Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Approves a new Building Plan for the Denver Zoo at City Park, in Council District 8, as required by the Denver Zoning Code. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on - -15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-25-15.

DenverCityCouncil_04202015_15-0172

It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 172 is now open. May we have the staff report? Council. President, Members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and present the future vision of Denver Zoo, the most popular cultural institution in Colorado. And I think you'll see in the audience some pink flamingo support. So if you're wondering what these little pink stickers are, let me start by saying an amazing amount of work has gone into this plan. It's been in development since 2009. Over 10000 hours have gone into it. We've consulted with not only the best zoos in the country, but numerous stakeholders, including students, teachers, community leaders and neighborhood groups . Most recently, you've been hearing about our public meetings series and online outreach. The feedback we've heard over the last five years has been extremely important in shaping this plan. And the feedback we heard in the last three months containing over 550 comments has also been incorporated into the plan, and the feedback will receive in the next five years is going to be important to this plan. The Denver Zoo is committed to receiving ongoing public input, and that dialog does not end or begin. Today. We are the community zoo and we only exist because of the support of the community. Now there is a sense of urgency here. We've heard loud and clear from the public that animal care should be a top priority. I'm here to tell you today that our first project will be a new home for our endangered tigers. And the great news is that this project is completely funded. Tonight, we seek your approval of Denver Zoo's building plan. We're not expanding into the park. There's 71 buildings now. There's 71 buildings in the future. And our tallest building is a tree. The facility's master plan has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Manager as outlined in our operating agreement. And your approval tonight allows several key items to occur. It allows critical animal care and infrastructure upgrades to be made to our facility, keeping Denver Zoo a national leader in animal care and conservation. It allows opportunities for local students and families to connect with animals and nature through our education satellites in this plan. And it also allows me to energize Denver Zoo's board to continue to fundraise and invest back in our transformative institution. Please allow me also to explain what the approval of the building plan is. Not approval of the building plan is not a blank check for development and expansion. Approval of the building plan does not exempt the zoo from following all current or future building design. Permitting construction requirements and processes and approval of the building plan does not exempt the zoo from continuing to work with Parks and Recreation Council and our neighbors. All public engagement steps have been completed in coordination with Parks and Recreation, in accordance with our cooperative agreement with the city. We directly invited 14 rhinos which surround the zoo to participate in the process. Along with us, the community meeting schedule and online feedback opportunities were shared via our website social media through our Zoo publications because we serve many different stakeholders representing many different people in the metro region. This was all done in good faith and to the best of our capabilities. We very intentionally consulted with a third party facilitator in order to emphasize transparency and conduct real time polling during meetings, allowing us to dig into the why behind many responses and prioritize community feedback. This format, along with the interactive online model, made the feedback process a two way communication. The engagement meetings resulted in the development of a new chapter in the master plan called Zoo Community Interface and Intentional Discussion and Acknowledgment of the Denver Zoo integrating into City Park. We also tested and ultimately included an additional guiding principle to the plan titled Community, which will help guide us in our ongoing commitment with the diverse communities that we serve. Please let me share with you this guiding principle. Denver Zoo is a part of City Park of Denver, the nation and the world. We value diverse communities in which we belong. As part as Denver's City Park. We respect our neighbors and we build upon the legacy of the zoo within the park and strive to achieve the best physical and operational presence for all the communities that we serve. Council I ask that you approve this building plan tonight. So Denver Zoo may continue to provide life changing experiences for Colorado citizens for another hundred years. Good evening. I'm Laurie Danny Miller, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. And I'm here tonight to support the adoption of the building plan as presented to you for the future build out of the Denver Zoo. As you know, the zoo has done extensive outreach on their master plan and the building plan itself. You'll hear about registered neighborhood meetings, citywide meetings, outreach to our planning and design staff, and outreach to the greater zoo community through an online survey. You'll also hear of how the input at the meetings shape changes to the original plan, since the neighbors were interested primarily at that time about how the southern and western edges of the zoo interfaced with the park. Tonight's hearing is being held as a requirement of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, which requires a public hearing for any buildings that are proposed in parks over 3000 square feet or over 35 feet high. You will note that the plan in front of you does contain buildings exceeding that threshold. The zoo forwarded the building plan to US Denver Parks and Recreation after their final public meeting on March 10th. We heard the master plan at the and the building plan at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on March 12th, and it was supported unanimously by Prabhu. Denver Parks and Recreation then forwarded that building plan to City Council for review at their March 25th. Infrastructure and Culture Committee for Review. However, we realized on April 9th that we had not completed the required R.A. notification per the code. So we asked for a delay in this public hearing from last week to this week so we could notify R.A. of this hearing. That notice happened on April 10th for tonight's April 20th hearing. Your passing in this plan does not give the zoo carte blanche rights to commence building without future outreach and planning. As Shannon mentioned, it simply identifies which buildings are slated to expand, be demolished or added all within the footprint of the current boundaries. Any construction that will impact City Park will require approval of the building plans, respective city agencies and cooperation with our office in order to minimize impacts on the park. I believe you. Here are some folks tonight in support of the plan and some opposed. Mostly, the opposition will be focused on how the zoo is impacting the park and its successful functioning. However, I must remind you all that the zoo is in the park. There is not a property line delineating the zoo from the park. The zoo is not moving, as some folks here tonight may suggest, but rather they're a trusted and vital partner in the cultural environment of City Park. When you when you look at your plan and realize that all of the improvements contemplated are completely within the footprint of the zoo, you will conclude that they get that the zoo gets, that improvements will be on their current site and not beyond it. They have even contemplated expansion of underground parking so as to lessen parking impact on the park. I believe this is a major indication of the zoo's intent to stay within their footprint of the plan. When construction happens in city parks, like in any park, yes, there will be disruption. When we improve the parking lot adjacent to the City Park Pavilion, there was a decrease in the amount of parking available. Construction causes disruption. In this case, temporary disruption of the circulation due to possible buildings with the zoo will be minimal since it's within the zoo boundaries. I conclude by saying I believe the zoo made significant efforts to inform and engage surrounding neighborhood associations and their building plan, while ambitious, will only add to the success and sustainability of this wonderful institution within City Park. Thank you, the council, for a chance to speak. My name is George Parnham, the vice president for design and campus management at Denver Zoo. And I'll be very brief, because it's already been stated a couple of times, but I specifically just want to call attention to the plan that that under consideration tonight, specifically this building plan. Just try to highlight a couple of points in this plan that I think are significant as it already has been stated. The plan is really in some ways a reduction of a lot of work, a lot of collaboration, and in many in many cases, a lot of content that our master plan represents. But just because it is a reduction in no means makes this plan less exciting, less deliberate and less rigorous. There is a tremendous amount of intention and and we think collaboration and positive impact for the for the future inside of this plan. I'll call attention to just a couple of things that have already been stated. There's 71 buildings in the zoo currently, and this plan shows 71 buildings in the zoo. At the end of this this plan, 32 buildings would be removed through construction process and the development of this plan, and 32 buildings would be added through through this plan for a very exciting world class facility. It's already been noted. I want to make sure that that I reiterate this. The building plan calls calls for us to show you buildings that are over 3000 square feet or taller than 35 feet. The largest building buildings on this plan actually are are two buildings that have 500 parking spaces underneath them. Each building has 250 parking spaces underneath them. And you see that noted on your plan. That's what makes the square footage so large and large in those buildings. But that's truly a commitment and a very deliberate act to try to improve and listen to the things that have been going on over several years and to that principal of community to make sure that our operational presence in the park is is the best that it can possibly be. That's why there's 500 parking spaces indicated on this plan. There's only one building that that is taller than 35 feet in this plan. And it's a tree, an artificial tree, a tree that has a classroom in it, that overlooks an African savanna where kids are going to be able to come to the zoo and engage in our education programs and enjoy world class exhibit tree. This plan, like I said, is rigorous and deliberate, and I'll just leave you with this. The reason is, is that we're responsibility. We're responsible for taking care of animals and taking care of our public and educating them. That's what this plan does. It gives us an incredibly incredible vision for a new zoo where we can do a world class exhibit tree, take care of animals and educate our public. Thank you all for that staff report. We have 19 individuals signed up to speak this evening. This evening, 17 in favor, two opposed. I'm going to call the first five up. You can make your way to the first pew. Doug Tisdale, Hank Booth, Tom Wiggs, Louis Pawlikowski and Paulie Reeds. And apologies for any mispronunciations on that so you five can make your way up. And welcome, Mayor. You can go ahead and begin your remarks. May it please the Council. Good evening, Mr. President. Counselors, my name is Doug Tisdale. I'm proud to be one of Mayor Hancock's appointees to the Denver Zoo Board. And in that capacity, you would expect me to support this council bill. And I do. But you also know me as a former mayor, as one of the officers of Dr. Kaag and of CML and the National League of Cities. You know me as a regionalist and as a regionalist. I truly understand what an amazing asset the Denver Zoo is to the residents of Denver, of the Denver region and of the state of Colorado. The Denver Zoo is consistently ranked as one of the top five zoos in the country. It's the most popular cultural attraction in Colorado, welcoming 2 million guests every year with almost one out of five of those guests enjoying free access to your zoo. Its educational programs reach over 140,000 people annually. You're familiar with the accolades? I won't repeat them. I'll just highlight one fact. The Denver Zoo began in 1896. In 1918, your zoo opened its first major physical structure, Bear Mountain. Over the past 97 years, there have been a number of improvements constructed on this historic site. But time and technology advance and these buildings age. Making your zoo one of the best in the nation is a continuing process. That's what this park building plan is all about. Your zoo spent countless hours in planning and meetings with neighbors and experts and the stakeholders to address the needs of this cultural icon. That careful and considered process resulted in this plan crafted with tremendous sensitivity to the environment our neighbors, our guests, and our overseers. That's the trustees. And you we ask, therefore, tonight that you give your final approval so that our Denver Zoo can continue to do what is needed to maintain its status as a premier zoo in the United States, and to become the number one cultural attraction, not just in the state of Colorado, but in the Rocky Mountain West . I urge you to vote yes on Council Bill 15 172. Thank you. Thank you. Hank Boots. Evening. You can see by my pink flamingo. I don't hate the zoo. I take this opportunity to talk about the process before the council. However, four months ago, City Park friends and neighbors was told that a neighborhood advisory committee would be in the interests of the zoo, the museum, the city council and the neighbors surrounding the zoo. To date, we've gone nowhere with that. And I'm here to ask again for support from the council to get this formed. The zoo and the museum are amenable to this. We've had conversations with people from both institutions and it would be helpful if we could engage in this process a little better. I'd like to say that the plan itself is so vague that it's really hard to be opposed to it. But one thing we do know is it will impact parking during construction and the citizen involvement on a survey only goes so far. I took the survey ten times and I moved all over the country when I took it. So neighborhood involvement, I think, needs to be a little stronger. The other issue that has come up I mentioned is the ten day notice. I appreciate that it was delayed. This vote was delayed to give ten days notice. I'm urging the council to consider it really needs to be 30 days notice. R.A. don't meet every week. They don't meet every two weeks. They meet once a month. And for every R.A. affected, if you miss, if you get a ten day notice three days after your monthly meeting, the ten day notice is worthless. You can't get people to reschedule their lives and attend another important meeting to discuss these issues. Those are my two points. I want to see the NRC get off the dime and there are now going to be two council people that have districts about the zoo, and I'm asking them in particular to engage and bring the neighbors in on a formal way, as we were discussing four months ago. It's time to get going on that. Thanks very much. Thank you, Tom Wiggs. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. I'm a member of your district. I live in your district. I've lived there since 1947. So 68 years is in Park Hill. I went to the zoo as a tyke. I kids went to the zoo as takes and our grandkids go to the zoo as Takes. It's a wonderful institution and it has been emphasized that this is not an increase in footprint. And the biggest thing is the baobab tree, which is going to be a pretty neat thing for the zoo. I think. Just as you see from the outside, though, the goal of the zoo is a better world for animals through understanding. And we've been engaged and I say that I'm retired and my wife and I both retired when we both volunteer at the zoo, at the museum, we've tutored at Parkhill and we've worked in homeless programs in Denver. So we're involved in the community and we see this as a gem of the community. And we urge your approval of this, this current amendment to the plan. I would call to your attention this really neat book. It doesn't necessarily impact history, but this is a book written by a University of Colorado Denver about the history of the zoo, formulated 1885 and that's a wealth of information is probably still in print if you find it and I urge you to get that also. But back to the zoo. The zoo is a gym and I was at a public meeting very extensive time for people to have input back in early March. So there has been so some input in. So I urge your approval of this next important step. Thank you. Thank you. Louis Public asking. Thank you. Good evening, council members. Perhaps you might recall I was here on the 15th of December. It was regarding the zoo's gasification plan. All of you unanimously voted to approve that plan. But you acknowledged that there was a need for greater citizen involvement in the decision making process. Councilman Brooks was applauded for leading the charge on the formation of a neighborhood advisory committee and NSC to work with the zoo and its neighbors on future plans. He even went so far to say that all of the protests over the ugliness of Gate 15 could have been avoided had citizens been better involved in the process and agreed that citizens were left out of the conversation. Councilman Brown. Called the formation of the NRC a win win. The zoo gets the gasification plan and the neighbors will now get a voice in the process. Council person Shepherd said, I heard great comment on the part of Councilman Brooke's commitment I'm sorry on forming that noisy group and went on to say that the zoo and the park are married and have been for over 100 years. I'm not sure if there's any marriage that could survive if one of the partners announces a 20 year plan without serious conversation with the other partner. I could quote more, but my 3 minutes are not enough. Suffice it to say that all council people agreed the need for better citizen input and conversation. I'd add that the zoo's director, Sharon Black, can be seen nodding her approval of greater citizen involvement. You can watch the video. The NRC is forming but has not yet met. I know. Wheels of government move slow, but when it comes to a major 20 year zoo construction plan, these same same wheels seem to gain traction. I would ask you, what is the rush? Six of the 13 council seats are going to be changed in the coming election in just a few weeks. Is the zoo trying to put the plan in place before this lame duck council term is over? Or is the zoo rushing to push this plan before the lauded NSC is put in place? Given the past history of and the overwhelming support for greater citizen involvement. It only seems right that you vote to delay and any decision on far reaching construction plan until a new council is seated and meaningful conversation is had with the NSC. We all love our city and we look forward to things of beauty that can be created. Please, let's not repeat mistakes of the past. Vote to delay a 20 year construction plan is not a small issue and ten days of notice the army knows is hardly enough time to give it the type of conversation that it deserves. If you want citizen to be involved, then I urge you, please delay this vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Polly Read and as misreads come up, I'm gonna call the next five. Carl Waller, Mary Peoples, Laurie Galbraith, Nate Connelly and Katie Philpot. And the last part of your name was marked off. My apologies. Miss Rich, you can go ahead and begin. Very good evening. My name is Polly Reads. I'm a resident. Of the city and county of Denver. I've lived in Denver for about 40 years. My husband moved here in 1954. He remembers when the zoo was basically a basin, a bear and a peacock down in city park. So we have a long history with the zoo. I'm now a volunteer. I live about ten blocks from City Park, and I'm lucky enough to be able to ride my bike in good weather to do my volunteering there about. I won't tell you how many years ago. I received a degree in wildlife conservation from the from Cornell University. A master's degree. And so you can guess that this is very important to me. It's very honestly issue very close to my heart. And I think that the zoo has a big job ahead of it and is doing it now and has even a bigger job ahead. In wildlife conservation and in particular in. Conservation education. And the zoo has an excellent program already. And I think that the master plan that you're considering tonight. Will. Even further enable. Our zoo to do a. Really excellent job in active conservation, which it does here and abroad and in education. And I think education is so crucial because we're facing the kind of extinction we haven't seen in about 60. Million years if we don't do something. About it. So the master plan will advance both these goals. And if you look at it in detail, I think you'll see. Why the the. Education activities. Will be. Moved out into the zoo where the animals are, which is much more exciting. I have to say. So I'm. Urging you. That to. Approve this. And I would also like to. Say that we. Do have some. Outdated facilities that badly need to be renovated. And I would rather. Not. Wait. Ten or 15 or 20 years to do it. I think we should get going now. So thank you. This is a zoo volunteer perspective. Thank you very much for your time tonight. And I do hope that you will pass the bill. Thank you, Carl Waller. Good evening. Carl Worley I'm a. Long time resident. Denver since 1996 proudly living in District ten twin been in Congress parks and proud to be a zoo volunteer since 2007. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. The overall. Mission statement of the. Zoo is to secure a better world. For animals through human understanding. And our role in that mission is starts with the experiences our visitors have as they wander the grounds. Some of our facilities are old. They're are obvious examples of old school zoo design, and plus the buildings are in need of replacing anyway just because they're old. And so this new plan will not only. Replace those buildings, it will replace them. With not just a new copy of what it used to be of what's already there. And the new. And the new buildings and the new the new yards and so on will. Give our. Visitors much. Better experiences, much more. Richer opportunities to connect. With. Animals, too, and to learn about them and to inspire them to want to help protect the animals. And there's really. Looking forward to this getting off the ground. And I thank you for your time and your approval this evening. Thank you, Mary Peoples. Thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you. My name is Mary Peeples and I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver, and I've been a member of the Denver Zoo for over 20 years and a volunteer for the last two years. The Denver Zoo is a valuable resource not just for Denver, but all of Colorado. And I really appreciate the zoo's forethought to create a plan that's comprehensive and that's going to help them prepare for the coming years. The proposed building plan will allow the zoo to continue to be a world class venue. And it is and a credit to the city and county of Denver, and I request that you approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Laurie Galbraith. My name is Laurie Galbraith. I'm a resident of Hilltop. I have a son in Park Hill and a son who lives downtown. So we're kind of spread out all over Denver. I'm also on the board of trustees of the Denver Zoo, and I'm the vice chair of the Master Plan Committee of the board. I'm here today to strongly encourage the council to approve the building plan of our master plan. On the second reading tonight, having been a part of the creation of this master plan, I want to emphasize that this was a thoughtful approach with a collaborative design bringing together major stakeholders that had varied expertize in the zoo mission as guidelines. When the Denver Zoo with the Denver Zoo being the most popular cultural institution in the state of Colorado, I believe that this new plan will strengthen our ability to better serve our animals, our educational goals, and continue to serve our conservation messaging, which is really important to who we are and what we stand for in the community. I also feel that the zoo has worked hard to both share our plans and welcome feedback from the community through our website, which has been posted since February and our community gathering. The master plan will be important for the future of the Denver Zoo and as a focal cultural institution for the city of Denver and our state of Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Nate Conley. Yeah. I mean, Annette Curry. Sorry, handwriting's bad. I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver and District ten, and I'm actually the communications. Coordinator for the Denver Regional Council of Governments here. And I bring with me the greetings of everybody on staff and appreciate all your support, as always as the city and. County of Denver. Probably. Do. It's been my happy, unfortunate duty to prepare the program this Wednesday for Dr. Cox 60th anniversary. And I haven't been around for all of. The 60 years, but it's pretty amazing. To look at the different changes that have. Gone on in this region and. Not just in the city of Denver, but but collectively along the front range. There's two themes that really have emerged for me that are very clear is one that we honor and continually strive to improve our cultural institutions as a region. And two, we've never been afraid to invest in ourselves as a region. So if you think from our sports stadiums. To DIA to the justice. Facility here to fast tracts. Today, you know, I would venture to say and this is a bold. Statement that outside of the Denver Broncos. I don't know of any other institution that is. Ubiquitous and and well-loved as the Denver. Zoo is. It has been it is and will continue. To be a safe and inspiring place for generations of Coloradans in the. Future. Recently, I've had the privilege, the past four years of working at. Envision Utah and Salt Lake City, where we're known as a. Public private partnership, that. Is, national leaders in our public participatory processes. And we've consistently produced meaningful public feedback and input for our stakeholders and. Policymakers in Utah. And I want to say that. As I've observed with the. Denver Zoo has done in the way that they have designed their process and engage the public, particularly. In the neighborhoods. I'm confident that they are. Listening and that the opportunity for the neighbors has been there and will continue to be there. I have. Also been happy to. Give back a small part of my time now as a volunteer to the zoo, now that I'm back in town because I love the zoo. And as I've gotten to know Shannon and her team. I'm also confident that their commitment to engaged, authentic public participation and dialog is there. I have no doubt about that. So I would just urge you to continue in the Denver tradition of investing in our region's future by. Voting yes on this. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Katie Philippot and as she comes up to speed, a master for the next five speakers, which is Michael McGuire, Darrell Watson, Andy Sense, Katherine Coon and Jack Walmsley. You can make your way to the pew and can you and go ahead. You can begin. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Katie Philpot, shows Al and I am a Denver native and I have enjoyed going to Denver Zoo regularly for over 50 years. I want to begin this evening by thanking all of you for approving the first reading of the mass of this master plan and approving it. And I, too, am here tonight to encourage you strongly to please do this for our community and pass approval again for the master plan. The city of Denver has been an incredible partner for Denver Zoo for many years, and they have ensured that we have a world class zoo today in City Park. There is a strong history of building really quality exhibits and taking excellent care of animals and being a safe place for people to bring their families. My family is part of the 2 million people who have come this year and enjoy Denver Zoo. We have learned a lot at the zoo. We have embarked on lifelong learning at the zoo. And we care about our animals and environment because of our time that we spent at the zoo. My husband and I have been strong supporters of the zoo because it's expensive to have the type of facility that we are fortunate enough to have in Denver. And we feel it's our responsibility to give back to Denver and make sure that every child in Denver has the opportunity to enjoy Denver Zoo and to learn about the animals and care about the environment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Michael McGuire. Good evening. My name is Michael Maguire, speaking in support of the Denver Zoo Master Plan. I live at 6528 Mar Vista Place in Denver. I am in my 12th year as a Denver Zoo docent and almost 3000 volunteer hours. Why am I proud of the zoo and of being a part of it? One our citizens and our animals are always foremost in our minds. We love the enjoyment that we share with the zoo. Visitors to the Denver Zoo provides animals with a wonderful life through enrichment activities and regular exercise. The animals are cared for by a loving, professional staff, and they are exercised to have many enrichment activities and diets that meet their exact needs. The loving and devoted bonds. That exist between our staff and animals is one key reason why animals such as. Bertha Hippo at age. 59 and Sally, the orangutan at age. 52, live far beyond their normal species. Life spans three. The Denver Zoo is among the foremost leaders in animal conservation efforts. It provides staff and financial support for worldwide conservation research projects. A few on site examples include DTP dedicated to preservation of highly endangered Asian elephants and an endangered bird propagation center. Dedicated to saving many birds clinging to species. Survival for Denver Zoo educates and safely exposes millions of local, national and international visitors to animals, which is enjoyable, informative and innocent. An Essential Species Conservation Element. Five Through the Red Apple Fund, Free Days, Outreach and Other Opportunities, Denver Zoo provides affordable ways for families, school classes, nursing homes and assisted living facilities to learn about our animals . Six We are the only. Zoo. That has won awards for renewable energy, developing a practical model likely to contribute to green energy for zoos, botanic gardens, university campuses and other campus like. Settings in the US and the world. In summary, although we are not among the largest zoos in the country, many visitors, others from other zoos and also zoo regulatory institutions greatly respect Denver Zoo as a visionary, caring and trendsetting zoo that follows the highest standards. Thank you for this opportunity and for helping Denver to be a great place to live. I ask for your yes vote to approve the Denver Zoo Master Plan. Thank you, Darryl Watson. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm the president of the Whittier Neighborhood Association. And I'm very excited to be here tonight to speak in favor of the Zoo Facilities Master Plan and to ask for your support as well for the Zoo Facilities Master Plan. I live at 26, 25 Lafayette, and I've lived there for 19 years. So my family and I have enjoyed many weekends, many weeks within the zoo. And we know that this plan will add to not just the pleasure of neighbors attending the zoo, but also the ability to educate our youth and our children and will also increase just the viability of the the facilities for the animals that that reside at the zoo. I wanted to share two reasons for my support is twofold. First and foremost, we've heard a few statements concerning the outreach and the the robustness of the outreach about tonight's meeting. As a president of Whittier Neighborhood Association, I can assure you that that outreach was robust. I had more than enough time to communicate to my neighbors within the Whittier Neighborhood Association, and they've had more than enough time to reach out to Councilman Brooks and members of council concerning tonight's meeting and their support for tonight's meeting. I'll also add, as a former president of the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, I strongly support a robust outreach process for anything that happens within Parks and Rec. And I know that the zoo leadership through George Pound and Lori Dana Millar's leadership of Parks and Rec, that they did an amazing job reaching out not only to the community and the RINO's, but providing a process that was extremely inclusive. And I would state that their process was best in class. And I'll ask that city council and other committees that work within the zoo or within parks look at the process that George Pound and his staff put together to see how you can have a process that not only includes community meetings, not only includes the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, not only includes outreach by Internet and utilizing options for taking votes on where people feel the zoo plan should go. But they also did individual outreach to community meetings and to folks that they know didn't support this plan. They had a separate meeting for a group that truly has not been supportive of this and was inclusive to the point of including their input within that plan. I also want to add that as a member of the exploratory committee that Councilman Brooks has put together to look at a master plan for City Park dealing with landmark preservation and historic designation. I know that the steps that the zoo took is something that we can utilize as a as a a very clear process to ensure that we're inclusive and that we're getting as much input as possible. I strongly ask City Council to support this facility's masterplan. It's in the best interests of our children, the best interests of the animals in the zoo. And I think this process has been absolutely well put together and the community has been very involved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Andy, since and since you have 6 minutes and I see see 3 minutes to you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for allowing time for us to provide feedback today. I'm a resident of Park Hill. I live a 1621 Claremont Street. I'm a parent of two amazing kids and a very frequent user of both City Park and the zoo. I think we were both places in the last 36 hours Dustin Red and the Zoo on Sunday and stuff. And so so I have endless love for both places and a lot at stake, I feel like in both places. And I'm strongly in favor of moving forward to approve these plans tonight. The zoo has made an ample offer, ample effort to present the plan to me as a resident, I feel like and to my neighbors in a variety of ways. I've personally provided feedback to the zoo by email in. On social media. I've provided opinions. I've voiced my opinions at several of the abundant meetings that the zoo has provided. And in almost every case, I feel that I've had answers to those questions that have been satisfactory. So I strongly feel that the zoo has made every effort to reach out to the community in ways that I think in a lot of cases, quite honestly, some of our rhinos could learn from. And I'd like them to. So my family feels incredibly fortunate to live so close to a world class zoo. And I urge you to approve these plans tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine King. Hi. Kathryn Coon. I live in South Park Hill and within walking distance of both the zoo and city park. I've lived in Denver, specifically Park Hill, for almost 15 years, and the zoo of most of that 15 years has been a large part of my life. I have two kids. We have gone almost every single weekend, although my 11 year old now says it's been too much, which I can't change and I'm unhappy about. But so that we've heard a lot about the outrage. I am a member of CPS fan, and even though I'm a member, I don't agree with anything they do. They don't listen to us as members. They don't seek outreach from members. They seek official comment, and they don't ask their members if it's okay to go forward with that. I feel that they're the zoo's outreach, including a informational meeting of the zoo master plan and a fan monthly meeting where they start their outreach during a PowerPoint presentation, which you've heard about, which included a map of the 32 buildings to be replaced, the ones to stay, and the ones that are on historic registry is am one ample enough for just that R.A. If not all of the numerous emails I've received from the zoo, the social media, also all the other information on the web from the zoo master plan that they published on their own website. It I find that people talking about outrage as not enough is absolutely ridiculous and saying that they didn't have 30 days notice is a flat out lie. Yes, it was brought to you recently, but it wasn't brought to me. In fact, the fan meeting occurred on February 2nd. If that was less than 30 days ago, I don't know how to do math. So also, as a mother, I'd like to get on to more positive stuff here. As a mother, I feel it's vitally important to increase the zoo's improvements and maintenance to allow them to compete nationally and worldwide with other zoos. I grew up in Los Angeles. Y'all have heard about the L.A. Zoo. It's fantastic. It's gigantic. I would like the Denver Zoo to be on that scale of competition in the zoos, in the zoo realm. The only way to do this is to do improvements. Also, the only way to increase education is by improvements over the years. If there are no improvements, nobody will come to it. It will also mean a decrease in tourism and a decrease in dollars for the city. And we all want to improve our city. And this is the major reasons why I'm standing before you and telling you to please approve this. And there is no need for a postponement. Thank you. Thank you, Jack Wamsley. And as Jack comes up to speak, I will call the last four speakers David Airman, Deborah Collier, Angie Panes and Brad Parks. You four can make your way up to the front pew. And Mr. Wamsley, you can go ahead and begin. Good evening, Castle. Mr. President, I. I had a lot more that. I wanted to say, but I would be redundant. At this point. I think it's I had a lot of notes. So all I wanted to say at this time is, you know, I brought this book. It's the Centennial History of Denver Zoo. And if you read this book, it would tell you we've been here many times. This isn't the first time. And all the times that. We faced city government. It was always. Approved and the it was carried on to the millions of people that come and visit it every year. And I mean millions with a name because we have people from all over the world. I've been a volunteer since. 2012 and in the things that I do as a volunteer. I've met people from. Europe and all over. And so I urge the Council to make a decision in favor of one seven to. Thank you, David. Airman. Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you very much. And members of council. I'm a Denver Zoo donor and a Denver Zoo volunteer. And I'm here to urge your passage of Council Bill 172 tonight. During the last few weeks, I've been making calls to thank members, new members of the zoo. And of course, whenever someone gets a call from an organization, they think, oh, they're going to ask me for money. But this time I'm actually just thanking them and I'm getting some great feedback. We have members obviously most of them are in Colorado, but I talked with a woman who is from San Diego's a member. She loves her San Diego Zoo. But her second favorite zoo is the Denver Zoo. So it's been exciting just to hear the kind of support, the deep support that we have from the community and from members around the country. That is fairly unusual, I think. Finally, my favorite part of the zoo was the primate area. I see so much of us in the orangutans and the gorillas. I see physical characteristics. I see behavioral characteristics that are so similar. And it is such a joy to be to be on the other side of the glass and watch them and watch how we watch their characteristics that are so much like us. And to watch the kids, the kids just go crazy when they see young Heskey, who's a five year old orangutan, go swinging around and tap her mother on the head. And then her mother grabs the rope and prevents her kid from flying off into space. And the adults love it. They they just really love it. So, again, thank you very much. I urge your support and a final vote on Council Bill 172. Thank you. Thank you, Deborah Koller. Good evening, Council President. Herndon and all other. City council. Members. My name is Debbie Kaylor. I live in the Winston Downs area of Denver. And I'm here as a. Passionate supporter of the Denver Zoo. But specifically, I'm speaking frankly from my perspective as a passionate Denver public school volunteer. And here I want to zero in on the extraordinary. Work I have seen done by the Denver Zoo. By their docents and extraordinarily education programs. And funding efforts that go. On under. Their Red Apple fund, specifically for the many children in Denver Public School whose families rely on public. Assistance. I can tell you personally that the teachers in Denver Place Bridge Academy, and that's the school that I'm very familiar with these last years. Regard with with the highest esteem. The Denver Zoo. I know that goes on elsewhere among all public school teachers in Denver shows in sorry, in the public schools. I want to tell you that when I've. Accompanied children who are from in this case, Denver Place Bridge Academy, who grew up in refugee camps and are immigrants, and that is 99. Well, I should say probably about 70%. That's my guess of what. Denver Place Bridge Academy is. The trip. To the zoo is the milestone. Event of the year. And I know that's true for other economically challenged children elsewhere in Denver public schools. And I have watched with amazement, amazement as Denver public schools, as the Denver Zoo's staff and trained docents prepare special programs for the children and really financially put themselves out. The zoo does, and emotionally to. Make the whole experience for the public school teachers. And the children so extraordinarily rewarding. So in this case, I just want to emphasize that from a child's perspective, one who, frankly, without the Red Apple Fund and the support that city council provides, you know, in in giving funding or approving funding for the zoo. This is these are extraordinary lifetime experiences that I'll never forget. Thank you very much. Thank you. Andrew Payne's. Good evening, Mr. President. In the Council. Fellow council members, my name is Angie Panos. I am a 32 year resident of Congress Park and proud and lucky to be in that neighborhood. I have I have been involved myself at the zoo for 23 years, first as a volunteer. And I now have the honor of representing and managing the adult volunteer program. And my hat tonight is on behalf of those wonderful volunteers. I'm honored that the first time I should stand up and speak at a city council meeting, which this is my first time that I get to speak on behalf of the volunteers that are the life and heart and blood of the of our organization. One of our former speakers just told me that she feels the volunteers are the mortar that hold the bricks up at our zoo. And I love that analogy. And I will take that back to the volunteers later tonight. However, I just want to share a letter. There are over 560 adult volunteers. They are not all here, fortunately for you or we would be here all night. There are a number of them in the room tonight, some as recently as only four months with us, some as long as 20 years with us. We just recently had a few who reached 40 years. So we have a thriving group and these are their words. And I have 93 signatures added to this letter, which is about 20% of our group. Dear City Council. The Denver Zoo is a premier organization in our community. We, the Denver Zoo adult volunteers who have signed below, wish to thank you for approving the building plan at the first reading on April 6th. We would also like to encourage the Council to approve the building plan at the second reading tonight, April 20th, in support of the zoo's approved master plan. We feel that the zoo community way too communicated well with stakeholders and led meaningful meetings and outreach efforts to receive input from our community. We know that the 500 plus comments received on the website dedicated to outreach about the master plan were used to modify the plan based on community comments. Many of us attended these meetings and provided feedback in this process. We support the Denver Zoo's master plan and asked the city council to approve the proposed building plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Last speaker, Brad Parks. Good evening. My name's Brad Parks. I live in the 2600 block of Bel-Air. Mr. Councilman Brooks is part of our our team there. I'm here tonight as a Park Hill resident since 1998 and happy to hear other Park Hill neighbors here in support of the zoo. So one of the reasons we are living there is the amenities of City Park. The museum, the zoo offers to our family. I've raised two sons in the neighborhood and have taken advantage of those resources many, many times. We're committed to the neighborhood. My wife is a DPS teacher teaching at Park Hill for a period of time and myself even serving on the PTA and the Collaborative School Committee. And I share this with you tonight because I'm also a Denver Zoo employee. And part of the reason you're hearing me here tonight is I'm passionate about our neighborhood. And part of the thing that makes it unique, it makes it amazing. And something I hear from the majority of my neighbors is what a great asset the zoo is and the museum to our neighborhood. We love the ability to have a vibrant regional park that's used by many, but especially we consider as our park. And the zoo's evolution in this new plan is a key way to help move forward. City Park in the city of Denver. So why do I share both of these? Well, part of it is I've had a front row seat to the development of this plan. I'm honored to have been part of the co leadership of an internal staff team that's worked on this plan to gather feedback, which we've heard a lot about tonight. And I'll assure you there's fingerprints on this plan from all aspects of our community, from internal audiences like our trustees, our teen volunteers have contributed our adult volunteers that were well-represented tonight, as well as members of our zoo membership and other zoo visitors. Part of the work that my team in our Education and Volunteer Services Department does is research with our zoo visitors. And so after Toyota Elephant Passage was opened and our guests were experiencing that amazing new exhibit, we were able to gather feedback from them on the experience and use that to help us then shape the new plan . And as this plan was in development, we specifically ask zoo users, our clientele, who some of which I'm happy to hear from tonight about what they wanted to see in the plan. And so that's what also helped shape this feedback and helped shape things that are important to me as the director of guest engagement, such as the visitor hubs, where guests in these buildings you're discussing tonight will have the opportunity to get in and out of the summer heat to take a rest, or in the winter when our crowds are a little lower, have a building to get in out of the cold as well, as you heard this evening, have the opportunity to increase our education and outreach to the community. The science learning that can go on at the zoo is an amazing resource to the city of Denver. And I encourage you through this building plan tonight to wholeheartedly pass it. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions from members of the Council. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to start with a I have three questions just to warn you, and I'd like to stop. Is Mr. Makowsky. Yes. Still here? Yes. Could you come to the microphone? Of course, I remember the testimony from December and what I wanted and what I thought I remembered was that you are part of the city park friends and neighbors. Is that. Right? That is correct. I'm the president. Okay. So my question for you is, has your organization, since you met and first learned of this in early February, have you taken a position on the building plan? Really, what this ordinance is about is three buildings, two that have the parking and a footprint. Bigger, bigger than 3000 square feet. One that's a tree house that's higher than 35 feet. The zoo came to one of our meetings at that time and they gave us a presentation. The thrust of the presentation was the design features that they were going to do to improve the ugly facade of gate 15. That everybody here. Acknowledged was somewhat in need. Of help. They briefly touched upon a few items that they're thinking about doing something in the future, and there was nothing in the form of a presentation about a master plan that was going to take effect and going to impact the park, the neighborhood, the zoo, the city for 20 years. Nothing like that was ever discussed. And they could talk all they want about about it. I've actually heard somebody say that it wasn't true, but they weren't at that meeting. So that's my state. Okay. So so did they tell you they were having a meeting the next night? And also at the end of I think it was February? Yes, it was in February. And I actually I spoke with Mr. Pond after the meeting, and he basically said that the other meetings were going to be a repetition of more or less what they did. They had a very nice slick show. Everybody got a clicker. Do you like Ivy or do you like trees? Do you like to be tall? Do you want. So you went to that meeting? I went to that meeting, but there was no point to attend every single one of the same. So. So then my question is, you've had a couple months. Has your neighborhood taken a position? And if not, why wouldn't you have. We found out about the plan in the newspaper on Monday before our meeting on Tuesday was the first that we heard that a plan was being presented to you for consideration on a 20 year plan. You were unaware of the council committee meeting. The newspaper was on Monday and our meeting was on Tuesday. That was the first that we heard of it from the paper. We did not hear we did not hear from the zoo. Thank you. So my next question, Mr. President, is for Lori Stratton, the city attorney. And any other questions of me. Will call you up if someone has a question. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And Laurie, I was actually the sponsor or the legislator behind the Park Building Plan, which is I said to Mr. POCHOWSKI was really about buildings over a certain size. And this is only the second time we've had a hearing on one of these. I'm going to ask you to explain the plan and any notification requirements rather than my trying to do it. Sure. Sure. So while I won't explain the plan, I'll let folks talk. About the substance. But I will explain the notification requirements. The Denver Revised Municipal Code requires that the Parks Department provide notice as required in a different, separate section of our code and in Chapter 12 of our code and that section of our code, parks was required to give notice within ten. Working days of their receipt of the plan from the zoo. And that notice was was not provided until last week. So everybody acknowledges that. However, that section of the code that requires that notice provides and I'll just read it that the failure of an organization. So parks for whatever reason or sorry the failure of an organization for whatever reason to receive a notification required here under shall not invalidate any action taken by the city. So it is it is a required notice, but it's it's more in the nature of a. Courtesy type notice because you can proceed to take action. I guess I was always under the impression that that out clause was a failure of someone to receive it. If it got lost in the mail, if it got lost in their email. Not an out clause for not notifying. But I see how you can read it both ways. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. And I think that for whatever reason, is is rather strong language. So we heard testimony tonight that we should require more than ten days of notice. But that's not really the way this is structured. It's you get notice right after you get the plan. And that's probably going to be 30 days by the time it gets to council committee. I think. Dennis Miller said that Parks actually. Received the plan from the zoo on March ten. That's what I jotted down in my notes. But she can confirm. So, you know, my read of the ordinance would have then required that notice be provided. Ten days of parks receipt, working days off of parks receipt of that on March 10th. So late March is really the timing of what the anticipated notice should have been provided. So it wasn't provided to last week. But there is, I think, as you referred to it, that that out clause. Folks would have had about a month. Yeah, I think that's fair. Yeah. Okay. And one one final if I could ask Lori Danna Miller to come to the podium. Thank you, Lord. Laurie as a sponsor of the Park Building Plan. And that's when we added the notice to the neighborhoods, to the registered neighborhood ordinance. I have to ask you, how could this happen? So I'm not making any excuses for our failure to notify. I will tell you what did happen. A couple of things. Firstly, we don't traditionally do neighborhood notifications as a result of R.A. or as a result of zoning code, you know, mandates. We typically don't do that. But in this case, we did have that task on our list of things to do to complete the actual adoption of the building plan. And I will tell you straight out, our government affairs person went on maternity leave and we forgot to double check whether that was completed or not when we recognized that that was not completed on April 8th. We convened, we talked and we said, okay, well, what we need to do is let council know that we did not provide the notification, notify the neighbors. That happened on April 10th. We asked for a delay for for the public hearing to be delayed till April 20th tonight. We take full responsibility for not notifying per the ten day notice that's required in the code. I would say again that the language that is in that notification does not specify how much time is required when the notification is made between that notification and the public hearing. Could been ten days. It could been 30 days. Any of those, I think, would have met the intent because it's not specified in the code what that duration should be. Well, I beg to differ with you, because if you notify when you receive the plan, just the process, and maybe it doesn't have to go to Parab, but by the time it would have gotten here, it would have been at least three weeks as opposed to ten days. But I have to say that that was notification that we received the plan, not notification of when the public hearing was going to be, because it did go to city council committee and to probe and then to a public hearing. I just have to, you know, let you know that. Okay. So. So, Lori, can I ask you one other thing then? So. So we. Lori Strand. Oh. Sorry. Oh, yeah. So basically, all they have to say is we got we got notice of the plan being filed and not even mention the ordinance and what else is required. See, I left I left the code language back there. It does say that if they do know the date of the. Public hearing, that it should be provided in there. So. Okay. All. Thank you. At the end of the day. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Brooks. Lord Denning, Miller, stay up here. So I just have a question about the prior process because I was I attended the meetings but I didn't attend the C fan mean City Park friends and neighbors meeting prior to the public meeting. So I was a part of that process, but I wasn't a part of the prior process. Can you talk about that a little bit and can you talk about I know Arnold's notified. Were they do they know of those meetings? Were there anyone speaking in opposition in those meetings at all? So the prop meeting took place on March 12th. And we have to remember that there's two different documents were referencing. Right. Our cooperative agreement with the zoo basically says that there has to be outreach about the master plan. And the manager, the executive director of Parks and Recreation approves the master plan. So at Proud, the majority of that effort was placed on the master plan because I was asking for input from Parab to give me, you know, basis for decision on adoption of the master plan. And then we have this other element, which is the building plan, which requires city council approval. And so at that meeting, there was a schedule that was outlining, you know, what the next steps were that we were after we got adoption because we chose to go through them kind of iteratively that we would have the adoption of the master plan and then take that element out of the master plan, which was the building plan, send it to council committee and then public hearing for adoption. So that was identified at the meeting. I don't know that there were any speakers in opposition or in favor of the building plan or the master plan actually at the meeting. But the agenda for Parab and actually if you go on our website right now, the building plan is on the website very clearly stated the zoo building master plan on there now. And it was prior to the meeting. Okay. And you know what? I think while you're talking and explaining that, I answer my own question because I believe the zoo and Andrew or Shannon give you an opportunity to come up and answer this question at every meeting. The zoo outlined the process. The zoo outlined exactly what meeting would be next, when they would go to grab, when they would go to committee, when they would go to the first reading, when they would go to second reading. And so although we, as Parks and Rec did not follow through with the notification, every neighbor who attended those meetings, 84 neighbors attended those meetings. By the way, the three meetings knew exactly the timeline. Am I right on the entrance when you got to come up to Mr. President and. Andrew Roe and government affairs manager for Denver Zoo. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for having me up here. Schedules of upcoming events were discussed and also put in a PowerPoint at every slide. I think something that we need at every presentation. I think what we need to remember, though, is that many of the first presentations we didn't know specific dates on when these would occur. We knew when the public process meetings would occur, when the online module would be released, and when potentially the depraved meeting would be. We didn't have specific dates, I believe, until the meeting on the 17th for committee meetings and building plan adoption after that. Again, we did discuss both the master plan process and the Building Plan Council process. At the beginning of each meeting, I believe you made opening remarks on the fourth about where this process goes after the adoption . So I wanted to make one note to Lori Dana Miller's comments about D prep. We did have one community member spoke speak in support of the master plan at that prep meeting. Okay, great. Okay. I have one more question, Mr. President. For for Laura Anna miller. Laura, is this is this hour our last kind of bite at the apple? I got a couple of emails today just asking, you know, for us as a community, are we just saying, okay, go ahead, go, go do it. You go do what you do. But what what is our accountability with the zoo now, if we approve this this massive plan? Well, I mean, technically, the ordinance lays out council's approval authority, which is the actual building plan of those specific buildings that are 3000 square feet or 33 buildings. Three buildings. Right. And so legally, that probably is your legal last bite at the apple. If this is you know, this is something that we fully believe is going to be a 20 year process. And any time there's any major building that happens at the zoo, it goes first through our planning department. It goes through neighborhood outreach. It will go through, you know, specific departments for review because it's a building that requires building permits. But the code specifies what council, you know, has the authority to approve or not approve. And in this in this instance, it's basically the buildings that are above 3000 square feet and 35 square or 35 feet. But I will tell you that, you know, there's there's definite desire on the part of the zoo and our department to keep the neighborhood informed. You, I know, have started the effort to create that committee that is going to work between the neighbors and the zoo and the museum. I know you've sent emails out to try to get, you know, folks to volunteer to be on that group. So I would see that as the Forum for Future Development at the Zoo as review through the neighborhood process. Yeah, and I'll address that in a sec because I got called out on that. Let me ask last question, Andrew. Tell me, did you do you do Facebook? Did you do next door? Did you get the word out that absolutely. We utilized all the options available to us. So in addition to specific direct invites sent to the 14 registered neighborhood organizations surrounding the zoo, fan being one of those that received direct invitations via email, we also use social media. We used our website, we use Twitter, we use Facebook. We also posted on next door and we were also our master plan process and community meetings were also highlighted on the front page of greater or greater Park Hill Community News in the March edition. It was a an article authored by Greg Davis of City Park Alliance urging people to participate in the process. And he specifically shared the Web address to the online module. So we really appreciated his help with that. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, and probably best to start with the zoo so you guys can decide who to send up. But I want to kind of clarify some things. So you said that I had asked you this question right before the meeting, and I apologize. I've been asking a lot of late questions because we didn't have controversy around this until very recently. And I don't serve on committees. So this has been a very recent due diligence on my part. But you stated that every meeting you talked about the building plan showed the timing. So in the February 3rd meeting, which was the meeting that we've heard about from one of the presidents of one of the Iron O's, was there a slide that mentioned the building plan? So I thought you'd told me before the meeting that there was not. And then one of the speakers just said that you did show that at every meeting. So I want to just clarify, just when you can come up in answer whoever whoever needs to answer, I just want to clarify. Was no thank you. We looked at that there wasn't a specific slide with with that language and those dates on it. At every meeting, though, that topic was discussed and I think one of the testimony that you heard tonight was referencing one of the drawings in the plan that was looking at the buildings on our campus, some of which are historic, etc.. And and that provided a context in which for us to talk about the this dual approval process. So I do believe we we at least referenced that, that we were going through a process. And the direct answer to your question, though, is, is was there a slide with with that with that specific language? No, there. Wasn't. Okay. So it's just to be very clear then it was discussed at every meeting, but information on it wasn't visually or written presented. It necessarily was not and is. Not in every meeting. And then let's can we talk a little bit about the and this may be David, but the notices that you sent so email lists so was City Park friends and neighbors were the other Arnaud's did they get every notice for every meeting or was it like, you know, some groups got noticed, I mean, just trying to get a clear sense. So so there was one meeting that was at their membership meeting. But were there were they on a general distribution list? Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Councilwoman Kinch, we are not in the business of selectively sharing information or selectively inviting groups of 14 registered neighborhood organizations received all the same correspondence. I can produce emails evidencing all those chains and when they were sent out and who they were sent to specifically, all the emails were sourced via the city's website, where the registered neighborhood organizations organizations registered their email address and how we can contact them directly. Got it. So. So without getting into proving it all up, can you just give me an estimate of how many emails probably went out the list that sorry. Just to the list of the. List on the our notes. On invites. For. Specific invites for at least four inviting them to all three of the meetings. Keep Fan, the one hosted at the zoo and the one hosted at the meeting, and also an invitation to participate in the online module. And then a couple reminders after that. At the last meeting we hosted a bogie's. We actually provided child care at that meeting. So we sent out a reminder because we wanted to make sure that everybody had that opportunity if they had kids right after work. Great. Thank you. So another question. So this kind of slow up here, but I heard of I apologize to speakers that I was talking to the staff a little bit during the public hearing, but we are not approving the master plan tonight, so it's not in my packet as a councilmember, but obviously it's being discussed by everybody , which is a little bit confusing I think probably for the public, and it certainly was for me as a council person who doesn't serve on this committee. And so I did ask the staff to find me a copy of the master plan. I don't see the building plan as part of that. So two questions. One, why I, at least in my click quick visual, I don't see the same building plan that we're approving tonight. That that's correct. The exact building plan that you have tonight is referenced in the ordinance is not part of our master plan document. However, all of the buildings that are referenced in the building plan tonight are represented in the aloft illustrative plan, which is the which is the plan view of the master plan in that document. Further, furthermore, separated in the document is the existing conditions of the zoo and the future conditions of the zoo. Your building plan actually superimposes those two things into one building plan. It's really in some ways a confusing document. It's not something that we would illustrate, you know, put in an illustrative plan inside of our master plan. So I guess this is the punchline question. So I hear you that there are two different documents, but nothing in here that I. Sea has the heights and the square footage the same way the building plan was. So let me ask this question. So if I'm a member of the public who went to your website, is there anywhere that I would have seen the map that we're looking at for approval tonight? Well, I'm sorry. So the building plan has specific buildings labeled by size and by height. You know, just the three buildings in question. Right. But it has all of them by height and size. Is there anywhere the public would have firemen? They wouldn't have found that map in this master plan, which is the main thing that you were sharing with people. Would they have and I just tried to get access to the website so I could check myself. But would they have seen that same map anywhere on the website? On the website? No. But it was published for for the Infrastructure and Cultural Committee. And that's the that's the first time specifically it was published as as required by by this ordinance. I will state that building scope dimensions are are in the plan. Not all not always height again. That wasn't we only have one structure that's that's over 35 feet. But if you look at some of the exhibit projects inside of the plan, it does have square footage is there broken down so it's not a it's not you know, you have to do some math to understand the piece. Okay. Thanks. That's it, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Microphone as well. Is that better? You bet. All right. So I would like to ask first, Laurie Dana miller, if you could outline the steps for public comment that would be involved for any of the buildings that would be over 35 feet or 3000 feet for community input. Can you walk through? What? That. Process looks like. So let me just repeat your question. What type of input was taken on the building plan in a specific. That's not my question. Okay. My question is, if there if a building on the site is going to exceed the 3000 feet, I understand we tonight here are approving the building plan that identifies and you know, we've got the map here showing where those are. But if there is any building that will exceed the 3000 feet or the square feet or the 35 foot in height. What is the process for additional public input? In that approval process. So we we actually don't have a requirement per code for any public outreach. But I would say that because of the visibility that's happened around this building plan, any time there is movement on part of the zoo to undertake that construction process of that zoo, that we would go through a robust outreach plan, most likely what would happen would there would be some type of a community meeting or there would be notification of the rhinos, hopefully through the organization that Councilmember Brooks is starting, which is kind of the ongoing sounding board between the neighbors and and the zoo. And the museum, I would assume, would bring something to grab. But I will also say that that's strictly advisory. What the purpose of tonight is for council to approve those buildings, which is what was required in the zoning code. But this would be something that we would do as part of public outreach, you know, as we would do other types of public outreach for any major, you know, construction or changes in any parks. We have a communications policy that was adopted about a year and a half ago, and it identifies different levels of outreach based on what the impacts of those actions are. And this one, I would say, would be probably the highest level of output outreach, which would mean going to the rhinos, letting them know that this was starting and probably a presentation to grab. My next question is for Shannon. BLOCK Shannon, if you could come forward. You identified that there is at least one phase or one one project that is already funded. So can you talk a little bit more about that and then what your expectation is to involve more community input into that particular project? So that's my first question. And then the second is, what is the full build out the time frame, if you will, of the master plan that that we have a copy of here tonight and that has been presented to the community. Great questions. So the the first project being a new home for tigers, the reason that is the first project is because of the public input that we've received. The public in Colorado wants a new home for tigers. So it is it was the top of my priority list when I joined the zoo. But it's been a conversation the zoo has been having with the community for some time. As you know, sort of the the funding is always a question that comes up. And luckily this project is funded. And in this building plan in front of you tonight, we hope to great break ground on it as our first project and that's dictated by the public. And it's also the right thing to do in terms of animal care. And so that's how we arrived at that first project. And does that building exceed the 3000 square foot or the 35 foot high? So I'm not I'm not sure if it's in front of you. There's a picture of what it looks like to be a person in City Park. So if you're standing in the park and you're surrounded by some trees, you'll see if you have this image where our fenceline is. And then the height of the tiger barn, which is, you know, you really can't see it. So we're not talking about a skyscraper. We're talking about a little tiger barn where the tiger, when it gets cold, can go hang out. But what we've done and considered in the process is what the view from the park would be. And you know that the actual image probably speaks louder than than words. In terms of your second question, this really is a 15 to 20 year on plan, which is not uncommon for a zoo. You know, I always get the question, well, what's what's after tigers? And then what is next? And you'll see there's a couple of phase projects in there from Africa to coastal the peaks to prairies. And I you know, I'm not going to go through all the details, but after Tigers, the next discussion will be a conversation with public input, with input from the trustees of Denver Zoo, with input from our city partners in determining the next project. But like I said, the first project will be Tigers. So I was looking at the map trying to identify what you were describing. Yeah, I didn't hear you say. And it may have been distracted as I was looking at this if either if that next project on the Tigers will exceed the 3000 square feet or the 35 feet. 3200 square feet, 14 feet tall. Okay. And. In looking at what the next processes for public input is, are you looking at any additional public input? I heard Laurie outline what Parks and Rec vision is for that. So help me understand if there are additional public comments that you'll be looking for on that particular project as you move forward. You know, I think that particular project, we've already received overwhelming feedback of what that should look like. And the public's desire to have a new home for tigers were always receiving more comments and feedback. Honestly, if you look at our Facebook or Twitter, it's usually like, please start the new home for Tigers now, and that's the most common feedback we receive. But in terms of the public process that we already went through with with Tigers, I think the feedback we're receiving is getting done. So so I did hear that included users of the park, which does include people from the neighborhood and folks internal to the zoo. I wasn't sure if that included discussion on that particular project. In the public meetings you were having with the adjacent neighborhoods? I think that was a broader meeting about the 20 year vision for the zoo and then divided into, you know, the projects that are outlined in front of you. So it was a much broader, bigger conversation. But what we tried to do online and through one on one conversations and public meetings in every single way we could possibly imagine is to get more detailed feedback in certain areas. And then, as you guys know, you get a lot of feedback, right? We have 2 million people come visit the zoo a year. So then it becomes a question of how do you distill that information to make it useful and valuable? Because what we want to do is tell the community, we heard you, we're responding to you, because that creates the trust that's important as we move forward. And so we can go through more the details of you want, if you want of the feedback we got and the priorities that we found. But the number one priority was animal care. And the biggest animal care issue and that that we're looking to enhance is a new home for tigers. And I think that's a vital part of what you do in some of the calls and the communication that I've received. The I think what we're hearing is the concern that as additional buildings will be built on site, that may exceed. The guidelines that we're being asked to approve here tonight, that there is that opportunity for the community to weigh in. And I heard Lori say it's advisory only. But my hope and expectation is that the voice of the neighborhood and the adjacent residents will be factored in, along with all the other input that you get from many other folks who are avid users of the park to just ensure that that voice is being incorporated into the process as any of these projects over the next 20 years would move forward one at a time, knowing that there's not enough funding to go build them all out at once. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks, your backup? Yeah. I just wanted to I think we've heard from a president who kind of felt conflicted with the process, struggled with the process and so on, to get a chance for another president in my and my district as well. Come on, Darrell from Whittier. And so we're hearing that, you know, folks weren't alerted of the process, didn't understand about the process. Obviously, there were some there's a snafu within Parks and Rec. I just want to hear a little bit about the feedback that you all in Whittier have had with this process and also what was presented online and things like that. Councilman Brooks, thanks for asking that question. And I wanted to speak to to all of city council on this. There are quite a few registered neighborhood organizations that surround City Park. Whittier is one. I can tell you for all of those registered neighborhood organizations, including City Park Fan, the communication at their February meeting with the zoo was not their only communication about this process. They're members of City Park Fan that are part of our Facebook site that also are very much involved in the Whittier neighborhood. And we received several communications about this process. The neighbors that we represent, and that's from 23rd to Martin Luther King Downing into York. We don't feel we do not feel surprised by this process, nor do we feel that this process was not as robust as it could be. Would it have been nice to have 30 days notice? Yes. But living in a neighborhood and being involved with City Park and being involved with the zoo for all these years, this discussion did not just begin ten days ago. This has been a discussion the zoo has had with not just the Whittier Neighborhood Association, but what City Park West would call with South City Park. And a lot of the larger RINO's that you may not be hearing from as much as a much smaller I.R.A., that's maybe a lot more boisterous. But we have been very involved in this process for a very long time. So I can share with you it was on Facebook. We received emails. We communicated through all of the Arnaud's. There was a communication out to the District eight presidents about this. There was information on all of our sites about this meeting tonight, the extension, and as well as what the masterplan says for the zoo. So I feel as a president of the neighborhood and the feedback I'm receiving from the folks who live in Whittier, that there was more than enough information about this for them to be here tonight, as well as to be able to provide feedback to you, Councilman Brooks, and to the other city council members. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Rob Darrell. Mr. Watson. As long as we're in the process. Did your did your organization. I may have missed it. In your testimony, you saw us trying to find the building plant and stuff up here. Did you take a vote and take a formal position? And when was that? We are we took a vote on the master plan. And our understanding was this was a two part process. There was going to be the process that comes through City Council on the Facilities Plan piece, which is what's happening tonight. And then the total masterplan process was going to follow. We took a vote prior to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting because I spoke. I was the one person that spoke in favor of the plan and it was at the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. So we our vote was prior to and I can remember the Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting was. As it was before the March meeting at Parks and Rec Advisory Board. So yes, I registered liberalization, voted in favor prior to that. And the that was that was to go. Obviously you testified at prev if you were testifying here. Yes. Under the neighborhood or is yes. Zation ordinance a would want to know if it was general a general meeting or your board or and what the vote was in the day prior. I don't think has that same process correct. It was the board and it was unanimous and our board meeting, it's the second Tuesday of March. So yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. President? Yes, Councilman Robb. If there are no more questions from council before you closed the public hearing. I would like to put forward a motion to continue the public hearing. I see no one else in the queue. So if you want to do that, go right ahead. Okay. I'm going to put the motion on the floor and then I'm going to speak to it. So the motion is I move that the public hearing be continued and final consideration of Council Bill 170 to be postponed to Monday, May 18th, 2015. Second. All right. And I will add I know it's in your notes, Mr. President, before I speak to the motion for. No. All right, there. We're good. All right. Motion has been moved and taken to go right ahead, Counselor. I'm sorry. Your notes tell us that people who have spoken here tonight will not be able to speak again. It's one public hearing. If you've had your time, you've had your time. We heard you tonight. So this is simply a continuation of the public hearing to make May 18th. And I'd like to speak to why I'm doing this. I'm not doing this with great joy. I actually wrote a letter to the Infrastructure and Culture Committee because I was out of town supporting this plan because I knew the extensive process that Parks had gone through. I knew they they met with me. I told them, as I said in the letter, this meets the spirit of the Park Building Plan Ordinance that I brought forward. And we've heard tonight great kudos for everything the zoo is doing. And yet, at the same time, I hold neighborhoods to a high standard of doing good process and good outreach and going through questions at public hearings. And sometimes, frankly, I'm not happy with a neighborhood process that has occurred. So I'm not happy when we are asked to. Have a public hearing where we didn't even follow our own process. So it's really hard for me to do this. And I suspect we'll have a little lively debate on this, because I agree that the spirit of the ordinance is there. But between the fact that council didn't publish the public hearing the first night said had been to committee cons consent on our agenda and the fact that we didn't give notice. I can't really be comfortable telling neighborhoods. Oh well, we just goofed. But you know, we heard from you and everything is fine. But at the same time that I say that anybody who testifies on behalf of a neighborhood at on May 18th, if this motion were to pass, I would expect to be very true to the registered neighborhood organization informing us how you made the decision, where you got the information, how your citizens were informed and when the vote was and what the vote was. And I think sometimes we've been a little lax on that. But I just you know, one of the things our citizens always talk to us about is process and transparency. And we don't follow our own ordinances. As the person who sponsored that ordinance, I can't close a hearing tonight and say, okay, I can, I can do it. I can vote. Thank you, Councilman Robb. And just reminder, council members now we're discussing and commenting on the motion to continue. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. You know, I struggle with this. I struggle with this because this is a this is an agency error. When the independent agency, the zoo, actually went over and beyond what their call of duty was. Their process was pretty much flawless. You know, if I'm looking at everything, I would want, you know, everything up on the map, which can which is going to be councilwoman. Each is going to speak to our I would like all everything online, you know, the whole time, if I if I could have it perfectly. But it was nearly flawless. The outreach was nearly flawless to the point I had neighborhood presidents and folks in my community saying, what's the what's the big deal? Why are you continuing to send this information out? And so so we delay for 30 days for what? What, what, what what are we trying to accomplish in delaying? Are we trying to accomplish more neighborhoods like Whittier, who already said that they they knew what the process was. They showed up to grab. They voted in favor, the board voted in favor. And so they did it. We did not see that from City Park friends and neighbor, which I'm shocked by, because they were the ones that I we all talked to Parks and Rec. We talked with the zoo and said, you probably should go to them first. You should have your meeting with them first, because we want to make sure that they're the ones who are informed and they know what's going on, but yet they did not hold a position. So I got, you know, I, I struggle with that. So because the city, which we should say, hey, that never should happen again, it's a bad process. Messed up. We are leaving an independent agency liable. I have received some letters of opposition and last night I received a ton of letters of Please, I can't make it. I have kids. I can't make it to this event, but please let this thing go forward. We have been to the meetings. We've been engaged. The zoo has been engaged. And so, you know, I don't think that I can be as the district representative, I don't think I can be in support of the continuation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. And my colleague, Councilman Brooks correctly anticipated I would have to disagree that I think the zoo's process was flawless. I think you ran an outstanding process about the master plan. The website doesn't make mention of the building plan. The map for the building plan is not in the website. It's not in this document. And so I, I do not believe that those two things were equally explained in the materials available to the public. I, too, sent out the notice January, February about the master plan twice, you know, asked people to give input. So I do. This is where both are true. You did run an outstanding process on the master plan. Unfortunately, what's before us tonight is not the master plan. It's the building plan. And there's not a place. The website where people could find that. And there's not a place in this plan that I didn't have a copy of. You know, where where that's included. And so and I think both are true. You know, I think four emails at least went out to the Arnaud's and, you know, it was described to them that this, you know, there was a building plan involved in this and some Arnaud's got that. And we're at the later meetings where there were slides on it, but some were at a meeting where it was just mentioned and it didn't stick. And so. Ty goes to process. Right. If we have a Ty situation where some people feel like, you know, they understood it and some people didn't, and here's the deal. We didn't meet the ordinance language. And so, you know, we can agree to disagree about whether we gave ourselves an out somewhere else in the ordinance. But Ty has to go to process. If if we don't delay this tonight, I can't vote for it. Not because it's not the right plan and not because I don't believe in each of the cases that have been made for the different exhibits. But because if I don't follow the ordinance to its maximum, I just I can't I can't be that representative. I have to air on the side of it. So this is not about the quality of the plan, but I hope we delay because if we don't, I can't vote for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. First I have a question of David Broadwell. David, I've heard from and David is our assistant city attorney. I've heard from one of our attorneys that there is nothing in the process that would cloud the legality of our acting. Tonight, I want to be sure that our entire legal team is on board with that. Could you please answer? Would anything cloud the legitimacy of our action if we were to deny the postponement and go ahead and take action? David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I concur 100% with the explanation that Laurie Strand provided earlier and there would be nothing illegal about acting on the merits of the the building plan tonight. Thank you. If I could then make a comment. I understand Councilwoman Robb's and Councilwoman Canisius, concerned about the process of the agency, dropped the ball. A maternity leave is not a reason to let things drop through the cracks, as supervisors need to be on top of what their employees are doing. So there are I mean, there are no bouquets to the agency for that tonight. On the other hand, though, I heard I heard 17 people speak in favor. I heard two people speak, I'd say against. But in a sense, it wasn't necessarily against. It was concern about more that the the group that they had been promised in December had yet to be convened. And I don't know how a ten day problem corrects that. I don't know what to do about that. All I can say is I am very, very sorry that didn't come. I appreciate the fact you had quotes from some of my colleagues of I understand your frustration about that, but I don't see how that relates here. I didn't have anybody say, Gee, I don't want three buildings slightly oversize. I don't want one building too high. Nobody gave me any specifics that they were concerned about. And if indeed the neighborhood associations were to get together and I knew that there were concerns that people were going to be raising, saying, well, gee, should we be having a larger footprint? Should we be having only two buildings, I mean, some kind of substance? But we have spent well over an hour talking about process and ten days, not about what was being proposed. And I really do appreciate the fact that I see members from our Parks Advisory Board here, I see members from the zoo , I see volunteers, and we see other neighborhood associations. I mean, we have a chamber full of people, which is kind of unusual. Folks are coming here largely in support of this plan. And so I have no intention of voting to postpone it because I don't think it'll solve anything. I want to go ahead and adopt it tonight. Understanding and really appreciating the frustration of my two colleagues. I, I don't disagree with them, but I don't think a postponement will solve a problem. And so I urge us to deny the postponement and go ahead and vote on this plan. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilwoman Sussman. Well, I think Councilwoman Fox. Said it much better than I could, but I. Would just like to. Echo her thoughts that we spent a. Lot of time on process, but all we heard was support for what is being proposed. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope the people in the room heard the key part of delaying this, and that is that you can't testify again. You cannot testify on May 18th. So if I'm one of you who took time to come down here tonight. And sit on those hard benches and pay to park. And I'm driving home. What the hell am I thinking? What? What. What kind of time that I waste tonight? Could. You can't testify again. You're kidding me. I accept your testimony, and I think we should vote on this really soon, like in the next couple of minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony that everyone has given here tonight as well. But I am concerned that if people did not get a chance to actually look at the building plan, which was not available to people to look at on the website, we have basically a map showing that I want to make sure that people know exactly what they were being asked to approve as it was being brought forward. And I appreciate all the work that's been done by the zoo. I had an opportunity to sit down and look at the master plan. Again, it's a different document than the building plan. One of the slides that we have here shows. Exactly. How many buildings are being proposed to be replaced. And again, you know, this is a master plan. These things are subject to change. But my questions about what is the process so that as we do have buildings that may exceed the limit that we're being asked to approve here, that there is a robust outreach plan. And then it's more than just saying, come and tell us what you think. And we can say we had a public process, but we may not necessarily take your input and fold that in. And I'm not saying that's not what has occurred in this process of bringing the master plan forward, but to have people really know what that building plan looks like, I think is very important. And the fact that we have a map that shows that. I'm not real sure how much more detail in a separate document that's been filed that we haven't seen. And I think it's important that we know exactly what we're voting for. And I am concerned that people who came here tonight will not have the opportunity to testify if this postponement is successful tonight. But I think it's important that people know, including this body, what we're being asked to approve. I am concerned about what impact this has to the Tiger project. And Shannon, if you could speak to what the timing is of that as it was proposed to move forward once we got past this process. Can you just help us understand what the effect is on that particular project? Council I don't want to. Part it's part of my questioning. Am I being able to make a decision and knowing what the effect is going to be to the particular decision? This is the comment period we have passed for the comment period. We're speaking to the. We're commenting on the motion. So I I'm I'm leaving this now just for comments from members of council, please. Well, that's part of my being able to make a decision. I absolutely understand. But we've we've foregone questioning. So I would ask if you could just make your comment, because I don't want to I want to stick with comments from members of council. I've made my comments. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. I take Councilwoman Laymon. Thank you, Mr. President. I represent a district that's very far from the zoo. It's the far southeast corner of Denver. It has a gazillion children and it has lots and lots of families that go to the zoo all the time. I do a monthly newsletter that I put out and me and my I think it was my March newsletter. We did something about this whole zoo point plan. Do you know how many comments I had about this plan that said, Oh, tell me, oh, those buildings look awfully big? Or Tell me these this plan doesn't look very good or anything negative about this plan. I had none. They were informed. They. They did. The process didn't go perfectly. We've learned a lot from that. But. My fear, my district and the people in my district are very, very excited about this. And I think. That 30 days. And a map of what this looks like will not make one bit of difference to them. And so I will vote for this. Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I do I do believe that, you know, folks came here for a public hearing for a reason. So they do they do have input so they can give testimony. And I heard to an opposition I was actually wondering 17 you know, when we saw the speakers, I thought to myself, I said . 17 in favor to an opposition. One person should just say I support it. Dun dun do. But I think it was important to actually hear from folks and and I do appreciate it. And, you know, the Denver Zoo is our zoo. It's the city's zoo. It's this, you know, I don't want to alarm Pueblo or Colorado Springs or any others. I mean, they have nice views, but. But ours takes the cake. And and and, you know, I think there is a lot of planning that's going to be involved. This isn't the first time that that that something is going to be constructed in a zoo. This isn't something that's being built in or on park land. This is in the zoo. And I think folks were clear from that, from the get go, from the start of the process, from the committee meeting. Yes, maybe there is some technicalities. But I think at the end of the day, we didn't come to, you know, come here to be dismissed by a technicality. And if there was that opposition. I think they would be here. If there was such outright opposition, they would outnumber the supporters. And it's not. Well, there's a lot of opposition out there. What matters is what's in here and the folks that are willing to show up and speak and present themselves. And I think this you know, this team at the zoo has been outright honest. They've been very forthcoming. They've been very transparent and almost got peed on by a lion. I almost did. It was it was ridiculous. I was able to really understand this plan, see it firsthand, almost get peed on by a lion. And just for that, just for that, I do want to support a supporter. I was zoo, but also thank you all for showing up. Even the folks in our position. I'm not dismissing, you know, I just think it's a it's a great conversation to have. But it's a zoo, folks. This is our zoo. It is a privilege to be voting on a plan in a city that run on a zoo. In our city. Right. There are some people who would die, would kill. There are some cities who would love to have our city and would take this controversy without a doubt, because they would just simply love to have a zoo like Denver's. So I understand, Councilman Rahm, your reasoning. You know, I think you you make a lot of sense. I won't be supporting the motion to continue, and I will be supporting this bill's passage tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments on the motion to continue? 172 to Monday, May 18th, to remind the council members vote of affirmative. We will we will continue the Republican one month. If we defeated, we will close the public hearing comments on the plan and vote. So. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob, I. Sheppard. No. Susman. Brooks. No. Brown. No farts. No carnage. I. Laman. No. Lopez. No. Monteiro no. Nevitt No. Ortega by Mr. President? No. Councilwoman Fox. Got it. Madam Secretary, please. Because I've only announced the results for ice. Nine days. For ice nine days. The motion to continue the public hearing to May 18th has been defeated. All right. So you know the questions. The public hearing on 172 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. I first address the comments about the NRC. Let's let's go back to December. I don't think anyone talked about a specific date that would we'll start this. I don't think anyone said that it would be prior to the master plan or the building plan. Matter of fact, it was very clear they said sometime this spring. Because we know that as soon as I got down to the community, I heard something very different than I was hearing in this community meeting. And as we sent the email out, it showed by the slow response from half the neighbors, Why do we need this ? What's the importance of this? I thought we had City Park Alliance. City Park Alliance is supposed to be representing us. So there was a lot of education that need to happen. As of last week, we got our eighth neighborhood on board. So we have our eighth representation. We have eight neighborhoods that are represent, representing. And we'll be kicking off our happy hour, if you will. Because Lord knows we need to bring some people together. We'll kick off a happy hour at the Museum of Nature and Science as soon as George Sparks can schedule it. I hope that answers your question. I am. I feel like it's a it's an tremendous privilege to have this gift, this jewel in our park, to have the park and to also have the zoo and to live in that tension is really tough. But that's why that's why we enter into leadership, is to deal with these tough issues. I'm not going to back away from it. I'm going to dove right into it. And I want to deal with it. And I feel like we have been we have been responsive to folks who said, you know what, let's get a landmark committee around this park to make sure that all of the buildings and all the proposed plans may be landmark, just like a civic center is. Our office led in that, and we put that together. And so, you know, I, I think it's important that folks know that we're working hard, especially in district office, to provide some balance because not everyone is unified in their voice. Right. A lot of people have a lot of differing opinions. But what we all can agree is that we are one of the most diverse, eclectic, cool districts in the city. Sorry, everybody else. Hey. And. And we have a park that unites us. We don't always agree on everything, but we're united. And when you go to that park on a Saturday, in a Sunday, you may be a little frustrated because of all those cars at the zoo from those folks from Douglas County are like, this is the best zoo in the state. I know I get fresh because I want to ride my bike there. But I just walk away and I say, my gosh, look at this jewel. Look at every great pitcher in Denver is from the Museum of Nature and Science, headed to the mountains. We've got the legendary District three has some cool stuff, too. But I just want us. To stop for a minute, stop bickering for just a minute and think about the greatness in which we have. And let's come around find common ground around the greatness and not around all the issues, because there's more that unites us than divides us. Now, you may not like what I've said, but. I just believe in humanity. I believe in this park. I believe in our assets. And I believe that we have an awesome opportunity to be great in the future. So, you know, I will be supporting this plan. I will be working with Shannon to make sure Shannon Black, CEO, to make sure that the development of future buildings and as we look at the master plan comes before this advisory committee gets on Facebook, gets on next or any kind of other issue, I'll make sure that George Palm makes sure that we have that map on there for all to see. And that's one thing that I can guarantee. And so thank you for all of you guys for coming tonight. Sorry for it. Taking so long to approve an incredible plan for our future, our city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Catwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak first to the the merits of the plan and before I clarify my vote in a little more detail. So I think this is a really strong building plan that I am voting on tonight. And in particular, I want to highlight two things that I think were confused by some people who opposed it. There is not an expansion of the zoo before us tonight. The footprint does not change. And I see nothing in the size of the buildings or their placement that threatens the zoo or the park or the community beyond the park. So those arguments have not resonated. I see no evidence of that. And I think that this zoo does need to evolve, to continue to thrive. And, you know, I've been a dues paying member. I may have lapsed. I may not be one today, but I have I have a six year old son and we are regulars at the zoo. And I concur with everything my colleague and others said about in the testimony tonight about how very vibrant and important I used to actually have mixed feelings about zoos in terms of the animal quality of life. And it was really the education about the breeding and the habitat preservation that zoos have had an impact on. That became very transformational for me and understating the role that zoos play scientifically, aside from just being a great place for families to go. So, so I really will say that if we had, you know, continued this, I don't think that, you know, the arguments and I will say there has been opposition in the record beyond who is testified today. So we do have letters of opposition in our record. And I speak to them as well when I say those arguments have not resonated with me. So I have to vote no because of the principle. And I actually have experience with this because some of you may remember a year ago, I sponsored an ordinance for a zoning change for fresh food. I did nine months of neighborhood outreach for that ordinance and the exact language of the exact ordinance that was before us. And unfortunately, the city council staff missed a deadline for notifying our nose, even though I had sent the same meeting notice to all of those same RINOs. We didn't meet the letter of the law and I sat on my ordinance and we continued the hearing. All the proponents came the first night, just like tonight, and they spoke persuasively. And we waited a month to make sure that we were following the letter of our law, because that's a principle that I believe in. And and so I there's precedent for doing that. And it was hard it was hard for me to do it because I knew that everybody knew and I knew that they'd seen the actual language in this case. I don't know that everyone saw the actual plan because that wasn't part of the outreach in all cases, in the in the website, etc.. And the principle matters maybe not to the folks in this room, but I don't want to. Councilman Alvis Brooks's point about the bickering. I am exhausted from the bickering that's occurred in our city over change, over zoning, changes over, you know, changes of institutions like the zoo. And I feel like when we don't follow these principles to the letter, we only give air to the sails of our critics. And I don't want to give air to those sales because I don't think they're valid in many cases. So my vote tonight is in in that spirit. And for those of you who were here tonight passionately supportive, I hope you understand that principle and understand that it has no bearing on my wish for your success. And what I count is likely to. Be an affirmative vote in spite of my my inability to go along with that. But hopefully we will have a successful zoo. And, you know, a thank you to Councilman Brooks for the work that he's done to try to put together an advisory committee. Hopefully, that will take some wind out of the sails of bickering and criticism in spite of our vote tonight. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each councilman that it? Thank you, Mr. President. First off, just to correct a technical error. Technical error on my part. I voted no on the motion to postpone this, but pressed the yes button so I would if the secretary could correct that in the record. Thank you. And turning to the second non-trivial technical error, there was a non-trivial technical error in the process for considering this building plan, and it's a shame that that non-trivial technical error occurred. Nonetheless. If if that error had occurred in a process that was meeting the bare minimum required for public input and public notification, that would be a problem. But this was a technical error that occurred in a process that went wildly above and beyond any expectation. And the testimony here is that so many people were involved and formed engaged in this process, including registered neighborhood organizations, that I couldn't in good conscience hold this up on a technical error, particularly when the testimony was virtually not just in favor, but even the negative testimony wasn't about the plan itself. It was about process. So the technical error is a shame, but I don't think it should hold us up in in moving forward with this plan. And so I'm going to be voting in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Levitt. Councilman Moran. Oh, thank you, Mr. President. First to go to which district is coolest. I will admit there's some great representation down there in Council District eight exhibited by your councilman's remarks. But I want to point out that Council District ten probably had the most people down here testifying because I figure the Park Hill folks were broken up between eight five and 11. So I really want to thank people who sat here and endured my great frustration over the process, because when people are doing things right, it just shouldn't come out wrong. I believe that we could have remembered the very strong testimony from tonight and proceeded in a month. I brought the park building plan and it seems like a big headache right now, but I brought the park building plan ordinance originally because I am a very strong supporter of our parks and I believe they are the people's parks. I also believe the zoo is the People's Zoo, but they are the People's Park. And the difference between the outreach that occurs as you're getting ready to go through with an ordinance and the actual notification that a plan is is filed, that's a notification that says to neighborhoods, okay, it's time to weigh in. And that's the piece that wasn't there. That said, I'm not a sore loser. Part of me is very glad that the zoo doesn't have to come back down here in a month and that we can move on. And I am realizing that my colleagues feel that this should not be continued. I am going to vote in favor of this tonight because I don't want anyone to take the impression away from this that the zoo was an error. This was the city's fault, not the zoos. And I don't want that being the impression that comes out of this discussion tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to say that through this process, a couple of things that I noticed. The first one was that. There was an expectation that this should be handled in a quasi judicial manner in terms of us voting on kind of zoning and land use, which we do. Because of the park building plan. So there was it seemed like there was kind of an underlying expectation that that should happen. The second piece that I wanted to say is that. It was the process that did go forward was as if it was a zoning land use with the extension of the vigorous public engagement that was done by the zoo. And so I just want to give those observations, do what you want with them. But I would just say that in terms of the future. For. Today, which is eight. But tomorrow or. In a few weeks will be District nine, then maybe there's some lessons learned in terms of how that group goes forward and. I learned a lot tonight because. There's big things coming forward in District nine in the future. For example, the National Western Stock Show and all of the the buildings and land uses and text amendments or whatever that are going to go on in the future. And I think that in terms of lessons learned and. The. Councilman or counsel for that district, that that's something that we're going to want to look at because they're they're very, very large. Not that the zoo is at the same capacity as National Western, I mean, in terms of land use, but in terms of public notification and how you handle these kinds of buildouts for the future infrastructure, huge kind of things that not only have a neighborhood perspective, but also in some cases regional, for example, the zoo and National Western. I will be supporting it. And I just want to say that this has been an excellent, excellent lesson for me in terms of, you know, you you kind of think you know everything. And the minute you start thinking that is a minute that you don't know anything and you have to start a conversation. So thank you, everybody, for coming tonight and I plan to support it. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say, I think I actually represent the best district. So we had two issues tonight. One was the notification concern and whether, you know, and how the deadline was missed. And I'm not here to beat up on our Parks Department for that process. And then the other was the availability and and access to the building plan for everybody that was being asked to weigh in. I have been at the zoo on many, many occasions, taking my daughter when she was growing up and taking my grandchildren there who just loved the zoo. And I'm excited about the things that are yet to come. I'm excited to hear about the Tiger exhibit moving forward, and I'm anxious to see that. Those changes. So that hopefully will continue to bring in even more people that want to see the changes. Somebody testified about their their child, you know, exceeding in age where they felt like they I've seen it all been there. But, you know, as these changes are made, it it rejuvenates that excitement in in everybody who loves animals and appreciates the care that is done by the zoo. I am so grateful. The fact that we have so many residents that live in the neighborhood, that are volunteers and and have this same passion and love for maintaining this incredible asset that we have in this city. And I think it is important to move forward with this. I raised my concerns, supported the motion to postpone, but that failed. And I don't think we need to hold things up from from moving forward. The votes are here tonight for it to continue to move forward. And I would just ask that the advisory committee that's being created, that as the meetings occur and discussions are taking place about historic designation of City Park, that it not be isolated to just the key people who serve on that body, but that there be some larger public meetings and the opportunity for greater input about what that looks like and ensure that others who are not sitting on the committee have the opportunity to look at what those changes might entail before that particular designation might be brought forward before City Council for Adoption. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. We heard some interesting stories tonight about various zoo animals, but I must confess, I was taken aback when a new animal was introduced in our discussion. And that new animal was a lame duck. I can't wait to see the new exhibit. We were told by a speaker that since at least six of us are, quote, lame ducks, we shouldn't even vote on this tonight, that we should delay it, that we should vote to delay and let the new council decide the fate of this plan. Obviously, I beg to differ. We have a lot of important issues coming before this council. Our last Monday night meeting is July 13th. Lame duck is not on our menu. We're going to work to the bitter end. I support this plan 100%, and I welcome to the opportunity to do my job and to vote tonight. And I will vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Any other comments on 172? Mm hmm. Seeing on Madam Secretary. Roll call. Brooks Brown. I forgot. I can each. Layman. Lopez Monteiro. I never. I'm going. To get it right. This time. I Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please collectively announce the results. 12 days, one. Day, 12 eyes, one nay, 172 has been placed on file consideration and does pass. Senor. The business before this body. Do you know how the business for this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source. Made a pledge that.

