admire I appreciate your opinion on that. I'm curious when these laws so how does. So if if adoption rates because we were having conversations about cats being adopted out that are declawed. But if you've gone to cities where we've made decline illegal, has there been an increase of cats being adopted out because now home owners feel that they don't have an option? Am I making sense? Like, do abandonment rates go up? Because now in L.A. County, I can't declaw my cat. I don't have the time ability to train it. So instead, I'm just going to take it to a shelter. Is that. The question? I understand your question, but the actual facts are the exact opposite. If we passed declawing bans in eight cities in California and five of those cities have their own municipal shelters, so we were able to get the numbers of CAT relinquished relinquishment in the five years before the ban versus the five years after the ban . And what we found is that every single city had a decrease in the number of relinquishment and actually an increase in the number of adoptions. So this this threat that you hear from the opposition that there will be this massive deluge of cats if you can't declaw. That didn't happen. There is no there is no proof of that. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Opposite. And as I said in Los Angeles, which is is a city that has almost the same population of all of Colorado, we found 43.3% of cats, a decrease in the number of cat relinquishes, 43.3%. That translates to tens of thousands of cat lives saved by declaw bans. And the head of Los Angeles Animal Services is a woman named Brenda Barnett. And she attributes the lack of I mean, the decrease in cats being relinquished to the declaw ban saying now she's not seeing the cats relinquished for not using the box or for biting. So declawed bans absolutely help cats and they help communities and ultimately they help vets vet. Things are coming. And I normally write down everyone's names and I did not do this as this. Conversations were so fascinating. So I apologize. So if you want to kind of if you want to rebut to that, that's how you raise your hand. And I had one more question for you. Thank you, Dr. Will French. So a couple of thoughts on the relinquishment, relinquishment numbers. I applaud those cities for the decrease in relinquishment, but I would say that we don't always know that correlation equals causation. So just because relinquishment were decreased in those cities, what we don't know is what happened to relinquishment in other cities. Right? If people just sort out declare because in the town next door and thanks to the wonderful efforts of many animal welfare organizations, really hopefully relinquishment are going down. So it the declaw ban was not the only decision made in those five years in a vacuum. So it's a little bit more complicated than that this year. And I want to give you a if you could speak a little bit more, because my familiarity was with the the tendons that other people were saying. But when you spoke, you talked about another procedure. And I just wanted to give you that opportunity, speak to that, because I was not familiar with that. So I'll try and answer the question to the best of my ability. But there there are a number of different methods to perform a declaw, and some are of appropriate surgical technique and some are not. One of the methods that was referenced is the guillotine method, where you cut it, cut to cut it all off, sort of like a quick amputation, like a someone's beheaded. Basically that that's not the most frequently used surgical technique reported by veterinarians. In fact, a scalpel is. So just wanted to set that straight was the point of that. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hurd in my screen, are you next? Councilman Clark, your next. Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. French, if you'd come back up. I don't think it's any surprise where I am on this issue. I brought my cat to committee, and I'm wearing pen. So I apologize for that. But I. Am trying to. Understand why you guys as an organization are against it. So and correct me if I'm wrong, but you. Started your statement by saying that you are opposed to declawing, but you're also opposed to this legislation. Yes, sir. Why are you opposed to decline? I would agree with many of the statements made that as a as a routine procedure done out of, you know, pure practicality for the owner, I would be ethically opposed to that. Absolutely. I do not think that and I think the organization thinks that declaw should not be performed on a routine basis. However, we also don't think that a ban in Denver City Council is the correct way to go about enforcing. Okay. So you think it it. Shouldn't be allowed for routine? Do you guys have to get kicked out of your organization for doing that? You have any regulations against that? So we're a professional membership organization, but the State Board of Veterinary Medicine has the opportunity to regulate standards of care and that sort of thing. And do they? Do they do? Does anyone get punished for any declawing, even routine? Somebody comes in and just says, I want to protect my curtains, take my cat's claws off. Does anybody regulate that? That that's where the education component comes in. But does anybody regulate it? Not to my knowledge. Okay. You had also mentioned that there are certain ways like the guillotine. Guillotine. I don't know how you say the word method that are not as effective are frowned upon. Do you. Guys does anyone regulate and say you can't. Do that? What we do. Is there is someone allowed to do that today in the state of Colorado. So the state board of Veterinary Medicine, hypothetically, would be allowed to do that if it would do that today, if it were deemed to be not standard of care. And I don't believe that that question has been put in front of them. To the best of my knowledge, it may have been, but I don't know. But you guys are against that. Just not against it. Enough to tell people not to do it. I didn't sit. With you again. You started the first statement out of your mouth was, we are opposed to decline. And then you said, hey, this method is not good compared to the. Scalpel method or whatever. So you're against it, but not against it enough to tell anyone not to do it. With regards to the particular method, I believe what I said was it was more accurate to say that more veterinarians use the scalpel. We don't have any scientific peer review studies that look at method two method, and so people may look at the guillotine method and say it causes more pain, but we don't know that from a study. Placebo control. What other procedures are done on any animals. That are akin to declawing in cats that you guys also are opposed to, but no one is regulating and saying you can't do it. I'm not aware of any of word. So my wife drives my wife crazy. We have a kitten and the kitten hasn't quite learned not to jump up on the table when we're eating. Drives her crazy. If there was a veterinarian. Who told my wife I could amputate both. Back legs and your cat wouldn't be able to jump up on the. Table. Would you guys. Be opposed to government stepping in to say. That's not okay? Or would you guys be opposed but still. Not want to tell anyone not to. Do it? I'm trying. I don't mean to be ridiculous. But I'm failing to. See. This distinction between I'm opposed to it. We are opposed to it as an organization. But but we're not stepping. In where you could step in or where the state board could step in to prevent it from happening. And I don't want government to do that. And I will agree. With Councilwoman Kenney. She was not here in what she said in committee, that it is government's role that if a doctor started saying we're going to cut off the back legs of a cat or somebody use the analogy my kids drawn on my walls and I just painted it. So bind their hands that they can't do that. Government does have a role to step in and say, you could. Be regulating yourself, but you're. Not. And so on. I guess I'm trying to see why this isn't, from your perspective, an instance that is in desperate need of that. I would agree with Dr. Downie in that there are many different facets to bioethics and this is this is a complicated issue. I think that there are parallels that can be drawn to the abortion argument, unfortunately. It's a difficult decision that has to be made within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and a patient. And the highest court has said that it's hard and and that rightly belongs there. We are for that choice to be made a choice to be made between the doctor and a patient. I'd say the rest of the comments. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. Downing, could you come up here just for a second? Thank you. Thank you. Clarke, I just want to say thank you. That was excellent. Yes, sir. From the standpoint of bioethics, what would be your view on spaying and neutering and the consequences of that as well? Well, we have actually solid medical evidence that lets us know that removing the gonads, the ovaries and the testicles have positive medical benefits down the road. For instance, when we remove the ovaries of cats fairly early in life, we actually have a very robust science that lets us know we dramatically reduce the risk for ovarian excuse me , mammary cancer in those cats. Mammary cancer in cats behaves biologically different than it does in dogs. In dogs, it's a less aggressive disease. In cats, it's an extremely aggressive malignancy. So reducing the risk. Excellent choice. As far as removing testicles, we have, again, evidence that lets us know that we reduce behavior issues in speaking specifically of cats , of reducing some of the sex hormone related behaviors, like marking behaviors with urine, those kinds of behaviors. So from both a scientific and a bioethical perspective, this these are procedures that actually enhance health and allow for a longer life expectancy. In addition, we have data that lets us know that intact animals, these are animals with their opponents of reason. Testicles tend to have a much shorter life expectancy than animals that have had their gonads removed. So we not only enhance their life quality, but we actually enhance their longevity. Mm hmm. Okay, so you just you see, there's no parallel between. There actually is. And that's the straw man argument. There is absolutely no parallel between toe amputation and removing the gonads. Okay. Excellent question. Though. Thank you. Because a lot of times are done in conjunction with. I understand that I'm. I was thinking about. It. I think it's appropriate for the council to know that I've been a veterinarian for 31 years and I was taught that this was a commodity, this toe amputation was a commodity procedure that I should offer. And in fact, I did offer that. And then our body of knowledge changed and our scope of knowledge changed. And what I tell people when I teach all over the world is you can't know what you don't know. But once you know something, you can't not know it anymore. And now we know that there are ramifications to the decision to perform at ten toe amputation that 31 years ago were considered inconsequential. Thank you. I actually do find that some people who do know things later pretend not to know that. Well, there is that there, in fact. That's a that's a whole other story. But that's a whole nother story. As my wife hates to hear people say. Hey, can I ask. The sponsor a couple of questions, Mr. President? Councilwoman Black, that tell me, because there's a very, very short council bill. What what is the penalty? Is it just basically an ordinance violation? If we found a veterinarian who who did do this against the ordinance. Yeah. They could be fined up to $990. So there's. Go ahead. They they could be fined up to $999. And the rules around this and the enforcement around it would be something that would be decided upon by our animal. That was my next question is how do we envision the enforcement? How would we. Well, I've talked with. The director in Los Angeles, and they passed this law in 2009, and it became effective January 1st, 2010. And they did press releases, letters to vets. And in that time, they've only had two complaints. And it was people who just weren't aware of it, and they just followed up with them and that was it. I think we would all agree that veterinarians are law abiding citizens, and if they know that it is not legal, they won't do it anymore. Okay. Is there. There's nothing in here. I just want to verify this for folks who might be watching and are curious about it. But there is nothing in here that penalizes a cat owner. If the cat owner went into a veterinary in Denver and the veterinarian did it, it would be the veterinarian who would be charged or cited and not the cat owner for procuring the illegal act. Okay, nothing. Then would. Our city attorney, Kirsten. Crawford. Excuse me, I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that we're perfectly clear that the general penalty provision will apply, which is up to $999 fine, but also and or up to one year in jail. Now, it's we may may, may take enforcement measures that are shy of that sort of imposition of the penalty. But I just wanted to make sure that that was perfectly clear. And that's in relation to the veterinarian, not the pet owner. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And there's nothing in here again, just so the folks who are watching and reading later know there's nothing in here that prohibits a resident of Denver from taking their cat to Aurora or Englewood or Littleton or Lakewood and and having a cat declawed there and bringing it back. At this time. That is correct. I'm sorry. At this time. That is correct. Okay. And I think I had one more. If you may, if you can't do this, maybe one of your veterinarian witnesses can. But what I need a little better definition of medically necessary, because that seems to be a loophole in here. What do you do on that? On that question. Sorry. I can't help myself. On on that. Question. On that question. I forgot my Tourette's medicine. I'm sorry. Medically necessary would be things like a congenital abnormality that would be a deformation of the foot that the cat was born with at the foot or the toe developed abnormally and is actually causing a problem to that cat. Another OP opportunity for a medically necessary amputation of the last digit or even all of the digit would be the formation of a tumor. Any time that we have to remove tissue because there is a malignant growth, that is a medically necessary procedure. If a cat were to be hit by a car, for instance, and there would be no soft tissue left to actually heal over the toes, that would be a medically necessary amputation if, for instance, the cat were caught in a trap of some kind. I live in an area where I do see cats that are working, cats who are out and about taking care of mice and other rodents if they happen to get caught in an illegal trap where a part of the foot needs to be amputated because it is gangrenous and has died, that's a medically necessary amputation. Does that give you a flavor? Yes, it does, because I was reading the ordinance is quite broad. Medical that's a medical necessity is to relieve physical illness. Well, I see that as I see that as a pretty broad. Needs. To be a broad definition. Infection, disease or injury. Exactly. It needs to be broad because I couldn't I could be here all night and recite for you chapter and verse of different scenarios that would mandate an amputation of a toe or even a foot. And I think the material on this in committee said that about 90, 95% of of declawing procedures are done for convenience. Only so many successfully would be a very. Small it actually would be a very narrow. Okay. In the population. The only other thing I would add is I, having owned a cat many, many, many, many years ago, I find the term working cat to be oxymoronic. Oh, no. All right. Slipped in the comments there, Councilman Flint. I have no. History on this. Councilman Cashman. It's been asked and answered. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes the question portion of our public hearing. We are now going into comments. Public hearing for Council Bill seven or not is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Black, do you have any or should I. Put in into our. Colleagues here? I will say a few brief comments. Number one, I don't have much to add to the speakers. Their testimonies are very compelling. Most of them are animal care specialists. I've been talking to Aubrey and other vets about it for many, many months now, and I think it's the right thing to do. Denver has proven over and over that we are a compassionate city. This is a national movement and an international movement, and it really is the right thing to do. So I hope you all will support this. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just going to say that this is for publication and that and we were hopefully save our in-depth comments for next week when we're voting on final. So I support this moving forward to be ordered published. Councilman Clark. I just want to quickly thank everyone who came out today and stuck with us til not 2:00 in the morning, but a late night in hard seats. Thank you for coming and sharing your expertize and your passion. I really want to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this forward. As someone who doesn't have cats, someone who is a cat enthusiast like me. I'm very thankful for you bringing this forward and shining a light on it, something that I was not even aware of. And I just want to I want to add that I do think that this broader conversation about the role of government is an important one. And I'll just say that my preference would be that this industry, that that the board and the professional organizations and veterinarians would be self-regulating. And if there was a movement towards saying, you can't do this method, you can only do this method because the science points out and we should even look at that. And and you can't do it for cosmetic reasons. You have to do it for health reasons. And there was a movement towards this. There wouldn't be a need for government to get involved. But this is exactly the core fundamental role of government is to step in. And that's not happening and it's not. And so I think that this is a very appropriate thing for government to take a stand on. And I think some day I hope that the industry gets to a place where this law is no longer needed because the industry is self-regulating on issues like this. And so I'm very supportive of this on first reading, and I hope all my colleagues will vote this on first and second reading. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. All right. CLERK Yeah, I am Flynn. I am. Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman, I. Mr. President. I was voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 709 has been ordered published. Final consideration of this bill be Monday, November 13th. Got it. Got a couple more announcements and then you can go and celebrate. All right. City council sitting as ex-officio as board of directors of Denver, 14th Street General Improvement District Rhino, the General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in the form of a grant for the National Arts Program, awarded by the National Arts Program Foundation to be administered by the Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture.