A RESOLUTION proclaiming the City of Seattle’s Support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Opposition to the Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_Res 31709

For adoption of other resolutions. Resolution number 31709 proclaiming the City of Seattle support for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe's opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. Thank you very much, Councilmember Juarez. Thank you very much. Before I begin, I just want to thank the tribal leadership and community that showed up here today. It really means a lot to all of us who've worked hard on this. I want to thank you, President Harrell, for helping me and assisting me early on. Like to thank Councilmember Sawant and Councilmember Herbold for their. Comments and their additions to make this a stronger. Resolution. I want to end with just a few words, and I promise I won't be more than 2 minutes. I want to start with the statement that we believe in Indian Country, that the sacred is the sacred. We can go back and forth about the National Historic Preservation Act, which was passed in 1966. We can go around and around about the Clean Water Act, which was passed in 1948 and 19, 1972. We can go around and around about the Rivers and Harbors Act, which was passed in 1899, oldest federal environmental law in the United States. But we also know that the Standing Rock Sioux people were signatories to two treaties, the treaties of Fort Laramie in 1851 and the treaty in 1868. We also know that after over 200 years of federal law, Indian law jurisprudence, that treaties are the supreme law of the land. So I want to end with this. Tribes, Native Americans, indigenous people, my people have been here since time immemorial. And the passage of this resolution and the support by this community in the city of Seattle in support of the Standing Rock and Standing Rock Sioux tribe, is immense. So again, I want to end with this. The sacred is the sacred. And thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Suarez. Councilmember so watch. Thank you, president haaland. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez, for your comments. Since April, despite a longstanding media blackout that actually council member Suarez mentioned this morning. We have seen explosive growth in the movement against the Dakota Access pipeline. In many ways, the fight against a good access pipeline is reminiscent of the struggle that activists waged against Keystone XL and related struggles against pipelines by tribes and environmentalists in Canada. But where the Keystone XL struggle took years of organization, mobilization and resource resistance to see results, the No Dakota Access Pipeline movement has broken through to the mainstream in just a matter of months, and it's a reflection of the times that we live in. We live in times of social movements. In part, this breakthrough is also due to the recent organizational experience that we have gained tribes, environmentalists, young and old activists over the last few years. We've seen a broader level of engagement and an overwhelming and historic display of unity between tribes and communities rooted along the pipeline. Nearly 200 Indian nations, numerous environmental organizations and thousands of other activists have turned out to stand with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe against the pipeline, both at the Sacred Stone camp and around the country. Hundreds of the nonviolent demonstrators at the Sacred Stone camp have faced severe intimidation and repression, including state authorities in North Dakota, cutting off water and medical access to campers, the issuing of warrants and the arrests and of activists and journalists. The physical attacks on activists by attack dogs and pepper sprayed by the multinational paramilitary private security firm G4 as hired by the pipeline's corporate backers. Despite the Department of Justice's action last week, the fight against the Dakota Access pipeline is far from over. As we know, we need to continue to build solidarity, national and international and demand nothing less than an end to the pipeline itself. State and local authorities must drop all charges against the tens of tribe members and organizers with warrants, particularly the dozens who have already been arrested or charged. Among those charged are Democracy Now! Journalist Amy Goodman and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. The tribes and environmentalists and socialists on the ground know that allowing new pipelines to be built is a massive step in the wrong direction in the fight against climate change. It's a massively wrong step for our entire planet. Young people, children know it. Hundreds of millions of people around the world understand it. Then why does this keep happening? It keeps happening. Because the control of these resources is in the hands of oil corporations who are driven blindly by private profits and short term gains. And it's not like they don't have the IQ to understand the problem. They don't have the incentives to support the solutions. And that is why this is a question of political control. We cannot let the oil executives, the 1%, the multibillionaires, continue to drive climate change in their pursuit of profits. We cannot let the capitalists burn through every last extractable barrel, destroying our planet and destroying the rights, the basic rights of our indigenous communities. We need to organize independent of those corporate forces. We need to win this fight. And to win this fight, we will need to continue to wage defensive struggles like this one. But sisters and brothers, that is only the beginning. We need to take the fight to the very doorstep of those who profit from the perpetuation of this fossil fuel economy. And for that for that, we need to continue to build our mass movements, not only fighting these defensive struggles, but really fighting to move away from fossil fuels and going towards an economy that provides a path away from fossil fuels, towards renewable energy for living wage jobs, unionized jobs, education, health care and social services. But all of this depends on developing those mass movements that unite with one another across race and across ethnicities, ethnicities, but being clear that the 1% is not on our side. And for this, we also need the development of an independent party of the 99% that refuses to take money from big oil, a party that would promote and unabashedly socialist platform that can bring about a sustainable, economy, wide societal change we need. I wanted to thank Matt Rumley for authoring the first draft of this resolution. Gabe Galindo, Molly Kennedy, and everybody from our local community who weighed in on this. I especially wanted to thank Councilmember Juarez and everybody in her office who played a leadership role to work on this resolution. I'm very proud sisters and brothers to stand with the Standing Rock Sioux in this fight, and I thank them most of all for declaring their opposition and resistance to this pipeline. We will. We can and we will defeat the Dakota Access pipeline. And we can. And we will continue to build a mass movement necessary to win a just, sustainable and socialist economy for all. Council member Bagshaw. I believe you have your hand up. Thank you. I'm not going to be anywhere near as specific as council members want, but I do want to say thank all of you that are in the audience today. Something that Councilmember Suarez said this morning that really resonated with me is that we are here to protect the. Resources. And that's what you are doing today. And I want to recognize the tribal nations that are here together, also those that have been fighting this North Dakota pipeline. But recognizing that it's really our opportunity in response to protect the earth and protect the water and protect each other. Thank you for this. I will, of course, be supporting it. And I want to say thanks to my holy mountain sister. Thank you. Thank you. Council Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. If I can get untangled here, this is a great step today. And I want to just share a couple of comments that I heard over the weekend about what was happening back in North Dakota and why we need to continue, why this resolution is still relevant today and it's going to require a lot of work going forward. I had a chance to hear from Tom Goldtooth, who's a Native American activist and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, who had been out there last week. And it was appalling to hear the swiftness with which that pipeline company moved when they heard that the challenges were going to come on that land. Unfortunately, it's not altogether surprising, but within a day they completely demobilized and re mobilized on the site to commence the destruction of the habitat and the sacred lands as soon as possible to try to avert the type of challenge and that we have. Corporations that are willing to not just do evil, but to accelerate their evil is just it's unforgivable. And the stories Mr. Goldtooth told of other activists and the physical scars they had from when the dogs were unleashed on them, they will be with them for the rest of their lives. It was great to hear. Well, it was awful to hear that the judge ruling. It was great to hear how swiftly the Obama administration moved with their Justice Department and Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider that. That was a victory, a short term victory for a couple dozen miles of the pipeline. But there are almost a thousand miles of pipeline that are not affected by that. And all of this needs to be changed. Thank you for your leadership in bringing this to. Councilmember member. Whereas you we're going to we're going to take it home here. I want to hear that drum beating in a little bit here. But I see a hand and it comes over. HERBAL Thank you. I just wanted to say a bit about the fact that the protest of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, hundreds of other Native people and their supporters, has sparked the need for national reform. Thanks to your sacrifice, the federal government has signaled its intent to really get serious about the enforcement of Article 32 of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, requiring that governments consult with indigenous people, and I quote, in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories or other resource. The Obama administration's Justice Department, in its joint statement with the Army and the Department of the Interior, also in very, very importantly, said this case highlights the need for a serious discussion about nationwide reforms with respect to considering the tribe's view on these types of infrastructure projects moving forward. I believe it's really important to support your efforts to organize as part of that nationwide reform so that the disregard for the rights of Native people that occurred at the Dakota Access Pipeline Project does not reoccur. And thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for your leadership on this issue. You're welcome. Councilmember words. Would you just like say a brief closing? We've heard some very inspirational words from our colleagues. I. As Indian people were not raised to say I in me. So I had to learn. To transition, to say I in me. But I think today when I say I and me, I think you all know I mean you as well. We like to end with a story. And my story is very short. I could go over the three big briefs I read and. All the information. There, but that would be boring. When I worked. For a particular governor. Governor Lowry. One of my very. First staffing was with a major tribe, the accommodation and the tribes on the Columbia River. And a huge, huge hydropower source on the Columbia River. And I remember was. One of my first or second staff ins. And I remember the tribes opened by prayer and calling the Columbia River the giver of life. And I remember the power company started out with calling it the hydro. Power source. And I remember. Governor Lowery pulling. Me. Aside and going, What the hell? And I said, yes. This is the world. I walk in, the giver of life and a hydropower source. And somewhere in between we have to find a way to do the right thing for all of us. And as Indian people, we've done it through prayer. And we also know as Native American people. We've done it. So the power of pulling together. And recognizing that this world isn't ours, that this universe isn't ours. And it's been difficult for me sometimes in this job to to behave and speak differently. But I hope that I have served you well. And I. Want to thank all of you. Particularly tribal leadership, for being here, because I know my colleagues. Were anxious to hear from you. So it's good to see my brothers and sisters and aunties out there. Thank you. Thank you, President. Thank you very much for being with us. I'm simply going to say what a beautiful native community we have. And it's our honor to support you and fight with you. Thank you very much. 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 excitingly sign it. Thank you very much. Oh. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Now for something less dramatic. Oh, sorry, customer. I was just. Let's move back to agenda item, I believe. 24 please read that, that agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP HE21-019 and award a contract to The Illumination Foundation, of Orange, CA, to provide site operations and interim housing services at a 102-unit hotel property at 1725 Long Beach Boulevard that will be acquired through the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Project Homekey Program, in an annual amount not to exceed $2,000,000, for a period of 12 months, with the option to renew for an additional 12-month period, at the discretion of the City Manager; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $2,265,600, offset by grant revenues from HCD. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_02162021_21-0137

Motion carries. Thank you. Let's have item number 13, please. Item 13 A report from Health and Human Services. Recommendation to award a contract to the Illumination Foundation to provide site operation and interim housing services at property located at 1725 Long Beach Boulevard that will be acquired through the Project Homekey program in an annual amount not to exceed two point million District one. Thank you, sir. Let's start with the staff report. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for. This opportunity. To share our progress for our project. Homekey Non Congregant Shelter and Sobering Site at 1725 Long Beach Boulevard. As you remember, you may remember the city purchased the best western of Long Beach last year. This contract is the next step to opening a new 102 room non. Congregate housing. Site in our city. The contract will be funded as part of the 2.265 million in state funding for the operations of our project site. Through an RFP process, the Health Department selected the Illumination. Foundation to operate this non congregate site. The Illumination. Foundation operates sites throughout L.A. and Orange County. And has. A strong reputation in their. Work. For people. Experiencing homelessness, the population to be served would be primarily people experiencing homelessness with incomes at or below 30% area median income who are engaged in the city's continuum of care coordinated entry system. The goal of. This transitional housing program is to facilitate the movement of people. Experiencing homelessness. Into permanent housing within 24 months. The Project Homekey Opportunity provides. A move towards this goal. The Illumination Foundation Contract for Project. Homekey includes site monitoring to ensure that participants are safe and have basic needs that are. Met. Case management and to support connection to permanent housing. Connection to needed services such as mental health services and employment opportunities. Transportation to connect to services and care appointments. Food services for people who are seeking food support. Security onsite to ensure people are safe. And that unauthorized people do not come on to property and basic cleaning services as we do for all other. Congregate non congregate facilities. The site is scheduled to open on March 15 to begin taking residents. This is required by our state contract for the funding the March 15th date. We look forward to working with the. Illumination Foundation to provide this. Interim housing opportunity. For people. Experiencing. Homelessness in. Long Beach. With that, I conclude. My presentation and I'm open for questions. Thank you. I see a motion from council members that they have. Council member you have for. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Kelly, for that presentation. I just want to thank you for all your hard work. As you know, this is very important to me. Every step closer, we get towards the full operation of this amazing project. Home t location makes me so very happy and excited for all of our houseless residents that are in so much need right now. I know that the operation of these sites is something that that's really important for both, you know, for both us as a city and for our residents. And I was wondering, Kelly, if possible, if you could highlight a little bit more on why the Illumination Foundation was selected to do this, to oversee this project. Yes. The Illumination Foundation has experience across the many sites. And Paul Duncan, our homeless services division, knows of their their. Their work well. I have had many conversations with them. They also run. Recuperative care and other types of services for people experiencing homelessness. So they have a very strong reputation for the work that they are doing, and we know that. They'll be a good partner in this process. Thank you, Kelly, for that. And I have heard of the wonderful work that they've done outside of the city. And so I'm happy that we that they're going to be the ones doing this project to actually mayor. Before I continue, is there any way that we can see if there's public comment on this item? Sure. We can go to public comment. Is there public comment? There is. I believe there are. Yes. Our first speakers, Jonah Breslau. Hi. My name is Joan Breslau. I work at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, an organization dedicated to supporting good jobs and healthy communities. We agree that Project Homekey is a critical program in this moment. We need to do everything that we can to support getting people housed in off the streets and especially in non congregant facilities. During this terrible COVID crisis and the housing crisis that has been pre-dating COVID for so many years. But we cannot forget the hotel workers who are also struggling in this moment as unite here. The Hospitality Industry Union has estimated 80 to 90% of their members have been laid off due to COVID. And unfortunately, some of these hospitality workers may themselves be facing homelessness at this time. This council actually has not forgotten about these workers. And I want to thank you again for for passing a worker recall and retention law that will protect hospitality workers whose hotels continue to operate as hotels. But as we see in this situation, there may be workers who will not necessarily be covered. And even though we do think that, you know, perhaps that could be applied to this situation, we urge you to specify in the contract that former best Western workers be given the opportunity to work in any position that they might be qualified for. You know, as you mentioned, there are basic cleaning positions. There are also food service positions. And, you know, some of these workers may have skills for other roles as well. And so I urge you to include that in the contract so that we can all move forward together and protect both the hospitality workers and our houseless neighbors who need support in this time. So please keep those things in mind and please make those changes so that we can ensure that we are all safe. Thank you very much and take care. Thank you. Your next speaker is Mary Dawn. Hello. Casson members. An honorable man. Garcia. My name is Mary. You and a pastor and a faith organizer with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, also known as COO. And I represent faith leaders and congregations connected through you in urging you tonight to ensure that the workers from this Western hotel will be brought back to work in this new project. I want to say thank you to the Council and Mayor Garcia for supporting the worker recall and retention ordinance last year to ensure that our workers in the hospitality and beauty services can return to work with businesses safely reopen again. And I commend you for doing the right thing in taking steps to provide safe shelter for our citizens with their homes. However, as we care for our folks with their homes, let's not forget our workers from the hotel who also needs good jobs to be able to pay rent and put food on the table for their children and families. And both both the folks without homes and the hotel workers are vulnerable and need protections from our city. So I ask the City Council to ensure the recall and retention ordinance will cover the hotel workers at best Western. And as people of faith, we believe that we are all interconnected as one family. So safety and flourishing depend on each other and not compete against each other. So your support to ensure the recall and retention of best Western hotel workers in this project is also your support for our community's health, safety and sustainability. Said This will help our city survive and move forward together in this health crisis. So I want to say thank you for the Council's leadership, and I urge you to require the contractor to bring back the hotel workers in this new project. Thank you. Thank you. Give us one moment when we transition to the Spanish portion of public comment. Thank you. Okay, next, we have a different form of cancer for. Sorry, Vice Mayor. We have the Spanish speakers we're moving to. Our first speaker is Guadalupe Lopez. Well, I look at Lopez. Guadalupe Lopez. Well, I look at the. It went. Unnoticed. Good evening. Well, I love the things, but I'm a heck of more accommodating and holding. Nora Lopez. And I worked as. A maid chamber at best Western in continuing. Um, but about her holidaying in Condo de los Angeles. Comparable in holidaying. But it's a little project. The home, he. Says in Los Angeles. Comprar A lot. Del BARCO but I think the home key but also see Daniel's back or holiday in. On the night. Um. I like the woman. So good at English? Yes. Interpreter will. Correct. Um. And you know, I said, you know, to go with this, you're learning lessons. Okay. This is my Lopez. Lopez. And she. Worked. For seven years holidaying. And the hotel was purchased by L.A. County for the Homekey program. Continue. I do believe that. And make more our day home. You may be the real appearance on the finale of The Guilt of Me Later. And then I was fired when the transition happened by the end of 2020. You know well, both of our hearts. And the one thought that our hard work we must battle for for corporatism is the idea for our local level. O Happy Warrior Project or Home t. They don't know. There are things that they want me to say, that I want that to be the end. And so I agree with the project. But the problem is that when we got fired, then people was some subcontracted. And so it would not be fair for our families to face a homelessness situation. One moment that I really want. That is over. Resort is a comparable hotel. It's a double barrel travel. So when they realized that the council bought their hotel in the county, then I was hoping to go back to work. Continuing. Estimated to back it. But I don't buy that unless you let all elements that are me early join me like at Idle Not a puzzle of me, small little me mocking my past. So I may have a set about how all of this you've been. So this month I had to either pay rent or support my daughter or feed my daughter. So I had to select and pick my daughter, of course. So I don't want other workers to face the same situation that I had to face. Continue watching. So there is a feeling that I could very well have ordered hope. But I had already run scared in. So I think that there is room for our humble on this empathy for. I ask that organization to record jobs. If those workers had lost jobs for so many years. I'm doing what? The idea that the little thing which is democracy. And that is on my comment and I thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Johanna monet. And this. Joanna Montanez. She sang it up with aplomb. Oh. Give me one minute, please. Alarming number of journalists recommended, including. Hi, my name is John and I worked as housekeeper at Holiday Inn. Continuing. Under the La Pandemia and Coleraine, but also in the settlement. And we look for other job. We decide either condo. And so the L.A. County purchased the property for the program and I was one of the. Workers that was fired. Due lot of that change. And I was never able to go back to work. We must pursue other people. Friends of a man together, Nicola Holmes, that we thought that. So was replaced by subcontractors when they realized that the County Board of Supervisors bought the hotel continuously in. But I almost hurt, especially in front of me. So we have been waiting for a telephone call in order to go back to work. I am currently pregnant and I am. Very concerned for my. Future and my family's future. Continuing. What they need in style. Yeah, they all matter. Nokia. Oculus, Barcelona, PS4. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was the most terrible holiday. So I am about to very close to becoming homeless. I don't want this to happen to people. The same things are happening to me. Continuing. It was a little trouble, huh? I lost my virginity with. Look at those two samples. So I would ask the organization to record this, just to bring the jobs back to those people that want to work. We want to work and support our families. That is all my comment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nydia Cardona. Near Nicholson. And I just. See, I learned this and yet I put out a. Number of media card on that. But I like the camera and I am Holliday. Duran, the Quattro I you. Hello. My name. Is. Kapo. Now, and I worked as a housekeeper holidaying. Continue. And now I have forgotten one young and holy name and then holy name, I don't think suddenly. And so the thought of how my good. So I worked for four years, for. 40 days, and then L.A. County purchased that property in order to establish that program. They continue. Doing it. And I do I don't know how long they spend in that, you know, commitment and plus our taxes system. So I was one of the workers that was fired by the county, but then we were replaced by subcontractors. One woman said, It's one of those people we thought of. The brother looked at it, said, I don't know your mother, but a woman has. When the board of supervisor purchased property at the hotel, I was hoping for a telephone call to go back to work. But that never happened. Continue with. It better meet them in the end. But only a map of all buried travel. A map? Well, that I know. It's so important. They never call me back. Continuing to stand up for women in the military and. Say, I am struggling to cover the basic needs, like rent or even food. Continuing in esprit de corps, they were at the home again. So I agree with them. The goal objective of. Not have yet. Nobody ever says that. Proper familia. The circle of the division. The. So it shouldn't be the case where our families are about to become homeless. Continue. I still didn't know your mother. Till today, I did not receive any call. No Caracalla Barthelemy, my sister, I have noted that is the thing. I don't want the same to happen to these hotel workers right now. Yup. Yup. The list goes on, not the strava strava holiday skipper. I had sent up the info. So I asked this organization to bring back those jobs to the workers that worked for so many years. Continue. Mm. And then I had to look for the Myrtle Temple for the Journal. So I thank you all very much for taking the time to listen to us. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. All right. So we have a few speakers cued up. Let's go. And Council District two, Councilmember Allen. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor, I just want to say this is an important step to address homelessness and affordable housing in the city. I am grateful to the governor and our state representatives for the increased resources that they have provided to the local communities. I did get a letter from Unite Here 11 and I did have a call with them over the weekend. I definitely would like to see the language in this contract. Contract state the following. So I'd just like to make, you know, a friendly and I understand that this is a different business model and it's not a, a motel anymore. But I would like for you to consider this friendly that the receipt of this award and any of its subcontractors at the site provide the former workers of the best Western, the first opportunity to come back and work at any position that they are qualified for before they hire new employees. And we just heard from these speakers, these are hard times for everyone. And I would hate to see any one lose their jobs. And if they are qualified for any of these positions, I would definitely like to see them considered. Thank you very much. Fantastic. Thank you. Max, do you have Council District six. Council member. Sorry. Yes, thank you. Vice Mayor. I also want to. You know, reiterate my gratitude for the support we have to be able to purchase this hotel for Project HOMEKEY and also just want to thank the many speakers that provided comment today about the job retention. And I also want to express the importance of having Project HOMEKEY in order to address our housing crisis as well as our homeless issue. But I also want to explore I actually wanted to see if this is I I agree with Councilmember Allen that we do need to figure out a way to support and retain workers. But I also want to ask staff if there's a timeline, a sensitive timeline. We have to move this item forward. As well, if you know. So I just want to make sure we consider the timeline as well. I yes, councilwoman. So we the further requirements of the state contract with us for this funding, this needs to open on by March 15th. So we are. Under a tight timeline, too, to be able to move. This forward. Okay. And I don't you know, I'm not sure if I'm able to offer another friendly or a friendly to the friendly. Given the timeline we have. But I'm just wondering and maybe we could do a report back on city efforts to retain existing workforce. Given the time sensitive nature of ensuring that we retain this contract opportunity to be able to move it forward. And Councilmember the you know, we were able to work with the Pacific Gateway and we offered everybody who was working on the site an opportunity to work with Pacific Gateway for additional supports in in finding jobs. We were also able to provide assistance to the two people who were living on site. One has already received another job and the other is has decided to move. So we have reached out. We have been working to connect them. We're certainly happy to forward the names. Of those who. Have not been able to find other employment through other best Western opportunities or through the specific gateway to the Illumination Foundation for, you know. For opportunity as they are coming in. And we will be able to get a I guess then a report back in 30 days on those existing workers that might not have a position at the moment just to ensure that they do get have opportunities provided for them. Yes, we'd have to reach out to Best Western and see and. Learn of. Their willingness to share that information with. Us. But we're certainly. We. Can certainly report back. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I may have a chance to address the two friendlies. First off, I wanted to also make it clear. Well, first of all, I wanted to thank everyone who participated in the public comments today. I think it's very important to do so and to voice your opinions and give you a regulator that's going to ask you to give back the final aprobado to say experiences on on Project HOMEKEY. Is that that is someone to ask versus a thumbnail sketch layered on. I also wanted to make. You know, maybe and maybe you can help me clarify this, but I wanted to make a clarification that Project Homekey and Project Roomkey are two very different, but yet with similarities projects. And that Project Homekey is, is something that was, is a building that was purchased by the L.A. County. And this is our own our own long the city of Long Beach is home project. And if you could clarify that as well quickly. Yeah. So there there are three project Homekey sites purchased in the city. Two were purchased by L.A. County. And then we purchased this best western site. So the Holiday Inn site and. The Motel six site were purchased by the county. And we were not privy to, you know, their operations from that point. This is the one site that our city purchased, and we. Have. Been working to connect people in terms of the ability. For further employment. I think you and I really appreciate that. That I really appreciate you taking the F word and connecting everyone with, like I said, the gateways. I think that shows really good initiative on our side. You know, I think that with the community with asking for and what Councilmember Allen and City were probably alluding to is something like a peace labor agreement. But I wanted to hear from staff how how if that was feasible in this particular situation, especially going into this with a nonprofit organization. The City attorney. The answer to that question is no. That would not apply to this nonprofit homeless shelter operation. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie, for that. With that, I know that we I think that it would be nice to share with us your efforts in a report that give, you know, the retention or the intentions of the retention of the workers, at least in our project. So I you know, so maybe I'd like to accept that as a friendly. Hopefully that can come back in 30 days if that is not going to start the process of moving this item forward. City staff. We can we can certainly support the. We can come back in a report. From the efforts that. That we've made. Through this process in. Connecting any staff. From the. Previous best Western Hotel to the opportunities. That that could be available through the Elimination Foundation. We can bring that back. As long as we can move that forward. Then that would. Also allow us to align with the March 15th requirement that we need to open. Thank you. Kelly. Yes. Thank you. Next grades council. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation on this. But I really am excited, too, to enter into this agreement and and accept the funds for the project homekey that will house and increase our bed capacity for those experiencing homelessness in our city. And that has been a priority for us for some time. It is really unfortunate that this is comes in conflict with the with the workforce and jobs in our city. But I do think that the conversation is definitely headed in the right direction. I support us to the best extent possible. Retaining workforce of four positions that qualify for recognizing that, you know, this budget for operations is, you know, just over $2 million. It's not a lot of money, clearly not a lot of jobs. 17 full time employees to manage the program. I wanted to ask and that raises the question, what will these employees be doing? Do we have an idea or a breakdown of the positions that will be required to operate such a site? I guess the question is for the health director, Miss Colby. Yes. I don't. Have. You know. Specific numbers for each for each thing that they'll be doing, but there will be onsite site monitors. So those who are living on site. And available 24. Over seven, there'll be case management. Staff. Will be engaged as well. Transportation, some of these maybe subcontracts, others will be on site. And I don't I don't have the proposal in front of me to be able to. Do that, but I can provide you. Additional information. So transportation and food service and our food service that we do is generally by contract, by subcontract to. Folks to provide the food service. Then we'd also have. Security and then basic screening services. But I don't know how many fall into each one, so I would have to come back to you with that. Well, won't there be mental health support? Social workers associated with this contract. Yeah. So that's. Yeah, that's. Connected. So the connection to these, to those services through the case management will be there. So they'll have. Access to all. Those different providers. And that will be included in the 17 full time employees. Those services? No, not necessarily. So that in many cases we have other providers as well. So some of those may be on site as part of the staff. We don't actually have we don't. Have a breakdown. Right now, but I can get back to you. But then we also have a number of through their folks that they have other. Services. Other providers within the city and area, different areas to be able to provide those services. So I'm not sure that all of those folks fit within the 18. Okay. And then my last point is those 17 full time employees that will be hired to manage the program. It does say that it may potentially provide employment for up to 17 full time employees residing in the city of Long Beach. And so I think that's very important. Let's make sure that that that is an aim or a goal as well that we meet. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Council member. Council member. Frank. Very much so. I. I don't have too many comments on this particular project, but I do get very excited every time I have an opportunity to talk about the project, home key project that is in my district. The one in my district is a county run project. And so the city wasn't very involved in it by it. But I imagine from an operational standpoint they'll have a similar model. Our project was a Motel six conversion and there's approximately 40 rooms there and I've been onsite to visit. And I can tell you that the nonprofit that took over that Operation Serenity did retain some of the employees from the Motel six, and they have found that that was a very positive thing for them. So to the extent that that experience is relevant for the nonprofit operator that will be operating this site, I would encourage a connection between the two of them because it was really nice to see the former Motel six employees working at the location when I went to visit and they were obviously very grateful for the continued work. But also the work as is, is really meaningful in a different way given the the scope of their responsibilities and what their mission is as a whole in that nonprofit. And so I thought it was a very nice way to expand upon the previous employment that the motel workers had, but also to provide them new exposure, new skills, so that they're able to advance themselves professionally through working with a nonprofit that has a different operational model, obviously, than the motel did. So to the extent that that's relevant, I wanted to share that that is a very successfully happening happening at other Motel six site. Now, like the legality of imposing that as a requirement, I don't know. This is really the first time I'm hearing that conversation and dialog with our city attorney. But from our operational standpoint, I think that it's it's really very positive. And my understanding that is that the were the employees that were retained at the Motel six were retained at the request of Supervisor Hahn's office, who worked with the nonprofit, to ensure that that as many people as possible could retain those jobs and have some continuity in their knowledge of the operations of that site. So I'm really grateful to Supervisor Horne and to their staff, because the roll out of that project was fantastic and the operations have been really great. And I mean, there's 40 people who are no longer living on the streets as a result of that site. And I'm really proud to have that in my district because I think it's being part of the solution. And I and I really look forward to more of these sites as one of our solutions to providing long term transitional housing. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman, your anger. Thank you. Is there a guarantee of this whole topic? Is the fact that while creating some some housing for homeless and displaced workers who are creating. All this have displaced workers. So I would like to see that this move forward with the friendly amendments it's okay with that councilmember said that she would accept the friendlies and told supporters of this home with friends. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'll add my comments here. And then we have some some folks in the up again. So just just to clarify and talk through a few things. I'm going to ask Director Colby a few questions. So so first. Tell me a little bit about and I'm familiar with this, but I want to I just want to explain this a little bit more publicly once this hotel was acquired. Is it ever going to become a hotel again? Is that within the agreement or what is the future of this property? No. And what just is, is that for the next two years, it will run as an interim housing site, otherwise known as a non congregate sheltering site for the state. From there, our goal would be to either continue this model or move it to a permanent supportive housing opportunity that would operate. More like a supported. Apartment complex. Thank you. And what is the date that we have to have this facility open? March 15th of this year. Okay. So and so there are significant timing considerations on where we have to move forward this contract. The other thing I would say is. You know, I get the gist of it. The gist of it here is these motels are being acquired very quick period of time. State came out with the guidelines. We our staff is doing a great job acquiring these hotels and no one wants to do this in a way that it is unintended consequences or that we are impacting these workers. So I support the friendly amendment. Asked after you know take a good hard look at our efforts to ensure that there are, you know, recall you know, retention provisions to make sure whatever if there's a janitor that was at the hotel, there's likely going to be a janitor at the permanent supportive housing facility. You know, someone's been working at that site. Let's make sure this person gets to keep their job as best as we can. And those are the things we expect. You know, we hope that staff can, you know, think about more outwardly, talk about as we move forward. But I'm going to support the motion that's in front of us. And I think we've already done public comment. You know, we have more council comment. Let's go to councilman. Looks like council members and is next. But vice mayor. May this is city attorney. May I ask for a clarifying question before we go back through. Again or go forward? Thank you. I have the. Motion to approve staff's recommendation with. There's been two friendlies requested. One, I believe, has been accepted. And that is a to receive a report from staff on the former hotel employee workers within 30 days or 30 within 30 days. The second friendly, I'm not sure, has been accepted. And I believe if I heard it correctly, I was from Council District two, which requested additional or a change in the language be added to the contract that the recipient of the award and any of its contractors at the site provide former airport workers from the best western. The first opportunity to come back to work at any position they're qualified for at the location before any new employees are hired. Because of the timing, this contract has been shared and negotiated with the proposed vendor in anticipation of tonight's action by the Council. We could certainly ask them to consider that, but I'm going to need direction that if they decline and the short deadline, we need to know whether we should move forward with the contract or what the council wishes to do if they say no to the friendly, if it's been accepted. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Perkins. Thank you very much for asking for the clarification. I did a set, the first friendly I think that the second primary right now is not feasible. But I think that the intent is to make sure that we, you know, highlight the efforts that we are doing as a city to try to help those who are going to be maybe losing their jobs as previously had, quote unquote, with the best list, or if that clarifies it for you. So it sounds like council members and they have accepted the report and the way that you describe it, I think Charlie way you described it was just about these workers. I think the report you want to we want to understand that this is efforts that the city has done to ensure that they can be retained. And and is that right? Council member and they have been council member through. Yes. Yes, that's okay. Are you clear, Charlie? Yes. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on. We have Councilman Austin back. Thank you. I think most of what I wanted to get cleared up has been cleared up. But I did have one question that I think I know the answer to. And it's for the city attorney in purchasing the motel or the best Western. You know, I'm assuming that there was a labor agreement with the previous owner. Did or did the contracts have successor agreements to ensure that that the workers would be protected? Councilmember Councilmember. I don't have that information. Taylor Anderson's on the line also. I don't know if Taylor does. I do not have that information off hand. I can definitely try and find it right now. Well, the council continues to discuss them. Okay. Well, okay. Thank you. Thank you. I was just curious. I think I know the answer to that, but. But I just wanted to get clarification on it. I support what's on the floor. The mayor and council. This is Tom. And we are getting a sense that most of the employees did have the ability through Best Western to have ultra employment at their other sites. We've also connected a number of them with workforce development. Something we've done in the past is we have requested interviews for anybody who did not have other opportunities to at least be able to interview with the group and see if there's a fit. We find that is people are a little bit more willing to do that if there's a process that they are able to see if that that employee is a good fit. So we'd like to be able to offer that as well for the ones that are remaining or that we do at this point think it's not that many that were impacted. Okay. Thank you. And it's my last comment. This this is a this is an item that I think we should be celebrating. Again, we're creating rooms in capacity to house folks who who don't have homes, who don't have shelter. This is this is something that we should be moving with urgency on. And and, you know, we've, I think, put a lot of conversation into this item this evening. Obviously, you know, we want to take care of our workforce and those who have lost their positions due to the pandemic. But at the same time, I would have appreciated being. They reached out to buy, buy, buy some of these folks because this is kind of taken me off guard. And had I had I had an opportunity to tend to prepare, I would have been been able to look into this matter a little bit more. So thank you very much for the robust conversation and congratulations council members and De Haas and the entire council for moving this item. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to this is Mary Garcia. I know that that has concluded the both the public comment and the council comment. So I just want to just to add, there is a motion on the floor and I wanted to add just more, more broadly speaking, that we are of course, this is this project is part of a much larger state effort of working to house people, experiencing homeless people that are trying to get into transitional housing. And I also want to just uplift the work of the state and the county in getting this project across the finish line and for their partnership. But really the Long Beach Health Department, who I know put in a proposal to get this done. And I'm also grateful to Governor Newsom and his team, who's worked with the city to ensure that we get these projects done in Long Beach. And I want to thank both, of course, customers in Dallas for kind of ensuring that we get back more information as well to sure that we're doing right by workers and jobs. So I think all of this is important. And I want to thank everyone for their work on this roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Sun has. Filed. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilwoman Price, I. Councilman Sabina. All right. Councilwoman Mango. I transwoman sara. I. Council member oranga. Hi. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. And. Bush and Kerry.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Article 5, Section 15061; Declare ordinance amending Title 6 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (“Animals”) to incorporate provisions relating to the number, and maintenance, of household pets that may be kept by a residential household, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading;

LongBeachCC_05122020_20-0404

Report from Development Services, recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Declare Ordinance amending Title six of the Long Beach Municipal Code and Ordinance to remove the provisions that currently regulate the number and maintenance of household pets that may be kept by a residential household. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amending Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission Citywide. Let me go ahead and get the staff report done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Christopher Koonce, our planning bureau manager, and Stacy Danes, our manager of Animal Care Services, will be available to give the report. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council. This item relates to the larger strategy overseen by Long Beach Animal Care Services to increase adoption of pets. This particular action involves a change to the zoning code to allow the number of pets to be six, where as it was previously four. The zoning code doesn't really have much to do with the animal care services, so this action would also correct that error and move these regulations into the animal section of the municipal code. So with that, that's the summary. We have a longer presentation, if any council member desired to hear that, but this is all that's necessary for the item. Thank you. I know we have the comments in front of us have been submitted. I don't believe there's any verbal public comments from anyone that that's required in this hearing. And so we're going to close the hearing and do some council deliberations. Councilman Bongo, I have a motion and I have a second. So that's. Yes, I have some comments. Initially, when this was brought to the council, it was thought to be a potential in helping us clear the shelters. I heard from the community that potentially they don't want their neighbors to have six pets except for on a case by case basis where we have fosters and other things that are are good performers. And so I'm open to hearing my council colleagues, but I'm also interested in the feedback from this being if this is really necessary at this time. Let me. Okay, Councilman, let me move to our customers in Dallas. But you've made the motion, correct? I did make the motion, but I'm open to changing my motion. I'm just here to listen to the counsel and the input. Other jurisdictions typically do it three dogs, three cats, which therefore could also amount to six animals. But under the way that this is written, someone could theoretically have six cats or six dogs or any other multitude of variances. And I don't know that one. There's a necessity for that at this time. So my inclination would be, and again, I'm open to hearing from my colleagues, my inclination would be to give the ordinance availability , but a process that it needs to be approved on a regular basis by the animal control director. We have so many barking dog complaints in our community and the process to alleviate barking dogs is very burdensome on our neighbors and often causes neighbor disputes. And so I am concerned that there would be right now in neighborhoods, often two dogs get along over a fence. That's fine. One additional dog is brought into the mix and mass pandemonium happens. And now if you could put six animals on one property adjacent to another property with 2 to 3 animals, and you're really talking about potential noise disturbances to the community. And if the barking dog ordinance was easier to enforce, perhaps I'd be more open to this. But our shelter is empty on a case by case basis. If Mustain wants to make those allowances for those that are foster partners and others that are really strong animal owners, great. But we also need to be concerned about animal hoarding and other stories we've heard in the news related to animal neglect. That can happen when people get animals beyond what they can afford or are able to take care of. And then as we are going into an economic downturn, we really need to be cognizant of that. Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, we go to the second. Which customers in Dallas are just. Just go ahead, Councilwoman. Thank you, Mayor. And just to clarify, Councilmember Mongo, are you trying to make an amendment to this? And support. I actually really support the topics that you just brought up right now. I think that that actually needs to be discussed. So I'm supportive of whatever you decide to go with this motion. Okay. Let me just keep going through the queue. Can I. Can can we get a little more, Mr. Modica. I understand that. The breakdown and the number went through a process at animal care. And so I just maybe and that there was a community input and there was a whole outreach process that went out to the rescue groups as to how the number came about. Is it possible for you to give some of that back around or maybe Mr. Gaines, can I. Believe Mr. Stacey Daines, our manager of animal care, is on the phone. So, Stacy, can you can you join us? So. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Give her a call. She's she's here on the phone. We're just probably having technical difficulties getting on. So give us a minute and we'll get Stacy on the phone. All right. I look, we're. Going through the the coolest councilman here. I think some people want to hear the staff report first. But Councilman Pearce. Councilwoman Pierce, you're muted. Open it up over here. Thank you. Wish you can see me, huh? I would like to hear a staff report if the back yet. No. We had somebody calling her to see what's going on with getting her on the line. So I'll say without without the staff report. I do know that this has gone through a process. I so I'm on here and I don't know why I'm not unmuted. Okay. My muted. You're unmuted. Oh yeah. You're up first. Let's go and get your your report. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for being so patient. I apologize. So we did go through a process with our rescue organizations. We also talked in depth about this with our task force. And some of these questions came up. And the concerns, I think, that people have are certainly justified, but they're really not related to the number of animals in a location. And what we're interested in doing is allowing folks to have more animals, of course, that they can reasonably care for. And we have we I think we all probably know somebody that has more than the reported number of animals, and they take excellent care of their pets. And we probably may know or have heard of folks that can't really even care for one animal. So when somebody makes a concern or contact animal control regarding the number of animals at a location, we always deal with the welfare issues first, and that's usually how this enforcement goes. So very rarely do we get a call that just says, you know, a citizen is concerned that, wow, there are six dogs here. So we are addressing there are other ways in our municipal code where we address nuisance issues in barking. So we already have an ordinance for that. And then we also there are already state codes that deal with animal cruelty and neglect. And what we find is that a number doesn't have really anything to do with either one of those things. Certainly they can exacerbate a situation, but they themselves don't necessarily cause them. So we are very much in support of, as are our colleagues in animal welfare, about raising this limit to hopefully enable people to have more animals, hopefully license more pets and hopefully reduce some of the burden in our shelters. All right. Let me go ahead and go to Janine. Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Stacey. I support staff recommendations. I agree from my experience in the animal world that the number of cats is not necessarily I think six six is a manageable number. And to Councilmember Mungo's point, you know, we want to be able to allow people to foster mother cats with their babies and potentially keep them. So we're not putting them back into the system. So while right now we're at a unique moment. I think that the work has been done. The community has been involved in this process. Perhaps there are some other issues that might want to address about how we deal with barking dogs. But my neighbor's barking dog is extremely loud and he's just one dog. So I don't think it's a numbers issue. I think that the community has already spoken. And I would like to ask I'd like to hear from my colleagues, but I definitely would like to keep with the original motion, I need to make a substitute. Then I will. Thank you. Well, is that a substitute? Janine, I'm sorry. Well, she hasn't changed her motion yet. I just think she doesn't want to change it. Then I'll make a change. Let's keep going. Constable Ringo. That's very your. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was disconnected for a little while, so I missed a lot of the conversation. Not sure where we're at right now. Okay. The motion still on the floor as it is, but councilman mongo may make some changes. We're having a discussion about the number right now. Let me go back to counting, among other things up next and then maybe we'll get some clarity. Councilman on go. So appreciate the comments of my council colleagues so far. But the community has not been involved. The animal advocacy groups have been involved. And in my opinion, those individuals and animal advocacy are our best cases of the individuals who would be requesting sick animals. And I'm completely supportive of a robust process that allows for animals. But to say that the community has been involved, there have been no public meetings on that except for this council meeting, a council meeting where the public does not have the ability to come and speak on the item. And so at this time, I cannot be supportive of moving forward without regard for a process. So my motion will be that I support changing of the ordinance with a process that through licensing, the Director of Animal Services has some discretion over allowing multiple animals. So let me give you an example of this. A few months ago, I was at the shelter and I asked, why are all these animals in this particular cage together? And they were all animals from the same home. And in that case. The owner could not take all the animals back because she shouldn't have had that many animals in the first place. And so in that particular case, the Danes stated, okay, well, in this case, we're going to let all the animals go back. You don't have to choose between your animals, but you are not authorized to add any additional animals to the other cases like that. However, we need to be cautious of. Animal care. And there's a very big difference between animal care and animal cruelty and the level of which people believe the animals are part of our family and not property has definitely shifted. I'd love to see the ordinance reflect animals being not referred to and referred to in a more family oriented way. But at this time, I'd like to add to the motion the approval of the ordinance with a process that they would administer. It can be a very easy going process, but a process nonetheless, so that we at least have a catalog of who these individuals are, how many animals they have, that they don't have a barking dog complaint against their property already. Because currently if you have a barking dog complaint, even if it has not been all the way through the process with a certain number of neighbors sign. And yes, that is a process. We have the strictest barking dog complaint of many of the jurisdictions around us, but it is extremely difficult to enforce extremely and it comes into a neighbor to neighbor disputes. So if in the fact that there is a case where a person has several barking dog complaints that have not been able to get through that whole process, and maybe we still maintain the limit of four and four animal I have three animals. It is a lot for a family to take care of. And so I would hope that my colleagues will support a process that's necessary to. Yet the 16. Before I move on, I want to clarify because I think. I think what Stacey's customer is asking for essentially is when come to me, correct me if I'm wrong here, but she's saying that ought to be an automatic a trigger that you can just go up to that number you would need to get approval to go beyond to get to that, not to get above what currently is the number you would need to get essentially a special license or a special approval from animal care to move into at any higher number than what's currently allowable. So you'd still be able to get more animals, but it have to be approved by animal care to make sure that there isn't complaints or issues at that residence. So I think there is definitely could be value in that. And so I captured that. Right, Councilman? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So the motion is to keep the staff recommendation, but it's not an automatic move. You actually have to add, I kind of have an approval by animal care. I think that's the motion that. The motion on the floor. Councilman then mongo. Yes. Thank you there. Okay. And then there's a second councilman's the house the second that I've changed to do it. Yes, I second that. Okay, great. Well, let me move on to council member Austin. Councilman Austin? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation around this issue. I did have just a couple of quick questions, because one issue that I think I remember brings up a couple of good points. When we define households under this proposed ordinance, the hearing before us, does the household include apartment dwellings, condominiums, townhomes, as well as single family homes with yards? Is there any distinguishing difference in terms of how many pads can be held in type of living quarters? Anybody as city attorney. Has currently dropped it. There's no distinction. Household refers to a family unit, so they could be in any type of dwelling. I think six six pets in tighter living quarters could create a real challenge not only for health and family, but also for neighbors. And so these are. I would love to have animal services director in our department to have some some sort of discretion and in terms of improving that number. With that in mind, in consideration, I think I support the motion or the spirit of the motion before us. And this is I'm open to further comments, but I think what comes out of this is reasonable. Thank you. And I agree, Councilman, I think this is a good kind of compromise. Councilman Mango's motion is some of the concerns. Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask for clarity of our animal department, if it makes sense. To have it go through them, or does it make sense to have it go through the existing pet owners vet that they use? I just I want to understand the process a little more because I know when we talked about this several months ago, I believe that Ms.. Jane said that this was already something that was done regionally, was the number six. And I think to her point, it was more about this is about animal care. So if it's about animal care with the appropriate person to kind of give the green light, either vet and not animal control and maybe I'm off. And if I'm off, then correct me. I'm just trying to make sure that we we make this an easy process for pet owners and for the city. That's a question for city staff. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce. So. I think the motion takes us maybe in a little bit different direction of the I think the intent of increasing the number in the ordinance is that we know that most places allow for six pets, some even more than that Sacramento allows, I think, for up to ten. So we know that people do have more than four cats and we know that they do fine with more than four pets. For many people, having a pet is a self-limiting experience anyway. Like, for example, the Councilwoman Mongeau said she has three and that's that's sounds like that was probably her limit. Some other folks have more than that. And, you know, everybody sort of knows their limit. And when we were on to complaints, it's not about the number. It's about what's going on in the home. So if the motion is to take this in a different direction, then perhaps. Perhaps the question then becomes the standard of care as opposed to any number. So if I can take care of 50 animals and not cause a problem for my neighbors, then why shouldn't I be able to have that? Whereas if somebody can't, like I said before, if somebody cannot even care for one animal, then they shouldn't even have the one. So in a sense, numbers are particular, can be arbitrary. So I think maybe that that's an important thing to consider. So we will have folks apply for each additional animal after the four and up to the six. Then I guess my question would be, why stop at the six? Okay. So 20 everybody right now. Thank you. Thank you for saying so to clarify that the motion on the floor is essentially still allowing for six is just putting a process in place. So I just want to make sure that process is not strenuous because I know how important it is that all of our pets are licensed and that we can track that. And so that would be my my suggestion if I were to vote yes on this motion is just that that process is not something that is burdensome on staff. So really, my question is, is this a process that you can handle that will not be burdensome on you? Or would you prefer the process a different way? I think we need to take a look at it. I think I need to involve other department staff in answering that question to know what that process is, simply because that's not a process that exists. And if we are going to be investigating animal control backgrounds for people and their histories. That definitely would be a process. We'd also need to come up with some criteria of what issues are, for example. Are complaints in. And is that a limiting factor? Because do we tell people they can't have certain animals because they have a particular neighbor who has a problem with them and then their issues are really they just don't like that person. So if I don't want you to have another dog because I have a problem with you, I'm just going to call animal control and make a complaint and then make it more difficult for you to make your own personal, private choices for your life. So I think it's a little bit more complex if we're going to talk about our process, but certainly we can explore that. And maybe this is time, maybe we can get some clarity on the motion. I understood. I hear two different things. One is more of a of an investigative process where we're really looking to see are people fit to have animals. What I thought I heard the motion was was more keep the six, but you can go up to four and then you just need to put in a application for I want to go above above six. So I think Stacy is trying to figure out how does she make that decision of who is allowed to go above six. So that is something if that's the intent of the motion, then we would need to figure out how to go to I'm sorry from above for him to go to 4 to 6. And yeah, let me just jump in also. So I don't want to overcomplicate what I think. I think I actually think the motion is, is fairly simple that's on the floor. I think that also it's essentially the staff recommendation with one key difference, which is that instead of I mean, all pets have to be licensed, should be getting licensed anyways. I mean, we know that not everyone does licensing, but that shouldn't there should be licensing. And so I think what the motion is saying is that, yes, you can go to six, but that additional additional pets beyond the four in the process of licensing and getting them approved have to be reviewed by animal care just to make sure that it's not that there isn't complaints or there are other issues. Maybe at that residence, if I needed as much simpler maybe than it is, I could be wrong. That was my impression was that it would be a very simple process, but I have two other people queued up. So Councilman and day has. You, Mayor? Yes, that's the way I understood it also. So I think that keeping it as simple as possible, I think would address both Councilmember Mungo and Councilmember Pierce's concerns in regards to, you know, not necessarily just giving everybody the go ahead to get six and six pets, but also being careful who those people are who who do have six pets and someone that is not being pet friendly wouldn't be able to get those those six. Six Pets Allowance. But then how do you deny that? But also, that may be a little bit more in the staff, some in the staff deciding what what they want to do with that. So, yes, I think that that's the best thing here, is to keep it as simple and clear as possible. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. You impound a large number? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. And again, we have a process to apply to be a breeder. We have a process to apply to be a menagerie. There should be a process for pets. I mean, what we're talking about right now is a triplex that have 18 animals. And maybe that's not the greatest idea. And maybe some of the considerations are the number of animals on a property. Because when you're at 18 cats, you're almost at a cat colony now. And so there are different neighborhood impacts when you have multiple homes like that on a street and other things. I'm not prescribing any process at all. It can be as easy and as simple as possible, and we can start that direction. And as it gets further along, if we see issues that come up, then we can. Encourage a more strict process, but a process is outside of the ordinance. The ordinance is simple up to six animals through a process. And then let's just leave that to animal control to come up with that process. Another example is you might have an individual who has multiple off leash dog complaints or multiple fence violations, whether animals get out. Those are be examples of potential things that those things might want to consider as a part of her evaluation process. But again, right now, if you have more animals and you have that issue, we still return those animals with no conditions. And so we just want to give her more tools in the toolbox so if problems arise. But yes, as mayor stated, this is very simple. And I think it's I think it's it's not at all changing the intent of staff in working with the rescue groups, which is to allow folks up to six up to six pets. It just be some process that animal care will come up with. It could be very simple. So I don't really think the intent here has been changed at all in my read of potential negative emotion. Mayor, this mayor. Mayor, this is the the one issue that it does raise is this is a substantial change. It will have to come back for a new first reading if the motion that's on the floor is passed. Staff would have to come up with some sort of criteria for whatever that process would look like. And then this the ordinance would come back for council to review and approve that with the process included. Councilmember Ringa, thank you. So when has the bureaucracy ever been simple? It's you know, it's much more complicated than what it is. It may sound simple, but it's not. You're looking at terms of defining. What would be a good household to have four or six pets. It becomes very subjective at that point. And not only that, but it becomes a point where there are probably some issues related to the property itself in terms of being able to handle it. What if you have an apartment owner who has prepared for what you want? Six. That would not be a very good decision right there. So, I mean, I think that Charlie hit the nail on the head. We're going into a discussion here where we need to revisit the process to ensure that all departments are involved. And I see I see these are the terms being involved in this, in the decision making process as well, in terms of being able to house that many pets in one property. So I'm thinking that we should remain this audience back to animal control and to U.S. attorney for further review. Okay. There's motion on the floor and I'll go do a roll call vote. Go ahead. Adam. Kurt. District one. I. District two, i. District three. High District for. I. District five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I have a question. I sort of made a motion, sort of not we don't get into getting into voting here. My discussion that I was saying was to remand this issue back to the city attorney control, because I see that there are substantial changes here in terms of the motion that has been made, in terms of with changes. So if I have to vote for that, and that's what I want to think, but if I can make that a substitute motion, then I would rather do that. So actually can't smoke, but of course. Yeah. I mean, I think the roll call but I mean the vote has started. There was not a motion that was made. So if you think you need to vote no if you're not. The motions already half way through here so. That that would be a nay. District eight. I. District nine. I emotion carries. Thank you. Next item is hearing 32. Or hearing.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6999 for the East Division Police Substation, award the Base Bid and Alternates 2, 3, 4 and 5 to Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc., of Rialto, CA, in the amount of $5,617,736, and authorize a contingency in the amount of $498,774, for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,116,510; authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto, and adopt and accept Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 02-13; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $7,063,951; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) by $226,348, increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) by $132,762, and increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) by $660,000, all in the Police Department (PD). (District 5)

LongBeachCC_12092014_14-1030

Item 15 Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications Award a bid to Robert Klapper Construction Services for a total contract amount not to exceed 6,000,116. Increase appropriations in capital project funds. District five moved. A contribution to Java. Yes, I think this is great and long overdue and in the spirit of consistency, I just wanted to, I guess, raise a question to to step in and ask whether or not there's a local hiring agreement in place for for this project. Montgomery Councilmember. I don't believe that that was included in the RFP. Constable Austin. So is there a possibility to do that? I at this point, it would require renegotiating with the the bidders. Possibly rebidding. Them. What I would just just say in the future and this is a rather large, large project that that understand understanding that for an interest of expediency that we need to move forward but but future and I think we're addressing that through other means anyway that that we would consider this as well because this is a significant public works project that will benefit the entire city. And again, we have made a commitment on numerous occasions now, and I've heard from just about every council member, most of us want to see a local preference in terms of hiring for projects in the future. Message received. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Councilman, if I can just point out that that's absolutely true. The Council's directed us to do that, and Mr. Miller was earlier in this evening. We're in the process of negotiating that right now. So the Council did directives to come back. And I'm hoping in the next 30 to 60 days you'll see a play project before the city council that would allow all projects above $500,000 to be. Involved for that. So we certainly would do that. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, one the before we leave the subject, I do want to I see Mr. John Keisler standing back there. I want to highlight John. John is our finance guru in the police department. And he was although Mr. Conway's been incredible getting us here tonight, it was Mr. Keisler who was able to work so wonderfully with the police department's budget to guarantee that this facility is all that the police department wants it to be. And if I could I'm sorry to follow up with that, Mr. West. I can't overlook Sarah Price, who's in the audience here this evening as well, who's really project managed this through a couple of arduous periods of time. So thank you, Sarah, for your efforts as well. Thank you, Katherine Mungo. It would be. I would be remiss not to thank the police department and the. City management staff. Not only did we take this project and I think we're financially in a better standpoint than we thought we would be when we originally bid the project. It also is a lead certificate certified facility all within the context of the current. Contract before you. Thank you, Councilman Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. I want to also well, I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing up a very important issue in regard to local hires. But I think more importantly, I think I want to bring up the point that there were a number of maybe Whidbey Seabee. Enterprise enterprises that applied for this and that want got got appointed. So I want to in the future date, I want to have a report on how many contractors we have out there who are maybe will be the BCB entities out there because I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing it on this report. We talk about diversity. We talk about diversity on this on this council. We talk about diversity in hiring. We talk about diversity in in the city. And I'm not seeing it in contracts. And if we're going to affect local hires and we're going to affect providing job opportunities for people who live in Long Beach, people who look who look and live like us, I think we need to hire contractors who have that type of sensitivity. And I'm not I'm not I'm not seeing that. So I'd like to perhaps get a report later on, just like I want a report on diversity to bring this forward so we can start addressing how we can go out and find those. Maybe we BCB DB enterprises that can do the job that we want to do. Do you want to explain what that is for? I there's a couple of customers who may not. Know what you're referring. To. Okay. Minority business, enterprise, we have been in enterprise. I don't know what SB is small, but small business enterprise and. There's a disadvantage advantage. Business enterprise. And you know, I mean, I think that should be an important aspect of what we look for when we go out and look for contracts. It's not only about the lowest possible bidder, but it's also looking at the types of businesses that we contract with. Mr. West. Hello. The council was asked for either a public update or some kind of report back on the process, because I think that there's a lot of interest in that. And so, I mean, maybe this is a larger discussion. You and I have talked about this, but I think that we need to have a conversation at the council about that process so that everyone understands what it's like. And there's a there's a commitment to supporting, obviously, that that process as well. Certainly, we'll come back to you. As you see, every project that we do award has a list on where we have the disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses, and we'll get back to a report on how that some evaluated in the bid process. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Seeing none. Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Next item item 16 Communication from Mayor Garcia Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Charter Chapter 2.36 relating to the Economic Development Commission. Read an adopted as read Group.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents, including any necessary amendments, with the Federal Aviation Administration, to accept an Airport Improvement Program Grant award for federal Fiscal Year 2022 funding, for capital improvements to Airport Runway 12-30 Electrical Improvements Project, in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000. (Districts 4,5)

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0225

All right. Thank you. Let's move on to the next agenda item, please. Item 13 report from Longreach Airport. Recommendation to authorize city manager to execute all documents with the Federal Aviation Administration for airport runway project in an amount not to exceed 7 million. District four and five. Thank you. Their emotion. On OKC council. Urunga is our second. Okay. I see. Councilwoman Burro. Something wrong? You want to say anything? Matter of fact, there's a staff report on this. Oh, this is your own. This is. Yeah. This is this is is their staff report. One low press release can provide a brief staff report on this item. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the City Council. This item this evening relates to the acceptance of the Federal Aviation Administration airport improvement grant funds for electrical improvements to airport runway 1230 are main runway at the Long Beach Airport. Runway 1230 is a primary air carrier runway. In early 2020, an airfield lighting investigation was performed in the results recommended replacement of the existing runway lighting and associated equipment due to its age. The need to be and the need to be brought up to current standards and the probability of electrical failures in continual repair. The runway electrical improvements will preserve and enhance safety and will align with the airport's sustainability efforts. The existing fixtures will be replaced with energy efficient LED fixtures. A grant offer from the FAA is pending. The estimated cost of the project is 6.8 million, of which approximately 6.2 million will be federally funded. The airport share of approximately 600,000 will be funded with airport revenue. City Council authorization to accept the grant award is requested this evening so that the grant may be fully processed in the timeframe required by the FAA staff request council approval of the recommended action. This concludes my report. I'm available for any questions regarding this item. Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. It was moved by Durango. Who was the second? I'm counting on. Councilwoman Sara was the second on the side of. Okay. Councilwoman Mangal, second in line. Okay. I will be recognized. Okay, Councilman. You can see anything. Just that it's great that the airport is continuing to move forward and making progress. Thank you. Gentlemen. Super. Thank you. Thanks for the report. Mr. Rios. I had a question on the construction related to this grant. Is it your anticipation that this would be done overnight in the proximity of runway 30? The Project Council of Super not. The project will consist of some day work, some evening work as well as the closure over approximately three weekends. We are currently in the selection process of a contractor. We anticipate that those bids will be opened mid-March and once we have selected a contractor will begin the process of a schedule and then be able to provide a more detailed schedule for the council and do us and do council briefings as we did with our previous projects. Okay. I would just like to add that our request would be that the contractor is made well aware of the impacts of construction noise in the overnight hours. So we don't have a repeat of what's happened in the past. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? There's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item. Please use the raise hand feature or dialing in by phone. Star nine. Dave Shukla. Hello again. Please consider Dark Sky principles. Pittsburgh's a great example. You can save a lot of electricity, save a lot of money. And the night sky looks wonderful when you can see the stars. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. District one. My district to. Right. District three. My district for. My. District five. High. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3455 North Birch Street in Northeast Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3455 N. Birch Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-22-22.

DenverCityCouncil_04112022_22-0209

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 22, Dash 209 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 22 does 0209 be placed upon final consideration and do pass? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-209 is open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Madam Council President. And thank you. Good evening, counsel. My name is Valerie Ararat, senior city planner with CPD. I will be presenting an ADU case for the subject property located at three, four, five, five North Birch Street. The subject property is in Council District eight with Councilmember Herndon. And is located in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. The subject property is currently 7880 square feet, with a zone lot with of approximately 60 feet. The request is for urban edge single unit d1x to allow for a detached adu in the rear of the lot. The site and the surrounding properties to the east, west and south are all ESU decks, allowing for both suburban and urban houses for primary building forums with a minimum zone of 6000 square feet. To the north, the zoning is classified. OCP, which is an open space district intended to protect and promote open space in parks not otherwise owned, operated or leased by the city. Bruce Randolph Avenues, just south of the BLOCK and Colorado Boulevard, is seven blocks west of the site. The site is single unit residential surrounded by single and two unit existing residential land uses in the neighborhood to the west along Colorado Boulevard. Existing uses include commercial retail, public quasi public office and mixed uses to the north and south are classified parks. Open space. For existing building firm in scale the subject properties on the north side of the block with alley access located adjacent to 35th Avenue. There is an existing primary single unit structure and a detached garage accessory structure currently located on the lot. The bottom photo shows the existing alley in the rear and the top photo is the single unit residents to the east of the property. In terms of process. The MAP amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, February 2nd, where the item was recommended approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was moved forward to final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on Consent on February 15 and is being heard today. In terms of public outreach. To date, staff has not received written input from any RINO's that were sent notice and there was also no public comment on this. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plans, starting with 2040. Staff found the rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown in the plan 2040. Starting with equitable, affordable and inclusive goals. And I found the rezoning to be consistent with goal two strategy a create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families that can be found on page 28. In speaking to the climate and environmentally resilient vision elements, staff found this rezoning to be consistent with goal eight strategy a promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Getting into the blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver maps this area as urban edge context and residential low, which consists of predominantly a single unit and two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for its use to be thoughtfully and appropriately integrated where compatible. Additionally, blueprint Denver Guidance provides support through policy for diversity, housing, diversity, housing, housing choice through an expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas and strategy a city wide approach to enable ADU uses preferred until a holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable ADA use in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate. Unless there's a neighborhood plan supporting a to use rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impact to the surrounding residential areas. This location also includes the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000, which provides support through land using zoning goal on page 30 to maintain the existing integrity of the residential character of Park Hill. Assure that continued growth and development in Park Hill results in a balanced and compatible mix of housing types and densities. For the second piece Land Using Zoning Action Recommendation three reads Create and maintain a mix of housing types and sizes that are attractive and affordable to a diversity of ages. Incomes, household types, sizes. Cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Getting into criteria. Two and three staff found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare. Staff on the proposed. The proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan. And finally, the context zone, district purpose and intent of ESU D1 X are all appropriate for this particular location, giving the route given the surrounding area, the adopted time guidance, and the location of the site. And last, given the finding that all review criteria have been met, CPD Recommends City Council Approve Application 2020 19-00226 Based on finding our review criteria have been met. Just to note that approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you. And I'm happy to take questions. Thank you, Val. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. And for council members that might be looking for the PowerPoint and the staff report. Our ledge staff just got those uploaded. So thank you for the heads up, Councilman Flynn. And we're going to go to our first speaker, our only speaker for this hearing, Jessie Parris. May I be her? Yes. Speaker. No. Yes, go ahead, please, Jessie. Now. Some may be hurt. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, Jesse. If the producers want to go ahead and let Jesse know, he can be heard. To. We can hear you just fine, Jesse. We heard council. Yes. Go ahead, Jesse. We can hear you. We can hear you. Jesse. I'm showing. That you're. Mike is unmuted. And it looks like it just muted again. But we can hear you. Okay. Okay. We'll try to give it another moment here. First. Go ahead, please, Jesse. Yes. Good evening. Members of council. May I be heard? Thank you. Yes. When I was just a missing person present for Blackstone, maximum for self defense, positive action to manifest positive change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, Frontline Black News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 . I am actually under further consideration in favor of this rezoning tonight of this of 3455, North First Street. I just had a few questions. Who is the occupant? What is the demographics of that person? Does this is happening in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Northeast PA to which I am a native of and. Is a bill to my humble supporters to know who is going to be dwelling here. So if you could please answer that question. I would really appreciate it otherwise. I am in favor of this rezoning. Please pass this my remarks as all five of the criteria so I'm certain it will be a year on it. Thank you. Thank you. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 209. All right. Doesn't seem that we have any questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 209 Council Member Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I am in support of this. I believe that the, uh, it is. A no brainer on this. One. I would urge my colleagues to do. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I concur. It meets all of the criteria and we'll be voting in favor of it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 209, please. Herndon High Cashman Can Change. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. CdeBaca. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Tonight's Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 2-209 has passed. Thank you for being here tonight, Val, and our one public speaker as well. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 18. The Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-344 designating 3435 Albion Street as a structure for preservation. On Monday, May 9th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 307 Changing the zoning classification for 2900 North Dora Street 2685 North Dalia and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20

Recommendation to request City Manager to explore the feasibility of a citywide Vacant Lot Registry Ordinance that would address the blight of privately-owned, neglected vacant lots throughout the City of Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_05242016_16-0492

Item 16. Item 16. Yes. We have a report from Diana Tang. Item pasta. Ready? Item 16, Madam Clerk. We had it. We had a report. Item 16 is communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember, your UNGA councilman, and Austin recommendation to request the city manager to explore the feasibility of a citywide vacant lot registry ordinance that would address the line of privately owned, neglected vacant lots. Councilor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was maybe five years ago in 2011, when the city council passed revisions to the when we created a foreclosure registry program that required all residential properties that were issued a notice of default to be registered within our city. This was a successful program for a number of reasons. It generated revenue to support nuisance abatement code enforcement activities, and it held banks accountable and it significantly, significantly improved the issues we were having with vacant, abandoned, foreclosed properties around that time. Upon registration, the program requires a registration fee and a registration form to be renewed annually as long as that property remained in foreclosure. And so the goal of this program, I envision a similar program for vacant lots throughout our city to ensure that property owners are held accountable for the upkeep of these lots. I envision there are a number of elements that could go into this one, some level of monitoring. Two annual updates. Vacant lots, lots offered in calls, numerous problems for our neighborhoods surrounding them, including illegal dumping, graffiti, criminal activity, and generally having an unsafe and unhealthy condition. Many times vacant lots have habitual code enforcement violations due to failure to maintain those requirements, and this could potentially protect our community's public health and safety and welfare by requiring the maintenance of these items. So there are a number of cities who have taken this step. So there are models in Pasadena, Monterey Park and Jersey City, the given. So we had engaged in this conversation with city staff a number of months ago. But given the agenda item a week ago or so about potentially utilizing vacant lots for agriculture, there was a conversation that I had with Councilmember Gonzales that now might be the time to bring an item like this forward. So in this in this potential report, I'd like to see the potential fee structure. I'd like to better understand the feasibility of adding some enhanced maintenance standards to these vacant lot, such as improved fencing, landscaping, so on and so forth, and potential for this program to perhaps intersect with other program beautification programs we might have in the city, like the work that we're doing around urban agriculture. And I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Okay. Any public comment? Seeing none back to the floor from your. I want to thank and Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. It's obviously a creative way of dealing with our blight in the city with the absence and the going away of redevelopment, that this is a better way to deal with those empty lot. So I, I support. Councilman Andrews. I also would like to thank our council for bringing this item for this has been a struggle, you know, keep some of these large frequent legal dumping items, but they tend to be a magnet that attracts more dumping items and adds to the visible blight in our community and needs much more done by some of the certainly some of the property owners. And I think if we really took those steps, I think a lot of these things could be cleaned up. And thank you again, Councilman Richardson. For bringing this. Councilman Gonzales. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. I know we spoke about this a couple of weeks ago as he brought forward the incentive program for urban agriculture. And looking at lots, we thought it'd be a bigger discussion to look at vacant lots as a whole. And so I'm also looking forward to the feasibility to see how it is that we can implement something similar or at least record the vacant lots we have, if anything. So thank you very much. Concern, Austin. Yes. I'd like to join and just thank you for bringing this forward and allowing me to sign on with this that I'm in full support. I see this as an opportunity to to register the lots, but not necessarily. Of course, we want to eliminate blight in the all the negative that comes with these vacant lots. But I think it's an opportunity for us to actually see where our opportunities are, right, in terms of new housing, economic development, etc.. And we can we can work strategically as a city to, to, to, to, to work on those and assist those property owners in moving those properties in the right direction. So happily, sign on. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries 19, removing the 19. What we're doing now.

Full Unit Lot Subdivision application of U District Investments LLC to subdivide one parcel into 53 unit lots at 7500 15th Ave NW (Project No. 3020759; Type III).

SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_CF 314327

Bill passed and show Senate. Please read agendas items one into the report. The full council agenda item one Clerk 5314 327 four Unit lot subdivision application of you District Investments LLC to subdivide one parcel until 53 Unit lots at 70/515 Avenue Northwest Item to cancel 119 239. Appropriate approving and confirming the plot of a solar 15th in portions of the southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter, section one township 25th , North Range three east W.M. in King County, Washington. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. This is one of those land use issues that occasionally comes straight to full council. Our land use code requires that the council grant grants the plat approval of subdivisions within 30 days of the filing by the plant's owner. The action that we would take today would subdivide six individual parcels just between 15th and Mary Avenue Northwest off of 75th Avenue to 21 parcels, and further subdivide one of those additional parcels to 33 unit parts. As DCI Chester and central staff will confirm that the PLAT would meet all the required conditions and would request a do pass vote on the council bill and a place on file vote on the court filing. Very good. Are there any further comments or questions? Just Councilman Bagshaw? Councilmember Johnson, if somebody was living or walking in this area, can they walk through this? It appeared to me that there might be a way that an individual can do that just because there's public space. So it's not just a wall along 15th, but somebody can walk through it around these buildings. Is that open to individuals or is it limited just to the people who are owning the townhomes? The I am not familiar enough with the project to give you a straight answer, Councilman Maxwell. But Eric McConaghy of our Council central staff is the person who's been tracking this project and certainly could give you the rundown on of projects status and whether or not it's gone through the design review boards to an extent that would be satisfactory to you. Okay, very good. Thank you. I'll check in with Eric. Okay. So comfortable moving forward, everyone. I hope so. Okay, here we go. So we'll take the file first. Those in favor of filing the clerk file. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the file is filed. I will move to pass counts bill 119239. Any further comments tonight? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Johnson. Suarez. Mosquera O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bakeshop. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of James Shepherd, dba Tailgate Bar, 2503 Santa Fe Avenue, for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_08112015_15-0743

I'm here. Thank you. We're going to do we're going to do the budget next. But right before the budget, we got to do hearing item number one, which should be fairly quickly. So, Madam Clerk, hearing one. Man. Oh, man. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Tailgate Bar located at 2503 Santa Fe Avenue for Entertainment Without Dancing District seven. Thank you. Is there a quick report from from staff? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, this is hearing item two and the staff report would be done by Jason MacDonald, our purchasing and Business Services Manager. Mayor. Council Members. Jason MacDonald. Purchasing and Business Services Manager. Bureau. Bureau Manager for the Financial Management Department. Tonight you have in front of you the application for entertainment without dancing for James Sheppard doing business as the Tailgate Bar 2503 Santa Fe Avenue in District seven. All the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application of proposed conditions are contained in the packet that was provided. We are prepared to discuss any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application. Or. Conditions. Our office has not been made aware of any complaints regarding this application or the business location. That concludes my. Report. Thank you. Thank you. And wanting to be sworn in. Do we know on the for this item or no oath? Mr.. No oath required. Correct. Okay. So let me go ahead and then now turn it back over to Country Ranga to comment. Thank you, Bear. Then. Thank you for that, for the staff report. I think that it shows that the business is doing well. And I would like to thank the city of Long Beach, the Development Services, Health Department, Financial Management, Police and Fire for their diligent efforts in addressing the needs of both our residential and business stakeholders in this area. I do not think that I could have been more proactive with provided with a more thorough understanding of the situation at hand and of our options for moving forward. You have allowed me to somewhat tenuously ensure the quality of life for our community while remaining business friendly. Furthermore, I am encouraged by Mr. James Shepherd's willingness to operate under the specific recommendations of the City of Long Beach to address the concerns of the West Miami neighborhoods and who live near in the Sugar Cove area. I am hopeful that in adhering to these recommendations, the tailgate bar will not only operate as a conscientious community partner , but will have the tools to become one of the go to venues in the seventh District and the city of Long Beach. Last but not least, I would like to thank the West Miami Sugar Code residents for their continued advocacy on behalf of their community, and especially for patiently working alongside my council staff and city departments as we progress through this lengthy process. And with that, I'd like to make the motion to approve the berm. It has been in motion. And a second, is there any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote to be close to hearing. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead. And Mr. City Attorney, you wanted to make an announcement from earlier? Yes. About 6 hours ago in the closed session, we were reporting out from the closed session regarding the hearing on the item for the address of 53, 70/42 Street by a vote of the City Council of 9 to 0. The Council voted to reject the offer to purchase the property, thus concluding any real estate negotiations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So we are now going to go into our budget presentation or budget item and. I'm going to turn this over to. Mr. West. And obviously we're all mindful of what has to get done tonight still.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution recognizing October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month to increase awareness about breast cancer and promote healthy lifestyle choices that reduce the risk of cancer.

LongBeachCC_10192021_21-1100

Next to that. I'm 16, please. Communication from Councilwoman Allen. Councilman and I have Councilwoman Sorrell recommendation to request city attorney. Their pair resolution recognizing October as breast cancer awareness month. Councilman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. I'm very proud to introduce this resolution today, and I think it's an important gesture that our city can make. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and while most people are aware of breast cancer, many forget there are practical steps that we can take to detect the disease in its early stages. As most of you know, I'm a breast cancer survivor. And I think that it's important that we raise awareness for this disease. I am going to take this opportunity because a really close friend of mine done a woman called me when I was in my forties and she was so persistent that I go and get a mammogram . And it was when I look back and I think about these conversations, I thought, you know, I'm young and it was just a distant thought of cancer. But she was persistent and maybe just a good ma was speaking to her, but I wouldn't have that mammogram. And then I was diagnosed with cancer and I went on to have a double radical mastectomy. And breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of death in women in the United States. The chance of a woman having breast cancer sometime during her lifetime is about one in eight. And early onset of cancer, which is women under the age of 45, is one in ten. Breast cancer is very common, but it's also preventable. So today I'm asking the city to recognize October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and help our residents to be more informed and better prepare to prevent, manage and survive breast cancer. Thank you, councilwoman, councilman and engineer. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen, for bringing this item forward. I really respect and admire your passion and advocacy on this matter. As a breast cancer survivor, my sister is also a breast cancer survivor. And I just want to say I stand with you in this advocacy to raise awareness about breast cancer. I think it is very important that we all understand the importance not only within women, but also within men, because everybody has moms and daughters and sisters. And so I'm happy to support this item with you. Councilmember Granger. Thank you. And I want to. Think of the people who brought this forward of. I used to bring this forward a couple of times when I first started in the city council because my wife is a breast cancer survivor and I wanted to make sure that the message would get out to individuals to please, please, please. Get yourself examined. Get a press or get a test because your best way to fight it is when you catch it early in my way. We're fortunate in that you caught it early and didn't have to go through the major type of surgeries that other people have gone through, like my colleague in the islands. And, you know, thank you for bringing that forward and making people aware that this is a very important health issue and that people should continue to get the get tested. Very happy to support. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Allen for bringing the item forward and that I also stand with her and all of the those who have survived breast cancer, as well as wanting to honor those who had passed from breast cancer as well. And that this is an important month where it's, you know, if you're not scheduled to get tested is a good time to make sure you do and that it's on a regular basis. And just that it's never. It's always important to do education on this. So thank you so much. Thank you. And Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Allen and the COSIGNERS for bringing this item forward. And also, I just really want to thank Councilwoman Allen for sharing so openly and honestly about her personal journey with breast cancer. I think her allowing herself to be vulnerable about that will hopefully allow a lot of people to to take, you know, to kind of heed that advice and and do what they need to to make sure they're safe. My mother was a breast cancer survivor. She is currently surviving breast cancer because her cancer came back a few years ago and she has metastasized breast cancer. But we have amazing medicine today and amazing doctors and nurses at the City of Hope, where we go as a family to get her treatment. And as a result of that and all of the research that's been done in the area of breast cancer, my mother is still hanging in there and, you know, feistier than ever with her four years in taking the current daily medication that she takes. And so I'm proud of the efforts that the leaders throughout this country have done to support policies to advance the science in the area of breast cancer and super proud to serve on a board with so many women for whom this disease is incredibly significant. And with at least one of those women has shared her personal story, having touched been touched by this personally. And so I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, is there any public comment on this? And please cast your votes.

Full Subdivision Application of Greenwater Construction Inc. to subdivide nine (9) parcels into twenty-five (25) parcels of land at 9736 Lindsay Place South (SDCI Project No. 3006789; Type III).

SeattleCityCouncil_05162016_CF 301342

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I like the report of the full council. Please read the report from the agenda. Item one Clerk File 3013424 Subdivision Application of Green Water Construction Inc to subdivide nine parcels into 25 parcels of land at 9736. Lindsey Place South Re referred May 16th, 2016. Council member JOHNSON. Thank you, President Harrell. So we're going to go back in the Wayback Machine for this one. Today the council is considering final plat approval for a subdivision located at 9736 Lindsey Place South in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. It's across Renton Avenue, south from Kubota Gardens just to the east. Subdivision of the site is going to facilitate the development and sale of 22 single family homes. Dedication of land for wetland and community open space. Construction has not yet started, but the Department of Planning and Development ruled on this in 2002 and the hearings examiner ruled on in 2006. We were notified about the final plant application recently and the City Council is required to take action on that within 30 days of notification. The matter includes item one on the agenda, which is the clerk file 301, three, four, two and item two Council Bill 118673. So procedurally, I can talk a little bit about what the city has done, but I think maybe it'd be best for me to just stop there and say that improvements have not been made. And the central staff recommends, as a result of the fact that improvements are not being made, i.e. we haven't built any houses here yet , that we as a city require a substitute version to ask the developer to put forward an $815,000 bond to make sure that we're holding that bond for any infrastructure investments that may need to come along with this improvements. So I'm happy to discuss the substitute bill in more detail, but I'd like to first move. Clark file 301342 for adoption. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further comments? I move. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just have a procedural question as to why this isn't going to the plus committee. The item came to us within a 30 day review as required by state statute, so it was required to be walked on straight to full council. I see. Given the timeline which the final plat was received by the city. Okay. And I remember a constituent coming and speaking at. Public testimony last week about a subdivision, and that constituent had some concerns with it, but it was only on the referral calendar at that time. And I'm wondering, is it the same. It is the same constituent on the same property that constituents concern was about easement and access to their property. We are working with the private developer and that constituent to make sure that that easement is maintained. But there is no requirement, there is no legal allowance for us to require the developer as a private matter to give another private individual easement access. But that's what the law department has told us. Okay. But it is something that we're continuing to work on as a voluntary basis. That is correct. Councilman Mirabal. Thank you. Yeah. Great questions. Okay. And I think this action today we're just filing is placing it on file for today. So it's been moved in. Second, those in favor of filing the file. Please, Lord, I, I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the file is placed on file. Please read the next matter into the record. Agenda Item two Council Bill 118673 Approving and confirming the Plan of Kubota East and the portions of Northeast. One quarter of Northwest, one quarter of Section two Township 23, north range four, east w m in King County, Washington introduced May 3rd, 2016 concerning Johnson.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3705 Shoshone St. & 1945 W. 37th Ave. Rezones property at 3705 Shoshone Street &1945 West 37th Avenue from PUD #181 to U-TU-B, DO-4 (urban, two unit, 4500 sq. ft. minimum lot size, Design Overlay-Side Interior Setback) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0509

12 eyes. For Final Consideration Council Bill 430 and this public hearing will be postponed to Monday, October 3rd. Councilwoman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Bill 519 on floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 509 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has. Let's see here. It has been moved and second it. Public hearing for council bill 509 is open. May we have the staff report? Hey, good. Evening. Cortland Pizer with Community Planning Development here to present the proposed rezoning for 3705 Shoshone Street in 1945 West 37th. So this rezoning proposal is in Council District one in the Highland neighborhood. And specifically at the northwest corner of 37th AV and Shoshone Street as shown on the slide here. There are actually two properties here, one single family home fronting Shoshone streets and the other, which appears to be the backyard of that house but is actually a separate parcel with a greenhouse and a carriage house on it. Fronting 37th. The applicant is requesting rezoning to remove the existing old code. PUD. And is requesting to rezone from that pad to YouTube with the DOH for overlay. So YouTube stands for Urban Neighborhood to unit. The B indicates a 4500 square foot minimum lot size. The deal for is the side interior setback design overlay. This is an overlay that's commonly mapped throughout this neighborhood and allows for some flexibility inside yard setbacks when certain conditions are met regarding lot with. The existing zoning for the site. PD 181. Surrounding zoning on three sides matches the district that the applicant is requesting. YouTube with the deal for overlay and there's also another PD across Shoshone Street to the east. So a few words about the existing old code. It was adopted in 1985. Like a lot of PDAs that were created in this era, it was written very narrowly to a specific development proposal. In this case, the development proposal at the time was to maintain use of the single family home fronting Shoshone or allow for it to be converted to a duplex. And then the carriage. House was allowed to have a commercial use. Established, which was a neighborhood bakeshop and that was the reason for the establishment of the pad at the time. The existing land use we already mentioned for the site itself being single, family, residential and then with the green house and now Carriage House, which no longer has the bakeshop located in it. So it's not being used to. The north is the Potenza lodge and it's a rather large parking lot that's directly adjacent to the site and runs up to the lodge that fronts 38th AV to the south and to the west is single family residential into the east is the corporate offices for the Trino Foods. So here's some images to accompany the land use map. So the top two are of the site itself, the one on the left being of the home. And then you can see in the the one at the top right showing what would be. The backyard of the home. But is that separate parcel. That contains the. Carriage house? And what you see in the foreground is a rather large greenhouse. It's also located on the property. To the north is the Potenza Lodge. This is a photo taken from the Lott line looking towards the lodge so you can see the parking lot that serves the lodge dominating that photo. Here's the LA Perino Foods corporate headquarters, the portion of which that's directly adjacent or excuse me, across Shoshone street from the site and then a couple of single family residential uses. So here's one to the south and then one to the west across the alley. In terms of information on notice, we followed our standard procedures for notification notification throughout for each step of the planning process. The Planning Board public hearing was held back in July and planning board recommended approval by a vote of 10 to 0. The registered neighborhood organizations listed at the bottom of the slide were notified throughout the process at all required points and we have received no public comment on this particular application. The five standard review criteria for rezonings apply and we'll go through each of these briefly, starting with plan consistency. The three relevant plans for this application are Comp Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Highland Neighborhood Plan. Can't plan 2000 has three strategies listed here on the slide, more detail provided in the staff report, but the finding was consistency with the strategies that are listed here. Blueprint. Denver Street Classification Recommendations for Shoshone and 37th is undesignated local for both of those streets. And Blueprint. Denver identifies this as an area of stability and the land use recommendation is single-family and part of the definition of single family and blueprint. Listed here in the slide is that single family homes are the predominant residential type. So the predominant type, not the only. Type. The proposed. YouTube. Zoning would allow single family urban. Houses, but it would. Also allow to use duplexes and tandem. Houses. So a little bit. Broader than just the strict interpretation of single family, but that is allowed for in Blueprint Denver. The 2010 comprehensive rezoning is relevant here because a two unit district rather than a single unit district was chosen for this general area. That's because of the historically the zoning was are to throughout this particular neighborhood. And YouTube. Was chosen as an equivalent district. You do find a mix of low to moderate density residential types throughout the area, although single family is the predominant residential. Type. And the Highland Neighborhood Plan does have some recommendations that are a little bit broader than just single family. And those are listed here on this slide. So the site itself shown in the little red box there within sub area 13 of the Highland Neighborhood Plan and the goal stated for sub area 13 by that plan is to improve and stabilize residential areas by preserving existing housing stock and encouraging homeownership. And the land use recommendation is low density residential, which is single family and low to moderate density residential, of which the YouTube district is a good fit. So the finding is that there is consistency with our adopted plans and that the first criteria is met. The slide summarizes the remaining criteria. The uniformity of district regulations is met by virtue. Of the fact that this. Particular proposal would rezone out of an old Code PD and into the Denver zoning code. And furthermore, the requested zoning matches the surrounding neighborhood parcels. It advances the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans. The justifying circumstances are a changed or changing condition, the most relevant of which being that the bakery has been closed for several years. The PD doesn't allow for it to be the carriage house to be used as anything other than a bakery. And so it no longer serves its purpose. The consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent is also met and more details are in the staff report on that. So CPD recommendation is approval based on finding that all. Of the review criteria were met. Thank you. We have one speaker this evening. Zach Slover can come up to the front. You have 3 minutes. Hi. I'm Zach Sloan with generator real estate and owner representative. And it answer any questions. All right. This concludes our speakers call on questions for members of council. Give some time to. All right. Here we go. Public hearing for council five or nine is closed. Councilman Espinosa comments. No, it's just this was this could have been a contentious little bit of property. But it's the right zoned district, isn't it? It's it's endorsed by a endorsement from the community. So I'm happy to support this rezoning. Nice. Councilman, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to share with my colleagues that the property owner came and met with me. Gosh, I want to say about 6 to 8 months ago, because they had an interest in wanting to separate these out. And under the PD, they have always been two separate properties. They have two different addresses and they paid taxes on them separately. But for the purpose of being able to, you know, sell part of the property so that it could be used as income for this elderly couple, they couldn't do they couldn't do that. They had to go through this process to be able to sell it as a separate parcel, even though it's functioned in that way since the PD was adopted. And so I had referred her over to CPD staff, and that's what began this process. So I just wanted to share that background. And I think this is inappropriate. It's unfortunate there was a different way to solve this without having to go through the rezoning, given the background that I just shared with you. But I was around when it was originally proposed as a PD, and for a long period of time the NEUMANNS actually operated that bakery. It was some of the best food in town and people would line up to go sit in that backyard, which was a beautiful backyard with flowers and whatnot, but they just couldn't keep keep the business going. And so I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Councilwoman, with no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn I Gilmore by Herndon I Cashman can each new or new Ortega I Susman. Black I Clark. Hi. Mr. President. I Please closer the voting and announce the results.

A MOTION relating to the King County Charter, confirming the executive's appointment of members of the charter review commission in accordance with Section 800 of the King County Charter.

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0274

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 of the King County Charter. In your packets, colleagues, there is a committee questionnaire and responses to basic questions which should give you a general idea of what each person's interest in this work is. And we have a number of folks here, and I think we're going to have two panels. Mac, do you want to do a set up on this for us as our staff? And then. A couple of you say. Oh, I said it all. Oh, all right. Well, as the first. Set of five come up, I will note that this is the 50th anniversary of the King County Charter that was first adopted by voters in 1968, taking effect in May of 1969. It's had some remodeling over the years, particularly after the merger with Metro in about 1993, where we added some of our regional committees because the municipality of metropolitan Seattle had those municipal powers, metropolitan powers under state code, at least a couple of them were activated. But I would also note that our region is growing at 2.2 million people, 39 cities. It's complex, complicated. And I think from my perspective, we're starting to see some strain on this government's ability to respond adequately to regional challenges, particularly, and I think most acutely our regional, affordable housing crisis is is evidence of that. And what I've observed in my short time here is we tend to be we're too often it seems to be governing by one off interlocal agreements, taskforces, special committees. And that's not an efficient way, it seems sometimes to be able to address our regional challenges. So I hope that this Charter Review Commission will take a look at our charter and our region as it stands today and will continue to grow in terms of its complexity and needs and make sure that we can, if possible, have the right tools in this regional government to address those challenges for our community in the coming decades, or at least maybe for the next ten years. And of course, we also serve as a local government, about 250,000 folks in unincorporated rural, but some parts of urban King County. And there may be some work to do there as well. So I would invite up maybe by self-selection the first five folks as they're coming up and also give my colleagues any opportunity that they would wish to share some opening remarks if they would like to do so. I don't see that. All right. And I'm going to ask you to all introduce yourselves, maybe just give a short bio and why you're interested in serving. Then we'll see if any members have questions or want to engage in dialog. Thank you all for being here. Alejandro, would you like to lead off? Of course. My name is Alejo. Yes, I'm executive director for the Municipal League of King County. In addition to having a keen interest in policy analysis and nonpartizan work, I have traditionally also done work with immigrant refugee communities. I'm Toby Nix and I currently serve on the Kirkland City Council, previously served in the Washington State Legislature as a representative from the 45th District. And I really am looking forward to this. When I was in student government in high school, I rewrote the Constitution of our student government. That was one of the first things I did. And I have always loved digging into the structural issues. And and so I look forward to working with everyone on seeing how we can improve the King County Charter. I am Kevin Williams. I'm an attorney and partner with the law firm Ensley Best and also a member of the Washington State Bar Foundation Board. I've served on a number of different community committees and my interest in this is basically efficiency and good government. I note that Councilmember Demovsky noted that there was, you know, seems to be some inefficiencies and that might have something to do with that. I think we have over 160 special purpose districts in this county alone, and then you add that on to the various cities and then the legal hoops that everybody has to go through. Each time we approve a911 ballot, we do flood control, anything like that. These are regional issues that need to be more simplified and directed towards individuals and the people. Thank you. I'm Louise Miller. Not familiar. Former. Are you off the council? Councilor, see that shop here all the time? Exactly. About six months after I retired in 2001, I was on, you know, I was chairing the regional water quality, etc., etc.. And I've been doing things like that ever since, two different projects in the last few months. So I think maybe I might be the lowest north of the commission because everybody keeps saying, Well, wait a minute, did you do this ten years ago? Lois and I actually live in the same building now, so people get us confused. I was came from the legislature to the county council as we were transitioning and taking over metro responsibilities. So I was a member of a council of 13 members. And and the growth now compared to the size of our responsibility then is huge. So I have concerns about that. And also I realized that over the number of years that we have worked on, quote, growth management GMA, we have found that promises and maybe legislative thinking of well will take care of the problem of helping counties do their work with infrastructure. We'll find we'll take care of that later. And the problem is we haven't been able to get them to give us the ability to pull in the resources we need. Your budget is still totally lopsided to the criminal justice side. When you look at the pie chart, you see how much of the general fund goes to that. So it's a concern to me that we won't be able to keep our infrastructure up and that we need to have the authority and the ability to bring in the resources that are needed. So I think that's a major problem that maybe we can help a little bit with the commission. Let me pull out a microphone right up to you there. There you go. Hi. My name is Nat Morales. I am currently the organizing director for an organization called Front and Center. As a once undocumented immigrant from Mexico, I think this opportunity to serve on this commission is important not just for the county, but I think our country as a whole. It has been my mission since moving to King County from rural Tennessee to bring the perspective of community, of immigrants, of refugees, of my brothers and sisters in the movement. And I think that this opportunity will be sufficient enough for bringing the voices of community to the table. I think when we're looking at the at our infrastructure, when we're looking at who is making the decisions here in King County, here in Seattle in particular, I think we oftentimes don't include the most marginalized. And so it will be my mission and it'll be my distinct honor to be able to do that while serving on this commission. Very good. Thank you. Well, thank you for those introductions and comments. I'll turn it open to councilmembers questions or comments at this time. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to start? You may be happy to do so. It's great to see so many of you. I've seen all of you before here doing great things. So thank you for bringing that expertize began to help us. So I think what do you think you mentioned earlier about the different taxing districts. What do you think about the different taxing districts that we could do to streamline some of that? I assume, Councilmember Lambert, you're directing that question towards me since I had mentioned that 161 different taxing districts right now that there has been. If you follow the growth management, there has actually been some policy statements whereby some of the taxing districts should actually merge, consolidate and things like that. We also have, you know, within the county, certain countywide taxing districts, there needs to be some form of legislation that would, I guess, incentivize further the consolidation of special purpose districts that are serving regional as regional areas. Because right now there appears to be, in my mind, of serving special purpose districts the desire to maintain local control , even when a local control doesn't necessarily benefit the citizens. But there's obstacles in that. There have been a couple of minor legislative changes out there that will make it a little bit different, make it easier. But still, there isn't the incentive to regionalize. And part of that has to do with affects of labor law, affects of local control, things like that. So I think it would be important to look at ways that the county could, as a ambarella agency, move and consolidate and maybe bring those little services under, much like it did with Metro. She took, I thought, this conversation or these questions. I'm not sure the difference there, but you're welcome to proceed as you wish, as long as you don't abuse our witnesses, which I know. And I don't think Mr. Williams going to let you down. I'm not happy the mayor worried about painting that. Anyway, I think you have a good point. My concern is, as you know, a member of many boards and commissions that the number of expertize this bridge is, I don't know how to run a hospital. I do not know how to run a fire district. I could probably administer it, but I don't know whether you need more of this kind of chemical or that kind of chemical. So I'm glad they're firemen that know this chemical fire, people that know this is the chemical used for this that this and the ratios. So that part, I think we need other experts and I don't know if they report to us so that we do all the overhead, but the one area that we do have a problem is that nobody has the authority inside the millage rate to decide who gets more millage and what do we do if that knocks off a junior taxing district? So I think one of the considerations I'd like to throw out is somebody should have, whether it's us or somebody, probably us have the ability so that if somebody wants to increase their taxing rate by $0.10, but that knocks off three other taxing districts, that we have some ability to say, no, that isn't going to work. So that for me is the part that needs to be fixed. Interestingly enough, and I don't want to digress too far on on ad valorem taxes, but interestingly enough, special purpose districts, really, they make the levy request to the county. The county is the actual one that levies the taxes. All they do is make the request. And depending on what county you're in, certain counties exercise the the the power of levying a little bit differently than King County does. King County is pretty much we ask for it and we give it to you, unlike certain other counties that actually exercise a great deal of oversight. Because, remember, the process is we make the special purpose districts make levy requests, and then the county approves that levy. So I don't know if there needs to be another layer involved in the county charter that would be able to balance that out and take those things in consideration. That's a big political issue. As you mentioned, the statute already addresses the priorities between senior taxing districts, junior taxing districts. That's a that's a very interesting conversation. And obviously, it's something to have that you're going to really have to work through. The other point that I wanted to make is, is that I think it's also important to separate operational issues from policy. A lot of what you were describing was operational issues. And I'm going to be the last person in the world to tell a fireman how to put out a fire. But at the same time, I think that there's an appropriate spot for you all in in determining regional services. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you. And thanks for your comments on special purpose district reform. It's something that I've been interested in and worked on some in the last decade or so. And it is such an antiquated tax system and it's been built on layers, upon layers upon layers without a whole lot of regard to the layer, previous layer. And it's kind of a mismanaged mess. We see it most particularly what we run into levy suppression issues where junior taxing districts get suppressed and that's happened and where that junior taxing district literally has to pay the more senior taxing district not to levy its rate, which is the same thing. It's burning money for the junior taxing district. So I'd like to work with you on those issues. And I think it needs to interface also with the state legislature in terms of how we prioritize those taxing districts and how high on the world fire districts get close to suppression sometimes in hospital districts. I mean, that's just crazy. And history has taught us anything. It's taught us this that we're going to have a recession. It might be in two years, it might be five years, possibly eight years, but it's going to happen. And so we need to reform that. And I'd like to work with you in advance of that coming before. For the voters and the council. I want to say very generally, the charter of your commission is a very important process and it was really very necessary every ten years. It really should be every five. But that's a lot of work to kind of clean house and to reorganize the way that we fine tune, the way that we run as a government very broadly. And so we put our brightest minds in this table here. But I can say that about all of you. My nominee, Sean Kelly, is the mayor of Maple Valley. And he's very, very, you know, worked very closely with the Thomas School District. And I hope the council approves him as well. But these are really fine folks. It's a lot of work we're asking you to do, but we appreciate it very much. And I have found that working the charter of your commission, working with council members as that process moves along, yields a better result than if it's done in isolation. So just encourage that. Appreciate your willingness to work and look forward to working with you on special purpose district reform. Thank you. Very good, Councilman Belushi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being willing to serve on the charter commission. It's a it's a it's going to be a bit of work. We appreciate you bringing all your expertize. One thing I've been thinking a lot about lately, and I noticed in many of the responses to the questions is how do we effectively work as a region to address regional challenges? County is the regional government, but we don't have all the authority and the responsibility here required to address effectively some of our biggest regional challenges from transportation, homelessness, affordable housing, economic development. When we talk about where does where do jobs go and how do we, you know, lift all boats around the county? We really need to be able to work effectively with cities and with the state. And it's just a topic that's on a lot of and a lot of meetings these days. So I would be really interested to hear anybody's thoughts now or when you get to meeting about how do we structure ourselves so that we can work as effectively as possible and challenge ourselves and each other while recognizing the authority and role of each level of government? If it was easy, somebody would solve it by now. But, you know, jump right in. I will say one of my interest actually in being involved with reviewing the charter is not only look at really looking at the policy analysis pieces, but really having an overview why I didn't actually like some of the questions we were asked beforehand. I thought, you know, in some ways we really can't answer those until we do like a deep dove on how our county has really changed and not only how our county has changed in terms of demographics and challenges, but also how government has changed in the last ten years about how we should be working. Together. How we should really be having communities in leadership, in ways that I think didn't happen as regularly ten years ago. And, you know, I have worked with other regional parts of the country and Seattle has attended Seattle and King County. Have. Some really good models they could be looking at in terms of a regional approach that does not seem to be as present here. I look forward to hearing more about that. Thank you. And I'll just note, it's a long standing tradition that the municipal league be involved. They helped get our 1968 charter passed and of course, the few decades before that reform the Seattle City Government Charter. So we're really pleased that the Nesbitt League has a representative here and hope that we can rely on your broader organization as well on its skill set and resources to be a part of the process. I'll be happy to. I think one of the things we forget and part of our job will be to educate the community as we go along. Because the reason we have so many special purpose governments in the West and it's mainly in the West, the larger West is because we didn't trust the feds at all. So we had to have our own little pockets of a commission for this and a board for that. And that's sort of how we got and and I actually was an elected member of the Special Purpose District, i.e. a water sewer district, separately elected, etc.. And I agree with the idea of the management of the what you're doing is one thing, but the governance is another. And I agree that maybe it's time that we quit worrying about being the wild, wild west and get things together. But we'll have to do a real we'll have to do a lot of educating to the general public, because I always said if King County on the day stop everything they do, suddenly people would realize how many services the county is providing that affect their daily life. And I would just add to that, I think there really can be a litmus test around safety and so on, so forth. As part of a 32 house sewer water district on Basilan, I could tell you that we've not always had the greatest water quality standards and so on, so forth, and it's difficult. One of the volunteers in the neighborhood running it, and there is a point of professionalizing that process and. Putting in other questions or comments for this panel. Councilwoman Raquel Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if you are in the position yet to be able to answer this question, but if any of you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate hearing what going into this process. What do you think is the number one challenge for King County? I think that this is kind of Williams again. I think that when I look at the charter. And I look at what's going on in the county is. You need to be a little bit more nimble. There's a lot of issues in the world's changing rapidly, and it seems like maybe it's just because I'm getting older. But it seems like as things keep changing, it seems like the pace of change keeps getting faster and faster. And when I read the charter, I, I felt like to some degree it was antiquated and in a way, it had a lot of a lot of restraints on action. And I think that in order for the county to be able to address the issues such as homelessness, whether you call it homelessness, affordability or streamlining government, it's going to have to be a little bit more nimble because it's very confusing from a consumer perspective or a taxpayer perspective when you have to call eight different places in order to get an answer in your state and you're in the same house, you know, it's not like you're going different places, but you're there's a lot of different layers of government here that's very confusing to most people. And I think that being able to streamline it and make it easier for people to understand their government and how they work and get responses is going to be a challenge for everyone. Very good. Let's see. Toby, you wanted to? Yeah. You know, in reviewing the charter, I really don't see structural issues in the charter itself. That would be changing. That would make a huge difference, because I see the biggest challenge facing the county as a sustainable revenue and the limitations are not in the charter. The limitations are in state law and what what the county is allowed to do. And so it'll be interesting if we go through this process and we end up not making many changes to the charter, but giving you all a long list of requests to the state legislature. And I don't know if that's actually within our scope to do that. I hope so. Maybe one of the things that we end up doing. Thank you. Yeah. I want to just reinforce for my perspective those comments that there may be some state based changes. We need to be able to effectuate a contemporaneous, contemporaneous charter. And I would say just real quickly, I also want to say that I think one of the biggest challenges right now in the county is the lack of equity when it comes to a policy that is passed, when it comes to looking at who is in leadership positions, when it looks to when it looks at how decisions are made and who they're being met by. I think that everyone, obviously on the council and everyone who represents King County is capable of doing so. And I mean, we appreciate everything all the time that council members have given and your efforts thus far. And I do think that there is still a lack of representation. I think there when we look at the county, when we look at how it has changed and we when we look at how it will continue to change, we need to make sure that government governing bodies and decision makers are reflective of the people who are most impacted by those decisions. So I think when we look at how equity is applied and that lens is applied to governance, I think that's still a challenge for King County. I know. I'm sorry. Did you want to go? No, I would certainly agree with Natalie. I would also say, you know, not to be glib about this, but how do we look at this as an opportunity as well as a challenge? I mean, King County, I think, is known for innovation. Our region is known for innovation and wanting to find unique solutions. And I've, you know, had a chance to work with the council. And I know that's also a desire there as well. So the question is how can we create litmus test and the constructs of equity throughout our work that we could be striving way beyond just tinkering with things, but having that really reflect what we would like to see in the county. All right. In the interest of time, Kasperowicz, can we move to the next panel or do you have a specific question here. For this panel? That's okay. Sure. It was triggered by something that our panelist, Toby Nixon said. You know, one example of that is the Rhodes formula. Rhodes formula is broken. And when you talk constituents, the reason I can't fix your road as much as I would like to and as much as the 43% of the King County Roads employees that got laid off, they have no job. Would love to be out fixing your road, but because of the formula at the state, we don't have the money for that. It's mind boggling to them. What do you mean? You don't have the money for that? What do you mean? The formula is broken. How did that work? Why did that happen? Why hasn't been fixed? Oh, perfectly legitimate question. So I think, you know, having something that it has to be sustainable is really important. You know, one of the things that we do fairly well is we acknowledge where. Regional government. But the thing we don't do as well as acknowledge with the local government and I think it's really important as we go forward because if they were a city, they would be the second largest city in the state. And yet they have no mayor, they have no city council. They have us, but not all of us are actively engaged in what goes on out there. And sometimes it's a difficult dichotomy. And so I think putting the fact that this the section of our county needs to fully be represented is really going to be important. And hopefully we'll have the Department of Local Services. But what should that department be able to do to make it more empowered as a city and not just sucked up into being, you know, part of a regional government? Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Nixon, I know you've got to go. And just maybe if I can, one final question, since I think you may be our only city council member on, we have the mayor of Maple Valley who'll be serving. But you're here today. A big part of our work involves partnering with the 39 cities in the county who are the direct service providers to most of our residents. And we have some structures via the Regional Policy Committee in the Regional Transit Committee to integrate our governance. But do you have thoughts on how that process might be or what relate those relationships might be improved? Because I think there is still occasionally some tension between the county in the cities on the issues that are facing our region, just in terms of how we address them and getting them done. Well, I think that the current system is actually pretty effective with the South Cities Association having representation on all the regional committees or nearly all of the regional committees and the SCA Public Issues Committee, which I serve on, and the and the board being able to work on consolidating positions among the cities in communicating with the county . I think it's been pretty effective and making sure that the interests of cities are addressed by the county. So no, I don't have anything on the top of my mind right now in terms of what would be changed. But I certainly look forward to the process and considering concerns and proposals that others might raise. All right. Well, thank you very much. I want to echo Councilmember Dunn suggestion that as you do your work, that you make time to make time to interview and dialog with members of the council. The executive are other separately elected officials. I'm sure you'll outline a process or work plan to do that as you get going. And we are providing staff from both the legislative and executive branches and hopefully we'll get you a lawyer. Do we have an act? We have a lawyer for we got a lawyer for him. Okay. You're going to need that. We don't want too many. No, no. Canon is not allowed to practice law and order. But thank you for being here. We'll expect a move if you have to do, but expect to move this motion forward today. We'll invite up the next panel. You guys have cleared a lot of the heavy, heavy brush for that. Thank you all. All right, welcome. And Will, you guys saw how we did that? And we'll let you do brief introductions and a little bit of background on why you're interested in serving that. Have a little dialog and we'll start on the left. All right. Good morning. I'm Beth Segal. And I guess the thing that the charter and I have in common is we both just turned 50. And I. Didn't get a committee panel thing. I just had cake. I am a the founder of a nonprofit that education network that focuses on education policy, primarily with suburban Seattle school districts, but also statewide issues. I have a lot of experience also representing foster children, and that actually right here in King County courthouse, also with a lot of policy and hands on experience helping the disability families and students with disabilities and special education policy specifically. Also, I have been very involved in overcrowding issues in our school districts, campaigning actively for too many losses and a few wins for school bonds. And with all of these domains, I can bring a user perspective to these discussions, whether it's people with disabilities trying to access public transportation, trying to explain to voters what a bond is and why we have to keep voting them up or down. And also, as a ten year resident of unincorporated King County, just the issues that you face, trying to raise a family and go to work every day from Novelty Hill area and the traffic and issues and things like that that we face pretty good. Thank you. I thank you for having me. I'm Jeff Natter. I'm executive director of Pacific Hospital Preservation Development Authority, which is the city chartered but county wide PDA standard up on Beacon Hill where the stewards of the Pacific Hospital campus. And we use our funding to provide services and grants to people in King County who are addressing health equity issues. We work with quite a few organizations. I'm really excited to see members of the council again. I've been having one on one meetings with several of you. It's great to see you again and thank you for welcoming me here. I've been doing health and social services in King County now for about 30 years, and I still feel like a newcomer and in a honeymoon phase at this county. Just quickly, last week we were in my staff and I were in North Bend to meet with Encompass, which works with two small children, and we passed a herd of elk by the side of the highway. And one of the reasons I would like to really work on this county charter and feel very honored to be able to do so is I would still like this county to be a place where we can have herds of elk in the county under the shadow of Mt. Sinai and have world class opera and have competitive sports teams like the Seattle Storm. And I also think it's really important for us because the charter is only reviewed every ten years to look at the ways in which practice may differ from actual policy. In the past ten years, I think we all know in terms of administration and management, we often engage in practice that might be different than the written word and some of it's often for the right reasons. I'd like to make sure the charter can reflect that, and I really want to work with the Council themselves as the stakeholders of this of this Charter, to see what your opinions are and what your ideas are about how we can make effective changes. Thanks. Thank you. Morning, Brooks. Hey, Brooks Selzer. I'm an executive board member of the King County Labor Council, representing about 150,000 workers. And also the Washington Federation of Public Employees represented about 45,000 state workers. The reason I wanted to be part of this committee, which I was really shocked when Joe actually nominated me, was I really do want you guys to have that nimbleness, to actually attack some of the problems that we have in our community. And also it's just to make sure that workers are a stakeholder in our charter because, you know, those are our voters and those are the constituents that you guys represent. And that's why I'm here. Thank you. Hi, I'm David Heller. I'm a lawyer with an office in Burian and I live in Normandy Park. I don't know much about municipal law. The other lawyer knows far more about it than me. Obviously I do know quite a bit about history and the Constitution, which I think is how I got nominated. It seems to me I agree with Mr. Nixon. The biggest problem the county has is it doesn't have enough money to do what it needs to do. And I'm not sure how much of that is a structural problem within the charter. I think it is more of a state problem. So as someone else suggested, we might come forth with some suggestions regarding what the state ought to be doing to change that. Someone mentioned, and I'm well aware of this as a lawyer who goes to court, that the court system, the justice system is taking a. A huge amount of the budget and it's, in my opinion, absurd that Washington is the last state in the union after even Alabama and Mississippi in state funding for its court system. I mean, the county is paying all this money to prosecute people in the name of the state. Does not make sense to me there. There's been talk about regional solutions and I agree that we need regional solutions. But the region is bigger than King County, and I think that's something we need to think about as well. Take a quick example. If we if King County did something that caused homeless people instead of ceasing to be homeless, to move to Everett or Tacoma. Problem is not been solved, just been moved. And I think there's a number of problems as the region grows and as people leave King County, because the housing prices, they're moving to Snohomish and Pierce counties. And I think increasingly these three counties need to be working together. And I'd like to see some structures that can make that happen. And if, for example, all three counties went to the legislature and said, we need this or that, that's a lot of votes and it might have some impact down there. So I'm looking forward to getting up to speed and working on this. Thank you very. Hello. I'm Michael Hermanson. I think I bring a perspective, which is a little bit different from the other panelists I've heard this morning, simply because I have never been involved in government and have worked primarily in the in arts and culture in King County. And so I felt like, I suppose, that the position I once had that had the broadest sweep was being the director of the Museum of History and Industry. So I've had a different a different way of looking at things. I'm now retired, so my history activities are focused on it really narrowly seems, you know, as as I get older, my life gets more local. So I'm now president of the Queen Anne Historical Society, which is very narrow but still touches on a wide range of issues that affect the county. I'm also very active in bicycling in Seattle and King County. And, you know, I'm sort of the the old man out in Seattle neighborhood greenways. But I'm very interested in finding solutions to density through the reduction of our intense use of automobiles. And I think that King County, because of Metro, is really very much in the lead insofar as all of that is concerned. And the other thing thing about bicycle riding is that you get to see history where it's happening. That's one thing. And the other thing is you get to explore the whole county. I rode two weeks ago, 67 miles from Mary Moore to North Bend and back, and it's a really a great opportunity to get to know what's happened. Oh, that's the same Mount Index experience. Mount Sinai, was it in North Bend? Well, it was really beautiful. But so you get to know the county in ways that's really different, a kind of an intimacy with the landscape. That is something that I hope we can bear in mind as we explore how the the organization of the county can be improved. And I'm happy to hear, having read the charter, I'm happy to hear that there could indeed be a focus on establishing protocols for approaching the state to change the way things are operated. Thank you all very much. Members questions or comments to any of these panel members? Councilmember Bell Duchin. I think that you heard our questions before and some of you went and answered them. And I really appreciated the comment about regionalism being bigger than just the borders of King County. I think the only thing I would offer is I do think that there is we are bumping up against the limitations of our current structure within King County to work regionally, effectively and our different layers of government to address our problems. And I think we need to kind of solve that and work with our neighbors. I mean, I think these are and not or so it's just more of an observation. But I really appreciate your your. I wanted to make sure not to not ask you the question. You're welcome to answer it again if you like. But thank you all very, very much for giving your time and your expertize to this process. It seems like a really high powered group we have here is going to be very interesting to see what you do. I do want to share just a I my very first run for office was for a charter commission in Bellevue, and I won that race. So I've been where you've been before. But the charter itself, the the vote to establish the charter commission failed. So we never had to do anything. So you're going to go further down this road than I ever got to go. Okay. Councilmember one right. Our question after this. Okay, proceed. Okay. Very good. Are there any other Councilmember Lambert? Thank you. So I'm glad you were for Mary Moore to mount site because that's all my district and all 1007 square miles of it. And it is beautiful but it doesn't have a lot of busses and so and Vikings long I'm glad you can do that so there's a problem with roads out there and there are problems that are unique because of the amount of water and the number of trees and the distance and many things. How do you feel that you'll be able and this is for anybody to really be able to address the uniqueness or get to know the uniqueness outside of the urban core. Oh well, I'll just respond directly. I'm one of the things that didn't come up in this conversation were were environmental issues surrounding the county. And so much of the county in terms of square feet is actually rural as compared to what we have in the urban core. And so I think that we have to take the environment and the impact on the environment into account and kind of see ways that we. To expand the purview of the county. I think there's a real balance to be achieved between, you know, providing access to where people have to work and shop and protecting the environmental quality of the of the area. I think the Growth Management Act had a huge effect. It's really been successful. At the same time, when you write from Mary Moore to North Bend, it used to be as soon as you left Mary Moore, you were in rural King County. That was the first time I did those rights not that long ago, like 15 years ago. I used to love getting out of Mary Moore, and now you have to crank up these suburban hills until you actually get to rural the rural part of the county. So it's very important to to bear in mind that we need to understand that while there are regional problems, there may be social and political, there are also huge environmental questions that need to be taken into consideration. I don't have an answer. So most people do not know that 61% of this county is owned by government or open space or has an easement. So there's a lot of issues because government owns and we haven't quite got our noxious weeds under control. We haven't got a lot of things under control that need to be under control. And I think people don't realize that 61% was anybody else want to answer that question? Sure. I'd like to jump in and thanks for the opportunity. I think my role and I hope our role as the Charter Review Commission is not necessarily to solve each of those problems, but to help create a framework that allows the county council and the citizens of King County to address those problems. I mean, obviously, all of us come with real strong concerns about certain issues, if not a whole variety of issues, mine being, health care for underserved. I don't think the Charter Review Commission can improve health care for the underserved. I wish we could. I wish we all could. But we're going to have to work together. And I hope that our role as a commission is to provide, as I said, that framework that allows the county council to take action to address those issues on a on a more granular level. Just as a semi-colon to these, these are all really great answers. And the issues that you're raising are spot on. I'm a I'm also a lawyer. And I in reading through the charter, it wasn't jumping out to me what specific provisions are hindrances or barriers, but that is where I'm going to absolutely tap into your expertize to say, look, you know, we have these challenges. Are these things that can actually be addressed by the charter or do we need to go to Olympia or something else to follow up, especially on what Councilmember Tom said earlier in the process of whether it was campaigning for a bond or trying to help a. Foster child get. Services in South King County and all different types of advocacy I've done. One of the things that becomes really clear just from the lawyer perspective is exactly what he said, which is we've have layer upon, layer upon, layer upon, layer upon layer of fixes that addressed. A specific problem. But weren't necessarily global. Just because the reality is whether it's helping somebody take the bus or making sure waste is picked up or whatever things have to happen. And so perhaps this will be an opportunity. To fix. Some level. To make some. Global changes that could at least streamline or make things a little better. I just wanted to add, I grew up in a very, very small town. It was back east, but a good analog would be Omak with that kind of a place, that kind of weather. And it was east. We did have layers and layers of government in my town which had 5000 people. That was both a village board and a town board that met separately and made their own rules. So I'm somewhat familiar with that. But I understand your concerns. And I'll just tell you quickly, I was just back there visiting. My family still owns a very small parcel of land. We have some beavers who moved in a couple of years ago and at first they were cute and now they're taking over the place and we're not sure what to do about it. And so that's part of the issue. That county is both very urban and very rural in different places, and sometimes they need different things. In my overlong essay that I wrote in response to the questions or didn't make it, it was a. Very interesting response. You might take a look at that questionnaire. Thank you. I suggested that perhaps we should look at restructuring the council. Maybe it should be larger, maybe it should be different. Maybe there should be some at large seats. That could be if there are groups that are not being adequately represented that or perspectives that are not being adequately represented, that could be a way to address that. I realize that's a pretty touchy subject, but it might be something for us to study and think about it real quick. That's why we're done. On that point. I appreciate your courage in coming forth and saying. It's, of course, been done before. Yeah, we all or some of us lived through that and having to campaign against the person that represents this district now, because ultimately the charter was struck and the 13 denied but larger. Yeah, I heard that as well. We hear what we want to hear up here. Here's the point I'm trying to make. It is so critical that this board, the commission, were made independent and I mean really independent and and to the point where, like I said, you know, worked closely with members of the council as you shape a particular proposal. But at the end of the day, you're going to have to take the tough votes. Let's talk about special purposes. Who reform? Do you think fire commissioners are going to like the idea of giving away their jurisdiction or sewer district commissioners or irrigation district or whatever it is? There are so many. You're just going to have to take the tough choices. And I appreciate the independent spirit by which that was said. And so regardless of I'm up here griping in a couple of years about something. Remember what I'm saying now? You need to be independent. Thanks a lot. Councilmember Cole. WELLS Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don't have much time. I'm aware, but I did ask the earlier panel about what they thought might be the greatest challenge. And one of the Palin powers thought maybe a more appropriate question would be what are the greatest opportunities but that you have before you as being a member of the commission ? Would you like to just give like a 32nd response? Any of you? Well, I think we've talked a lot about managing growth. I'd like to frame it as managing change. The nature of the county in terms of our demographics and our population in the past ten years has been dramatic. The nature of the the urban versus rural of balance has been demographic. Ten years ago, Bellevue was not Bellevue as it is today, and much of Seattle is not what it is today. So I think that's a great opportunity for us just to be able to recognize what has changed in the past ten years and hopefully make sure that the voices who are the individuals behind that change, whether it's environmental, social, health related, political, are respected in the upcoming charter. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. We obviously you have 23 members who are nominated division. It's tough to get folks. Kojo, we appreciate everyone, all nine of you that were able to attend today. I sent out the questionnaire to help give members some insight into the nominees, especially those that were unable to attend. And we got pretty good responses on those. Mac, do you know how many out of the 23 responded to the questionnaire? 15 or so, 15 or so. Okay, 16 so far. I did hear from Senator Joe Fein, who was courteous enough to let me know that he would not be here today because the number two child was expected to maybe be delivered. I don't know how that's going, but I would be right now in my chair to refer to. Child which just born. Okay. And I just got a text from Joe and mother and son are doing well and it appears to be it's £8, ten ounces born at 957. Otherwise he would have been here. Your mother and baby are very healthy, sweetheart, but before. Well, he yelled to a question. Well, boy or. Girl, so. Boy. Okay, second boy. All right. Do you know. All right. And also Sung Yang indicated that he wanted to be here but was was not able to join. I don't think I heard from other folks. I want to pass along those items. So Councilman Ron Wright power. I just had a procedural question. It has nothing to do with the panel here, which I'm very appreciative of. Bob and I nominated Center Payne and I feel that he because he worked here at the county for ten years, both for Julie Patterson as well as myself, he brings a really good perspective. I couldn't help but notice that looking at the sheet that Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Baldacci, Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember Bowen are all have one nominees, whereas other districts have large is their vote weighted or I'm just curious as to how this process developed because it seemed the suburban district councilmember I do chief myself Lambert Dunn all seem to be having represented by one person on this rather large panel. I was just curious with how this was set up. Yeah, that's a good question. And I see that we're going to get some help from our legal counsel to perhaps give us some background on the extensive and long process that is undertaken between the executive and legislative branch to get these nominees here. Well, good morning. I am Mike Hooper, counsel to the council. And the question was, is the wait, are the votes on the charter commission weighted? They are not. It is one person, one vote when they actually serve, because ultimately what they are doing is providing recommendations for you to act upon or or not act. If I took that question as rhetorical, but the underlying point was the question was, what's been the process that's led to this ban? That's that's correct. I'm going to answer that. And if I may, I'm going to turn it over to the very knowledgeable Mac Nicholson on how the actuals like the actual selections in front of you. Joe. Thank you, Mac Nicholson staff. I've been working with this charter view process since 2016 and 2016. The charter requires 15 members, one from each district, or at least 15 with at least one from each district. So the way we kind of split it with the exact staff is reached out to council members for a recommendation from their district which would cover the one from each district. The executive side made appointments equal in number. Okay. Okay. With one additional appointment to kind of not to get to 23 total. And so from from there, the list of folks that were nominated or appointed by the council, you'll see we end up with at least one in each district. And then the executive side went through kind of their internal process to it to end up with that. The folks that they appointed, which I think is why you see the picture, it appears to me just looking at the raw number that not all districts are created equal. You mean to respect you don't Bellevue councilmember duties larger district over there and compared to some others it just doesn't seem like there was a good communication between the council and the executive to make sure that all these districts were represented. That this does not look like a well-balanced panel. It looks like a very distinguished panel, but well balanced panel. When you see the five suburban districts at one person, Dave has two people, whereas other districts have one, two, three, six, five people. It appears to me, Mr. Chair, that we could have done a much better job spreading the burden and the opportunity to represent King County. I think that I concur that that is an ongoing issue, Councilwoman, right there in our major board appointments, as someone who represents both Seattle and non Seattle, one third of my district being in the city and two thirds being out, i, I am sympathetic to your point. I think the chart could be I wouldn't say misleading, but not tell the entire story. For example, a position number 11, William Ebersol is listed as King County Council District one. Public sector was. Magic Kirkland. I mean, he was a as the former mayor of Duvall and I. I don't believe well, lives in district one he may work there so I think the chart well giving a clue I think to some degree at least that is an example that jumping out at me is as maybe not indicative entirely of the geographic balance here, but we obviously could not control the executive side nominees. We did our balancing here with mostly one member per, but I think there were a couple of council add ons as well. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to pick up where you ended. I was very if Mac could clarify kind of how we got to 23, each council member I know was asked to nominate someone for possible appointment. So that was nine. And then we if I recall, the executive recommended more than nine. Correct. And I thought it was ten. I may be mistaken. 11. Okay, it was 11. And then so we had a process where empowered our chair to nominate two additional and it got to 22 and there was a discussion among one of the council members and the exact surrounding concerns over one of the nominees. And that was kind of worked out between that particular council member and the exact site and resulted in the additional appointee that is kind of be part exact part council member individual who was appointed. Okay. Thanks. Councilman Belushi. Looking at the chart, can you just remind us which of these positions by position number were appointed by the council? Yes. If you allow me to just grab my. Yeah. Thanks to the panel. You may step down. And while we have our as you can follow up on Councilmember Dunn's comment, you can see why independence of the panel will be so important. Because now here we're wanting to make sure that there's been fairness in the process. Mac, why don't you come to the table here? Yeah. And, Carolyn, is this something that you could add some information or value to as well as a participant in this or not? Really, Max, the one. All right. That's, I believe, the position numbers, if you'll give me just 1/2, because I don't have them listed by the one through 23 yet on that particular green sheet. Is the first green page. You look at his 41. So I'll just run through real quick. Position number seven. And these are the council appointees. Position number seven. Three. Position number three, position number 16, position 15. The names I. Know he's just going through the. Position chart. I see. Okay. Thank you. 1895 position number 18, right. One. Right position 21. Six. No position number six was a executive side appointee. Position number eight. Seven. Position number seven. No, no, no. I'm saying I'm saying that. So I'm doing a running tally. Seven people. Position 23. Position 21. And I've already said that. One. Two, three, four. I'm not talking in my sheet, but position number 414. Correct. Okay. Is a council appointment position 12, four. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. So that's nine plus the. Extra and there should be position 11 also we should be at 11. How do we end up at 11. Nine plus the two council at large. One or two counsel I thought there was one odd one. Now you don't remember. McDermott Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wasn't done asking. Can I finish? Well, I'm. Sorry. I was clear McDermott was going to explain or kind of. Answer. Your question. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I was trying. To get you two to look each other because Joe was trying to say, I've got the answer. Sorry, I can't look at. Him. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are nine appointees by council members. And then when the executive what having them have 11 appointees, there was an interest in making sure that the Council had an equal number of appointees, as the executive branch did. And so I sent out an email to all of the soliciting names and input on making two additional appointments, and based on those responses, made two additional appointments. And that's how the council seats got to 11. I'm sure those two. Alejandro Trace was one. And just a moment, if you would. Sure. Or if I can help me out. And Linda Larson. Human Director Yes. Okay. Councilmember Cole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure it's understood that, at least in my case for District four, I had nominated one who was included. And then I was asked for a follow up because most of my selections were white men, very bluntly put, and there was the need for more diversity. So I offered another one as a suggestion, and that's what happened. Okay. I appreciate councilmember run rate Bowers concern. I often also look to district representation. But I think the point that was made by the chair is a good one. There are a number of names on here that while they have a district number after them are, they come with a set of experience and background that makes them good representatives for a much broader geography. And I will just without embarrassing her point out Louise Miller, who is listed as a District four person, but throughout much of her career was a District three three person and clearly has a much broader perspective. And there are a number of people like that on here. I feel that this is a good panel overall and I'm prepared to support it today. I do think that we should remind ourselves also that whatever recommendations come out of this charter commission come to the council and the executive, and then we get to vote at the council, whether they go forward and are voted on by the voters or not. Correct. You actually have to vote on our recommendation. Yes or no, but we get to vote yes or no, right? Yeah. Thank you. That comes run. Right. Power it. Just clarification then on the contest again. Yes. Let's assume again those five members representing suburban King County are these 23. Yeah, we have five people. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fein, Mr. Nixon and Beth are one, and then we're actually six people representing the Duke and David district. Those six people who actually represent or live in South King are in suburban King County district. If they decide to come together on issues, are they going to be restricted by a majority vote on this panel from recommending recommending things that might affect their area? Well, I'm not sure how the charter commission's going to want to vote on these things. I can say previous reports have included both majority recommendations and minority recommendations. So if there were areas where there was a unanimous vote as a recommendation and then there would be some that were partial recommendations and then minority recommendations as well. We have 23 people on this board, six of whom are in or represent the rural or suburban areas of King County district. And those are the districts most affected by King County. With all due respect to my friends in downtown Seattle, by our decisions, because our constituents out there are the most affected by King County's decision. So I'm until I have confirmation that those six lonely voices from our suburban King County are going to be heard. I'm going to vote no. I'm sure it's going to pass. But I just I feel very just disappointed that so many didn't communicate together to make sure there more than six votes. Of 23 members representing King County suburban or working county. And with all due respect to my colleague, we talked about the broad experience. I agree with you on that. But nothing like living in your neighborhood talking. We believe in communities and if they live there, they're talking to their neighbors at the Safeway store. They're talking at their community clubs. I think it's incredible that we have six people on a 23 member board that actually are coming from districts that are primarily suburban or rural districts. Councilmember Lambert. So this is going back to like ground zero after hearing what Councilmember sorry, Andre Gardner said. So one third of the population of this county live in Seattle, and yet it's about two thirds of them will be representatives from Seattle. So I get the broad. But for the nine and I had said my person was number 20, 28 and 33 and I adopted her, but I had actually done a number. Well, Avatar, who is that is my number three. But anyway, I do want to point that out just for clarity. So but my question is, has to do with the executive. Is it in the charter that the executive gets to represent? To put that many in. Was that something that we had decided? How did he gets to match us and not have it be? And fine with the matching, as if he picked people from all of our districts. But the fact that each of them predominantly from Seattle, kind of exacerbates the problem outside the county, that only Seattle is matters. So how did that happen? Is it the charter? Is it so the charter just says the exact points council confirms and there need to be at least 15 with one from each district or at least one from each district. As far as how the exec chose his appointees, I would defer to the executive because I don't know how he met that. Remind us who is the executive branch staffer on this? So there is Kelly Carroll who has been working with this. And again, is Ms.. Carroll here? No, no. And who else? And Kelly Knight, who's calling recently. So I don't know how many boxes. Over. There in the back corner. Okay. Kelly's here. Ms.. Knight, would you like to respond to Councilmember Von Powers issue regarding the geographic diversity of the executive side nominees? On behalf of the executive. I can. Why don't you come forward if you're going to speak? So we have it on the record. Name calling night. And I work on the external relations team for the exact office. This is my first time up here. It's really nice to see all of you. Welcome. Thank you. Usually we do a pretend hazing, but it seems like this. Is more of a. Outreach. I am actually coming on to this project new so I can take your feedback, bring it back to my team in the expects office and respond offline. If that works best, I feel not equipped to answer questions about our selection process because I was not working on this issue when that process was going forward. That's a reasonable chance. Counseling everyone right now. We have to pass this out today. We do not. I would like to have a chance to have a dialog with the executive, because, again, we have 23 members, six of whom are represented by district. So I think if he has that capacity or we can work together, I just want I like everybody who's been nominated. Yes. I just wish everybody would nominate across the board. We talk about, you know, Supreme Court decisions about representation. I don't see that in this process. Okay. Colleagues. Customer McDermott Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nicholson, are these appointments? They're being sent to us by the executive. Are they technically all of the executives appointments? And he's taking our recommendation on 11 of them? Yes. I think that's kind of a fair way of saying it, that under the charter, the exec appoints counsel, confirms the discussions we had early in the process as a way to try to ensure that counsel had representation and had some input to have the council members pass along. Nine are turned into 11 members that the exact would then add to their list of of appointees and sent over for confirmation. And has the Council always have approved or confirmed appointments to the Charter Review Commission? No, but this is the previous Charter Review Commission recommended a charter provision that was passed by the voters to require council confirmation of charter review appointees, and also that the ending piece of having the Council act on every recommendation in an open public meeting. Okay, thank you. And if I've got the numbers right from the charter, you said it's at least 15 with nine council members, one from each district having a representative person. It's at least 15 with at least one from each council district. I see. And do they have to reside there? It's unclear. I guess I would at this point kick back to Mr. Hoover, because we did have that discussion about kind of how how strict that that kind of requirement was, whether it was a residency or. That the charter says council. It doesn't. The charter says. Hello, Mike Hoover, again, county council counsel. The charter says from each council district. So it's it is a little bit ambiguous. You can read it as residing there. It could be representing that. It could be that you are free to appoint somebody from that district that you think will represent that district. Council member Ron Wright power. And I just want the opportunity to have a chance to talk to some of the members who are being appointed to make sure that the minority of folks that are six out of the 23 voices will be heard because they represent in terms of this district or this county, two thirds of the county. And I want to make sure that I have a chance to talk to somebody individually, to make sure there's a respectful process that's going to include the minority, as well as the substantial majority who are appointed by the executive. Thank you. And just one more general question, if we might, Councilman, through. Remember, it was my understanding is this has been worked for months now that it was going to be ten and ten or at least it would be even. And I will confess to see an odd number of 23 and 11 council, nine plus two at large. That's not even half. So what happened? Why why wasn't understanding that I should have been reached with I understood have been reached with the Executive Office to have a balance of counsel on executive nominees. Not here before us. So if I'm understanding the question, why are we at kind of 23 instead of 22? Yeah. With that were the extra one came from and I would defer again to that particular council member who had a discussion around kind of some of the appointment in the appointment process. And, and there was a discussion that was reached or a discussion was had between that council member and the staff that resulted in the appointment of a 23rd to the body. Well, I'll just say this is a problem when all council members aren't treated the same on these kind of appointments. It can lead to these kinds of challenges and concerns because, you know, I served before I came here on the redistricting commission with five commissioners, and that was a sensitive topic. There were two nominally are two now heads, and we had selected a fifth person as a chair. And one of the rules we adopted, an internal rule related to transparency suggested by Judge Carroll, was if there were contacts from an interested party, a council member, about where a line should be drawn or what precinct should be made aware that those be disclosed with the entire committee. And that was, I think, our first of its kind sunshine rule. And it worked pretty well because there wasn't a fear or concern that somebody was gaming the system. And I think what you're seeing here in this dialog is some concerns about transparency in a panel that is going to recommend changes to the Constitution, this government and the structure. And for all of the reasons, as articulated somewhat by Councilmember Dunn about independence and the importance of this work, you can you can see why we care and why Councilman Ron Redbirds are raising these procedural concerns about how we got to today on the on the nominees without raising any concerns individually about the quality of the nominees before us. He's been very clear, and I think I think probably all members here agree with that. It's outstanding group of folks, but sometimes where you sit determines where you stand and maybe from what your district you work from, like determine where you put your work in to on some of these issues. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. So I agree that these are a great list of people, but I am also concerned with what councilmember bombmaker brought up about. The idea that that happens frequently is that the people most impacted by our decisions are frequently people that are in the unincorporated area, both urban and operated in unincorporated. And yet frequently or like 99% of the time, they have a few people there to advocate for whatever is or isn't. So it's just systemically looking for ten years from now, you know, maybe saying that, you know, whatever the numbers are that the executive needs to, you know, choose the people he chooses along with each of us , where he would say, there's somebody in your district I would like to appoint. Is there somebody that you agree with so that it is more evenly divided? But even so, there are five districts in Seattle and four districts that are not. So even then, we still have a preponderance. So I think it gets back to the question that Councilmember asked earlier. You know, will the people that are going to be on this committee, like many of us have to do? You know, one minute I'm a floating district supervisor and I have a supervisor, and then you take that off. And now I'm a council member and pretty soon I'm a board member. So, you know, flexing their ability to say and keep in mind that Seattle, as wonderful as it is, is not the epicenter of the entire county , and that there are other people who live and work outside the county but also need to be taken into account. And if it's going to impact them more than other places in the county, that that really needs to be taken into concern. And, you know, one of the one of the members brought up an issue today, I think, kind of tongue in cheek. But it was on the beaver issue. That is a huge issue. And I have pictures I took. I was going to tell them we could have a whole session on beavers, but we're not doing that. Councilmember Lambert has no new beavers. We have had committee meetings on the beaver. We haven't have new pictures. But it is a serious issue. And unless you have to deal with it, those cute little things are so cute until they destroy everything. And how do you tell people who don't who only see them as cute and adorable, that when they've destroyed everything, it's not so cute and adorable? And how do you deal with it? And unless you know that, you have no idea. So I think it's going to be important that whoever is ultimately on this committee that they really have the pep talk thinking outside of one city but the entire county. Thank you, katherine. I want to get to councilman wrote the grove, but just. In the interest of movements like hearing your concerns, Karl Rove of Rick Perry, but understanding the constraints of committee time and it is this committee has been it's not the committee of the whole in the past. We have been added a whole bunch of substantive jurisdictional issues around parks, sewer. We are overwhelmed. And the July and August meeting schedules are tough. I would ask and hearing your concerns and knowing that there could be a solution because these are flaws, not ceilings on nominees. If we might be able to if you would be comfortable with without recommendation, moving the members forward today, knowing that that's two weeks plus a week to at least think about that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I as a south ender, along with my colleague, I appreciate his sentiments. I maybe don't have quite as much fear as I heard in his voice, in part because the nine of us, you know, a majority of this county council's from outside Seattle, from the you know, five of us are from rural and suburban areas, and the chair of the committee is in a divided district. So I think if there were shenanigans based on geography that took place on the Charter Review Commission, the fact those come back to the council would would provide some certainty. That being said, I think the point that I heard was broader about making sure that that life experience is truly reflected in the in the diversity and the geographic diversity and the the numbers districts. I'm sympathetic to how they can mean different things. For example, there's somebody from my district there, the executive director of a Seattle based nonprofit. I thought the example of the former councilwoman serving a suburban area but living in Seattle. So these numbers kind of at times can be somewhat arbitrary. But I I'm actually more troubled by the notion of that nine of us not being treated equally, especially if that threw it out of whack. And I don't I don't know the back story on that. But if having one council member get an additional appointment ended up skewing these even further, that would have been more problematic. So I want to express my concern about that, my, my, my empathy. But also just I wanted to point out that we do have a majority of folks up here from outside our urban core. So I think if like I said, if there was something that wasn't geographically balanced, we have a safety valve. But I would love to work with Councilman von Reich power between now and full council if there is identified needs for any changes. Sorry. Just very briefly, in addition, we put this list together quite some time ago. I mean, we've been working on this for over a year and things have changed in that period of time. There are some topics that are extraordinarily hot now that were merely, you know, simmering then and things that. And so if we're going to take time and have conversations between now and another committee meeting, maybe we could consider that as well. Because we're on regular. I mean, we we passed that motion on to the full council without recommendation. Thank you very much. It's about for us and I take the motion is not going to concern about the substance of individuals and their qualifications. And I'm extraordinarily impressed with the addition of all these individuals who took the time to do it, some of whom I've known for 30 years, some I've just gotten over the last 30 minutes. But I want you to know from this is a process question, not a not a personal question, a process question. And I think you can appreciate that comment. And I want to thank each one of you for your willingness to serve. A very good clinical call the role. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell Duty Council Member Done. By. Council Member Gossett. Council Member Caldwell. I Council Member Lambert. I. Council Member McDermott. High Council Member Squirrel. All right. Councilmember one Right now. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is 18 is no no's. One excuse. Here again, we've given a recommendation that this be advanced without recommendation of the full council. It'll come to Mondays from now. Although under our practices and procedures there can be an additional courtesy delay if a member has it. And it seems like, Kelly, that maybe the executive might want to get with the councilman one. Right. Bauer and others have expressed concerns about regional balance on this and see if there isn't anything that can be done there to work on that. Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. MACK Thank you. Thank you to all our members and good luck. You do not need to come back for the full council meeting. We will turn now to item eight. And as we do that, Jennie Giambattista will brief us I.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to create and implement a Partnerships to Enhance Parks, Programs and Services Program for the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03212017_17-0209

Thank you. Let's have item number 2025. Thought we took 24. Well 25 lots have. I'm number 25, please. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to create and implement a partnership to enhance parks, programs and services program for the Parks and Recreation and Marine Departments Citywide. Thank you, Mr. West. We have a quick report from our Parks Recreation. Marine Director. Marine Knight, supported by Assistant Director Steven Scott. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Members of the council. This evening we're bringing to you a proposed program to enhance partnerships in our parks, programs and services. In 1996, there was a city wide policy on sponsorships developed for city wide agreements. In 2012, that policy was updated to allow for more competitive proposals, donations, programs and service sponsorships. In 2016, the Council requested the development of a new program to include public private partnerships benefiting programs, facilities and services. The program that we are bringing to you tonight was researched and informed by best practices and modeled after successful programs throughout the nation, including the cities of San Francisco, Minneapolis, Seattle, Kansas City, Sacramento and New York. The program that we're bringing to you tonight has a few things that we've done. We've taken all of our city wide policies on sponsorships, and we've put them into one program and one policy. It also includes our public or prime fee waiver policy, our right of entry permits and existing agreements for uses of facilities and provisions of services and programs. Currently, we have over 100 existing partnerships and they range from anything to some of our garden clubs, groups and organizations that support animal care services organizations and nonprofits that is existing currently use our city facilities and some of our businesses in town that support our programs and services. The staff looked at our current needs where we would enhance programs and services or need to fill some gaps or expand our programs and services. And those needs fall into three categories of needs for our parks and facilities, needs for additional and expanded programing, and needs for additional new and expanded services. So I proposed new program partnerships to enhance parks, programs and services incorporate incorporates our existing policies. It includes current partnerships and allows for expanded partner opportunities and provides a more consistent framework. It is intended not to supplant existing programs or services, but to either enhance services and programs or bring new services and programs or revenues. Fill gaps or bring more programs than we are able to do with our existing resources. This new policy includes several partnership opportunities, includes donations, sponsorships and programmers, service delivery partnerships, revenue sharing, volunteer support, park or beach maintenance and stewardship facility amenity naming opportunities through sponsorship, user fee waivers and appropriate commercial concessions. There are several guiding principles that any new partnership under this policy should bring. There should be new revenues, resources, ideas, technologies, programs, or services that meet a community need. Partnerships should have a positive social, financial, cultural, environmental impact. The partnership should protect and enhance the city brand and image, meaning the organizations and businesses that we partner with should be in good standing with the city and they should have a proven track record of success. They should also demonstrate the financial capacity to take on the partnership that they are endeavoring. The partnership should be self-sustaining and not needing additional resources from the city. It should be inclusive and free of participation barriers, not conflict with existing policies and practices, and follow all current laws. A process for a business or an organization would be to submit a letter of intent. It would go through our review process so that we can make sure it meets the guiding principles outlined in the policy. And if so, then it's moved on to the existing approval processes that we have in place. There are a few recent examples that we are working on that would meet this new policy. The first is a dog play yard ax has identified that one of the things that will help us socialization and adoption of our dogs and the health of the animals that we have at the shelter would be to have an expanded playard. But as you know, we are very constrained with our footprint at the current facility. So we are looking at moving into part of our corporation yard for our maintenance facility and expanding that into a dog playard. Resources are needed to do that and the friends of the Long Beach Animals has come forward willing to fund the construction of that playard. We have another great partnership right now with an organization called Heart of IDA. Part of it provides a lot of free senior services, mobility classes and information for our seniors. And they came to us a little while ago and needed some extra space to operate. So in exchange for some space at the Fourth Street Senior Center, they are providing free services to our seniors and our older adults in our community. And finally, we're working with our Conservation Corp partners on a partnership that would help us move forward community enhancement projects. We often have members of the community coming to us wanting to do enhancement projects in our parks. However, we don't have the current resources to sit down with those organizations, plot out their plans and programs and move those forward. So the Conservation Corps is going to be our subcontractor, so to speak, in this endeavor, and they will work with the community organizations and move that forward. That will also give them the opportunity, as is one of their core service models, is to provide job training as they do that. So the next steps would be approval of the policy this evening. And we will market this new policy and program once it's approved, and we will be seeking letters of intent from interested parties. And that concludes my report, and I'm available for questions. Thank you. And we'll go to counseling in the Mongo. Thank you. I want to thank Parks Recreation Marine, along with the city manager for their work on this. I know that when we started getting questions from different community groups about the deals that had been made or not been made and the the terms of who between the City Council and the Parks and Rec Commission had jurisdiction over different kinds of partnerships, the types of partnerships that were available. People would ask questions like, Why does this business have a poster on a fence in the baseball diamond? But the soccer fields don't have the same kinds of opportunities. And I think that putting everything in one place where we can all start to know and understand the rules by which things are made would be a huge help to all of our nonprofit groups. I think that there are a ton of people out there with great intentions who are out in the community wanting to better the city and to donate that money and or time to the city. But it has to be done in a meaningful way and an efficient way because you and your time is also very limited and you have a lot of acreage to cover. And every park is a priority and every program is a priority. And so putting it all together in one place is an amazing opportunity. I received some emails. Specifically asking, can volunteers clean up the park? Can the start of the other happen? And I think that through discussions with you about your projects and timelines that you have in mind with working with the Conservation Corps and other things, our parks will be cleaner. Our youth will be better trained. The partnership programs available will be. More. And we'll be able to fill those gaps areas at some of our parks that have really struggled. I know that Councilman Andrews and I spoke at length a year ago when this started and then most recently a few hours before this meeting about some of the partnerships that he's desired to have at MLK Park, but that they're the process by which a nonprofit comes to the table and fills out what to whom, by when and what is. That need was not really clearly defined. And so now I'm in the pocket. It has a sample sheet that the Parks and Rec Department has, so you can fill out your request. There will be a record and a file. And when I started in this office, there were lots of questions about what had and had not been approved because almost everything was required to come through the city council and no one really knew what had and had not been approved. And so for that, I really appreciate the work and diligence of this because I feel that it'll be a much more transparent process with open lines of communication that will benefit everyone. So I look forward to hearing the feedback and I hope that we get a lot of applications over the next 12 months to fill in those gaps in the areas that I know you've identified and taken a lot of time to identify. So thank you for your hard work. Thank you. And I'll speak to my second now. So this my thoughts here are, you know, there's certainly need to count on the private sector for certain things. You know, I can say it's not clear right now how to say raise money to support the building of a facility. We we just finished the the construction of the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. And concurrent with that was the endowment to help support library programing, you know, and maintenance of the building and things like that. And and we it was very clear we were able to work with the Library Foundation. We've raised over $1,000,000. We're really proud of that. At the same time, we have a convention center out in park as an example, and we don't know the process to go solicit private dollars. And this helps for us to streamline that process, to find private dollars should we need it in the expansion or the improvement of how in part there's been interest in, you know, doing things like, you know, using creating kiosks and things like that to make, you know, help those areas where the park transitions into a business corridor. And it wasn't even clear on how we engage in those discussions with the business improvement district or businesses who may want to have a footprint there. I think with respect to our monuments and memorials that are in our parks, we have to have a clear understanding on like facility and amenity naming processes because that could be a part of how we establish endowments and structures to pay for the ongoing maintenance of these facilities in the long term. And that should be clear. I do want to you know, I see the point that it says we are, you know, just the pivot for a minute, that we're filing all laws and and things like that. And I just want to go to staff with with a question when, you know, I do see program and service delivery here. I want to be crystal clear that we you know, whether this requires and have we followed any labor requirements in terms of meeting confer I mean, consult additional? Will this trigger any requirement for us to have any negotiation as it relates to services that currently are delivered by the rank and file or services that may be become delivered by the rank and file? So can you speak to that just for a moment? Absolutely. So on page three of attachment C, which is the actual policy under program and service delivery, about halfway into that paragraph, it says these programs or services should either be new to the community or something that enhances existing programs or services. Proposals will not be considered that seek to assume the delivery of an existing program or service whereby that action would create a violation of Proposition L. Great. I think it was important that we draw that part out, that what we're talking about is, you know, and what what we initially that's consistent with what we originally requested with this study. And I'm glad to see that that's the intent as we move forward. So I want to say, I'm look, you know, we are going to embrace this opportunity and look for new partnerships to improve our parks and our facilities. And I and I want to thank Councilwoman Mongo, all the council members who've been involved in this, and particularly Marie and her staff for really helping clarify this. This is really solid work. Thank you. So next is Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I think some of my questions were actually addressed. I briefed earlier with the director of memory for Parks and Recreation Marines and expressed some of my concerns regarding what's not written here. And that is and that would be the the unintended consequences. I want to be clear as well, and I'll be a little bit more clear that I am not interested in contracting out any existing work as a result of public private partnerships with the Parks and Recreation and Marine. I'm not interested in violating any existing collective bargaining agreements or prop properly in any way. And I would just hope that that we we move forward with this, that we don't. We don't get into those issues. We can. We seek to avoid them. Now, what has been also stated is that you said that existing services would not be impacted. But if we're creating new opportunities, it's not going to preclude our city employees from being involved in those. I don't think it would preclude our city employees from being involved in those. I think each partnership opportunity and we we have sort of a catchall category here for innovation because there are things that we probably haven't even contemplated yet that businesses or organizations could bring forward, that there may be an opportunity for the city to partner with someone in the provision of a service where maybe they underwrite our staff providing the service. So I think that there are those opportunities there. But I would clarify again and reassure you that, you know, as throughout here, we talk about new and enhanced programs and services and new and enhanced revenues. So the intention is not to take away from our employees or the services that they're provided, but really look to fill the gaps. And there are large gaps in our service provision here and the needs in the community. So this really will hopefully help us move forward and fill those gaps versus supplant what we're already doing. Okay. Well, I think that this is a policy that is going to work. I mean, obviously, I'm going to support the what's on the proposed to do tonight with with those that that clarification and when those provisions that I. I set forth. I think the language in here is pretty good. I just you know, there's a. Under the guiding principles. The the last bullet point states that partnerships must not conflict in any with any existing city policy practice initiative or procedure and partners would be required to follow all city, county and state and federal laws. I would just like to to add any existing labor agreements to to that if as a friendly amendment or to. To the guiding principles. We could add that under that section and we could also add it on page three at the end of program and service delivery. Just to reiterate that point, if that works for you as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Price. Thank you very much. I too want to thank staff for their work on this. I just wanted to ask a few questions about this. Is this going to be a pilot program? It's not intended to be a pilot program. It's intended to be a program that we once approved by the council will be able to immediately implement. There will be, I guess, a pilot piece of this as things come to us that, again, we haven't contemplated or done before. But we want we intend to be able to move forward immediately with some of the requests that we've received. We have a few things on hold, as well as seeking out what we feel are some of the service needs. So we'd like to move forward with it. There may be some things that come forward and we discuss at a staff level and bring that up through the council that maybe it's not something, a direction that we want to go in. Some of the what's contained in this policy already exists, as I mentioned. So we've pulled and cobbled together a few existing policies and then there's some new things in here that we're going to be trying. So I guess in that sense it's a pilot in that we're going to be trying something new. Our hope is that it moves forward. We may come back to some point in time down the road to tweak it a little bit or add to it. If we find that there are things that we didn't think about and we want to be able to add to this, that makes sense for the community and services. Okay. Are we going to have any sort of an outreach campaign to inform people of these partnerships or partnership opportunities? We'll do our standard marketing, so we'll use our social media sites and our website, and we'll reach out to some of our current nonprofit organizations or those that have reached out to us in the past. Some of our other user groups or people that we have had, some of the previous types of agreements that now we're going to fold into this. So we'll be doing a little bit of outreach on all ends. Okay. Now, is this I know that throughout. The report, though, the. Term park is referenced, but does that include medians, parkways and roundabouts? It would include anything that comes under the purview of Parks, Recreation and Marine. And I ask that because, as Ms.. Knight knows, and I'm very proud at some point we're going to do a presentation at council. One of our staff members is a member of this year's Leadership Long Beach team and one of her. Her idea of adopting a media and a kind of a a program that we could implement citywide for community groups that might be interested actually was one of the projects that was selected. And so it's Antonella Schaub who's here. So we're going to be working on a partnership and with leadership Long Beach to make that project a reality. And of course, that involves the media. So I wanted to make sure that this this this policy that we're contemplating would encompass those areas as well in regards to community groups. Can they, if they wanted to partner. Would. PRM be providing them a list of partners that they could connect with to do community service? I'm sorry. Can you say that again? Sure. As far as like community groups who may want to do an enhancement project would PRN be providing them with a list of community partners that they could work with? I guess I'm not quite sure what you're asking for as far as community partners. Would we be part? Would we be matching them with other groups that want to do projects that have come to us? Is that what you're asking or. Well, I guess I'm kind of going off of your PowerPoint presentation. And in terms of your partnership with Friends of Long Beach Animals. Your partnership with Heart of Ida. So some of our existing. Partnerships or existing or future partnerships. So how would a community group know about that, those partnerships? How would they know? Well, that's a great question. That could be something that we could add to our website. The existing partnerships that we have so folks could get an idea of what we're already doing. We would also not want to take away from if we have a very successful partnership right now with one of those organizations , have someone else come in and, you know, try and take over that partnership as well. I think there's plenty of needs to go around, so I'm not so concerned about that. But we could certainly list those on our website. Just just to give community groups a little bit of assistance. If they wanted to get involved in a particular enhancement project, like how would they go about, you know, what, what would be the partners that the city has already worked with, like Conservation Corps, which is the medium project that we're doing or other groups that they could work with. Right. So we have several that do enhancement and cleanup projects. For example, the Friends of Bixby Park. They do regular monthly cleanup projects in the park. They do some other programs and service projects for us. So we have neighborhood groups throughout the city. So when when we do get phone calls from people and they're interested in participating, we often do hook them up with the key members of those organizations so they can reach out to them. And that similar partner would be maybe the like the stewardship program that we have with Lenny, Arkansas. Yes, I know he works with community partners and organizations all the time. We have often sent people towards Lenny's way that he could use all the volunteers he can get. That's perfect. That's great. Would a community group be able to submit a one time intent to partner on a particular community project, or would it have to be like an ongoing thing? Yes, they can do a one time, for example, of a one time park enhancement or park cleanup or park project. Or it could be a partnership over the next five years. It could be that they submit it for a long term. Depending on if they are able to show that they have a proven track record of success for a long term agreement, we may start out with maybe a one year or shorter agreement that's renewable, depending on how they do after their first year. But absolutely, there's latitude to do short term one time or long term. Okay, that's great. Well, I think it's great that we are looking at opportunities like this because I know resources are limited in terms of financial resources, but in terms of volunteer resources and and a heart for the community and a willingness to do things in the community, we're certainly not limited in that area. So to the extent that we can kind of use that that desire to fuel some projects, that would be great. I do want to ask that because outreach and communication and encouraging these partnerships is so important. I want to encourage PRM to continue to work with community groups or interest groups who might be interested in getting the word out and providing information to community partners of how this could happen and how we could effectuate these policies at the, you know, at the very local level in neighborhoods and to kind of use use other agencies, as, you know, ambassadors to help us get the word out about these opportunities. I think that would be really great. Absolutely. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you so much. I also want to say just great job to Councilmember Mungo, who I know began this conversation. Anne Marie Knight, for your hard work on this, partnerships obviously is something that is really important to me and my district. And we have unique opportunities in our district like Arts Park, like Bixby Park, that really are going to require partnerships to help us create an above and beyond experience for folks. And so I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. One is, if an organization that's a listed in the sheet is fundraising for, you know, like the friends of Groups, if they're fundraising for a park, what is the process that they go through before they can spend those funds or fundraise in the first place? Is there an agreement where that fall into this category where they would have a form that they could work on? It would fall under this policy, and there has not been a consistent policy in the past. So that's one of the benefits of this, is that we would be able to have a, you know, a running total of who's doing what. It's been approved. So we know that their fundraising, we know what they're fundraising for. And if it is for something in the park, then we've approved that because we have we have a lot of great groups out there. They're very well-meaning groups. But we get calls all the time about someone being approached by someone who's fundraising for something that we're not even aware of. So this process will help us solidify that. Absolutely. Great. Thank you for that. And then I wanted to ask a question around the revenue sharing. I know it doesn't exactly say that every project would share X amounts. Can you talk about when we do revenue sharing, say with like an arts park, we are going to do a partnership with the Arts Council and the Dolby and hopefully have some concessions there . What would happen with the revenue sharing percentage that the city would get from that? So each contractor agreement is going to have to be negotiated separately because there's going to be there are so many opportunities that it could be such a broad spectrum of what they're raising money for, what they're charging for. It is a is it a concession versus is it fundraising? So each contract, as they propose to do some type of concession in the park, we would then look at and negotiate separately with each one about the revenue sharing that would come back. Some may be doing that concession or raising funds, and none of those funds would directly be related to that park. But we would be asking for some of that to come back to take care of maintenance and needs in the park that they're using to fundraise for or to sell their concessions in. If it's a straight concession agreement, then we would negotiate that as we have some of our other concession agreements, for example, down at Rainbow Harbor or in the Marina. So each one is going to be different. Great. Thank you so much for your time and effort on this. And I hope that we can really look at the form and make sure that as we move forward, if the form is getting to our needs, that there might be an opportunity to adjust it just to make sure that we're doing checks and balances with some of those agreements. So thank you. Absolutely. Thank you, Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. This is more like a general big picture type of thing. I guess what we're trying to do here, you're getting principles, new revenue sources, ideas, technologies, programs, services, positive social, financial culture, environmental impact, protect and enhance the city brand and image. And of course, somebody must have a proven track record of success. In your guiding principles, you have in there to protect and enhance the city brand and image. What is it? So that means that we would want to partner with we want to make sure that the individual businesses, organizations that we partner with have the same mission as the city, has the same service, excellence of service that we have as a city. And so that when we partner with them, they are at the same level we are as far as what our city brand is. So we just want to be protective of who we are because oftentimes when these groups are out in the community and doing what they're doing, the average citizen does not know that they are not part of the city. And everyone looks at that as a city program or a city project. So we want to make sure that the customer services at the level that that we would require as a city and our standards as well as the end product. In the other sense, it also is that, you know, many I have been approached by. Community groups wanting to. How about as my assistance in sponsoring an event that they want to put through in a in a community room or a corner of the park? And one of the considerations here that we always are confronted with is that they may not be a federal agency. Whatever I want to see free or nonprofit, and they ask for that kind of assistance in order to get whatever they want to put in there. They want to do it for a benefit, for some for a cause of, let's say. Asthma. I had asthma. But they don't have. If I want to see how we're going to handle that with the in terms of the application process, are we going to require that they be a nonprofit and eventually a nonprofit, or are we going to host them in one way or another? Well, we're going to waive the fees for them in order to be able to do the. So that's a great question. So this policy encompasses, as I mentioned earlier, several of our existing, one of which is our our fee waiver policy. So the Council has given our Parks and Recreation Commission the authority to entertain those types of requests and grant fee waiver approvals. So if someone wanted to use one of our city facilities or parks, they would have to go through that application process. And it is actually heard at the Parks and Recreation Commission. They are not required to be a501 C3. What they have to demonstrate, though, is how their activity that they want to have the fees waived for. How does it serve our community? How does it benefit the community? So we have several a month that come to the commission. So that's the current process that would be covered under this and it would still remain that way. What about insurance? For some types of activities, they may have to provide insurance, others they don't. So it really depends on the activity and what they're doing. But that process is included and covered under here. So they would go through that process, and that's been in existence for quite some time. Well, in principle, yeah, I agree with the effort here because I think that we've been remiss in a lot of opportunities to have major projects here that would be self-funded or funded in other ways that would help a brand in that way. And I think that this would be very helpful in getting more out, more participation from major sponsors to come in and hold events here. I see I see the potential for this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I want to appreciate the comments of my colleagues because a lot of what they spoke to was the original intent of this. And early on when I was elected, the transparency factor was the key concern for me because I was being told one thing by a community group, one thing by the attorney, one thing by a department head. And I really just didn't know what was the truth. So I would like to ask and I won't add it to the motion, but for you to find a way to work with data, L.B., that every application that you approve gets scanned and posted on the city website somewhere, because then we will all know who has been approved and perhaps if it's going to be rejected that it's a discussion on Here's why this is not a good time for us. We already have enough programing at that park. We already have what? And the other. But all approved city related organizations, whether they're using, let's say the Conservation Corps, is a legitimate partnership and they wear their t shirts and they're cleaning up the park. They are certified to be there versus someone who wants to just clean up the park on their own. That's fine to do, but we need to know who's verified and who's not verified. Would that be something that you can work towards? Absolutely. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Councilwoman Pier. Yeah. I just wanted to ask that Marie Knight, if you guys could, outreach to nonprofit partnership as a way to get the word out. That that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Price. Just to echo what Councilwoman Mongeau just said, I think it's a really good idea to have that information and make it easily accessible. And one of the things Miss Knight's been working on with Antonella Schaub from my office is what leadership Long Beach wanted to do with this project is come up with an actual like brochure or kind of educational piece of what people would have to do in order to be able to do a partnership like this, like with a Conservation Corps or another group, and so that they can help the city. Because, again, our resources are are somewhat limited in terms of staff resources. But that's another way to get a community leadership organization to educate the neighborhood organizations about what the what steps they need to go through if they wanted to do an improvement project. Because like Council member Mungo just said, we get requested requests all the time from community groups who want to do things. And just through this process I've learned that there are different steps that they have to go through. And Councilmember Yanga is absolutely right. I mean, we need to we need to know exactly what they have to do, make sure that we comply with everything, educate people, things like insurance of the legal issues. Those are all very important. So I think having, you know, some consistency in place and taking advantage of partners who want to work with us to get the word out and educate the community and make it easier for those partnerships to happen. I think we should be embracing those at every opportunity and encouraging that kind of partnership from our local interested organizations and allied partners. So thank you. Thank you. And before we cast our vote, I just want to say that, oh, we have to get a couple of comments, so I'm gonna make a comment here. So, Parks people really care about their parks. I mean, parks are really important. I get it. And so I would say that it you know, these policies have been looked at in a long time. And we should not ignore the fact that this is probably a really heavy undertaking on behalf of staff. And so, you know, staff, thank you for taking this on. I hope that this is successful. I hope you continue to defend it like you did tonight. And and let's and let's see what comes out of this. Sometimes you have to take a risk and try something new to, you know, to shift an outcome. And so I'm hoping that that happens. Is there any public comment on this item tonight? Karen retired, and I'm a resident of the First District, and I also represent a number of community groups, and I also am a part time worker with partners of Parks. And I can assure you this is going to be a great opportunity for community groups and for partners of Parks, too. And as your question, Councilmember Turanga Partners of Parks does do fiscal sponsorships for organizations that don't have a5013501c3 and for all of the council members. And we do that for any organization that is going to be doing events in parks, we charge a 10% administrative fee, which is very, very low if you look at other organizations. And we also are able to provide insurance certificates at no cost to people that affiliate with us. So those are part of the services that Partners of Parks offers. And I think this will be a wonderful opportunity. Speaking for Gray Panthers, we have a great partnership with the senior center and with parks, been there a number of years. We loved the park scene being at the senior center. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. When I was not. Yes. My name is Priscilla Suarez. I'm the executive director of the Arts Council for Long Beach. And first of all, I really want to thank the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine for updating and clarifying their parks sponsorship policies. Thank you so much. Community partnerships between local organizations and our city's parks help fill the gap in many ways for our resources and in some cases, activate underused space and bring residents together. As the Arts Council, I know the value of as head of the Arts Council, I know the value of community groups. And many times we get artists and creative organizations wanting to use the parks as a place to bring everyone together to do creative work. And so this would help greatly. A lot of those organizations are willing to create sustainable partnerships and bring together a shared vision. We are currently working as an Arts Council where Councilmember Janine Pearce, the downtown Long Beach Alliance, the East Village Association and local businesses to activate East Village Arts Park, which has been closed for three years. And so even in in in asking the question, there were other questions to me and I was like, I don't know. So thank you so much. Again, this is really, really opens up many avenues. So our collaboration with East Village Arts Park is the perfect example of how business and community groups can come together to activate public spaces. I look forward to being part of the process. As an arts council. We can educate our creative organizations. We can educate our artist. Our musicians are performers on how to go about this. So count on our support on that and we look forward to leveraging some more resources for our parks and our communities. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Mary Martinson I with friends of El Dorado Dog Park. And I'm the president of a nonprofit. 501c3 And we've been here since 2010 and I feel hardly support this. It's just been. Type of. Where you don't really know what's going to be approved. What is it? We've fundraised first. We were supposed to fundraise for the dog park. And an. Infrastructure. Gerry ships. Keep it the infrastructure. Through. And we were really happy about it and was a one time. Infrastructure. We've spent close to $8,000, which is not a lot. But the problem was we wanted to go after corporate. Sponsorship and we. Didn't have any guidelines. For it. And it would really. Help our. Group and our nonprofit to. Have some type of guidelines. To work through this. So we. Appreciate this. I thanks Stacy Mongo for bringing it forward. I thank the Parks and Recreation. And I am so. Happy that this is going to. Finally. Be something that we. Can look at and say. Yeah, this is going to work. This is really. What we. Need. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Larry. Good. I haven't had a chance to go over the details with this night. I did. With the predecessor and so forth. But a. A program, a paradigm that will be set, ready to go is will be centered around what used to be Marine Stadium three s, which was raised as a result of a criminal ruse. What's going to happen with that? And this will probably take place later this fall, before the end of this year. It will be rebuilt in the same footprint, no larger than the old footprint. And we'll get somebody like Schooner or later that will operate what will be open for breakfast and lunch only period. Half of a probably 80% of the seating will be portable chairs and tables that they will bring out in that location. It will do a land office business, and a percentage of the profits will go to offset the fees that are being charged for to the nonprofit. Cal State and Long Beach Junior Crew. A percentage of the profits from sooner or later will go there. We've already got a name for it. It's going to be called the brig and it will do an absolute fantastic business for breakfast and lunch. It will not it will not be open for dinner. But that's something we we're coming up with in three or four months that will come forward. I'll give you all the same, all the details. And you don't I haven't given you all the details of the background of that. I'll give you the same the information that James Comey has. And you'll see you'll understand the full history of that. Thanks. Thank you. So seeing no further public comment members, please cast your vote.