BostonCC_11172021_2021-1176

Docket number 1176 message an order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $1,000 in the form of a grant for the NASH for the National Arts Program awarded by the National Arts Program Foundation to be administered by the Mayor's Office of Arts and Culture. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Councilor Frank Baker, Chair of the Committee on Arts, Culture, Tourism and Special Events. Chair Baker, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. The grant was awarded by the National Arts Program Foundation to be administered by the arts and culture. The grant will fund event costs for the employee art exhibit and eye moving for suspension and passage of docket 1176. And see that this is just in the amount of probably to have five or six of us go out to dinner. I think we should just pass. Thank you. I want to go out to dinner with you, Mr. Chairman. That sounds like a good meal yourself available. Any further discussion? I'm talking 1176. Seeing none. The chair councilor Frank Baker seeks suspension of the rules and passage of docket 1176. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose name. The ayes have it. The docket has passed. Moving right along to reports of public officers and others. Mr. Clerk, would you please read dockets 1177 through 1180.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; defining the addition of a single development that includes residential uses at a community or technical college located within an Urban Center as a minor amendment to an existing Major Institution master plan; amending Sections 23.42.049, 23.45.504, 23.47A.004, 23.69.008, 23.69.026, and 23.69.035 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120313

The Report of the Land Use Committee Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120313 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning defining the addition of a single development that includes residential uses at a community or technical college located within an urban center. The committee recommends the State Council pass the bill as amended. Because. Of stress. Thank you, Council President, Clerk Schwinn said. Great. We also had Lincoln Farris come to speak to us before for public comment. This has been a process that has been ongoing for more than five years to allow for housing at one of Seattle's colleges. This allows for the minor amendment rather than a major amendment to a major institution master plan. We did receive a technical amendment in committee, as well as an amendment from Councilmember Peterson. Both were accepted unanimously. I urge and I vote and I look forward to continuing this work. Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments for Councilmember Strauss before I let him do closing comments? Sir, anything from my colleagues? Before we move forward. Kessler Strauss, thank you so much. And Councilmember Petersen, as you know, we have North Steel College in District five and we've worked very closely with former president Dr. Brown and now Dr. Crawford. We work closely with the Chief Seattle Club and looking at housing for students, low income students, indigenous students. We've had great success working with North College for the Community and Health Board in a clinic and also with all of our labor groups in our apprenticeship programs and also working with our colleges for the not only ready to start, but the Promise program. Those of you that have colleges in your district, those are great resources to leverage and this is just moving it forward on the housing piece. So thank you, Councilmember Strauss very much and Casper Peterson and your committee for moving this forward. With that council member. Strauss, you want to close this out before we go to a vote? Just to say that, see, our colleges provide a unique opportunity for students here in the city to receive an education with lower amounts of debt than the larger institution and by allowing them to provide housing near regional transit. We're hitting three of our goals with one with one bill here. So I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Light rail. Two words for you. All right. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill? Remember Lewis? Yes. I remember Alice. Yes, I remember Mosquera. I remember Nelson. I don't remember Peterson. I remember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council president was high nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, could you please affix my signature to the bill? We'll get on to item number three. Casimir Strauss, this is you again. Madam Clerk. Will you please read item number three into the record? Agenda Item three Resolution 32059a resolution stating the City of Seattle's intent to address climate change and improve resiliency as part of the one Seattle update to the Comprehensive Plan. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

AN ORDINANCE establishing the health through housing fund; and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 4A.200.