Adoption of Resolution Supporting the AC Transit Parcel Tax Renewal Bond Measure (20 Year Measure). (Transportation Planning 9161101)

AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3311

All those in favor. Motion carries unanimous. Good work. That's five. Oh. Okay. And I also pulled five. Oh, so you two guys great minds. The transportation and traffic is something we hear about all that time in Alameda, in not just Alameda, but the Bay Area and the inner city. See, the vice mayor and Councilmember de SAC, I think, sit on the liaison with AC Transit. But there is an AC transit parcel tax renewal bond measure on this year's ballot. And so we are very fortunate to have our own representative on the AC Transit Board, Elsa Ortiz. Ms. Ortiz And we. We earlier heard a proclamation recognizing National Hispanic Heritage Month. And if I recall correctly, she hails from Colombia. Yes. Anyway, she has served as well on the AC Transit Board for a number of years and Ms.. Ortiz is going to tell you a little bit about this thing you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Some members of the city council. Thank you for allowing me to come before you to ask support for our parcel tax. As you mention, we're not increasing the current $8 that you pay regardless of the size of your house is only $8 per month. Per month. Yes, yes, yes. And so we only extending it for 20 years. Right. It covers expenditures of operations and maintenance. It expires in 2019. And so this is the last time that we have an opportunity to be before the voters in a presidential election. Back in 2012, we thought about going to the ballot, but then measure B B was on the ballot. So we stepped aside in order for B B to pass. We did the same thing in 2014. We stepped aside so that all the cities, including AC Transit and all the transit agencies that benefited could have. Measure B b approved. What we were concerned about was that the arguments that b b would be making would have been the same arguments that we would have made. So that that's when we thought, you know, we stepped aside. So this is the last chance that we have before it expires. It is immense. This is $30 million a year. It means a lot to AC transit. It funds school trips, 30,000 kids today and people to work 43% of our trips. It helps to keeps fares reasonable. Reasonable. I think we have increased fares in the last five years. It funds critical services for seniors and riders with disability, with discounted fares. We also provide discount affairs for kids. We have it requires we have safeguards. We have. And part of the measure, it creates an an advisory and audit process to make sure that we spend the money as what is intended to spend, you know, as you know, funding from state has degrees and from the feds, it can fluctuate. So we become more and more dependent on local measures. We just begun to make a major expansion in service because of measure be. If we were to lose the 20 the $30 million full measure from the parcel tax, it will put us back to 2010, which was beginning to restore service when we have those serious draconian cuts because of the recession that everybody went through. We have been indoors this our measure has been endorsed by Congress. One woman, woman barbara lee. But alameda and contra costa labor council. We do surf contra part of contra costa to the alameda county democratic central committee. This is a club like league of women voters and many other. So I do humbly request that you support our parcel tax. Percentage doesn't need to pass. What percentage do you need to pass? Is it 50% or two thirds? Two thirds. This is although two thirds now. They think that all that transit. Proposal required to be. Because if a specific program. Member. Expects to have a quick question, thank you for your presentation so that the 19 is coming back to. Me in December. Can you kind of share the schedule on when that is and the headways and what we can expect? It's going to start the difficult difficulty we have been having and. You know, taking creating this service expansion is we have to hire more drivers. And so that has been delayed a little bit. We're going to start and and then 19. We will start in December. And yeah, this December is that's the second stage. I think that 20 minutes is the is the frequency that we're going to have. We're also working with because remember, we had three alternatives when we were using the measure B, we have that whenever Easter, NC now and others, we are working with the city to make sure that we get enough funding to then start the line the inside out to the ferry. We're working with the MTC, with AC, DC, with weather and all of you to make sure that we have that kind of money. We also part of our transit plan is to have eventually the BRT running about. What Spirit stand for. Bus rapid transit, which is dedicated lanes. So yeah. And then if somebody is listening that wants to apply, how can they apply to be a bus driver? Go to our website. Yes. Good question. W WW dot. Is the transit thought okay. Yes. And please, let's get this bus to the ferry as soon as we can. Yes. Well, yeah, I mean. You know, every city asks for more service, but we are bound by kind of money. That where your favorite, right? Yes. You know, it is. I work hard at. Substantial cuts the last time, so we should have more service restored. Thank you. Member de SAC. I just want to make sure to say that for the viewing audience for Alameda is watching this, that the AC Transit Board really went out of their way to make sure to take the time to obtain what our suggestion or recommendation was with regard to ultimately what turned out to be funding for the Buena Vista line. They took us special considerations for that. And so I hope Alameda has realize the incredible assistance that Mr. Ortiz had gave him personally, as well as the board generally. And one final note. I mean, I hope the residents also realize that the point that she made about, you know, looking into the busses and improving their their access to the ferries is an incredible another incredible point. So that when people go to the polls in November that Alameda is overwhelmingly support this. Thank you, Tony. Yeah, I have to, you know, closing remarks. The city of Alameda and AC Transit works really well together. We meet together once every three months for a committee that we have created between the two agencies. We get together, we hear the concerns and what how we can work together. So it is a wonderful relationship that we have. Thank you. We have emotion. I think the vice mayor was fair. I'd like to move that. We support this as a city council. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Look, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Of. My motion carries unanimously IFP. Okay. And this is my last poll. When I read it. Let her read it. Oh, sorry, sorry. Adopted resolution supporting the Bay Area Rapid Transit General Obligation Bond measure to fund BART Safety, Reliability and Traffic Relief Program.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $5,000, offset by the First Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to Centro CHA for costs associated with the Dia De Los Muertos "pop-up" festival that occurred November 8, 2019 on the Promenade in downtown Long Beach; and Decrease appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $5,000 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department. Increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $13,040, offset by First Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department for Special Events and Filming Office to install neighborhood pride banners along Pine Avenue from 3rd Street to Anaheim Street, Pacific Avenue from 3rd Street to Anaheim Street, and 3rd Street from Pacific Avenue to the 710 Freeway.

LongBeachCC_12032019_19-1199

Item 22. I am 22. Craig, would you please read that it? Item 22 Communication for Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund by $5,000 to provide a contribution to Central Asia for costs associated with the idea of Tomatoes Pop Up Festival and 13,040 to install neighborhood pride banners along Pine Avenue. Offset by first Council District one time district priority funds. To every part, become an insider. Almost like would you like to speak on the side of. You know. Mrs. Pierce. Okay. He likes you joke. Okay. So, Mr. Andrews, so we understand this and this would be a divided by nine item. And and the mayor's office has worked with City one on this one. Okay. Please cast your vote. I am 23, please. Would you put. A price, Councilmember Your Honor. Councilmember Richardson. Okay. Item 23 Communication from Mayor Garcia recommendation to cancel the City Council Meeting of Tuesday, December 24th, 2019.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Loretto Heights Rezoning and IMP Development Agreement between the City and County of Denver and ACM Loretto VI, LLC, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5, Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District and, Pancratia Hall Partners, LLC for the development of 70 acres bounded by Federal Boulevard, South Irving Street and Dartmouth Avenue. Approves a development agreement with ACM Loretto VI, LLC their successors and assigns, obligating the developer to certain requirements for development of approximately 70 acres bounded by Federal Boulevard to the east, South Irving Street to the west, and Dartmouth Avenue to the south in Council District 2. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-30-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0352

I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0333 has passed. Council Member Black, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0352 on the floor. Yes, I moved that council bill 20 1035 to be placed. Upon final consideration and do. Pass. Thank think it's been moved and we have the second comments by members of Council on Council Bill 352. Council Member Flynn. Hey, Madam President, just briefly, I want to I want to say to you, if you go through that development agreement, you'll see that it is one of the most involved, complicated and integrated, multi-disciplinary development agreements you will see during their time on the Council precisely because of the affordable housing, because of the landmarking and historic preservation. It even details what can and cannot be done with the buildings that aren't being landmarked. It details the open space, the contribution to the city's park across the street at Loreto, at Loreto Heights Park. And so it's a it was a ton of work to get there. And I want to thank particularly staff member Deidre, those who who helped to push that across the finish line. Well, thank you, Deirdre. It's all Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. See no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 352, please. When I. Herndon. I. Hines, I. Cashman. I can. I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Clark. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 1111 nine Counsel Bill 352 has passed. Congratulations, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now we are on the homestretch here. Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 437 on the floor for final passage?

Consider Establishing an Implementation Plan for Creating the Shoreline Ecological Park on the West Side of Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point, Commonly Known as De-Pave Park. (Councilmembers Oddie and Daysog)

AlamedaCC_10152019_2019-7320

Clerk. Consider establishing implementation plan for creating the Shoreline Ecological Park on the west side of Seaplane Lagoon and allow me to come clean on a city paved park because that it was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers Odie and Isaac. Three speakers. Okay. And we have speakers, right? Yes. Um, could I possibly suggest that we hear a speakers first? Because we've kept for so long? I think the referral explains itself. So let's hear. It. Richard Banger, Linda Carr Loney and Marjorie Powell. Yeah, sorry about that, folks. Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council City staff for staying alert this late and continuing on to finish the agenda. Thank you, Councilmember Odie and Councilmember De Saag for referring this. We've had a lot of progress and success with the redevelopment of Alameda Point so far site, a very terminal groundbreaking and I think now is a good time that we break ground to repurpose some of our shoreline. And the scale of this project, as you can probably see without any estimates, is going to be a big project. And it's it's big enough that it's probably not going to be tied to any mega project, mega redevelopment project that's going to absorb the cost of this deep park project. So that's why we shouldn't be waiting for some some big, big project to come along that's going to pay for this. We need a separate track where we seek grant funding and we need to start now. There's no no need to wait anymore. It's it's called out in our Climate Action Plan. There's all the reasons have been spelled out in the in the referral. And so the only $0.02 I would add is if you decide to go forward and create an implementation plan, including a with a proposed request for qualifications that the qualifications need to include some experience with floating wetlands, which is mentioned in the description of the EPA park in the town center plan. This isn't an untested idea. It's it's it's a tested idea. And it would be something we could implement here. And I would hope we would find somebody with expertize in that. And also, of course re purchasing that shoreline to meet the goals spelled out in the Deep Park plan. Thank you. Thank your next speaker. Linda Cardone, and then Marjorie Powell. Hi. Thank you again for staying to listen to to listen to us. I live in Alameda. I am also the president of the board of Golden. Get out of my society. We go and get out of Bonn and it's Alameda Conservation Committee I strongly support starting to plan for D pave park it's it would offer great recreation benefits great wildlife benefits and it would absorb carbon which and provide a living shoreline buffer. It has all kinds of incredible benefits and it's been five years since it was first planned. So I don't know, we just feel like it would be really a good time to at least get the planning started because it's going to take a long time to raise the money and build it out. So thank you. We urge you to make the referral. Thank you. Next, Speaker Marjorie Powell. Hello. Good morning, you hearty souls. Thank you. It's actually been interesting to sit and listen. And I appreciate the time and energy that you all put into this week. But my name is Marjorie Powell. I am in Alameda resident, a member of the friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve and it's in part because of the Reserve. But I am urging the Council to move quickly with finding a team to put plans together and do some grant writing to get some funding to actually implement this part. There are a couple of additional reasons. One, Linda mentioned the sea level rise and the need for wetlands. If you look at any of the reports of projected sea level rise, that end of Alameda will be clearly impacted. It's also given the number of recent reports about declines in birds, it's really important that we make sure we have plenty of green space, appropriate green space for birds. And as Alameda urbanized and that land that was once naval air station becomes more urban that we include parkland and wildlife areas. For the not just the birds, but the other animals in sea life there. And I also urge you to consider very seriously removing both of the buildings that are currently in that area. Thank you. And thank you very much. Thank you to all our public speakers and for your stamina. Okay. So Mr. Desai, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Odie, this is your council referral. Yeah. Yes. I'm sure that you're. Aware, Mayor, that Amy Wooldridge is here to answer any questions you have on this. Yes. Of our park. I assumed it wasn't just an exercise in stamina, but thank you. Yes. A recreation parks director is out here. People, we have 7 minutes. Who wants to say what? Quickly. Quick. I'm not going to repeat the referral because I think it's pretty obvious. Thank my colleague for for joining me on it and Richard, for working together with me on it. I've been very passionate tonight, so I'll try to rein it in. But if I do, I'm still passionate about this. It's in our in our waterfront plan. This is in our climate action plan. We restructure our leases around doing this park. So I will just read from one of the public letters that came in and our former colleague, Mr. Matarese. It's all well and good to talk about the idea of these parks again. But the time the time for this kind of talk is done. Council needs direction and include deadlines. So I think we need to have our staff bring back a plan and give us a commitment on when they would bring us back this plan. And we can discuss this plan so we can get moving on this because like one of the speakers, that is going to take a long time for this, but we can't wait. Sea level rise is happening. We need carbon sequestration. So I hope we can we can find a place on our priority list for this. Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Well, thank you very much. Weekly Councilmember Odie asked me to join him in supporting this. I was very surprised because he had indicated to me that, you know, you are on your last go around on city council. This was adopted and nothing had been done since then. And in the last go around I supported this largely because there's a lot of great at that time, you know, you could see that there's was a 2015. You can see that there was a lot of great things that were proposed for the sea in and around the seaplane lagoon, starting with the at the time site A , which was in its infancy as well as the ferry terminal. And at the time I supported the Depay's part because I thought, wouldn't that be wonderful that we're doing all this great development and planning and building, but that at the same time we're doing kind of a building through the D paved park. So so I supported it back then and I was surprised when Councilmember Ody approached me and it was about two weeks ago or so and said, you know, nothing had been done since then. And that's why I said, okay, yeah, for sure. I'll definitely sign on. So I look forward to moving forward with this because I think it is part of the whole development of the Seaplane Lagoon area, even though it is a building. Council, comments. Councilmember Vella So I'm happy to support this with one caveat. We've talked about kind of looking at everything together and where it falls with that and I think we have a number of parks planned and different things. So I do want to get this plan kind of underway, but I would also like it to come back or at least I don't know, Amy, if you want to. Yeah, maybe this will do it as long as we have you here. Could you perhaps come in? I don't want you to feel that this was time wasted. Do you want to just share your thoughts on this, since you are the recreation parks director? Sure. I absolutely support do pave park. It's it's an important amenity. I do want to take into perspective and I have an updated project list of what's currently happening with LAPD, PD, and I can go through super quickly, but it just gives the scope of work of what staff is working on. And so I would be interested in looking at prioritization from this council and maybe I bring that back as a separate item, not at, you know, 1230 at night, but but as an item. So you can see the scope of what's being worked on. And it's not a lack. Of desire, it's a. Lack of staff time. Everything from the City Aquatic Center to Jean Sweeney Park, Estuary Park, Enterprise Park, the pathways is short for inside. So just to name a few. In the in for the sake of time, perhaps part of the direction is that it comes back along with a full report from. The president and vice mayor. So I have two, two questions. First point number five is about the VA. Is the intent to actually for us to have a planning process for VA land. You wouldn't recommend that. Working with the Department of Veterans Affairs? I think the intent was to find ways to collaborate, considering the ideas, to dig up cement, to reuse and recycle instead of like discard. So it's not limited to the VA. I think you know that inside AA they took a lot of cement and reused it and you know, and stop waste. That's one of our main goals is to kind of look at the entire lifecycle. And it doesn't include the wetlands that are planned for that kind of area on the VA land as well. We're not you know, I think number five is just the recycling payment thing, if that's an option. Right. There's a whole different issue about wetlands. Okay. So I'm passionate about happy happy to see this moving forward. I was very involved with it, with the planning of it when I was at the planning board. I, I am concerned, given just the list of and not completed parks that we are already looking for funding on that we're going to start planning and fundraising for one . But I think it's a good opportunity. I like the idea of a prioritization discussion, but I actually would suggest that maybe that starts with, I reckon, Park Commission. I think that's the reason they exist in that we have asked them to add this to that conversation. I'm also just going to flag there are actually the there were never plans for taking down Building 29. In fact, that was a specific part of the discussion at planning at the planning board and the city council and both parties decided to leave it there. It's a huge chunk of cement that is very expensive and problematic. And I would be very uncomfortable, including that we're going to start moving, look for plans for moving people and ripping it down. I think that there's a lot more discussion before we could start there, but if we have a motion to. You would separate that? I would separate I would separate that out. I think it's something that can always be discussed, but I wouldn't want it to be specific. Okay. In the one minute we have remaining. So the recommendation I'm hearing is to actually have this item start at the Recreation and Parks Commission and then come back to us updated. I mean, as long as there's a date and I mean, I'm fine with that. I'm not sure I would like six taken out, but maybe you can see potential demolition instead of, you know, committing. But at some point, when would we think we would have this part priority type session? Would that. Uh. Um, I think I'm thinking of what we have on the Recreation Parks Commission. I can probably bring it to them in December. And then that means to, based on how that conversation goes to council in January, February, where they have a very full November agenda for the commission. I think that's a date. That's a date certain, I guess. I think a date certain. Great. So is that sufficient direction to start? Because it is 1230 and we only voted to go to 1230. Yeah. Yes, I'm fine with that. But I also would just like to say, if there's a community group out there that wants to work on this, there's that parallel track exists. Yeah. And we're. Into it. And they should probably reach out to the Recreation and Parks Commission and director. Okay, everyone, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your time. And effort to. Good one. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6973

See this public hearing to establish the proposition for appropriations limit for fiscal year 20 1920 and to consider adoption of resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1920. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of Council. Eleanor, dear finance director. I've mentioned earlier you get to see me quite a lot today. So we just adopted a previous item. We've adopted the budget for the next fiscal year. I do not have a presentation for this particular item. I'll just talk about that real quick. There's a California law that requires there's a constitution to adopt an appropriation limit. And what that really means is that we do not levy taxes within the city above what our allowable amount is. And at this point, we've provided a calculation as an attachment to our staff report. We are at 68% of what we are allowed to levy in terms of taxes. We're not close to it yet, which is good. However, one of the things that we do for potential future growth and things like that, we use the most advantageous factors that the city can use in order to calculate the growth. In order to calculate the appropriations limit. With that, I am open to any questions you may have, and we can talk specific numbers if you want to know more about it. But other than that, that concludes my presentation. Does anyone have any clarifying questions? Comments? Do you have any public comments. Of speakers on this topic? No speakers on this item. Great staff report. I'll move approval. We have a motion from the vice mayor. Do I have a second. Second? Second by Councilmember Odie. May we have a voice vote, please? Councilmember Daza? Yes. Naxalites Yes. Yes. Vela Yes. Mayor is the Ashcraft? Yes. That carries unanimously backed by Vice. All right, perfect. Thank you. Then we move on to item six D Public Hearing. Consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 121912 add and revise fees. And we do have a speaker on this item. Okay.

AN ORDINANCE vacating a portion of Delridge Way Southwest and other portions of Government Lot 3, in Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 3 East, W.M., on the petition of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (Clerk File 311504); and placing it under jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

SeattleCityCouncil_03162015_CB 118345

The Report of the Transportation Committee. Agenda Number five Council vote 118 345 vacating a portion of Ridgway, Southwest and other portions of government. Lot three in Section 13, Township 24, North Range three east of whom on the petition of the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and Placement under jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. This council bill completes the vacation of a portion of Dale Ridgway, which was necessary for the upgrade of Fire Station 36. This is the fire station that's under the north part of the high level west Seattle Bridge. The fire station was upgraded as part of the fire facilities levy passed by Seattle voters in 2003. And improvements were made to the fire station, including seismic up seismic upgrades and additional space for the crews and the Marine specialty and tunnel rescue units. The improvements to fire station 36 required 4700 square feet of the Delbridge y right of way to be vacated. This vacation was approved by the Council in 2011. If all of the conditions were met in exchange, the conditions included that public benefits be provided by the facilities and police. What do we call FAA? FAA as fleets and administrative services? No. Finance Administrative Services has changed its name several times since I've been in office. Anyway, the FAA will provide public benefits in return for acquiring this right away for the fire station. That includes upgrades made to the central public facility, extra landscaping around the project, and providing green walls to reduce noise from the railroad and the freeway nearby and also to support natural drainage. The Department of Finance Administrative Services has satisfied all of those public benefits requirements and conditions for the project, and now the committee is recommending that the vacation be approved. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. So on. I beg your clerk. Gordon Harrell. Licata O'Brian. Rasmussen, President Burgess. Nine in favor. Nine oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the Council? Councilmember Clark. Thank you. I'd like to move to be excused for the meeting of Monday, May 11th second. It's moved in second and that Councilmember Clark be excused on May 11. All in favor indicate by voting. I opposed. You are excused. Colleagues, we will reconvene in 10 minutes at 240 as the Select Committee on the Central Waterfront. We are adjourned.

A RESOLUTION expressing the City’s support for an effective, countywide safe prescription drug disposal program, including controlled substances, and requesting local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department to install drug disposal drop-boxes across the City.

SeattleCityCouncil_04042016_Res 31654

The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Committees and New Americans Committee ten. Item two Resolution 316 54 Expressing the city's support for an effective, county wide, safe prescription drug disposal program, including control substances and requesting local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department to install drug disposal drop boxes across the city. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you so much. I am pleased to move for the adoption of Resolution 31654, which is co-sponsored by myself and Councilmember Timber. Just I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for taking the the lion's share of the drafting of the resolution. Thank you so much, Councilmember Burgess, and and to your staff for doing that. This resolution expresses the city's support for an effective, countywide, safe prescription drug disposal program, including the collection of controlled substances, and request that local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department install safe and secure drug disposal drop boxes across the city. We all know that in in our city and across the county, we are like so many American cities in the midst of a heroin epidemic. Indeed, in a 2015 report completed by the University of Washington, we learned that drug cars, deaths involving heroin and or methamphetamines peaked in King County, resulting in a 58% increase in heroin deaths . A 2013 study by the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration concluded that four out of five recent heroin users previously used opioid pain relievers such as oxycodone before switching to the less expensive option of heroin. Experts in the field have stated that providing safe disposal of unused prescription drugs, especially of controlled substances, is a public health approach that reduces the risk of nonmedical use that might lead to drug abuse, including heroin addiction. For these reasons, and those further articulated in this resolution, the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee unanimously recommends that City Council adopt Resolution 31654. Thank you very much. Council members Gonzales and Burgess, council member Burgess. Thank you. I think this is a very positive step. To make it possible for residents of Seattle to join other communities in King County to be able to safely dispose of prescription drugs, including controlled substances, police departments from Auburn to Woodinville and from Snoqualmie to now. Seattle will have these safe deposit boxes. Many individuals won't be comfortable going to police precincts, so we encourage pharmacies in our city to install these boxes. Programs supervised by the federal government and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. So it doesn't cost pharmacies anything to have these collection boxes. They're safe, they're serviced and they're very secure. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted, and a chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? If not, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much and have a great afternoon. Very much.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Volunteer Park; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a development agreement and lease with the Seattle Art Museum for the renovation and continued occupancy for recreation purposes of the building that has historically housed the Seattle Asian Art Museum; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_01222018_CB 119150

The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community. Agenda Item one Council Bill 119150 An ordinance relating to Volunteer Park authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a development agreement and lease with the Seattle Art Museum for the renovation and continued occupancy for recreation purposes of the building that has historically housed the Seattle Asian Art Museum. And ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you very much, councilmember suarez. Thank you. The agreement for the new seattle asian art museum. Before I get into the details of this bill, I believe Councilmember Gonzalez has an amendment to the ordinance to ensure proper advertising of the community benefits guaranteed in this agreement. So I will hand it over to Councilmember Gonzalez for the amendment and then we'll move on to the bass led the bass legislation. Councilwoman Gonzales, you have the floor. Thank you so much. This is an amendment to Council Bill 119150. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119150 by adding a last sentence to Section three, which will read as follows. With regard to any public benefits required under the lease system, it shall take adequate measures to clearly inform the public of these benefits, including identifying such benefits and marketing and outreach materials covering public activities at the same. Her second. Would you any further comments on Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment? Any questions? More need for elaboration. We prepare to vote. Okay. We're going to vote on the amendment first. All those in favor of Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment, please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Juarez, thank you. First of all, I want to thank the SAM folks for working with us and being here. I also want to thank Council President Harrell. For the last two years we've been working on this as well as Councilmember Bagshaw. And now more recently, Councilmember Gonzalez. And I also want to thank the individuals that have showed up at every meeting to give their public comment whether they agree with this or not. I do appreciate and I did listen to your comments and your concerns, and I want you to know that I did hear you. But with that, I'm going to move forward. In 2008, voters approved the Parks and Greenspace levy, which included funding to renovate the Seattle Asian Art Museum and Volunteer Park. Due to the effects of the recession of the project, the project was not able to move forward. That would have been during the recession in oh eight. The city and the museum made an agreement to hold off on the project until economic conditions improved, and then they did. Today we are here to able to finally finalize plans. Nearly ten years in the making to not only renovate the museum but expand it to increase education and exhibit space. The $55 million project includes a $19 million contribution from the city and I believe $6 million from federal tax credits. This agreement includes a long list of public benefits, one in which we required the Seattle Asian Art Museum to go back to the drawing board at least two occasions, to come back and give us a more complete and robust description about what public benefits they would be providing to the city in the citizens of Seattle. For the full list, you can see Exhibit B in the lease agreement. I would like to highlight the following key benefits explicit. There's explicit commitment to partner with Seattle Public with the Sealed Public School District. Was there a criteria for targeting school partners and details in an annual outreach efforts? President Harrell insisted on that seven in-school art education programs and free tours for up to 75 schools annually. Eight workshops, three day camps and 15 free lectures and panel discussions. Again, the people on the committee at the time, myself, Councilmember Bagshaw and President Harrell, insisted this this component was crucial in order to be a public benefit. In addition, there's 15 $50,000 minimum scholarship assistance fund with an annual escalation equal to the escalation of the city's operating subsidy for the Seattle Asian Art Museum. I should add that we went from 25 to 15. We required that you double that, and you did also an annual fee, publicly accessible cultural event. Approximately the annual value value of all benefits listed in Exhibit B is approximately $340,000, 340,000 in about $2,016, give or take some change. The committee recommends the passage of this bill. Is there anything you want to add? Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you. I just I want to thank you for your intrepid leadership on this and say thank you to the patients of Sam, also to the neighbors who have come out. I know that you feel like there haven't been enough public meetings, but I think over the years we've seen many, many opportunities for people to weigh in , express their opinions. We know that there's disagreement. I believe that it's time for us to move forward on this, that the city had a commitment during our park levy early in 2008 that we were going to care for this building that was ours and also put forward the fact that was needed and the structural seismic changes we've got to do. That is our responsibility and I'm very thankful. Again, Councilmember Suarez, Councilmember Gonzales, for your keen eye on some of this language and it's really time to move on this. Very good, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just wanted to speak to some of the issues around the use of park land for for this purpose. Back in 1997, the citizens of Seattle passed the Save Our Parks Initiative, Initiative 42, which stated that no land or facility shall be sold, transferred or change from park use to another usage unless the city shall first hold a public hearing and set out some process requirements, and then also required that the city shall at the same time or before receiving an exchange or land or facility of equivalent or better size, value, location or usefulness. You know, the city has. The city of Seattle has a long history of having Parks and Recreation Department land use for a wide variety of recreational activities, including including the arts. And in considering the the use of arts as part of the city's recreation offerings that ranges from the Green Lake Theater Dance, Madrona Dance Studio, Performing Arts , Langston Hughes and Pratt Fine Arts Center. And so in looking at how this transaction intersects with the requirements of Initiative 42, I think it's very appropriate that the city has determined that this exchange does not does not need to be subject to the provisions of Initiative 42. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Herbold. Councilmember Suarez. Just briefly, I believe Councilmember Herbert is referring to the legal opinion that we requested, dated February 2017, which categorically concluded that the proposed museum use constitutes a, quote unquote park and recreational use and initiative. 42 therefore does not apply. Very good, Councilmember. So watch. Thank you. Thank you, President Harrell. I just wanted to make some general comments on this and the next item on the agenda which relate to the expansion of the Asian Art Museum. My office staff have met with the museum and with the Capitol Hill residents who are concerned about the expansion and its impact on the bargains. Also spoke today. I generally support the expansion because I support museums. The importance of art cannot possibly be overstated, and of course it is. We're talking about the Asian Art Museum, so it is even more of a crucial importance for our region in terms of the cultural opportunities it can potentially continue to bring to the people who live here. There are some points that the opponents of this expansion have made that I believe have merit in themselves, and I just wanted to register them today for future reference. The Art Museum, the Seattle Art Museum, which owns which owns the Asian Art Museum, is not free. We all know and not open to the public in the same way that parks are. So I think that is something for us to think about. Everyone should have. Just like everyone should. You believe everyone should have access to parks. Everyone should have access to art in our society. And I think the amount of money that people have to pay for specific exhibits, I mean, people it makes even otherwise people with otherwise decent living standards balk at the amount of money to pay for any specific exhibit. And I think there should be much more access to that. And it's not on the shoulders of any one person who just wanted to register those points. Unfortunately, right now the museum is open, as I understand, only four days a month. The city did provide will be providing millions in funding for this museum expansion as well as for some extra park space. And I believe that when we had that kind of bargaining position in the future, we should be asking for more opportunities for the public. And I'm sure that there's not going to be any disagreement about that. And I think especially when you look at the fact that admissions make up a small portion of the museum's revenues. Clearly, there's a lot of other lot of other sources that could actually potentially help me to help the museum be open four more days a week, if not all days a week. And I think this is particularly true in the case of the Asian Art Museum, which features art historically from communities of color. So I will be voting yes on this expansion. Thank you, Councilmember Suarez. And but I also appeal to the De Sam to reexamine the opportunities to radically expand free access to the amazing cultural resources that they're able to bring to the city. Thank you, Councilmember. So once I'd like to say that I'm certainly very supportive of this legislation and I suppose reasonable minds can differ. It seems to me that when we are all dust that we will be known for our art, our music and our museums. And when we looked at the finances of this arrangement, it certainly was not rubber stamped. And we looked at the long schedule of payments and knowing that we are leveraging philanthropic dollars, private dollars and public dollars, I think that it certainly was not rubber stamped. I specifically asked during the committee discussions about what it cost to attend the museum, and it's my understanding that the museum asked for donations and that they don't turn down anyone who cannot pay. That was my understanding. I hope I'm not misstating what I heard at the table, that if a person can't pay, they're not required to pay. And these are suggested donations. And I also know that there are free Thursdays throughout the year. And this is because, as Councilmember Swan correctly points out, that this is a public gem and everyone should be able to enjoy the richness of this museum. So again, I want to thank the neighbors. They the the residents in the neighborhoods and the park advocates for always being the advocates that they are. And again, at the end of the day, perhaps reasonable minds can differ. But I support this legislation unapologetically. Councilman Waters, are we good to vote? We are good to vote. Okay. Okay. So this is a bill. So all those please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill. Whereas I macheda. I. O'BRIEN So, Sergeant. I. BAGSHAW Hi. GONZALES Hi. HERBOLD Hi. Johnson President Harrell nine in favor and an oppose. The Bill Parsons show assignment. Please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to authorize final reconciliation payment to SMG/ASM Global under Management Agreement No. 21667 for operational expenses for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY 20) at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center (Convention Center), due to COVID-19 pandemic impacts; Authorize an advance of payment expected to be owed under Management Agreement No. 21667 to SMG/ASM Global for operational expenses for FY 21 at Convention Center, due to COVID-19 pandemic impacts; and Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operating Fund Group in the Economic Development Department in the amount of $3,900,000, offset by funds available and/or reserves to cover the FY 21 operational deficiency of the Convention Center. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_01192021_21-0045

I mean, it's in place. Item 18 is a. Report from Economic Development. Recommendation to authorize final reconciliations payment to SMG s m global for operational expenses for fiscal year 2020 at the Convention Center due to COVID 19 pandemic impacts district to. I got a motion in the second place. Motion by your anger is taken by customers and they have a very public comment. No pop a common. Okay. Without any objection, we'll go ahead and go to a roll call vote. Councilman Sun has. All right, Councilwoman Allen. All right. Councilwoman Pryce, I sentiments have been asked. All right. Councilwoman Mango. Hi. Councilwoman Sara. I. Council Councilmember Oranga. By. Councilman Austin. And Vice Mayor Richardson. All right.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8805 Fremont Avenue North; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; increasing appropriations to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the 2016 Adopted Budget and the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118700

Agenda item four cancel bill 118 700 relating to the 28 Parks and Greenspaces Levy authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8005 Fremont Avenue North. Authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space park recreation purposes. Increasing appropriations to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the 2016 adopted budget and the 2016 through 2021 Capital Improvement Program. Revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016 through 2021 Capital Improvement Program and ratifying confirmed research and projects all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Wise. Thank you again. This. This has to do with two great neighborhoods, Greenwood and Fremont. The original footprint of the Greenwood Park was acquired in the 1990s. Since then, the city has been working to acquire the adjacent properties along Fremont Avenue. There were four properties there and by 2002 the City Department of Parks and Recreation had acquired four of them. This is the last parcel that was outstanding. The park's development property management team has been working with the current owners to ensure a successful transaction. With today's council action, we are completing a park that has been identified as a goal in both the Greenwood Neighborhood Plan and the Greenwood Park Masterplan. Residents from the area offered public comment to our committee, letting us know that they were committed to working with the city to make sure the design meets the needs of their community . Residents who live nearby call this park their yard, where their children learn to ride their bikes, make friends and play, and neighbors from all around gather and build relationships. This acquisition is more than just a piece of land. It's an investment in this community that will have a ripple effects improving the health and wellness of everyone in the area. The committee recommends the passage of this bill. Thank you. Any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. So what I like from Burgess Gonzalez. Johnson for us president Herbold I eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. So now we will go to the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee report. Please read the report. And Councilmember or Councilman Burgess says that you should only read this second semicolon to save yourself some some words. The numbers the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item five Constable 118 678 Relating to tenant protections, establishing regulations and enforcement provisions related to residential rent increases on properties that do not meet basic maintenance standards.

Existing Litigation - closed session conference with legal counsel relating to existing litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code. a. California Grocers Association v. City of Long Beach, United States District Court, Case Number 2:21-cv-00524.

LongBeachCC_01222021_21-0068

Okay, thank you. Then we will adjourn into closed session and counsel will start. We'll give everybody a minute to get over to closed session and we will go ahead and get started. Thank you. Okay. We are in open session at the city council. I'm going to wait till everyone transfers over from the closed session. So we'll just wait a minute and we'll start. And. Madam Court, can you hear me? Okay? Yes. We can hear you. Madam Crooke, are you on the line already? Yes, we're here. Can you hear us? Maybe not yet. Okay, we'll just. We'll just wait for another minute or so. Mayor. Can you hear us? I can hear you. This is the city attorney. This is our country. If you have a sound check, please. Councilmember. We can hear you. Charlie. Thank you. You're there as well. I am here. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I think we have the caller on the line. Can you hear me okay, Mr. Kirk? Yes. Can you hear us? Mayor Garcia. Mr. City Attorney, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Mayor. I can hear the clerk and I can hear you. Yes. Mayor Garcia, can you confirm? There you can hear the city attorney. Mr. City attorney. I am on and I can hear it sounds like the mayor, but I'm not for the American. We're going to check on the sound. Currently the is unable to hear the rest of the meeting. All. Okay. Can you guys hear me okay? I think some of the connection issue there. Yes. Mayor, can you hear us? Mayor Garcia, please confirm. You can hear the city clerk. I'm going to go ahead and log back on if I'm not able to hear anyone. If you can hear me but I can't hear. And you want to just give me 1/2. I'm to log back on. Okay. Can folks hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Mayor, can you confirm you can hear the city clerk. I can hear you now. We're having some sort of connection issue there. That was weird. Think you guys could hear me, but I couldn't hear you. Okay, so let's go ahead and open up the meeting. And if we can just please, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance first, and we'll begin with that. Ready. Begin. I pledge allegiance. Okay. Thank you for that. Our zero copies Madam. Councilwoman Sunday has. President. Councilwoman Ellen. Present. Councilman Price. Present. Councilman Supernanny. Here. Councilwoman Mongo here. Councilwoman Sara present. Councilmember Arango. Presented. Councilman Austin. Your Vice mayor, Richardson?

A resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed grant agreement between the City and County of Denver and the United States of America concerning the "Ryan White Part A FY18" program and the funding therefor. Approves a grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration for $1,643,582 and for one year to provide services to persons living with HIV/AIDS in the Denver Metropolitan Area (ENVHL-201840349). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-2-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 2-28-18.

DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0211

No items have been caught out and under pending. No items have been caught out. Madam Secretary, please bring out Council Resolution 211. Councilwoman, can we put on floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 18 dash 0211 be adopted. All right. It has been moved. Need a second? It has been moved. And second, it comes from members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I am on the board of a nonprofit by the name of Del Norte that receives rain funds for the services that are provided. We are not a service provider. We provide housing. But because there are right and right funds that provide the services in some of the buildings that we hold, I will be abstaining from this vote tonight. And Kelly, just for your information, I'm voting as guest because they couldn't get me rebooted under my name for some reason. Okay. Thank you. Great. Looks like that is easy enough. No other comments from members of council. Madam Secretary Roque Ortega abstained. Sussman, I. Clark Espinosa, i Flynn I Gilmore i. Herndon, i cashman. I can each i. Lopez all right. New Mr. President. I. Plexiglass voting in the results. 12 zero nis one abstention. 11. I sorry. 11. So you showing me as a yes vote up there? Yeah. So we're going to do an abstention for Councilman Ortega. Gives us 11 eyes. One abstention. Resolution to 11 has been adopted. This concludes all the items have been called out. All of the items for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the black vote. Some resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You'll need to vote, otherwise it's your last chance. Colorado on a separate vote gives one can each where you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2018 unless noted otherwise. 180 9207204 213 168205209 216 115 183 188 193 139 179. All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur? Yes, Mr. President. Okay, it's been moved. I need a second. I'm Secretary Brokaw. Clark. Right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. I. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I assessment i. Mr. President. I. Please. Kosovo's announced results please. All very nice results. 1212 ays the resolutions have been adopted. The bills are in place for consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing council bill 2018 94 Changes to zoning classification of 3050 South Colorado Boulevard and require public hearing of Council Bill 2018 1 to 9, placing a moratorium on certain site development plans. Anyone wishing to speak on either matter must see the Council Secretary and receive a speaker's card to fill out. Toward the end of recess of council. Madam Secretary does not look like there is a large line up for these two bills.

Recommendation to request City Manager prepare an analysis of the possible options for increased regulation of food trucks, and enforcement mechanisms, and report back to City Council within 90 days.

LongBeachCC_02182020_20-0157

Thank you very much. That concludes Spokane public comment. Okay. Now we'll go to a meeting. Clark, would you please without him? 14, 14, 18. 14. Item 15 is communication from Councilwoman Zendaya's recommendation to require City Manager to prepare an analysis of the possible options for increased regulation of food trucks. That comes from one and this. Thank you. One of the things that I would like to make clear is that I am a big fan of food trucks and the experience that it brings with them. While food trucks have been contributing greatly to our local food scene. My office have received a number of complaints from brick and mortar businesses that are concerned about the impact of their livelihood that these trucks can sometimes pose. And they they feel that it is unfair for food trucks to operate under a different set of rules and regulations and more traditional restaurants and storefronts, while still courting the same customers at the same time and locations that they are that they are competing for along certain business corridors. I think it would be a great idea to have city staff look at courses of actions that we can, as the council members can can take and to promote business environment that benefits all of our entrepreneurs. Of course, the city should not seek to eliminate food food trucks from the economic landscape in Long Beach. We do have an obligation, though, to consider and minimize any negative impact on our local businesses. Some adjustments to the regulation governing food trucks might help. Like, for example, proximity to the business entrances. Permissible hours of operation prior months for providing the bathroom. Other licensing and permitting requirements. All this while still maintaining the desired presence of food trucks in Long Beach. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I want to thank the councilmember for bringing this item on my team. And I've talked about an item like this for a while. It's my understanding that the city has started years ago on regulating. So there's different departments that have different roles. So we've got the health department that regulates one area and then supposedly they're not supposed to exist in certain other areas. So I look forward to hearing from staff. I've had many conversations with Linda Tatum on this. I think personally from the conversations I've had, it would be wonderful to limit the area that they could exist in and say that if they were going to exist anywhere near business improvement districts or convention center, that there be a special permit that they have to obtain to be able to operate in that. So we can ensure that we don't have six food trucks in front of five restaurants that have spent a lot of resources and time to go that route. So a balance that really allows us to have both is something that I would love to have come back from council, but I look forward to hearing what staff comes with. Thank you, Councilwoman Mango. I would go as far as to add that it not just in the business improvement districts but in any location where they aggregate and prey on customers of other businesses. I think that an interesting dynamic is you take our summer concerts in the park and we often allow certain community businesses to sell to patrons, and then those community businesses make an investment, dedicate staff time, and then here come food trucks parking on the street alongside. I would state that to get a permit of any kind or two, there would be some kind of noticing process both to the council offices and other businesses that they plan to operate in a certain area during a certain period of time or certain days that they desire just something so that local businesses that have made the investment are able to get knowledge and awareness that they're coming. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. I want to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Zendejas, for bringing this item forward. Food trucks are something that my staff and I often have to discuss because we are in a bid, but also our bid is in a parking impacted area. So it presents a lot of problems. What I would hope is that when the report comes back, Mr. City Manager, it can address things like whether a business district improvement district can opt out of food trucks in terms of the parking within the bid. I would like some more clarity on the was the necessity for access to bathrooms within one hour of them being there. That seems to be an issue because we have folks going into restaurants to use the restrooms. Should the food trucks be able to park in metered parking in parking impacted areas or should they be required to park in an allocated parking lot or an allocated parking space? Perhaps we could free up loading zones if that was going to happen. There's options there. And then is it possible to for the city to allow access to city parking lots, to allow food trucks to to exist here, but but not be placed sporadically throughout the city , causing unnecessary impacts in areas where there's just really not the infrastructure to support that type of business. So I would hope that the report can include those things as well. And I thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I also want to thank our councilman's councilmembers in the House for bringing this forward. We've noticed food trucks throughout the community, and I think they have a right to be here as well because they are small, small businesses and entrepreneurs. But I think we do need direction and can provide some direction in terms of where they are they're located so that they're not competing, as councilmember said, with with existing businesses, particularly in those business districts that we have. We have business districts that are set up that restaurants are paying assessments and business licensing fees to to be. And it's it's not fair. And so but I do think we do have areas in our city where food trucks can drive. There's parties and hours in which they can thrive as well, because I love going to them after hours. And there's all restaurants are closed, there's a food truck available. You get some of the best food in the city. So that said, I think we should be thoughtful about that. And then using food trucks to creatively program areas that they may not have activity currently. And so that would just be my direction. I would like to see some vision. And in regards to those points coming back from any kind of staff report. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Super now. Thank you. And to Mr. Monica, add something else to your list there. If you could look at how the oversize vehicle ordinance applies to these vehicles in a situation near the traffic circle where it was a restricted area and I don't recall the exact number, but I believe they got 40 parking tickets that was obviously being treated as a cost of doing business. So we'd like to know if we can beef up that ordinance. Thank you. Q In councilman lingo. To add to Councilmember Supervisor's comments, perhaps there should be a separate fee for a vehicle such as this that wants to park anywhere and then to add to Councilmember Austin and Price's comments, I love that they want to focus on business improvement districts. I would just hope that we could also expand it to any area that has a business association, whether it's a formalized organization or not. Those businesses have already worked together as well and faced similar challenges, though they have not yet been together as a bid. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any public comment on this, but I do want to just add a few things that I think, Mr. Monaco, you and I have talked about this topic before, and I'm very interested in it as well. So let me I just want to start just saying that I appreciate councilman's in the house for bringing this forward. I think this is really important. I think, one, food trucks bring an important diversity of food and selection and opportunity for people to enjoy really great food experiences. So I absolutely support them. Some food trucks are providing, I think, unique dining experiences where there is no food being offered at certain times of the day. I think of this Mexican truck, for example, that's on the corner of I think it's PCH and Atlantic that has just created a whole new, interesting public space at night where they have tables out front, they have lights, there's people out congregating. So from a a public space perspective, there are food trucks that are creating unique public spaces in Long Beach and are activating public corridors that I completely support. And so I want to make sure that as we are looking at these regulations, that we're thinking about these these spaces and these trucks that are activating our corridors at night and creating, in my opinion, even safer streets. At the same time, I would agree that we have in in some occasions some trucks that are parking literally in front of businesses and really damaging that business without having the same set of rules to follow. And so I am very interested in that. Some of the topics that I hope you look into, Mr. Modica. One is what exactly is the permitting process? Is there a permitting process? And I'd like to understand that when that comes back to the Council, I'd like to also understand some food trucks actually have lighting and signage that we don't even allow in our municipal code . And so what I mean by that is I can think of one in particular that I have mentioned to the city in many occasions that has such a bright and. Powerful light and signage that is not even allowed in our code yet glares into apartments and homes right across from where they park on a nightly basis. And it is really a quality of life issue for those residents that if they were a brick and mortar, would not be allowed to have that level of signage. And to me, that is really important that we look at that piece of it as part of this permitting process is the lighting and signage on the trucks. I would also hope that we take into consideration some food trucks have a partnership relationship with brick and mortar stores. So, for example, we just have we just had a new cider cider open up here on Third Street. Cider works and they bring in a food truck on regular occasion to park in front of their cider shop. Now to provide food as folks are drinking beer and cider inside. And so I want to make sure that we're acknowledging that there are important partnerships that do form with brick and mortars, and that those partnerships are also part of what we're exploring in this regulation. So thank you to Councilman. And because I think this is I'm glad we're finally going to kind of take a look at this because it's kind of been out there. We haven't really nailed down kind of what the regulations are. And I look forward to this information coming back is just going to come back in a report or an ordinance. So our plan was to come back first with a lot of those questions. We have a lot of those similar questions. This is a difficult area for us. It touches multiple different departments. It touches the county as well. So we'd like to really we're pulling the team together to understand this. Should this pass tonight, we'll come back with a lot of these questions and eventually we will need an ordinance. So if we're looking to implement any of these things, we'll make a recommendation on where we think the council is going. So this discussion is very helpful tonight and eventually you would be approving an ordinance. And I would like if Councilman Sunday houses is amenable it I would hope because I think this topic is so important to so many people up here and it's really a quality of life issue. Also. I like this report and all these questions that come back to the council, whether it's in the form of an ordinance or a report that we here at the council instead of just a memo before we take that next step. I'm sure we'd probably put it all in writing, put in a memo, and then we'd be happy to come bring a presentation and see if we've got it right on where we're headed. And then we can then get direction to do the ordinance from there. And that could be part of the motion. That would be that would be great. Okay, great. And then so we have a motion in the second. Please go ahead. And Castro notes. I don't have any public comment on this item unless no public comments. Members, please cast your votes. Council member, Austin. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 8 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue NE and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue NE from Single Family 7200 (SF 7200) to Lowrise 3 with a Mandatory Housing Affordability 2 suffix (LR3 (M2)) and accepting Property Use and Development Agreements as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by 14302 Development and the Seattle Housing Authority, C.F. 314367, SDCI Project 3023581-LU)

SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CB 120216

Report of City Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120216 An Ordinance relating to land use and Zoning Amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page eight of the official land use map tourism portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast and accepting property use and development agreements as a condition of recent. Approval. Thank you so much. Colleagues, I move to pass Council Bill 120216. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill and to hand back over to Councilmember Strauss to provide the report on this as the sponsor of the bill. Thank you. Council President. This is the Associate Council bill for the for the contract free zone just mentioned on the item previous to this. The clerk file contained the rezoning application is council bill effectuate the zone and accepts the property use and development agreements and changes the zoning map itself. That's the final word on this bill. Thank you. Short and sweet. Thank you so much. Customer stress there? Any additional comments? Not seen any hands raised. Will the Court please call the role on the passage of the bill? Paterson I so want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales That was correct. I counsel President Gonzales. I aid in favor and oppose. The bill passes and the child will sign it. Will the court please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read Agenda Item three into the record? Agenda item three File 314459. Petition of Grand Street Commons LLC for the vacation of the Ali in BLOCK 14 Jesse Kinnear's addition to the City of Seattle being the block bounded by South Grand Street, 22nd Avenue, South South Holgate Street and 23rd Avenue South.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2021 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; and returning positions to the civil service system; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120237

Gender Item for Council Bill 120237. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2021 Employment Ordinance, designating positions as exempt from the civil service system and returning positions to the civil service system all by a two thirds vote of the City Council. Thank you. I move to pass council bill. Oh 237 is there a second? Okay. Thank you so much. It has been moved in second to the council bill and in the absence of sponsor of session and Gonzalez, there were mosquito will address this item that has referred directly to the full council. Thank you very much. Council President. Pro Tem Council Bill. 120237 is the fourth quarter 2021 employment ordinance. This is routine employment related legislation to exempt positions from the civil service systems and or to return positions to designation within the civil service system. The Seattle Department of Human Resources developed and transmitted this legislation, which would return two positions to civil service and exempt another 12 positions from civil service. There are no direct costs associated with these personnel actions today. Council President Earned Purchase A Yes. Oh, thank you so much. Are there any other comment from council members on this legislation? Seeing no additional comments for the clerk is called the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas I Louis. I. Must get to. Hi. Peterson. Hi. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss? Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill assumes and the chair will final will the use of my signature legislation on my behalf. Moving into the report of the Trent Committee. Five Will the clerk please read item five into the record?

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the City Attorney, the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations regarding Section 21.52 of the Long Beach Municipal Code pertaining to Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Such review would include a written report reviewing the following: · Uses which require a CUP. · Efforts to make the CUP process more cost effective. · Streamlining the public noticing process related to CUPs. · Expediting CUP modifications for existing businesses. · Creating a simplified CUP process for existing businesses opening another location.

LongBeachCC_12202016_16-1149

And we will now move on to. Yes. Wow. It's been a long night already. We're going on to 13 and then 24 and I see Rob out there. You're very patient. Q I. Am 13. Communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilwoman Mongo, Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request the city manager to work with the city attorney, the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations regarding Section 21.52 of the Long Beach Municipal Code pertaining to conditional use permit. Councilwoman Pierce. Do we have Amy here? I'd like to go ahead and direct to staff. We spoke. Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. The item before you today is, is. To consider. An amendment to the municipal code looking at conditional use permits. This is something. That staff is very supportive of in diving into and trying to find a. Way to. Make the. CFP process more efficient and more transparent for both the applicants. And the neighborhoods who may be impacted by those businesses. We're very interested in this item and do support it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them at this time. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I want to thank staff for their time and effort on this. And this is an item that really came to fruition because we had lots of conversations with small business owners, many who came tonight and had to leave. But lots of conversations with small business owners that spent the majority of their dollars trying to open up their business. And, you know, one letter that we got, I believe, an email today and I promise I'll try to make it quick was from a business on Fourth Street that had been open for nine years, wanted to extend their store up their their KPIs so that they could open later. And, you know, the stories of the process and the red tape and the cost just really tied their hands. And so we know that in Long Beach, we have a lot of great small businesses, a lot of great owners that have a lot of vision and want to be able to move forward with opening up maybe a later hour or a second location, but that sometimes the process is just a little rocky for them. And I know that we've got some businesses here. They're going to speak about their experience as we continue to have conversations with different council offices. Each district has a different challenge. North Long Beach is not like downtown. We've got a lot of diverse businesses that require different types of cups. And so through the conversations, instead of just talking about one part of that CFP process, we really wanted to say, Let's open it up, let's take it all apart and put it back together again. After we do some real diving in and looking at what other cities do so that we can be a city that is business friendly to small businesses and not just the very large ones. And so I think that this is just a direction to really take this apart and come back to city council with some good directions and some good ideas. It includes a process for economic development, for a different committee to look at this. And so I really want to look forward to hearing the comments from my colleagues. I would like to ask if we could go ahead and have and I'm new at this, you know, could we have public comment happen now so that these nice people can go home if they need to instead of hearing to stuff? Yes. I mean, we can do I'm going to ask the second or the motion if they want to say anything. And then we can always go to go to public comment if without any objection. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. So I too want to thank Amy. Amy and I started working on the U.P. amendments two years ago when I was elected, and so when Jeanine approached her, she said, Hey, have you talked to Stacey? Because we've been working on and talking about some things. So I appreciate staff keeping that in mind. Each of our offices often work independently with the communities that we serve until we get to a point where we know where we want to go and then we find out. Our colleagues are also thinking in the same direction, and I'm really excited to have colleagues that are being mindful of this process. A couple of key things that that have come to date recently, and I hope that we'll work on including it in this item as well. There are lots of businesses that get stuck in this process for a number of reasons, and those processes become very costly. Certain businesses think that they're going to be moving in the right direction. They get a pre inspection or a pre meeting. They do all of the things that they're asked and then they submit and three or four months later they get back dozens and dozens of comments that are completely contrary to their original meeting. And that's specifically something I've heard from a business that's still in the sixth month of going through a process to open their doors, actually , not in my district, but over in the seventh District. And so we've talked a lot about what other options there are. And I want to kind of put a few of those out there for people to know and understand if you've ever opened a business and need to do a remodel of an ADA bathroom. There are 700 different contractors and a thousand different inspector. I'm sorry, a thousand different architects. That'll draw those up for you and charge you an exuberant amount. And something that constituents have come to me about. And I've also discussed with Vice Mayor Richardson, because it was his constituent who owns businesses in my district as well. We should be able to have pre formatted plans like that online. You should be able to just download it and get it to go. I gave you the credit. But but he he came to me too and called me today about it specifically. And you should be able to just download it and go because a ten by ten A.D.A. bathroom should be a ten by 1088 bathroom should be a ten by ten bathroom and we shouldn't have to pay $1,000. I'm not trying to look to reduce the revenues of our architects and our contractors, but we should know and understand what those look like and we should be able to move forward quickly and those costs should come down. And so I hope that before this does return to council, that this does get time to be presented to E.D. enough. And today, my colleagues and I listen to Inspector Gadget and the new systems that we're putting in place to make the processes easier and to other apps that we've used. And so I hope that will have that timeliness in it as well. And I do look forward to comments from the community. Great. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. Excellent. There was. If there wasn't any objection, the council would like to do public comment first. Okay. See, not any public comment on this item. Come forward, please. Good evening. Council Members Mayor Staff Jimmy Harris, senior vice president of Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, will make this short and sweet. We appreciate this item bringing it forward tonight. Appreciate a seat at the table when discussing this, 800 plus members. 90% of them are small businesses. And we've heard story after story after story about this process. So a lovely part of the conversation. Thank you. All right, Jeremy. It's about college friend. All right, next, mayor, council members. I represent the Brit in the mineshaft on Broadway. These parts have been there 28 years and 44 years, respectively. So we've been through. This process with the cops. A lot of times I just I just wanted to come come forward and back the recommendation that this be revisited. It can be very grueling on a small business. Time consuming, costly. And in the end, you can often come up with nothing if if not more restriction placed on you. So I. I appreciate the council members bringing this issue forward and I support it. And I would hope that you would take the time to consider the small businesses when you're making these decisions. Thank you. Thank you. SPEAKER Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Alliance have a chat. I've had a chance to. Speak with Councilmember. Pierce, as well as city staff and a few of our board members. And we're fully supportive of looking. And reevaluating this. Process and. Certainly look forward. To being part of the. Discussion as well. So we encourage your endorsement. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker. For a twofer tonight. I am on fire and I love it. Is working it tonight? No, I too have been in contact with. Councilmember Pierce and I fully support the evaluation on the up. It's just, you know, as a small business, you work so hard. And when you do have to come around. And cross that bridge. You know the numbers that are thrown at you, you know, you're talking about $10,000. And it's you know, you're a little weary. I've had pleasant experience with a great team and. Planning, so I wanted to give them a shout out. But I'm fully on board with looking at this and seeing if there's a way we can make it better. Thank you very much. Speaker, sir. Final speaker. Thank you. Surely beside with respect to multi-jurisdictional and agreement regarding Senate Bill two of the California housing element. I am finding not only in this city but other local coastal community cities are running into problems inadvertently and I don't believe intentionally when the community and the business community, the residential community does not understand that by right. Homeless services have zoning by right. And it does not require a conditional use permit when within a particular Jewish jurisdiction and locality, if the zoning does not meet the requirement of its its homeless. When is zoning? Jurisdictional does not meet the requirement of its population. If you have 4000 homeless people in a particular jurisdiction, but you only zone in an area where there's only 400, then you're going to run into a problem with your residential community and the business community because they're not going to be aware that by right. By right when you are not meeting your need. Homeless services are allowed to function within a commercial and a residential community by right. By, right? I believe it is an unfair. To the community of homeless people and the community of the business and community of commercial residential. When the three do not understand. That by right. Homeless services are allowed when you are not meeting your your zoning allowance needs. If you have 4000 homeless people in a particular city, you must zone by write. And there should not be. You should not be receiving repercussions after we move into a particular city. And then suddenly the community finds out homeless people are being assisted here and certainly we have a problem with it. I would say and I question I'm saying and I am also questioning whether or not as council persons representing each district, whether or not you have properly alerted and informed your citizenry that by right according to Senate Bill two, which augmented homeless services if the need has not been met. I'm finding this is the condition. This is the situation along the coast from Santa Barbara to Orange County. They're all having the same problem. They're saying we weren't told. So my hope is that you tell them. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to Councilwoman Pierce all the cosigners on this item. And it seems like copies of the thing that the council every few years or maybe every few months we come back and tweak. And what's excited about this motion is a real opportunity to get creative. So so thank you for taking the lead on this. Councilwoman Pierce. So given, you know, allow we've tweaked this over the years. We like some things. We want to make sure some of those things are protected. So could the process be changed and streamlined, maybe cheaper? Yes. Should we be impacting our protections on neighborhoods? No. We should still maintain our ability to protect our neighborhoods from some you know, some of the bad actors or the nuisance activities in neighborhood. Should we roll back any of the protections we put in our loopholes? No, we should not. I want to just have a just ask a few questions to staff quickly on how to approach a few things. So is some of that stuff that's important to me? Like, you know, we went through a whole conversation, actually got awards about alcohol, nuisance abatement ordinance. Liquor stores were a big conversation. We want to make sure that we we you know, we had a conversation about defining what is a liquor store, because it's the same it's the same definition, same liquor license as a pharmacy or grocery store. And we had to, you know, go through that process and define that. How are we going to approach that and protect, you know, the progress we made there? So the NRA ordinance would not be impacted by this because those that covers locations that. Do not currently have a copy and is an important component in our enforcement of those locations. So the NRA would remain as is. So the and I get that the question is like, you know, maybe two years ago there was a conversation about, you know, what is a liquor store and what in the grocery store is a Walmart, a liquor store? A grocery store is a pharmacy, a liquor store, a grocery store, same license. We respond to them very differently. The community response to them very differently, yes. So we had that conversation. I want to make sure that, you know, where we landed is preserved here. Understood. Okay. And then, you know, there was a conversation and a lot of good work was done in the health department and it crossed over into planning around healthy standards in liquor stores. And, you know, we started to see some standard conditions be crafted and all of that. You know, we got to a good place. And then we stopped getting liquor store applications for a while, which is a good thing, too. So are we going to, you know, make sure that we look at that lens, the healthy food standards that have been crafted over the years. Specifically. Related to alcohol? Sirups Yes, we can. Certainly. Thank you very much. And then the last thing that I think is really cool that could happen here, city of New Orleans, Decatur, Georgia, they created some like, you know, CFP and permit zones that in certain areas that they encouraged more entertainment or more activity. They got rid of the permit fees altogether. If you meet certain criteria, like if you're festival meet certain criteria or if your business is an area that really needs that activity. They had a special rate or special process that made it really easy for those areas. So like an incentive zone. In fact, the program, if you want to look up look it up indicator is called. There's a festival for that. And if you're on a certain corridor and you want to host a festival, if you meet certain rules, we get rid of that. I just want to just put on the table as we look at KPIs, let's, let's think about how we can also look at leveraging that and permits in certain areas to create some cool opportunities. And that's just a recommendation to, you know, just a recommendation of staff. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Just think you'd like to also commend Councilmember Pearce for bringing this forward. I think in many discussion, discussions with small and medium businesses were often talking about the CFP process and how we can fine tune it. And so. Just a couple questions for Amy. First, do we have as a city ombudsman specifically for small business? I know we have Saeed Jalali, who works as kind of a city wide ombudsman, but anyone specifically working with small business. So Mayor and council members, I answer that. We have said Jalali, who has been our ombudsman and the council in the FY17 budget, actually added a second position. So we will have a second ombudsman. We're doing the hiring for that right now. Great. And then how does the do we link the CP process currently with Business Port? I know as we're rolling that out, is that something that could be added in? Certainly. Yes. What we'd like to really do, though, first is to try to strip down. As one of the council members. Already has said, strip down the entire process and really see what is important to the community. And once we. Have that new process in place, it should be much, easily, much more easily disseminated through busy port. Some great. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing back the report. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Pearce for bringing this forward. I like to consider myself as a small, business friendly council member. I want to commend our Development Services Department for their excellent support, particularly in the business districts in my district, in support of small business. I think obviously there are areas that we need to improve, and this is why I signed on to this this item. I think we should always be striving for continuous improvement with our processes, particularly processes that that encourage or that engage commerce and economic development. I think, you know, we're one of the most important roles that I think I have as a city councilmember is is actually supporting small business and new businesses coming in with with with in conjunction with our business improvement districts. And we've we're doing ribbon cuttings, you know, once a week, it seems like, in my district. And so something is working. And so I want to commend you this biotech and your department and Pat West for for your support in my district. I did have one question in terms of process here, because what are what are we trying to accomplish? I did sign on, but I do see that this is a a process that that asks the city manager and city attorney to engage with the Economic Development Commission in Planning Commission to review and make recommendations on a number of areas. Is this in an effort to to actually go toward a change in ordinance later? And will this come back to forefront? I guess. Certainly because it affects Title 21, it does involve. Going to the planning commission and because it affects the municipal code title 21, it actually does have to come back to the city council as an ordinance. Okay. Thank you. I'll be supporting. Thank you. Council members, open up. Thank you. I'd like to echo the words of one of our speakers, Luis Navarro, owner of Lola's. I, too, have had some very good experiences with development services, so thank you, Amy, for your work in that department. We've talked about one item that I prefer, and that is as the cops are sent out. If the council office could get a heads up like 24 hours prior or something, as long as we're going to tweak this thing, I'd like to throw that in. Thank you. So you're talking about the noticing? Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, the topic is noticing. I have no desire to pull that back. As was mentioned by my colleagues here, we what we owe to the neighborhoods. But we just like to get a notice just before it goes out. Would be very handy. So we're just not blindsided. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to clarify also, in addition to sending this to the committees, I believe that some of us council members would also like to put together a community meeting sometime in the next month or two months to get the bid's involvement and to really have a public process on this. And one last thing is just, you know, the at cost. I got a couple of questions about the cost of notifications. And so this will make sure that we continue to notify residents that the neighborhoods aren't being impacted, but that we're doing it in a more efficient way and really trying to have government work smarter. So, again, thank you, everybody, for your support tonight. Hopefully. Councilman Andrew. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank Mrs. Bodak for really being there for my district because the fact that there's businesses going in and to really help in our community to look like a chair look and thank you again. This is what have. I'm not going anywhere. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second member. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on various Mobile Crisis Intervention Service Models designed to address homelessness, mental health, 911 and non-emergency medical calls.

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0896

So we're moving on from that item and now we're on to item 15. Communication from Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Richardson recommendation to receive and file a presentation on various mobile crisis intervention service models. Great. Thank you. I believe you guys have a PowerPoint. One. Just one moment. T.I. is pulling up the PowerPoint if you'd like to proceed or get that up on the screen. That's great. Thanks. So this is an item that, you know, our city council and our staff have had many conversations around different mobile service units. And I know that we have stopped behind the scenes working on it. Myself and some of my council colleagues had a generalized presentation on the Hart team that we did not officially get the full presentation like we typically do. So we wanted to take just 5 minutes today. My goal is to be able to just look at some other safety models and to hear from council colleagues so that staff can kind of hear from all of us. It's a receiving file presentation that I just thought would be really helpful to be able to keep us in context so we can go to the next slide. So right now, we're in a moment of of the framework of reconciliation, a global call for a new public safety model. Our our very own Long Beach Police Department propose over 5% cuts to the Department for Justice, local and national call part of this change, this call for global change. The city had already taken several steps to invest in community before the police need to intervene. Such things as suicide prevention plans, violence prevention plans. We've got quality life officers, our heart team. And so this presentation is really looking at mobile crisis intervention services to support service first response to people experiencing mental health, substance abuse and homeless related crises. Next slide. So these are a couple of slides taken from the last Hart Team presentation. So in November, November 30th, 2016, the homeless team was created and their mission statement was to reduce the number of fire department responses to individuals experiencing homelessness. They were going to do this by being able to respond to 911 calls, working with the continuum of care partners and educating fire service and community members about local resources and issues. So really, the Hart team is specific to those that are struggling with homelessness. Next slide, please. And the first two years of the Hart team, they had over 3000 contacts with persons experiencing homelessness. 1700 of those contacts originated as nine on one calls, which the fire department were initially dispatched, and more than 96% of the 9911 calls, they were the first ones to reserve on to arrive on the scene. 80% of those cases, Hart was able to cancel the responding fire engine paramedic rescue or both. This is really where we were looking at. The Hart seemed to be a cost savings apparatus for us, not just an additional group of people that could go out, but to ensure that we didn't have to have so many people come out to the scene. In 2018, they responded to over 8000 calls where the chief complaint was quoted as behavioral. Also in 2018, they had two certified members that were certified in mental health first aid. Next slide. So we have our police team as we go right now in the proposed budget, we have two quality of life officers paid for by Metro, one grant funded for the Multi-Service Center. Four paid for with general fund. With the General Fund. And we in this budget, what was proposed by our police department was to move 16 police officers and shift them from community service or shift them from being sworn officers to community service assistants for level three calls . What's currently in the budget that says that these are on uniformed, unarmed civilians trained to investigate and document specific property based crimes? So at the end of this presentation, I'd love to hear a little bit more from PD just on that. And so I wanted to give us a full picture of what we have right now with those that can respond to 911 calls on top of our health department. Next slide, please. So other models that we're talking about today, a lot of people have heard of the cahoots model, which is based out of Eugene. The City of Orange has a cap model. L.A. County has our team, which Long Beach does get access to. But sometimes that team does not come out cannot come out on the same day that they're called. San Diego also has a team. Some of these models go beyond what Long Beach has. Some of these models work not only with homelessness, tenant landlord issues, wellness checks, addiction, suicide, violence prevention and wound care medicine management, which is something that I've learned a lot for our older adults, as well as isolation and loneliness. Lyft assistance and chronic users are frequent fliers, as they're called. Do you see some of these other models really go beyond working just with homelessness, but they really touch on different areas. Every city and every county has different teams. So there's paramedics, public health nurses, mental health crisis people, EMT firefighters, nurse, psychiatric teams, community organizers and dispatch team. Next slide, please. So the reason for this conversation, I think and I want to say how much I appreciate getting to check in with Councilmember Price. I know that the cahoots model, possibly a white bird, will be presenting at the bossy, but I wanted to make sure that we had a full picture of the different areas that a mobile crisis intervention service team could provide for the city. It really helps fill that gap with first responder services that alleviate the burden placed on police and fire to respond to individuals experiencing emotional distress, intoxication or homelessness effectively provides police and fire more time to respond to crimes and life threatening emergencies respectively. You can go on to the next slide. You need to read all that. So a little glance at the Cahoots model. It was created in 1989. I want to thank White Bird Clinic. This information I received from them last year, the Cahoots Model handled over 24,000 calls, about 20% of the calls dispatched by 911. Their teams are comprised of medics, a nurse, EMT and a crisis worker. And so from my conversations with them, I think that they're able to utilize those that can respond to 911 calls, which is very different in California than Oregon, which could be our heart team. But possibly there's other team members out there like crisis workers, people that can respond to even the lower level calls. Next slide, please. For cahoots. They say that it alleviates the burden placed on public safety. They have proven de-escalation situations. They create data that's accessible for all public safety departments, medical evaluations, wellness checks. And on the Oregon program is an affordable program. Next slide, please. So really, as I mentioned, I wanted to present this just to make sure that we were able to hold a space to talk with staff a little bit. I know that our health department is already working on this. I know that the body just put in their recommendation to extend the Hart team for another six months. So really, this is an opportunity for us to say, let's really work with the Council, all the stakeholders, and focus on outcomes, not necessarily focusing on the name of the program. But I wanted to hear from our council colleagues what you would like to see from an outcome and outcome from a model like this. For me, I've thought a lot about 911 response having train dispatchers, making sure that services are available for housed and unhoused, and that there's an alignment with our strategic plans. Suicide and prevention. Suicide and violence prevention. Our youth strategic plan or older adults plan. And possibly opportunities to work with Cal State Long Beach in a social work program. So that is my very brief presentation, just to be able to hold this conversation and hear from my council colleagues if there's ideas on what staff could be working on in the future. But it is a receive and file presentation. So thank you. And I want to thank my council colleagues for signing on to this item with me. Vice Mayor Andres. Yes. Thank you, man. You know. You know, I want to thank the Caravan for Justice, folks, for drawing attention that this kind of service model. You know, I agree that over the years we've had developed developed a need for an innovative, safe safety system that allows for, you know, assessments of mental health and status before assessing the person and taking corrective action. You know, we know that these model works because I say that because I want you to look at the team, the homeless outreach thing, our quality of life team. We put compassion and aid, aid before enforcement. We get a better results from everyone. And I'm committed to seeing something, you know, come to the city of Long Beach. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I know I have other counsel comment. I'm going to go to public comment and they'll come back to the council. So let's go ahead and do public comment, Madam Clerk. We have children during. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Jordan. I support taking away all the obligations that BP has taken on over the years that they should not take on. They should not be responding to a lot of the calls they respond to. So having crisis intervention and service models and teams that actually take away things from BP and put it into other departments is great. For example, the health department responding to mental health calls would be a huge benefit to the community. Then one premium who was killed in 2017 and there's actually a protest going on right now to honor her, would still be alive if the health department had responded to that call instead of two armed police officers who shot her within 5 seconds of getting out of their car. But the real elephant in the room is the fact that without defunding BPD and altering the budget as it is now, this is all talk. This is all theoretical without significant funding and taking away money from BPD to give it to other departments that will be handling its responsibilities. It will never actually happen. You can't just expect the Health Department to magically start responding to non-emergency calls with no money unless the budget is changed. None of this will actually matter. Defund the police and take a bold stand against police violence, divest from BPD and invest differently in our community. Health and safety. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Okay. We will go back to the council. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to Councilwoman Pearce for including me on this item. I did want to just make one brief correction, and that is the presentation on this model or models like this is going to be to the Public Safety Committee in our September meeting, not bossy. And I look forward to having the discussions because I think there's a lot of good opportunities in exploring other models. And the police department has been very receptive to exploring those and talking about those concepts and public safety. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So so far. Thanks, Councilmember, for for bringing this up. Personally, I think I'm pretty excited about this. I see it as as an important step in the city's taken tonight in the budget. By looking at a new mobile response model, we can look at a number of different models or see some of the ones listed. Cahoots definitely has a lot of public support. I see that, you know, as we led up to the adoption of the budget, as we lead up to it, I see that, you know, there's been more people talking about it and we started to look at it. I also know, and I'm glad to see in this presentation there were you know, there were other models we should look at as well. But it's not lost on me that this you know, the heart team started with an idea small. It grew it over time. And now it's time for it to develop into something more independent. It's time to look at, you know, investing in it further. I want to explore partnerships with L.A. County mental health to see if we can expand its role and how they respond with respond to mental health. And all of those things are interesting to me. But I also want to say, like, this stuff doesn't happen overnight. We don't just grab another model from another jurisdiction and drop it in and say, Hey, this is the new response model in Long Beach. It takes time. You have to actually build a capacity for this. There's legal sort of legal conditions that we have that are very different between here in Oregon, here and other states. We have to improve. Here in California, we call this our medicine. And there's laws that guide this. Anybody, you know, dispatched through 911 or through a different or a different number is there, you know, who has the jurisdiction over mental health? Is it what is required, in my view, with L.A. County? Are there additional funding? Can we create a partnership with L.A. County to bring in those resources? All these are good questions, and I'm glad to see that we're taking the first part of the next fiscal year to answer those questions and roll out this model. So so what I see here is an important step that the city is taking, and it's a step that we should take our time to be serious about. And and it's a real commitment that I see here in this budget to exploring this alternative model. And if we're if we do it right and if we do it well, this could be a model for our region that allows us to, you know, do an emergency response to crises, mental health and homeless. That is more cost effective, doesn't it? Doesn't you know, it's more cost effective and allows us to be more responsive and build that community capacity based on public health nurses, mental health conditions and and sort of community staff and support. So there's a lot that we need to evaluate. This isn't a short term thing. This commitment that council was making to this will take time. But I'm glad to see that this will happen in this next fiscal year and that we're getting started with it immediately. Those are my general thoughts on this. This is something I'm going to continue to monitor. I think it's important and and I encourage the city, the public, to pay attention to what this you know, this is this is more than lip service. It's an actual new alternative model, which doesn't happen very often, local government. And so we need to pay attention to it. We need to support it, make sure that it actually achieve the outcomes that we're hoping to achieve, which is expanding capacity, more cost effective, expanded capacity, more comprehensive health service for our community. And that's what I'm supportive of. Thanks a lot. Councilman Sun has. Your mayor. Our city is looking I'm pursuing a lot of really interesting creative policies right now, and I'm excited to be part of this discussion. This said, I think that it's just incredibly promising. The idea that we could really have this benefit for our community by increasing the quality of services we are able to provide to our residents here in the city of Long Beach. I've been really interested in seeing an expanded role for service workers in responding to calls, especially around mental health and homelessness. And I think that this is just so, so promising as a way to more directly get those people that the services that they so need and more immediately. And I think that, you know, I when I first heard about the Hart team and the quality of life team that we had within our departments, I was really, really excited. And I've been, you know, super excited to learn from them and see what they've been doing throughout the years and have they have really, really helped us out in a lot of ways. So right now, we have a unique opportunity to look further into what things that can be done and what programs can be brought forward. So I'm I'm really excited to be supporting something like this. And thank you for the presentation. Thank you, Councilmember Jeanine Pearce, for bringing this forward and for allowing me to be part of this conversation as well. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes council comment. Actually, this concludes the comment. Please cast a roll call. Vote for the. Mr. Blair. I tried to queue, but I'm having a hard time. This is Councilwoman Mongo. Okay. Yeah. You're not on the color, so. Go ahead, Councilman. Thank you. I appreciate it. I just want to say that I know that when this initially got brought forward in partnership between Kelly and our fire chief, we talked a lot about our Hart teams and their successes. And our hurt teams are a nationally acclaimed model, but so are our met teams. And I think it's really interesting that the six teams that we have on the six and eight teams that we have are currently working daytime and afternoon shifts, two, one in the morning, seven days a week, but that still isn't enough. The number of calls we get are very high. The number of mental health issues that are proliferating around our region are important. And I would love to see us add a letter to L.A. County to ask for that money to be transferred to us directly so that the teams will work with us in the city and not specifically for mental health services. Kind of on a task force with us. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. With that, we will do a roll call vote. District one, district two. Hi. District three, I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. High motion carries. Thank you. Now we're moving on to the budget here. Let me. 1/2. If you could read the item, please.

Recommendation to receive and file a new list of City Council Standing Committees, Authorities and Memberships.