KingCountyCC_10062020_2020-0319

That takes us to the next two items on the agenda that we'll take up together as they both relate to a proposed sales and use tax to be used for housing and associated services. April Sanders is here from the Council Central South to provide the staff report for these items. Ms.. Sanders, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, April Sanders Council policy staff and item seven begins on page 13 in your packet and the Post Ordinance 2020 0337 would impose a 1/10 of a percent sales tax for housing and related services. Proceeds from the tax will be deposited into the health through Housing Fund, which would be created through proposed ordinance 2020 0319, which I'll brief later on, starting with a bit of background information. During the 2020 legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 1590, which amended provisions for the housing sales tax. Previously, the sales tax was required to go to the ballot for authorization from voters before an actual. The House bill, 59, provided the option for the tax to be council. Manic counties were given until September 20th 30th of 2020 to impose the tax countywide. After that, the cities could impose the tax in the county with no tax after one or more of the cities have already done so. The county must provide a credit to those cities for the full amount collected within their jurisdiction. At the time of this statute that I wrote the staff report. No cities had enacted the tax, however. Last night, at least four cities passed legislation imposing the housing sales tax within their jurisdiction, which will have revenue impacts should the Council pass a similar tax. State statute specifies the activities and services for which the tax may be used. Table one on page 14 provides an overview of spending allocation requirements. At least 60% of proceeds must go to the following three purposes. One Constructing affordable housing. Two, constructing mental, mental and behavioral health related facilities. And three, funding operations and maintenance of new affordable housing and facilities where housing related programs are provided or newly constructed evaluation and treatment centers. All remaining funds must be used for operation delivery or evaluation of mental and behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing related services. Additionally, the state statute requires that only the following population groups with at or below 60% area median income for King County may be provided affordable housing and facilities providing housing related programs generated using this tax revenue. Persons with behavioral health disabilities, veterans, homeless or those at risk of being homeless. Families with children accompanied homeless, unaccompanied homeless youth or young adults. Persons with disabilities and domestic violence survivors. Counties imposing the tax must consult with cities when siting facilities within jurisdictional boundaries, and the county must spend at least 30% of revenue collected within any city, with a population over 60,000 within that jurisdiction. Currently, the following cities have populations over 60,000. Seattle, Bellevue, Kent, Renton, Federal Way, Kirkland, Auburn, Redmond and Sydney image. Lastly, the state statute allows for counties to issue general obligation or revenue bonds and pledge up to 50% of the moneys collected for bond repayment. Bonded revenue may finance provision or construction of affordable housing facilities where housing related programs are provided or evaluation and treatment centers. Now, moving on to the proposed ordinance in front of you, it would impose a housing sales tax named the health through housing tax. Many of the provisions in the state code are reiterated in the proposed ordinance, so I'll not review those that I have discussed previously, but that it would prioritize those whose income does not exceed 30% ami of King County and who are in the population groups I described previously. Additionally, proceeds will be allocated with the objective of reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality among those experiencing chronic homelessness. The specification of 30% AMI and the objectives that I just mentioned are set forth in the proposed ordinance for the not required by state statute. The proposed ordinance would also provide the county with the authority to issue bonds and use up to 50% of the moneys collected for a repayment of those bonds. The executive has indicated through the biennial budget proposal an intent to develop a bond package for 400 million over the next biennium. Moving on to some timing considerations. State law requires that a local sales and use tax change may take effect no sooner than 75 days after the Department of Revenue receives notice of those changes. Executive staff indicate that final passage by council is sufficient to notify the department. Additionally, collection can only begin on the first day of January, April or July of any given year. Table two on page 16 reveals various scenarios for council passage. If Council passes legislation by October 17. Collections could begin in January of 2021. Alternatively, if council passes legislation by January 15th, collections would be in an April. I included revenue estimates for each collection date, but I would note that these estimates assume county action before any cities impose the tax. So it's slightly outdated as of last night. I want to touch briefly on the executive's proposal for these funds in the biennial budget, though these would not be decided in this legislation but rather in budget deliberations. The executive proposes the following distribution with the health or housing allocation across various appropriation units behavioral health at 8.7 million housing and community development with 446.7 million. That's the bonded revenue, plus an additional 46,000,000.7 million. The Healthier Housing Fund 96.7 million. And the Debt Service Fund 36.9 million. Not up for discussion today, but relevant to the conversation is proposed ordinance 2020 0338, which would require the executive to transmit a proposed initial health through housing implementation plan by next June 30th for approval by Council . This proposed ordinance details specific items to be included in the plan and is a mandatory tool for all that has been referred to both the Committee of the Whole and Regional Policy Committee. That brings me to the end of the week on this item. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to jump right into briefing 0319 or I can take a pause for this item and brief that that after the fact. And there are amendments. Why don't you go ahead and brief? 319. I think that'll be quick and won't add any questions. Perfect. So item eight begins on page 19 of your packet and its proposed ordinance 2020 0319, which would establish the health through housing fund and add a new chapter to King County Code. Chapter four A to codify the fund creation is ordinance only needs to be adopted if the Council adopts legislation to impose the housing sales tax . The Department of Community and Human Services would serve as the manager of the fund and proceeds would be spent in accordance with the authorizing state statute. Additional direction on allocations of these moneys would be through proposed ordinance on 33037 imposing the sales tax as well as proposed ordinance 2020 0338 directing the creation of the implementation plan and Loeffler floor and Mark Brooke are both on the line to take questions. Thank you, April, for briefing both ordinances 2023, three, eight and 319 colleagues. Other questions about the briefing. You be. Seeing no questions. I call on Councilmember Balducci to move adoption of 338. 0337 Mr. Chair. 337. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, of adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2020 337 with a good pass recommendation. Thank you, Councilmember Bell. She has moved adoption of Ordinance 2020 337 with a deposit recommendation. Thank you, Councilmember, for making that motion. I'll ask if there are any amendments, I guess, before we move to speeches on the ordinance as introduced. Councilmember Lambert. You. So far. And I asked this before, but I asked if there's any chance that this will go on for ten years, 20 years, 30 years. And what would be the cost to each citizen? Average cost that 60%. Median income, 80%. 100% median income. So we know what this costs, the people who will be paying for it. Sure. So this is an ongoing tax council member. So there's not a sunset date in it. And as far as the expected cost for each individual and it vary greatly, I can try to ask the wife about possible per per individual costs. And then I'd follow up with you offline. That would be great. Thank you. Dombrowski. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I distributed two possible amendments for the purpose of surfacing them, but I am just by way of background. Maybe Kendall Moore would need to advise on this, but the ordinance here makes a couple of appall, I think makes at least it makes two policy calls. One is under the state statute, I think these funds are restricted to 0 to 60% ammo. We we're deciding here today to limit it to 0 to 30. I want to say I support going into that space. Our regional affordable housing plan said we should use public resources to fill the 0 to 50% niche as much as possible because that's that's where there's, you know, the deepest need. And we thought we could do the most good. And I think there's 44,000 units of need there. We're going even deeper here with the 0 to 30. So I'm not objecting at all to the to the policy. I just you know, we have a regional policy committee. And to the extent this is a making a regional policy, it may be the safer place since we're going to be asking bond counsel to issue an opinion letter on this, to issue 400 plus million dollars of debt would be to make sure we're being very true to our our processes with respect to referral to the regional committee. So I had an amendment that would read the intent was, although I don't think it's quite there was to make sure we're just true to the statute in the in the ordinance that adopts the tax and we don't have any problem. I don't from a policy perspective, I will say again, I think that it's right with respect to the Executive's proposal to prioritize the 0 to 3. I know there's some issues around that, but that's where I am on that. The other amendment I, I want to again, I think it's probably more appropriate over in the implementation plan, but the statute has this 60,000 city population provision where it says in those cities the county will spend not we don't turn the money over to the cities, but the county will spend 30% of the funds raised in those jurisdictions, in those jurisdictions. I think maybe all of us except Councilman Rocco Health and Councilmember Rizal, I have cities in whole or in part that are under that. The North End is a collection of cities less than 60,000. And they, in my discussions with them, want to be a regional team player and everything and have looked at adopting the tax like some cities are doing, that they would rather partner with the county but have some return on the money raised in their cities to help house folks and provide housing in the communities. So my my Second Amendment let me it's the First Amendment, but maybe I'll call it the second councilmember. Lambert You might like that better. Councilmember Dunn two Anyway, sorry. The amendment would say, hey, if it's, if cities want to or more want to get together such that their population would exceed 60,000 to for the purposes of partnering to provide these services and housing in the community that we would spend that 30% we treat them like a 60,000 population city. And I, I think, you know, one, it's kind of a regional distribution of fairness. Issue two, there's needs. Countywide three, I think it will force us to not, frankly, go provide all of this housing in a very few communities. And we'll kind of share the share the benefits and the burdens, if you will. So I don't know that any cities would would do it. It doesn't dilute the county's big picture spending in any way or anything else, but it says, hey, let's let's provide resources. County, county wide. I think it probably needs some more discussion and dialog. So I don't intend to offer it today. And again, I'm not sure this is even the right vehicle under our rules, but I want to service it with you all, let you know because this is moving so quickly and you're seeing that by cities adopting some of the tax locally. But maybe there's an opportunity to strengthen the regional partnership here, but giving a little more another path for some of our smaller cities to come together and be participants. So I want to surface those to you today. I will say, well, I have the floor, so maybe I can just speak once, Mr. Chair, that I'm very supportive of this initiative I introduced in 2017, the 10th of a penny sales tax under the statute when it took the voters approval, it wasn't just council magic then. So I really do. Even though this is a regressive tax, I think that it's the right thing to do and we adopted it then. We have been collecting revenues for three years and be well on our way. But. It. It really could if if it works out, if we were able to bring on 2000 units, make a real dent in the 4500 to 6500, depending on which number you look at after the third door coalition's identified need. And I like, I like the acquisition notion. I know we have to go down to Olympia and get a change there. At least I think we do because it shrinks the time from four or five years to design and permit and construct the unit down to something a lot less. The costs are lower. They could be half as much as the $450,000 a unit that we pay for permanent supportive housing today. So I like the notion a lot have been pushing all year to use Cares Act money to acquire hotels. So I think that could be good in my district. I want to say, you know, these aren't easy. We are supporting the city of shoreline and they can get a housing authority to acquire a care facility with a little over 60 rooms to bring on shelter service, but in a permanent and supportive way with Lake City Partners . So I'm pretty excited about this because I think it can make a big dent in it. But I'm going to ask my colleagues to take a look. Even if you don't have a lot of little cities, you might have a smaller city that would like to partner with one of your bigger cities and do that. So I wanted to service that. I appreciate you giving me the chance to do that today, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to supporting this legislation. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski. And as the sponsor of this legislation before us today, I share your excitement for the opportunity it presents to us. It truly gives us the opportunity to address chronic homelessness, people experiencing chronic homelessness, and move them into not only housing, but supportive housing in ways that we don't have the resources identified elsewhere to do. And I agree that the sales tax is not a progressive tax form. But the most regressive thing about the conversation we're having today is 4500 to over 6000 people living in chronic homelessness on the streets of our communities throughout King County. That's the most regressive thing we will consider all day. And the progressive response is to move them into housing with the support they need to be successful in doing that. The plan brought before us from the executive and as introduced, would allow us to bond against the sales tax for about $400 million in the first year and be able to take care, take advantage of market conditions to buy single room occupancy style housing, be it motels or nursing homes. Given the current market conditions offered for sale and particularly affordable and gives us the ability to strike fast, to move fast with a sense of urgency and nimbleness that we have lacked, frankly, in our response to chronic homelessness. Since the emergency for Homelessness was declared in November 2015 by the then mayor of Seattle and the county executive. This gives us the opportunity to respond and invest. And in one count of those who are chronically homelessness, there's a particular need, I think, to cite and be aware of the disproportionality that we'd be addressing because of that population. Fully 23% are Native American or Alaska Natives, and 12% are black or African American. The disproportionality within homelessness in general, but particularly within this chronic homelessness population, is critical, and this is a key opportunity for us to have a coordinated response and address moving people into home housing in which they can be successful . Other discussion questions. Debate. Colleagues. Councilmember Dombrowski. I'll just jump in I think because some folks may be looking at in the executive prepared a helpful infographic summarizing the proposal and I just want to know they did not I think by accident missed in these authorized populations veterans. But your legislation as introduced, Mr. Chair, does include all of the groups in the statute, including veterans. Very much. Very much so, yes. Having no further discussion. I asked the clerk to please call the roll. And. Q Mr. Chair, Councilmember Pelosi, I. Councilmember Dombrowski. I. Councilmember done. Councilmember Caldwell's. Councilmember Lambert No. Councilmember Autograph. Councilmember one right there. I. Council members online. By. Mr. Chair. I count council member Dundas and I. Mr. Chair, the vote is eight eyes. Council member Lambert wants no. Thank you. By your vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 337, and we will expedite that to full council a week from today. That takes us to. Ms.. Sanders is it pardon me? 0319 Which is the fun creation ordinance. In ordinance 2020 319. Councilmember Belushi. A move adoption of the Duke's recommendation. Council Member LDC has moved adoption of Motion Ordinance 2020 319 with the Duke Pass recommendation. This creates the fund both through housing. Seen no discussion. Wait, can we have a clarification? These two are coming fast. Mr. Chair, I just want to. Hear a summarization of what this one is. Of course, Ms.. Sanders. Or so this proposed ordinance would create the health through housing funds. That's where the money would be deposited or after collections of the sales tax. So you'll see the healthier housing fund in the proposed biennial budget. And this it actually adds it to code as a fund. Further questions. Madam Clerk, if you please, call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember. Thank you. I. Councilmember Domanski. I. Councilmember Dunn. I. Council member Coles. Councilmember Lambert. Council member of the girl. I. Councilmember Vaughn. Mike, there were five. Council members online. Hi. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is 990 now. By. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 319. We'll send it to full council, will expedite it to next week's agenda. And given we have the previous motion, we will not put this one on consent. Pardon me. Council member Belushi. You're a mute councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask the court to send me on as a co-sponsor on both of those last few ordinances. Please. Me too. I will do that for both of you. Thank you. Thank you both. That takes us to item. Nine and my Mr. you can add DEMBOSKY on the tax one. Well, they. The chair will happily pause for anybody else. All right. The next item for discussion in possible action is a motion that would improve the Metro Safety Plan structure. I'm so sorry to interrupt, but I would like to be added on to the 20319. To define the creation. Yes. And on that one. I'm sorry. Oh, 337. Miss Stedman. I have that added Council member Caldwell's 203 37 So here's what if you don't mind me just reiterating what I have, please do. Okay, three seven. I have council members. DEMBOSKY saw her line folded. She and Caldwell signing on. 403198 have council members song I don't do Chee. That's all I happen. Hopefully there were no additions. And I see no other movement. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I believe I was a co-sponsor of both of those originally. Is that correct? Can I confirm that the declare. That you are a co-sponsor for 0337 council member of the Grove. You are not currently a co-sponsor for 0319. I'll feel free to add my name. What the heck. Thanks. I won't do that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again. My pleasure. Member. All right. Now we'll. Our next item is discussion and possible action on a motion that would approve the Metro's safety plan in accordance with the Federal Transit Administration regulations. Mary Bergen on council staff is here to provide the South report.

Recommendation to receive and file a report from City Manager on the status of the citywide coordinated effort around the prevention and enforcement of illegal fireworks in Long Beach before and after the 4th of July holiday.

LongBeachCC_05172016_16-0436

Communication. Excuse. Excuse me. Was was item eight pulled? It was not. Was not. Thank you. Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilman Price, Councilmember Odinga and Councilmember Austin recommendation to receive and file a report on the prevention and enforcement of illegal fireworks in Long Beach. Council Member Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We're about six weeks out from the 4th of July. And as we know, the amount of illegal fireworks in our neighborhoods seem to be at record levels last year. I know that many of our council offices and the mayor's offices received complaints from social media and through our offices. I know that there have been a number of measures taken by a number of us, both council members and city departments. So my hope is that we we receive an update tonight and also have a better understanding on what our proactive approach will be heading into the 4th of July and any changes or updates that we might that might be taking place this year that we can help to educate or make aware to our our our constituents. So at that, at this point, I'd like to just hear from hear from city staff. Okay. Can yes. Vice mayor council members will have a report representing the police department in the fire department, representing the fire department as our lifeguard chief, Gonzalo Medina. Representing the police department is Deputy Chief Rich Rocky. And they'll follow off a report that was sent to the city council later on this later this afternoon. So rich or Gonzalo? Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members. Good evening, Vice, by our council members. As in previous years, the fire department will coordinate with, coordinate public service announcements, press releases, and utilize the distribution of educational materials, communicating that all fireworks are dangerous and illegal in the city of Long Beach. This message will be communicated through a variety of media, including social media, television, electronic signage and the posting of fliers, banners and posters in the highly visible locations. Educational information will also be shared and distributed in Long Beach schools, and our CERT team or Community Emergency Response Team made up of volunteers will help distribute this information as well. Relating to that, all fireworks are legal in Long Beach. Additionally, this year, the fire department will speak at community meetings and events such as concerts in the park about the illegality and the dangers of fireworks. The fire department will have its full staff of four arson investigators out through July 2nd and fourth in tandem with our police department and. And I'm open for questions, sir. Thank you. So just one quick question and then I want to hear from our colleagues, because I know there's significant interest and I know that a number of council members have let me know that they're already doing work on this. So, number one, I'd like to have a better understanding on what our fine structure is and whether we we've actually handed out fines in recent years and whether we plan to, you know, educate people on what that fine what that what that fine structure is moving forward. That would be my only question at this point then. And then I'm finished. Honorable Vice Mayor, members of city council. Yes. So the fine structure is something that is capped and it's capped at $1,000. And that is something that is governed by the California government code and cannot be changed by local government. As far as our citations, we do write citations each year for the use illegal use of fireworks, both illegal fireworks and safe and sane fireworks. And last year, in 2015, although these numbers may not seem like they're a lot, they seem quite low. We wrote 50 citations during the 4th of July holiday season with six arrests, so a total of 56 the year prior in 2014. Those citations were 65, with four arrests for a total of 49. And then in 2013 was our lowest out of the three years, with seven arrests, 42 citations, and with a total of 49. I would like to point out that in addition to the sites that are written, the police and fire department last year collectively confiscated £650 of illegal fireworks and £60 of safe and sane fireworks. So that is something that we do work together collectively to continue to impact our illegal fireworks within the city. Don't remember your anger. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. Every year it seems that we're getting worse and worse. It's like sounds like a war zone out there. I represent to the west now each area and it seems like the West Palm Beach area gets the has a high incidence of these types of activities . One of the questions that I have is and it's my understanding that the police department might be called out to a site where activity is taking place. But once they get there, the perpetrators are either move away or go inside or remove themselves from that activity. And and the police department is held with with not being able to do anything because they didn't see anything. Is is there any kind of additional rule or ordinance, law, whatever that can that can be held against these individuals, even though they might not be caught in the act? But there might be evidence that fireworks activity was taking place that would serve enough as evidence to confiscate the fireworks or to give a citation. Councilmember Younger. Yes. As far as enforcing the laws, you are correct. It's very difficult for us to identify and end up citing those who do light off illegal fireworks, because the law requires that our officers witness the person who is actually lighting the firework and then being able to cite that person if they don't run from us prior to us being able to detain them. Most of these occur at night, again and in groups again, making it difficult for for officers. However, witnesses who do see people lighting off fireworks and want to be involved can call the police and can identify those who are lighting off that firework and place them under a private person's arrest. They would be required to fill out that private person's arrest form, and then we could cite that person who lit up that firework if they are still there when when the police arrive. And we could give them a cite based off the private person arrest form and the observations of the citizen. Anything short of that? It's very difficult for us to do any enforcement action unless someone wants to be involved and be that witness. With these forms, be something that can be acquired ahead of time. Or can a citizen fill it out right at that right at that point with an officer present at that point right there. What's what what would be the procedure on doing such a such an activity? Councilman, during a we do keep those forms with our police officers. There is a process with that form that our officer does have to read the person and admonition and then they sign that private person's arrest form. But all our officers in the field do have that form with them and will present them to the citizen at the time they contact them for that private person's arrest form if they so choose to do that. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you very much. I want to thank Councilman Richardson for bringing this important discussion forward. We all know, and as he stated, that the 4th of July holiday is is right around the corner. And we need to have a good functioning coordination among our multiple departments if we're going to have any sort of impact on the use of illegal fireworks. After numerous complaints to the city and council offices as well as the mayor's office. Last year, the Public Safety Committee actually took this item up for discussion and requested that the fireworks steering committee reconvene. In past years, the city led an effort to inform the public on the dangers of fireworks and fire that and informing them that fireworks are illegal in the city of Long Beach. Fireworks Steering Committee met on a regular basis beginning in the month of March through the 4th of July holiday, in an effort to be proactive with fireworks, education and enforcement. A number of city departments participated in the committee, including City Council, Harbor, Public Works, Fire Police and Special Events and filming. The committee was responsible for such tasks as creating public service announcements and videos, press releases, distributing multilingual fliers, posting banners and signs, electronic messages, public education in schools, and notifying block party permit holders that fireworks are illegal. This year, the fireworks steering committee held its first meeting on April 20th, which my office participated in. It is my understanding that Fire and Police Department are working on a list of proactive measures that we can take. We've discussed some of those tonight to curb the use of illegal fireworks in the city. There is going to be a cost associated with this. And I don't know if either of the representatives are in a position to give us an estimate of what that cost will be. But I know that last year the outreach efforts were funded at a much lower level than prior years. So I want to make sure that we're not setting up our police and fire departments to fail by asking them to do public outreach without giving them the resources that they need to do it right. It was a significant issue last year. It always is. But it seemed that last year as as Councilman Turanga said, it's it's almost like a war zone. And that's the reports we heard from a lot of people because of the the volume and the magnitude of the fireworks that were being being used. So if you have any information about the budget, what you think it might require of you, and then perhaps the city manager can let us know whether there's any sort of funding source available for this, since this is a one time expenditure that, you know, we want to be able to fund it an accurate, adequate level. Councilwoman Pryce We do not have a funding number yet. We are in the process of putting together our operational plan for this year's firework strategies, and I'll talk a little bit about what those are, since that was one of the questions in your comment. And the police department is in the planning process, the fireworks enforcement for this year, beginning in early June. Some of our strategies include uniformed and plainclothes officers working in the areas of high complaints and activity impacting the supply chain. As we discover illegal sales of fireworks in our city and surrounding areas, participation of the city's firework committee to coordinate a joint education campaign which fire alluded to notifying our community of the dangers of fireworks and the enforcement of those who break the law. And within the next few weeks, our city team will push out a city police department and fire department. Joint media release use of social media to get the word out, distribution of informational information to our businesses, association stakeholders, etc. So this is truly a collaborative effort on the police and fire side for the enforcement and the city family for the education piece. May I make one recommendation that's relatively low in cost and I think it can have a huge impact. And that would be working with Long Beach Unified School District to get a flier in every middle school and high schoolers backpack meet, citing the fact that it's illegal and enumerating the penalties that are associated with a violation and then asking the superintendent if Long Beach Unified will do a robocall about it to all the parents and also send out an email blast in advance of the 4th of July holiday. I think that if children are advised that this conduct is illegal, hopefully they will remind their parents who are tempted to violate the law. And if if nothing else, the parents, knowing that the children are advised that this is illegal, might curb their behavior and that that may have a little bit of an impact in terms of outreach. We have a lot of youth who do not know that fireworks are illegal in Long Beach because some nearby cities allow fireworks. And a lot of those, those high school students are reaching adult age soon and probably experimenting with some of these entertainment options on the 4th of July. So that that would be a very low cost, I think, outreach measure. Yes. We'll include that in our outreach strategy. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Yes. Thank you for the report. Our side of town is unusually high impact as we border one of those wonderful cities who puts firework stands literally facing the city of Long Beach, asking our residents to be wooed in to purchase fireworks from their nonprofits. So when you say highly visible, will there be a concentration of these on the border? So as people are leaving our city to go buy these fireworks and spend their money in another city that they will see said materials, and then as crossing back into our city again, realize that they are not only illegal, but dangerous especially . I know that Councilman Price and I both experienced high volumes of drilled piccolo pits, which do sound like bombs and shoot into the air and perhaps again surrounding the unincorporated area as people go from unincorporated to the city. Because I know there's some challenges in that. Literally one house is legal to do a firework and the next house on the same street in my office adjacent to my district is illegal, so I'm highly visible. I would hope that we do a lot of border and unincorporated adjacent signage, and if there's help that's needed in that area, my office would be thrilled to send out interns to place them on posts as if they are lost cat signs wherever we can. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. And I just wanted to add from the second district standpoint, it is probably the greatest number of calls that we've received this past year. You've heard this from other council members, so I'm not sure what exactly is different from all the other years, but I share the concerns that each of the council members who've spoken have shared and do believe that this is extremely critical. Whether residents know or don't know whether these whether fireworks is illegal in the city almost it seemed irrelevant this last year because I cannot imagine that many people do not know that it's not legal in this city. So I think there's a mixture of things going on. I appreciate your your persistence in this issue and the councilmembers who sponsored this item. Councilmember Richardson, thank you very much. And is there any public comment? Good evening, everyone. My name is Karen Retherford and I reside at the corner seventh and Pacific Avenue. I'm in one of those areas that's heavily impacted by the use of illegal fireworks. We're a senior building and there's a number in that area. There's a persistent group of people on Eighth Street between Pacific and Chestnut and the week before the 4th of July. It is indeed like a war zone in our particular neighborhood. I want to offer I'm on the 17th floor of the building. If we could put a camera on there and capture one of the issues is when the police come, they turn on the sirens. So as soon as they hear the sirens, they shut down and they leave. And they operate primarily with the illegal fireworks. I wouldn't be surprised, but they were selling to others within the community. This has been an ongoing problem over the last year and a half. And I know a number of our residents have placed phone calls to the police department about this, and they just can't seem to catch these guys. I have seen a gentleman standing outside and immediately following there are blasts and I'm willing to do whatever I can do to stop this. And they have my respect of ours and they have no respect of time. They not only operate around the 4th of July, they operate on a year round basis, and sometimes they set off fireworks at three in the morning. I've been awakened three or four with little blasts, and now we have flash bombs going off and people think that there meth lab explosions going on in our neighborhood. So this is an issue that I know we're willing to help however we can in terms of observation recording to get this problem resolved. Thank you. Uh, my name is William Napier, Honorable City Council and Mayor. I'm concerned about. Some fireworks around the Jergens. Building land tunnel. And the deal is if the City of Long Beach destroys Jergens Tunnel, the tunnel that made Long Beach famous, the tunnel that gave Long Beach its soul, the tunnel that everyone went through to get to the real Pike Fun Zone. What will be next? I say it will be our wetlands. Overdevelopment seems to be on our city's agenda and overpopulation seems to be on our nation's agenda. Thank you very much. And I love fireworks, but we'll let you make that decision. Hi. My name is Miranda Misek and I live along the riverbed in one of those tucked away neighborhoods. And I don't think that people aren't aware so much that it's not illegal, although the efforts of making children kind of help encourage parents to do the right thing, I think is a great idea. I'm wondering if there's been any effort in trying to work with adjacent cities to maybe when people purchase fireworks from other cities, show maybe a driver's license or something that shows the city they live in or to help kind of with the enforcement of our laws or maybe enact laws in their cities to not have fireworks. And also, I am wondering if maybe we can't help officers be eyes and ears and maybe equip those that have the authority to write citations, you know, like people that enforce parking tickets and things like that, maybe on that one night be, you know, a bigger force out in that community. Because I know that the minute the police car shows up, they all scatter, you know, so maybe if there is a way to, like, have people that aren't in uniform or people that aren't usually in uniform, just kind of patrol neighborhoods. My partner and I, we sometimes patrol our neighborhood and try to get our neighbors involved and, you know, help officers that way. Because I know you can't be everywhere and I know you do your best. But I don't think that. It's hard to spot them. I mean, they're they're very obvious when they have block parties in there. It's there. So I think that we need to get those citation numbers up, because if I got a $400 ticket or something, I sure would think twice about doing it the next year. So if there's anything we can do and if there's any kind of movement in the direction of helping other cities get involved, I think that'll be a bigger bang for your efforts. Thank you. Thank you. Tom Stout. This is a huge problem. And Wrigley, Stu, your anger is totally right on this prior to a week before. These are not just illegal fireworks. These are explosive devices. It shakes my whole house. Animals are screaming. What are their children doing? I mean, I don't know exactly how, but around between 31st and 32nd on Cedar, that's the direction these devices are going off. And I mean, they're I mean, it shakes my whole house. So everybody's being affected, you know, safe and saying, I don't know there is saying as some of the idiots that use them so you know that's debatable. But you know, I grew up with firecrackers and manatees. That was the device for sort of opening up toilets in high schools at one time. And these things would destroy the whole bathroom. I don't know what they are, but I know people do also fill up balloons with propane and they're in a hell of an explosive device and you let it go and a fuze burns into it. And I mean, it's devastating. I never tried that one, but I I've seen a lot of people when I go to Lakewood do it. So, hey, I hope you can do it. I know it's difficult. I mean, it is you know, they're like rats. As soon as the lights come on, they gone. And soon as you go away, they're back. And this goes on the whole night. I mean, these are not fireworks. Like I said, they're destructive devices. So hopefully you can do something because through the last two years, it's gotten out of control. I guess we all had to buy earplugs. Is there any other public comment on item 11? I will take you back behind the rail. Councilwoman Mongo. Perhaps this is a question for our CIO. You know, we have to go Long Beach up. Would it be possible for neighbors to document where the fireworks are coming from in the weeks leading up to 4th of July, utilizing the go along, each of which has the geocoding? Right now, you can code if someone leaves animal defecation or dumping. Could we get a new drop down, which is called illegal fireworks, so that we'd be able to at least start documenting which houses these fireworks are coming from to prepare the police for 4th of July. Brian Sestak is. Councilmember Mongo. Yes, that's something we can look into performing probably very similar to that coyote sighting application of how we took that along and added that as well. So we could we could look into that. I think that would be really helpful. I think that at least in my neighborhood, it's the same houses every year. And if on my evening walk I could just tag the house and let PD know who it is and what they're doing. I think a lot of neighbors could get involved in that, especially if we, as the council, put that on our Twitters and our Facebook and show it in our newsletters that neighbors can do this. I think it'll give PD a head start on on the issue and hopefully people will be more cognizant. Mr. Stokers, hold on 1/2. I do have a follow up question, but I wanted to ask our Deputy Chief, Rich Rocky. If that were to be the case, would that qualify as some form of evidence for a citizen complaint? They go? Long Beach. Complaint. Maybe that's a city attorney question. It would be with photo geo coded. It would certainly be evidence that could be included in the report, whether would be sufficient evidence to either issue a citation or to be prosecuted. Would it be fact specific? But would you be able to, if we're able to add that category, be able to look into that? Because I think what we're hearing is this is a numbers game, right? Folks who want to engage in this activity will always outnumber police officers. It's just the way it is. And so what we don't want is to leave residents with this feeling that they're there's much of it that cannot be helped. So here we're making a very concerted effort to do what we can. But given the nature of how information is captured and transmitted today, I'm hoping that there is some advancement that we can utilize or tap into. So perhaps the citizens complaint could at least be recorded. We could certainly talk to the city prosecutor in the police department about that. Yes. Okay. I would appreciate that. And Mr. Sisto, because I wanted to ask you, considering Miss Mango brought Councilwoman Mango brought up the Go Along Beach app. Is there a mechanism that you have in place or perhaps city manager? Is there a mechanism you have in place to receive requests from council members to add categories to our GO application? And is that something that the office is openly accepting? Yes. Yes. What? We're open to looking at any new categories that you wish to have on there with the understanding that it's within the direction from the council. Sure. So an individual council member may have requests such as coyotes are not necessarily endemic throughout the city of Long Beach, and it might be just be specific to a couple of council districts. So I hope that we're not looking to council agreement for small minutia and for this I look to the city manager's office. Yeah. So, Vice Mayor, I can add a little bit here. We get requests all the time from either councilmembers or members of the public or departments for adding to our go Long Beach. And we look at each and every one of those and see, does it make sense to go on the platform? Can candidates connect to one of our existing systems, which is important too? Is that the goal? Long Beach needs to be able to feed into something we already do. So we look at each one of those and then make decisions. Can it be on the platform or can it not? Great. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you both. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank everybody for their thoughtful questions. I have a couple regarding as a follow up to you. Deputy Chief Rocky, you outline the number of citations given out over the last three years. What is that compared to in terms of the calls for service or complaints that you actually receive? Do you have numbers? That can kind of give us a picture? Councilmember Eisen Yes, I do have and. This is just for the 4th of July itself, not during the entire week. If just for the day of the fourth. Four calls for service. Yes. So for July 4th of 2014, we received 550 pyro or heard pyro calls, which means firework type calls. Some of those may have been witnessed by the calling party, and many of them are heard only. So that, of course, if we if it's heard only, we had sent a police officer into the area to see if we can locate it. Many times we do not. Or we may see the evidence of fireworks that have been lit and the person has abandoned the area. In 2015, we received 635 calls for service under those same call class. And that is just for one day. It doesn't spend the entire week, correct? That is just for the day. 4th of July, the 24 hour period. So based on that, you guys are responding or actually writing citations for it would be based on that. But less than 10% of the actual calls that you receive, correct? Yes, sir. It's very small amount and some of those we may not respond to. It may be just what we call a district carjack, depending on the information from the calling party and if we can locate the area of where these are being lit up. So on the 4th of July itself, and I know we think I know the answer to this question, but I'm asking for the benefit of the public as well. What does our staffing model look like compared to any other day, a regular day? Our staffing model in the 4th of July is all police department officers work that day. The only officers that do not work are officers that are on a regularly scheduled day off on a scheduled vacation. All others are to work. There is no holidays, there's no overtime days, and there's no training allowed during that day. And the the role of the officers who are staff there, then all of them aren't responding to calls, obviously. Correct. They're not all responding to firework calls they're doing. We have different models out that day. We do have our regular calls for service units out in the field that are max deployment that year and or that day in each division. We also have a comprehensive action operation plan that we do for the city, especially along the coast, where we have the largest influx of people visiting our city and our community members attending to see firework shows and be at the beach and enjoy what the city has to offer. So in those areas where we have that large influx, we have officers specifically assigned to to those areas to provide public safety and enforce our laws. Okay. So I think I think I want to hit on some of the points that there were already made. And I've brought this up before because I'm challenged and I know our police department is challenged to enforce this this this ordinance that we actually have that all fireworks are illegal. Particularly when every border and city in Long Beach or around the city of Long Beach actually legalizes suppressing fireworks. Right. And so we have I've heard plenty this evening about illegal fireworks, Long Beach. All fireworks are legal in Long Beach, whether they go boom, whether they go up in the air or whether they are just ground flowers that are that are relatively harmless. I personally think we need to revisit our policy on on fireworks period, because I think. That if we go within a blanket illegal approach, we will probably open ourselves up to a market where the more egregious fireworks are going to be more accessible and more proliferated throughout our city. And so thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for bringing this forward. I think this has been a very thoughtful conversation. Council member. I think it's important to point out, in addition to our enforcement of fireworks, our mission is to deter and enforce laws related to public consumption of alcohol, public intoxication, driving under the influence, unruly parties, dangerous and illegal barbecues, use of illegal fireworks, which we've been talking about traffic and enforcement violations and complaints, managing pedestrian vehicular traffic flows, handling a high volume of calls for service in addition to managing our large crowds. So I wanted to point that out because fireworks is very important, but there are so many things that we are faced with during the 4th of July, and these were just to name a few. Councilmember or not. Thank you. And this we cover this topic. At a public safety committee meeting many months ago. And I believe with that meeting, I brought up the point that my constituents were complaining as far as 30 days ahead of time. So let's let's not get started too late. Let's do it the earlier the better. So if we could target June 4th, that'd be great. Also, there are particular areas of my district, too, Deputy Chief Rocky, that would be beat 11 that has a lot of calls for illegal fireworks. And so if we could target certain areas, we'd be we'd just like to assist you in that, to get it out in our weekly newsletter or whatever it means we can. So thank you. Thank you. And seeing no further comment. Members, please cast your vote. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilwoman Price. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 12 Communication from Council Member Dunga Recommendation to direct the City Manager to identify potential funding sources for the acquisition of vacant property between Baker Street and Wardlow Road District seven.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 34740 with Utility Solutions Partners, LLC, of Rancho Cordova, CA, for managed services to provide maintenance and integration support related to the City of Long Beach’s utility systems, to amend and revise the annual contract amount to $2,428,852, with a five percent contingency in the amount of $121,443, for a revised annual contract amount not to exceed $2,550,295 in the first year, with a maximum increase of five percent annually, and extend the term of the contract to September 30, 2023, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07052022_22-0757