LongBeachCC_08212018_18-0722

Thank you all. Okay. Thank you, sir. He is a big Mr. Good. He's out here. Is Jerry Lewis here? And Mr. Armstrong is not here. Okay. Thinking it will move on to the next item. Madam Kirk or the first item and 17. Item 17 is a communication from A.S., a recommendation to receive and file any list of City Council, standing committees, authorities and memberships. Thank you for this. I think everyone has the two recommendations in front of them for all the council standing committees as well as all the council authorities and the memberships. And so I want to make sure that everyone should have a chance to see those. I want to thank all the council members that stepped up and also agreed to take on different committees and particularly memberships, which I know in some cases take a lot of work. And so I do really want to thank those that did that. Any public comment on item 17? There's a motion and a second. Councilman Price. Just briefly, I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, for doing a diligent job to try to place everyone where they have skill sets and where you think their strengths may help the city and also trying to navigate that. It's impossible to give everyone exactly what they want. So I appreciate the the thought process and what you put into making those decisions. I know that they're thoughtful and not something that you do very quickly. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Pierce. Can they call for public comment on this item? Yes. Please cast your vote.

Order for a hearing to discuss pest control and illegal dumping in the City of Boston.

BostonCC_12152021_2021-0863

Certainly Docket 0863 order for hearing to discuss pest control and illegal dumping in the city of Boston. Thank you so much. Docket is up. The chair recognizes counsel. Flynn. Counsel, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we held a working session on pest control and illegal dumping. Um, on December 15. Um, we held this working session with docket 0863 as in order for working session to discuss pest control, illegal dumping. I want to thank my colleagues, Councilor Murphy and Braydon, for attending. In the administration panelists for participating as well. This is a follow up from several conversations we've had throughout the year on the same subject. Because we know that there's a significant increase in rodent and pest control related issues in the city. And we have had neighbors reach out to us across District two. But I also know colleagues, District City Council colleagues, as well as our lodge have also received significant calls as well about pest control related issues as we move into the new year. We wanted to discuss ways that the city can adequately handle this critical issue. It's important that we discuss measures for effective pest control and keeping our streets clean, healthy, especially when we are trying to keep our residents and environment environment healthy as well. In the working session, we're fortunate to have great leadership that are part of a task force that includes the City of Boston Public Works and Inspectional Service Department, and they are providing the tools to curb rodent activity and illegal dumping. And we also talked about the possibility of using products that would stop rats from reproducing, using a new kind of trashcans that we had a pilot program before the pandemic in the south end and increasing the number of inspectors in inspect inspectional services. Inspectional services play a critical role, as does public works department. On this issue, we need to continue working with them with the mayor's office, to expand public outreach in different languages and continue doing neighborhood walkthroughs and working with residents on this critical issue. And finally, I highlighted the critical need that this is a public health issue. It's a public safety issue. It's a quality of life issue. And as we go forward during the the budget debate next year, it's critical that we all advocate for more resources for pest control. Again, it's impacting every district in the city, and we need to stay on top of this to provide our residents the best public health and environmentally safe neighborhoods as we possibly can. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you so much. DUCKETT 0863 will be placed on file. We will now move on to docket 0732.

Recommendation to request City Manager to provide an update to the City Council on the recently completed Downtown Parking Study which was requested at the November 11, 2014 meeting.

LongBeachCC_08182015_15-0810

Item number. Item number 22 Communication from Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez recommendation to provide an update on the recently completed downtown parking study, which was requested at the November 11, 2014 meeting. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. We'll start with a staff report from Public Works, please. Great step. Our director of Public Works, our Malloy, and we'd be happy to make this presentation. Thank you, honorable man Ann Arbor Council members. Good evening. It is my pleasure to provide an update update on downtown parking since the department's initial report to the city council in June. As you're aware, the City Council requested a comprehensive assessment of downtown parking at the end of last year. The department provided a parking study after months of data collection, outreach with downtown stakeholders and rigorous review of existing practices. This present presentation today summarizes those findings and provides an update on the action items described in the report. Tonight's presentation will provide a background of the issues, discuss the changes to parking facility management practices in downtown, including the principles which guide our management practices, cover important next steps we are undertaking to further enhance the experience of residents, businesses and visitors. As always, it's my pleasure to take any questions at the end. The city owns 14 public parking structures in downtown Long Beach. The largest of these facilities include the city place garages located on third, fourth and fifth streets, and, of course, the Civic Center garage on Broadway. In total, all 14 facilities provide 4151 parking spaces for residents and visitors while the city owns these facilities. The city has standard parking plus formerly central parking, operates and maintains this facilities. The City Council approved this contract in 2013 and the contract will expire at the end of the March next year. This section will highlight the changes to parking facilities and in light of face feedback we received from various stakeholders in downtown Long Beach. Our commitment is and will always be to be responsive to the concerns raised by residents, businesses and visitors in a timely manner. To that end and to fulfill that commitment, we have three established principles that guide our approach to managing the parking assets in downtown. The first is to ensure safe parking facilities where residents, businesses and visitors feel welcome to park in downtown. The second is to provide well-maintained facilities that have operational elevator elevators, light and other amenities. And finally, we endeavor to provide guidance to and from parking facilities to ensure that motorists safely identify and travel to parking facilities that best meet their needs. With the first principle. We have accomplished the following. Since issuing the June report, public works crews have replaced and added new lighting fixtures to to enhance security, installed new high definition cameras and recording systems to cover key entrances and exit points. And finally, enhanced security patrols and measures at the garages. We have also enhanced the parking experience with key infrastructure improvements. For example, a persistent issue was nonfunctioning elevators in some of our garages. Our crews identified the issue as overheating in elevator equipment room and invested in new cooling systems to keep the elevators operational. We have also worked with local businesses to enhance the timely removal of shopping carts, and city staff are prepared to intervene and remove the cars quickly if the business is unresponsive. Having excellent well-maintained parking facilities provide little if our visitors don't know how to get to them. We have made strategic changes and parking guidance, including researching and selecting through the RFP process a candidate for an advanced parking guidance system working with the City Managers Special Events team. Public Works is making progress in designing electronic message boards to direct motorist to open and available lots. This project would also include occupancy detection devices to convey the number of open parking spaces available. The project is funded by grants received from Metro. We broadly categorize these next steps into the following. Parking management, community collaborations and innovation. Parking management. Many of the discussed changes came as a result of a change in parking management early this year. We consolidated our parking operations under the Public Service Bureau, Uniting or parking management with our parking maintenance due to hard work of Public Service Bureau. We drastically improved our responsiveness to many of the issues brought to our last brought to the to you last year. We continue to advance and make more management practices, recognizing the complexity of the breadth of the city's parking operation. The city manager presented a budget to the city council that would add a citywide parking manager for our parking operations, both downtown and along our coastline. This position is offset by other reductions. Our committee members are our partners and our boots on the ground for delivering feedback to us. Our parking staff have embarked on extensive community outreach, having walked the garages with stakeholders and work with them to identify challenges and potential solutions. Since our last report, we have worked with DDR to offer free validation for parking at the park with the opening of the outlets. We have closely monitored and solicited feedback about the first five free program for the on street meters. And as we saw, public works rapidly responded to the decision to have a meter holiday. In the wake of the power outages by efficiently changing the meters after authorization from city manager West will remotely change the parking meters so the residents and visitors could support our downtown businesses. We will continue these efforts to ensure a partnership with our community. Last, but certainly not least. We answered the mayor and City Council's call for innovation by thinking strategically about how to use technology to further improve the parking experience. We're working to further centralize parking information already consolidated at w w w that long beach topgolf slash parking. We're looking into technology that would provide real time street parking meter and parking structure, occupancy data and to motorist more mobile apps. And with this new data, we're examining data strategies and analyzing of real time data. The current example of how our embrace technologies are smart parking meters that were installed in April. Since then, we have collected valuable data. And I would like to share with you some some briefly tonight. Credit card usage has grown by eight percentage points since the meters were installed citywide. That translates to 34% of users are paying by credit card. The park in particular has seen remarkable success, with over 50% of users paying by credit card. And our business friendly approach with the first three five program is popular as well. In July alone, we have over 41,001st five free initiations. This translates to over 250,000 free minutes. Over 3403 hours. Or over 142 days of free parking. While we have made significant progress within a short time frame to implement important changes to better improve the facilities, it is our philosophy to proactively identify next steps to further improve the experience. I would like to share with you the next steps we're taking to further fulfill our commitment to our parking principles. We're continuing our continuing work on the parking guidance system and wayfinding. We're awaiting the decision of another metro grant that could fund additional projects. We have obtained coats for painting and Spaulding, which is the process of repairing daily wear and tear on the parking structures. We seek to standardize parking signage. We will prepare to review data with stakeholders as we reach our six month anniversary. And we will continue to proactively work with our community collaborators to identify projects for other improvements funded by the parking meter revenue collected above baseline projections. Thank you for this opportunity to present. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Councilwoman, another vice mayor? Yes. If there's public comment, I'll take that first before we get into. Okay. Is there any public comment on the item saying no public comment. Councilman Gonzales. Okay. So I have a I want to thank you, Ari, for putting this together. As you know, as many of us know, downtown parking is like the hot topic item in downtown for both the first and the second district. And, you know, putting this together was I'm I'm certain, very difficult on your part because it was a lot of there are a lot of nuances. And so I just thank you for putting this report together. But I still do know that we have a long way to go, especially as our downtown is thriving. It's getting better. The development around it is is certainly looking better esthetically. But also there's just more interest in the downtown. I see that there's a lot of potential that we have. So I have a few questions related to your presentation. So you had mentioned I have seen some enhancements to security and maintenance, but I still don't think it's enough at this point. So I would like to ask you, what more will be done for security and maintenance? You said, you know, enhanced security patrols and rigorous maintenance schedule. And then related to that. I know there's been some issues in some of our city play slots specifically. And I know the calls for service were pretty high. So how much is the in addition to that, how much is the maintenance and security costing us? Thank you for that question. It's kind of a complex question, but I will try to answer that as coherently as possible. So Central Parking has a contract with the city to provide the maintenance and the security. They, in turn are in contract with Platts security to provide security for these parking structures. From my understanding, they are paying 30,000 a month to Platts security to provide security in all our parking structures. And that translates to 312 hours on a weekly basis. So what the city has done in addition to that, we have increased or work asked Platts security to increase about 264 hours per week of additional parking security in those facilities. So we have total of 576 hours of weekly security that's provided. So we've kind of doubled the security that existed in addition to what was in their contract. So that was the basis of the original contract. Now we have practically doubled as far as the security is concerned, similar questions in regards to maintenance. The existing contract, which will expire next March, has provisions for maintenance. The city is also adding maintenance to these parking structures since we have reorganized our parking operations as of the beginning of this year. So you have kind of added our personnel working and doing maintenance issues in the parking structures. So we we sometimes will reimburse central parking for the maintenance cost or we will do it ourselves. But we I can say that practically we have doubled the amount of maintenance that's going on in those parking structures. And I have to say that I've personally walked the parking structure and I'm aware of every single issue. I spent close to 3 hours with our business partners and our staff looking at what opportunities we can have to increase. And that's that's where the list of improvements came from. We are adding or we added more lights, we're adding more signage that there are security cameras. We fixed the elevators that were not functioning properly all the time. We have done power washing. We have re stripe the parking structures as far as refreshing the stripes so that the users can see the existing spaces. And we have much more potential enhancements to the parking structure that that will give a better experience to to our customers. So when do we think that all of the main you know, all of the issues that are still existing, when will those be completed? So part of, as you can understand, the parking structures are 2 hours free, so they're practically not making any money for every transaction. There's a $0.14 that the city gets on every ticket that's sold. So that's part of the challenge. Fortunately, we have a business partner that has purchased a tremendous amount of parking spaces and one of the parking structures, and that's really giving us a good source of income to to to enhance the, the the security issues and also the the maintenance issues. Part of our parking meter installation was that with collaborations with the LBA, we have a baseline. So any time finances or the income exceeds that baseline, we're going to use those funds to improve our parking structures. So we're still in for two years. We are basically at, you know, in four months or 15 months of our parking meter installation. So we have not seen that revenue yet. But when we see that revenue, we will definitely use those monies for two years to enhance our parking structures. When we're going to see that fact. Was that after six months or how how long was that time frame to realize the revenue coming back from the smart meters? I think in six months as part of the installation, if you recall, it was recommended by city council and staff agrees that we're going to come back to city council and give you a report on the status of the parking meters and how it compare to our previous baseline. So we have data from previous years. What was the income at that point per month? And then when we complete that six months of installation, we will come back to City Council. I think that's a good point to discuss. If the revenues are up or not, I would say in October would be a good, good opportunity. For us to come back. So we'd get a report basically next month and see about how much above we're above our baseline and how much could be allocated potentially to the downtown. In October. In October. Next month. Right. Well, I'm sorry. September. I think we're in September. I wish I wish we had passed the budget. So I know. It would be in October, but I will definitely in October. Welcome back, because that's kind of my next point. So I know that in relation to receiving more funds or more revenue from the parking, you know, for instance, we didn't get an online payment system for the parking structures at City Place until, I think earlier this year. So I think we need to rework our marketing and we really need to remain committed to that. I think it's very important that we have residents, you know, I use well, I live across the street, so we were able to pay for parking, but we had to go in this dingy hallway and it was just such a nightmare. So people don't want to do that. They want to be able to have something at their fingertips, pay online. I think that would be more beneficial, of course, to the city in receiving revenue that way. But as far as marketing as a whole, I would really like to look at receiving information back from you in October about the smart meter revenue and seeing how that could be. How that could work for our marketing. And aside from that, were we looking at any other funds to be able to use for marketing for this or what was the thought? Honorable Gonzales. Let me go back to the first issue that you raised. Currently, customers can go online and purchase their their parking passes, they can go to WW dot, SPL, USA dot com, or they can go to Long Beach dot parking guide dot com. So we have two sources that customers, visitors, residents and businesses can purchase parking online so they don't have to physically go into a space. If some residents want to go to if they want to pay cash, they need to go physically to the office at 275 East Fourth Street. That's where a central parking office is located. They can do that. After they do that, the first time they can renew online, they can also choose to have to pay continually, automatically. Or they can go to month to month. So. So there are definitely options and we will try to communicate that information since we have a new website. We could probably put that on the website to show that information that which is available to us. It would be good to have a one stop shop, you know, so it's not you have to go to HPD, you got to go to Long Beach parking slap, hash tag or slash parking. It's just a one stop area. So maybe I'm not clear where we're going to pay for. How are we going to pay for marketing? As far as you know, I mentioned a smart app in the original agenda item in a wayfinding signs are in the in the work so how is that all going to come together and be paid for by the city ? Well, the wayfinding is a completely separate project that we have. We were successful in getting a $1.2 million grant from the MTA that will help us with the wayfinding and also identification. How to get to the parking spaces, which is which is a large project as far as marketing we can come back to in October and come up with a program. I'm hoping that we'll do that next month before we get to to October. We'll probably accomplish that via communication with our business partners and the LBA and homeowners associations that are our community partners. We can provide that information via a flier or we can tweet or a bunch of technologies that's available right now . We can do that. And Councilmember, if I may, just to add. We're really looking at three different. Areas where you can invest here. One of them would be the grants that we talked about. MTA has specific grants that can help with some of the signage and the message count or the the automatic counting. So that's. One. We also do have a stream of revenue. Coming in that we can and we have a budget for some maintenance. And so that's that's an ongoing program and we'll continue to have that. And then really, we wanted. To have the money coming. Back from the parking meters. That was a commitment to reinvest that into the downtown area for two years is, as Mr. Bohan said, that's a couple of hundred thousand dollars. And so that'll really. Be for the extra services, the parking app. The excuse me, the parking app. The we could do painting all of that additional maintenance marketing program. That really was envisioned for that, a dedicated funding source. Well, I was hoping to find that in this presentation. So is so I guess now we can go back to, I guess, directing you in October to come back with that information, like detailed information on how we can formulate the smartphone app, if possible, maybe a one stop website, more emphasis on on on all of those components that Tom had mentioned. And then last question is for the parking manager. What will be the role of the parking manager? If it is approved. If you're kind enough to approve that position, that person will be dedicated to managing all the parking facilities within the city and also all the parking lot. So it's it's all the parking in the city will be under that the purview of that parking manager. Okay, but what would I mean? And then that person will be managing, doing our piece for the for the maintenance or for the new. If we did, they will they will manage the contracts. They'll be focused on marketing and focused on bringing new technologies. Okay. And so from now until October, can we make a good effort in ensuring that central parking is stepping up their maintenance and security? I really I can't stress that enough. Currently, as it stands, we still have complaints of. Shopping carts. We still have complaints of trash. We have complaints all over the place. And I just don't think that there's enough being done. So from now until October, I would love to see a commitment on our part to meeting frequently with our with our stakeholders and then also ensuring that we're I don't know if someone has to be there every single day until the issue gets better, but we really need to remain focused on this. There's a lot of folks in the area that have invested both businesses and both residents, and I just think we need to make that commitment to our stakeholders here and our residents and business owners. Well, do. Bison really want for? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm. Did we have any public comment on this? We did. No, didn't. They didn't speak. I concur with Councilmember Gonzalez's. Issues that she raised. I don't I'm not going to reiterate them. I think staff's done a great job in getting us this far with this study update. And I'm pleased with the report and progress on downtown lots such as City Place. I know Councilwoman Gonzales spoke to it very much. These are the complaints that she had expressed are really coming from our property owners, residents and visitors, especially when you have our parking assets adjacent to condominiums and apartments. So that impact does transfer over to our residents. So the increase of security by doubling the hours, I believe you said, is something that's that's critical. Mr. Malloy, if I can ask you, I know you said a few sentences or expressions regarding the parking position. What's the title of that position? Please remind me. It's in the proposed budget as a parking manager. Is that the same position that Mr. Maldonado held until two years ago? I believe so. Okay. So I know that my office and certainly Councilman Gonzales, his office has spoken to you and your staff, I hope, regarding some of the challenges that we had when Mr. Maldonado was here. And that probably could have been the mayor's office at the time. It was the mayor and I Mr. Maldonado, did a fabulous job. But I think we were not prepared to establish the type of authority for parking and parking management that we seem to be today. And you were not here. So I'm not directing any of this as responsibility for you. But we had an immensely talented individual with the best of intentions and the greatest of skill to manage our surface lots and as well as our other parking assets. And we were, as I said, ready for that. I'm comforted in knowing that through this study and through your work, that I think we're in a different place as a city. And if I can hear from you that you feel confident that we are bringing someone else in to ostensibly be a parking authority for us of sorts , not only to be able to manage parking and do it demand based and probably get us into a place where we can think of managing demand through price, all things that we think can be done with parking, aside from ensuring that the facilities are safe. Do you feel confident that we can do that, that we're in that place here in the city today? I would definitely would like to have that discussion. And maybe since we don't have the position and we haven't finalized the job description, that could be the qualities that we could ask for the next parking manager to have. As I said, this this person will be dedicated to providing that and depending on the policies that the city council directors will will implement those. So the answer yes, and I wish that we could have more specific job descriptions that or skills that you require from this individual we can seek in our recruitment if the position was approved. So if the position gets approved through our budget process, I think we can certainly help you with the attributes for the candidate. I think I was more speaking about our own attributes in terms of supporting that position, and Mr. West is aware the city manager, West is aware that it's one thing to have great talent on hand , but if we don't support or empower that that particular position, it accomplishes very little. And so that's really what I was getting to. Not so much of the candidate's qualifications. I'm I'm pretty certain you are immensely qualified to determine what those qualifications are. I'm talking about our own qualifications. And maybe I should have asked the same question of Mr. West since he has that history. So I think I've made myself clear. I think possibly. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I do want to express my optimism about this report and the progress on downtown lots and staff is to be commended . Absolutely commended. I couldn't. Now, I do have to say I couldn't help but notice the mention of the community parking program on page five of the report. I would have to. I would be remiss if I wasn't a little cheeky about this. So I do question the characterization of the online program being new, since, if you recall the second district's involvement we originally created and offered it in 2007. But I'll say that I am pleased nonetheless to see its inclusion in the report as phase two of the implementation. Maybe that was your passive way of allowing me authorship of Phase one, but I'll thank Councilmember Gonzalez and Mayor Garcia for their work on this. And as they know, the use of an online parking program was and remains an important resource for residents inside and outside downtown to fight find overnight parking in our parking impacted area. It's also important for property owners. During the first iteration, which my staff and I worked on, the community parking program created in consultation with I Park. It enabled property owners to manage the administrative portion of overnight parking online, which was a great tool for them, and leverage for our efforts to convince more businesses and churches to participate in the program. And for those of us who were here during that time, that required a lot of door to door walking and footwork and and really physical exertion to to get those arrangements in place. I'm wondering if that component would still be offered the business component. Yes, ma'am. Unfortunately, I Park decided not to be a partner with the city. That's why that darn application went away. We're in process or central parking is in process of creating a very similar application, and that would be in our total package. As we discussed, we're kind of expanding this. The first application would be for on street parking. So when we have completed that, it will get into the parking structures that the city owns and operates. And thirdly, we can expand that to all possible parking and parking lots. And I have to acknowledge that this was before my time and also acknowledge that that something that I learned my with my briefings with Mr. Brock Calvert that this was your program. So I appreciate that. And your your thought process behind that. Unfortunately I decided not to participate with would continue that business with the city and it was a proprietary program that they used. They used. You're right, I. It was too bad that they left. Thank you. I don't know that you'll find too many people that are enamored with parking and managing parking as our offices. So, finally, timeline for completion of phase two. Do we know? We're waiting to complete the RFP for for that component. I think we should get the results back by the end of this month. The on call for that consultant and then. Yeah. And we can get back to you on that. As far as when that RFP is approved and contract is awarded. Okay. Thank you. I am looking forward to it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Gonzales. One more thing I failed to mention. I know we talked about this aura was the parking around the courthouse. And so I know the courthouse is a major impact for residents and businesses there. So in studying that, perhaps that could be something that would come back as well in October, just a preliminary study of the area and what the impacts are. And I know we've talked about parking meters in that area that might make more sense. So, yes, we'd love you to do that. Thank you. Absolutely. As we discussed, we had reviewed the parking, the residential impacts from the courthouse parking. We have discussed about the possibility of having a preferential parking district. That's going to be difficult to justify. But we will discuss or try to come out with any out of the box thinking and try to come up with some solutions for that residential district, for sure. So my staff and I will be discussing this in our next meeting, and it's on my radar for sure. Thank you. I appreciate. That. Thank you. I'm going to just make a couple a couple comments and then we'll go to the vote first. Mr. Miller, could you say also make sure in the future that we're at least thinking about how we're going to manage or work with the private lots? I know that there's a different relationship, obviously, but if you go to the private parking lots throughout downtown, there is there are some inconsistencies or upgrades that need to be also completed. And I think I don't know if sure were encouraging that some of the private lines but that could be could be helpful as part is part of the future phases and many private lots that are not that don't have a relationship with the city. So for example, one of the lots that's right off of Pine Avenue adjacent to the promenade is one of those lots where I think that there could be some they still have, but they just installed the the coin, the credit card machine, for example. They still have the old, you know, stick a dollar in machine right next to it and some of the old machinery that needs to be removed or updated. And so just some thought about some of the future lights would be would be great. And I just want to just add to what the vice mayor and the councilwoman said. I think the the truth is, is that the reason why we're not able to do all this stuff, because the lots aren't paying for themselves. And so I think we're at a point where we have to and I don't know that you didn't say that, but the truth is that we haven't budgeted these lots to where we would like to see them be. And I think that's just the fact. And it should be should we be receiving better service from the the vendor and that's operating? Absolutely. Are the lots a mess? Absolutely. They're twice or three times as bad at night. I mean, there there's trash everywhere. There's shopping carts all over the place. It's not something that we should be proud of as far as a service as being city lots. So I'm certainly not satisfied with the service. But we also, I think, should recognize that long term we have to think about what the investment that needs to be made to actually get those lots to where we want them. I think we've been trying to operate on a system of we we invest what we're getting in return for the actual lots and we try to balance out that we only spend what we are actually making. The truth is that what we're actually making is not enough at this point to actually fix the lots to where they're actually appropriately funded. So we have to have that conversation, I think, broader in the future. So I appreciate that. And with that, we'll go and go to go to a vote. Motion carries six zero. Okay, go ahead. Let's start the budget presentation. Item number one. Report from City Manager Financial Management Recommendation to conduct a budget hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. Actually, you know, Madam Clerk. There's only, I think, four public public comments for the speakers lesson. It's getting late and I want to make sure we do them before it's too much too late. So why don't I just do this real quickly and then we'll go to the budget presentation. So I have please come forward. Elizabeth Andrew. Mary Rau. A rate goblets. Please come forward. Please go ahead. Hi there. Good evening there. Council. I'm Elizabeth Andrew. My address is on file. I reside in Long Beach on seventh July 7th, six of you voted to study an international expansion at Long Beach Airport, a calculated response to JetBlue's quest. Nothing about the study is being released to the public regarding who, when, the cost and how the study is being designed. Research is a guided activity and it is easy to omit facts, insert half truths and skew results. Denying community input and access to the study is extremely alarming. We suspect JetBlue and the fourth, which is the fourth largest airline, is the authoritative voice behind the scenes. They are the driving force for expansion. JetBlue secretly has worked with the city since 2013 on this project, when collusion between JetBlue and city staff was leaked. The precise words from city staff and I quote, I guess the cat's out of the bag. End quote. This statement is a hallmark of corruption. Now the city is having a study that's secret councils, providing no mechanism to ensure the study is fair and guided with the best interests of the public. Railroading the public with a study like this. Hmm. Interesting. At the February 2015 study session, both the city attorney and the city prosecutor's office explained the costly legal ordeal that we fought to have the airport protective noise ordinance today. Our municipality insures a rare asset that maintains a quality of life in neighborhoods and schools across Long Beach because of the U.S. Congress. Virtually no other municipality in the U.S. has this remarkably unique airport noise ordinance protection for our neighborhoods in schools. The grave risk is losing it by changing Long Beach Municipal Airport to Long Beach International. No one's talking about this. That in addition to JetBlue's international flights, this is opening the entire city to unlimited international charter, unlimited international, private and cargo jets. That thwarts the very point of protecting neighborhoods and schools will not be just a few friendly flights. And JetBlue going on vacation destinations. We're talking 747 Airbus large aircraft flying over us. I read in a Long Beach newspaper, quote, International flights and the noise ordinance are separate issues, end quote. Wrong. Intentionally misleading and irrelevant. Statements like that one horrified the community emissions of the irrevocable negative consequences of unlimited international charter, unlimited international, private and cargo jets can catastrophically destroy your neighborhoods, your constituents neighborhoods and their children's classrooms. For the public record, the City of Long Beach must have meaningful dialog. Staffs already kept a secret from the community for two years. You must give a voice to the neighborhoods on this study. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello again. First of all, I want to thank you guys for passing a version. It's very good news. I gave everybody a copy of some of the comments I want to make. But basically, my ass before I start speaking is I just want to know what a community nonprofit needs to do to speak to the mayor about something very important. I don't understand why it takes a year and a half. I don't understand why I have to be here to ask is not getting it. So. Ma'am, I know that you've had a chance to meet with members of my staff, as well as multiple conversations with my staff. And so we try the best that we can with the schedule. But if you want to continue with the comments, go ahead. Okay. Well, I haven't actually met with anybody from your staff. So that's how you met with Sharon Weisman, who's in the room? I've never met with Sharon. Okay, go ahead. Um, so QMI formed in 2012 and we met with then Councilmember Lowenthal, his office eight times over the course of a year. Um based Vice Mayor Lowenthal attended one of those meetings. During our last meeting, two of the staff members basically told QMI that because of direction they've gotten from the city attorney's office that they could no longer support us as possible ambassadors for the ship and that we needed to continue our conversation with the ship leaseholder, which we've diligently tried to do for a year and a half. What we're being told now is that all of our preservation objectives have to be put on hold due to the new direction that you're taking with the Queen Mary task force. We're trying to understand how they're linked, because it's my understanding that the new task force is going to be focused on the surrounding land and not necessarily the ship. And as a nonprofit, we don't understand why all of our efforts to help are being ignored. So that's my question that I'd love to hear any comment or suggestion from any of the council members or the mayor. Thank you. You're done? I guess so. Okay. So, ma'am, after the meeting, we'll be in touch that I think you're referring to the Queen Mary task force, which has nothing to do with whatever's happening currently on the ship. So I can't speak for for garrison or evolution, but they're the ones that are managing what's actually happening on the ship as far as a historic preservation piece that I think you're referring to. I think that, you know, John Thomas, who is the historic preservation officer on the ship, is the one that manages that portion. The city refers to historic preservation when it comes to the ship through John Thomas. And so I know that some of that we refer, or at least my office referred you to, to speak to. And so that is kind of what who is managing the historic preservation piece as far as the ship and as far as what they're what they do and Garrison does. That's I mean, that is that's what they're doing. So my question to you that. Well, we can so that public comments are probably happy to talk to you offline. Okay, we'll talk. Well, it's a. Promise. That we will talk to you offline. Thank you very much. Ray Gavlak, eighth District resident. On July 7th, six council. Members voted to proceed with an RFP to further study. Items. Related to for approving a customs facility at Long Beach Airport. Austin, Urunga and Superdome. Voted against opening this Pandora's box, since it has the ability to compromise some of the most successful. Neighborhoods within our city. Your RFP requests include planning and design for a customs facility. Isn't that premature since the decision has not yet been made, at least publicly, to support this enhanced service to our municipal airport? Will project plans not add to the costs associated with this study and move closer to clearing this project for takeoff? Councilwoman Mango, you initiated the desire to gather the. Facts, yet there is yet to be a public discussion. On the studies that were already completed. In addition to the process, a study of November 2013 that is still viable today. That was a there was a January 2014 request made to Cal State Professor Joe Maga Dino to do an economic impact study. The cost of this study was $12,300 on January 29th. Professor Maga Dino stated the following. The main question appears to be the impact of new visitors on the Long Beach economy. We deliberately left it out of the proposal since we believe the impact. Of visitor expenditures on the. Long Beach economy will be small. He attached the following reasoning that most of the anticipated 15,000 travelers will be leisure travelers, a large number of them will be U.S. citizens and live within the region having little impact on expenditures beyond those. Within the airport facilities. Foreign travelers are likely to use the airport as. Entry into Southern California rather than visiting Long Beach per say. Since foreign passengers are leisure travelers, their destination is not a convention hosted in Long Beach. And as for flight crews, the numbers were not included since the proposal. Is to add foreign flights and to reduce domestic. Flights. Since this economic study was never finalized, I will assume direction was given to not complete it, given that the opinion of the independent expert did not produce the desired outcome. We will continue to use this platform to further educate Long Beach residents and ask them to visit LP Neighborhoods First AECOM to join the movement to put our residents ahead of corporations. Council members. Your industry expert will give. You what you ask for your two community meetings. Allowing residents a brief three minute comment is not sufficient to gather the concerns from thousands of citizens. Please do your due diligence on materials available today. Host your own district meetings or attend a meeting held in airport impacted communities. Identify the unattended consequences that could be related to this venture and then vote with your elected elected conscience to receive and file when this returns for your votes. Thank you. Gabriela Hernandez, please. It's Gabriela Hernandez here. Okay. Jerry Thomas, is Jerry Thomas here? Please, sir. I just want to make a quick. Comment that I think it's a great idea that. Now we step forward. And. Make a statement. To the world. I raise. Minimum wage for nine months. $9 an hour to $15 an hour. Make sure you are at. 3% payroll tax. Bearing. Tax. So you got a nice. Tax base on that. And and that that. It's our chain reaction. Is election. Year. It might make a big difference that you're in make. Thank you, sir. That because the public comment. Mr. West start with the budget presentation.

Order for a hearing to discuss solutions to historic and disproportionate state disinvestment in the City of Boston. President Flynn in the Chair.

BostonCC_05252022_2022-0683

06830683 Council of the Marine and Louisiana offered the following order for a hearing to discuss solutions to historic and disproportionate state disinvestment in the city of Boston. The chair recognizes counsel Braden and counsel Braden. You have the full. Where's my notes? Thank you, Mr. President. I want to extend my appreciation to cancer Louisiana for her willingness to lead on this issue with me. Despite her absence today through this year's budget process, we dug deeper into to get a better understanding not just of the figures and numbers from each individual department, but the Office of Budget Management's narrative analyzing trends in the city's fiscal condition over the span of several years. A couple of weeks ago, I filed orders related to city personnel and the state of the public sector workforce. After reviewing 20 years of staffing level data, revealing some striking trends, only looking at the current year and the past couple of years didn't show the historic trends. The same is the case for Boston's relationship with the state. We have to look at the long view to understand the big picture. Over the past 20 years, the city's net revenue in state aid has been reduced by over 300 million per year or a 70% reduction. Our state aid has been dropping, but but year over year, our state assessments for charter school tuition and the MTA climb exponentially. The result is in our budget, year after year is increased reliance on property taxes for a revenue source. 20 years ago, the property tax accounted for 55% of our revenue. Now, 20 years later, it's expected to reach 75% of our revenue. This relationship is unsustainable for the city and our residents. In 2006, Mayor Menino commissioned the BRT research department to conduct a report called Boston Gives More Than It Gets from the Rest of Massachusetts. It found that we generate more than our fair share of state instead jobs, state tax revenue, state income, corporate excise, and business tax revenue, visitor revenue, and state hotel tax revenue. But we do not get our fair share. It was a problem then, and it is a problem now. We have an opportunity to forge transformative partnerships with our colleagues at the state level. We have a mayor and city council whose policies at times require state approval that move at a glacial pace. We know our home rule petitions take forever. Like the CBA reforms reform bills submitted in 2019, which is still hasn't moved anywhere. If the state is going to pursue targeted scrutiny and oversight of the city of Boston, we should we should assess what is and isn't working from the current relationship for the interests of the city. Looking ahead, I believe we need a more proactive collaboration with this with the Boston delegation members, including those in leadership roles such as the leaders from my district and those chairing committees like Ways and Means at the State House. We also are looking at the possibility of a governor from the city sitting in the corner office in less than a year from now. This the council, the mayor's administration and members of the Boston delegation should be strategizing a game plan for the city to achieve real, tangible results and receive its fair share. To to right the many wrongs that have been done to us over the past several decades. Another swap this hearing order is about. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Brennan. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone like to add their name, please? Raise your hand, Mr. Kirk. Please add Councilor Royal Councilor Borg. Councilor Coletta called Councilor Maria. Councilor, we are all counsel of clarity. Please add the chair. 20683 will be signed to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Clarke, please read 0684, please.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Long Beach Finest Sports Bar & Grill, Incorporated, dba Long Beach Finest Sports Bar & Grill, for a premise to premise and person to person transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 329 West Willow Street. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_11132018_18-1002

Thank you. We'll hear the one concern item that got pulled. There was an item that was pulled from content, I believe. Yes. Report from police. Recommendation to receive and file the application of Long Beach. Finest Sports Bar and Grill for premise to premise and person to person transfer of an ABC license at 3 to 9 West Willow Street, District six. Okay. So going to Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much, Peter. Before this we move this motion, I would like to hear from any public comment on this item. Is there any public comment on this item? Please confirm. Good evening, counsel. My name is Dennis Banks. I'm the applicant's representative for the application at 3 to 9 with Willow. Just like to give a quick little background. Um, the owners of the operation actually own the sport. The barber shop next door, Long Beach, finest barbershop. They've been in the community for 13 years. And they would like to stay there as part of the community outreach for this application. We've spoken with the Wrigley Neighborhood Association, and we've actually spoken with them about some of the concerns they've had to address those. Also, we have reached out to the Wrigley's going Green Association and the Wrigley Neighborhood Alliance. Also, we've been responding to people through social media, the Wrigley Neighborhood Community Group. We've been answering their questions and concerns as well. Many people had concerns that, well, the place was formerly the 710 bar where there were some issues in the past . And what we've tried to let the make the residents aware is that this will not be the same thing. This will absolutely not be a bar. This will be a family oriented, sit down restaurant. We have a menu. We have a floor plan. All the old layout, such as pool tables and things of that nature, have been removed and will not be coming back. Also like to mention as far as outreach over the weekend, we went to everyone within three foot radius. We knocked on doors. We talked to people about it and we actually had a community meeting last night. A little over 15 people showed up. And there we talked with the residents about the concerns and issues. They had to just help, you know, educate them, make them understand that this will be a restaurant, a family oriented restaurant operated by two people who, you know, live and work in that community and will want to put something that will be the benefit to the community better. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Lynnette Firenze and I'm a 2926 Eucalyptus Avenue. And I just wanted to say that we are looking forward to this tenant. It used to be a bar and now it's going to be a bar and a restaurant, and we're glad that it's going to be occupied. I just have a few concerns. One of them this was is just a bar. Now they're adding a restaurant and they do not have an on site trash enclosure. So there's a lot of food waste. And so I would like to see a trash enclosure also that should be large enough to accommodate recyclable materials. It's unclear what the hours of operation are going to be. I think they might be 2:10 p.m. and I don't have an issue with that, but they are adding outdoor dining on the West Side and there's a single family home directly to the north, no alley separation. So I was hoping I would recommend maybe the outdoor dining area hours end at 9 p.m. daily. The applicant should provide a parking lot lighting plan for approval by the city just to make sure it's safe. And also a security plan with the hours shall be submitted and reviewed and approved by the city. We will. There is a landscape planner along the north elevation. We'd like to see that just landscaping installed in the existing plan or if possibly they could add a small planter area because a parking lot does not have anything there right now. So maybe we'll go in chosen at a landscape planner and then maybe just a trash receptacle near the front door in the parking lot. So people have a place to throw away trash and it end up on the street. And if the door on the west elevation could be closed during operating hours. So if there's a noise, it doesn't interrupt the adjoining residents. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Do I have to give my name. Please? Colleen McDonald, 525 West 19th Street in Wrigley. Good evening. I just wanted to let you know that I did speak to Dennis earlier, and we're pretty much in agreement on the six items that Lynnette just mentioned. I support her letter or her requests, especially as it has to do with trash. Those are very important elements to me as a member of the Wrigley Clean team. Um, so I'm very happy that this establishment is coming to Wrigley of. That's about all. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment Council member Andrews. Yes, thank you, ma'am. Also, could I please have a staff report on this listing the conditions that will be forwarded to the ABC, if that was possible? Commander LeBaron. Honorable Mayor and City Council. Item This item is an. Application for type 47. It's an on sale general ABC license for a restaurant. This license would authorize the furnishings of beer and wine and distilled spirits to patrons. And the police department has conducted our investigation, and we do not anticipate any adverse impact with the issuance of this license. That is the. Conclusion, my report. But per the. Request that was made, I'm happy to read the conditions that we. Will be recommending. To ABC. There are a total of 12 conditions. One is sales and service sales. Service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. each day of the week. And number two, any graffiti or marked upon the premise? Upon the premise or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee, you shall be removed or painted within 24 hours of being applied. Number three, there will be no happy hour type of reduced priced alcoholic beverage promotions that shall be allowed. Number four There shall be no live entertainment dancing disc jockey or no amplified music or stereo systems permitted on the premises at any time. Number five The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business said records shall be kept. No less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the city on demand. Number six There will be no dancing allowed on the premises. Number seven, the side door shall be kept close at all times during the. Operation of the premises. Except in case of emergency said doors do not consist solely of a screen or ventilated security door. Number eight The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to eliminate, illuminate and easily just dissemble the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. Number nine Trash. Shall not be emptied between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8. A.m.. Number ten, no alcoholic beverages. Shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. Number 11 The permittees shall take reasonable measures to prohibit and prevent the loitering of persons immediately outside the establishment at all times. In number 12, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter. The area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, as depicted on the ABC. 257. That concludes the conditions that we will be submitting to ABC. Councilman. Anything in addition. Yes, please. You know, I'd like to say a few things concerning this, you know, petition. You know, I am really always grateful for a business trying to, you know, grow and become a part of the sixth District. You know, I believe that Africans can do better for our community. You have come a long ways from the 17 bar because I know that this is now going to be a restaurant where where public meetings were information for you. Residents were promised. And my office would try to help in any way we can. But we got to do we've been very minimal and efforts in trying to get this done. But I know we will do better as a minority owner business. I want to give this restaurant restaurant an opportunity, but I expect engagement with the community. And I do not want neighbor neighborhoods being disturbed at any time. If the applicant is here, I hope that you can hear me. I do need for you to be better. And as we will be finding ourselves here again, I encourage you to take a look at the landscaping around your restaurant and trash enclosure that keeps rodents out. Talk to the neighbors. You need to work with them. And with that, I would like to know if there's any council comment. Thank you, Vice Mayor and council comments. Okay. Can you get a motion, councilman? Yes. I'm assuming it's to approve with conditions. Yes. Kate, can I get a second? Give us a motion in a second to approve with the conditions read. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay, then. Then with that members, we had a roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pearce, Councilman Price and team member supernova. Hi, Councilwoman Mongo. Here. I mean, I. Vice Mayor. I. Councilmember Arango. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Okay. Thank you. Motion carries with it. I understand. We're going to go. There's been a request to go back to the hearing. To reopen the hearing. We got a motion.

A bill for an ordinance approving the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the 101 Broadway Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area. Approves the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment areas to support the redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted site situated at the northwest corner of 1st Avenue and Broadway in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06252018_18-0563

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct your comments. Members of Council please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to Members of Council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Council woman are taken. Will you please put 563 on the floor? Mr. President, I move. Is that 563 okay, I move that council bill 563 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for 563 is open. May we have the staff report? Tracey, I can. Good afternoon, Mr. Good. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, who is here this evening requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 563 to approve the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan establishing the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the 1 to 1 Broadway sales and property tax increment areas. Here we go. The proposed 21 Broadway urban redevelopment area is comprised of three parcels separated by an alley of approximately 31,500 square feet and is situated at the northwest corner of First Avenue and Broadway in central Denver. The site includes the historic First Avenue Hotel, which is designated an historic landmark by the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and is now eligible to be included on the National Register of Historic Places. The site is located in Council District seven. The First Avenue Hotel was designed by Charles Quayle and built by the Fleming brothers in 1906 as a 150 single room occupancy hotel. At the time, it was the largest building in the town of South Denver and the central hub for commerce on South Broadway. In 1909, the Fleming Brothers formed the Fleming Brothers Bank, whose headquarters were located at the First Avenue Hotel, along with the headquarters for their construction company. In 1978, the upper floors of the building were condemned for residential occupancy due to due to the lack of electricity and water connections. The ground floor of the building was restored in the 1980s and functioned in 2004. The building became vacant and fell into disrepair. The building was purchased in 2008 by a local restauranteur who opened a highly popular restaurant. You may remember this building as the former home of the El Diablo restaurant. The upper floors, however, remain vacant due to building safety issues. The city foreclosed on the building in 2013, and the owner filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The property was purchased by a new entity at an auction in December of 2015, and that entity plans on redeveloping the site. A fundamental consideration in approval of an urban redevelopment plan is the finding that the area is blighted as required by the urban Colorado Urban Renewal Law, to provide evidence supporting counsel's determination that the proposed urban redevelopment area is blighted due to commissioned matrix design group to conduct a condition study. That study, dated May 2018, will be filed with the count with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. In summary, the Blight study found the following five factors that constitute blighting conditions slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures unsanitary or unsafe conditions. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes. Buildings that are unsafe are unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction or faulty or inadequate facilities, and the existence of health, safety, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical, underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements. These blight factors, individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the area. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the 101 Broadway urban redevelopment area. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate blight, renew and improve the character of the area, encourage residential, retail and commercial development. Encourage and protect existing development more effectively. Use underutilized land. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome. Encourage participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Provide a diverse mix of dense housing options, and improve and provide employment centers near transit. In bringing this urban redevelopment plan forward, DURING has sought to align the goals and objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Baker Neighborhood Plan. In reviewing the Urban Redevelopment Plan, the Denver Planning Board found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 and its approved supplements by furthering several citywide objectives, particularly those focused on historic preservation, adaptive reuse, quality infill development, and the provision of affordable housing. The one on one Broadway Urban Redevelopment Project includes the restoration of the four story historic landmark building. Combined with the construction of a new five story addition, together they will deliver approximately 106 affordable workforce housing units. The units will be studios and one bedrooms at a rent attainable for persons earning not more than 60% of the area median income. In addition to the housing units, the project will deliver approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor, retail and restaurant space. The project will also include the construction of approximately 20 surface parking spaces. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes TURA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by use of tax increment financing. The sales and property tax increment area will be coterminous with the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area. During staff has reviewed the development, budget and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap of approximately two and a half million dollars. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through sales and property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the area. Following redevelopment. The area is anticipated to generate approximately $25,000 per year in net property tax increment that would be generated only by the commercial portion of the property and approximately $290,000 per year in net sales tax increment. These incremental revenues will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. As property tax increment is being contemplated under the plan, state law requires the Urban Renewal Authority to negotiate agreements with the other taxing entities. Dora has negotiated these agreements with the other two property taxing entities. First is Denver Public Schools. During has presented the development plan to DPS in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. The analysis conducted by DPS concluded there would be no material impact and have agreed to allow all available property tax increment generated through the DPS mill levy to be retained by Doura for use in supporting the project. In addition, the other taxing entity is the urban drainage and Flood Control District and has also presented the development plan to urban drainage and flood control in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. Similar to Denver Public to the Denver Public Schools evaluation, urban drainage has concluded there would be no material impact and have agreed to allow all available property tax increment generated through the urban drainage and flood control district mill levy to be retained by Daera for use in supporting the project. In considering the approval of the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following legislative findings, as required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. A that the urban redevelopment area described in the plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by the City Council. Based upon the blight study and other evidence presented to City Council. That the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in accordance with the Act. The project area contains no residents, therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. Additionally, due to the vacancy of the project site, no business concerns will be displaced by the project. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area. In the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the one and one Broadway urban redevelopment area on May 24th, 2018, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. And tonight is the first public hearing before council on this urban redevelopment plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. This is the first consideration by City Council of an Urban Renewal or an urban redevelopment plan for this area. And as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On May 2nd, 2018, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and it's applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The one on one Broadway urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The project area is owned by Digital Cowboy LLC, who intends to undertake the redevelopment project. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan and have negotiated agreements governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. The city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 121 Broadway urban redevelopment area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the Urban Redevelopment Plan. In closing, Dura is very pleased to work with the city to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for this important site. The one one Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Baker Neighborhood Plan, which specifically recommends the historic First Avenue Hotel as a building along the South Broadway corridor that should be preserved and reused. And tonight, we ask for your favorable consideration on the ordinance approving this urban redevelopment plan. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. As always, we have three speakers this evening David Zucker, Jesse Paris and Chairman Sekou to come to the front. Mr. Zucker, you're up first. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. Mr. President, members of City Council. I'm the applicant, and I'm only here if there are questions that I may be able to answer. All right. Thank you. All right, just. You have 3 minutes. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Perez. Somewhat black star action movement for Self Defense in Denver. Homeless Sellout. We are actually in favor of this. I just have a few questions. I want to know how many affordable units? What is the ammo percentage and how many people will be housed? And then just in case, where would where will the relocation be if there is displacement? And what is the timeline for this development? You. All right. Thank you. Chairman Sekou, you have 6 minutes. My name's Sherman, second lecturer, Action Movement for Self-defense, resident of the city of Denver for 67 years. One raised five points and we are honored to represent poor, working, poor senior citizens, youths and students. I'm neither for or against this thing, but have some questions about the historical context in which we're working on that has set this up as a historical designation. And what does that really represent in terms of history? One, the continuation of that history of 1901 to today. To see if there's been any fundamental changes in ideological and cold conducts of the character, of the people, of the resident, which are what this is all about. It's just like building we build new to. It was about the people who lived there. And who's going to enjoy the advantage of this as we go about reconstructing bustling city resources and giving developers pretty much free pass? Because it is obviously slanted for commercial development and benefit of developers and the rich. And the demographics of the demographics of the area has changed. Was not that exclusive of the neighborhood no more, you know, where it's not no longer a white only neighborhood which refused to allow black people to come into that hotel? I know that's a hidden thing nobody want to talk about. But then we look at the spirit of what has been happening. If the spirit has transformed the people and it's been an update because I refuse to support a white only white supremacy development. That's okay. But. Fitz. And I don't have a lot of facts. Present company included. Not included. But the history of this whole thing that. This represented here and given us the report. We know they have a history of lying and cannon and bullshit. We're not telling the truth. No. No, no, no cussing in the in the hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. I've got to stop from looking at the movie on my own. And they talk about Robert Redford. But anyway. Five 63.2 and excuse me for the interruption, but speaking truth to power in regards to semantics, that's what it is. So here we go. Question mark. Somebody could help him with this. Tell me, what is the median income of the area? How much money do people actually make? In order to afford this day and those that put it within the context of. Poor people. And do they fit into that? And as far as 60% of that, am I depending on how that is? Poor people can't get that kind of money. To be affordable in that. So now we've got class and interest needs to be considered because what are we really doing? Is this another scheme to build stuff to enhance middle class and upper middle class and forget the poor? And it is for the poor. How are they going to afford it? At 60%? Am I? I mean, talk to me, but perhaps someone could answer that question so I can lay that story to rest. So that it doesn't become. I unintended consequence because we refuse to look at it thoroughly. So let's see. I got 2 minutes. Oh, this is it. Here we go. Now, what's so important to this thing is how much money we're going to collect on this increment tax thing. We'll do it well. And basically, we're talking about $350,000 per year for 25 years. That's come to a total of approximately $7.8 million over 25 years. So you'd like more money in today's terms. But when we know the value of terms in the United States and the currency is continuing to fall, but now is worth a dollar , is worth $0.13 in real dollars was going to look at for five years. And what is that money going to do when we put a current value on the money that it ain't worth nothing? So then what? Do we do it now? So what we do with it now, we're going to get shown up cheaper dollars over a 25 year period. The dollar ain't never been worth a dollar in one sense. And now a form of dollars to $0.30 for real. Do you see what's happening here? So don't buy into the numbers. Look at the economic forecast and how that's working before you decide to sign off on this, because again, that becomes a question of being without being profane bull crap. How about that? So if we go. Left leg is in a lucky lapse of capitalist interests. Developers has to be checked, and the question becomes for poor people, when are you going to represent our interests primarily as opposed to class interests? And your voters. Who vote for you because you represent their class interests. And with no real clue. No class. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. This this concludes our comments from the speakers, questions by members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. The first question for David Zucker, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. So can you clarify, is 106 the total number of units that are being constructed? That's two. Structures. That's correct. Okay. And so they will all be affordable. Yes. So by by receiving tax increment financing, do you also have to go through the chapel process to get low income tax credits? Well, the two aren't connected, but we are. So we've been awarded a an allocation of 4% credits in October. Okay. So you're doing studios in one bedrooms. What is the size of the one bedrooms? The one bedrooms are about 450 square feet. Okay. And will all of them have kitchens? Yes. Okay. Full kitchens. Okay. That's good to know. I have a question about the alley that runs between these two structures. Is that being vacated? No. So you're going to keep. That alley as an access to your parking. Yes. Okay. So so you're doing this as two separate buildings. Will they be connected over the the alley? The two buildings are connected on the same property. So there is a parking parcel that that Tracy Huggins mentioned with 28 parking spaces on the east side of that, the original First Avenue Hotel that had 151 units. Those there was an adjacent, approximately 6000 square foot parcel on that parcel will be building additional units. So the two buildings, new and historic, will be touching. They will be touching. Will they be connected? They will be connected. They will be connected. They will be touching. But the alley won't be vacated so they'll they'll be touching over the alley. No, they're touching adjacent to each other and east of the alley. So if you can imagine a typical Denver city block, that's that's 125 feet deep. The existing building takes up, let's just say 62 and a half feet of that. That east west block leaving, allowing room for a new building to be adjacent and connected to the old building. All of which is to the east of the alley. Okay. So as I'm looking at the. I think it's the third. I'm looking at Slide 11. It shows the big red line that has the entire property. And so I'm I'm having a hard time envisioning how you do the two buildings and have them touch and not not impact the access. Councilman Ortega on the of the can't see the screen is it possible to switch back to the to the. Yes, she can. She can. I think an easy way to ask that question is what are you doing with the the other parcel that is in the boundary but across the alley. So the. So if. Thank you. In the in the picture behind me. Right. The I'm looking at. The four story building is the historic building. To the to the as you're looking at it to the left of that is a new five story building that will be constructed on the photograph above. You'll see that what it currently occupies, what will be the adjacent building, was a non contributing, non historic building of two stories. That building has been demolished, allowing for the the new construction building to be built to the left or to the west of the alley is the the parking where 28 spaces of of public parking will occur. Okay. So I want to ask a cool about parking, so thank you for clarifying that. So 20 spaces total. 120 units. 820. 106 units. 306 units. 20 parking spaces. So how do you. Number one, get the financing if they're not all parked. And how do you know that you're going to attract folks that don't need cars? Well, this is as one of the most transit rich locations really a first and Broadway. The belly button of of of Denver. So there is better than 15 minute headway time during rush hour as it's 5 minutes between both Broadway and Lincoln. There's great bike infrastructure already in place just to the south of this. There's dedicated bike lanes on on Broadway, on the east side, and then a a ten minute walk. And I've made the walk a bunch of times myself to get to the to the Alameda train station, a light rail station. So this this is a population where if they're making $35,000 or so, not having to own a car, it really is significant significant to their their ability to have discretionary income. So as we see it and we have we operate other properties in downtown, not none of them today is 100% affordable as this is. But we know that as the price declines, so as we get smaller, one bedrooms and studio units, the propensity to own a car is less and less. So I'm raising these questions because some of us had an opportunity when we went to Seattle with the Downtown Denver Partnership to tour some of the micro units there. I was with you. The difference was they didn't have kitchens. They all had a shared kitchen. But what we learned from talking to residents was many of them came with their calves and they were challenged to figure out where to park their cars. And and I know that it's a chicken and an egg situation about, you know, if we build them with less units, will they not come with cars? Do your lenders finance even though you know you can't park all your units? I mean, there are some of those challenges. And I know for example, in Council President Brooks's district where along the Brighton Boulevard corner where we've seen a lot of new development that has gone in there and it's close to a TOD Station. You see cars parked all up and down Arkin's court on both sides of the road. And when that road gets vacated, I don't know where those people are going to park their cars. So, you know, on one hand, we need to have enough parking spaces for people coming into these units because it exacerbates the parking challenges in the neighborhood and it contributes obviously to the congestion as as we keep building, you know, more and more dense projects in in the city. So my question was just about how how you. Secure the financing. Does that does the lender require you to park more. Of the unit? That was a well-crafted question and good background. Let me, if I may, just to give fullness to the answer. As you may have picked up in the Seattle examples, and I toured one of those two of those with you. Both of them were more than 50% master leased to Amazon employees. The Amazon employees earn, as I found out, about $125,000. Those are people that have cars. There's also an inverse relationship, obviously, between those and you probably know this between those of higher incomes and their propensity to use mass transportation. There's a direct relationship between those of lesser incomes and the propensity to use transportation. So we're correlated in the right way if we're going to have fewer parking spaces. And then there's simply the virtue. What virtue do we want and do we want the virtue of affordable housing? And I'll answer your question directly by just these rhetorical questions as well. So what's the greater virtue? Is the greater virtue being able to deliver these affordable units, or is it to deliver more parking? Building a structure would have been truly prohibitively expensive, with parking spaces costing perhaps 50 or $60,000. And we analyzed that at length. So to us, the virtue wasn't building 60 apartments and 60 parking spaces. It was to build more affordable units and fewer parking spaces. Answer your question directly. Typically with with a lender, as long as we are delivering at the zoning minimum and the zoning minimum because of the historic structure and call it being grandfathered in for the existing residential, the requirement was only 12 parking spaces, so were almost twice as much. Okay. And David, just one last question. Can you tell us what the price point of the with the anticipated price point would be for the studios and then for also the one bedroom. Studios will be in the range of $945 and a one bedroom will be about 1025. So eligible to those that are earning in the range of 35 to $42000 annually. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And I apologize because you're going to repeat the answers, but they're just brief. What was the target? Amazon target am i is 60% below. So and what did you say was going to the future of that? The adjacent the parcels to the east of I mean, to the west of the the alley. Again, the parcel is parking surface parking, including the old Buffalo Wild Wings place. So again, the the, the house with the wraparound commercial space that the prior owner had demolished that. Okay. I didn't realize until that picture that it was one of those Franken house things. Is the project contingent on other subsidies in order to achieve this affordability? It is. The Office of Economic Development has been great to work with and is delivering a loan that's committed at this point of four two and a half million dollars. So the combination of the tiff and that loan is sufficient to hit this, achieve the support in addition to the 4% tax credit, the historic state, the historic federal tax credit, as well as a state historic tax credit. So this is I think that there as well as a an owner carryback note in the about amount of about four and a half million dollars. So it's this is a layered financing. Yeah. And I'm not the infill that you're proposing is sort of consistent with how our downtown used to be where it and it had a even when we even well when cars were around so I'm not terribly concerned about that scale and the influx of cars because you're right, it. Is an area that. Is eminently walkable, bikeable transit options in abundance here. And there's grocery there, drugstore, drugstore across the street. There's entertainment all over that place. There's groceries about five blocks to the south. You know, it is a, you know, qualify easily for your subsidies and it will serve the population that you're you're targeting. So, yeah, I just. Thanks for the answers, though. Sure. As a as if if I may. And give one piece of information which which Councilman Ortega and Councilman Espinosa is a manifestation of the amount of demand where we we calculated that south of Colfax, north of I-25. Four blocks on either side. We projected perhaps 5000 individuals that could income qualify that currently work but but commute into the community now. So in addition the manifestation of the demand is that after only two weeks of a banner on the side of the building, we have 51. 52 I won't say income qualified, but income tested qualified residents on a waitlist. So there's a lot of demand. And it's gratifying to know that despite the fact that we're more than a year away, that residents are there. Ready. Yeah, I appreciate that that that additional information because that is I appreciate that this somehow being your business model because and I appreciate Tracy going through this process because as you know, if you took down the land in 2013. Correct, 15, 2015, there is a mention in this about 2013, the the the property value. This would be eminently developable. Would it be. It would is it's my opinion that this would be is in is is correct. It would be eminently developable as a market rate project. Correct? Yeah. Thanks for asking. That I think was actually December of 2016, the Zocalo and fortunately the the the family trust that that's acquired this with us. We could have been under construction and leased a long time ago had we not chose to do and had this investor and partner not made the the decision to have greater community impact and first bank our lender as well. This is not an easy project for any of us that are that are involved in this. Had it been a market rate project, we would have been doing a lot better financially and probably would have been under well under construction at this point. So the Zocalo finds that these if we can have affordability and deliver affordability in in our projects in River North were well we're one of the first projects that we'll voluntarily submit to affordability to get a an increase of height and we hope and Solon Lake to do a project that's 50% affordable 50% market rate so as we can we we do and for this community impact for these buildings that will be in the community for 100 years, it is important for us to continue that spirit of community impact. So it's been boarded since 2013 and that's really too long for such a prime corner. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, I don't know if you heard about that increase of height over there, but. Okay, Councilman, new statement. I just want to thank you for your leadership and dedication in housing here in Denver, especially the affordable housing. You've been a real inspiration to all of us and a model for other developers for affordable housing. So I really appreciate and I know this project will be great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Councilman, taking one last very quick question, David. Will you be able to take Section eight for anybody that might have a portable voucher? We'll be talking to the Denver Housing Authority. So I don't we haven't had a specific discussion about it, but that discussion, I'm sure, will be had. Okay. Thank you. Great. Okay. This concludes our questions and closes the public hearing. Four 563 Now comments by members of Council Council President Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a beautiful historic structure, a landmark in the community that has sat empty and has been falling apart. And here we have an opportunity to save the structure, to house people when we have a crisis for housing and housed them where they work. We talked earlier today with the Bike to Work and Bike Week this week about ways that we can ease congestion. And there is no easier way to do that than to provide opportunities for people to live where they work, especially on a corridor like Broadway. That is a major corridor for people who do not live anywhere close to where they work. This site is by rail. It's on the highest level of service, bus service that Denver has. The other day, when I flew back from the airport late, late at night, the trains had stopped running when I got to Union Station. But the zero line on Broadway had not. And that was how I got home. So this is our highest level of service bus. There is going to there is a protected bike lane on part of that, but funded by the voters in the bond, that protected bike lane will be a critical part of our infrastructure connecting to the Cherry Creek superhighway. For bikes, it is right by a grocery store and right by every amenity that you could possibly want to live by. And we need places for all of the people who work on this corridor to live and for all the people living in downtown or working in downtown to live. And this is it, 106 units, 60% am I workforce housing? And, you know, I think one of the other things to point out about the cars is this is the the the example that we talk about when we talk about two possible strategies is you have all of the transportation networks there. You have a parking plan in place. There is not a pool part of what sinks some of these projects, what we're experiencing near something like the country club towers that are adding hundreds of new people and have tons of parking. Nobody's using it because there's a sea of free parking there. There isn't. Here we have a parking plan in place that is permitted or metered. And so there's a perfect. Perfect example of all of the things that we talk about coming all together. And on top of that, it's within walking distance of our rainbow crosswalk, one of the most inclusive community now in Denver with that on the street. So I'm very excited about this. I want to thank you, Tracy, for all the work putting this together, your very thorough presentation and going through why this clearly qualifies for the program . And David, for for you and all your work in putting something like this together here, I think is a perfect example. I wish we could do this 20 more times tonight. I'd sit here till 4:00 in the morning if we can do that. So I'm very excited about it. Thank you for all the work and everything that's taken to put a project like this together, all the different pieces to make it really work. I would encourage all my colleagues to please vote yes on this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. The other confluence and our city of transportation and the river is such a beautiful place. Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to make a few brief comments. First, I want to thank Tracy and David for your efforts. We know that to do affordable housing, it takes multiple layers of financing. And thank you for walking through that with us so that we could understand the layers that this project entails. This is part of my old council district, District nine, in the Baker neighborhood, and I'm very familiar with the property. And yes, it has been a challenge property for a long time. And so I'm excited to see this particular use of it moving forward and it will absolutely meet a need in this city and for folks in the neighborhood, as you indicated. So I will be supporting this tonight and just thanks for your efforts. And I know you've done your homework with the Baker neighborhood as well, which is a very active community. So the fact that they're not here says a lot about the work you've done with them. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Hey, we're approving a tax increment area, and I think this needs to be said. States and cities are doing away with tax increment financing all over this country. And I think we're still using viable ways for social good and social impact to use TIFF. And I think that's incredibly important and so I'm really excited to see this come to fruition. I think the developer, Dave, would tell you without tax increment financing wouldn't have been possible. And so I'm glad we could use this tool effectively for our residents in the city of Denver. Seeing no other speakers. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. I black. Mr. President, I. Clark. Sorry. No, wait. Let me start with you. These guys go to prison. All right. There we go. We got 11. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes counts for five. Six three has passed council on Ortega. Will you please? Oh, I'm sorry. Congratulations. Councilman Ortega, will you please. But don't we have to do four, five, 64? Yes. Yeah. Will you please put. I thought we called it out.

AN ORDINANCE approving and confirming the plat of “The Pines at Northgate” in the portions of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County, Washington.

SeattleCityCouncil_07262021_CB 120127

And Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and opposed the motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Council Bill 120127 approving confirming the plot of the ponds at Northgate and the portions of north east quarter of Southeast Order of section 29, township 26, North Range four, east and Central Washington. Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 120127. Is there a second? Second? Thank you so much. The bill has been moved and seconded for passage. I'm going to hand it back over to you. Caspar Strauss, in the event that there is anything else you'd like to add. Bank accounts present in the clerk, Brian have done a wonderful job. This is the Associated Counsel bill to the previous clerk filed. The quote pines at north gate. Unquote. All subject matter has already been covered and therefore I move to pass Council Bill 120127. Great. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing that. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Both. Suarez. Lewis. Yes. Pearson. Yes. Sir. I want. Yes. Strauss Yes. And Council President Gonzalez Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items five through 11 into the record?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary for a Supplemental Agreement to Management Agreement No. 21667 with SMG, formerly known as Spectacor Management Group, for the completion of certain capital improvement projects at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center located at 300 East Ocean Boulevard. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1004

Item 23 is a report from the City Manager recommendation to execute a supplemental agreement to management agreement with SMG for the completion of capital improvement projects at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center District two. So moved. There's been a motion. A second. Have a very good you think as the address, as I pointed out, the fuel check your notes. There's a half a million dollars being spent on shares. I just googled and I. 5 minutes of various different vendors coming up with what look to be. And I haven't seen them yet, but I will check them out. Cheers. Padded stackable. That looked like their sturdy and I hadn't checked them, but I will. $30 apiece. Some for $19 apiece. I just want it on record. And I want these the management group to know I'll go out and check because a half million dollars, it's probably, I would say right now standing here probably 30% more than we need to spend. And that comes on just four months ago, urinating away $300,000. To put up has to create a sign because after 20 years, a few people couldn't find it. It goes to the issue of this city does not. The biggest problem is not a shortfall of money. It is a shortfall, a good management period. I think this management company might well be just seeing this as a Black Friday opportunity or end of the year to balance their budget and so forth. But I would suggest you hold this over until you check and see whether or not it's worth spending a half a million dollars for those chairs. Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. It's been in motion in a second. Members, please cast your vote. I mean, yes. Motion carries six zero. Next item, please.

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, P.C. for professional design services. Adds $75,000 to the contract with Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, PC for a new total contract of $1,859,032.50 for additional design services for the Carla Madison Recreation Center (201417595). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-9-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-18-16.

DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0591

Ten eyes, two nays. One two abstention. Council Bill 610 is adopted. OC Counsel Madam Secretary, can you pull up Resolution 591? Great. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this? I just have a question. Okay, go ahead. What is it? Everybody that can speak to what this ad services for. Okay. Oh, there we go. Brett. Brett Huntington from the project manager at Public Works Guy. Just yeah what is it for and is the money for this just coming out of the already approved funds or are we gearing up for additional funds coming down the road? So the the funding for this is out of project contingencies. So we're not seeking additional money. This is just increasing the contracts value. For the design agreement because of the the alternates and the retail site and some of the late moving parts that we've been working through recently to get them properly. Designed and into the project. So does that mean that we've found a buyer for the retail side and we have accepted some of the alternates that we've found the money for those. So I'll I'll address the alternate piece first. So we've we have accepted the entire build out of the rooftop. The other alternates are still unaccepted unfunded. But Parks and Rec is actively seeking outside donations and other funding sources for those. So they're still very much on the table. So by a rooftop, we're talking about that sort of that sort of open space, that sort of quasi leasable or rentable. Yeah, it's it's intended to be an event space. So it added for about $4,000 of interior square. Feet, plus an exterior terrace all on that rooftop level. And it is intended to be a rentable event space which will be managed by the Parks and Rec Group and department as a as a rentable space. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Councilman. And they will be doing some yoga out there as well. Right. So I just want to make sure, because there's folks in District ten and District nine who want to make sure it won't the entire time it won't be leased out like there will be classes going on out there and things like that. I believe that's the intent, but I might be behind out a bit more. The Honorable. Thank you, President Bush and members of the council. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. I'll be out there with you on the yoga classes on the rooftop? Yes. As with many of our event spaces, we try to strike the right balance between allowing those spaces to generate revenues for the department and making them available to others. But we definitely intend to operate classes in that in that outdoor space. And as you know, I have a very deep commitment to getting people outdoors. And so with such a constrained site and so much building, we're looking very much forward to having a space on the roof outdoors to conduct many of our classes. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, let's get onto the bill for introduction. 609. Can you pull that up? I have Ortega. What would you like to do with this?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary enter into a 15-year lease-purchase agreement and related financing documents with Banc of America Public Capital Corporation, of San Francisco, CA, for the financing of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project for the Long Beach Water Department, in an amount not to exceed $36,000,000, including interest costs and fees. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12112018_18-1096

Motion carries. Item 17. Report from Financial Management and Water Recommendation to enter into a 15 year lease purchase agreement with Bank of America Public Capital Corporation for the Financing of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project for the Long Beach Water Department in an amount not to exceed 36 million citywide. Remaining private companies under this price. We get. Sorry. I know it's late, but I would love to hear from staff on this item. Vice Mayor, Council Members We have a staff report on this by our city treasurer David Nakamura. And also Fidel will serve in the audience to members from the water department. We have Paul Fujita and Anatole Colligan and they'll be here to answer any questions as well. So, David, take it away. Thank you very much, Mr. West. All Fidel Aguayo will be giving. Us. Our staff report tonight. Fidel, is this the city's debt manager? Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council. On November 1st, 2018, the Board of Water Commissioners authorized the financing of the Events Infrastructure Project. The A my project is a network of smart meters that allows meters to be read automatically and uploaded electronically. Automating the meter readers will allow the water department to increase operational efficiencies and achieve annual cost savings. City Council approval is required to execute. A lease purchase agreement and not to exceed $36 million. With Bank of America. The estimated annual lease. Payment will be approximately $2.4 million. Payable over the next 15 years. The lease payment will be payable equally from the water and sewer fund enterprise funds and will be partially offset by the elimination of the manual meter reading contract. This concludes the staff report. Staff and members from the Water Department are available for questions. Thank you. If any public comment on this item? Seeing none. There's a motion concern, Ringo. Consumer price cap. Please cast your votes. Vice mayor. Yes.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report back on how the City can expand its enforcement of fireworks violations through ordinance changes, the City's ability to enhance and/or develop an administrative citation process for fireworks violations, include more technology based ways of reporting fireworks violation, evaluate the possibility of utilizing video to enforce violations, and evaluate the feasibility of video evidence of fireworks violations provided to the City by residents being used in enforcement and/or citations. Data and research compiled by the individual council offices should be utilized as a reference.

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0620

Motion carries. Next item is item 14. Item 14 is communication from Councilwoman Price, Council Member Peers, Council Members Lupino and Councilmen Austin. Recommendation to require city managers to report back on how the city can expand the enforcement of fireworks violation through ordinance changes. Administrative citation process for fireworks violation and evaluate the feasibility of video evidence of fireworks violation provided to the city by residents . Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. This item is pretty self-explanatory, so I won't waste too much of my colleague's time talking about it. I would like to say that a lot of the recommendations that are included in this item were recommendations that residents from the third District actually worked on. They spent countless hours studying the issue, looking at what best practices are in other cities. We have one of the members of the committee here, and I think the the approaches that are being used by other cities are certainly an opportunity for us to continue to mitigate the impacts of illegal fireworks in the city. It's important to note that the amount of illegal fireworks activity that we get during the month of July places a huge burden on our public safety resources. For the 24 hour period of July 4th, the dispatch center handled 3200 calls 911, and the non-emergency line and 1419 calls were calls for service. This represents more than a 35% increase on the 4th of July versus the average day. So to the extent that we can try to mitigate some of these concerns and enhance quality of life for our residents, I think looking at best practices that are utilized, such as administrative citations, video evidence that we use and many other types of criminal cases should be things that we look at here in the city of Long Beach, and I ask my colleagues to support this item. Thank you, Councilman Huston. Well, I would certainly sign on to support and and I will do that. I am if we have laws on the books, we should support and enforce our laws on the books. You know, I have always been very I've had my reservations about both safe and sane fireworks because they are legal all the way around us and I think is very difficult to to enforce that as a result of it. And I certainly don't want to see, you know, young people penalized more than they need to be. I again, I want to support this, but I also want to look at better education efforts. And if I would offer a friendly two to look at that, there were some things that I saw this this past year that I thought was very effective, implemented in other cities. Like hear from the city attorney in the city of Los Angeles on the airways doing public service announcements. I'd like to see more of that here. The impacts on on veterans and pets, those those that education effort, I think goes a long way to to help. And I'll just say this year, it seemed to me that our efforts paid off a little bit better because the impacts weren't as profound as last year. That's just an observation from from my neighborhood. But I can't speak for all. But it did it did seem like we improved in this year. And so I compliment all of our our our city team, our law enforcement, firefighters for for their great work and their hard work to to mitigate this. I'm happy to support that. You. The other. One? Yes, sir. Thank you. Pierce, please. Yes, thank you. I also support this item. You know, I think that there were some great ideas presented by the committee that worked on this. And the education piece is one key parcel echo Councilmember Austin's comments, having social media videos where it's hip and funny and some way to make sure that we're educating the community about the impacts. I think particularly in our districts where we're on the beach, we have a lot of people that will do their fireworks on the street and then take them down to the beach and it turns into a whole party zone all the way up to Seventh Street. So I know that we did see a reduction also whenever we did the sign. So I would ask that the city and ask also be included on that education piece. I don't feel like any staff is listening. Oh, they're listening. How are you guys doing? I just wanted to make sure that we're also including some costs towards the education components, not only on the video side, but I think the streets that we know in our neighborhoods that have people, that there's one street in my neighborhood every single year, they're doing the major large fireworks. So having those signs on the street really help, making sure that we're not tossing out simple solutions like that that let them know that somebody on that street is going to call PD and then also exploring the idea around the go Long Beach shop. I know if Councilmember Mongeau was here, she'd want to bring that up. If there is an option for how are we tracking, putting that power in the residents hands and then possibly sending a follow up, a letter or citation or warning, I think would be really helpful. So I hope we support this item. Thank you very much. A super constitutional. Thank you. I'd like to thank Councilwoman Price for bringing this item forward. I enthusiastically support it. I signed on to it. I also want to mention again the third district group who studied this and I for all their time and energy and expertize. And I think the last being they were here past 11:00 at night to present. So we thank them for that, too. And I believe last year we came up with that theme of vets and pets. And another issue is brought to my attention this year by a fourth District resident, and that is newborns. To any parent, if you can imagine taking all that time to get your newborn to sleep and then be awakened by a firework. So that's another part of the study I think we should include. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I just wanted to chime in for my support, but also say I'd like to see some data. I'd like to actually see, you know, a report on maybe a heat map on calls for service and responses across all of the police divisions. That's what I'd like to see, because I think that would really help us to see a picture of, you know, where is this really happening? Where are the troubles and possibly how we're responding to that in terms of resource allocation. So if you if you open the ad and that is a friendly that's a great idea. I want to see it. I want to see like like a heat map or data like response data calls and response from police and fire for the 4th of July. Thanks. Thank you. Also, I'd like to thank Mr. Price for bringing this item forward. You know, this 4th of July was ridiculous in the Wrigley neighborhood. And have residents been enough? They said enough fireworks is going off at all times of the night. And I was. So I do one attribute a decrease in the calls to our police department on 4th of July to outreach that was done prior to the holidays. But I also want to point out that many people do not call because they know that on that day our public safety officers are overwhelmed with calls. I'm hopeful that the report back brings up a responsible and feasible, you know, enforcement opportunity for this issue. And I do not want to see residents put themselves in danger by recording others, you know, setting off fireworks. But I do think we need to come up with an alternative that allows enforcement enforcements, even if police officers does not personally witness the crime. Thank you very much. Do you have a public comment on this? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.. Here. Round two. Here we go. Michael Caldwell, First District. I live I live between fourth and fifth street on Magnolia Avenue. I have fireworks literally five feet outside my door. Beginning around 8:00, going all the way to midnight. I heard more fireworks going off than police sirens going off. I agree with what Councilman. Richardson says. That there needs to be more police done because what was basically happening was that I would see a patrol car. Go by. Then, like, okay, clear. Boom. All right. There's no siren. I mean. And no offense, but video use, do some good old fashioned detective work. You can hear it. You can see it. You know where you need to go? Go. Okay. You don't need to. Oh, we need to check tape. Where was it? What was. What was it? No, no, no. It doesn't work like that. My other big question is, and I've asked this for over 40 years, in 1983 was the first time I went down to Ocean Avenue to see the big fireworks display on the 4th of July. And then as I come back. Home and I asked my mom, I'm go. That's a great fireworks show, mom. I was so. Excited. I was six years old. She goes, Yeah, but unfortunately they're illegal. In Long Beach. And I gave her that. That cute little six. Year old look and go, What does. Illegal mean, Mommy? Well. They're not allowed. I'm like, Then. What did we just see? We saw fireworks being shot by the by the Queen Mary. It was the greatest thing in the world. Why are fireworks going off if they're not allowed? What's up with that? How does that work? I've been asking that question for 40 years and I'm like, you cannot promote this enough in the press telegram the week before the 4th of July. They are illegal in Long Beach. How are people bringing them in? Easy. They're going to Lakewood. They're going to Hawaiian Gardens. They're going to Cerritos. They're going to Cyprus. They're going to all those cool little fireworks stands. And they're bringing in the fireworks. Wow. There's a concept. My brother did this. I lived on Bellflower and Arbor, right by the Lakewood border. He would go. And buy fireworks. He would literally cross the street into the Lakewood border and shoot off his piccolo Petes. Guess what? I am in Lakewood. I'm not in Long Beach. I don't get to go to jail. I can fire up the fireworks. I'm like, Dude, you cannot do that. You're like, Yes, I can, because of a little bitty loophole. So if you could answer that question as to. Why in a. Safe area the fireworks are going off when they are not allowed in this city. Please give me that answer and I will let this go. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. My name is Snake Information resident of Sixth District. Personally. I don't think fireworks are a big deal. You know. I think that our police force and our fire department have more important things to do than to listen to 3200 calls about people shooting up two $3 fireworks. I mean, the reality of a situation, much as in the city of Chicago, which has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, people just drive two or 3 hours south. And they go to Indiana and they buy all the. Guns that they want. It's the same reality here. Fireworks aren't going away as the gentlemen to perform you just said. You can buy it in a in a 5 to 10 mile radius. It's just like this. I saw I was actually here for the committee from third district for their presentation. And one of the things that they said was potentially creating a pathway for a misdemeanor into a felony for. Laying off fireworks like some of that stuff. That's a joke. But you can't. That was part of the presentation. I was I was here. It was one of the recommendations. I don't believe that's correct. But one of the committee members is here. If there's any situation where lighting fireworks would be felonious conduct. It was done. I said the pathway to following is the speaker. I remember it. It's just it's not a reality. And, you know, that's not it's not going to change the situation or the reality of people on 4th of July like to light fireworks, you know, even it's something we have to deal with because of some of that's been happening for the last 30, 40 years. The man just in 1983, you see fireworks. He was shooting them off. It's 2018 because they shouldn't have fireworks like that's the reality of the situation. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of resources. And clearly, you know, sales taxes and parcel taxes are, you know, opportunities for people, for things, for people. We don't want to be a resource to sales taxes. And parcel taxes are ways that we don't want to use taxpayers money here. I think the same thing we shouldn't have to pass on to the law enforcement to to work extra hard to do something that's going to happen for the next two weeks after what it's like. We know what's going to happen. It's the same the same thing that happens every year. I think what we could do as a solution is create designated areas for people to shoot our fireworks so that it would probably mitigate and at best dampen or create some type of decrease of where people are shooting out the fireworks instead of on streets. Maybe we can do it in designated areas. That way there would be less elderly people and newborns and veterans. And whatever your excuse we use for why we need to stamp out on those and we and we can actually try to have some effective change because the reality is, is the ways that these these solutions are being suggested are the reality you're not going to catch someone on social media. And that being used as a way to, you know, set down fireworks. Give me a break. The Shukla resident. The third, I think there's an interim municipal issue here, as we've heard. I mean, I grew up with one riding my bike to Lakewood was fine when I was a kid. But the reason why in 83 were two good reason why in 83 and in 2018 we have these ordinances just because we have our own gas and oil department and the cities that that don't mind selling stuff to. Our residents might want to be asked about why they like that tax base from selling, you know, fireworks, but they don't mind having those costs or potential risks externalized on to our residents or our city. And it's important. I mean, you know, we've had instances in the city, I mean, Signal Hill Fire, we've had some major, major issues with the accident gas infrastructure, oil infrastructure. A lot of the stuff that, you know, 100 years ago made us what we are, but we can no longer be committed to, not if we want a livable planet and organized life and all these good things that make life worth living. I'm looking forward to the report and I appreciate a lot of the time that was put into it. But the one thing I'd like to stress with my time here to all of you is the urge to criminalize or to tax. I mean, the original meaning of the word a tax is just an undue burden or just a burden. Something's got to be carried. Maybe it's financial costs. Maybe it's a social cost, other ways of determining cost. Just like we have different ways of determining price. The urge to criminalize the urge to have your neighbors report each other on video surveillance and, you know, report each other on social media. What kind of city are we creating where that's what we got to do for the sake of gas and oil, but for the sake of that infrastructure. Is there a better way? Are there ways that this can be amended? This can with with more data, with more understanding of what the pressures are, meet all the requirements we have, some of which, you know, some of which are really serious. I mean, we don't want a lot of that signal hill infrastructure ever catching on fire again. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Inspector. Oh, no, please. Good evening. I'm. I'm Ken Weiss, and I'm the chairman of the Fireworks Advisory Committee. And I have to thank you for voting to move forward on the administrative process. I can tell you I was one with personally researched the other cities on this issue and the city of Rancho Cucamonga significantly reduced their fireworks problem by implementing this piece of legislation. And I think it's something that can really be a benefit to the community because I think there's a lot of people who see fireworks going off that don't know where to turn. And by coupling this with the Golden Beach map and and and having the information go to the city attorney and a letter going out, these people, it's a start in getting control over the situation a little bit, and I think it's a good thing. In terms of the comment about the messaging. We have a very exciting component that we're working on right now for the for the school age kids, because this is a generational problem. And I say this kind of guardedly, but, you know, the 40 year old, we've already asked them they're going to light off fireworks, they're going to shoot guns, they're going to drink, they're going to take drugs. The what you have to do is you have to get to the kids because the kids will go back to their parents. And they're the ones that will say to their parents, you know, I learned X in school or at the recreation department. And Dad, I don't really think we should be shooting off fireworks. And that's how you make the change. It's a real generational issue, and we're working on that. We're also working on some other out-of-the-box solutions that we didn't have time for this year. And I think give it a little bit of time. We're going to really turn this thing around. So that's all I have to say. But and thank you for supporting us tonight. Thank you very much. So thank you. I would suggest what I suggested a couple of years ago. First of all, $10,000 fine and 50% of that fine, the dollars will go to the police that the policemen that arrest the individual. And that individual also will be required to work at the animal shelter for three years. That's one of the best ways, I think, to serve this community and serve the police department. Give them a percentage of that money and have the perps that set those off the guilty spend that time in the animal shelters. Thank you. You can sooner. Yes. Come to an answer. Thank you. And I was gonna not speak on this, but I think I needed to just. Just also raise. And in terms of the education issue that we have around fireworks. Most of the the fireworks in the as the the the item says the fireworks creating negative impacts to neighborhoods and community quality of life are the fireworks that are not purchased in California. They are coming from another country. They're coming from another state. These are the illegal fireworks in in every other city that even have safe and sane fireworks. So the fireworks that you're buying in Lakewood and or in the neighboring city aren't the fireworks that are making the noise. Right. They don't go up in the air. They don't go boom. Right. Those are not the fireworks that you are buying at the safe and sane fireworks. And so I think we need to also have an honest conversation about fireworks. Right. The impacts and what are the negative impacts? These are the illegal fireworks. The these are the. Matties These are the the the. I don't even know the name of them anymore. But these are things that are going in the air that that truly have a a destructive and dangerous impact. Right. These are fireworks that can set trees on fire. These are the fireworks that are giving your veterans PTSD in trauma episodes. These are the fireworks that are that are that are really impacting your pets. And these are the fireworks that are making babies not sleep well. Right. But I think we need to figure out a way to focus on and in our public safety efforts on those fireworks, as opposed to having our public safety officials running and inciting people for sparklers that are not having no negative impact. And and so I wanted to just just just add that to the piece. I'm going to support this item. But I honestly think that this requires a a longer conversation, a more detailed conversation. I'd like to see our public safety resources focused on on the on the true dangerous type of fireworks that that that are having the most negative impacts on on our communities. Thank you, Councilman Spirit. Yeah. I just wanted to echo that same statement. I think on our block, we do have a house party house that likes to party often. And they every 4th of July for two weeks, you know, covering before and after set off the large ones. And we know that some years we've had people lose limbs. We know that every neighbor on our block, they all go in and make sure they get some pet value for all their pets so that they can take care of their animals. And it's a preparation that people really shouldn't have to take. So I want to echo that statement. And then I do think the conversation is interesting. We have our beaches, which you go down there. People are setting off illegal fireworks. Some of us on this council know this. We've seen it. And so I am curious, are there cities where they did designate a certain area for people, whether it's sparklers or something else, or is there any gray area in the middle that we've seen cities be successful? I'm just curious. Okay. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Councilman. Just want to add in one more thing. I think the video, you know, if we can figure out how to do that, that's cool. But we should also be talking about diversion for young people. Last thing I want to do is load up young people with fines and get them off the right track. I think we should hold them accountable, but we should think about community service. We should think about, you know, diversion for fireworks offenses. If if this truly moves forward and we do actually penalize more people, we should just think about how we handle those kids it a little more intentionally. Thanks. Fine. Thank you. I see we're. I'm the first 10 seconds. Let's take a vote. Which in case a. Thank you note, go to the concert calendar. I think we have five speakers. First would be Mr.. Very good. You know person. Andrew George. I work at a public company. Any anyone public comment?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2017, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, the Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Cable Television Franchise Subfund to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119122

We can read the short title. Okay. And we'll take them individually, but we'll read a few in groups. And so we'll try to talk through that as we go through. So let's start with Jeanette in number five. Please read that in the record. The report of the Select Budget Committee Agenda Item five Constable 119 122 authorizing 2017 acceptance of funding from non city sources committee recommends the bill pass. Okay now just to puts Councilmember Herbert I was going to say before you describe what we're doing is I think we sort of have some. Notes on where there may be an adjustment here there. So I wanted to make sure our accounts members are more at ease or we're not going to sneak anything through. And you were you didn't catch it. So we'll make sure we slow it down when we have to. So, Councilman Herbold, you have the floor. Thank you. I was thinking that I would say just a few opening remarks. At the start. And then hold remarks related to the items contained within the budget itself until we get to item 35, which is the adoption of the budget itself. Very good. All right, great. Very good. All right. So with that, I will make my opening remarks. Thank you. So over the course of the last seven weeks, my fellow council members of the Budget Committee and I have scrutinized and debated Seattle's fiscal priorities. Our vote today to approve city spending reflects our collective attempt to balance the budget amidst a multitude of competing priorities. As Chair of the Budget Committee, I was responsible for assembling a final balancing package that was challenging and addressed the values of our constituents, especially those with the most urgent needs. I believe our most vulnerable communities deserve our best efforts and today the budget we pass will reflect that effort together. My council colleagues and I have managed to, through the committee process, pass several important amendments to the budget that we'll discuss a little a little later. And these amendments will meaningfully impact the lives of everyday people in Seattle. All the while maintaining current, current service levels. We often talk about prosperity, not lifting all boats, but the proposition that we are faced with and the reason why the head tax was proposed is because economic prosperity is not only failed to help everybody, but this economic prosperity is resulting in some people being harmed. And I believe that the beneficiaries of that prosperity must do more to address the impacts of the prosperity that has not been shared by all. In seeking a budget that had at its core, principle of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. I proposed a progressive, ongoing revenue source to support a surge in affordable housing production. I proposed it in my in my balancing package. The credit goes to councilmembers O'Brien, Harris, Talley, and so on for for identifying it as a proposed source. And though the council did not pass that that revenue source, the council will be considering a resolution, which we'll talk about a little bit later, to assemble a task force to develop recommendations for that dedicated progressive revenue source to support people experiencing or at high risk for homelessness. This is a huge win for those who have been waiting for something big and bold to address the city's civil emergency on homelessness. And I want to specifically thank the efforts of the Housing for All coalition and everyone who has come out to testify and support their priorities, not only at two public hearings, but folks have been here in each of 11 Budget Committee meetings testifying, holding our feet to the fire. Your engagement has made this a better budget process, a better budget. And I count on your ongoing activism to push the Council to enact ongoing, sustainable, progressive revenue sources in the future. Very good. So we have counts, Bill 119122 in front of us and we're going to proceed with the vote. Unless you're any further comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Johnson, Maurice O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gonzales. I tally I hold High President Harrow High nine in favor and unopposed. Bill pass ensure assignment please read item six, seven and eight is the record short title.