Item 32. Do you want 31 or 32? 32. 32 is a report from Technology Innovation Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute an amendment with Utility Solution Partners LLC related to the City of Long Beach Utility Systems to amend and revise the annual contract amount to 2.4 million, with a 5% contingency for a revised annual contract amount not to exceed 2.5 million and extend the term of the contract to September 30th, 2023, with the option to renew for additional one year periods at the discretion of the city manager citywide. Any public comment? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 32 and person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine. No. In person. Thank you again, Dave Chappelle. I'd just like to comment that I believe this is actually subject to a ballot measure that is going to go before the public. I didn't know that all these, uh, uh, customer service, uh, systems needed to be combined, uh, already at the state. Things like uh, kind of current laws are being being reversed. Thank you. Thank you for becoming. Inclusive of a comment cover, please. District one. Destructive. I disagree. I. District four. District by district six. I. District seven. I. District eight. My. District nine. The motion is carry. Thank you. We are going to do item 38, please.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Library Services Department and the Arts Council of Long Beach to establish a Youth Poet Laureate Program in Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_04162019_19-0354

Please cast your votes. Motion carries cane excited please. We'll go back to item number 12. Communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Pearce, Vice Mayor Andrews Councilmember your UNGA recommendation to request city manager to work with the Library Services Department and the Arts Council of Long Beach. To establish a youth poet. Laureate program in Long Beach. Well, when I envisioned doing this, I did this already. It would happen when we gave the poems. I promise no poems right now. This basically we thought about this, this idea a couple of years ago, but we waited to get the Michelle Obama library open and we brought it up a year ago. It was wait until after the main library's open. I think it's time that we start this program. Poet laureate programs, you know, 35 cities have them around the country. We have a national poet laureate program. We actually were visiting the keynote speaker at last year's Khj breakfast was the L.A. poet laureate, Luis Rodriguez. It's an amazing program that just lifts up literacy, lifts up art. And by starting with youth, we have a huge opportunity really to really formalize what's already happening in our community. And so so this recommendation and I've spoken with our library folks, I've spoken with the Arts Council. Griselda was here earlier. She sent an email. I think the clerk shared it with you. So this is an idea that I really want to see happen. I want to see a youth poet laureate program, you know, that that recognizes our youth, allows them to, you know, get showcased across the city for their art, be able to add that title to their resume as they grow up, potentially think about scholarships or stipends for them that helps them move and move them along. So I look forward to seeing what we can do with this idea. Thank you. Thank you. Vice managers. Echo to support a. Public comment on this. I just picked. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll go back to Councilman Pierce after the public comment. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. I live in Long Beach and my daughter's a poet, which means I drive her all over Los Angeles because they're more engaging. And her poetry at the age of ten took her to London, something I would never be able to afford myself. I'm a single mom also struggling. With where to live and, you know, working in Orange County. It's it's a big deal. But I want to let you know, this kid of mine, fifth grade was at the lowest and reading fluency the lowest. There was not a a slot. She could only get better. And with only three months of going to a nonprofit poetry Saturday class in L.A.. She passed the bar and exceeded reading fluency. So without further ado, I have the highlight of my daughter. Hi. I'm going to lower this a little bit. Let's give her a fresh three. Yeah, okay. Hi. My name is PHILIPPa. I'm in seventh grade and currently studying sustainable world studies. I don't know what the future holds for my generation or this planet with so many safe spaces lost. This poem I'm about to present reimagines Little The Little Mermaid in today's polluted waters. This poem is titled Mermaid Goddess. I shimmer like Hawaiian oceans speak every language of the sea. Lingua Heather. Sally Pavone. Tongue of salt and forgiveness. I've got gadgets and gizmos aplenty, sunken treasures of trumpets and pearls, a sacred coral necklace on the brink of extinction because of rising temperatures. I've got long, dark hair that goes past my shoulders, glows with sunkissed copper highlights. But remember. Mermaid hair don't care. Mermaids got bigger fish to fry. Mermaid goddesses know that climate change is real as our oceans spike a fever from the northeast Atlantic to the Western Pacific. Waves and worries increase kelp, forests dying, plankton poisoned, leaving nothing left to snack on. Don't underestimate bottom feeders for they are critical to life in the ocean. I've got who's it's and what is galore. 13 million tonnes of plastic cigaret. Butts polluting. Our waters shores blocking the airway of sea turtles bags 100 billion used per year. Choking our seals, whales and dolphins. Global warming gentrifying coral reefs no longer read like the tides of our demise. Mermaid goddesses don't care who you love as long as you're happy. Snails are well, starfish and starfish. All of them deserve to be loved. All of them endangered species. So much at stake with all that you take. My voice is 12 times stronger than the fake tan men who won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mermaid goddesses don't lock my children in abandoned caves of the depths of the ocean. So. Did you get the mermaids? Be careful when you ride the waves of the future. Remember your beauty on the inside. Your compassion for the climate. Hope for your home. Have no fear of death as rising sea levels become the new normal. Little ones use your voice. Keep our home healthy. I've got gadgets and gizmos. A penny I've got whose? It's a what? Galore. You want to think about? I've got 20. Who cares? Yes. No big deal. I want more. Are. Please don't call me Little Mermaid. I'm like Ariel. I would never give up my voice for a man. Thank you. Dan. Oh, that's. Great. That was amazing. Very. Gosh, you're so talented. And I wanted to first say that that is my absolute favorite. One of my favorite songs of all time, but still my favorite Disney song ever. Composer written from The Little Mermaid part of Your World. And you did a great riff on taking that piece and making it something completely different on your own, and that was really special. So thank you and took a lot of energy to not like burst out on the mic and join you. So thank you. That was that was that was really, really wonderful. Let me go back to the council and thank you for that. That was that was that was amazing. Councilman Justin, you want to add to that or keep going to. Just one more one more thing. So April 25th, we have a thing called Pop Up Town. It's all this poetry themed that the Michelle Obama Library 530 April 25th will love for you to come out because we're doing a open mic spoken word situation in honor of National Poetry Month. Thank you. And then the last thing I will say is that by partner with our libraries, there's actually a really unique opportunity for these poets to get published early, which is incredibly huge for their career, to be able to be published at a young age for their career. And. Yeah, been there. Done that. Right. How many. More? Absolutely. And and thank you so much, Mom. Great job with your daughter. Vice Mayor Andrews. I can't say any more. I just wish you would have came on earlier because most of the people are now asleep. But you are great, I tell you. Thank you so. Much. Yeah. We're going to we're going to get you to do that piece again. I'm going to think about it. But that's that's a that's a great that was a great piece counts over a period. That was amazing. It's so wonderful to see young artists writing and performing their poetry, and it takes me back like we talk about poetry so often. But I grew up going to these like, you know, late nights all age places where you would do spoken word and drum circles. And that was where I fell in love with music, really. And so you just took me back to how wonderful that spaces. And so thank you for that. I too am going to figure out a place for you to do that. Poetry. There's a song that I want to tell you about. It's called The World on Fire. Have you heard the song? World On Fire by Louis the child. ASH And you will love it if you're studying that, but it's very poetic. But it's about our globalization and our world being on fire and people not noticing. But it reminded me of your comments. We have the main library that's under construction right now. And so I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward, allowing me to sign on to it. Anything we can do to uplift literacy and to bring that into our libraries and our community centers are welcome. And I think that at the beginning of every meeting before we do our Pledge of Allegiance or after, we should have a little poem. I'm just saying, it would really change the mood of our meetings. Thank you, Councilmember Kotsenburg Ringa. It would certainly mellow us out. I want to thank Councilmember Rich to for bringing this forward. But more importantly, that was so wonderful. So beautiful. Could I have a copy of that? Hello. Lou. Can I have a copy of that? I serve. I serve on the council. Commission and everything that you brought out, there are topics that we deal with on a monthly basis about pollution, the garbage patch, clean your beach, beach cleaning. And I'd love for you to give it to me so I could share it with my with my commissioners and perhaps get an opportunity for you to visit us. And one of the places that were located up and down the coast and be able to recite it. Okay. Thank you very much. And the most important thing I like about that, it was bilingual. And thank you, ma'am, for keeping your bilingual and and you stay with it. Councilman Gonzalez. You're so inspiring. I'm supposed to we're all supposed to inspire you, and you're inspiring us, especially as a young Latina. It's very exciting to see you in this capacity. I could never imagine myself. I used to write poems to my parents as Christmas gifts because I didn't have any money, clearly. But this is a real gift for all of us. And I know that there's a lot of things that we're thinking about in terms of where you could speak your art. And I know, you know, Earth Day events. We have one coming up and I know you'll probably be pulled in a million different directions. But I just want to say keep your art, keep it going. And Amazing Daughter means amazing mother as well. And thank you, Councilmember Rex Richardson, for bringing this forward. This is one of the best items I think you've brought forward. Thank you. So with that being actually actually. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. We have to continue on our meeting, but thank you very much. Okay. We have the item. There's a motion in a second. We did have a comment, so please cast your votes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Great job. Excellent. And next up is item 13.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area assessment levy for the period of October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau for a one-year term. (Districts 1,2,4,5)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1112

Motion carries. Thank you. And our last hearing is 51. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to receive supporting documentation in the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution considering the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area Assessment Levy for the period of October one, 2020 through September 30th, 2021, districts one, two, four and five. Will introduce John Keisler, Economic Development. Director, to present the staff that will make this presentation. Thank you. Members of the mayor and members of the city council. I want to introduce Eric Romero, our business development program manager, to conduct the hearing. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. The Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area was established by the City Council in 2005, allowing for the levy of an annual assessment to be paid by hotels with greater than 30 rooms located in the tourism and business improvement area. The city contracts with the Convention and Visitors Bureau to manage the Tourism and Business Improvement Area and the Convention Visitors Bureau Board of Directors serves as advisory board to the City Council on matters related to the area. State law governing the district requires an annual report be approved by the City Council on September 2nd, 2020. The Advisory Board voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the 2020 2021 annual report. The annual report describes boundaries, proposed activities and budgetary information, as well as the method and basis for continuation of the assessment. The annual report proposes no change to the area boundaries or the method of living assessment. The proposed activities will focus on promoting and marketing Long Beach as a destination for tourists and conventions. To continue to levy the assessments. State law requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed program and assessment. At its October 30th, 2020 meeting, the City Council approved a resolution granting approval and or declaring the intention of the City. Council to levy. The assessment and set today as the date of public hearing. City Council should hear and consider all protests from hotel operators against the assessment program and boundaries of the area as proposed and report. This concludes my staff report. Thank you. Thank you. I have one public comment, I think, Madam Clerk. The ID in Colin. Okay. I have a motion, but councilman's in the house in a second by Councilmember Andrews will call the police. District one by district to. By District three. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. Next, we're going to do. I think I've got four items I've been requested to move up. I will do those four, and then we'll we'll do general public comment and then the rest of the agenda.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreements with various America’s Job Center of California (AJCC) Service Providers, in support of strategies that provide training and employment services to residents, for a total amount not to exceed $974,812; and to execute any needed subsequent amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02102015_15-0112

Motion carries seven zero. Item ten Item ten Report from Human Resources Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreements with various Americas Job Center of California in supports in support of strategies that provide training and employment services to residents for a total amount not to exceed 1970 4000 citywide. Is there motion to approve? Give us a motion in a second. Any public comment, Mr. Kerry? Yes. A quick follow up, given my earlier comments, I'm wondering whether or not to some of these funds can be reword this and directed toward those council people that yet do not know how to use a phone or computer or Skype since they will not be flying back to Washington, as I mentioned earlier, and increase your communication skills so you can communicate what your feelings are relative to the issues that will come before Congress. See if you can get some of that training. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Councilor Austin, you have a comment? Yes, I just had a couple of questions of a step. I see. There are a number of service providers that are that are called out in this grant to provide services. And the term term, the contract terms and the amount that they get. I'm just curious as to whether or not these these funds go to the companies or the service providers or will they actually go to provide jobs? Is this for staff to provide training for job training or it goes to actual jobs is for the service providers. Nick Shultz, the bureau manager of our. Workforce Investment Board, will handle that. Councilman Austin. Mr. Mayor, or members of council, to answer your question directly. These these funds in this matrix will go to these organizations that are listed in the Matrix. They will not necessarily go in the amounts as they're listed. We're using these amounts to increase our blanket purchase orders. These are these are federal training dollars. They have to be utilized with providers who make it onto a state endorsed employment and training provider list. These providers qualify under this list. They continue to meet performance and placement goals on this list. These funds are based on individual eligibility to select that provider, and we use this training as a capstone piece to employment. So we expect employment retention and increased earnings for the participant after their engagement with the training provider. Well, thank you for that clarification. And at some point, I would love to come over to the Pacific Gateway and learn more about the program. Would love to have you. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Motion carries six zero. Next item.

AN ORDINANCE granting Seattle Children’s Research Institute permission to construct, install, and maintain one set of private communication conduits under and across Terry Avenue, south of Virginia Street and north of Stewart Street; and one set of private communication conduits under and across the alley between Virginia Street and Stewart Street, north of 9th Avenue and south of Terry Avenue; for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_CB 119457

The Report on Sustainability in Transportation Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 119 457 Granting Seattle Children's Research Institute Permission to construct, install and maintain one set of private communications conduits. Committee recommends the bill pass. And thanks for filling in for Council Member Bryan Councilmember of Johnson Johnson. Briefly, this is the kind of usual term permit that we approve here at City Council, a tenure permit with two tenure options. If we were to act today, this would allow for Seattle Children's Research Institutes in the Denny Triangle neighborhood to create two new private communication conduits under Terri Avenue, south of Virginia Street, and north of Stuart Street and Stuart Street. And in the alley between Virginia Street and Stuart Street, north of Ninth Avenue. These will allow them to share data between research facilities on research related to cancer, lupus and other children's related diseases. In total, the term permits, I think, are in the neighborhood of about $9,000, which is generally our cost to recoup the staff time associated with processing these permits so they have an inflationary adjustment to them. So I think it's a couple of percent per year. And again, we use those resources from those permits to process the applications when they come in once every decade or so. So I can't answer many questions, but I don't anticipate there will be. Very good any questions or comments in that. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Suarez macheda i. So what. I. Think john gonzalez herbold johnson resident Harrell eight and favorite unopposed. Bill passed and sure sign it. Okay. Is there any further business coming for the council? I have a few things I have to do. So first I'd like to move to excuse Councilmember O'Brien from next Monday's meeting, which is February 25th. All those in favor say I. I suppose the ayes have it and then I need to move to be excused from on March 4th and March 11th. He comments? Depends on who's going to be your protest. Tell you in a minute. All those in favor of me being excused in March 4th and March 11th say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And Councilmember Juarez has ordered a much larger gavel than this little one. And she will be the president that that month. Thank you. With that, everyone, have a great rest of the day and we stand adjourned. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE granting Acorn Development LLC permission to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade utility lines for a site-specific heat conveyance system and other related utilities under and across Blanchard Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue, and 7th Avenue between Bell Street and Blanchard Street; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_CB 119227

Very good. Any further comments? Not those in. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the short title of the report for the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 13 Council 119227 Granting ACORN Development LLC permission to construct, maintain, operate below grade utility lines for a specific site, specific heat conveyance system and other related utilities committee recommends a bill passed. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So a current development is a development company owned by Amazon. So this this ordinance or granting is related to the properties adjacent to their campus where the spheres are. As folks may recall a couple of years ago when they started development on that project, they are to an agreement with the building across the street from the Western Building, which is hosts a bunch of computer facilities there or data warehouse. And the agreement was that they would capture the heat that is put off in the computers, heat, water, bring the water across the street to their facilities and use that waste heat from the computers to heat those buildings. That project has been moving forward very successfully. This ordinance today would allow them to expand across a couple of streets to future parcels they're planning to develop and use that same waste heat to heat additional buildings. Very good energy for the comments. That please call the role on the passage of the bill. Johnson I was mosquera I. O'Brien So aren't I. Begala Gonzalez. Herbold. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Nine opposed the bill passed in the Senate. That concludes our agenda for this afternoon. Is there any further business coming for the council councilmember Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. And just a quick follow up item I mentioned during council briefing today, and I mentioned it last Monday, we will have a series of activities for the community and council members to engage in from Monday through Friday next week to really honor Labor, recognizing its International Workers Day on May Day. And we will be having a series of events starting on Monday with our town hall at 630 at the Washington State Labor Council. Tuesday there's the annual march, which we will be joining in at 11 a.m.. There's also a book signing on the book Keep Marching, which will be down at Elliot Bay on Tuesday, May 1st as well. Thursday in our committee, we will have a feature from the University of Washington Labor Archives who will be giving an overview of labor standards, protections in the past and current, and an opportunity to hear from our own Office of Labor Standards about enforcement activities and issues on the horizon. Also, I really want to highlight this for our friends who are able to join us. We will have a showing of Dolores, the movie at El Centro de la Rosa. I hope everybody can join us. It will be a lot of fun on Thursday. May 3rd is going to be free starting at 630 and on Saturday we have our third Domestic Workers Community Listening Session, which will be at 10 a.m. Invite again all council members to attend that. And the last thing that we will be the King County Labor Council's conversation around affordable housing and building affordable housing, which we encourage folks to attend as well at the Labor Temple. So this information will all be on our website and I just wanted to encourage you all to come and please push out the information if you can. Thank you for those announcements. Is there any further business coming for the council? If not, we stand and journey. Everyone, have a great afternoon. Thanks.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use, and adopt resolution ordering the vacation of the remaining portion of Esther Street, located west of Judson Avenue. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1045

Hearing number one North required report from Public Works Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use and adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of the remaining portion of this third street, located west of Jackson Avenue. City District one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council are a malloy and will make the presentation on behalf of staff. Honorable mayor and City Council Member. This is just a very short staff report. There's a request to vacate a portion of a previously vacated street called Esther. That is between basically west of Judson Avenue and it's south of Pacific Coast Highway. This item has gone through a planning commission. The Planning Commission has approved it as is. We are here at this moment for your consideration and approve the staff recommendation is to approve this item. Any public comment on the item? See none. Members, please cast your votes. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Yes. Please cast your votes. Motion carries six zero. Next item. Okay. I know. I think the unfinished business. Well, you know, just, you know, the vote on the screen didn't really come out, so I'm not sure if I. Do you want to revote? Because the vote didn't have councilmen prices vote and a couple of them. I just want to say it was recorded correctly. Was it voted correctly? Well, we're going to take a revote on the last item just to make sure the votes were counted. Yes, you may recall. Okay. So council, please recapture votes. For the last hearing. Motion carry six zero. Okay. Excellent. Next item, please. Unfinished business item number ten.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Financial Management to waive, from March 1st, 2020 through March 31st, 2021, user fees and charges for the most vulnerable Long Beach, independent, full-service restaurants, with an emphasis on equity; and Request Director of Economic Development and other appropriate departments to develop a Long Beach Restaurant Retention Plan, designed to improve the economic survival of restaurants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic across Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_08182020_20-0799