Petition for a Special Law re: An Act Authorizing Additional Licenses for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages to be Drunk on the Premises in Boston. On motion of Councilors Worrell and Louijuene, Rule 12 was invoked to include CouncilorArroyo as co-sponsor. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

BostonCC_04062022_2022-0465

04650465 councilors were all in Louisiana, offered the following petition for a special law relative to enact authorizing additional licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the premises in Boston. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel. We're all counsel. We're all over the floor. I'd like to suspend and add Counselor Arroyo to the docket. Seeing and hearing. No objections. Counsel Arroyo was added as the original third co-sponsor. All right. Thank you, President Flynn, and thank you to my co-sponsors, counsel Louie Jan and Counselor Arroyo. Also want to acknowledge the work that Congresswoman Pressley has done on liquor licenses here in the city of Boston. Out of the 1448 liquor licenses in the city. Only two restaurants have liquor licenses in Mattapan and only six on Blue Hill Life. And this home will petition. We are being intentional by creating liquor licenses for those established restaurants in neighborhoods of Dorchester High Park and Mattapan, because we must do more and create equity in liquor licensing. I must admit this home rule petition is a little selfish of me because like many of our other residents, I too want to be able to eat, watch the game and enjoy it. Don Julio Reposado neat and my own neighborhood liquor license in these areas will help our small, locally owned restaurants reestablish himself after coming through a negative impact of COVID 19. This is an opportunity for us to use our powers to help create local revenue and local jobs and create a clear pathway to small business owners to recovery through the creation of capacity, size, liquor licenses. We will help the small restaurants establish financial sufficiency, generating the revenue to expand and the ability to create more jobs in our neighborhoods. This is why we must make sure we increase all liquor licenses each year. It's about the economic health of all of our neighborhoods. I'm looking forward to discussion and under discussion around what is the correct amount of liquor license needed. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. We're all. The chair recognizes counselors and counselors. And you have the floor. Thank you. Mr. President, I just want to thank Counselor Rao for introducing this home rule petition. And it's really important that we do everything we can like counsel overall. I would also like to have more restaurants in my neighborhood where I can just hang out, have a good time with my friends. And obviously in our neighborhoods like Mattapan, my parks are in Dorchester. Those are hard to come by. And we know that it has been really difficult and as as comfortable address stated. Now, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley really led the charge here and there's still a lot more work to do to get liquor licenses into our neighborhoods. Obviously, that's hard when we have to go to the state each time I'm in following on the work that we did last week trying to get restricted liquor licenses. One of my co-sponsor comes from me here in Roxbury. This is continuing part of that same dialog. And I think council we're out for his creativity on ways that we can address that offer our entrepreneurs and our startup restaurants and businesses and to think creatively about how we can automate, to automate having an increase in these license in the future. So thank you for your leadership and I look forward to working with you on this. Thank you, counselors. And the chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo. Counsel Royal. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, counsel and counsel, Louisiana, for moving this forward. As many counselors know, I don't actually drink, but I recognize the competitive disadvantage that restaurants without liquor licenses find themselves at in the city. When it comes to surviving as a as a business in the city, we know that there's also a difference in the quality of food at restaurants that have liquor licenses in terms of the ability to offer sit down services as opposed to take out services. And when they did a study at the Boston Public Health Commission on sort of the butterfly effect of things like this, what ended up being found was due to the lack of liquor licenses in some place like Mattapan. What actually that cascaded towards was a lack of sit down restaurants, and that led to a lack of food options and healthy food options for residents, which then led to health impacts on our communities. And so many of these things that may not seem to have any sort of intersectionality with other really important aspects of quality of life in our neighborhoods do. And so there's a competitive reason to do this. There's a smart small business keeping dollars local reason to do this. And there's also distinct health impacts and benefits of doing something like this in neighborhoods that have not seen the kind of liquor license access like Hyde Park, like Mattapan, like Dorchester, that other places, specifically downtown, in other places have seen. And, you know, this is something that I hope we continue to do. I hope that there's an automated way to continue to increase those numbers because, frankly, the liquor license process is a little arcane and I don't really believe beneficial to business in the city, period. Other cities that have different liquor license processes, have healthier restaurant industries, have healthier bar industries, have healthier sort of hospitality industries. And I think, you know, ultimately this is something that has been a fight for the council for a very, very, very, very long time when it comes to liquor licenses and preserving the value of people who have liquor licenses. And I do wonder in the future whether or not there's space to look at whether or not we have the ability to sort of purchase out as a city some of these liquor licenses and really move towards creating a brand new process at some point in time. But in the guidelines and in the rubrics and the ways in which we're supposed to do this now, I think this is a good start. So thank you to the councilors. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Roya, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to add their name? Please raise your hand. Mr. Kirklees had Council of Book Council of Britain Council, City Council, Borough Council here. Councilor Murphy lays out the chair. Government Docket 0465 will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Mr. Kirklees re docket 04660466.

AN ORDINANCE clarifying Title 6 of the King County Code, establishing a gender neutral code and making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 1888, Article I, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.010, Ordinance 1888, Article I, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.01.030, Ordinance 1888, Article II, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.01.080, Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 1, and K.C.C. 6.01.110, Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.150, Ordinance 2287, Section 6, and K.C.C. 6.04.060, Resolution 12714, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.04.170, Resolution 12714, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.04.200, Ordinance 7216, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.042, Ordinance 4270, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.090, Ordinance 4206, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.100, Ordinance 13548, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.09.030, Ordinance 13548, Section 13, and K.C.C. 6.09.120, Ordinance 13548, Section 15, and K.C.C. 6.09.140, Ordinance 13548, Section 17, and K.C.C. 6.09.160, Ordinance 1294, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.12.020, Ordinance 1294, Section 3,

KingCountyCC_03212018_2018-0148

All right. Well, hold off on approving the minutes and move on to proposed ordinance number 2018 0148. As we have discussed a number of times in this committee and at the full council, the voters of King County previously approved a charter amendment making our county charter gender neutral. And then, since early last year, we've been working to complete that same body of work for the entirety of the King County Code, which has been quite an effort. We've had a number of different updates to the code. This is our fourth and final ordinance before the committee. It would be really cool to complete this work during Women's History Month. That'll be a that would be aggressive. But let's try and and I just want to say, before we even start this one, that staff have just done an incredible amount of work. This has been detailed, very, very large body of work and combed through literally hundreds of pages of code to make this update. So I want to thank Erin Osnes, who's here today. Sam Porter Bruce Ritson, I don't know if he's here. And Russell Peifer, who's just been there. Hello? No, you're waving it. You're waving in somebody else. Not at me. That's not Russell. Okay, Albers, but welcome to you. Anyway, now we'll move on to a briefing by Sam Porter. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The documents for this item are found on page nine of your packet. Proposed ordinance 2018 one for eight as the last, as you mentioned, in a series of four ordinances that would make changes to the King County code, removing gendered pronouns and historically gendered terms wherever possible. The proposed ordinance only includes changes to Title six that pertain to business licenses and regulations. No substantive legal or policy changes are proposed to be made through this process, but other drafting corrections are have been incorporated as proposed by the code advisor. As you know, motion 14680 was passed in July of 2016, directing the Clerk of the Council to develop options for how to apply gender neutral references throughout the King County Code. The same day related ordinance 18316 passed, which placed an item on the November 2016 ballot to amend the King County Charter, as you mentioned, to make the language of the charter also gender neutral. This charter amendment was passed by a majority of the voters in November of that year. This proposed ordinance is consistent with Washington state law that rendered the state law gender neutral over a period of six years. Throughout the code, the series of four ordinances replaced gendered pronouns such as he, him, she or her with the title of the actor in impacted sentences. Table one on page ten of your packet contains a sample of other proposed changes to historically gendered terms in the proposed ordinance before you today. As with the previous ordinances, executive staff have been consulted regarding the proposed changes and their feedback has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. And that concludes my remarks. All right. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion, comments, questions? It seems that we do have a quorum at this time, so. Councilmember Colwell Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd also like to thank the staff for your work and for councilmember founded Ship to lead in bringing this forward. It's really interesting. I I'm very observant of gender, language and the need for respecting the rights for women and conversely, to be able to be identified in a way that reflects the other gender. And I do notice that people occasionally on Facebook or whatever get upset about this. And I have one constituent who continually makes remarks whenever this topic comes up. And he, you know, he by golly, he is going to use man and he to reflect women and girls all the time and no one's going to stop him. Well, I bring this up only because I think it's important that people understand that in our passing this legislation and it's going into our code throughout it, we're not in any way directing people to speak a certain way or to write a certain way. They can still do whatever they want. This is just reflected in our codes and people. Sometimes you don't get that. But we're not out there as the speaking. Right. You know, the the politically correct way to speak for people. We're here reflecting a need that had arisen in our own code. So I just want to make sure that people understand that. MANCHIN Thank you, Councilmember Carlos, and thank you also for pushing us to do the entire code because we probably would have stopped us with the charter. I mean, this is it's good to get it done. Councilmember Lambert has a question. Thank you. Could you tell me why ears was not an appropriate term? The base of air comes from here. Oh, you got to be kidding me. I'm not kidding you. I wouldn't kid you. And I will say, just as a person who once upon a time studied and practiced just enough a state law to be sound like I know what I'm talking about when I don't. But beneficiaries is a broader, more inclusive legal term as well. It's not errors. I think people think you're just inheriting money beneficiaries or people who might be receiving other kinds of benefits besides just property. So I think it's probably an improvement. Gender. Wiser? No, I'm guessing. So I didn't have the benefit of knowing that nuance. So thank you for saying that. But you could have an error. Is this correct? An error? Who is not necessarily a beneficiary? I don't think so. Beneficiaries a broad term. I mean, somebody, one who benefits from. And you certainly benefit if you inherit somebody's property. But an error, I think, is commonly understood to be somebody who inherits property. Interesting. Well, my other lawyer friends want to dove into this debate. I know your discretion. That's very smart. So I could actually have an error. Say I had a say. I had a child that I chose not. To have. In my will. They would be an error, but they wouldn't be a beneficiary. I don't think that's correct. That's correct. No, but. Right. But it's a it's a decent question, legal counsel, to. Look at this. But we will run this one. Both times and again and be sure. Counsel. Yeah. I'm sorry I missed hearing what the response was to Councilmember. Legal Counsel did review this ordinance, but we will run this question by the minute. I mean, why error? Oh, it was just them. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I would appreciate a motion to move this out of committee today since there's only minor question. And even if we made a change, it would be easily done at full council. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to do that? Should I be happy to? Do you want to with with that recommendation? I don't care. Either way. I think with a recommendation would be good. You know, we can make one last amendment if we need. Okay. Manager I'd like to move ordinance citizen 18 0148 with a duplex recommendation. Okay. This motion is before us. Any final comments or questions? I will just add on to what Councilmember Caldwell says. You know, it's you don't get a lot of those kind of at least I don't get a lot of those kinds of comments from people who object to us making our language more inclusive and respectful. But I like to tell the story of walking down the hallway upstairs where there's pictures of historical pictures of the council over time. And there have always been women council members. And the fact that our codes don't recognize the half of the gender that has sat up here, it's I think if we're not recognized in the code , then how are we doing with the public at large? I think it's just a matter of respect and inclusion, and we're not telling anybody how to live their lives or how to use their own language. I think it's a very positive change and I've supported it all along and I thank you, my colleagues, for supporting it as well. All right. With that, all those and. Oh, sorry, a no amendments. Would you please call the roll? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member. Demovsky Council Member. Dunn Council Member. Gazette Council Member. Cornwall Council Member Lambert I Council Member McDermott. High. Council Member of the Grove. Council Member one right there. Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, voters. Six ayes. No, nos. Three. Excuse two. Thank you. The item will move forward. I'd like to expedite that. No, no. It requires special noticing because there's the regulations. All right, we want expedited. There's legislations that require public notice. So we have to do we have to take a regular path. All right. We'll do our best to try to get it done before the end of the month. But can we go back and approve the minutes of the March 7th meeting? Councilmember Lambert.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Long Beach Transit in association with the Alamitos Bay Berth 3 Dock & Gangway Replacement Project to provide up to $687,000 in funding support. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0913

Report from the city manager with the recommendation to authorize execution of a memorandum of understanding with Long Beach Transit in relative to the Alamitos Bay berth Dock three and Gangway Replacement Project. Public comment on the item. CNN members, please cast your vote at Mr. Goodyear. You coming on this? Okay. Go ahead. Larry. Good. You work as the address. I obviously support the project with the following caveat. I want to make sure and I haven't seen the I haven't been able to discern from the plans whether or not there is any mitigation required by any of the work that has been done. And I'd like to get a answer one way or another if in fact, this drives the need, if there's any damage to the environment that there was driving, that will drive mitigation. And if so, where is that mitigation site? As you know, you don't get to ask questions of staff. But we'd like to continue your public comment. Yes, I'd like to find the answer. Is there. Does this drive the need for mitigation? Number one. Number two. Has that mitigation been approved? And the project if there's a mitigation project, has it been identified? And in most cases the Coastal Commission rules require the mitigation be completed before the project. This driving it is completed. But what I need is an answer under oath that there is no. Mitigation required. Thank you. Are you done with your comments? Yes, but I'm waiting for the answer. Mr. Goodyear, as you know, members of the public don't get to ask questions of staff of a council member wants to ask a question. They're able to. But that's the way it works. I thank you for demonstrating to Mr. Komi what the problem is. Thank you so much, sir. Next item. And we actually will take a vote on that item first. Please cast your votes. Motion carry symbol. Yes. Next item. Adam, 13, is reporting the Financial Management Department with recommendation received from the Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30th, 2014.

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending Section 19 of Resolution No. RES-16-0083 (Salary Resolution), authorizing City Manager, or other appropriate appointing authority, to extend the use of accumulated carried over vacation and in-lieu holiday time for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11222016_16-1037

Motion carries. 18. Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt resolution amending Section 19 of Resolution Number Rez 16 Dash 0083. Authorizing City Manager or other appropriate appointing authority to extend the use of accumulated carried over vacation and in lieu holiday time for a period not to extend 180 calendar days citywide. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? CNN. I'm sorry. Council. We're asking that you have something. Let's let's hold 1/2, please. Yes, just clarification of Mr. two to the city manager to what employees does this implies apply? Is this across the board for all employees, city wide? It'll be mayor councilmembers. It'll be managed by the department, through the city, managed by the city managers, through the department. So primarily we're concerned about our police and fire departments, but it certainly will be available to some of the other departments that have staff that are not been able to take vacations. Okay. And and does this preclude a bargaining unit of employees that have contracts in place? I'm going to turn that over to our deputy director of h.r. Cindy stafford. Good evening. This is an amendment to the Saudi resolution. Was it adopted by council, which means it affects all of our employees with a representative non represented. Okay. Thank you very much. Question. Motion carries Councilwoman Price. That's all right. Motion carries. Item 19 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the amendments to the existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Long Beach Lifeguard Association citywide.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Washington Hall; authorizing the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Historic Seattle Preservation and Development Authority to provide funds for improvements to Washington Hall.

SeattleCityCouncil_05312016_CB 118680

To be part of the full council agenda. Item one Constable 1188 680 relating to the Washington Hall authorizing the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of Understanding with historic Seattle Preservation Development Authority to provide funds for improvements to Washington Hall. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. As I explained in a briefing this morning, this legislation was considered in committee. We then found a technical error and so it was reintroduced directly to full council. However, the committee did pass a motion indicating that we would urge passage of this ordinance when it did come before the Council. This legislation relates to Washington Hall, which is located at 14th and East Chesler Way. It is a nonprofit organization run building in the Central District, and it's currently undergoing renovation. The ordinance provides authority for the director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of understanding with historic Seattle. The ordinance also changes the scope of work as originally proposed. Originally, it was narrowly scoped as an elevator project. But this ordinance broadens the scope of the renovation authority so that. More work can be done. With funds that. Remain for renovation. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments on this bill? If not, I move to pass Council Bill 118680. Second. It's been moved in. Second. Will the clerk please call the Raul Juarez I. O'BRIEN All right, so on. I beg. Burgess, I. GONZALEZ Hi. Herbal, I. Johnson President. Herald Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Our part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please, please read the report.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7023 for the Termino Avenue Greenbelt Restoration; award a contract to Aramexx Group, Inc., of Ontario, CA, in the amount of $237,052, and authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $23,705, for a total contract amount not to exceed $260,757; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (Districts 3,4)

LongBeachCC_09082015_15-0916

Communication from Councilwoman Mongo Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilman Austin recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution providing for a temporary amnesty program, waiving late penalty fees for dog licenses through September 30th. Councilman Mongo. Under the leadership of Vice Mayor Lowenthal, the city has moved forward in providing a stand neuter ordinance. Within the context of that. Councilmember Austin and I felt passionate that people who are currently following the rules should be given the opportunity to maintain that status, but also that we want to have a call to action that now at the end of the summer, it's a good time to go get your pet vaccinated and become in compliance with the rules. And so we have Mr. Ted Stevens here from Animal Control Services to give a little bit of an overview of what your opportunities are to register, by what deadlines. Yeah. So we are. Since the new mandatory spay neuter. Ordinance will be taking effect October 1st. I think the goal of this was to give people the opportunity before then to come into compliance with their licensing. So this is something that would take place and around September 30th and maybe help just kind of give people an incentive to come get their animals licensed. And Mr. Stevens, this is for spayed or neutered and intact animals. Yes. Yes. This was to be open to all animal owners, is my understanding. So, yeah, unaltered, altered. Senior, everybody. Wonderful. Well, I hope that we can all encourage our neighbors to get their animals in compliance. It's a great time of year. There's a lot of low cost vaccination clinics. I know my dog is up for vaccination between now and September 19th, so I'll be renewing my license before I become expired as well. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on the item? Seeing that. I'm sorry, Councilman. Also, you have any comments? Obviously I support. This item and encourage everybody to get their dogs. Spayed or neutered before October. 1st. Great. See no other public comment? Please cast your votes. He totally. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go to move on to some announcements. Well, well, well. People are getting queued up here. Why don't I take the second public comment period, if there is one? Anyone that hasn't made any comments earlier on the agenda.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider a third-party appeal by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (APL 21-006); Adopt resolution approving and adopting an Addendum (EIRA-06-20) to the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the City of Long Beach Downtown Plan (PEIR-SCH# 2009071006) relating to the 636 Locust Development (Project) in the Downtown Plan (PD-30) Area and the Downtown Plan Program EIR Land Use Equivalency Program (Equivalency Program), in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and making certain CEQA Findings and Determinations relative thereto, including a finding that the adopted Downtown Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program mitigates, to the extent feasible, impacts associated with Equivalency Program projects, in accordance with those measures set forth in the Downtown Plan, and that no new or different mitigation measures are required; and Deny the appeal and approve a Site P

LongBeachCC_01182022_22-0061

All right. We're here just to do item 21. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider a third party appeal by Supporters. Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. Adopt a resolution approving and adopting an addendum to the program. Environmental Impact Report for the City of Long Beach Downtown Plan relating to 3636 Locust Development Project and the Equivalency Program and deny the appeal and approve a site plan review for a new seven story mixed use building at 636 Locust Avenue in the Downtown Plan Zoning District District one. All right. So if it looks like a over and over is required here, work. Yes. If you will be participating in this hearing. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give and the cause now in pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. I do. Idea. All right, I'll pass it back to city staff. I'd like to. I'd like to introduce the planning manager, Patricia Defender, for she'll make the presentation for this item. Thank you so much. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members. Just making sure you can hear me okay. I can hear you. Okay. Perfect. Great. Okay. Patricia Devendorf, our planning bureau manager. This item involves an appeal of an action of the planning commission to approve a mixed use project in downtown and an addendum to the Downtown Plan Environmental Impact Report, which cleared excuse me, an addendum to the Downtown San Environmental Impact Report, which cleared both the development project and a downtown plan air equivalency program to enable more residential development to occur downtown this year. Addendum in question Because it environmentally cleared both the project and the equivalency program, it is important for future development in the downtown and I will provide more detail about both the project and the equivalency program in this presentation. Do I have the ability to control the side? Just want to make sure. Yeah, probably I do. Okay. Thank you so much. So for some background on this. On September 16th, 2021, Planning Commission approved an ER addendum and a site plan review for a mixed use project at 636 Locust Avenue and also received a presentation on the downtown equivalency program as an informational item. A nonprofit organization, Supporters Alliance for the Environmental Responsibility spoke at the Planning Commission hearing and opposition to the environmental review process and subsequently filed an appeal within the appeal period. Over the next several slides, I'm going to describe the projects and then followed. And following that I will describe the equivalency program. So the proposed project will replace a vacant single storey building with a new seven storey mixed use structure containing 108 dwelling units nearly 1200 square feet of ground floor commercial uses and associated parking. The project has a diverse unit mix, ranging from 1 to 3 bedroom units. It also has building amenities that include a community room, fitness center, lounge area pool, outdoor seating areas, rooftop deck and private balconies. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Seventh Street and Locust Avenue in the Downtown Plan Development District. The 22,000 square foot site is bounded by Seventh Street to the North Locust Avenue to the west. A two story apartment building to the south and an alley way court to the east. The general plan land use designation for the property is the downtown place site, which allows higher density development. Intensity of development. Next slide, please. This slide shows pictures of the existing condition of the site. You can see the existing vacant building that is a former auto facility, auto care facility. Next slide, please. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses. Adjacent uses include an elementary school housing, a health care facility and commercial use. Next slide, please. Project Essentials. The project is consistent with a downtown place type and the land use element of the general plan. Project meets the Downtown Plan Development and design standards, including the promotion of mixed use development with pedestrian oriented ground for project, the project with conditions of approval with meet the required site plan review findings. The project is designed as designed is harmonious and compatible in terms of design, character and scale of the neighborhood and the surrounding community, surrounding structures and the surrounding community. Next slide, please. So now I'll describe in the next few slides equivalency program. So in 2012, the City Council approved the downtown plan, the PD 30 Zoning District and its Associated Environmental Review, which is a program IIR. At that time, the City Council adopted the plan as well as adopted and certified the air to air environmentally cleared development anticipated through 2035. The plan filled out year anticipated development is shown on the table on the right so you can see the different land uses that were contemplated as part of the plan and the program e air and the levels of development associated with each of those uses. This was what was analyzed in the air. Currently, development projects consistent with the levels of development contemplated by the plan and the air can rely on the program air for their environmental clearance and do not require additional environmental review. The mitigation measures identified in the program are are applied to projects as appropriate to ensure individual project impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. And additional technical studies are sometimes required to analyze project level impacts and ensure that there are no project level impacts that were not identified in the program. Air. The Land Use Equivalency Program, which I'll show a little bit more about that in a moment, was prepared to provide development flexibility so that downtown can continue to to respond to market conditions over the buildout duration of the plan. Land uses would be allowed to be reallocated among already permitted land uses of the plan, using an exchange factor developed through the equivalency program, which will ensure that projects will not exceed the levels of development that were analyzed in the program. IRR for the plan. Because overall levels of development would remain the same. These are supported by necessary technical excuse me, the er addendum supported by necessary technical analysis was prepared to demonstrate that future projects would remain within the impacts analyzed by the program. Ah, when the exchange factors were applied. And square footage in one use was reduced in exchange for increases in another use in accordance with sequence guidelines. California Environmental Quality Guidelines. An addendum to the previously certified air was prepared because the changes are technical in nature and based on a determination that the equivalency program would not result in any new significant environmental impact or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the previously certified IIR. In addition, future development will continue to be subject to the Downtown Plan II or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and will have to comply with all applicable mitigation measures, as is the case currently. Next slide, please. This table represents the buildout that has occurred in the downtown plan area to date. As you can see from the table, the number of residential units anticipated by the plan has been reached due to the housing shortage and a strong demand for housing. At the same time, there has been less build out in the levels of their nonresidential use as contemplated by the plan and the air and the air due to reduced demand for office and commercial space as compared to what was anticipated by the plan. In order to continue to allow more residential development to be developed in downtown in response to market demand, and in recognition of the fact that due to a number of market forces, there's less demand for nonresidential uses. South Prepare the equivalency program to allow the swapping among the uses and established equivalency factors that will allow for increases in the number of residential uses in exchange for commensurate reduction in the amount of nonresidential. Uses. And. So looks like. But this slide shows the exchange factors, if you will, of the plans. So you can see there were several different impact areas that were analyzed as part of the technical analysis for the equivalency program. Traffic and noise. Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Based on that analysis, traffic and noise were required the highest exchange rate in order to establish that equivalency. And so going forward, the high exchange rate will be used to to allow for increased residential development. And this represents a conservative approach to ensuring that the impacts that were analyzed in the EIA are not exceeded. And you can see, for example, that 82 square feet of commercial equals one dwelling unit. Similarly, 315 square feet of office equals one unit or. Just over half a hotel room equals one unit. So this is the exchange rate or the equivalency factor that will be used in the future. Next slide, please. This table just provides a an example. If there's a project that consists of 100 residential units, there would be a reduction in order to allow that project. There could be a reduction of office of 31,500 square feet, and that would ensure that there the project is staying within the impacts that were analyzed in the air and that we're not exceeding those impacts for the future. The. Excuse me with future development. Next slide, please. So just to provide an overview of the equivalency program, equivalency program anticipates a build out of an additional just over 3200 units in exchange for reductions in nonresidential square footage. You can see those reductions in the middle column there. Those are the reductions that would be required in each of the nonresidential categories to remain equivalent to an increase in 3200 units. And you can see that that would mean a reduction of approximately 140,000 square feet of commercial, just over 400,000 square feet of office and a reduction of 177 guestrooms hotel guestrooms. But also with the increase in housing. There's still an opportunity to develop additional nonresidential uses. And you can see those adjusted capacity for those uses on the floor, on the column, on the right there. And this is to ensure that a mix of uses can continue to be developed in the downtown. Next slide, please. So just to cover some of the appeal, the specific appeal points, the appellant is appealing the project and the addendum on the basis that the project and the equivalency program are not within the scope of what was analyzed by the previously certified E.R. and the city should have prepared additional separate environmental analysis, a new environmental impact report or a negative declaration. This claim is made on the basis of the points that are shown on the table here. Summarized on the left. The appeal points on the left. Provide the staff. Sorry, on the right, provide the staff response. The project is within the scope of the ER because there is no change to the type of uses permitted nor to the overall plan density or building intensity or the geographic area that was analyzed in the original air. The idea did consider and rejects an increased residential density alternative, but that alternative was an overall higher intensity alternative that included increased residential density but also contemplated the same or greater levels of non residential density. The equivalency program, as I pointed out previously, would make reductions in nonresidential nonresidential development in exchange for increases in the residential development to stay within the overall level of. Development and impacts that were analyzed in the air. The addendum presents substantial evidence for the finding that the equivalency program will have the same or less impacts as the program analyzed in the air. The impact of the project and the equivalency program is consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the certified air. And no additional findings are required because no new impacts have been identified as a result of the equivalency program. And as a result, none of the circumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental air in accordance with law are present. Next slide, please. In accordance with the school guidelines. On the basis of what I described previously, an addendum to the ER was prepared. The addendum was prepared to analyze the proposed project to determine whether the project resulted in any new significant environmental impacts. It was determined that this project and the equivalency program will not result in any new, significant impacts that exceed those that were analyzed in the downtown plan air. In addition, future development will remain, will continue to be subject to the downtown plan, air mitigation monitoring program, and will have to comply with all applicable mitigation measures. Equivalency program does not require or involve any amendments to the downtown plan. The PD 30 zoning district and none are proposed. The allowable uses and the plans, development standards and overall densities and intensities remain the same. The preparation of the Environmental Impact Report addendum is an administrative process and does not have a public notice requirement or a stipulation period. So with that, the five, please. These are the recommendations for council to receive supporting documentation into the record complete. Conclude the public hearing and consider this the third party appeals adopt a resolution approving and adopting the addendum and all of the required finding and to deny the appeal and approve the site plan review for the seven storey building at 636 locust and to uphold the equivalency program. And that does conclude this presentation. The applicant is here and the city. The consultant who worked on the environmental analysis are also available to answer any questions if needed. Thank you. All right, let's set up the presentation. Now we're going to go to public comment. And when we're done with that, will close the hearing and have a council deliberation. So do we have any public comment on this? Yes. We have public comment on this item. There are two of our panelists, Brian Flynn and Sandy Schmidt. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. Good. Thank you. Good evening, honorable council members. My name is Brian Flynn. I'm an attorney with the law firm Lowther Drury here on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for their. Civility. And support of their appeal. The pertinent question here is what level of environmental review sequel requires for this project? For reasons I'll discuss, Safer is not opposed to the project per se, but believes that sequel requires an environmental impact report rather than an agenda. So Safer is respectfully request of the Council. Uphold the appeal and refrain from approving the project at this time until anti-air is prepared. So in situations where there's a prior program, the air, which in this case is the 2012 bar for the downtown plan, seek to have standards for what level of review is required for subsequent activities when certain factors are met. The sequel requires an air and we think some of those factors are met here. First, the equivalency program and the Seventh and Locust Project are not within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the downtown plan. He air the downtown planning air on the analyzed up to 5000 units and the increase in residential use proposed by the equivalency program is outside the scope of the downtown planning air and the addendum is not proper. Rather, an air should be prepared the tiers from the analysis and the 2012 air that can be addendums and proper because the air is required for the projects remaining significant and unavoidable impacts. The addendum can see that the equivalency program will result in numerous significant and unavoidable impacts, including air quality, greenhouse gases, public services and traffic. When a first tier EIA, such as the downtown plan, the air reveals significant and unavoidable impacts, and those impacts are not mitigated by a subsequent project. Sequel requires in the air any statement of overriding considerations for those impacts. Third, and the air should be prepared because there are significant impacts to air quality that were not analyzed in the 2012 downtown planning air Safer submitted comments from indoor and outdoor air quality experts. They found that emissions of diesel particulate matter and formaldehyde would result in increased cancer risk in excess of the threshold set by the Air District. These impacts to human health were not addressed in the 2012, the air or the addendum and should be included any new air for this project for their new mitigation measures available to reduce the project's impacts. Such mitigation measures include Tier four final emissions standards for construction equipment and no formaldehyde added products for indoor air quality impacts. These mitigation measures are now commercially available as compared to 2012. With that, I will conclude again. To be clear, Safer is not opposed to this project in and of itself. Safer just wants the project to undergo the proper amount of environmental review and make sure all impacts are disclosed and fully mitigated. So Safer is requesting the Council uphold the appeal and not approve the project at this time so that an air can be prepared first. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sandy Schmidt. Let's just let's just clarify before we go to the next point, madam Claire. These are the is the appellants. So they they actually have an extended period of time, is that correct? That is correct. Brian Flynn is the appellant and Sandy Schmidt is the applicant. They both get 10 minutes. Mr. Flynn just used his time and the next speaker is Sandy Schmid. The applicant. Is there any additional public comment beyond that? There are public comment. There are two public comment speakers after Sandy. Okay. So I'll let so go ahead and let me know when all of that is concluded. Thank you. Hello, this is Sandy Schmid. I am the developer representing the project and not much in the way of comments tonight. Vice mayor and council members. Thank you, first of all, for for hearing us and our project. And most of all, thanks to staff for privacy preparing this presentation. It was in-depth in its technical scope and review far beyond my capabilities. So thank you to the staff for doing a tremendous job here. It's an old vacant tire shop, and we'd love to, you know, make something which we think has contributed to the to the downtown Long Beach community, and hopefully we have that opportunity. So thanks again. Our next speaker is Lee Charlie. Your time begins now. You have 3 minutes. Hey. Good evening. I just pulled over. I'm actually working. I really appreciate all the data and analysis, but I'm speaking from a lot of residents that live literally three streets down from the Taco Bell, the Ginny Ora Pausa on seventh street and Chestnut and this location, that tire shop is abandoned. And right next door there's an abundance of parking. The issues that I raised to the developer is not about the environmental impact, but about the traffic impact. As you know, Seventh Street is the corridor that goes on to the 710 and it's already what we call the Mini Grand Prix. And then at about 4:00 on the exit ramp off the 710 coming down sixth Street where my car was totaled last year. And pretty much I would say not exaggeration about every three weeks there are wrecks that go from Magnolia all the way to Long Beach Boulevard on Sixth Street. So my question is, looking at the data, 108 units, commercial units. My question is, where did the developer do like the traffic study, for example, how many people and residents will be using cars going in and out? How many residents will now be using this exit non ramp for the 17 to get to work in L.A.? Another thing is commercial use. What kind of commercial will it be? Like a grocery store, a shop which will bring even more traffic to the Seventh Street and Sixth Street. So my question is living there, Taco Bell has a lot of foot traffic, Jenny, or a pod that has a lot of foot traffic. And now we're having an additional unit with more cars, more traffic, more commercial. So I just asked the city council, are the developer to maybe give us some insight of that? Was there a traffic study done? And then from my understanding with our councilwoman giving us some great information, I believe Seventh Street and Sixth Street are going to be close. And so my question then is how will that traffic impact our district and the neighborhood and the well, more well, more city and the north time now that there's no exit an on ramp and we've got a 100 to 135 more cars and people accessing this development. So I just raised questions and want to know if possible, did the developer do a lot of traffic impact study? And I hope you have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bridget de la Toya. Bridget Dilatory. Your time starts now. Sorry. I made a mistake. Wrong item. Thank you. That concludes public comment. All right, closing public comment, bringing it back behind the real council members. And Dana. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. I also want to thank the the staff who have been doing an enormous amount of work on this item. And I also wanted to ask staff a couple of questions, maybe addressing the concerns that Mr. Flynn brought up. I wonder if staff is available to address some of those concerns that were brought up for the public to hear. Please. Sure. Thank you, counselor in Kandahar. So good to address in general the issue. As I mentioned, the analysis that was conducted, the technical analysis that was conducted to inform the addendum, the analysis was all about, is there are there any new significant impacts that would be associated with the equivalency program that were not identified in the previous air? Or whether there was any increase in the severity of those impacts. A checklist was conducted for every impact area that is analyzed in through as a requirement to figure out all the different environmental impact areas . And it was determined that there would be no new significant impacts that were not already analyzed in the air, and there would be no increase in the severity of any impacts that were analyzed in the air and that there were no new feasible mitigation measures that were identified. For those reasons, it was determined that there would be no additional the circumstances that surround that. Requiring additional environmental impact reports or additional analysis did not exist in this case. And so that that is the conclusion and it is substantiated by the analysis that is part of the public record. And in particular, I wanted to just quickly address the the issue of air quality. The Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the council did identify a number of areas that were significant and unavoidable impacts. And that remains the same with the equivalency program. So there are no new areas of impact that were not already identified and hence there is not a need for a statement of overriding considerations because the statement of overriding considerations is already adopted by the Council. But there are mitigation measures associated with air quality, in particular construction mitigations. And those mitigation measures do require the use of the most up to date equipment that is available for reducing emissions during construction processes. And it does refer to the assumed, which is the Southern California Air Quality Management District, and whatever standards are the relevant standards at the time of construction. And we do apply that when we are applying the mitigation measures to the individual projects. Thank you so much for that. And I am very much in support of Stafford's recommendation today, because I know that they've worked very diligently to try to meet all of all of the ten points that were addressed in in the field. So. And as you all know, we are in dire need of more housing here in Long Beach. As a big advocate for housing that I am, I must support projects that really lead us in the right direction for housing. Housing for everyone. There is with just with this project alone, there is 108 additional dwelling units in the city. And that that comes with additional 135 parking stalls, which is something that is very much needed. This is really a great addition to the downtown area, and I hope that my colleagues will support me in this as well . Thank you. Thank you. Was that a motion councilwoman? Yes. Recommendation. Okay. Yes. Councilwoman Allen. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Councilman de hop for those questions. I think that this project will bring the much needed additional housing to our downtown area, and addressing our housing shortage in downtown and throughout the city is definitely a priority. I will continue to monitor these projects very closely and I just want to thank staff. I want to thank the Planning Commission for their work on this. And I also want to recognize the appellant for bringing their concerns forward. The appeal process has prompted a deeper dove into this project, and I definitely appreciate staff taking the time to brief my office and answer our questions. And as chair of the Climate Action Environmental Committee. I definitely take environmental impact concerns very seriously. The project is consistent with the PD 30 development standards and the pier that are prepared for the downtown plan. And staff have assured me that this project will not cause no negative impacts upon the environment or the surrounding area, nor would it introduce new uses that are not already permitted by the downtown plan. So it is my understanding that the debate, which represents both residents and businesses in downtown, submitted their letter in support of this project. So I will also be supporting this item today. It's a fantastic very public. Well, we already did, but we can't say it's time to go for the roll call vote on this. District one, district two. I District three i district four I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. Hi. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents to participate in the California Public Safety Procurement (CPSPP) Program for the 5-year period from July 31, 2014 to July 30, 2019. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0703

Next item. Item nine is reported to police permanent with recommendation to authorize participation in the California Public Safety Procurement Program for five year period. Can I get a motion in motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? Seeing an emptiness over the council. Councilwoman Pryce. Do we have. Do we have anyone here from PD that can give us a brief overview of this particular item? Yes. We have Deputy Chief Laura Farinelli and Deputy Chief Robert Luna. Good afternoon, Mayor. Members. City Council. Yes. This is a National Defense Authorization Act which allows us to acquire equipment from DOD that they are no longer going to use. So we can use it in our homeland security mission here, specifically in my bureau in the Port of Long Beach, to enhance our homeland security front and Homeland Security mission and the Port of Long Beach. So it's an examples of what would have required within a vessel, a vehicle and a trailer. And so we have a vessel on the water that we've acquired for. Free through the. Federal government. And it allows us to enhance our posture for homeland security within the port. So do does the procurement of these items allow you to be more efficient in terms of the services that you provide both for the city and the the port? Absolutely it does. And what's another benefit of that as well is that these are equipment such as a vessel which has a long life. And then when that vessel is so-to-speak tired, I can leverage then grant funds to enhance that vessel, to bring it up to current standards, to extend its life even more. Thank you. Thank you. Got some of your anger. Thank you, Mayor. Well, it would be my concern about the militarization of the police department. I do have some questions regarding what we're getting here. Is are the equipment is the equipment we're getting specific to the harbor department only, or is it also equipment that might be eligible to use in in other parts of the city? Well, the equipment I have currently and I received many, many years ago and it's a vessel, a four by four truck and a trailer in which to trailer the vessel to different locations and in and out of the water for maintenance. And those are the three pieces of equipment that I've acquired that was the police department acquired, I want to say, over five years ago. And we have not received any further items at that point for the Port of Long Beach. Okay. Is there a special skill or special training that the staff would need to go through in order to operate these vehicles and patrol the harbor? Not the vehicles, but the vessels? Yes. And we go to the Maritime Law Enforcement Training Center in the Port of L.A. All my officers that work in the port police division go through that process and are trained to operate vessels in the maritime realm. Given the concern that we have with budgets and and skill pays and the number of deployments that we have of officers, what kind of impact would having this piece of equipment have on our general services to the police department to provide this kind of service to the harbor department? It would be no new. Impacts at all. We currently have nine vessels in our fleet and that training goes along with that. This is nothing new. It's an additional vessel that we can cycle in like a lot of our daily patrols. We thank. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews. Yes. I mean, I think that by participating, this program will assist our police department in a lot of ways, and that is especially central to our city and homeland security and also the emergency response. I really applaud you for this situation here. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. I'm just seeking a little bit of clarity in the staff report here. It identifies items that we have already received. It doesn't really tell us what we're going to get. Is it the do is there any way to forecast what is available in terms of new new equipment or items that you might receive from the federal government ? Currently, we're not reaching out to look for any more equipment. We received this equipment on the inception of when we started providing police patrols on the water within the port. And we were trying to build our fleet. So it was a way to get free at no cost to get ourselves a vessel to patrol the waters within the port complex. And what you say, free and free is a good, good number. I agree. But what what type of maintenance cost are associated with the perception of these? Currently, majority, almost all of our. Maintenance costs we. Offset through port security grant funds. Okay. Well, I will. I will. I think this is a net benefit for the city of Long Beach, considering our port operations as a port of entry as well as the airport. I think it's important for us to have the resources and tools to protect our city. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes, thank you. I just want to be clear. This effort is about keeping our city and our officers safe. Is that correct? That's correct. Not about militarization, not a common sense approach. Getting something for free that someone's probably going to discard and save the city some money. So thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on the item, Casey? No public comment. I believe there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine votes. Next item. Item ten is report from Public Works and Financial Management, with the recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller for the rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue in the sixth and seventh District, an amount not to exceed $2.9 million.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7136 and award a contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, of Brea, CA, for the Taxiway D Rehabilitation between Runway 8L-26R and Taxiway J at the Long Beach Airport, in the amount of $5,657,950, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $565,795, for a total amount not to exceed $6,223,745; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund Group in the Airport Department by $7,798,525, offset by grant revenue and funds available; and Adopt Categorical Exemption CE-18-185. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_06232020_20-0597

I'm 21, please. Report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller Kohn Contracting Company for the Taxiway de Rehabilitation for a total amount not to exceed 6,223,745 District five. I'm going to mention in a second. Of most significance from boring to any public comment. There's one public comment for this item. Dave Shukla. Your time begins now. Hello. This is Dave Chappelle. I just walked away from city hall because it's chilly and I go to the bathroom, but black lives matter. And with this item, if you compare the process. The open bid process for the contract. They're fighting with the one that's coming right after it. You can see a market different. In how we prioritize certain types of work, certain types of local knowledge within our own department, as well as within the local economy. As I understand it, the actual construction engineering work. Or this item would not be terribly complicated. It's something that we could benefit from. A local firm learning how. And there's got to be a better process, got to be a better process for supporting our local economy in this moment. And for the record, I'd just like to ask the city clerk, what's the function of this public comment? Because they just switched to before the council discussion. But for a couple of years and we just had earlier today they were after, you know, the council had its deliberations. I'd like to see the public's input prior to their council. People making decisions on their. Thank you and BlackLivesMatter. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. We'll cover. District one, i. District two. I. I. District for. I. District five. I. District six. I'm seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. High ocean carries.

Order for a hearing regarding Biannual Review of the Boston employment commission and Boston Residents Jobs Policy.

BostonCC_10062021_2021-0567

Join me here. Chair of the Council on Small Business and Workforce Development seeks passage of Docket 0957. All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose any way I have it. The docket has passed. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0567 Docket 0567? Councilor Edwards offered the following order for hearing regarding biannual review of the Boston Employment Commission in Boston Residents Job Policy. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Chair Lydia Edwards, Chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Councilor Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. We had our biannual our second hearing on the Boston residents job policy as as as is required by ordinance. It was a great hearing, honestly, for many reasons. One, we got some updates on the CECL course and additional pipelines that the city is trying to make. We also heard that they were finally moved formally all of their enforcement to Salesforce, which makes for real time enforcement of folks who are violating the new ordinance or construction companies. I want to thank Councilor me here, Councilor Barr, Councilor Flynn, Councilor Braden and Councilor Clarity for attending the the hearing to really kind of again direct where our concerns are. I also wanted to just use this moment now to really think, um, chair of the back um Travis Watson who came and I think some of the most powerful testimony specifically walking us through the history how we got to where we are and where we still need to go. He is now he is leaving his position as the chair of the of the commission and he will be sorely missed. He did leave us all with a message, however, that is as we go forward as a city, as a city that he hopes that whoever is picked to replace him, that it's a woman that is a woman of color who's committed to racial equity and also able to build within the jobs for, um, within the jobs coalition. We also thank the Boston Jobs Coalition again for coming to testify and echo that history. So it was a great hearing. The next one will be in April. And that's. I ask that it stay in committee and we'll continue on with the conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much. You can't say Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Government Operations, requests that Duncan five, six, seven remains in her committee. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0685 Docket 0685.

A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; adopting a 2018-2023 Strategic Business Plan Update for Seattle Public Utilities; and endorsing a six-year rate path to support the Strategic Business Plan Update.

SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_Res 31760

Okay. The bill passed and the chair will sign it upon the new language that will be presented to me in a few minutes. Okay. Okay. Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. All right. Every part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee agenda item for resolution 317 60 relating to the state of public utilities. Adopting a 2018 through 2023 Strategic Business Plan Update for Seattle Public Utilities and addressing a six year rate path to support the strategic business plan. UPDATE The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I'd first like to amend resolution 31760 by substitute doing version three. A four to a 4/2. Second. It's been moved in second to substitute version three for two a all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i. I oppose. The ayes have it and Councilmember Herbert deserve the floor. All right, so it's been a while since I've talked about this and I was talking about weekly for a while there and briefings, meetings. The business plan is a six year outlook and guiding document for the utility. It's adjusted every three years to reflect the most accurate information about projects and cost and utility rates need to support those costs. The process begins with a nine member all volunteer customer review panel. They're appointed to act as the voice of the utility rate paying customer. During the planning and development stages of the Strategic Business Plan. The Customer Review Panel was appointed last September, met twice monthly with Seattle Public Utilities to work on a final recommendation, which they sent to the Council and mayor at the end of May, when the Seattle public utility started with that proposed combined rate increase that includes water, wastewater drainage and solid waste of an average of 6.8% increase in rates a year for for 2018 through 2023. Since then, they've worked, along with the committee to bring the possible rate increase estimates that they are that that we are proposing down to 5.4% in late May the well that was so that was the first round bringing it down to a consideration between 5.4 and 5.6. Then in late May, the utility sent out a postcard notifying customers of the planned rate hikes. Customers received that card in late June. The committee met three times since that card went out to discuss the the strategic business plan. During the final committee meeting, we considered and passed several amendments to bring the rate path down further, including assuming a more realistic SIP accomplish rate accomplishment rate, saving 1/10 of a percent, as well as requiring the institution of new system development charges to allow us to recoup 100% of the costs for new water taps. Sort of underlying the principle that growth should pay for growth that saved another 1/10 of a percent in rates. Additionally, in consultation with Councilmember Bagshaw and the utility, we we crafted an amendment to direct SPU to prepare an affordability and accountability plan which will be focused on managing future rate increases. Due to the combination of the amendments, the average average rate increase under the final proposal is down to 5.2%, with an expected additional 1/10 of a reduction in efficiencies that is pending an efficiency and productivity study expected next year. The reductions achieved in the final resolution amount to over 45 million and reduce spending by the utility over six years. In addition, the the Council bill that we'll discuss next will apply rate smoothing over the course of the entire six years so that rate payers will not experience a major increase within any given year. Thanks very much, Councilman Herbold. Are there any questions about this resolution? We have a bill coming up. We'll talk about that a little bit more there. Councilmember Johnson. So I just want to flag for members of the public that we've added another section here, which I think is really critically important as we continue to try to do a good job of controlling costs. And I want to thank Director Hara and her team for working with us on this language. Since joining the council, I've supported Councilmember Herbold and several other of us in asking the mayor's office to do a better job of capital improvement, project oversight. And there's specific language in the resolution that we're poised to adopt that asks Seattle Public Utilities to go out and do a third party cost estimate to validate the work that they've done on projects that are greater than a $60 million threshold. And at our are at the 60% design mark. That will allow us to do a better job of basically planning those projects as they come to fruition and I hope will serve as an example to our other capital facilities departments about the kinds of work that we're expecting them to do to make sure that we avoid what has happened in the past, which is departments coming to us when they are 80% through construction of a project, but 100% through their budgeted process, and at which point we have no choice but to approve cost overruns in order to get to the completion of a project. That is an extremely frustrating position to be in as a policymaker, but one we found ourselves in in the past. I believe that this amended legislation will allow for a greater transparency for us as policymakers to better understand what those cost control items could be as we move forward. And just generally allows us to ask not just as Pew, but moving forward as state and city leaders or other major capital facilities departments to give us better data as decision makers. Self control costs. Thanks. Well stated. We're ready to vote on the resolution. Councilmember So on. Oh. Good. Oh, just a point of clarification. Is the 5.6% per year each year of the six years? It's now 5.2%. I suppose, over a. Six year period. Average over six years. Thank you. I want you to know my comments are in reference to this agenda item, which is the resolution that adopts the strategic business plan for Seattle Public Utilities and also in addition to items five through seven. And while my votes today will be consistent with how I voted in the past on utilities, strategic plans and rate ordinances, I do want to apologize to Councilmember Herbold, who's the chair of the committee, that I don't I don't believe we were able to let you know about these particular words. I apologize for that. But as before, as in the past, I do support the strategic plan and I will be voting yes on I didn't know, item number four because it funds necessary infrastructure. But as before, I do not support how it is going to be paid for. It is going to be paid for by increasing the burden on working people. So I intend to vote no on the rate ordinances in items 5 to 7, which will increase the rates for working families. Since I've taken office, I voted ons voted against such rate increases because I believe that the Council has an obligation to do everything in its power to put the rate increases on big businesses rather than on ordinary working people. Last year in Ireland, the government and the big business interests they represent tried to implement water charges on ordinary people. And what happened in response to that was an incredible mass movement that was led in part by the Socialist Party of Ireland. This mass movement was successful in stopping these water charges and they forced the government to withdraw them. I think water is a human right and it should be paid for by taxing big business. So I will be voting yes on item number four and no on items five through seven. Thank you, Councilmember Swann. Okay, so we have a resolution in front of us I think we're ready to vote on. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Before we introduce the next matter Council Bill 119083, as amended is now available for presentation a signature. And so the chair will sign the bill now that we have the revised language. Please read the next agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to establish the City of Long Beach as an official affiliate of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

LongBeachCC_01232018_18-0061

Motion carries. Thank you. Next up is item 14 councilwoman. I am in 14th communications from Councilmember Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pierce, Council Man Andrews and Council member Durango recommendation to establish the City of Long Beach as an official affiliated of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. So this National Digital Inclusion and Inclusion Alliance is a unified voice for home broadband access, public broadband access, personal devices and local technology training and support programs. And it offers additional resources for local governments like ourselves that are looking to create a road map to digital inclusion. So I'd first again like to thank my council colleagues for this item. With that said, in that mission and that same spirit, I thought it would be great for the City of Long Beach to participate and become an alliance affiliate and also a digital trailblazer blazer. Now, the difference is that the the the becoming a digital trailblazer will actually allow the city of Long Beach to extend our reach and collaborate constructively with local government agencies across the nation to find new and innovative ways to advocate for digital inclusion. This is all at no cost, and all we would have to do is to become a digital trailblazer, was to be able to connect with NDIA staff, which will my office is absolutely happy to facilitate and then also demonstrate that at least one of eight digital inclusion indicators which are located on the website there there's it's an extensive list are being met and then lastly provide a link to more information about the work and a city staff contact. So we'll have our information up there, a contact here in the city, perhaps someone from the team that could be our go to. And overall, we have many municipalities that have become affiliates and trailblazers to include Austin, Texas, Washington, D.C. and Seattle. And I believe this would be a great way for us to receive more resources and connect with other cities in this respect. Thank you. Thank you. And we have the second of the motion, Councilmember Blanca. Okay. Any public comment on the Digital Inclusion Alliance? See? None. Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments, with Anser Advisory, LLC, dba Simplus Management, LLC, of Cypress, CA, to continue construction management services for the Phase II Terminal Area Improvements at the Long Beach Airport, in the amount of $3,947,343, for a period of three years, with option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund Group in the Airport Department by $3,947,343, offset by funds available. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_05122020_20-0413

Report from Long Beach Airport recommendation to adopt resolution to enter into a contract with some place management to continue construction management services for the Phase two terminal area improvement at the Long Beach Airport in the amount of 3,947,343. District IV. And again in motion in the second, please. And actually, Mr. Mayor, this is one we'd like to give a staff report on. Let's find a motion in a second, please. Still need emotion. Okay. Thank you. Mention this over to Mr. Modica. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. So we would like to have a report on where we are with our terminal project improvement project and the Phase two. The staff has put a lot of work into reviewing that project and bringing you a recommendation on how to continue certain aspects of it during this COVID crisis. So I will turn it over to Cynthia Guidry and her team to walk through a quick PowerPoint presentation. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. I will do a brief staff report on this item along with Stefan Lum. He is our Phase two program manager. So hopefully it's cued up. Before you just start out, I'll give you a brief status update on Long Beach Airport. I felt it was necessary to just provide a little bit of a landscape of where we are as the backdrop of where we are for the Phase two terminal air improvement program. So as you know, due to the coronavirus pandemic travel and the travel restrictions that we have, the industry is really feeling a tremendous impact to to all the airports as well as to the airlines at Long Beach Airport. We have an over 95% decline in passenger travel. And although we have been really pressing hard to increase our safety protocols, social distancing protocols per the Long Beach Health order, it is definitely a different experience at the airport as you come in and out of the facilities. Can you. Thank you. We have been working very closely with the airline community to really look at the the impacts to to the airport as well as the surrounding businesses. We anticipate at this point a very slow recovery period, and that's very common among the industry. But specifically at Long Beach Airport, our revenue decreases have really been been hit from all sources. We we've estimated it roughly until the end of this fiscal year, 10 to 20 million and revenue impact to the airport. And that's really related to the decline in the number of passengers coming in and out of the airport, as well as all the different services that they would use, such as renting a car or the concessions, those type of things. Right now, the airport is spending a tremendous amount of our reserve cash. We were in a very good financial position pre-COVID. But, you know, if you save money for rainy days and it's pouring right now, and so we are looking at our operational expenses and reducing as much as where we can. And as you know, we were very fortunate to receive 18.4 million due to the CARES Act fund that the federal government expended out to the airport and various industries last month. However, that that amount is really going to only cover us for the next roughly 6 to 7 months. So with that, I have step in line and I want to turn it over to him to really talk about specifically the phase two program where we are and the answer item that we have before you. Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia. Honorable Mayor and city council members. I'd like to, uh, give you a little briefing on the Phase two program adjustments that we've been working on since since the COVID 19 impacts to our revenue. What you're looking at here is what we call scenario five. We've been evaluating and refining multiple scenarios to primarily focus on two two main items, manage and mitigate the airport's cash expenditure and position the program in the best position possible for a flexible future flexibility and for future success. Some of the primary items you're seeing right here is, uh, we're going to be continuing with the Seabus project, and that's due to be because it's primarily TSA grant funded. And we are going to continue the ticket in Berlin ticketing facility to a logical, hard stop, basically slab on grade. These impacts are going to have a 6 to 12 month program. Overall program schedule impact. And it could be longer or shorter depending on future economic conditions. I do we do note that we're delaying our baggage claim project about 17 months due to the fact that we do have existing baggage claim facilities and that is a project we can defer to manage our cost expenditures. We do want to note that there are exit ramps that are included in the contract that are available and there are certain decision points that will have to be coming up. The first one being in the first quarter of 2021. And that decision point really is, is the airport in a position to move forward and and restart ticketing after you see it? We take a we take a slight pause after a quarter for 2020. Answer advisory on doing business as simple as management will continue to provide construction management services for the service and ticketing facility. As we move forward and as we move forward, will evaluate the Phase two program needs at that time. So today's actions in next steps. Our recommendation for Council is for the approval of the answer advisory contract for the Phase two Construction Management Services. Our next steps for the airport is to collaborate with Switzerland builders that the design builder on this contract and all their subcontractors on any schedule changes. And these the three sequencing. We will continue to monitor the economic conditions and our revenue scene. If flights return within 6 to 12 months and will inform council if any exit ramps need to be implemented, and then the final next step is to basically execute the airport's capital program that provides the best flexibility and remains viable and puts the best puts the airport in the best position for success. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to. I know we had another person in motion. I know it's in the airports in five. So if we don't if there's any objection, all that country motion after the the motion or the motion. Mr.. Any objection and customers in Dallas will will second that our customer mango. See proposed. Changes. Can you hear me now? Yes. I appreciate the airport for bringing this forward. I met with both Tom and the airport earlier in the week, and I'm supportive of the decision. We do need to be cautious as we move forward, and I appreciate the cautious steps we're taking, and I hope the council will support it. Right. Thank you. And councilman's in the house. I just wanted to say congratulations, Cynthia, on this great project. I know that there's been a lot of bad news happening, and it's so nice to have something refreshing like. Like a project like this. I know you've been working on it for a very long time, but, you know, just seeing that it's moving forward is it's really exciting to me. So congratulations and look forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. And I support the plan. Thank you. And with that, we'll take a vote. Roll call, please. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I district for. My. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By District eight. District nine. All right. Ocean carries. Thank you. Now we're going on to the next item, which is actually what I'm going to do that I'm actually going to go back to. I'm 16. That actually requires a second vote, which we didn't take. So let me go back to 16. And Adam, you've got the second vote on that item. Second vote for item 16, district one. I. District to. Oh, I'm sorry. We need a motion. A seconder. Waiting for that. I get the motion. The second speaker. All part of the initial motion here like this. The motion by Richardson second by Sunday has a roll call vote. District one. District two. I'm District three. First District four. I District five. District six. II. District seven. Five. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 14. A report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to award a contract to Park Wood Landscape Maintenance to provide landscaping services for Queensway Bay for a total annual contract amount. Not to exceed 756,572 for a period of three years and amend interim units contract with green tech landscape to increase the contract amount by 160,947.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the regulation of short-term rental businesses; adding a new Chapter 6.600, Short-Term Rentals, to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119081

Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee Action Item number three. The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee. Janet and three Constable 119021 relating to the regulation of short term rental businesses. Adding a new Chapter 6.600 short term rentals to the Cielo Ms. Code. Can we recommend the bill passes amended? Councilmember Johnson. Okay. We are here at the final three bills related to short term rentals. The Council previously adopted per night tax on short term rental operators, and then updated the land use code to define what a short term rental use is. We have in front of us today is the rental uses regulation bill. Currently, short term rental uses are permitted but not regulated, and this bill establishes regulations on the operation of short term rentals to go into effect starting January one, 2019. The bill that came out of committee does a couple of things. Defines and establishes a licensing framework for short term rentals, and the operators utilize short term rental platforms. The legislation establishes a cap on the number of dwelling units a person can operate as a short term rentals to units for units in operation before September 30th of this year and moving forward is capped at the primary housing unit plus one additional unit per operator outside of the downtown and a specific exemption area within the downtown is the downtown uptown self. Again, urban centers and units in certain building types in the first all capital urban center. We also have the ability for those folks who are entering the marketplace after September 30th, 2017 to play in the short term rental field. They are required to play at the primary plus one level. So they're allowed to have one unit on the market place. On a second unit has to be their primary residence. We are going to be discussing several different amendments associated with this. But before we get to those amendments, I just want to again take a moment to say a quick thank you to Allie Bonacci of our council central staff, and Amy Gaw from my office. This has literally been a two year process, and we've sort of inherited this from then Councilmember Burgess and then now Mayor Burgess. And I understand the complicated nature of this fact of this legislation. And I want to say thank you to many of my colleagues who took extra time to send the bill back to committee. It is not a perfect bill, from my perspective, but it certainly is better than the one that we had the last time around. So why don't I stop there, take discussion on amendments, and we'll go from there. Thank you, Councilman Johnson, again, thank you for inheriting this and working so hard through it. I believe there are some amendments. Unless anyone wanted to say anything about the base, legislation will go to potential amendments. Or are there any comments on the base legislation that had come out of committee? Why don't we take the amendments in the order that we discussed them this morning? And so, Councilmember Bagshaw, I think you had the First Amendment. I do think you amendment number one would actually reduce the area of land where we would grandfather units. And I want those of you who have been testifying to know that I've heard you loud and clear. We've got homeowners and condo owners and business owners, large and small, and we have strong opinions on both sides of this . Last week, when we had our meeting, I spent time and actually pulled this amendment off so I could spend more time over the weekend to hear from you, hear from people and go back and read what had been presented to us. So today, again, I'm going to bring what is now Amendment One back, which will reduce the exempted grandfathered area, actually make it about the size of our downtown core hotel area from Cherry to Olive Street. This has fewer affordable units, more hotels, more tourist attractions in the area. This is where our city's hospitality industry already exists in force. I actually happen to live in this area, so I am mindful of what I am doing. But my goal here with this amendment is to ensure that areas such as Belltown, Uptown, South Lake, Union, Pioneer Square, where there are many units that are units for families, some are family sized. We are working very hard to get a school into this area. We want to make sure that we are advocating for a family friendly Seattle. The goal here is going to make sure that people still have still have their ability to have a unit that they can rent out their primary unit and one other , but at the same time increase the number of units that will be available for for families full time. I'm really conscious of what I received from one individual who said, I've got somebody who is running out a unit almost every night to my left, to my right, over my head. And that is not a place that I personally would want to live. And I'm sure that that individual doesn't want to live there in that way. As well. So we're trying to restrict that to a reasonable place. So if you've bought a unit, you've bought a home in a condominium or in an apartment building where others are renting it out, you can assume that you are going to have a place where you can live and have your own quiet nest and not have people who are vacationing around you every night. So that's the reason behind this. And I would like to move forward with Amendment One. Very good. Just to be clear, as I recall, the amendment as I recall, I'm looking at a script here just to be very clear that the amendment and described in the written document. Basically change is the first sentence in the code. 6.600.040. B point to deletes the term Uptown Urban Center or the South Lake Union Urban Center and adds south of all of way and north of Cherry Street. That's the amendment. That's correct. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Any further discussion, Councilmember Johnson. Not to belabor what has already been a good hour and a half long meeting, but I just want to say to you again, Councilwoman Baxley, I think reasonable people can disagree on this. I'm going to be voting no on this amendment for many of the issues that you heard from folks and public comment. It reduces jobs. It reduces the amount of funding that we can have for our equitable development initiative. And I'm not sure that it's in that many decisions will actually revert back to the long term rental market. So I'm going to be voting no. Thank you. Very good. Just a quick response to that. I failed to say thank you and my true and deep appreciation, Councilmember Johnson, for you taking this on. It's not been easy. And goodness knows, there have been plenty of amendments that you've dealt with. And I agree with you, reasonable minds can differ. And I appreciate your point of view. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. Councilman Bagshaw, thank you for bringing this forward. Today, I will be supporting this. I want to respond to just a couple of things I heard in public comment. One of the last public comment was talked about the struggle for folks who are living in Belltown to be able to afford to live there. And I want to remind everyone what this does do and doesn't do. What it means is there'd be a small area in the downtown area that Councilmember Bexar referred to where folks that are legally operating, Airbnbs would be able to operate an unlimited amount in that range outside that area. People would continue to be able to operate two units. So the example of someone who occasionally leaves their place empty because he goes to his then boyfriend or girlfriend or rents out to make a little extra money that would still be allowed. In fact, people could own speculate or, you know, investments or speculative to units outside this narrower range and rent those out. This only starts to impact individuals who are owning three or more units that they're renting out. What would that impact be? Well, they would could rent them out on a long term rental. They could sell them. Someone can move there. And the jobs front, I just I respect that. There's a lot of folks that are running businesses right now that are employing folks. And I understand that you set those businesses up following all the rules all the time. But as technology changes, as situations change, we make policies that react to that. And I want to just remind folks that people, residents also create jobs, not just tourists create jobs. So it's a shift for sure. But it's not that this is against jobs. There may just be slightly different types of jobs. Thank you, Councilmember. We're just discussing amendment number one, Casper Mosquito. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a few questions. And perhaps they're best directed to the sponsor of the amendment or to staff, if that's okay, to ask for clarification. So, number one, can you please confirm, just as Councilmember O'Brien just reiterated, that this amendment and the underlying bill does not exclude short term rentals in any part of the city? Correct. Correct. Okay. And in an effort to make sure that the folks who've testified before, who are cleaning the places, making sure that things are getting up and ready, managing, there's nothing that precludes them from continuing to manage. This is really just directed at ownership, is that correct? Oh, so it's it's it is it is good. I would say that it is going to impact jobs. The economy. I'm going to ask the next person like this gentleman is being disruptive. I'm just going to ask I'm going to warn you now. I have to do that. And I'm just going to have you removed. Please. We heard your comments. We we know this is a passion, but let us deliberate and make decisions. Thank you very much. So repeat your question, please. The common was the question was asking around those who are providing cleaning facilities, those who are managing. Is there anything in the amendment or the underlying legislation that changes any of those rules? It doesn't change the rules, but what it will do is it's going to reduce the number that an individual might own. So if somebody is owning and renting out short term and as a number of people have said and this is a concern that I heard loud and clear last week, which is why I paused before bringing this forward. It is going to impact people who have a number of units in an area and that they have, let's just say, those who have cleaning that come in regularly when somebody leaves, that is that will impact them. There is no question about that. And is that information going to be part of the report that we get in six months? And in the report that we get in six months, will we also be able to look at potential impacts on the black market, maybe apartments that are not listed on some of the platforms that we've been talking about? And I think that's really important that we ask for specifically that. Okay, great. Those are some of the things that I'll be looking for. And I just want to thank you for your work on this and Councilmember Johnson and the entire committee. I think that this is a a good hybrid, a good approach. And I've heard from some of the folks that say that they want to be able to stay in the city, raise their kids in the city, make sure that they can afford their first place in the city. And I look forward to supporting our amendment and to talking about the underlying bill soon. Thank you. Very much. And any further comments on amendment number one? It's been moved in second and all those in favor of amendment. Amendment number one, please vote i. I opposed. No. I'll ask you say I if you support it and raise your hand, support the amendment. Number one. I. I. Opposed now 5 to 2, the amendment passes. Amendment number two and three are sort of related. So I'm going to ask Councilmember Brian to walk us through two and three. Council President It's okay. I'd like to walk through 3/1 and I actually do not plan to bring amendment number two. Very good. Amendment three does a couple of things. And I'm going to speak to the first piece of it and allow my co-sponsor, this amendment, Councilmember Herbold, to speak to the second piece. Amendment three specifically. The first piece is just strengthening the language to make it clear that there will be a fee recovery mechanism to fully recover the costs of the directories, administrative, enforcement and other regulatory costs. The language in the underlying bill, I believe, is pretty clear on that already, but this amendment makes it, I think, pretty explicit . So it's unambiguous. Specifically, what Section D would say is the director shall review annually any of the licensing fees in the subsections listed here and shall make any necessary adjustments in a director's rule to ensure the fees achieve full cost recovery of the directors, administrative, enforcement and other regulatory costs and no more. So specifically, what I want to just state in layman's terms what this is intending to do is platforms that will need to be in compliance with the city's new regulations, will pay some sort of regulatory fee, and that fee will be set by directors on an ongoing basis and can be adjusted up or down as necessary in order to ensure that they're fully covering the costs it takes to administer the regulations we're putting in place. Councilmember Herbold, would you wanna speak to the latter part of the same amendment? Sure. The latter part of the same amendment clarifies that as the director is making recommendations on a fee structure to ensure full cost recovery, as Councilmember O'Brien explained that they will consider both a per night fee, as well as a graduated annual fee with tiers based on the numbers of listings on a platform. The idea being that some folks wanted an approach for the fee to be something other than a per night fee. The suggestion would be was a flat annual fee. I had a concern about a flat annual fee because it would treat platforms with many participants the same as platforms with fewer participants. And so that's why I sort of keyed up the notion of, yes, let's look at a an annual fee instead of a per night fee, but let's look at one that's graduated according to platform size. And it clarifies as well that fees will produce a written status report to the Council by June 2018. For our consideration and any potential next steps, there is no net. There are no next steps required by the Council but by us getting that report by June, when this is supposed to go into effect January 2019, it gives us an opportunity to ask Act if the recommendations from our face are not aligned with these objectives. Very good. So we have an amendment number three in front of us. Any further comments regarding amendment number three? And it has once you formally move it and you get a. Second, go ahead and move. Amendment number three. Has been moved. And second, any further comments on amendment number three? All those in favor of amendment number three. Please say I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. So there you go. And Brown. So he's not bringing forward number two. So we're still stuck with amended legislation with anyone else like to make any comments about the overall legislation comes from O'BRIEN Yeah. I just want to speak briefly to amendment number two, which I will not be bringing forward. Colleagues, I appreciate getting the clarity on the language. And now that we have, I think, unambiguous certainty that there will be some sort of regulatory fee to cover the costs instead of setting a specific fee. At this point, we can wait for the director to come up and do that process now that we've given them that authority. So I will withdraw amendment number two. Very good. Any further? Any any further. If skies are to councilmember a. Cigaret. Have this man please escort it out, please and have this gentleman escort it out as to thank you. Councilmember Herbold. I want to speak to some of the the frustration that we're hearing from folks about the exemptions to the caps. I want to clarify that these are exemptions that that not from the ability to participate in short term rental market as an income generating activity, but it is an exemption to make sure that folks outside of the exemption area are not hampering the access to to to permanent long term housing, whether it's rental housing or or homeownership opportunities. And, you know, I think Seattle's legislation that we are poised to to vote on is really much more generous to folks who are engaged in this activity than many other cities. Councilmember Mosqueda shared some research from her office last week that shows each Denver, Los Angeles. San Francisco. Santa monica, Portland and New York City. All limit. Short term rentals to units within people's primary residence. I think, you know, we are trying to balance the fact that people rely on this income to maintain their own mortgages, their own expenses, as well as give folks opportunities to to employment within this within this industry. And in doing so, I again, I think we're more generous than than many other cities that we are seeing that are moving into this this area. Very good. Any further comments on that? Because Councilmember Johnson. So, you know, we have ended in a very different place from where we started. And I want to recognize that. And I think one of the important distinctions here is we started with a process that was intended to solely just focus on regulation. And I think some of the differences here between some of the difficulties between comparing our model to other cities models is that we are different in that this was an allowable legal use for a long period of time, which is different from what other cities have gotten into where they've started to regulate a use that wasn't legally allowed. So that distinction is important as we got into a lot of the negotiations with many of the folks who are legally operating businesses in the city. But I don't want to lose sight of, I think, what it was an important change for us as a council and as a city, which was to talk about revenue model as well as a regulatory model. We started this process with just an objective of reducing the number of units that could be on the short term rental market platform. And we changed that about nine months ago to talk about not just the regulations, but also the opportunity for revenue here. And that was no small part started by many of the folks who are out in the audience today. And I want to recognize those folks, because rarely is an elected official D.C. individual stand up and raise their hand and say, please tax me. Because I believe that that is the right thing. And not only I want you to tax me, but I also want you to tax me and have it fund projects that are going to benefit my community. So a change here towards a tax that is going to fund equitable development should not be one of the things that's lost in the shuffle of what has been a really complicated set of negotiations around regulation. So I want us to not lose sight of that fact. I think that the bill in front of us is certainly not the bill that I thought we were going to end up with. I don't think it's a bad compromise by any stretch of the imagination. And I want us to remember that in the long run here we met a really diverse set of objectives with a very diverse set of stakeholders. And I'm hopeful that as we get into 2018 and talk about implementation, that we can continue to work collaboratively together, together across all the different entities. Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Any further comments can bring back. As a just a moment of personal privilege. There seems to be some concern in the audience. I don't own any real estate other than the one in which I live, and my particular condo does not allow short term rentals. So if anybody has any concern that there's a financial interest here, not the case. Councilmember O'Brien, thanks for clarifying that. I want to I want to take a minute to just highlight that one of the driving principles for me in this process was centering racial equity around this policy decision. And I want to thank the folks in our community who have been doing analysis about the racial disproportionality of both, who benefits from the existing system and the proposed legislation, and who was hurt by it. And I also want to thank the individuals who came and testified today, specifically using a racial equity lens to help us think through this. We know we live in a city that is in a society that, frankly, is not equal. And a lot of those inequities fall along racial lines. And I think it's critically important if we want to undo the unfair system that unfortunately creates huge disparities, often based on race. And we need to be centering that approach as we make these policy decisions. And as someone I think said a very eloquently in comments today, you know, people of color benefit less than white people in this program, and they're disproportionately hurt by the displacement because of homeownership patterns. I think everyone in our community I'd like to think everyone our community wants to get beyond that, where homeownership is equally shared by people regardless of race. But we're not there today. And we have to recognize that the policies we make in a system that is unfair have disparate impacts. And so I'm proud of where we gone today. I think we've created a path where people can continue to operate successful businesses. There will be some changes for sure. And I think those changes overall will be better for the city. Well stated, Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to the council, especially to Councilmember Johnson, for shepherding this through. I have learned a lot from the last few conversations that I've had over not just the last two weeks in this role, but in the last year or so, as I've heard about this issue, I want to echo Councilmember O'Brien's appreciation for the community that's come forward, especially for Puget Sound Stage and the research that she put together with the limited data that we have so that we do have a better analysis on who will benefit and how we can continue to create greater equity in this city. This is an issue that I take very seriously and personally as well. I know individuals that have been able to stay in their home, keep their home and live with financial security because of the ability to rent out and a mother in law unit or a downstairs unit, as many of you said, or your second home. The legislation before us, I think, allows for people to maintain that mom and pop approach to keeping their units afloat. And also, I will, as I mentioned in the questions ahead of time, be looking to see what the impact will be on those who do the cleaning and the preparations for these short term rentals. I think that this is a priority to make sure that individuals can stay and be financially stable in our city, recognize the entrepreneurial spirit in which these units became available, but also try to create as much housing as we need as we have a housing crisis so that we're looking to constantly bring more homes onto the market . I am very sympathetic to the need to make sure that people can raise their kids here, can live in the city that they work and create opportunities for greater home ownership. So to those of you who've emailed me and met with me on this point, I hear you and I look forward to working with you, especially as we have this report coming up in six months. I also want to make sure that we address the concerns that Councilmember Bagshaw and others have brought up about wanting to make sure we don't have de facto hotels. And with the legislation that's already been passed, I know we've taken some tremendous strides to looking at health and safety , making sure that we're creating regulation. And this is the final puzzle piece I think helps us lead in terms of creating greater stability. And I also end by just saying this is an issue that I think can help be level setting as we look at other cities and in terms of how they get new economies under regulation , trying to be creative and innovative, recognize the entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial spirit while we protect workers and while we protect our safety of our residents and our visitors. I do look forward to working with you and appreciate all the work that went into this and I'll be voting yes. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. Okay, I think we are ready to vote, so please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold, Johnson, Machado O'Brien, President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair sign it. Please read the next agenda item and you can read the short title. The Select Budget Committee Gentlemen four Accountable 119 148 Relating to funding for Housing and Community Development Programs, Committee recommends the bill passed.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution amending the Master Fee and Charges Schedule by updating Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazard Mapping Fees. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0579

Item to report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution amending the master fee and charge charges schedule by updating strong motion instrumentation and seismic hazard mapping fee citywide. So. Mr. West. Amy Vohra Mr. Mayor, I just want to add for this public hearing, this is a state mandated requirement. It went into effect July 1st. That's why we are asking you to amend the master fee schedule now as opposed to as part of your normal budgetary process. So we would request your approval of this. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Seeing none. Please cast your votes. Councilman Richardson. Motion carries eight zero. Okay. Thank you. And now we're going on a consent calendar. Item ten from the consent calendar has been pulled. So if I can get a motion for all the other items. Okay. There's been a motion and a secondary public comment on the consent items saying non, please cast your votes.