Thank you. Now we move to item number 34. Item 34 is a communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilwoman Cindy has councilmen subpoena recommendation to request city manager to work with financial management to waive used user fees and charges for the most valuable Long Beach independent food service restaurants with an emphasis on equity and request. Director of Economic Development to develop a Long Beach restaurant retention plan. That's when Richardson Bank Vice Mayor. So a few things. So it's been an ongoing discussion on. Again with a few months back comprehensive really difficult to move forward. Most recently, I want to thank Councilman Supernova for continuing that discussion and having some discussions earlier this month about additional resource for restaurants. The idea here is that we want to sort of build on the two from four memo from city staff that we requested that looked at sort of breaking down the cost and give some direction on how we want to proceed on in the immediate term, but also take all of the larger conversations and package them into a restaurant retention strategy that can roll out over the months to come. And the goal with the retention strategy is really to set some benchmarks and goals. If we've heard rhetoric, about 50% of restaurants not surviving. We want to beat that. We want to increase that 60%, 70% survival rate. But that means we have to be intentional and focused. So the idea here with this motion we want to take, based on the 2.4 memo from staff, they identify what the cost would be. And we we see that the full service restaurant portion, the total cost was like 23 million bucks. But when you narrow down the full service restaurants, you're talking 2 million bucks, $2 million to address some of the health fees, bar fees and some of these other issues. And we want to narrow that down also. We want it to be local, independent. We're not talking about, let's say, a fast food chain. Right. We're talking full service, local, independent repair. That number down a bit. And that's the direction we want to give the staff. This should be we should be thinking about this in terms of we know that we offered some relief up until September 31st. We want this to be sort of at the go back, you know, from March. This past March to sort of into the next year. You want to add some type of relief in the program that Steph brings back? And so that's the idea here. We've got a lot of a lot of discussion, a lot of research already done. We want to give this discussion and also give some general direction on how we move forward more broadly around restaurants. Thank you so much. And that's my final thank you contribution. When you probably comment on this item. No public no public coming. By. Vice Mayor. I think we need a second. I'd like to see motion. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other council member comments on this? And I would just like. Sorry. I would just like to say that I'm really looking forward to this item. I think it's very important that we really focus on helping out our restaurants who are, of course, suffering a lot through this pandemic. It was already too much when they were closed for one month. But now we're going on six months. And it's they're struggling, especially the small business restaurants. And I think that that's this item is really designed to help those local that that have been struggling through this time and, you know, really emphasizing on helping them stay open after this pandemic. So, again, let's let's support our local businesses. Thank you. Pretty much any other councilman would like to speak on of. Vice Mayor, this is Tom. If I can say something when the council's done speaking. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor. Councilman Mungo? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. I appreciate that. This continues to be a focus. It's something that I feel strongly about and continue to work on. I think that it's important for us to maintain the focus on the criteria that was outlined two weeks ago. And so I just had a question for the maker of the motion. It talks in the agenda item about a couple of variations, but the item that was approved by the council two weeks ago talked about prioritizing any kinds of funds that could become available from. Either a fee waivers if there ends up being a limit or suspensions to be prioritized based on restaurant losses, based on either a mix of loss of revenue and on avoidable costs or just a gross loss of revenue. I just wanted to make sure that this item just mirrors the item of two weeks ago and that that is still being maintained or if I needed to make a friendly amendment to maintain that. Sure. I think what we want to bifurcate quickly, I think we're talking on the first part of this motion, just on the fees. I think we want to be just very clear on the criteria we outlined, which is full service restaurants, local, independent. I think. That's. Ongoing. Right. I get I get that. And what. I'm asking. Yes. I'm let me just finish the thought. And I think we're we're speaking past each other. I think what you're talking about is the ongoing incentives moving forward and that yeah, I think we can conclude that those sort of issues as we factor into the larger retention strategy. So I think the answer is yes as it relates to the sort of the broader strategy, because we haven't defined what those incentives would be. But we do know enough about sort of fee, the fire fee and those things. Some have paid we want to see those get some rebates and then we want we want to have that relief. So some who are paid get some rebates, some who haven't paid. We want to get them some relief. In terms of the fees that we talked about last time. We're talking about the same universe counseling other. Right. So it does exactly what we already did two weeks ago, which is. And. And if there is only enough. So are you or is your expectation that the study that Councilman Super Nine requested would also come back with. Um. Let me go back. My expectation and maybe this is the question from Mr. Modica, my expectation is that Councilmember Supernova's request, along with Councilwoman Price's friendly amendment, commuted those fees immediately and that we are hoping to give rebates and refunds. The report you provided quickly, which, by the way, city staff need a significant acclimation for being able to provide that report so quickly. And we appreciated receiving it last night. It is a wealth of information, but now we know that the number to be able to mitigate those full-service restaurants is just over $2 million. If every one of those categories are waive or refundable and that and my understanding of Councilmember Superstore's request would be that we find a place to get that money from. It's great to have a feasibility study, but it's only feasible if revenues can fill that hole because you can't just not pay the fire workers the fire service , and you can't not pay the the health service health office staff. Thank you. Councilman, do you have one minute, please? Mr. Monica. Yes. What we understand is what she passed two weeks ago was a feasibility study. I agree with the way you summarize it with one small change. We didn't go ahead and waive all fees during that time. It was a feasibility study. What we did in response was to bias. More time was to it was all going to be due August 30th. That was how long the council had given previously. And we and I've extended that to October 31st provided the Council doesn't have alternate direction on that. So that gives us some time to do the study that Mr. Zupan asked for and the council approved. And then what is in front of you tonight is is providing further direction on how to look at that data and for what steps should be bringing back in addition to what DRC Burnard put forward. And what would you say those additional things are that need to come back? Because I thought. I just. I'm curious. I would leave that to the maker of the motion to really describe it as I understand it. It it has to do with looking at a smaller subset. It has to look at some equity. It has to look at, you know, businesses that are Long Beach focused. That's my understanding, as well as coming back with a larger restaurant retention plan that we can spend some time on and come back with ideas. Public safe. Well, I hope that equity could be found in that all $2 million. Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. Super frustrating. I hear you. One more minute. This is Mongo. You have one more minute. Thank you, sir. My hope would be that all restaurants included in that category, should we be able to come up with the right criteria, would be able to get that abatement. And so that would be approximately $2 million. So I appreciate the prioritization, but now that we know that the number is only $2 million and these restaurants do put so much back into the economy in terms of employing people, especially those in the Latin and African-American communities, that that the priority would be citywide to take all of those businesses. So those are my comments. And thank you for owners who worked with us on that, on the the issues at play and the city staff who contributed excellent work from Mr. Gross's office. Thank you very much, madam. Anyone else I can speak on the side of? Okay with that, we have a first and second question of interest in motion and second by Mrs. Sanders. Would you please call the vote? District one. I district to district three. I just took four. I just took five. I. District six. By. District seven. District eight. District nine. Tie motion carries. Thank you. Okay. With that, I would like to make a motion to continue the rest of the items pending tonight, next week. Can I please get a second? Second were. Thank you, councilman austin. No. Please. No.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the health through housing implementation plan; and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 24.