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

SeattleCityCouncil_06212021_CB 120093

The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 120013 An ordinance relating related to the city's response to the COVID 19 crisis. Creating a new fund in the City Treasury. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Montclair Councilmember Macedo, you are the chair of this committee and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the reports. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I am honored to be able to kick off a summary of this legislation that you and I have the chance to coauthor together, along with the mayor's office and all of the council members that are here today who provide a tremendous input along with community members. So I will do my best to get us kicked off and I really just want to say thank you. I'm excited to be able to be here today as we look to pass the Seattle rescue plan. And I will note that this is the first of three acts that you can expect from us over the next few months as we seek to respond to the crisis that COVID not only created but exacerbated in many cases, when you look at the inequities in our previous system that were just exposed by COVID. So first of three acts to come. We have before us with this proposal in the Seattle rescue plan, one in front of us, the first tranche of the American Rescue Plan Act dollars. This represents the first tranche that the city of Seattle is receiving that will total 232 million over the course of this year and next year, which means that half of that 160 million is being passed today. We are adding to that $12.2 million from the Home Investment Partnership Plan. These bills together, these investments together represent an incredible opportunity for us to move forward on the commitments that this council made when we first passed Council Resolution 31999 back in March. Since then, we've had five subsequent meetings. We've had a public hearing completely devoted to hearing from the public about what community members need and where they would like these dollars prioritized. We've had the chance to talk to city councils from Austin to Minneapolis to Denver and so many others, to hear where other progressive cities are looking to invest these dollars. And most importantly, we've heard directly from community partners, from organizations, from those most impacted by COVID and from all council members where you would like to see these these dollars invested so that our city money can be coupled with state and federal investments to truly make an impact now and to lay the groundwork for a more equitable economy as we seek to recover and respond to COVID. Two weeks ago, we had the chance to introduce this legislation again in partnership with the Council, President's office, and with the mayor's office. And we kept in mind all of the recommendations and the priorities that each councilmember added to the Council resolution. Since then, we've made sure that among within our finance and housing committee members, we heard from various community members and community and Community Council participants about their priorities. And we had a chance to have discussions about where we would like to see dollars invested so we could address the most urgent needs in our community and lay that more equitable framework. The priorities we centered in this bill are similar to the priorities we've been talking about since the beginning of the onset of COVID. We included these priorities when we passed the Jumpstart Progressive Revenue proposal back in June and July of last year, we included them again, centering our values around equity and making sure that we are putting funding directly to those most impacted in our budget last year, these bills in front of us today respond directly to the crises exacerbated by COVID, by investing in housing and homelessness, economic resiliency and small businesses and the arts and culture, and directly into making sure that those who've been most disproportionately impacted and often left out of previous federal assistance under the Trump administration, administration were first to receive dollars, and that we centered investments not just in ensuring that those individuals were thought of, but that the organizations who work directly with those individuals and who have trust and come from and have deep ties and roots within those communities are receiving those dollars . There's only a few areas that I'll highlight because I know a lot of folks are excited about highlighting various commitments that they've included. But one of the things I'm most excited about is $25 million in direct cash assistance specifically to go into the hands of working families and individuals, our elders and folks who have been really struggling by the impacts of COVID to make sure that we can have a direct infusion into our local economy, recognizing that those who are experiencing hardship know best how to use that cash assistance. I'm most excited about the childcare assistance of $8 million combined, going directly to support childcare providers and 5 million of that going to create greater access to affordable childcare throughout our city by making sure we have capital investments to build more affordable childcare in King County and Seattle, we know that somewhere between 7 to 10% of our childcare facilities have closed and some looking like they're going to unfortunately stay permanently closed unless we do something and act with urgency now at a city council level. We know that this is a critical investment for us to make because across our nation and right here in the city of Seattle, if we don't invest in childcare, it hurts our local economy as well as hurting local families. The closure of childcare across our country is resulting in billions of dollars lost to employers each year and over. 500,000 children without childcare in our country. Childcare workers have found themselves out of work during this pandemic, with a net loss of around 170,000 childcare worker positions opened between January of 2020 and January of 2021. But we can do something about that right here. And our investment of $8 million into childcare, specifically attempts to make sure that we're encouraging the creation of additional childcare and recognizing and honoring and appreciating those childcare providers who helped us during this last year. We've talked about the need for this rescue plan to respond to the C section, not the recession, the C section, recognizing that women were much more likely to have to have left the workforce because of lack of access to childcare and also recognizing that it's been disproportionately women and people of color who've been on the frontline more exposed to COVID, if they've been able to keep their job as essential workers in the service sector in many cases. I'm really excited about the ways in which we've tied in care for the trauma that people have been through in the last year by investing funding into the Domestic Violence Prevention and youth services, senior services to care for isolation and neglect. And I know that there's much more that we need to do. But I want to also see these investments paired with what the county has offered. King County is of that investing about 38 million, specifically for behavioral health responses and recovery, to help identify ways in which we can make sure that those who've been hardest hit even before COVID, but especially those who have their behavioral and mental health needs exacerbated during COVID, that they have the services they need. And I want to applaud King County Council and the executive for the passage of their Rescue Plan Act just a few weeks ago. Our proposal is going to be package and complement many of the areas that King County invested in and investments in. Behavioral health is one area where I'm excited to see the complementary funding streams align. I want to note, as I'm sure Councilmember Lewis may speak, to the importance of the five of over $5 million, I should say $7.5 million that I remember from recollection that's going in to match the King County just cares like program. So services like just cares that are responding directly to the need for homeless folks or those that are experiencing homelessness to have access to appropriate shelter during this time of COVID, recognizing we're not out of the storm yet and the variants continue to show increasing concern in our area. We want to make sure non congregate shelter options like hotels are invested in and that we match the county's effort of around $7.5 million to bring programs like Just Cares to Scale. We said a countless times throughout the pandemic, we know that the exacerbation of the inequities that were present before have just been made worse by COVID. But those especially are true for the racial inequities that we see. We see rates of communities of color who've been contracting COVID and dying from COVID, the exponentially higher than white residents . And this pattern follows many other social inequities that put racial and ethnic minorities at increased risk and an increased risk of health disparities, educational attainment disparities, wealth and income gap disparities, and so much more. And that's why we have centered our investments today on making sure that we're looking at near and long term investments for the Seattle Rescue Plan Act through the lens of what is just just for our racial and ethnic commitments to making sure that folks who've been disproportionately impacted by COVID have the assistance they need and that we're creating greater opportunities for economic stability and opportunity in the out years. I'm very excited about the language that we also included that makes sure that community based organizations are culturally relevant and historically rooted in and founded by communities that have been disproportionately impacted by COVID and have organizational leadership, staff and board composition that reflect the communities they serve. For the purposes of direct grants and allocation of grants to communities. We built this community, this language with community partners. We heard a manager call in and others talking about it's not just important to talk about where the funding goes, but how the funding gets allocated. And that language was intentionally written in and expanded actually as well into both this bill and the cash assistance bill that we will pass as a follow up to this legislation. I will stop there with just noting those few areas and my excitement around the $28.5 million going into housing and acquisition and building more homes, that we're really creating affordable housing and stability for folks as we seek to recover from COVID. And I'll say with the rest of my comments from the President for wrap up at the end of this discussion. Thank you so much. Customer Musketeer for that. Customer Louis I do see that you have your hand up, so I'm going to calling you first. And colleagues, for those of you would also like to make comments on this particular council bill, do let me know by raising your hand. Councilor Lewis, please. Thank you, Madam President. I do just briefly want to lift up the really critical homelessness and public safety investments that are being made in this package today. All of the conversation that we have been having in this council in regards to the dress care model. My comments this morning at briefing some of that is going to come to reality through the very real investments that we are making here, by joining forces with King County to do this joint procurement for a just care like approach and just hair like strategy to extend the benefits that we have seen in the Chinatown International District in Pioneer Square neighborhood to neighborhoods throughout the city and really start to see a very the very tangible improvement and benefit that that model brings. And I'm really looking forward to voting for this package for those investments alone, let alone all the other great investments that Councilmember Mesquita just gave an an overview for. I do want to just briefly address that. Over the last week, working with central staffs, city departments and downtown stakeholders. We were able to get a go ahead from the people we've been working with on downtown programing and reopening and support that they will be able to achieve their programmatic ambitions within how this package is currently being divvied up. So there was no need to bring an amendment to seek additional exclusive appropriation for downtown recovery. So I just want to address that, since I had indicated that I would potentially be bringing such an amendment. My understanding from talking to downtown Seattle Association, Department of Economic Development and our various arts partners is that there is enough resource that can be allocated under the current provisos and budget line items to accommodate the plans that are being made. And so there's no need for any kind of additional authority in the package. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. And with that, I don't have any additional comments. I'm looking forward to voting on this today. Thank you so much, Councilor Lewis, for that. Morales I see that your hand is raised. Please. Q Thanks so much, colleagues. I do want to just talk about a couple of the amendments that were included in this bill. Our office, after lots of conversation with small business, with arts organizations, grassroots activists and even other elected officials, worked really hard to gather their ideas and input on how to use this sort of once in a generation investment to build a more equitable economic recovery. And I'm excited to have two amendments that were developed in partnership with them included here. So the kinds of conversations we were having included an acknowledgment that there just isn't enough economic opportunity for folks in the city. 46% of the workforce in greater Seattle is either unemployed or stuck in low wage work before COVID. And we know that a problem has only gotten worse. We know that there is also an equitable access to opportunity in the city, particularly for black and Hispanic folks in our community. And that Seattle ranks in the bottom third of large metro areas for black and Hispanic representation in technology and in managerial roles. So I'm excited that with this bill we can really begin to address some of these disparities and the commitment of $22 million into this bill to create good jobs, to begin developing skills that are relevant to good jobs, supporting firms with technical assistance, increasing access to wealth building strategies. These are the kinds of investments that we need in order to really begin building an equitable recovery for folks. The other thing that I want to acknowledge is that and I do want to thank Councilmember Lewis for your comments. You know, a big part of the inequity that we've experienced is because our neighborhood business associations, neighborhood commercial districts just don't have access to the kind of resources that a downtown BIA might be able to generate. And so I do think it's important that a five and a half million dollars of the of the funding will is specifically for neighborhood business organizations and associations. And then the last thing I want to say is that the bill also addresses or begins to address the challenges of our young people who are trying to get the skills that they need to have a pathway to a good union, paying union wage jobs to career paths, and especially for those who may be taking care of family members or may not have an opportunity to go to college. I'm excited that our office has been working with the Port Commission to expand the current Opportunity Youth Initiative by adding $1,000,000 to the existing program. So as I mentioned before, I know an important strategy that can help lead young people into good union jobs, includes expanding internships, and this million dollars will go a long way toward expanding that program, not just for the summer, but expanding it to a year round program that can really support, support our young people. So I want to thank the members of the Finance and Housing Committee for their support of these amendments that I offered and look forward to passing a bill that is really rooted in the principles of an equitable recovery. Thank you so much, Councilman Morales, for those comments. Next up is Councilmember Herbold. Please. Thank you so much. I just want to really recognize that there's just been actually some good news recently about the pandemic. King County hitting 70% vaccination rates, hospitalizations and cases down. Families and friends reunited, reuniting and state wide reopening right around the corner. And, you know, the work that we've been doing here at the city council and that the county has been doing at the county council is really making that this concept of building back better, something that is seems like a realistic thing to to strive for from addressing the harms and traumas of the last year and a half , which have taken a toll on each and every person in our community. As always, those harms have not fallen equally on our communities. And we know that bipoc communities, immigrants, refugees and those without technology, access or mobility have been the hardest hit. And so to truly build back better, we have to have we have to target these precious recovery funds to those who need them most. Those are the parts who are the furthest from recovery. So, you know, we know that families are still struggling to meet the basic needs of their children and keep food on the table. Survivors of violence have been cut off from their network of support and crisis services. A year of isolation and insecurity has taken its toll on the mental health of so many people in our community. I've talked a lot before about the shadow pandemic, how the restricted movement, social isolation and economic security has increased our vulnerability to violence and self-harm. But the Seattle rescue plan includes more than 35 million focused on trauma informed well-being services to address the shadow pandemic, including investments in senior isolation, mental and behavioral health, gender based violence, diaper distribution and free meals. With these investments, more families who have been the most impacted over the past year will have what they need to emerge stronger and healthier. I really want to thank our partners for their strong advocacy for these investments, including Tony, Sarge and Sara Cody Roth at West Side, baby Mary Ellen Stone at the King County Sexual Resource Center , Merrill Cousin and Merritt Marin Thea Torres at the Coalition for Ending Gender based Violence. And in areas where the proposed version of the bill didn't quite live up to the promise of the Council's intent resolution. Councilmember Muska to help right the ship so that we could fulfill all of our commitments. Thank you. Councilmember ROSQUETA, the package now also includes critical investments in Samantha in Seattle's creative economy, as we promised to do in the council's intent resolution, the city's 2029 Creative Economy study found that the creative sector drives 18% of Seattle's GDP. That's four times the national average. So that means that this sector is so critical to Seattle's economic recovery, as well as being vital to making Seattle the unique and special place we love. Artists and musicians have been uniquely hardly hit, and many are struggling to hang on while still contributing to our communities. I want to thank you to the councilmembers who supported these amendments that ensure that artists hardest hit by the pandemic are eligible for direct cash assistance from this package and for also creating a fund within the Office of Arts and Culture to focus target assistance on small and bipoc led creative organizations so that they can reopen and bring back their staff. This investment will help ensure our extraordinary creative communities are not yet another victim of the pandemic, like I did for the advocates working for funding to address the shadow pandemic. I want to also thank you the advocates who have worked to ensure that these critical cultural economy investments are included. Thanks to Seattle Arts Commission co-chairs Sarah Wilkie and Dr. Quentin Morris. And thank you as well to Seattle Music Commission chair Tanner Marra and the many musicians and artists who provided public testimony to help council understand how they've been uniquely impacted. And thank you for their extraordinary advocacy. When also give a shout out to some of the work of my constituents in District one who have organized over the past year to preserve one of the positive legacies of the pandemic, the keep moving streets. This package ensures that the city will continue its work to consider making moving streets such as Alki point permanent. Thanks as well to the Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and many community members who have been involved to make this available. As part of this this package. And just we know that building back better means investing in those furthest from recovery. And I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with all of you to do that today and to underscore it with my vote. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised, but I would like to take an opportunity before I allow Councilmember Mosqueda to close out debate on this bill. I would, as one of the co-sponsors, like to take an opportunity to make my own comments about this particular suite of bills related to these federal funds. Council colleagues, again, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on this legislation and for your strong collaboration and unification around the Seattle rescue plan. I am going to try not to duplicate many of the comments made by others, including the Budget Chair, Teresa Mosquito. But I did want to underscore some of the key highlights of this legislation. From my perspective, I'm proud of the hard work that went into creating a collaborative path to developing the Seattle Rescue Plan in the first place. I'm grateful to Budget Chair Mosqueda, Mayor Durkan, as well as a number of council and executive branch staff that spent weeks drafting this plan in a way that addresses the most pressing priorities and objectives that were raised by council members, public commenters and community based organizations. The fact that budget legislation of this size received so few substantive amendments, I think is testament to the good work that was done to build a consensus back package for us to consider in committee and subsequently in today's full council meeting. Although $128 million is not sufficient to meet the various critical needs facing our city's residents, we have a unique opportunity with this funding to make a difference in the lives of countless Seattleites and set our city on a path towards a more equitable economic recovery from the COVID 19 public health and economic crises. I am truly excited about the resources being provided in this legislation to do some of the following expand affordable housing opportunities and homelessness services. Provide direct support to small businesses, workers and neighborhood commercial districts across the city, increase childcare infrastructure and enhance wages for childcare workers. This infusion of resources will help. Home based and daycare centers reopen or expand, which will ultimately grow our city's childcare network and allow parents to get back to work. We'll also invest in the reopening of cultural and arts institutions. We will reactivate and enhance our public spaces like parks and streets for outdoor recreation, commercial opportunities and socially distant activities. And this package offers direct cash assistance to those who have been most impacted by the pandemic. These critical investments made in the Seattle rescue plan could not be possible without the hard work of our state's congressional delegation as well, particularly Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Representative Pramila Jayapal. Well, I want to thank for Pat for their efforts in passing the American Rescue Plan Act to begin with. I am very grateful to our federal representatives and President Joe Biden for ensuring that these needed resources were made available to local government and, of course , our residents. Finally, in closing out my comments, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that this Council, led by Councilmember Mosqueda and a broad coalition of stakeholders, have this Council not passed the Jumpstart Seattle Progressive Payroll Tax in 2020? We would not be in a position to be making any of these investments without the roughly $200 million in revenue expected from the Jumpstart Seattle Progressive Payroll Tax. We would have been forced to lay off hundreds of city of Seattle employees and drastically reduce city services. Without that revenue, we would be using all of the funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to plug holes in the city's budget and simply restore spending and services to pre-pandemic levels. Fortunately, thanks to the tremendous work that was done to pass Jumpstart Seattle and to defend its legality in court, we are in this position today to use these federal dollars to greatly expand the services and resources our city is able to offer as we look towards rebuilding equitably across our city. So I want to say thank you to all of you, my council colleagues, and in particular to our budget chair, Teresa mosqueda, as well as all of our community partners that have helped us to set a course towards a robust and equitable recovery from the COVID 19 pandemic, both in the economic context and in the public health context. So thank you so much for the opportunity to make some comments. Again, I really want to lift up the tremendous amount of work that our legislative staff and our city budget office staff and mural staff have done to bring. This package for. That is a good moment for us as a city family. And I especially want to thank Councilman Mosquito's Partnership and Angel for reaching her office and Cody writer in my office. For all of the countless amount of hours we have spent together working on these on these issues with Allie Pucci, Jeff Sims, Yolanda Ho, so many others to mention. Thank you, everyone, for all of your important work on this really, really important piece of legislation. That being said, I'm going to hand it back over to Councilman Mosquito, who's going to close out debate, and then we will be able to vote on this bill. Thank you. Council President, thank you very much for your remarks as well, especially about Jumpstart. It's been tremendous to be able to work with you and your team as we've crafted this legislation in front of us. So thank you very much. Colleagues, this is our chance. This is our chance to build back better and it's our chance to build back more equitably. The Seattle Rescue Plan Act here today. Again, the first of three acts to come this year helps to ensure that the critical dollars are going to where they're most needed in attachment number one that you found from Ali, financially, it summarizes $49.2 million and the housing and homelessness, $41 million and the community well-being to address the trauma that so many have been through and are still dealing with, $23.5 million in the community and small business recovery and 40 over 14 million going into community assistance, city programing and city services and our critical city workers. This is a package we can all be proud of and a package that we can build on for the future. Tranche two will be discussed later this year when we consider the 2022 budget and we'll have a chance in just the next few weeks, starting in July, to look at Seattle Rescue Plan two, which will be a combination of funding that comes from the federal government, that relates to the Older Americans Act funding, rental assistance, transportation funds from the federal government, and so many more pieces to help us center our recovery efforts. Again, thank you to our congressional delegation, as the council president rightly mentioned, for helping to free up these much needed dollars to cities across the country and especially to the city of Seattle, where we continue to deal with five and six years now of a crisis in housing and homelessness that has only been made worse by the COVID pandemic. And so this is truly an incredible opportunity to set the course to right our investments now and begin building on those in the upcoming months. I want to thank every council member who offered amendments, as you all discussed in your summary of your amendments. And Councilmember Strauss, I heard you this morning say some great comments and folks and get a chance to see that. I hope you get to see Councilmember Strauss's Amendment summary as well, because every single one of those amendments truly helps to strengthen and clarify language in this final proposal. Especially, I want to thank the work that councilmembers Morales and Herbold noted on the work to extrapolate more details out of the $23 million that's being allocated to business recovery efforts, making sure that we're centering investments into black, indigenous and people of color, community organizations and businesses specifically focused on small and micro-businesses, neighborhood economic hubs in our downtown core by making sure that youth employment and paid internship opportunities help folks get into good living wage jobs, and that we're investing in the recovery and vibrancy of our arts and cultural organizations and those workers. This package is something that I'm proud of and I continue to look forward to working with you as we build on these efforts in the summer efforts again for Seattle Rescue Plan Act number two and for the fall budget activities, which will include tranche two in our Seattle Rescue Plan Act. Number three, no rest for us because there's a lot to make up for here in terms of needs and investments in our community. And as we do so, I know we'll continue to center homelessness, response, economic resilience and direct assistance to those who need it most. And that will continue to draw direction and leadership from communities who've been writing in and helping us craft this bill together. I want to thank as well central staff led by Allie Pantry and her incredible team. I'll try to list a bunch of them, but I know that there's so many more involved you want to hold. Tracy Ratcliff, Brian Goodnight and Justin's principal and so many others. Folks in the city budgets office, Julie Daley, led the conversations along with director Ben Noble. Thank you very much. And to Mayor Durkan, it's been really good to see this proposal come together so that we can jointly make sure that folks who are most in need get a direct assistance as soon as possible so that we can release these federal dollars. I appreciate your partnership on this. I want to thank the executive team and the council teams, communication departments who have jointly been working to get the information out and again to Council President Gonzales for the co-sponsorship on this legislation. To your team member, Cody, writer who's been working on this on a weekly basis, along with several pretty chief of staff in my office and the entire team within our office, Aaron Sigal and Ari along with Lori, but especially to say for their work in coordinating the effort in front of us. And I'll end with that quote from Aaron Hite, a child care provider union at SEIU 95. Every parent deserves a safe, nurturing place to spend their day while their parents are at work. But quality care is expensive, and a workforce made primarily of women has been women of color, has been underpaid and undervalued in the past. The. Pandemic made it clear to parents and employers that affordable, accessible childcare is critical to our economy and our recovery. When schools shut down. Childcare professionals stepped up caring for kids and facilitating online learning for school age kiddos. Today's legislation, the Seattle rescue plan, is one step in rebuilding a child care system that works for everyone, whether you're black, white or brown. This bill will help everyone and make us have a more equitable recovery. Thank you very much for all of your work. Look forward to building on this with your efforts in the future. Thank you so much, Councilmember Musketeer, for those closing remarks. Debate is now closed on the bill, so we're going to take a vote. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? What else? Yes. Russia. Hi. Peterson I. So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. SUAREZ Yes. Lord. LEWIS Yes. And Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and in a post. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item three into the record.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with Code for America, a not-for-profit corporation of New York, NY, to participate in the Code for America Fellowship Program, for the period of September 28, 2015 to November 16, 2016, in an amount not to exceed $220,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08112015_15-0766

Motion carries eight zero 29. Report from City Manager and Technology and Innovation Recommendation to execute an agreement with Code for America in the amount not to exceed 220,000. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? See. Now, please cast your counsel and roster. Yes, I recall the Copa America proposal. Coming before us about a year, year and a half ago. And I'm not. Exactly sure what our action was then. And and how is this different to that? Perfect. You are correct, Mr. Alston, that we did have code for America here last year that had to do with a discrete issue regarding Canada over utilizers of our fire system and looking at an application to really help with what we call the super utilizers of the of the system. This is a different application for code for America. This is actually tying into the innovation team. One of the things the I-Team has found is they went out and did a tremendous amount of outreach is that language really needs a system that helps people guide how to do business with the city? What are the different steps? How do you create a system that gets you resources to the Small Business Development Center before you get a business plan before you come to the city? How do you do business licensing? How do you do plan check? How do you interact with all of the things that you need to do to start up a business in a very intuitive fashion? So code for America to be working with the I-Team to create that system, to be one of the one of the premier startup Long Beach type systems in the nation. Okay. And as I read this and understand it, this won't this is this money has always been already been appropriated for the innovation team, correct? That is correct. Thank you. Any public comment? See nine members. Please cast your vote. So. Motion carries eight zero 30. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive and file the second budget performance report for fiscal year 2015 citywide.

On the message and order, referred on June 30, 2021 Docket #0825, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Six Hundred Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars and Sixty Cents ($672,685.60) in the form of a grant for the FY22 YouthWorks, awarded by the MA Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, passed through the Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston, to be administered by the Youth Engagement & Employment. The grant will fund the Summer 2021 Success Link Employment Program, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed.

BostonCC_10202021_2021-0825

Thank you, Councilor Woo! Moving right along to docket zero 8 to 5, I believe. Correct. Thank you. Yes. Docket 0 to 5. Mr. Schneider authorizing the city of Boston to accept an extended amount of $672,685.60 in the form of a grant for the FBI. 22 Youth Works awarded by the Mass Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, passed to the Economic Development and Industrial Corporation of Boston to be administered by the Youth Engagement and employment. The grant will fund the summer 2021 Success Link Employment Program. Thank you, Madam Clark. The Chair now recognizes the chair of the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities, counselor Liz Braid and Floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. On Monday, October 18th, the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities heard a hearing on Docket 100825. We were joined by Rashad Kolb, director of the Youth Employment, Engagement and Employment. We provided testimony on behalf of the Administration Youth Works Grant six 672,000 to reimburse the city. This money has already been spent in this past summer on the Youth Success Linked Youth Jobs program from July 25 to August 27th. The Youth Works is Subsidized Youth Employment Program, administered by the Massachusetts Commonwealth Corporation, designed to provide low income teens and young adults 14 to 21 years of age with their first employment experiences, work readiness , training and skills to find and keep an unsubsidized job. In financial year 21, 372 eligible youth were identified as youth work participants and were employed across over 25 community based organizations and 13 seasonal staff were hired in support of this program. It is the recommendation, my recommendation to the Council that this matter ought to pass. Thank you. Thank you very much, counselor Liz Braden, chair of the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities, seeks passage of Docket 0825. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose. No, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. Moving right along to docket. 0826.0826 message an order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expend an amount of $476,666 in the form of a grant for nutrition services for Boston. Elders awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, passed to the mass executive office of Elder appears to be administered by the Strong Commission.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to allocate Public, Education, and Government (PEG) fee revenue equally among the three categories of cable access providers, each receiving one-third of the total available; and Increase appropriations in the General Services Fund (IS 385) in the Technology and Innovation Department (TI) by $955,701, offset by PEG fee revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08082017_17-0649

Right. Good work. These are going to be great. Next item is 39. Report from Technology and Innovation Recommendation to allocate public education and government fee revenue equally among three categories of cable access providers citywide. Certainly public comment on this. Public comment, please. Hey, how are you? Good to see you. Good to see you, Mr. Mayor. Council members. I'm very sharp. Long Beach Unified School District is here to say thank you, because these funds help us to continue providing educational instructional programing into the classroom in the community. So we appreciate your support. We appreciate your partnership. Thank you. Speaker. Hello. Hi. Hello, everyone. Goodness, it's a long evening. My name is Marissa Semenza, and I'm the chief operations officer at Lambert and Lambert's Community Action Partnership. I also want to say thank you. We are the providers for payment, and it's been such a joy to work with the city, especially Dennis and all of the support the Council has provided us in the four years that we've been operating. So thank you very much. I also want to send my grades for Derek Simpson. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to be here, but we did wanted to invite all of you to come be guests on our Lambie talent show. We are going to be doing special elections for the upcoming elections and we feel this is a great platform for all of you to connect with. Your districts as. Well as share your visions and your accomplishments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys very much for all the work you do. And thank you to our team over there. You guys are doing an awesome job. So you guys are rocking it. Mr. Mayor? Yes. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries three necks is 40. I have a question. Mr. City. Attorney, we have two, three, four. We have five separate historic landmarking items. Can I just call them? Always want to just rewrite the addresses? I mean, it's all the same motion. I'd like to make a motion to to Landmark 501 East Broadway. 909 to 915 Elms Avenue. 287 Granada. 350 512 Pedro and. 360 21a pair if there's a motion in the second for that.

Recommendation to approve the City’s Draft Blueprint for Economic Development to guide the City’s overall economic development work plan for the next ten years. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04042017_17-0243

Thank you. There's a motion on the second. See no public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion case consent count and the consent calendar and all the pulled out ins have been approved. We're going to go ahead and do a couple of items out of order. The first one will be on the agenda will be item 23. Item 23 Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to approve the series Draft Blueprint for Economic Development to guide the city's overall economic development plan for the next ten years. City I thank you, but I making some opening comments because I think this is a really important discussion and item. And then I'm going to turn this over to to staff. So I just want to remind the council that when when this current council formed, this city did not have a economic development department. And as we probably remember, one of the first actions this council actually took in that very first budget was bringing back the economic development department that had been cut years ago in the city budget. And so I want to again just thank the council. That kind of investment that was made now about two years ago when that budget cycle restarted, the economic development department, which is now, as we all know, have been completely staff led by our director, that department, Mr. Jon Keisler. And in addition to that, the other thing that we did, again, thanks to the support of the Council, is we brought back and filled the Economic Development Commission. The commission had been completely vacant and and unfilled for many, many years. Clearly, in doing economic development work, you have to have business leaders and community members and workers and folks at the table doing this work. And so we approved a really great group of community leaders and commissioners to serve on this body. Their main task, informing the informing this commission and the main task that I had asked them to be involved with was the development of the blueprint that you see in front of you today. Now, just as a note, the blueprint is still in draft form. And so what you're seeing today, well, we printed out a few copies just for the council and us internally. This is not a final document. And so this is what you are seeing tonight is a is the draft of the essential completion of their work and and staff is looking forward to hearing from council tonight about your thoughts about this final draft before it goes into a final, final phase. Let me also just say that they've been working on this blueprint probably for about a year. There has been approximately 25 community meetings. There has been intense conversations and discussions with every single bed across the city. All of the leaders have been involved. There have been deep conversations with Cal State, Long Beach, Long Beach, City College, Long Beach, Unified School District, community groups of all types have been involved, whether it's on whether it's been groups like Building Healthy Communities or business groups that are like Virgin Galactic and others, all have been asked to provide input into the document that you have in front of you. I want to also think, because I think it's important to acknowledge there has been an incredible amount of work that these commissioners have been involved with, and I want to just personally thank them. And that has been Randall Hernandez, who's been the chair. Becky Blair, who will be saying some words tonight. Who is the vice chair? Cyrus Parker. Janette, who is one of the commissioners, also the dean of the College of the Arctic Council at Long Beach. We have Blair Cohn, who we all know, Bobby Oliviera, Frank Colonna, Kristi Allen, Lincoln Bower, Michelle Molina, Ralph Olguin and Walter Larkins. They have been a incredible group of commissioners and have put a lot of work into this. If you have had a chance to to watch them in any of their meetings on this topic, they have they have gone really, really deep and gone into the community and held meetings across the city to put what we have in front of us. And so I know that they are anxious to hear your thoughts on what they've put together. I know staff wants to hear from the council tonight what really stands out and what you really like about this document. And if you think there's anything that can improve this document, I think now is the time to please give those thoughts as well so that we can end up with a really strong final product. Let me also say that this this document is meant to do two things. The first is to really guide our economic development efforts for the next decade. It's going to be a great guide for staff to use as they do their work as a new department moving forward. And it's going to be an opportunity for the Commission to now begin working with the Council, in particular the Economic Development and Finance Committee, on how some of this work is implemented. What's the work plan look like? How do we begin to achieve some of the goals and recommendations that are in the the report? And so all of that I think is in the future, of course. But I wanted to thank the commission for. For their incredible work on this on this project, everything from the developing of the vision to the goals, to the to the to the plan itself. And the last thing I'll say is what Tim and I had a chance to to view this just a week or two ago when it was completed. And I what struck me about the document that I thought was really impressive is to me, at the core of this document are people and you guys really focused on people, on the entrepreneur, on on the worker, on the the business person, on the small business owner. And I think that was really impressive and is very different from from economic development documents. I think that have happened in the past in the city is there's a real strong focus on on people. And I thought that was that was something that really stood out to me. And so thank you to them. And I want to thank everyone for being so supportive of this process. It's one that I'm really proud of to to have been a part of. So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Chrysler, who's going to walk the council through some of the data and and some of the report. Honorable Mayor and members. Of the City Council, I would like to introduce Eric Romero, who has been our staff lead on this project to give you the staff report. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Eric Romero. I am a development project manager in the Economic and Property Development Department. Today I'll be presenting to you a short presentation on the draft blueprint for economic development. And we'll start with a brief economic snapshot. I'm going to start at the top and move to the right so that you can follow along. So we can see in the first chart that unemployment rate has dropped significantly between 2010 and 2016, which is good news on the chart to the right. We can also take a look at the top industries in terms of the number of jobs and how that compares to the state of California. We can also see on the chart furthest to the right that the economic status of our residents differs depending on race and ethnicity. And then going down to the to the first chart on the left, we can also see that wages differ by industry, with the top wages being in the transportation and warehouse industry. The next chart shows that total private employment has surpassed pre-recession levels, which is good news as well. And then the final chart there, the pie chart shows that the majority of our labor force commutes outside of the city for work. Mr. O'Mara, before you move on, can you're speeding through some of the stuff here, which is but I think it's really important to go back to that because this is what also is was was surprising to me. Can you go back to the charts? Sure. I'm going to I'm going to go ahead. So going back to these charts, I just wanted to just say point two things out. The first is the the real historic drop in unemployment that the city has seen is outpacing, by the way, in talking to mayors across the country and seeing what's going on, we are outpacing most cities across the country of our size or larger. So we are doing very well when it comes to job growth and the amount of jobs available to our community. That's something to be very proud of. And to me, it's one of the most important data points that a city should be looking at. When you're looking at economic activity is what the unemployment rate is, and that's something we should be very proud of. The and the other point that I wanted to make, which I think is really interesting, is if you look at the growth of of populations within the city and and the household income, this to me has been impressive. When you look at the five year growth of our populations, when you broke down, our populations are in a black, Asian, white, Hispanic. And you look at the five year growth for our for residents in Long Beach workers compared to the county. That's a striking difference. And look, if you look at, for example, just the Asian population, Asian-Americans in Long Beach had a 15.7% growth in household income versus 3.3% in L.A. County. You look at the the African-American population in the city of Long Beach and the five year growth ahead of 4.2% growth in household income. And unfortunately, there's been a negative point 2% decline in household income across the county. And the same can be said for the white population. You see the growth, the five year growth of 5.9 versus 3.9 across the county and within the Hispanic population of 7.8 to 2.4. So I just I point that out just because of the other, I think data point in the snapshot that I think is is important to note is that when you look at where the city is going and you look just take a look back on the last five years of every worker and every subgroup while certainly there are differences and those I think some some of those are addressed in here. Our growth is outpacing the county currently for everyone. And that's another thing that we should be very proud of. And so I just wanted to point that out and make sure the council saw that as well. So, Mr. Romero, sorry to interrupt you. Those were excellent points and thank you for for building on that. So I'll I'll jump into some background on the blueprint. So in 2015, the Mayor and the City Council tasked the Economic Development Commission with developing a vision and recommendations for how to grow our economy over the next ten years. The Mayor and the City Council really wanted the commission to drive this effort and for the recommendations to capture the essence of the steps that we could take as a city to grow our economy. The Commission consists of 11 members from various different sectors. For example, we have the Dean of the College of Arts at Cal State Long Beach, a director of a business improvement district, commercial brokers, entrepreneurs and more. And we feel that the draft blueprint really captures all of their diverse perspectives. And I have to personally commend the commission for their hard work. This commission was meeting every week at one point and biweekly at other points, which is not come in for most commissions. So I really applaud them for for their dedication to this process. The blueprint is a policy document that outlines goals, objectives and recommendations for how to grow our economy in the next ten years, and also will serve as a catalyst for economic activity across the city. The deliverables are a high level policy document, which is the draft blueprint, a work plan for further assessment and strategy. The development will take into consideration how we begin to operationalize some of these policy recommendations and consider our budget and staff resources and sequencing of the different programs and initiatives over time. And we're also looking to develop an online dashboard to track key performance indicators that will help us gauge how our economy is performing at a particular point in time. Some indicators that we're looking at is the total number of jobs, the total number of businesses, per capita income, median household income, educational attainment, and many more. And this will be a public facing dashboard that will be available to all to help gauge how our economy's performing. The Commission went through an extensive research process as a part of developing the recommendations for the blueprint. The city commissioned Beacon Economics for developing an economic analysis which was made up of two different parts. Part one provided essential background information on the city's economy, its workforce and its residents. Part two was a deeper dove into the different key industry clusters in the city, such as health care, logistics and business services, to name a few. And it helped us to get a baseline understanding of how these clusters are performing and how we can better serve them. Moving forward, the Commission also did a great job at organizing various different study sessions that focus on different topics and the organized panels with developers to understand how we can improve the real estate and property development process. We had a panel on workforce development, a panel with city staff, so that they can better understand the business licensing process, the permitting and inspection process, and the planning process as well, and a number of other study sessions that were organized. We also looked at other plans from across the country to inform this planning process and to identify best practices. For example, we looked at the Seattle Economic Development Plan, the Santa Ana Economic Development Plan, and also looked at the L.A. County Strategic Plan for Economic Development and others as well. And we organized a number of different listening sessions or interviews with the commissioners themselves, department heads and other institutional partners to get some insights as to some of the challenges that we're facing and also opportunities to grow our economy. Once the Commission developed some initial recommendations, we organized focus groups in the community to get some initial feedback on the policy recommendations. And we also looked at other key reports to identify best practices, for example, for how to best support small businesses or how to help grow a creative and innovation economy locally and regionally. So with all of this work, the commission did put together their draft recommendations for the Economic Development Blueprint. And the vision for the draft blueprint is that Long Beach is a city of opportunity for workers, investors and entrepreneurs. And the commission really felt that the blueprint should serve as a catalyst for action, so that it should create a vision for different institutional partners across the city to come together behind one vision to grow our economy, that it should create higher wage job opportunities, spur investment throughout all of the city. So investment in the north side, west side, central, Long Beach and everywhere else that it should build an ecosystem that supports entrepreneurs to confidently grow and to start and grow businesses in the city of Long Beach and to provide opportunity for our residents to live healthy, productive and prosperous lives and to positively impact where they live. The blueprint has seven focus areas. The first is engines of growth. And this has to do with making sure that we grow and support our key industry clusters and emerging sectors. The second one is economic inclusion, which has to do with advancing economic equity, particularly for low income communities across the city. The third is jobs and workforce development, which has to do with making sure that we have a prepared workforce so that our residents can get good jobs and also so that we can attract higher wage job opportunities to the city. The fourth is business assistance, which has to do with putting the support systems in place again so entrepreneurs can confidently start and grow their business here. Number five is the development environment, which has to do with ways to make to improve the real estate and property development process, making it more cost effective and streamlining it as well . Number six is quality of life and this takes into consideration the wellbeing of our residents across all of our unique neighborhoods and it considers many questions relating to public safety. The social services some people would need particularly vulnerable populations to lead production productive lives. Also questions about walkability and likability as well. And number seven is economic leadership and cooperation, which has to do with advancing an integrated approach to local and local and regional economic development, and to really have long to be a leader out there advocating for our city and our region to help grow jobs, businesses and opportunity for our residents. If approved, the following implementation process would be recommended for the blueprint. The first would be to work with our city partners and also institutional partners across the city to encourage alignment with economic development goals and objectives. Sorry about that. Number two would be to work with city staff and partners to develop a blueprint work plan to operationalize these policy recommendations and see how we would sequence the initiatives and programs that come out of this plan. Number three is to develop an online platform for tracking and reporting performance. This is the online dashboard that I referred to earlier. Number four is to produce a communications and marketing plan to to market this to the world, to let everyone know what we're doing here in Long Beach, to grow our economy and to also let people know why they should be considering investing in the city. We would, of course, provide regular updates to the City Council, the Economic Development and Finance Committee, and to the Economic Development Commission. And we would organize an annual conference that highlights progress on the blueprint to keep it relevant and to keep people excited about this partnership to grow our city's economy. That concludes my my staff report, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And I think everyone has the blueprint in front of them as well. So let me turn this over to the before I turn over to the council, I believe actually someone from the commission was going to say a few comments. Is that correct? Ms.. Romero. Yes, yes. I apologize. I would like to invite Vice Chair Becky Blair to add a few additional remarks if she would like to step up to the podium. Thank you. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and the city council. It's a pleasure to be here tonight to celebrate what we have accomplished through the recommendations for the blueprint. And it is important to show that Mayor Garcia and some of the city council members to whom we've spoken to are all a part of that. It is something that they're looking at for the first time. It's something that they've helped us in participating. They've reached out to the business community and they've asked the business community to help them run the city with development and small business in the best manner possible, more efficiently and more effectively. And when reaching out to the business community like this, the business comments that I have coming back from others are that the city is working on our side now. The city is working collaboratively. The door is open and it's business not as usual, but it's new business. And we appreciate that. I think that I respect and am happy to have worked with each and every one of the commissioners. They come from varied backgrounds and careers, and they have brought such a new sense of where Long Beach is growing and a security for the future for all the areas and economic equality for each and every neighborhood. So I also appreciate two of the commissioners that are here that have done a fine job throughout. Michelle Merlino And also Cyrus. Janette Parker. Thank you very much and thank you very much, Mayor, for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you very much to our vice chair, Blair, and, of course, to the commissioners that are here for the work. I'm going to turn this back over to the council. Councilwoman Mongo. I want to thank all the members of the commission. Excellent work on more than 25 meetings went into this process. I also want to thank the members of the community who were at these meetings and were constantly involved. I appreciate the many members of the commission who met with me regularly throughout the process to keep me as Chair of Eddie and F apprized of the situation and where we were moving and what it looked like, and also to the city staff of economic development who gave us regular briefings. And for those of you who were able to attend earlier tonight, the Eddie and F committee asked that we move and recommend adopting some form of this tonight with any inclusions of our colleagues, but also that we potentially pulled together a committee of three or four members of the commission. The three members of the Eddie and F City Council to help develop the specific, measurable outcomes that we want to measure over time. We also named a couple of other entities we thought might want to be at the table, including having in the audience when we convene this meeting and then the chair or executive director of our Workforce Investment Board and our city partners in any organizations that have been a part of the process to get us to this part so far. So I want to thank everyone for their work. I've literally handed over two versions of a printout of this in advance, written on and included by input and working with the chair directly . And I'm very proud of the work that our committee has done. I think that it's an exceptional and thoughtful effort in this way. We did not keep track of any of these things before and what gets measured gets done. And so if you have a moment to reflect on what we did earlier tonight, in reviewing the statistics of many of our measurable goals that the EDI and F keep track of, I think that in partnering those together, I think we're going to have something really magical here. So I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the community on this exciting day. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to take a moment to say thank you to the commissioners for their very hard work. When the commission step up and develop a work plan, it's valuable service to your city because we work very hard to implement this work plan, and it was obviously done in a very cooperative way. You know, when I see friends or allies or colleagues, they all are referencing this blueprint. They're all hands on deck on this blueprint. I want to say it to staff I, John and your team. You know, sometimes I can be a bit cynical when it comes to another plan, right? Another plan. But, you know, I believe in this one. And it's very clear that you're very sincere about inclusion and things like, you know, I see things like vision here, cooperation, an implementation strategy, a work plan. Those are words that that get me excited because it's something to actually get my hands on and work on. So we've already talked about a few ideas for implementation in North Long Beach. I'm really excited about that. And so I would just say, finally, I think, you know, some of our other commissions could benefit from having very targeted direction. As to, you know, looking at developing blueprints, prints or strategies for their specific, you know, expertize, subject matter expertize, particularly. You know, I think that, you know, we're doing some work relooking at the youth commission and I think coming up with a youth playbook would be good. We just had a lot of conversations around veterans. I think veterans could put together something comprehensive like that that puts a playbook together, a blueprint for veterans. So this is a great model and I hope that other commissioners follow suit. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pierson. Thank you. I want to thank everybody that's worked really hard on this process over the past several months. And I really want to recognize the staff effort that has gone into this and also recognize Eric Romero, who was my intern for a great year plus when I worked at Laine. And so thank you for the great presentation today. I think that this does a really great job of talking about some of the core things that we as a city want to do. And I think an economic blueprint is the right direction that we as a city, we are at a critical point in our time right now where the market's kind of exciting. We've got new developments happening everywhere. We've as a council, prioritized things like 1% for the arts. And so having a blueprint that really says, where are we going and what's our vision, I think is really important. It's important in times like this also to recognize the impacts of economic development and really make sure that as we have these conversations, we're doing it in a way that is not too quick, that doesn't exclude people in the population that might feel excluded in the past. And so I want to just highlight a couple of comments that were brought to me by members in our community. I want to thank the the downtown. Well, now I have to call it the downtown Long Beach Alliance for their letter that they've shared with us. And this letter pretty much, I think, does a great job about asking us to include some recommendations. They've listed out a nine recommendations to be included in the blueprint, which include things like housing. That includes not just, you know, market rate housing by using the White House Development Toolkit to put together a policy that's really thoughtful and robust in how we address housing for a growing population. As we seen and as our mayor noted, we do have demographic changes in our city. And how are we thinking long term for that? Making sure that we have online accessibility, not just with our permits and with C P process, but including that overall. So I'd like for us to I'll share the letter with you guys, and I would like us to to try to include this as much as we can in the comments of if some of it has been left out. I also want to recognize some of the community meetings that you guys had with building healthy communities that I think tapped into some of those things around, making sure that we're using empty space, making sure that those that have felt it's been difficult to access housing, that that is included and ensuring as as we talk about the demographics, that we have equity changes in our city, we've got leadership in our city that are addressing issues of equity and that as much as we can include that in our economic blueprint, the city overall, no matter if you're a business owner or if you're a renter, is going to be better off for it. And also just want to, you know, do one more recognition to the fact that whenever we have a city that does three things and I want to recognize the commission for doing this work, making sure that our city is business friendly while looking at those residents that are most impacted. We can do those side by side. And so making sure we've got a uniform licensing and permitting process, making sure that we have predictability no matter if you're a new business owner or someone that's opening up your third business, that we have high levels of customer service and that I think that our city is on the right path to those things. The last thing I'll say is the one thing that I feel like is missing out of here is a little bit on our arts and entertainment. And so I talked a little bit this morning with staff. I would like to see the possibility of reforming the permitting process for live performances in downtown. That's something that we're going to be working on in my office, and I would like to see that are reflected in this plan as well. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Well, that's really got to count somebody a Ranka and then I'll go to Councilman Price. Councilman. Sorry. Thank you for the report. I saw the presentation earlier at our economic committee meeting, so I want to thank staff again. One of the issues that I raised earlier today that I wanted to highlight again is this is a really great report and I'm impressed by the involvement of the various stakeholders, and I think we have some good data that we've obtained, but I think it's very important moving forward that we have realistic performance measures and that we are held accountable to those performance measures. And if. We need to break that up into phases because I know we have a lot of objectives outlined in the blueprint, but if we need to break it up into phases so that thank you so that we can have some realistic performance objectives to judge ourselves and our progress on, I think that would be really great and I understand that is part of the plan. So thank you. Thank you. Council member Sri Lanka. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, was a recipient of the report earlier with the Aden Africa Committee that we met. And they raised some some points that I thought were important for for me and for the West Side, especially when talking about as we look at economic development and growth and business growth, that we do it responsibly, that we do it with the awareness of the environment, that we keep our air clean, that we that we keep transportation and mobility at the at the forefront of what we do here. Because a lot of what we what we do have has unintended consequences. And a lot of those unintended consequences might be the affect that they have on the quality of life of our residents. And so I want to also include the fact that when we're looking at economic development, we also look at training and the training that's essential to and to ensure that we have the workforce available to take many of these new jobs that we're looking at creating and business opportunities. But with business, you get jobs. And with jobs you get people who are going to be able to buy homes and have a good quality of life. And I want to ensure that that that the the living Long Beach working Long Beach to have fun and Long Beach. The last thing I want to say is that we always keep keep in mind keep open the possibility of having training programs that that come into Long Beach, opening new schools. I know we have great educational institutions here. We have Chelsea, Long Beach. We have limited college and a great school district. But we also have other programs that are out there that provide training opportunities, such as apprenticeships in areas other than high tech or any other business that we might be looking at. Because we still need plumbers, we still need carpenters, we still need service providers. Told us in the report that where, you know, we have a great hospitality business here in LA, which is one of the highest, but yet their salaries are depressed and not reflective of the great opportunities that we had here, Long Beach in the service industry. So we need to also look at how we can increase wages in those areas as well and to create opportunities for people who want to come to Long Beach and work in a service industry that they're going to get the jobs and the wages that are that are living wages for them as well. So keep that in mind. Just a little food for thought for all of you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, I would like to thank the commissioners as well for being here and all those that are not here as well as the department. I think this is a fantastic blueprint. It's very it's got a lot of great ideas, I think. And there's specifically, you know, streamlining the tracking of the key performance indicators, which I know will be, you know, hearing more about as time goes on, the value of business improvement districts, mapping out areas of our city, lacking key economic opportunities. You know, I think like Councilmember Duran, I think about the West Side that doesn't have a bank or a pharmacy and it addresses, you know, being able to prioritize those areas to add economic opportunities there and then incentivizing innovation. When I think about that, I also would like to see possibly and I've talked about this before, but working with our U.S. Patent Patent Office, I know I've worked I've talked to John Kessler about this in the past on how we can look at ways to encourage patents and innovation in that way. I know some cities quantify how many patents they have as part of their you know, this is City of Long Beach. We have, you know, this many patents in in the city. And I think that's a really key area. We can look into a couple other things. Also to training and retraining. I think just it has been addressed kind of on a bigger level. But as tech knowledge advances and as automation becomes more and more clear, it's kind of looking at ways to retrain people to be either accustomed to new technology or retraining in a different sector that would be more beneficial for them. And then recently, I know myself and my colleagues, we put together an item that will be coming back soon, but it looks at doing business with the city as local businesses. How do we offer preferential procurement opportunities for local businesses? So I think that also should be looked into as well. And then lastly, I know we've talked about the unemployment rate and I'm very glad that our overall unemployment rate is very low. But we do have pockets in the city that are still upwards of 16%. And so looking at that and kind of prioritizing in those pockets as to what we can do for those communities would be essential as well. And then the last thing I think I'll also chime on to what Councilmember Pearce said about music and entertainment. We do have a lot of events that occur in our city and how are we maybe providing more ways to look for economic opportunities there? So in our special events and filming music events, artistic events, I mean, it's really ramping up in those areas. So looking at that and then I think that's it. Sorry. And one other thing. Oh, I'm sorry. The global business imports and exports. So since we are next to the port, I know this probably has been addressed, but if there are any ways we can work, even with the U.S. Embassy on my travels abroad, I had worked with the U.S. Embassy, and they create a matchmaking service for U.S. businesses that want to invest in foreign countries but also have a mainstay here. So maybe creating synergy with the U.S. embassy to be able to do that. But I think this is fantastic. Great job to all of the commissioners and everybody involved. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ashton. Thanks. And I agree with everything that has been stated. I want to congratulate, salute the commissioners for excellent work staff for the dedication. I know there was a number of public meetings. And so to anybody in the public who participated and gave public comment to to add to this this blueprint, and we salute you as well. I think this provides us some great economic statistics. That snapshot is extremely interesting. It provides us with some good, valuable data, data that we can we can come back a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, and measure our our, our, our, our, our, our deliverables and improvement and how we have implemented this plan. I'd like to put a greater emphasis on and it's just, you know, you'll hear me talk about this week after week after week, but the greater emphasis on creating and maintaining quality jobs in this city. And with that in mind, I mean, we always talk about economic development. I would like to see employment kind of mirrored or married to that that term economic and employment development, because it's I think it's really what we're doing but we can't under if. Besides the importance of creating quality jobs in the city, especially when you look at only 77% of the folks in the city are leaving the city to work. That's, I think, very, very important. It would be. And I got to tell you, it is for those who get a chance to to live and work in Long Beach. You you have a you are very fortunate. You're very fortunate. And so so to come off the island, I got to tell you, it's rough out there on an in traffic and on those Southern California freeways to be able to create a greater number of quality jobs in the city. Is that that's something that I'd like to see us truly, truly work on. I know this blueprint will help us get there. But again, I'm in terms of framing economic development, I think in the future we need to to look at marry in that term with employment because it's so, so important as well. And again, congratulations and great work. Thank you. Councilmember Supernanny. Thank you. I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of staff and our council colleagues on the committee, and especially to the commission. I believe that this was the only project you had that would be impressive. But having served on a commission for seven years, I know your plate is full with other items too. So thank you and for all your hard work on that. I also just want to give a shout out to the fourth District, of course. I noticed on the list of top 25 sales tax generators, ten of them either have a location, the fourth, or are entirely located in the fourth, as in the case of Serco, Porsche and Audi. So go forth. Thank you. Any public comment on this? Please come forward. Good evening again, Robert Fox. Great report. Very much supportive of it. I have a comment to make about disseminating this information. It's nice that we all have it here. We're very involved in this stuff, but we need to get it out to the community so that they understand what we what we're planning. My concern is a very pragmatic one. I am now executive director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations, went to the Neighborhood Resource Center and tried to find out where is the database for all of the neighborhood associations. We have 132 and we have the Council of Business Organizations and all the business associations are listed there. Also, 40% of the data is not correct. It's just gone. People moved. Somebody died. But all the emails are not working, you know. Like 40% of them not working. And the telephone numbers are not correct. The people are not correct. Maybe some of these things. Went belly up. We don't know. So I went to Margaret Madden, who's a good friend of mine. I've known her since she was 16. And I said. Margaret, you know, we kind of get this database together. Here, you know. And I wasn't really satisfied, to be honest with with the response. This is such an important report. I've been a business leader most of my life, and I really, really want to get this out there to the community. So rather than waiting for nine months to get the data together at the Neighborhood Resource Center, I would urge you to maybe put another person there or dedicate somebody specifically to make sure that we have at least the communication link that to all business associations in the city and neighborhood associations in the city so that this great news can get out there. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. It's Hansen. Please come down. I just want to. Congratulate all of you and the. Whole city. Who? Oh, my gosh. You accomplished. So much. And. And then I met with Superintendent Steinhauser today. Oh, my gosh. The things the wonderful things that are going on in our school district. Are just unparalleled. With I don't know how anybody else could measure up. But anyway, it just there was one thing that I always have thought that would really help Long Beach, and that would be if we had that must be a reason it hasn't happened. But we are Long Beach. That's what we're known for. From the very beginning, I mean, that's our greatest resource is that ocean out there. And maybe someday we could have something that's like like they have on Venice Beach with all those little shops and things and people going up and down. And I think it could really. Be. Something that could be enchanting and so much fun for everyone. And, you know, and it's what you know, Venice Beach. Is known all over the world. When people come to California, they want to go there. So anyway, just think about that. And the Obama library. Michelle Obama library. I've been there since. You know, fathers with their kids, you know, studying and doing homework. I mean, it's just so wonderful. It's like something that. We have always. Dreamed of having. You guys are making. Really good. Dreams come true. Thank you. And then there's other public. We're all trying to do good deeds. And I'm just in the mood to celebrate when I go to the Michelle Obama library and talk, you know, see all these good things happening. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Next speaker, please. Hello. Good evening, Mayor. City council members, city staff. Keeping with the positive comments tonight, I'm here on behalf of the Chamber and our leadership and our members to fully endorse and support this draft blueprint for economic development as presented tonight. Over the last year, we've attended and provided input at multiple Economic Development Commission meetings and study sessions. We're grateful for allowing us to have such input through this process as it relates to the blueprint. And while the blueprint covers seven focus areas, we are particularly excited about two areas the business assistance and the economic leadership and cooperation areas. Ensuring our businesses, our business community has continued to access to technical, financial and regulatory assistance is paramount to sustaining our current businesses while attracting new. At the same time, we appreciate the recommendation of a small business concierge program as we've begun a similar concept for our members and welcome further dialog around this area and how we can assist all businesses in Long Beach under the Economic Leadership and Cooperation Focus Area. We welcome the discussion on a partnership between the city and the Council Business Associations, commonly referred to as COBA. Any time you have multiple partners in this case the Chamber Business Improvement districts, other business associations are at the table discussing customer service, regulatory process and any proposed new audiences that will ultimately impact business. We view this as a good start to a wonderful strategy. The chamber stands ready to work with these various partners who dedicate a significant amount of time to this endeavor and also resources that went into this document. Lastly, as outlined in the blueprint, we look forward to further engagement directed by all of you and also the city manager's office. We appreciate our inclusion to the sterile process to date. Applaud all the work by the Economic Development Commission and staff. Specifically, we'd like to publicly thank EDC chair Randall Hernandez, Vice Chair Becky Blair, all of the commissioners, and especially John Keisler and his wonderful staff and his former staff at the Long Beach Innovation Team. So job well done by all. Thank you for tonight. Thank you. SPEAKER. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. On behalf of our board, our economic development committee, as well as the staff, we want to commend the mayor for initiating this vision and this process that's led to Long Beach being open for business for so many years. As the mayor mentioned earlier, the commission did not exist and the department was not functioning at its at its regular level of personnel. This is really a welcome relief for not only downtown, but certainly the city. And with your vision, this has really helped us propel Long Beach into the very dynamic and certainly competitive market that we exist in. I'd also like to thank the commissioners commissioners. The Economic Development Commissioners did a wonderful job expressing and exercising due diligence on all of the aspects that are covered in this plan. And I also appreciate the work that COBRA, as Jeremy mentioned, the Council of Business Associations did. All the business improvement districts, including the Chamber and the CVB, have been working together to really bring to the forefront the needs of business and recommending and certainly agreeing with Councilmember Pierce's comments earlier that business can coexist with its residents in the neighboring area. So we look forward to working with with our citywide partners. And certainly the jobs recommendations that we've presented to you have already been presented to city staff. They're aware of this. We want to be able to continue working towards these towards these objectives and helping you with the tasks as well as the as well as the work that's necessary to get this done. And this is really an awesome starts. We look forward to working with our continued work that we have already started and with the collaboration that we have with the citywide partners as well as the newly found commission, as well as the city staff. So thanks very much. Thank you very much, Craig. Next speaker, please. Hello, everybody. I'm Sylvia Contreras, and I just wanted to say thank you to the commission that created this blueprint. I took note, Vice Mayor Richardson, that hopefully the veterans commission will take this as a model. I'm here also as commissioner of Veterans Admission or Veterans Affairs Commission. I liked it right away. So I second to your motion and I'll bring it to Gina's attention and everybody else's. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, we have we have a motion on a second to approve the draft and staff will read it the final and of course, synthesize everything they've heard today as well as the comments that have been submitted. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Let's give everyone a round of applause for their hard work on that. And you know, one thing one thing I didn't say just briefly that I think it's important to thank the innovation team because, you know, this is one of the things that they worked on early on as an initial project. Then it got transitioned over to the department and that's I think what the innovation team is all about is starting something with the commission and then it got transitioned to the full department. And so the innovation team members worked really, really hard on that, particularly the early days of this of this report. And I want to thank them as well. So congratulations. We're going to go ahead. And the next item that I had a request to be moved up was of the item 2021. I'm sorry. Nope. Item 20. He was only 20.

Recommendation to request City Manager update and revise the policies and procedures related to the City’s Tree Maintenance Policy and urban wildlife policy, including nesting birds. Direct City Manager to reevaluate the standard operating procedure, including, but not limited to inspections by a trained biologist, when trimming or removing City trees that have evidence indicating an active bird nest. Also, direct City Manager to report back on the feasibility and costs associated with establishing a program to pro-actively inspect trees for urban wildlife that are scheduled for trimming and removal.

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0492

Okay. Then we'll go on to item. There is a request to move item 16. So we'll do item 16. Communication Town Council Member Your Anger Councilwoman Price. Councilman Mongo Vice Mayor Richardson Recommendation to request City Manager to update and revise the policies and procedures related to the city's tree maintenance policy and urban wildlife policy, and to report back on the feasibility and costs associated with establishing a program it customary. Right. I think this is your item. GONZALES. Yes, yes. Thank you, Mayor, for putting this item up too quickly. First of all, I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilmembers Rice and Mogo for joining me on this right here. We know we've had a lot of issues in without treaties over the past few years, and many of them have to do with the fact that some contractors have been negligent or have been very careless in how we treat our trees and their cut and being treated. We're not. So this item here is, I believe, that the city manager can review the current policies and procedures for our tree maintenance throughout the city and being able to come back with a recommendation as to how we can implement a program that will be much more general and broad to make sure that our our herons and our nesting birds are taking care of and that their homes not destroyed as we take care of our trees, as we need to go, and we have projects that we want to develop. One of the major projects that brought this to to the forefront is that I have a project in my district over the really greenbelt and there were some trees that were perhaps mistakenly brought down. A review indicated that there might have been some nesting birds in that area. And so it just raised a furor in regards to what are we doing to protect our trees and to protect our nesting birds. So I think that with this policy that the city manager is requested through to review it and come back with some recommendations, would help us address that and the least amount of fears that are out there in the community in regards to our nesting birds and our very precious trees. So I'm I'm glad that we're bringing this forward. And again, I want to thank my councilmember colleagues for enjoining me in this effort as well. And with that, I'll leave it to Abi. My second. Thank you. And Councilman Mongo to the second. Thank you. This is an item that has been in need for quite a long time. I'm very fortunate to work very closely with Councilmember Suranga, who cares so much about our community and our trees. We've worked together on many projects, including disease, trees and other things in his district and across the city. And I'm very proud of the work that we've done to make improvements, but we do need to make more. And so I'm really excited about this item. We cover the tree component of every major project, but it really needs to be pulled together in a more concise document that really gives the. Warrant that is necessary for something of such importance to our community on a go forward basis. Our trees are aging and we really have to have a plan on the way forward. So thank you for a great item. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say thank you to Councilmember Suranga for bringing this item forward. And, Mango, I know that this is very important, especially in those areas where trees actually get rooted and deep rooted and uplift the curves. It can become so dangerous. And so I think that a program like this would be really great to be able to evaluate and be able to get those those fixed before people have accidents. And I'm especially thinking of our seniors on their walks and people with disabilities that don't have any alternative route. So I'm really looking forward to this to supporting this item and the results when it comes back. Last May, Richardson. Thank you, Councilman Aranda, for bringing this forward. We have a responsibility to take care of our tree canopy as it doesn't take care of itself. It requires investment. It requires care. Our city was built at different times, and therefore there were different trees that were utilized in different parts of the city. And each of our districts has different, unique needs. And so the fact that we're staying on top of this and asking staff to keep a sharp eye on this is important. And it's the types of things that the neighbors, the neighborhoods want and need from their city council. Thank you. Thank you. I don't believe there's any public comment on or actually there might be two couple comments on this item. No, those callers are not on the line. Okay. So we'll go to a roll call vote. And Councilman Price is having a little bit of tech issues, so she'll be probably back in about ten, 15 minutes after I do the work. So we'll call the. District one district to. My. District for. My. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. By. Motion carries.

Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance amending Long Beach’s COVID Eviction Moratorium (LBMC 8.100) and The Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach Moratorium on Section 8 terminations in the following three ways, to align Long Beach’s COVID tenant protections with the County and City of Los Angeles: (1) extend the moratorium date from May 31, 2020 until August 31, 2020; (2) extend the amount of time to repay rent from six months to twelve months; and (3) add provisions to address tenant harassment. These proposed amendments would apply to residential and commercial tenancies; and direct City Attorney to bring this urgency ordinance back, with these revisions, to the Council for consideration at a special meeting on or before May 26, 2020.