KingCountyCC_02032021_2020-0338

We open on July 4th, 1914, just to whet your appetite a little bit. Then we'll go back to item six and today's agenda for this item, we have an ordinance related to the health through housing implementation plan. This past autumn, the Council passed a 1/10 of 1% additional sales tax to fund housing programs and related services known as Health through housing. This ordinance would outline the content to be included in the executive's implementation plan for the spending of these tax proceeds, as well as the approach the executive should take in developing the implementation plan. The proposed ordinance was amended by the Regional Policy Committee that received the ordinance as a mandatory dual referral and passed out of the committee on January 13th with a do pass recommendation. It is their amended version that is before us. Today we have April Sanders and Sam Porter from policy staff to provide a briefing to Sanders. Ms.. Porter. The floor is yours. Hey, thank you. Good morning. For the record, April Sanders Council Policy Staff. The materials for item six begin on page eight of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 338 would require the executive to develop and transmit an ordinance for counsel consideration. An implementation plan to guide spending of the housing sales tax revenue generated by the sales tax announced or enacted by the Council. Last year, this item was given a mandatory dole referral to the Regional Policy Committee and the Committee of the Hall and passed out of the Regional Policy Committee last month with amendments as a bit of background. During the 2020 legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 1590 related to a sales and use tax for housing and related services. Previously, this housing sales tax was required to go to the ballot for authorization from voters before enactment, but the House bill provided the option for the tax to be council. Manic House Bill 1590 gave counties until September 30th of 2020 to impose the tax countywide. After that date, cities could impose the tax either by ballot or by a council meeting vote. Before County Council passed the housing sales tax legislation, eight cities had imposed the sales tax. State statute specifies the activities and services for which the tax may be used. At least 60% of proceeds must go to constructing affordable housing and behavioral health related facilities and funding operations and maintenance of various facilities. Remaining funds must be used for operation delivery or evaluation of mental and behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing related services. State statute requires that certain population groups at or below a 16% area median income may be provided affordable housing and facilities providing housing related programs generated using housing sales tax revenue. Those certain population groups are listed on page name. The County Council passed ordinance 19179, which imposed the sales tax. And given that there will not be an implementation plan in place for 2021, revenues will be spent in accordance with state law and the 2021 2022 biennial budget. Once an implementation plan is adopted in 2021, the plan would inform expenditures in 2022 and beyond. With that, I'll hand it over to my colleague Sam Porter to discuss the proposed ordinance in discussion today. Thank you, April. Sam Porter Council of Policy Staff I am on the bottom of page 12 of your packet excuse me. Proposed Ordinance 2020 0338 would require that the executive transmit an initial implementation plan for the health through housing sales tax. The plan transmitted to Council would be required to include goals, strategies, performance measures, reporting requirements and an annual spending plan for 2022 through 2028. The proposed ordinance would require the executive to consult with the Affordable Housing Committee and the CEO of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. In order to develop the implementation plan. The required goals to be included in the implementation plan include the creation and ongoing operation of 2000 units of affordable housing with related services. An annual reduction of racial and ethnic demographic disproportionality among persons experiencing homelessness in King County and the creation and operation of a mobile behavioral health intervention program with access for its clients to be created, operated or otherwise funded by proceeds. The proposed ordinance would require the implementation plan to be transmitted with a companion ordinance establishing the health through Housing Advisory Committee. The committee's responsibilities are. Or to be described in the initial implementation plan, and the membership would be required to include representatives of the following demographics individuals who experienced homelessness, racial and ethnic communities disproportionately represented among people experiencing chronic homelessness. Residents of cities with populations greater than 60,000 residents of the unincorporated area, and representatives from county, city and subregional boards, commissions or committees pertaining to King County Human Service Investments. The proposed ordinance would require that the implementation plan outline the process of siting affordable housing and behavioral health facilities funded through the sales tax revenue . This process would have to be done in accordance with state law and would be required to involve the use of an equity and social justice impact review process. The eight year annual spending plan to be included in the implementation plan described in the proposed ordinance, would be required to include the following for each year a forecast of bond debt service associated with the bonds issued and an allocation of proceeds to fully cover the debt service. An allocation of 9 to 13% of each year proceeds to be spent on behavioral health treatment programs and services outside of those provided within affordable housing or behavioral health facilities supported by proceeds of the proceeds remaining after items one and two. And just mentioned, no more than 5% could be used for administration, no more than one and one half percent for evaluation. And at least 1% would go to support and build capacity for community based organizations to deliver programs and services eligible for the health through housing proceeds and communities that are disproportionately represented among persons experiencing chronic homelessness in King County. In addition to the initial plan outlined in proposed Ordinance 2020 0338, the executive would be required to transmit a proposed eight year update to the implementation plan every eight years, beginning in 2027. As my colleague mentioned, proposed ordinance was amended at the RBC meeting on January 13th. A technical amendment and a title amendment were passed and seven additional amendments. I will briefly summarize. Amendment 1.1 changed the date of the transmittal from June 30th to August 30th, and then at 1.2 required that the advisory committees annual reporting to include information of the amount of sales tax proceeds spent in each jurisdiction. Amendment 1.3 change the number of affordable housing units to reflect revised revenue projections. No unit projections for the revenue from the sales tax decreased from 2000 units due to the loss of approximately 25% of sales tax revenue. New planned unit projections are 1600 units. Amendment 1.4 stated that the funding may sometimes only be required for operating and support supportive services, and this amendment also required the plan to include a process for the executive to work with jurisdictions funding affordable housing to align sales tax allocations with those efforts. Amendment two required the plan to require a process between the county and cities where facilities are proposed in order to jointly agree on locations to be purchased or constructed. Amendment three required the plan to include a communication and partnership plan and a last amendment require the plan to include a forecast of annual expenditures. And that concludes now that. Before the amendment to requires the if the proceeds are to be used to purchase a facility in a incorporated jurisdiction, that that jurisdiction has to agree on the location. It would require a process in order to jointly agree on locations. For each. Breach versus breach facility? Yes. Thank you. Dear colleagues, questions of Central South Council member Lambert. So I'm looking on page 11 and 12, the sales tax revenue projections, so it makes sense that there would be a difference in the amount of sales tax. But one of the things we're trying to do is to get equity across the county. And when I look in the east part of the county, you know, one of the cities in the district is $42,000. One gets 119, one gets 121 get seven skycom geico gets $7,000. It really not a whole snoqualmie gets $292,000. When they're other groups, they're getting 4 million, 2 million, 1 million. So in the past, when there's been a lot of disparity in the spectrum, we put a floor on that. You know, this group will get at least X amount of dollars. I don't really know. Skirmish is going to do a whole lot with 7000 donation. They can't do a whole lot with 42,000 affordable housing. And yet both of those cities need help. We looked at all about having some floor so that there's a meaningful amount of money going in each city so that they could do something because you can't do much for housing on $7,000. So Councilmember, those are actually if I may, those are actually projections of what would be collected. So those aren't expenditure projections. Okay. So where is that? So we don't have an expenditure plan for 2022 and beyond that would be included in the implementation plan that would go to council next year, later this year. Okay. So my suggestion would be that we do the same thing as we do in others, that there be a minimum one so that every every one of them is the parties can do something and that we figure out what that force should be. Thank you. Councilmember WG. Thank you. I've got two questions, but before I do, I just want to state a respectfully contrary view. The goal of this entire program is to house up to 1600 or so people. The number has grown because the projections have grown by purchasing or constructing single room occupancy type housing developments. And there's a certain number that you need in order to to house that many people. And that number is not 39. We're not going to build one or buy one in every single jurisdiction in King County. It's just it's not feasible or they're not necessarily available. So the idea of getting a benefit, the benefit is to get people out of homelessness and really make a dent in homelessness in King County. This is not a peanut butter program where each jurisdiction gets some amount of money to spend on whatever is local. The cities are an opportunity and as you see, many of them took it to hold on to the sales tax adopted in their cities, and they're going to do what they do with that. But this is a regional program and I think it needs to remain that way. That's part of the reason why I wasn't in favor of the idea of kind of consolidating more funding to hand over to other cities. Because the impact we can have here is a regional impact. And I think that we should stick with that. But let me go to my my two questions. The first one is, we're still working on legislation that makes it clear that purchasing of properties is allowed with this funding. Is that correct? Yeah. So the state legislature is working on clarifying some of the language of that produced ambiguity, including around purchasing of hotels or other things. Does the does the direction that this ordinance would provide to the executive to provide an implementation plan account for the fact that that's likely to be adopted after we vote? I say it's silent on it, so it doesn't it doesn't preclude the implementation plan, including hotels or other or other purchases, assuming the legislature does act. But it doesn't it does it requests specifically that the implementation plan include it, which is probably fine because we asked for a report to include certain things, doesn't mean they can't include lots of other things. Like we don't tell them, do not say anything else. Okay, so that was thing one. I just had a request from our constituent jurisdictions this morning about ongoing operations. So by its nature, these buildings will be made to be operated into the future. They'll need to be maintained. There will need to be some ability for King County folks to have resources to interact with the host communities, if you will, and be able to, you know, maintain the relationships and respond to two issues as needed. Is the does the implementation plan, as requested, make sure that we're asking for information about maintenance and operation being adequately funded. I my, my, my fear is that you put all the focus or an undue focus on the capital. Aspects of this. Program and that we make sure that we're going to plan for the kind of operation and maintenance dollars that will be significant that will be needed on an ongoing basis. So the implementation plan or this ordinance does not specifically request that, but it is within the scope of of the state legislation to allow operations and maintenance of those facilities. Well mentioned that the first goal of the required implementation plan is the creation and ongoing operation of the units of affordable housing, which really is the address on the call today. Why now? Okay. I'm just going to assume they heard what I asked and that that is something that I think is important and that we don't have to really look at closely when we see the implementation plan rather than trying to amend this, which then sets off procedural loops. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And welcome, colleagues. That's typical Lowe's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For our staff or for cowriter Mark Goldberg who are on the line? Well, how. Does the the current just care program fit into all of this? I mean, their goals seem to align at least somewhat here with what is contemplated. And would it make any sense for the implementation plan to, I think, consider proceeds to reduce the need of existing shelter facilities to vulnerable populations who are. Experiencing. Chronic homelessness and where there are some behavioral or other issues. It just seems like there's some overlap here, and I'd appreciate your letting me know more about that. I'm happy to kick it off and then hand it over to Mark and Kelly if they have additional comments. So certainly certain components of just care would would could apply to these proceeds, including the operation of delivery or evaluation of mental and behavioral health programs and services and housing related services. I think some of those hotel purchasing questions also go to counseling about duties, question about about what the state legislature is possibly doing this year. But certainly some components could apply. Thank you very much for. Is there anything else, anybody? I think the only other thing that I would add, Councilmember, is that I think the population for just care and the population that we are looking at for the health or housing program are very similar, if not identical. So I think there is a fair amount of overlap in that place. One of the pieces that we kind of the lines that we need to walk and be clear on here is the difference between the housing and the shelter way that we're kind of implementing these two programs. And obviously just care moves folks into hotel type settings on a temporary basis. And I think we need to kind of tease out there there's how that kind of overlaps. So but I think from a population perspective, you're right on as far as identifying the commonality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask one more question. Thank you. Whether it be makes sense or even be needed to have an amendment brought up that would. Include. Specifically just pure or just pure life type of program to be included? Or would that already be covered in the language of the legislation? Councilmember This is Kelly, Writer for the record, Don, manager with Department of Community and Human Services. Thank you for the question. Obviously, DHS would defer to the Council on deciding what amendments you would like to add. We feel like there is sufficient flexibility in the ordinance as it stands to be able to continue our ongoing conversations with the Public Defenders Association. As Mark said, there's a lot of consistency and alignment with the population that PBA has been serving and the type of approach they've been taking. And I think the ordinance gives us the broad level direction of being able to think through in the permanent supportive housing framework, how we would continue to serve that population. Thank you. That's exactly what I was interested in, ma'am. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. On page 14, I think has some really good language that we're talking about, where the spending plan is in compliance with the ICW. That requires a minimum 60% of revenue to be used for constructing affordable housing, mental or behavioral health related facilities. So I think that's right, right up there. And so what I'd like to add to that is that as one of the other covers has said, that it'd be ongoing, that there be like a navigator, so that as issues come up in the long term, that there's a place for people to call and make sure that everything's okay. And then I do agree that we're trying to get this done regionally and trying to make sure that we help people as quickly as possible to get into appropriate housing, not tent serve or other. That may not be as appropriate, but I do believe that we need to not leave the cities out. The cities are dealing with homeless people and just getting them to the right place will cost them money. So I think it's a combination of both. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Making sure that we have the ability to move people experiencing chronic homelessness throughout the region into housing summary in the region is imperative and I hope cities are permissive of opportunities to purchase facilities in successfully housed people as we have seen, for example, that had such great success in the Red Lion in Renton. DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a return to Amendment Two, which I voted against at the RTC, although it carried otherwise, and it was described by staff here today as establishing a process to work with the city, which I think is good. But my concern, if there is a possibility, was that it ultimately would allow the city to veto our ability to appoint or property as a county government. And I want to understand that that is a fact, because because I think that goes a little too far. I think cities do have their tools in terms of zoning and fundraising. To be able to control our government's ability to acquire property is very unusual, if not unprecedented for. Yeah. But I think your, your summary is correct that the siting process would, would be directive where the cities could hypothetically say no to citing a facility in their jurisdiction. Thank you for that clarification. That seems contrary to even what Councilmember Lambert was just speaking to the the need to be able to have facilities to support this population across the county. Hello. Council members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we all know, there are certain populations that are overrepresented in our homeless population. Black people and Native American people. And I know the tax has explicitly stated goal of reducing racial disproportionality. Can someone speak a little bit to whether part of that strategy of reducing and eliminating the racial disproportionality involves partnering with organizations that are led by those groups to provide housing and to address the other needs that are associated with homelessness. That is not explicitly required in the implementation plan ordinance in front of you today. Thank you. And can someone from DC speak to why that is? I can thank you, Councilmember Dollar, and I realize I didn't introduce myself for the record. So Mark and I broke from the department community and Human Services. As far as the implementation plan, including or the proposed legislation discussing the implementation and implementation plan, including that language, I can't speak to whether it's inclusion or not, but what I can speak to is the department's commitment on this and how we expect to do this work. I think you're Point Council member is exactly right. We have a lot of strong nonprofits in this community, in this region who are excellent at supportive housing. And we have a lot of nonprofits that have deep cultural roots or deep ethnic roots serving certain populations. And what we really hope to do through this program is try to bring those together where we get both the expertize on the operations side and the expertize and the disproportionality and the cultural side together. And I would point to an example of where we've been successful in doing that is the project that we work with both Catholic Community Services and chiefs, Sierra Club in Seattle, where we actually had a program where we brought those two. We work together with those two agencies to work on a program that really targets American-Indian, Alaska Native Homelessness. And this is a project that's on Metro property on Sixth Avenue South and really have ended up in a place where Catholic Community Services has stepped out of the operation of that facility. Chief Sierra Club has really stepped in to meet that disproportionality need that we know is represented. And I think we are hoping to build on that model with the rest of health or housing as we kind of move that forward. So I think we have that expectation, expectation and intend to build that into the development and implementation plan. Now. Councilmember, let me first set aside, for lack of a better word, in number nine to be at the very end of the ordinance, does talk about 1% being used to support and build the capacity of meat based organizations to serve a demographically disproportionately represented populations. And our intent is certainly to use that funding to support buying for community of color led organizations in being able to engage in providing services and really need the work in these housing developments. So are there any organizations that you think we should be reaching out to and conversations that we would certainly love to add them to our list? Thank you, Kelly and Mark. Concern that I'm hearing a lot of our intent is to and our plan is to, but it's not in the legislation. And so I would want to create an amendment for something along those lines. Mr. Chair, can you help me understand the procedure for doing that? Is it possible to bring in an amendment before for council, or does that have to be something that's done here today? Council members. Hello. Indeed, because this is a mandatory dual referral. We could adopt an amendment here or presumably at full council and it would be referred back to the Regional Policy Committee. And so. I guess I. I'm thinking as I'm speaking, which is maybe not brilliant. It doesn't matter where it would be done. An amendment today or an amendment in for council would be appropriate. We would then send the legislation to the Regional Policy Committee. Okay. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chair. Further discussion. I be adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Jean Vasquez moved adoption of Ordinance 2020 338 discussion. Met. Madam Clark, would you please call the wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council. Balaji, I council member Dombrowski. I. Councilmember Stern. Hi. Councilmember Kowalski. Hi. Councilmember Lambert. Hi. Councilmember of the girl, I. Councilmember one right there. I found some members of my high. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. But it's 19 zero noes. Thank you. By your vote, we've given it to pass recommendation in ordinance 2020 and 338, and we will send that to full council staff. There's no reason to expedite, is there? No, I don't believe so. All right, well, send in the regular schedule and we'll place this on consent. And our final three items, we confirm executive appointments to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The appointments are Leah Tischler, a public interest representative. Wendy Welker.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and any amendments, to receive and expend grant funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in the amount of $557,124 over a two-year period, to fund two positions to support the City’s Data-Driven Justice Initiative, beginning January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $557,124, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11142017_17-1021

Four, five. Council. Woman Mango. Wishing. Let's have number five, please. Item five is a report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and expend grant funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in the amount of 557,000 to fund two positions to support the city's data driven justice initiative citywide. Thank you, Councilwoman. Actually, we've got a staff. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is a wonderful thing. This is some grant dollars that we've received as part of the team work dealing with high frequency offenders. And so the Arnold Foundation is going to be giving us a grant of about $500,000 to really provide the implementation. Funding for two years will be able to hire a data scientist and to implement the data market and a full time project manager to help run our wrap around case services for high frequency offenders. So this is we're very excited about this, as is our police department. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. I wanted to pull this item because I have a similar grant like this in my day job. And there's a couple of things I wanted to request as a friendly on this item. The first is when these two employees get here in January of 2018, I would like the first order of business to be at some point in the early part of their start to meet with all the council officers and to get their thoughts and ideas about how we could what kind of data were would help. Based on the things we've heard in terms of resource limitations from our police department, our prosecutor's office. So I wanted to to make a motion to approve this grant. But with the requirement that council officers be looped in with these individuals, I would hate to have these folks hired here. And then we don't even get to meet them until they make a presentation at council. So is that something that's acceptable to staff? We'd actually suggest that we do it sooner, that we do it with our I-Team director and not wait for the staff. You know, these are going to be line level staff, but we would love to get the input and actually have our I-Team director do that now. So as we build the grant, that makes more sense to be talking to the team director so we can implement that as part of the grant. That would be great. I think that would do that would be really, really good. And then the other thing is, I know Orange County's considering creating an app, and I think we've talked about it here before. In fact, it was on the the homelessness item that I submitted several months ago, but an app basically requesting that police officers would have access to what available beds are available in the region for homeless individuals who are seeking either housing or rehabilitation services that they have that easy access of information. So I'm wondering if that's something it sounds from reading this and terms under the discussion items of what type of information could be available through this program . I think that's definitely something that would help both our police officers, our city prosecutor's office, our health department. It would help everyone all around. So I kind of wanted to put that in there early as we approve this grant as kind of a legislative intent of areas where we hope that this grant will be put to use . Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Just great work. And I look forward to seeing this through and to Councilmember Price's point. We'd love to meet with the staff when they come on board. Thank you. Thank you. And before we vote, I'll just add it's great to see how far we've come. So we we talked about this as one of the 21st century recommendations from the My Brother's Keeper effort. 21 sort of best practices and 21st century policing. And so to see that we're actually going after funding, receiving funding to move forward and implement some of these things is really strong, very public comment on this item. Senior members, please cast your vote. And I'm like, yes. Case. Thank you. So now we'll go to item 22.