LongBeachCC_05192020_20-0450

Okay. Thank you. We're going to our final item, which is item 13. Please read that item. Communication from Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilmember Urunga. Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to direct city attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal or amending Long Beach on beaches, COVID Eviction Moratorium and the Housing Authority moratorium on Section eight terminations for consideration at a special meeting on or before May 26, 2020. Okay. Thank you. I believe we're starting here. The maker of this initial motion is Councilmember Pearce and then we'll go through the queue. Right. Thank you, Mayor. And stop. What you have before you is an additional step that we felt like we needed to take, given the current situation that we have with COVID. Obviously, we know that our state and our federal government and our city is doing a lot to try to provide resources to residents, to small business owners , to property owners in this difficult time. And I think when we started this process, we didn't understand how long it would be or how difficult it would be. But that is really settling in right now. We know that the state and the federal government is working hard to make sure that we have unemployment benefits for many of those people that have applied for unemployment. But we also know that many people have not received any unemployment checks even after applying for eight or nine weeks. And that that is just part of this bureaucracy that we're in. We know that some people have yet to receive their income from the federal government. The stimulus check also part of the bureaucracy that that we have. And I'm not just making those blanket statements, and I will share that. I know half of my building has not received their unemployment checks, and I will share publicly that I am one of them as a council member. As you guys know, we are we do not make full time income. And due to COVID, I no longer have a second job. And I applied very early and I have not received one of those unemployment checks even though it's been greenlighted. So I share this with personal experience. This motion, this item was really written to make sure that we protected those that are most vulnerable and that when we govern for those that are most vulnerable, we know that that everybody will thrive. But the item was really to the point. And so I want to share with everyone that it is my hope that today we are collaborative on this council, that we take into account all of the comments that we've received. I know that I've received about 100 plus letters about concerns for this item, and I've received around 100 probably plus by this time, support letters for this item. When the original item was drafted, it was very different item than what we have in front of us today. And I know that that item is out there, that people have seen it. And so they know that this original item included a very long period for the moratorium that it said that it would go until the state of emergency was over. The item that you have in front of you says, 90 days before we got to 90 days, we were going to push for 120 knowing that we would probably negotiate down. And I'm sharing this with you because I believe that the 90 days that's in this motion is really important to make sure that we create stability for our residents, stability for our landlords. It's stability for everyone that's in this situation so that we know what to expect and we can focus on other things, like advocating for more resources at the state and federal level. So I know that there will likely be some discussion on this. This is one area that I plead with my council colleagues to really be mindful that this council, if we're going to bring this back every two weeks, it is going to be exhaustive. And I don't know about the rest of you guys, but these meetings are definitely heavy. And as much as we can do to to manage that workload, not only for ourselves, but for the residents of the city and property owners, I think it would be important. The second part of this item originally, you know, it has 12 months for deferment of payment. I have some comments to make about that. Let me see if I want to stop my comments and actually make my motion. My context is really saying that I would want to work with everybody, but I want us to be mindful of the impacts and know that is my hope that at the end of this item, at the end of this vote, that we have not only support for our tenants, but support for property owners. And so before I make my motion, I do have a couple of questions for our economic development team. I think that John is still on the on the line. And my question for for John from economic development, before I get into my motion is, can you share with us some of the programs that you are currently advocating for and some of the ideas that you have around support for property owners? As we know that if a tenant's not paying rent, that's impacting that property owner. But we as a city only can can do so much to support them. So stop. That's a question for you. Yes. Good evening. Mayor and city council members, thanks so much. Yes. So so in economic development, we always look at tenants, landlords and lenders, everybody who's involved with providing shelter, space, etc., because everybody seems to have both an asset and a liability that's in play. And so when we think about tenant protections, we also think about the landlords who may also have a mortgage or they may have a construction loan, or they may have some sort of other liability that they have to also care for, and that also affects their their lenders. So we have been looking at the economic development department at both how what programs are available for for tenants in terms of of rent support relief. Obviously, we're working with our partners and development services on potential HUD funding that will help with rent relief and in protecting tenants so that they can pay rent. There are some programs at the county level as well. Funding that's coming down from the federal and state government. And then, of course, through our Workforce Development Agency, we provide a portion of rent relief through some of the Employment Development Department benefits when it comes to the landlords and the lenders. There actually are a number of programs that came with the Federal Cares Act and they have to do with everything from tax abatement, new programs that help to relieve caps on the the tax benefits that a landlord might have with regard to operating losses that they can carry forward and get credit for in those those programs. There's about six that we're looking at specifically because some of them are a bit complicated. They're buried in the CARES Act and we want to bring them out and surface them for for both landlords and lenders so that they're aware of of what's available to them, even if it is something that comes as a benefit at the end of the year or as part of their tax filing. But the other thing that we're also looking at, which has been a little bit more difficult, of course, is loan programs that might also be available to property owners in the city of Long Beach, believe it or not. We have thousands of business licenses that are for people, business owners who are in real estate. So they either own maybe a residential building could be anything from one unit to dozens of units or in commercial real estate, it could be a very small or very large building. So they have to have business licenses. And we've been working with our partners at the federal government to try and find ways that we might be able to adjust those programs and make those loan programs also available to property based business owners. So there's a little bit of a range there, and it covers everything from loans to tax credits and possibly even some legislative changes. So I'll stop right there and I'll stick around for questions. Thank you, John. Okay. So I. I want to go ahead and I appreciate that. I'm going to go ahead and make my motion so that the floor can discuss it. So I move as follows. To extend the current eviction moratorium and rent deferment period for 90 days to August 31st, 2020. Extend the current deferral rent repayment program to August 31st, but also include benchmarks that require tenants that encourage tenants to pay at least 30% deferred rent by February 28, which is six months after the beginning of the repayment period, and at least 60% deferment by May 31st, which is nine months after the deferment period. This language needs to be included in the preamble and not in the ordinance. The third is direct the city manager working with the city prosecutor and the city attorney as necessary to bring back a report in in June on the anti tenant harassment best practices in other California jurisdictions. So I want to be clear, this is different than what's been agenda and really trying to get us to a good spot sooner rather than later and saving us a long night with this. So number four is to exclude the following commercial tenants from the extension of the current eviction moratorium ordinance. Multinational companies. Publicly traded companies. Companies with 500 or more employees are definitely open to exploring if that's the right number. The 500 or more employees is set as a small business standard at the national level, even though in Long Beach we tend to think that that number is smaller, say 100 or even 50. So I look to my colleagues to see if that is, in fact the right number. D all tenancies and sub tenants managed by the airport. All tenancies and sub tenancies managed by the harbor department. Number five, direct city staff to work with the airport tenants on a case by case basis to address COVID related impacts and negotiate appropriate rent, deferments or other accommodations in accordance with the FAA grant assurances and other regulations applicable to the airport. Number six, encourage the Board of Harbor Commissioners and the executive and the chief executive of the Harbor Department to work with the harbor tenants on a case by case basis to address COVID related impacts on tenants and negotiate appropriate rent deferments to other accommodating in accordance with the Tidelands Trust and other regulations applicable to the harbor. This motion has been reviewed by the City Attorney and I believe is a motion that addresses many of the concerns that I've already heard. I would like to say that that I'm open to hearing council comments and possible friendlies, particularly on the these the commercial tenant exemptions and some of the other components. So thank you, everybody. I want to thank my colleagues for signing onto this item. We know that this is not the easiest things we've ever done, but really trying to strike a balance to support keeping our small businesses and keeping our tenants that really make Long Beach the place that we all love and call home. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I have a list. Of course. Let me go through that Councilwoman and dance. They also like to second that motion and yes, thank you. STAFF Thank you, Councilmember Pearce, for bringing this very important and very hard item forward. As as Councilmember Pearce said, this is very delicate. It is a time right now that we are experiencing that we haven't experienced before. And as we want to find relief for our tenants that are being left without jobs and without an income coming in due to either of directly related to COVID 19 or indirectly related, we also find ourselves struggling because we also need to help out our property owners who are renting renting this out. So I think that the motion has been very, very thought out. Thank you for working with staff on this. Thank you for everybody coming together and trying to really put something forward that will that will help our city move forward. And one of the things that I wanted to comment on is we really want to make sure that everyone knows that this is not we're not supporting a rent free couple of months. You know, this is to evaluate the the condition that we are in right now and to postpone the payment. So I want to make it very clear that this is not a rent free ordinance or motion, but rather is something to bring a little relief to those tenants who find themselves without jobs. One of the things that I would recommend also, and I don't know if we have to add it in as of friendly or something like that, or if it it just comes down to the individual property owners. But I would like to see something that kind of guarantees that the rent will be paid to those property owners, whether it's in the form of a contract with your landlord or something, just to give you know, just to give the the property owners also a. Some kind of peace that they will be receiving the rent from their tenants. I think the that here this motion is for all of us to work together moving forward and I'd love to hear with all my other colleagues have to say on this. Thank you, Councilwoman. Council woman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, that I have for Councilwoman Pierce. Councilman Pierce. Councilman Price here. You sound very far away. Oh, okay. I'm right here. Is that better? Hello. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Pearce, I wanted to just clarify the. Partial payment provisions that you laid out. Can you repeat those for me again? Because I think I missed it. And also, you want those in the whereas clause, not in the ordinance. Yes. I'd like them in the warehouse clause, not in the ordinance, due to the fact that we I worry that if a tenant is paying full rent and we say that they need to have something paid by a certain amount of the repayment. That they might be able to be evicted if they like. If their rent's $2,000 a month and they're supposed to pay 20 to a month in their repayment period and they only pay 2000. I want to make sure that they're protected legally. And that was one of the concerns that that Rich and our city attorney's office had brought up and said that if we put it in the preamble, that it helps as guidance. So I think I'll reread it for you. I think that would be a great hope to be able to say if we put this in the preamble and then say, you know, that if these if these measures are not met, that then the tenant and the landlord need to negotiate a repayment plan outside of these standards. There's an agreement there, and I know that we've talked about that the last time this item came up. So now that we've had some time to kind of sit with it, so I'll reread it. Extend the current deferment payment period until August 31st, but also include benchmarks that require a tenant to pay 30% of deferment. Six months after the beginning of the repayment period and 60% nine months after the beginning of the repayment period. Okay. All right. So let me go through the ones that I think might be relatively non-controversial. And then and then I'll I'll share with you my thoughts on the partial payment and see if we can have them accepted as friendlies. If not, then I will probably make a substitute. But let me just start with the things that I think are kind of non-controversial. Well, first, let me just start by saying that I think. As a matter of fact, objectively. Everybody. Everybody. Has been impacted by COVID. And from a financial standpoint, I would say that most everybody in our city has felt the impacts financially. Regardless of the category that we put them in. I believe that COVID has impacted everybody. So when we're looking at helping, you know. What? Like you said, Councilwoman Pierce. Governing for those most vulnerable. Well, in this situation, it's a really unusual situation because the category of folks we generally refer to as most vulnerable, that category has really expanded a great deal. And I will I'll share with you and I know I've shared this with my council colleagues that my husband and I, our first time small business owners, it was a dream of my husband's. We both work full time jobs, still day jobs. But he always wanted to own his own business. So we took a whole bunch of savings that we saved over a number of years, and we invested in a small business. We were not even at a point where we were breaking even when COVID happened. And so while we are grateful for the deferment programs that are available. We also realized that that back rent is going to have to be due at some point. And for us, that's in the 15 to $20000 range, depending on how long the closures last. But at this rate, we're already above 10,000. We have no idea how we're going to be able to make such a huge balloon payment. And I'm sharing with this this with you personally, because you can't get a small business loan in today's day and age without attaching some personal assurances to it. And so it's not as though we can just not pay rent and walk away and not have our our own mortgage and our own income. Personal affected. And I share that with you only because I believe that the most vulnerable community today in terms of the definition, has really expanded. And so when we when we help one group, we really have to think about how that impacts another group and how that impacts their ability to pay their bills because everyone's ability to pay their bills has been impacted. So a couple of things that that I want to include or ask you if you'll accept a friend. Leon is. Well, first of all, in regards to some of the exemptions for commercial property tenants, I would also like to exempt that when it's in the Tidelands area. Because I think the Tidelands Fund is an enterprise fund that's very different than any other fund that we have in the city because we have a fiduciary duty to the state regarding how we spend that money and and really having a direct oversight into the programs. And so I would ask that tidelands tenants be included in the exemptions, but I would ask that the city manager and his team be involved in negotiating mitigation or deferment. Contracts or agreements with the tenants on a case by case basis so that they could limit the scope of the application. We want to make sure that businesses or operations that were already suffering prior to COVID are not taking advantage of COVID related mitigation efforts in order to gain further benefits or further deferment. We want to make sure that the COVID related legislation in terms of deferment, is related to a specific time period and that it's not broader than it needs to be for the Tidelands area, specifically because we have a fiduciary duty to the state. So is that a friendly that you would accept? It is a friendly that I would accept. And I just want to clarify, too, that a few weeks ago we also gave counsel and we gave city manager direction to negotiate with each lessee that the city had overall. So we also have that in place. But yes, I accept that. Friendly. Okay, great. The other thing I want to do, and this goes back to the concept of like, look, I think my husband and I would be definitely considered part of the vulnerable community that you've outlined. But I think because because we are tenants. And by the way, I also want the record to reflect that before voting on any business related legislation through the city of Long Beach, I sought and received an opinion regarding my ability to vote on any business legislation in the city of Long Beach. And I renewed that FEC opinion just a few weeks ago, and it was determined from a legal standpoint that I fall under the public generally exception, since any legislation that we would be involved in would benefit a large number of businesses and not mine specifically. So I just wanted to put that out there for the record. But anyway, going back to that, I realize that when we have tenant protections and tenant relief that we put into place, it impacts property owners. And so one of the things I'd like to do is to ask our economic development team, and I'm offering this as a as a friendly to create a to evaluate creating a revolving loan fund for property owners who may have been impacted by COVID so that we can offer them funds through a loan through the city of Long Beach in order to help them with some of their payments. And I want to make sure that that's okay with you as an amendment. Absolutely. It's actually something that I forgot to mention earlier says perfect. Okay. I also want to ask staff as a friendly amendment to come back to council by the June 2nd meeting with a report on what options are both for foreclosure relief for homeowners. Housing providers and property owners. Is that something you're willing to accept? It is something I'm willing to accept. And if I might counter, I think on top of having the staff bring back a report, it might be also helpful to direct the legislative committee to advocate for policies that would extend any forbearance past the 60 days, whether it's for property loans or construction loans, but to really make sure that we in the city are using our resources to to advocate on behalf of them as well. So I'm open to that. And I think that we can go one step further and having our legislative team work on it as well. Okay. Well, that takes me to my next one. And that would be a report from city staff on the status of SB 939, which helps businesses renegotiate leases due to COVID impacts. Reevaluate AB 828, which prohibits foreclosures and AB 2501, which creates long term forbearance and prohibits foreclosures and auto repossessions. So I'm hoping that you will accept the amendment that staff report back on June 2nd on these three legislative initiatives so that our state legislative committee can take those up once they've received some initial information about these bills. I think those are great additions. Yes. Okay. And this is Tom. I just want to point out, we're going to have to put those on supplemental, because we would have to have the reports done in two days to get them up. And we will do our best to, you know, bring what we can within the week. And that would be fine with me, Tom, since they're really report items, they're not voting items and they're not ones that we're going to need to do extensive outreach on before taking legislative action at this juncture. So that would that would be fine with me. The first the final it's not the final amendment, but the final amendment in this category is I'd like staff to report back to council on June 2nd on any property tax relief measures that are being considered or have been voted upon in regards to deferment of property taxes by the County Board of Supervisors. Just an update. Did I lose you? Councilmember Pearce, did you hear that? I support that. Yes, absolutely. Okay. All right. So thank you for that. In regards to so now these are these are the ones that we might not have a meeting of the minds on, although I hope we do. In regards to the extension, I'm I'm agreeable to the extension. However, we are starting to see more and more businesses open back up, which means more and more people are getting. Jobs back, hopefully. And so rather than extending this until August, I would propose that we follow the county's model and extended until June and then June 30th, and then have a report back every 30 days following June 30th, so that we as a council can make a determination as to whether we want to continue the rental eviction moratorium. Um, so I appreciate the the gesture, I would say. Let's talk a minute. Just about the 30 day versus the 90 day. I understand that the county has done 30 days, and that was for areas that did not currently have a moratorium in place and for unincorporated areas. The city of L.A. has 90 days after the state of emergency is lifted. I do agree that there are some businesses that are reopening. But we what I've experienced in my district and I have three retail shops on Fore Street alone who have had landlords tell them, you're allowed to do curbside pickup now, so you need to pay your full rent next month. This is something that is very challenging for them because curbside pickup for a clothing store is not something that is necessarily bringing back business. Right. People like to come in and try on clothes, etc.. I think that it. That it would be so much more beneficial if we did 90 days. So that and with the change that we can come back in 30 like if we did 90 days and we said every 30 days before that 90 days, we had a brief report from staff on it. I'd be open to that. But I I'm trying to create stability for tenants and for landlords so that every month we're not re opening it up for a vote again. So maybe let's let's hear from I, I know that there's always a risk of a substitute substitute, but I really would like to just hear from the council colleagues. And if you need to make a substitute, then you could do that. But 90 days is a hard part for us because we've already changed it back from the original 120 that we were going to put on the on the motion. So. Okay. And then the the other. So I'm I'm taking that as a no at this point. At this point. Okay. All right. So what about 60 days? 60 days is definitely better than 30. Is that still a no? I would very much like to hear from. You know, let's. If we did 60 days and then at 60 days, we that staff brought it back for us to evaluate at that time what we wanted to do. But the idea of a solid jeopardizing it, like one of us having to agenda is it every time that the time limit comes up, I think puts a lot of political pressure on everybody and really is exhausting versus having staff bring forward and saying here's the state of the of the COVID situation. Now Council, you can vote to extend it or not extend it. So. Right, Captain? Yeah. Yeah. Bring it back on the road. Yeah. Staff brought it back two weeks before the 60 day, and then we could have a vote at that time on what we needed to do. I would support that. Okay. And then the the final one that I want to add on here and I need to pull it up because I wrote it out on a piece of paper this morning. And and it's it's for the partial payment. I'll just tell you right now, I'm going to be a no unless we can include partial payment as part of the 12 month extension. So we're not going to extend. That was part of my motion. Councilmember Price, that you asked me to repeat. But I think you wanted it in the whereas, not in the ordinance. Yes. And if we if we could maybe turn to the city attorney and ask him for some clarification on on why that is. That'd be helpful. Sure. I always love hearing from a Chinese. If we can hear from Rich Anthony, who has helped us on this, that would be helpful. Tom, do you know if Rich's. I'm sorry. I'm here. Sorry. This is rich. Um, I had to do this da thing. It took me a while. I apologize. That's okay. Okay. So I take the request by you, Councilmember Pierce, to put the benchmarks, as I call them, or the partial payments in the preamble to mean it is something we're encouraging people to do, but it is not required. You just want to go on record as you think that would be a good idea. But it's not required and it's it's not enforceable more or less. And I think Councilmember Price is saying is that she would like it to be. I have I have no opinion on whether it ought to be enforceable or just a soft encouragement. That's up to you all to hash out. So my my question for you, which was based on our conversation when we were putting this together, was if we put it into the ordinance. What could happen if, say, a tenant does not pay that 30% by the six month period? Would they be at risk of eviction or at risk of additional harassment? Oh, they'd be at risk of of eviction. I don't know that they would have already been harassed and been at risk of additional announcement. I mean, know, if it's a requirement, if it's a benchmark requirement, then yes, if they fail to make that payment, they would immediately be at risk of eviction. And that and that councilmember price is the part that is difficult for me because I know that, you know, as a tenant and I think we talked about this last time, everybody wants to try to pay as much as they can so that they don't end up being evicted and that they're not taking advantage of the system . So trying to strike that balance in between supporting landlords, getting what's what's due to them, but also not putting somebody at risk of saying that if you don't make that payment by that first time, then maybe they have, you know, a tax check that's coming in or, you know, as somebody that lives on very low income, it might be that they can make a bigger payment down the road. Something happens. And so I would hate to put them in a situation where they they might be able to make the nine month, but they couldn't make the six month. And therefore, now they're evicted because of something that wasn't necessarily their fault. And so. That's right. That's why it's it's tricky. Right. And I get that. I think I think it just might be and I may be right. I may be wrong. I don't know. But it just may be that philosophically we may not agree on whether we want this to be a soft encouragement or part of the ordinance. So with that, I'm going to make a substitute. My substitute is going to be that that there will be a repayment period that will be extended from six months to 12 months, but that the repayment schedule will look as follows 10% owed at the first quarter. 25% owed at the second quarter. 30% owed at the third quarter and 35% owed at the fourth quarter. And that allows for an easy ramp up in the event that a tenant is not able to make these partial payments. That tenant upon providing proof. And documentation of their inability to pay. She'll request relief from the payment plan. And will not have to pay those partial payments upon submission of proof or documentation. So that's the first part of the substitute. The second part of the substitute will be that the. Moratorium on rental evictions will be extended until June 30th, with staff to bring the item back three days following June 30th for the. Oh. I'll wait. Whether it will be, I'm sorry, on June 30th. On June 30th, the Council will receive an item at the at its the meeting closest in time to June 30th to evaluate whether it shall extend the moratorium and not 30 days into the month of July and every 30 days from that point on, the Council can reevaluate. In my substitute, the Tidelands Fund exemption that we discussed, the revolving loan fund that we asked city staff to look into for property owners and housing providers. The foreclosure resolution, foreclosure relief options that we asked for staff to report back on the legislative actions that are pending in the state. Foreclosure relief. The property tax proposal is being evaluated by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. And I do not want. This anti-harassment clause that's in here or this I realize that was no longer part of the. But I do I'm not putting any sort of report back on that because I believe it's fraught with all sorts of legal landmines . So with that, that's my substitute. Okay. Substitute. Is there a second on that? Is there a second on that? Supermodel second. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Councilwoman Mongo. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Councilman Mongo. That's correct. Councilman. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of additional questions. Thank you for the questions that have been brought forward so far. I see that there are some instances that have been brought to my attention where landlords out of a. Significant amount of caution when taking on tenants requested in the commercial world, proof of six months of reserves before providing a lease to imports. And that there are. Tenants who are choosing even though they have the reserves not to pay. And I don't know what the solution might be, but I would be interested in knowing a little bit more about. Councilman Price, in your preamble, is there still a significant encouragement for those that can't afford to pay to pay fully because there are ripple effects to some of these non payments that are detrimental, especially in our commercial markets where they're not backed up by loans from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or any of the commercial organizations who are offering some of this relief. Yes. I'm personally very familiar with that that predicament for commercial tenants. Yes. I think if if you can. I would like that to be included in the preamble, in the whereas clauses that those who can pay should be encouraged to pay. The other benefit of that as these balloon payments are impossible, impossible for commercial tenants and residential tenants to be able to meet. So encouraging, highly encouraging payment and partial payment, I think should be included. Also in a particular case or two where I was discussing the return of a particular employee, and she had said that she's in a very tough spot because of childcare issues and other things, but that she was actually more money. Through current unemployment with the supplemental than she was before. And so. This Mummy friend of mine had mentioned to me, she said, you know, I'm kind of thinking about not paying my rent because I don't have to. But I do have the money. But what if I need it three months from now or six months from now? So I really do appreciate the. Security that we're giving and giving a specific amount of days. But I would really like to also encourage that if your income has not been impacted, that you're strongly encouraged to pay. And and even I don't know what to put in there. Maybe that's one place you have some ideas, but. The landlord that they have may not be able to pay their rent. And here is someone who could pay their rent and or they could be paying to a corporation that owns apartments, who then has to lay off a bunch of employees because the rents aren't coming in. So I just don't know. How to how to solve for some of these problems that are real, that are causing these rippling effects. And there's so much fear of what tomorrow will be or how long will be closed. Will we be closed for six months? 12 months? 24 months. People are scared. I've seen holes out there that there are some that support indefinite closures. And so there's this insecurity about payment. What what are your thoughts? Council on Price. I haven't thought about that. I think those are all very valid points. I'd be open to anything that you want to include in that. I mean, I think it allows us to look at the issue not just in a vacuum, but holistically. But I just haven't given it much thought. So I don't want to throw something out there that I haven't thought about. Okay with that? I would like to. Substitute. And I would like to add. Well. We've lost councilmember mongo. By for rent deferment months and then as. 1/2 we're. Supposed to those. Can you still hear me? I'm looking to find some way where those who have six months of reserves can be exempted from the clause so that. The landlords can help those who most need it. And those who have not received a reduction in income or a change in situation could be I need some help from the city attorney on this, but what I want is if there is a landlord that has three tenants and all three choose not to pay, then the two who are most in need could potentially lose their homes too, because the landlord could lose the property and there could have been a partial payment. So I'm looking for some options to help us really drill this down to those who need the help. This is rich. You mentioned two different things and the first of which was a tenant taking advantage or availing themselves protections here under. That we're not covered impacted. That's not going to happen because the original ordinance that were that were amended now requires proof of adverse COVID impacts. Now, I think there's the section or I should say the example you give. That perhaps is an issue and I'm thinking about how to deal with it is the tenant that has been adversely impacted by the commercial business that's been adversely impacted as a result of COVID. But does have several months worth of reserve. You know, whether it's six or more. They have a lot of money in the bank with which they can pay rent. And these are big corporations taking advantage of some of our landlords. Yes. But the motion as that's on the floor now is that companies with 500 or more employees would be exempt. I mean, maybe it's going to be difficult to get into the specifics of exempting somebody who has six months of reserves. I don't exactly know reserves of what. How do you determine what six months of reserve are? Perhaps a simpler way of addressing large companies, taking advantage of protections that they don't really need to be taking advantage of because they have money is by reducing the maximum amount of employees, or I should say the minimum amount of employees that you need to have. I'm sorry. The maximum number of employees that you need to have to qualify. And maybe if you bring the 500 down, that was in the original motion and is in the substitute motion currently on the floor. And I guess you made a sub sub. Is that right, Councilwoman Mongo? You broke it and you were doing that? Yes. I'm trying to form my son sub. Right. So maybe rather than dealing with six months worth of reserves, you suggest a change to the 500 or more employees and make it something lower, perhaps a lot lower. Well, I guess the 500 employees kind of fared on the protections that are already provided by another act. Is that correct? I don't know. I think so. Councilmember Pearce may be able to speak to that. I think it came from the L.A. ordinance. I don't know why L.A. adopted it that way. So here's my subsub. Subsub is Councilman Price's motion with some additional warehouses related to. Those who have the ability to pay because their income. Or reserves. I'm going to try to put it in the warehouses so it's not as. Impactful, but still impactful. And that those companies I have specific companies in my district who outlaid a ton of cash for Douglas Park and all these others and elsewhere. If you can't make the motion. So we could follow it. I appreciate it because the whereas is the the substitute. Motion with added recitals will. Not qualify as a substitute. Substitute motion. There's no there's no significant difference. You're just adding additional whereas is which are recitals and unenforceable. So you have to make it. I have a change in the payment schedule as well. I haven't heard it. Thank you. Thank you. So the warehouses where as a a tenant is able to pay shall and these are on the commercial tenants. I'm going to focus on the commercial tenants. I think the residential tenants are are less they're few and far between and not probably worth attacking at this time. Remember, if you could make the motion and not explain it, I got to follow your motion. First and then you can just. Sorry. Thank you. And then for the schedule of payments, I would like to revise the payment schedule to be. 10%. At. 10% every 60 days. So it would go ten, 20, 30, 40, 50. If that makes sense of the total amount. Yes. So let's see. Ten two months in 20. After four months, they have to pay 20%. After six months, 30. After eight months, 40. After ten months into the rent repayment period, they have to be at least 50. And then in the final two months, they can pay the remaining 50%. Am I following you right? The previous one was ten 2530. I was trying to go. I was hoping that at the end of year they would have paid in full. And it sounds like a 50% balloon payment at the end would be detrimental. So let's do. Two months, 10%. Four months. 25%. Six months. 50%. Nine months, 75%, with 100% at the 12 month mark. I think that's probably the. Best way to help people stay on track. And then for the clarification on the proof of no income or no subsidy or in the ability to demonstrate. Their inability to pay on the commercial tenant side. Which should be pretty easy to do if you're not open. But then potentially these corporations would have a difficult time demonstrating their inability to pay. Okay. I think I understand the subsidies. Thank you. And I want to thank you guys for working through this with me again. I hadn't planned on making a sub sub tonight. I really have listened to a lot of tenants and housing providers and commercial providers, and I have a lot of fears about how much worse this could get if we don't help people work together to stay on track. And I hope that this also helps tenants negotiate with their landlords a better solution. I have no further comments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Let me go to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So and following the conversation on it, I want to say first that I appreciate the movement for where this conversation began, where it is and where it arrived. Under the main motion, Councilwoman Pierce's motion. I see that. And I saw the original file. And I thought that, you know, even though it came down from like five, it came down from 94, and the amendment was accepted to go to 60 with Staff Ridge. And I think I think that makes sense. I think that's what the council needs. I think that's where the council is. It included repayment guidelines. I know that that wasn't part of the original proposal and there was a lot of flexibility and grace in the way it was presented to have some level of repayment guidelines. I think that made sense and I think that's what the council where the council was, I think it considered I heard how it considered a number of considerations and exemptions on commercial considerations on the way it impacts the airport and the port. All of those things are good. I think that it got there. It was all you know, all of these really represent, I think, a collection of the communications we've heard and the discussion we've heard on council, all except for one friendly amendment and for that one friendly amendment to not be accepted and turned into a substitute and substitute substitute motion. Is it really this spirit that we should really be a spirit of collaboration, working together and working? And it didn't really align with, I think, the grace that Councilwoman Pearce put forward. And and I think it was at best earlier. I think it just comes down to philosophical differences. And I don't think this is the time to draw lines in the sand or philosophical differences. I think they're very, very close. Like 90 days, we start bringing it back. Consideration, given the guidelines. I think I think that's where we really are. So I have a question for staff for the city attorney. I don't quite understand what the substitute substitute motion is. Would you mind clarifying what that motion is? I'd be happy to. This is rich again. So the substitute substitute, assuming I mean, I'm not going to read through all of it, I don't think unless you'd like me to. Or do you want me to say how I believe it to be different than the original motion? What do you prefer? I think that would be helpful. Yeah, but just the substantive points, because it just seemed like it was I couldn't understand it was freaking out. You know what? It's not meant to be a justifiable comment, but I don't know what it is. So I'd actually like to read through the entirety of any given. I'll read through the entirety of it and Councilmember Mongo can correct me if I'm wrong. Number one is to extend the current eviction moratorium and the rent deferment period for 30 days to June 30th and direct staff to bring it back in sometime in the middle of June before it expires. Number two, extend the current deferred rent repayment period. And I'm glad we're doing this. The original motion was August 31st, and I don't think Susie's ever changed that, but it ought to be changed. I think the understanding is that August 31st was key to the August 31st and the first part. So I think the motion should be extend the current deferred rent repayment period to June 30th of 2021. So it's a year and it would also include this wouldn't be in the preamble. You have a year to repay if you're a tenant, but you do have five, four benchmarks you need to hit. You need to repay 10% of your deferred rent two months into the period. You need to pay 25% of your deferred rent. Four months in 50%. Six months in 75%. Nine months in. And then the final payment before the year is out. Item number three is out and that has to do with anti tenant harassment and that's no longer a part of this episode. Number four, there would be six types of commercial tenants excluded from the extension of this moratorium. Multinational companies, number one, publicly traded companies. Number two, companies with 500 or more employees. Number three, all airport tenancies and sub tenancies. Number for all harbor department tenancies and Tenancies. Number five Entitlements, Trust, Tenancies and Tenancies would be number six. All those would be excluded. And then five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and 11. So there are six other parts of it that are all direction to city staff to work with tenants on a case by case basis to encourage the Board of Harbor Commissioners to do the same with respect to providing their tenants with rent relief, directing staff to bring back evaluations, a revolving loan fund, directing staff to bring back a report on possible foreclosure relief. Directing staff to bring back property tax relief measures. Directing staff to bring back a report on ASB 939 eight, 28, 28 and 8020 501. And lastly, having the Legislative Committee advocate for increased forbearance at the state level. I believe that is the service that is on the table right now. Well done. So thank you. So I guess I'll say I think what I'd like to see happen tonight is an extension. I think the 90 days, what we proposed, but the 60 days that was accepted. I think that that's where we should be. I think, you know, the repayment schedules would probably be somewhere in the second six months benchmark starting around the second six months. I agree that it probably should be included and where the preamble is. It might be very challenging to put in inside the trigger a cascade of of evictions and other things. If we don't do this, don't handle this the right way. So that's why I think we want to be I don't think that's where the substance of the motion is. I think the motion aligns most clearly with that is the motion. That's why I'd like to get through. Thank you. Is there a second on that? I think on on council. On Mango's motion. Was there a second on that? Is that it? I will accept that, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to. Well, 1/2. That was Councilman Richardson. Next up is Vice Mayor Andres. If you missed. You know, I really appreciate the just. I want to be clear that I support. For a community like mine in a minority linnet households, because at this time we need to be focused on livelihood and that values. My sincere worry and focus is that we need to have financial literacy in place so that we are not intentionally creating debt. It is sort of rent. I want as a councilor to continue working with our other branches of government so that we can secure federal dollars and protection from our property owners as well as they, too , are struggling. We also need to look for a way to assist our undocumented households that have not been able to obtain resources. They should not be an afterthought. I want to be supportive of a policy tonight that is clear. Came somewhat in alliance with what has come in and other local governments are doing to avoid confusion as to ultimately have a contingency. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have counted Boston. I thank you and I appreciate the discussion tonight as well. You know, when this. Economic relief policies came before us. First of all, the council jumped at the opportunity, understanding that families were really hurting and people were devastated by not only this health crisis, but with the economic calamity facing our city, our state and federal government. I think, you know, in doing so, we painted a very broad brush. You know, I think there was a lot of assumptions made, and that was several weeks ago. And we still don't have the clarity we really need to make great policy in terms of clairvoyance, in terms of where we are going, what our economy is going to look like a month from now, six months from now, 12 months from now. And so we'll do our very best. I think there are some assumptions that, you know, property owners can necessarily absorb the losses, which I think is false in some respects. But I also think there's some assumptions made that all renters are struggling with rent, I guess, is that that's a reach as well. I think. That we as a city council should be encouraging good faith from all parties of property owners as well as campus tenants as well. And frequent and ongoing communications. I think that that's very, very important here. I want to be careful that we don't create policy that is confusing. With this application and interpretation from the public. And I do appreciate that we are trying to massage this to get to a place where people understand payment schedules, which I support, but also compromise in terms of what the extension level is. And I think 60 days is a good place on the. I do think that there is some clarity that's needed in this. And so I would like to offer a friendly amendment to the maker of this this motion and the motion on that motion on the floor. I think it's important that we we really try to. Understand who qualifies for this benefit. And, you know, again, in an effort to eliminate confusion, I'd like to inform. For the maker of emotion, consider a friendly that allows language in to say that you know those who who who qualify for public assistance of you. I did have something written down here for public assistance after March 30, 2020, due to COVID 19 economic displacement. I think it's very important that we help those who need the help right now, and we target our efforts to help those instead of, again, bringing in broad brush that confuses everybody. We love to help those that are in need. Our governor has given a number that he believes that unemployment can can reach 25%. You know, those individuals need to need our help. They need our attention as as public leaders. And so that's it. Now it's never goal. Would you be open to such a friendly amendment? Councilmember Austin. That was exactly my goal. I am trying. Thank you for putting that in such great words. My big concern is that we are painting a broad brush and I absolutely do want to help those that qualify for public assistance. No. We're losing you. Go ahead. That's a yes. You're absolutely. Right. It does impact so many people. I can't tell you how many lamb or. Sure. Friendly. Okay. Great. Next up is Council for Superman. Thank you. I just wanted to get some more clarification also. But first, I wanted to commend Vice Mayor Andrews. He was the first one to mention the concept of financial literacy. And I think that's so important moving forward that we have some type of educational process here to explain how important credit ratings are and whatnot. And and just the pitfalls of not making these payments and just some type of education piece would be great. So thanks to Vice Mayor Andrews for bringing that up. The clarification I was asking for this goes back to the substitute motion. Councilmember Price. Stated that there had to be some proof shown from tenant to landlord. And this question, I guess is for Rich Anthony. Does that go back to reflect what's in the original ordinance. Um, by, I think it was you had mentioned state guidelines or does that all make sense to for what part in the substitute motion was. It does. It's a good question. Council Member Supernova. But I think so. In the original ordinance, we say that in order to qualify, a tenant has to provide reasonable documentation, I think, or reasonable evidence of COVID related adverse impact. The way that I interpret the substitute substitute motion on the floor is that is a little different in its in its. It doesn't need to read the same as the overall qualification language in the original ordinance. This language regarding providing proof of an inability to pay. Is applicable only to the inability to make those benchmark payments during the 12 month repayment period. And it's a bit of a higher bar. They have to provide proof of an inability to pay. That's the way that I heard it, and that's the way I intend to write it. Okay, so that answered my question. I just feel that language has to be pretty tight so we avoid confusion. Moving forward. And that's all I have. With that, I can support this subset. Next up is Councilman Price. Just wanted to clarify that this sub sub includes all of the same provisions that Councilwoman Pearce included in her original motion regarding the title and I'm sorry, the harbor department and airport exemptions with the requirement that city staff work with those individual tenants on a case by case basis to determine rental deferment or mitigation efforts in light of COVID. Does that include that council member Mango? Absolutely. There are lots of grants at the airport that require it. So. Yes, thank you. Okay. Also just want to highlight this about the partial payments we want I want that in there because I know there are council members, probably all of us who really don't want to be putting anyone in a situation where if they're not getting any income and they're not getting any rental assistance, they're still being forced to make a partial payment. I think for those situations, if they can provide the proof and I appreciate Councilman Austin clarifying that that's a different situation, I believe that even most landlords would understand and appreciate and have compassion in that kind of situation. So I just wanted to clarify the intent for that is if people just really aren't making any income and they don't qualify for a subsidy, they cannot make that partial payment, then that would be a situation that would require proof. Absent that, it would not require proof. And and I'm totally happy with the 60 days. I think that makes sense. So. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and take the subset vote roll call, please. District one. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. This is rich. I'm sorry I lost the train. Win, win. Stacey and Al were speaking. Was there a friendly maid that was accepted? Yes. There was. I don't have that. Okay. Let me just briefly, Councilman Mangum. Was proof of subsidy. Hmm. From March in. Proof of subsidy. I don't need. Proof. Payment assistance. No, no, no. It's proof that they don't qualify for subsidy, which would justify them not making the payment. My intent was proof of qualified public assistance. So. The point being is that if somebody has been impacted negatively by COVID 19, their job has been they've been displaced, laid off over the hours. They qualify for unemployment, qualify for other public assistance. That should be proof enough to. Landlord. Property owner that they cannot make for rent. Right. They're not making up the fact that they are unemployed because they actually have an unemployment check or have they qualified for unemployment benefits. Right. So. So this is rich again. I get it. What I was just discussing with council member Supernormal. We want to be able to say you're talking only about the benchmark payments. Is that right, Councilmember Austin? No, not the benchmark mark payments I'm talking about. Again, I was talking about us kind of clarifying who we're trying to help. Right. In this policy, we're trying to help those who've been devastated, who've been hit hard by the pandemic and the economic crisis. Those are caught up in the workforce that is declining as a result of this. The economic impacts that and those individuals can can show that, hey, yes, I have applied for it. I've been qualify for unemployment benefits or even if they can even show me a layoff notice from an employer that those type of documents should be. Good enough to to put them in a position where they can now be any a. Rent forgiveness or relief. Position where they are. On a schedule to repay as they can. I get it. So I for the for the purposes of the motion, I think what Al is actually requesting is to provide a little more clarity on how a tenant would qualify for the application of this ordinance, which was not something we were discussing earlier, but it's still appropriate to it. Just this would require this friendly, I think would require a little more specificity to be provided in the opening section of the existing ordinance when it says you need to be able to provide reasonable proof that you've been adversely affected by COVID. If you're a tenant, well, now it's going to say you need to be able to provide reasonable proof, which will, if you can prove that you qualify for other public benefits or you've received a layoff notice, that will be reasonable proof. I think it simplifies things for the renters. Absolutely. Does that make sense? Are you good with that, Stacey? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So now we're going to go back to that clarifies the vote. We were on the roll call vote. So. Well, hold on, Councilman Price, is that an additional. Do you keep up again or that I. I did. Go ahead. Okay. So the and I misunderstood that I'm the secondary the motion. I misunderstood that. Councilman Orson I think that's fine. I have no objection to what you're suggesting, but what I wanted to hopefully try to get a little bit of clarification on is for the partial payments or the pay back schedule for those. I had indicated in my substitute that individuals who are receiving no income and don't qualify for anything for whatever reason, those individuals would not have to pay the partial payments. They would still have 12 months to repay. But if they couldn't make the partial payments that I was trying to find a way for those individuals to not have to pay through proof and documentation. So I think the proof and documentation would be that if they can show they're not receiving any income. Through subsidy or work, then they would not have to make a partial payment on that payment schedule. And so that's an A. And I accept that friendly as well. I think that's very gracious. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go then to the roll call vote on the sub sub, Madam Clerk. District one. A District two. No. District three. I have District four. I. District five. I. District six. Yeah. District seven. A. District eight. District eight. I. District nine. No. Okay. Now we'll take a roll call vote on the substitute motion. District one. Name. District two. May. District three. I. District four. District four. I. District five. I. District six. May. District seven. Nay. District eight. All right. District nine? No. Okay. Now we're back to the original motion. So this is the. I think we're gonna need some clarity. Consumer Peirce, do you want to repeat? Mr. Attorney, can you repeat the motion that's on the floor? Yes. Are we. Are the friendlies accepted as part of that motion? I think that I think the friend I think that council council member Pearce accepted a majority of Councilman Price's friend Liz, with the exception, I think of a couple at the end. But I don't think she accepted anything beyond that because there was a substitute on the floor. If. Right. Okay. Can I get a clarity, clarification on what was accepted before the substitute? Absolutely. And that's why I want to make sure that. Mr. Senator, do you have all of that that we went through what we need to be repeated? I think I can go through most of it and then I can highlight what I think is what I'm not quite certain of. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to leave the first part. And here's the part that I'm pretty sure of. Extends the current deferred rent repayment period to. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Hmm. You know what? Let me just start from the top. And it's the number one was extend the current eviction moratorium and rent deferment period. For 90 days to August 31st, 2020. I'm not sure if the friendly was accepted to make it 60 days with direction for staff to bring it back or not. That was accepted to be 60 days and then after the 60 days there would be a review prior to the 60 days, two weeks before to consider an extension at that point. But it was 60 days with consideration of extension for 30 days. Got it. Okay. Then number two would be extend the current deferred rent repayment period, the period within which tenants into repay to July 31, 2021. The benchmarks would be in the preamble. They would be encouragement only not enforceable. There would be a direction to the city manager to work with the prosecutor and the city attorney to bring back a report in June on anti tenant harassment best practices. But that would not be included in the ordinance. The exclusion of the commercial tenants would remain the same as the last time I went through this. There would be six different types of commercial tenants excluded, including title stressed tenancies and sub tenancies. I believe that was accepted. And the remainder five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 would be, as I described them, as directing city staff to do certain things with respect to certain programs and also directing the legislative committee to advocate for increased forbearance. I don't think any of those things changed or friendlies were accepted that were discussed between CD3 and CD2. Hopefully. Hopefully, that's a thumbnail sketch of what we're voting on. If you need more clarification, let me know. Okay. And Councilmember Pearce, do you have a clarification? I appreciate Stoffer for running through those. I know that everybody had an opinion on the way that the repayment should work, so I really will kick it over to staff to flush that part out since everybody had a different thought in that section. So long as yeah, I think that is it. That what you want it to be but you want it to be in the preamble, right? Right. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Can I just ask for a clarification, Mr. Mayor? Yes, I had a qualification. Go ahead, Councilman. Okay. How about the amendments regarding the revolving loan fund for property owners? The report back on the foreclosure resolution with the legislative actions. Yes, those are accepted. And Tidelands Fund. Yes. Those were. Accepted. Okay, great. And I want to clarify also just Councilman Pierce, I think what your what your your motion is you're asking for staff. On the actual repayment plan that staff would come back to present to see how that would actually look, what the payment plan would look like for council to adopt. I mean, considering we're in that first six months, there's obviously very little time to. Yeah, we have it's extended 12. But the payment plan process, it will come back from from staff, correct? Yes, I'm. And and I think that the the preamble question, I think I'm not I don't completely understand it. And so I'm assuming we'll get some clarity from staff on kind of where the appropriate place that should go in the ordinance. Yeah. I feel comfortable that I know where to put it in the preamble. And effectively the direction is to in the future, the council is going to consider making that those benchmark payments enforceable. I think that's what I'm hearing. But for the time being, it's only going to be encouraged in the preamble. And that in the next six months, because we've got six months until we want to work on what that payment plan looks like, you can bring that back to the Council for us to have a fuller discussion and about where the economy is at. Thank you. I get it. I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead. That clarifies it. I'm going to a roll call vote. District one. Yeah, I am District two. Yeah. District three. District three. Did you get mine? No. There's three. I. District four. All right. District five. I am District six. I'm District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Ocean carries. Thank you, counsel. That concludes the item. All the items on the agenda. I don't think anybody has any new business that I see. No one is queued up for new business. And so with that, we will go ahead and adjourn the meeting of the city council.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with ASM Global, of Conshohocken, PA, for management of the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center, located at 300 East Ocean Boulevard. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_05102022_22-0517

Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go right into item 23, please. Report from Economic Development. Recommendation to execute an agreement with ASEM Global for Management of the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center, District one. Thank you. And before we begin, Councilwoman Allen, I. Yes, I have to recuse myself with this item. I live within 500 feet of the convention center. Thank you. There is a motion in a second, but I want to start off, of course, by doing the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We do have a staff report. This is a very significant item. The council has been really involved in this through some closed session negotiations, and we're really happy to be here for an open presentation on a lease amendment. We have been for the past several months looking to really reposition our convention center, our arena, our theater, and really, you know, take even more steps beyond the amazing facility that it is today, modernizing the agreement and achieving some key goals. So we're really happy to be here. It's been a very good negotiation and I think it's been beneficial for both parties. And we're looking for a long term, ten year agreement for your approval tonight. So I will turn it over to Gianni Vallejo, our acting director of economic development, to walk us through the details. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Mayor and council members. Simon is intended to provide details. As Tom noted, I've negotiated terms for the management of the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center. Start off with a little background. The original agreement from 1991 was a spectacle management group, which subsequently became SMG. In 2019, AG Facilities and SMG merged to become ASEM Global, the largest convention and entertainment venue management company in the world. The current agreement is set to expire September of next year, and while the original agreement has served the center well, it's provided for expansion, improvement and flexibility. Many of the existing terms and fee structure are outdated. The agreement lacks incentive for key priorities and lacks performance measures more consistent with modern center management agreements. In June of 2021, Edison Global submitted an unsolicited proposal to, among other things, extend the term of the existing agreement with direction from council staff of engage with Anthem RSM Global to update and modernize the agreement. First, we negotiated with ASM Global for a relatively short term, a seven year extension through 2029 with a three year option to extend. This gets us through the Olympic Games but does not overextend and provides the city the opportunity to reevaluate the agreement at that time. These revised terms would commence on October 1st, 2022, to accommodate the fiscal year. The base management fee will be set at $500,000 annually with CPI increases. This is an almost $1.5 million reduction in the current base fee. A committee consisting of City, ASEM, Global and CVB representatives will convene annually to develop an annual operating plan to assist in establishing benchmarks, capital improvement priorities and key performance indicators. RSM Global will provide $7 million immediately in direct funding to Citi for urgent capital improvement items and another 3 million if a three year option is exercised. ESM Global will incorporate the use of a mobile based survey tool to measure visitor and user experiences across all venues and event spaces. Annually and prior to each fiscal year, the committee will meet to assess and recommend weightings for financial and performance based benchmarks for a fixed pool incentive program. The purpose here is to incentivize the city's financial, operational and booking priorities. A special revenue incentive provision would provide financial incentive for new and special revenue generation. This would only be paid after city receives 100% of established financial benchmarks. This incentive is only available for new revenue and goes away if and when revenue is established as an ongoing revenue source. This may include development of new food and beverage or special events outlets. It's m global will continue its commitment to labor relations through labor, peace and collective bargaining agreements. And the city will be afforded the opportunity to review and provide input on key facilities. Staffing changes. In addition to already established to the already established City Free Youth Program supporting large citywide events, ASM Global will now provide a Community Free Youth Program providing up to 100 hours of free youth for small community based meetings and gatherings. ASEM Global will establish a $350,000 annual marketing fund to increase by 5% annually, which will include diversity, specific outreach and marketing efforts. And finally, the city retains the option to develop the elephant lot during the term of the amended agreement, and ASEM Global is committed to working with the city to accommodate preparations for the upcoming Olympic Games . Here we have a brief summary of the proposed benchmarks, KPIs that would be tracked and measure to ensure city priorities are structural lies and that performance standards are set for ASM Global. There are also these are also the goals ASEM Global would need to meet to access the fixed pool incentive. Broadly, these categories would include operational and financial performance, community benefit and venue activation goals, and they would include priorities such as revenue in revenue achievement, visitor satisfaction, energy efficiency, diversity, equity, inclusion, and venue booking goals, among others. One area of distinct interest from council was looking at the possibility of utilizing venues for more commercial and entertainment uses . In particular, the Arena Pacific Ballroom has been majority utilized to support conventions and trade shows. The city here would provide a booking plan for ASM Global to work towards as part of its fixed pool incentive as the venue requires updating to Bette to better accommodate entertainment functions. These goals would be developed pre and post capital investment. The proposed initial arena booking goals would be in years. One through four city would set a goal of 30% or more for commercial and entertainment bookings for years five through ten after improvements are made, such as updated seating and concessions at the arena. That booking goal would increase to 50% or more for commercial and entertainment bookings. It's some global has continued to work on programs to benefit the center even during the prolonged COVID closure. Some of the new special revenue programs at the center include participation in the ASEM Global Sponsorship Network, estimated to result in $200,000 in new revenue annually . And a new Ticketmaster exclusive agreement estimated to result in $400,000 in new revenue annually. Even during COVID as and Global has continued to develop revenue opportunities for the center. And despite the uncertainty of the industry, they are willing to make substantial investment to continue as our partner at the Long Beach Convention Entertainment Center. And lastly. Just a brief reminder that the center has substantial facility investment needs and there is a potential to utilize ASM Global's capital investment payment, along with any stronger net position resulting from this agreement to fund a broader capital investment effort. Any consideration of financing or debt service would be evaluated with the Council at a later date. So we believe these terms represent an updated agreement that provides for increased revenue to the city, more accountability for the operator, and incorporation of city council priorities. Thank you. And this concludes my staff report. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and do public comment first and then we will go back to the council. And then we have four members that have signed up. And Madam, quickly want to read those four names and then we'll go from there. Can the following people please line up? Bob McClintock said Ramani. Nikki Claire and Todd Lummis. Right. You have 3 minutes. Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, I want to thank you very much. My name is Bob McLintock and executive vice president of Convention Service, Race and Global. And I'm here on behalf of the entire company. And Ron Benson, our president. I'm here to actually direct three. Thank you. First, I want to thank this body here. We are so fortunate in Long Beach to have an engaged council and mayor and what we do and the thousands of people who make their living in the hospitality industry. Thank you for that. Because without that, we could not have the lives that we have. The second group of people I want to take a moment to thank are the men and women who work at the Convention Center itself. Their work over the past two years has been unbelievable. The challenges they face, the way they've stepped up. And and I know that they are excited to be able to continue to serve the customers that come to Long Beach. In particular, I want to take a moment to thank Charlie Byrne. Some of you may know Charlie and I go way back to our days in the city. He came here on what I call the Gilligan's Island tour. I asked him to come here for six months to help me. That was 11 years ago. He has agreed to take a promotion with us to move to Fort Lauderdale. He's going to take on two very important jobs there. One, of course, is being the regional vice regional general manager of the convention center there and in Fort Lauderdale. And the second is to be closer to his impending grandchild. The last person I want to thank and I have to do this is Steve Goodling. I'm very fortunate and blessed in my career to be able to travel the world and work with convention centers and destinations all around the world. Nowhere do I see a partnership with our destination marketing organization and the vision and commitment that Steve has brought to this and his willingness to work with us to create that unique product that is Long Beach is really, I think, what makes this community so special. So thank you all and thank you for your time. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Sid Romani and I'm the area general manager for Hyatt Hotels overseeing the Hyatt centric and the Hyatt Regency. Thank you for supporting the Convention Center. It is such a big part of our local community and the center of our hospitality hospitality community. As you know, the Hyatt Regency is connected to the convention center. In my 24 years of working with Hyatt. I have never seen a strong and effective relationship between the Convention Center and CVB, as I have here in Long Beach. I think through the site inspections around Bryan Brothers, the ACP site, and to see all the stakeholders and the community come together to try and attract this business to Long Beach is truly phenomenal. Their hard work and collaboration bring thousands of guests to our hotels every year. Thank you for keeping our award winning teams at the Center and CVB together for succeeding Long Beach. I also have some friends in the audience that would like to stand up and show their appreciation. So thank you so much for your support. Good afternoon, Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Nikki. Eloise, Iris Claire. I am the owner of George's Greek Café, along with my family. We have been in the Long Beach community for over 42 years and have been in business in Long Beach for over 22 years. First, I want to thank you for your support for the team at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center. These events are a huge part of our business and I know we've always realized it, but didn't realize how much until this pandemic hit us and saw how significantly this affected our business. Actually, since the pandemic, these past couple of months are the first that we've had, two that are in the positive. So thank you to the convention center. It's a big, big part of it. I just want to reinforce how important the center is to our organization, to our businesses, to our local businesses, to our restaurants, to our hotels. The CVB and convention teams have been an integral part of our success, and they have been incredibly supportive of us. And thank you for your continued support as well. Good afternoon, mayor garcia and members of the council. I'm todd limits. I am a founding partner of pacific six enterprises as well as Ocean Center and Breakers Development. But today, I stand before you as the chairman of the Board of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. In that position, I've had a unique front row seat to see how Steve Goodling and the CVB interact in a truly symbiotic relationship with the three legs of the stool that is the convention industry. It's the CVB, the Convention and Entertainment Center, and the the hospitality community in general. I say it's a symbiotic relationship. As. As somebody who's. Who's been around the block a few times, you never see such an unbelievably good relationship with any member of that that triumvirate of entities. No one ever says no. We all work together. No one no one comes at this self-interested. We regularly win conventions from from larger and fancier convention areas San Francisco, Las Vegas, San Diego, Anaheim. And we do it by all coming out together, rallies, the troops, the folks from the Convention and Entertainment Center from SMG Global. All come together. We get we get community members together. We had a gathering recently for the NAACP council members. Mayor Garcia showed up. And it's really just a winning, winning combination. So I say as the as the the chair of the CVB and as a community member and a very eminent member of the of the hospitality and hotel industry, we couldn't be more grateful and more supportive of of keeping the band together and keeping this wonderful relationship continuing. Thank you all very much. That concludes public comment. Thank you. That concludes our our comment. We will come back to the council. Let me just go ahead and go to the council. Then I'll close and say some comments. Compliments in the house. Thank you, Mayor. I am so excited and so pleased with this agreement, with this contract with an ASEM Global. I think it's just been amazing all the work that you do, all the highlight that you bring to our city, you just shine a light on Long Beach so beautifully and you bring so many wonderful people to experience Long Beach. And that's something that we are so appreciative to, to you for. And it it works. It trickles down. And so, you know, I know I hear a lot of my small businesses in the community really, really embrace it when when they know that there's conventions in town because they are able to benefit from that. So thank you. Thank you for doing all the amazing work that you do all all of your workers. From the top to the bottom, from the bottom to the top. Everybody feels so special being part of this wonderful family. And so I'm just really excited to have you in my district, in District one, and really look forward to a really great relationship moving forward even better than we already have if you if that can even happen. But I'm really, really excited to do this and to be in this in this space with you guys. And again, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing so many, so many people here to Long Beach. And really, you are one of our most valuable economic engines in the city and that we can't thank you enough for the wonderful way that you represent the city and the wonderful way that you treat people when once they get here. And I think that that's very, very important. Your your customer service is outstanding. And I'm just so, so very proud of you and so very proud to have you in our city. We are very lucky to have you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Sure. I just want to chime in and, you know, thank our convention center, our CVB, RSM, really for being there for us. Over these past few years, it's been difficult time. Our downtown, our convention center, our tourism district was impacted by the pandemic. But you showed leadership despite that. Helping organize convention centers across the state to establish rules for reopening. When we saw a crisis on our border. You all stepped up and provided shelter to migrant children. And now, as we're charting our recovery and you're now presenting an agreement that you've come to terms with that positions us to explore new opportunities. That puts our city in a better position to slingshot out of this recovery. And so as we think back on this moment in our city and our city's history, you can't you can't think about this moment without acknowledging the incredible work that all of you did to help position our city for strong recovery. So I'm enthusiastic about this agreement. I look forward to the additional economic opportunities this will present of conventions and entertainment in our downtown. So congratulations, and I'm happy to support this motion. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I was going to take the opportunity to thank each and every one of you for all that you're doing. Many of you who are downtown are still helping out the hotels that are downtown with your overflow and your support. And that's really important that we're a city as a whole working together. And I also want to thank how not just within one specific area, we have hotels and restaurants and the community all coming together. And that means a lot. It means a lot to the residents. And we appreciate you and being so inclusive. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I would like to just join in the chorus in congratulating our ACM and CVB for this agreement. I think this is going to definitely move us forward. This is a little bittersweet. It is sweet in that we are celebrating an agreement. It's a little bitter because we're losing a great asset and Charlie Burn. And so I want to just ask Charlie to stand up, put him on the spot. I know he's here somewhere. He's been an amazing partner for four years here. He's made our convention center a success. And the big part of that is because of the operations there. And I wish him the very best. And as he moves on to his next venture in sunny Florida, very nice. And you all are our best ambassadors to our city for our city here, the face of our city to conventions. I wish you many years of continued success. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Sorrell. Yeah, it's just. I also want to add my support for the this item as well as renew the contract and just want to thank everyone so much for your hard work as we are entering this phase of important recovery and as we start to make sure people bring their business and activity to Long Beach and that we continue to demonstrate what we have to offer. And I think you do that well, and I hope that we can continue to diversify the kind of opportunities that people can have to do their events here. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's all the comments from the council. I'm just going to say a few comments. First is, I do want to, before we take the vote, just to congratulate everyone that's been involved in this incredible process. It's been actually quite a process, a lot of negotiation, a lot of really great conversation, great proposal. And I want to also just think our team at the city who, you know, oftentimes are the unsung heroes in getting this done. And I think, you know, Mr. Modica, you in the team did a great job of really getting this thing across the finish line. And I just want to thank thank them. I do want to also say, you know, to to just to some global to the whole team there. Of course, Bob, and thank you for being here. And you've been a phenomenal partner already. So this isn't this isn't a risk. This isn't some unknown, you know, new, new era we're going into. But this is a continuation and expansion of something that's already going really, really well. We're just very fortunate to have you all as part of the city team, our convention bureau business, our tourism business, our hotel and restaurant business is an incredibly important part of the success, not just of Long Beach, but the state of California and the entire region. We are blessed to have a great team. You're all here. Many of you were here. Thank you for all your hard work to bring folks to our city and and to allow folks an inside look at what makes a city so great and so special. I also just want to note, you know, these these votes and these decisions to go into these this new contract is actually a very significant deal. This is a huge contract. And it should be because it is essentially picking a partner that is going to be with us as we make investments, bring you folks and really lead tourism into the future. So it's a very big decision and I think we have the absolute right partner for us to do so and do this work in the future. You know, I'm looking forward to the investments into the facility. I'm looking forward to the investments that this contract makes into marketing, into making sure that our hotels are well resourced and have folks coming in to them, that the contract really focuses on bringing incredible events and experiences into Long Beach, into the spaces that we're going to reimagine, many of our spaces that is going to support our already thriving tourism and convention business. I'm particularly excited about the what's in this in this agreement to enhance the Terrace Theater and being able to bring the best shows, the best Broadway musicals, the best theater experience to folks in Long Beach. And a lot of us don't want to drive out to the Pantages every every few weeks that enjoy going to the theater. And so I think that those are things that I'm really looking forward to that I think are all in this agreement. I mean, and make the agreement really strong. We? We pushed really hard to get the best agreement for the people of Palm Beach. And I think this agreement reflects that. And so I just want to thank Bob, you again and your and your team, because I feel very confident that that we're going to be able to enhance an already stellar relationship with with with ASEM Global. And so thank you to all of you, especially to our man Charlie back there, who's been so phenomenal to us. And we've already shared with you that we'll miss you greatly, but we're really excited about the future. So thank you all for being here. We have a motion on the floor which by councilman's and day house invites me. Richardson. And please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion is carried. Great. Well, thank you all very much. We're going to move on now to thank you. I know that will be exiting. Thank you so much to everybody. We do have we're going to transition to our cannabis items now. So not a lot of folks here for that as well. I do have, I believe, three general public comments. Why don't we do those for those three folks and then we'll go right into item 28.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and adding or modifying provisos.

SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 119981

Motion carries in the appointment is confirmed. Item seven Will the court please read the short title of item seven into the record? The Report of the Public. Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item seven Council. Bill 119981 An Ordinance amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 through 2026 Capital Improvement Program, CIPA. The committee recommends that City Council does not pass as amended the Council bill with a divided report. With council members Gonzalez, Morales and Sawant in favor of the recommendation and councilmembers Herbold and Lewis opposed to the recommendation. All right, colleagues, thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and move this bill so that it can be placed before us for consideration and discussion and a vote. So I will move to pass. Council Bill 119981. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's the second I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who is the chair of this committee, and she is going to address this item for us. Thank you, counselor. President Gonzales. Would you like me to just do what I hope can be a pretty quick overview of the bill before we start talking about amendments? Yes. So let's discuss that base bill as it came out of committee. And then it's a little confusing because they came out with a do not recommend. Do not recommend passage by the committee. But I still think you can have a conversation and chew up for the viewing public. The components of the base bill that received the do not recommend vote by the majority of the committee. And then we can consider amendments. After we consider amendments, we will have we will open it up for a discussion on the bill as amended. So hold on to your comments about the bill as a whole until we have gone through the exercise of the amendments, and that would be the the cleanest, most logical way to go through this particular piece of legislation. Sorry I understood your direction, and I'm trying to follow it. And then the last thing you said seemed to contradict it. I was going to speak to what the bill is. That's that is before us now. Is is that your understanding? Yes. Yes. You are different because you're the sponsor of the legislation. I'm the chair of the committee. So because you are the chair of the committee, you get to speak to the base of the bill. What I'm asking is other colleagues to hold on to their comments related to the entirety of the bill for when we have an amended bill before us to debate and vote on. Thank you very much. My apologies. So just want to first off clarify that this legislation is not about the police department budget for officer hiring. The budget for officer hiring was fully funded in the 2021 budget adopted in November. Nor is this bill about a particular number. This bill is about until school oversight. SBT Funding As Background. The City of Seattle is under a consent decree with the US Department of Justice. Any item covered by that consent decree require review and approval by the judge overseeing the country and the court appointed monitor developments in this legislation after it was originally introduced or driven by the consent decree process and specific statements from the Monitor in court about this bill. Back in August 2020, the Council adopted Resolution 31962 that the Council will not support any amendments, increase the speed needed to offset over time expenditures above both funds budgeted in 2020 or 2021. Nevertheless, an additional $5.4 million in spending request came from SPG in late 2020 and that not align with previous resolution because council voted to add 5.4 million in funds in late 2023 to our policy tonight. So Council stated our our intent to propose legislation for the 2021 as budget. After this bill was introduced. Judge Roberts oversees the council. I mean, so the consent decree had sharp criticism of the Council on Budget issues. The Monitor subsequently noted concerns have been raised about the possibility of various cuts to city's budget impacting City of Seattle's ability to comply with a range of requirements of the consent decree. In response to the judge and the Monitor's comments, I sponsored a revised version of the bill on March 23rd, including nearly $3 million in cuts to police budget, with 2 million going forward for Tory budgeting, 1 million in spending moved from MPD to other departments and releasing a $5 million budget proviso. A committee majority of three councilmembers didn't support it, saying this new version of the bill before the committee. It also allowed for funding for civilian positions and technology requests that speedy made at the March 9th meeting of the asked what those technology requests include, they include a new early intervention system and recognition that the system currently employed is inadequate. And that early intervention system is intended to predict and guide interventions for employees with signs that they need support as a way of of enhancing police oversight of police officers who may be displaying a bullying activity in the course. Of the work. It also included some analytics platform and capacity building tools that will allow, among other things, for the analysis that we are all doing together, the council and the mayor and community members and the public for analysis on 911 alternative responses, new bill also provided funding for public disclosure response positions, as recommended by the city auditor in his 2015 report and extensively reported on by the Seattle Times and called out by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission director as problematic, left unaddressed and also put in storage as recommended by the Inspector General. Because PD has insufficient space for physical storage of evidence, the majority of committee members voted to substitute the introduced bill with this new version. Monitor, meanwhile, asked a series of questions of the police department and upon receiving the reply from the police department, wrote to the Council that even after the committee meeting supporting the smaller cut and lifting the $5 million proviso he wrote Caught in the Monitor are increasingly concerned about the reduction of funding the Seattle Police Department. In response, I proposed an amendment noting central staff now estimates up to 13 million in salary savings and releasing a $2.5 million spending proviso out of order layoffs. Based on sustained misconduct, it's not possible. It's time due to the intersection. Look at the civil service rules and state law that the legislation includes. Additional funds can be spent on all again as identified by the monitor. So that is the background and the description of the bill before us today. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much for the description of the of the base bill. Colleagues, again, you will have an opportunity to either ask questions about the base bill or make comments on the base bill. But I did want to get us to consider some of these proposed amendments before we open it up for a broader discussion and debate around the bill. I just think that the conversation will be. Richer and and more accurate if we have a final amended bill before us for for debate. So if that's okay, I'd like to go ahead and ask Councilmember Herbold to address her first proposal, the proposed Amendment one, if there's no objection with that. All right. Go ahead. Councilmember This one should be super easy. This is a technical amendment that was distributed via email to councilmembers this morning. It was inadvertently left off the agenda, and a little staff noted its technical amendment recommended by the city attorney's office. I move to amend Council Bill 11 9981 presented on Amendment One, which was included on the record of Council Bill 11 9981 and distributed via email to customers this morning. Second. Great has been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment One. Are there any additional comments on the proposed Amendment one? Again, this is just an amendment with technical what has been described as technical modifications to the base bill. And so it's just a vote on the amendment itself. Councilmember Sala. Thank you, President Gonzalez. As was explained, this amendment is an entirely technical amendment, so I will be voting yes on the amendment. I just wanted to be clear to members of the public that I oppose the bill as a whole and will vote against it when it's time for the final vote in a moment. This is just a vote on the technical amendment. Now, I also wonder to just also add my comments, to make it clear for the record coming out of the committee, because of the way the minutes appear for the bills that have more no votes than yes votes out of committee is confusing, as council members have stated. I voted no on the bill in the committee because the majority of the committee voted no. The minutes show a do not pass recommendation and then list all the no votes as a yes do not pass, which is very confusing. But just to be clear to members of the public, I voted no on this bill in the committee and will do so again. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. Any additional comments on proposed Amendment one? Hearing none. Will the court please call a role on the adoption of amendment? Strauss. Yes. Revolt. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales Yes, was I? Petersen All right. Sloan Yes. Council President Gonzales. I remain in favor and unopposed. Motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. I understand that comes from Lewes, has a proposed amendment as well. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis to make his motion and see if there is a second. Thank you, Madam President. And I move amendment to. Is there a second that. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Lewis to walk us through Amendment two. And then we will have discussion, debate and a vote on proposed. Oh, thank you, Madam President. I'm bringing amendment to as a as an option for the council to consider and potentially a new way for us to think about. A corresponding bifurcated strategy for how to consider our ongoing process of defunding the Seattle Police Department and reinvesting in alternative public safety investments. And I want to say at the top that, you know, the amendment in no way implies from me a lack of commitment to participatory budgeting. I do not think that the money that has been apportioned already, the $30 million apportioned for the participatory budgeting process should in any way be reallocated from that process. Since we know in the legislation passed earlier this meeting from Councilmember Morales that we will be setting up a very deliberative process with enough time to be supplemented by additional appropriations on top of the 30 million. I would be supportive of putting additional money into that participatory budgeting process. You know, I do bring this amendment for us to have a discussion and a conversation of ways that we might be able to. At the same time, we are building toward that participatory budgeting process, make some more short term investments in some other public safety programs that we know are working extremely well and could be responsive to the massive need that we see in the community. And that, I believe, has eroded confidence from some community members in our ability to be responsive to the public safety challenges the city is facing. And in a way that the police will not be, frankly, responsive under the investments that we're making here or under some of the staffing investments through the staffing plan that we funded. The big issue as I see it and I'm digressing a little bit and talking more generally about our public safety concerns based on the emails that all of our officers get, is that a lot of community members who are very compassionate are frustrated for a variety of different reasons, as well as some who are frankly not that compassionate but are frustrated for a lot of different reasons. With the state of unsanctioned encampments and chronic homelessness in the city of Seattle, and with the inability of us as a city to provide an appropriate level of shelter and care in a way that is culturally competent, that has resources for the actual issues people are facing, and that. Gives community members. A contact or someone that they can call that is not the police to intervene in these kinds of circumstances. The just care program, which we talked about last week in which I talked about at briefing this morning, is something that could be scaled to provide that level of response for every neighborhood instead of just the Chinatown International District and Pioneer Square, where it currently serves. There are plans to expand it under our American Recovery Act appropriations, but that still is not going to be to an extent where they can do the work they're doing on a city wide basis. So if you just wanted to talk just really briefly, a little bit more about just care, this amendment would move the $2 million instead of moving it into the participatory budgeting process, would move it into the procurement that we are pursuing with the county to protect and expand the trust care program. As we heard last week, the Just Care Program is composed of a consortium of providers, many of which are bipoc led. You know, obviously we heard from Dominic Davis, who was on our panel, who works with the consortium to provide culturally competent security at a number of the hotels that the consortium leases. Asian Counseling and Referral Service is a foundational partner. The Public Defender Association and the Chief Seattle Club have all been a part of this multi provider effort to really, really get into these areas that have been the subject of public discourse around the public safety discussion and resolve the underlying problem for all stakeholders involved to provide safety , security and health care to the people that are currently living in encampments, who provide a resource that is an alternative to the police from business owners, to to intervene in some of these situations. And it has been directly responsive to the issues that we're facing. I have concerns as we're a year into and there's been a lot of retrospectives on the action that we are taking as a city to continue down this path of developing community based alternatives. That council efforts are losing momentum in a lot of respects. It's because of, as far as I can tell it, what my predecessor, Councilmember Bagshaw, called the sea test, the ability for people to see and understand what the alternatives are, how they're responsive to their needs, how it affects their daily life. I say this as someone who is uniquely positioned because I have constituents who have seen the sea test. I have people who have reached out to my office that are not necessarily historic proponents of housing first and harm reduction, but they've seen it work and they've seen it be responsive to their concerns. And they are they have the zeal of converts and they're leaning into it. This is the kind of momentum that will help to drive broader restructuring, to set a new national standard of centering harm reduction, housing first, and culturally competent care as a replacement for militarized policing. I'm worried that if we're not able to to quickly respond and give other neighborhoods that impression of some of these alternatives, I'm worried that it's that the inevitable inertia of things is going to lead ultimately to backsliding, be it backsliding that's ordered by a federal court who is impatient with the process or unconvinced of the of the merits of waiting for community investments that are taking a while to get off the ground, be it the backsliding of future mayors or councils. I am worried about losing the moment and just, you know, using this amendment more broadly to can be in this conversation that perhaps some of these community investments should be made out of order of the broader participatory budgeting process in order to build public will and in order to be directly responsive to to situations where, frankly, people in these encampments are suffering from diseases typically common in third world circumstances, being exposed to being victims of violent crime that we know recently culminated in a murder over the weekend of a neighbor who was unhoused. And we sit here with resources and money where we could continue to build on the work of standing up this alternative system that is city wide and that can be enjoyed by every neighborhood. You know, again, you know, I do want to conclude that, you know, I mean, this $2 million alone is not going to do that. But I do think we could start to set an expectation that as we expand and build out a just care citywide network of care, that that money should come from the Seattle Police Department. It is money going into what community members typically think and associate at the police department should be doing. I have lots of I have a whole email inbox, as I'm sure my colleagues do, of people. Saying we. Need police to show up to this encampment and then have a whole colloquy with that person being like, you can have 50 police show up at that encampment. They can't do anything. The police cannot provide mental health care. The police cannot provide a referral to a shelter space. The what the police will do is show up and say they cannot do anything and then drive on. Which is another thing that is common. And a lot of emails I have because they're telling the truth, they actually can't do anything when they show up to these encampments unless they can establish probable cause immediately for a crime happening right in front of them. And then if they do that and they put the person experiencing homelessness in jail, they're going to be back on the street in a few hours because the jail also cannot provide mental health care or treatment or the things that our homeless neighbors need to be successful. Adjust, care can't. And I think that we have an opportunity to have a conversation of putting this nexus in where in addition to funding the broader cornucopia of things we're going to invest in through through participatory budgeting, that we also carve some money out of it to intentionally, strategically build a city wide network that we do it at the expense of the police department since it is caseload that is being transferred. I think there's a nexus in that makes sense. And, you know, maybe it won't be. Through this amendment, maybe it'll be through a different conversation that we have. But we're accumulating salary savings for officers that are leaving the department under the proviso that we set in the fall. I think we can be strategic with those salary savings to treat a citywide just care response system the way the same way we do treat the police department on the fire department as a permanent and ongoing institutional pillar of our public safety system that has the resources dedicated in such a way that they can build capacity and scale up and depend on that appropriation on a rolling basis. And, you know, my amendment is a way to introduce that conversation into the discourse of. What we're doing here at the council. You know, I understand it probably won't necessarily be successful today. I am sensitive about the fact that it was previously earmarked for participatory budgeting and and this would be rerouting it. And I like I acknowledge that I have a cognitive dissonance about that. And I'm not necessarily thrilled about that. But I'm also just saying this out of very sincere frustration, not with my colleagues here and not with the provider community, but just generally that there are resources there as well to address these ongoing problems. And they seem solvable to me. And we had that whole hearing with just care, where it seems eminently solvable. If the people doing the work can get the resources and support from neighbors that they need. And, you know, maybe we don't do it here. And I did want to keep up the conversation, and I appreciate your consideration. And with that, I'll yield back to the floor for comments, questions, and I appreciate the time to talk about it. It comes from Lewis. I am going to ask if folks have any comments or questions on that amendment. If you could use your raise the hand feature in Zoom, that would be helpful to me. And keeping track of those who would like to make comments on Amendment two. First in the queue is Councilmember Herbold, followed by Councilmember Morales. Mostly as the sponsor of the underlying legislation, who with the proposal to allocate these funds originally to participatory budgeting. I just want to say I, I welcome this discussion and I welcome this amendment. I think a lot has changed since December of last year. Whereas with today's vote on comes from Morales's legislation, we are still strongly in support of that $30 million investment in participatory budgeting. But the idea of adding to a pot of funds that it is not likely that we will see those investments on the ground until 2022. At this point, really to me underscores the need to look at where we could be spending dollars on programs that are on the ground working and making a difference for for all of our communities that are communities of of neighbors who are unhoused as well as communities of of business people and and residents who who have homes . So I really appreciate the creativity for Councilmember Lewis here and the sense of urgency, really. I was at the LAPD African-American Advisory Council meeting a couple weeks ago. I mentioned that in briefings a couple of weeks ago, and they were really distraught that they were not seeing investments in alternatives. And they were really concerned about an increase of violence in their in their communities. And, you know, just giving. Again, this is not this is not a criticism of of any city department or of our processes. But just to give another example, the $14 million in additional capacity building for public safety investments that the council voted on last November are not projected to be out the door until until August. And I think people are rightfully concerned about those investments and other investments within the context of our reductions to the police department being ones that can produce public safety outcomes. So again, thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for bringing this forward for discussion. Councilmember Herbold. Next up, as Councilmember Morales and then Councilmember someone. Thank you. So I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for bringing this forward. I will say that I don't intend to support the Bass bill here, but I do think that this is exactly what we mean. Supporting this sort of a deep investment in a program like Just Cares is exactly what we mean when we say that we should be shifting the SBT budget into critical services. Community safety means lots of different things and certainly supporting investments, a greater investment in our homeless services and community members and something as innovative and comprehensive as Just Cares meets that goal and meets that criteria. So I, I will be supporting this amendment. And whether we do this here or we do it with, you know, in a different way later this year, I think this is exactly the kind of direction we need to be going. And I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for bringing this forward. As you can see here, Morales comes from a slum. Thank you. I support increasing funding for just care and I also support the participatory budgeting funds. So I oppose this amendment which pits those two good programs against each other. Remember, this was a bill to cut $5.4 million from the police department's budget to make up for the $5.4 million that they stole from the city last year by spending more than they were authorized to in amendment after amendment. This bill to remove $5.4 million from the police department was then reduced to 3.3 million and then a 5 million SBT proviso was effectively lifted and then a 2.5 million proviso was effectively lifted. So now this bill increases the funds that the police department has access to by 4.5 million, rather than decreasing it by 5.4 million. It has become the opposite of what it was when it started. Why does the funding for just care have to be taken from the funding for participatory budgeting? It should come from the money allocated to the police department, as has been promised by the Council again and again. My office this morning consulted with a leader in the Decriminalize Seattle organization this morning, this morning about this amendment, which they said they had not previously seen. And they raised that this amendment obscures the fact that the police department's budget is not being cut and instead good programs are being paid against each other. I agree with the arguments that Councilmember Lewis made that just get is a much better use of funds than the police. Absolutely. But unfortunately, what this amendment does is take those funds from participatory budgeting, not from the police. I would be happy to support an amendment that increases funds for just care by taking the money from the police budget, not in the form of putting good programs against each other. And so I will be voting no on this amendment. Councilmember Lewis expressed this going forward with what he called the cognitive dissonance of using funds that was previously planned for participatory budgeting. But let's be clear that this is particularly problematic because this bill as a whole no longer cuts $5.4 million from the police department. That was not the case. Then this amendment might have been different. So I'll be voting no. Thank you for your service. Are there any other comments or questions on proposed amendment to. Okay. All right, colleagues, I just really quickly wanted to chime in on this particular amendment. I don't think that the intent of Councilmember Lewis is to hit two good programs against each other. I see the intent and the desire here is to have additional resources to support a program that many of us have been very supportive of historically and I think will continue to be supportive of programs that are modeled after the Just Care Pilot program. I think my concern with this particular amendment is, is is that I do worry that what it would do is effectively take money that we had designated for participatory budget processes. And ahead of the designated process in the provisos that I sponsored last fall. Begin, begin the process of re appropriating those dollars to a different use. So I'm concerned about about that cognitive dissonance that Councilmember Lewis described in his opening remarks. But I also worried that that we have not done the necessary work with some of the impacted stakeholders to ensure that they understand what the effect and the impact would be of adoption of this particular amendment in the context of the of the the Base Council bill. So for for those reasons, I'm not going to be able to support the amendment in its current process and form and presentation. That does not mean that I am not supportive of just care and models like just care. I think we've all taken really strong votes and have taken important, important steps to make sure that that model is continued to be supported. And we, in fact, have the Seattle rescue plan before us. That was on today's introduction referral calendar that allocates no less than $49 million to additional homelessness and housing needs throughout the city, and will continue to have those conversations not just as part of tranche one of those federal dollars, but as tranche two of federal dollars. And I just want to make sure that that the viewing public understands that that that. Will continue to be an opportunity to meet the needs described by Councilmember Lewis, which I absolutely believe 100% of this council is an agreement that we need to do, and we must do more and more urgently to to meet the needs of those. We're unhoused in the impacts that that that creates on the city as a whole. So for that reason, we're going to be able to. To support this particular amendment at this juncture. Any other comments or questions before Casimir Lewis gets the last word. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So because we're loose, I'm going to ask you to make closing comments so we can close out debate here and call this amendment to a roll call. Go. I'll be brief, council president, because I know that there's probably going to be a lot of speeches on the underlying bill. So, you know, I appreciate the council's consideration and I do own that. This was sort of a spur of the moment amendment, so it wasn't really socialized with a lot of our partners. So, I mean, I'll own that. I do appreciate the discussion that it generated. I do think we should start to think of some of the salary savings that are being realized from police department attrition for projects like this, regardless of whether this amendment passes or fails. You know, I mean, another consideration that I'll just say here to you, I mean, for people who are advocates more about taking those savings and doubling down on. You know, increasing the resources for the police department. You know, the police department can only staff up so much in a given year. We funded their their hiring plan for the year already. This entire bill has absolutely no bearing on that. Our provider community can staff up faster to do some of the public safety work that a lot of people clamoring for for more police don't know it yet, but they're actually clamoring for people like just care to get hired . And I think that it could be a way for us to have a conversation that connect. There's a traditional salary savings where it's like, you know, we could hire more cops, not going to be here for three or four years because of how long it takes to hire them. Or we could hire some of these things that happen quicker. And, you know, hopefully this amendment discussion queues up a discussion like that. And, you know, I'm ready to to vote on it and move on to the underlying bill. Okay. Great. That does conclude discussion on proposed Amendment two. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call a role on the adoption of amendment. To the House. Yes. Revolt? Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. No. What's that? I like Peterson. Oh. Salon? No. Council? President Gonzalez. No. Five in favor, four oppose. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the Council. Are there. Now I'm going to open it up to comments on the bill as amended. So are there any further comments on the bill as amended? And Councilmember Herbold, you'll get the last word on the bill as we close out, as we close that debate. So, councilor slot, I see that your hand is raised. If anyone else wants to speak to the to the bill as amended, please do let me know by raising your hand because of this one, please. Thank you. This bill has become a farce. It has been amended and amended until it now does almost exactly the opposite of what it initially claimed to do. It is the bill that formally would have removed $5.4 million from the police department for socially beneficial purposes. And now, effectively, this bill increases the police department's budget by $4.5 million. As George Orwell said in 1984. Quote, The Ministry of Peace concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Truth concerned with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, and nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy. They are deliberate exercises in doublethink. And. This bill has become an important case study into how the political establishment, including the Democratic Party, shelters the police from accountability again and again. When the police murder of George Floyd inspired a mass movement for black lives across the country and around the world, thousands of Seattleites took to the streets, tens of thousands to the streets to protest police violence. Those overwhelmingly peaceful protesters were met with yet more police violence. Tens of millions of dollars in police overtime. Tear gas, pepper spray, blast balls, flashbang grenades. Airplanes with forward looking infrared. Real time video and mass arrests were used by the police to essentially wage urban warfare against the people of Seattle in the context of the largest street protest movement in U.S. history. The majority of the city council. Seven of the nine council members pledged to support the movement's demand to defund the police by at least 50%. City councils in other cities made similar promises when it came to the budget. However, on the Seattle City Council, I was the only elected representative to stand with the movement's demand. Not only did the majority of the council, all Democrats refuse to follow through on their pledge to defund the police by 50%. But also at the last council meeting of 2020, when the Council was told that the police had overspent their budget by $5.4 million to brutalize the Black Lives Matter movement. The majority of the council voted to retroactively give the police those $5.4 million extra. Again, I was the only council member to vote no. At the time, the majority of the council promised to take that $5.4 million from the city's 2021 budget to hold them accountable. And I warned at that time that that could not be trusted. And here we are. Do council members remember their promises to the Justice for George Floyd movement? Council members and members saying they support defunding the police by 50% last summer. Then do council members remember saying that they cannot defund the police by 50% in 2020 because reducing the number of police officers would take up to four months , but that they promised to do so in 2021. Then do council members remember saying they cannot defund the police by 50% in 2021 because that would require reducing the number of officers in 2021? And before they do that, they will first need to research out of order layoffs. As a side note, doing police layoffs out of order was never a demand of the Black Lives Matter movement. Then do council members remember adding $5.4 million to the police budget in December of 2020, but promising to remove it again in 2021? Now going team members are saying that out of order layoffs of police are not possible. And please forget that they ever promised to reduce the size of the police force and forget about removing $5.4 million that the police extorted in 2020. No. Rather than a bill that has the police breaking even by cutting in 2021, what was added in 2020? This bill has been amended again and again until it actually add to the police's available budget. It cuts $3 million from the police budget with one hand and gives the police access to $7.5 million with the other hand by lifting two provisos. As Malcolm X famously said, If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that's not progress. Essentially, the R consequence, the police department's consequence for going over budget last year is to get extra money this year. This is what police accountability looks like to the Democratic Party's establishment. Ultimately, this is about the power of mass movements on the streets. At the height of the movement, council members promised to defund the police by 50%. A couple of months later, that was reduced to just a couple percentage points and a promise not to add that funding back at the end of the year and a couple of months later. Here we are. The lesson for our movement is that we must depend on our own strength and not put our faith in the establishment. Finally, I would also like to respond to the excuse that has been circulated that the Council cannot defund the police without the agreement of the federal monitor. I want to be clear. Also, members vote on the budget, not the Federal Monitor and council members are responsible for their own votes. If council members agree with the Federal Monitor or any other part of the political establishment, that is their political decision. But it is not something that the federal monitor decides it down to. The city council is the city's highest legislative body. I do not agree with the Federal Monitor or any part of the political establishment. And my vote as my votes always and including this one, will reflect that. If council members were serious about defunding the police, they would pass the budget that defund the police. What would Judge Roberts to place an injunction on the city budget as a whole? That's not realistic. So instead, we get letters from the federal monitor expressing concern and council members fear mongering that those letters are legally binding court decisions , which they are not. Of course, if council members were serious about defunding the police, they would certainly not be increasing the police budget, which is what this bill does now. Working people will both need to get organized and fight to win an elected community oversight board with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing subpoena powers and policies and procedures. My observation from having talked to hundreds of people in a politically broad spectrum is that even the working people who are not sure about defunding also strongly support an elected community oversight with full powers over the police. This bill is not accountability. It is the opposite. And if you track its progression over the last year, it shows the myriad of ways the political establishment protects the police from accountability. There are conservative politicians who openly advocate for police violence. There are liberal politicians who pretend to be horrified by police violence but always have an excuse for not following through on their promises. There are federal courts who throughout history have defended the power structures of the ruling class against movements and ordinary people to the point that the consent decree against police violence is used to prevent grassroots efforts to stop police violence. This is what it means when our movement says we need system change. This is why I am a socialist. I voted against the substitute bills in the committee that transformed a $5.4 million. Police got to a $4.5 million police ad because those substitute amendments have gone from this bill. I will now vote no on this final bill. Thank you. Thank you, Kels. Verizon. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember words, please. Thank you. I'm going to vote to support. And I hope I say this right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to support Councilmember Herbold, which means that she. So you'll figure that part out. But let me just say what I what I want to say, and I'm not going to. I always respect what Councilmember Stewart has to share with us. But in the real world, we don't always have the luxury to just talk about the political establishment or completely disagree all the time with a federal court judge or a court monitor. And sometimes it's just not realistic to just completely and decisively decide that you're going to wipe out a whole police department. We do have a charter that we have to uphold, whether it's one officer or 1200 officers. We have to have something there. And I think what this council has demonstrated in the last year is that public safety is community safety, and community safety is protectors, not warriors. And more officers doesn't make us more safe. And I think we all agree on that. I don't think there's no need to. Point fingers and call names and we call the Democratic establishment or whatever. So meanwhile, back on Earth, I just want to say this, particularly to Councilmember Morales. I want to end this chapter because I think it's caused, as you've all heard me say before, a lot of trauma. And I want to start the healing. And I think Councilwoman Morales, with her hard work and tenacity, is going to allow us not only to close the chapter, but to begin a new chapter with participatory budgeting. And I agree with the council president. We're not pitting one idea against the other. Both can be true and it will continue to be true. And we will continue to do that because as elected leaders, we can't just pander to our base or to a echo chamber. We have to represent all of Seattle and the needs of our city. And if anything, over this year, I think what we've learned is that we are going to reimagine and redirect funds from the police to upstream projects to take away from the harm in the trauma that has happened in our communities. Everyone agrees about that, and for the first time, what we're learning is we're finally putting together a plan. It's not perfect, and not everyone will always agree. And I want to thank Council member Lewis for bringing this forward to shift the 2 million over to the just care. So whether it's participatory budgeting, whether it's just care, these are conversations that we weren't having a year ago or six months ago. And now we are through the leadership of everybody. I am in the camp of closure. Being decisive, being a leader, making a decision and moving forward and moving on. And I'm also in the camp of believing in this great city and healing. And I think that's what's going to happen today. That's how I'm going to vote today. And. I think we've all been through a lot, and I don't think it does us any good to continue the divisiveness. We've all experienced different levels of frustration, and I think Councilmember Lewis outlined some of that. When people come to us, call us when they want camp removals, when they are upset about the homeless, when they're upset about the police. And I think that we've seen it in the city. Sorry about that. And we've seen it nationally, not just in this great city, but across this nation. And I'm ready to turn the page. And get some stuff done. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. And you can't awards for those comments. I really appreciate it. Next up is Customer Morales. I will be brief. I will say that I voted against this bill twice in committee, so I don't think my vote is going to be a surprise here. And, you know, I think for me, this really does come back to the original intent of this bill, which had been to hold the department accountable for their overspending. They've already acknowledged that they could absorb the, you know, reduction through salary savings. And if they find later that they have additional needs, they can always come back to council to request additional funds. That's how we hold the department accountable. The only thing that in their request that isn't new, that we know that they are obliged to pay is the separation pay. And again, salary savings could cover this. So my feeling about this is that Sbv created its own funding crisis when they decided to overspend on overtime last summer, and giving the department more funding won't prevent crime. It won't address homelessness or reduce substance abuse. It won't improve mental health outcomes for our community members. Only investing in community services will do that. And so our goal, I think, which we share, should be investing public dollars in a way that can actually change community conditions on the ground so that it leads to better health and well-being for our neighbors. And rewarding city for overspending outside of its budget authority won't accomplish that. So I cannot support this bill and will be voting whichever way it is that registers that disagreement. Okay. Because there's some. Some. Some lack of procedural understanding, as you all frame your thoughts here, a yes vote on council bill. Whatever the bill is, number is is an actual yes vote on passage of the bill. A no vote is you're voting the bill down. So. And look at Councilmember Herbold is disagreeing with me and also confused. She thinks she's supposed to also vote no. So that that I'm going to call upon the clerk. My understanding is that there is a recommendation from the committee to not pass the bill. But my understanding is that that doesn't that doesn't change how a yes or no vote effectuate the passage of this bill. So, Madam Clerk, can you just help us understand, is it the inverse or is it business as usual in terms of how we vote here? Council President Gonzalez It is confusing because the committee recommendation was to not pass, but in order to bring it forward today, we had to make a motion to pass the bill. So the motion before us right now is to pass this bill as we just had it amended. So if you are in favor of the underlying bill, you are going to vote to pass it. But if you're opposed to the underlying bill, you're going to not. Which is totally opposite of what came out of committee. But that's where we're at. I apologize for the confusion. No, no, no. I just want to note for the record that my procedural prowess and I remain the queen of process here. So I am feeling like that's a win already for this week. So again. If you want this bill to pass. In spite of the committee recommendation, you're going to vote yes. Okay. You want this bill to fail consistent with the committee's recommendation for a do not pass thing, you're going to vote no on the. Okay. You are the queen. Somebody send me a crown. All right. Next up is I think hold on. Let me look at this. Got a little Keesmaat Peterson is next. And then Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you, council president. First, I'd like to commend Councilmember Herbold for her hard work as chair of Public Safety Committee and her her work to craft a compromise on this bill. Even though I'm not an agreement on several elements of it, I just want to commend her for trying to work through this and come up with a compromise and echo many of the comments that council from Juarez mentioned. I have worked hard to be clear and consistent for my constituents, and at this time I cannot support what I see as additional cuts to public safety until effective alternatives are in place. This council bill is complex, especially with the amendments, but at the end of the day, it continues to reduce resources from our police department at a time when we are seeing record breaking attrition of officers. So I will be voting no. I believe it's premature to label the loss of police officers through attrition as budgetary savings that can be immediately scooped away and spent elsewhere. The record breaking attrition of officers is alarming, and response times to priority number one calls are too long. By the end of the year, I want to be sure the department has the funds it needs to hire more crime prevention officers, to retain good officers to ramp up recruitment of diverse and progressive officers, to implement the federal consent decree and heed the warnings of the federal judge and monitor to increase training to return experienced officers to community policing work instead of working overtime on patrol. Yes, let's let's lift the budget provisos to free up some of those dollars, but not by ultimately cutting more with the other hand. While the intentions were positive, I believe this bill has become a distraction since it was can since it was conceived six months ago. Despite the well-intentioned amendments at committee and today, I believe this bill sends an unproductive and negative message to the remaining government workers and public safety field who are already stretched thin. It also takes time and attention away from the most impactful task at hand for justice and reform. And that's revamping the unjust, inflexible and expensive contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild. So I look forward to getting back to supporting the work of our Labor Relations Policy Committee so they can revise the police contract in a way that's positive for the community, for the officers, for the budget, and for sustainable and systemic justice. Thank you. Maybe it gets more. PIERSON Because we're almost at a place. Thank you. Council President. I, too, want to thank council member Herbold. Cosmo Herbold Thank you very much. As Chair of Public Safety. You have really taken the reins in shepherding this bill through your committee. And we know that that's been no small task, that this has been months of work, and it's been increasingly made more difficult when the chief and the executive offices have weighed in, when the judge and the court monitor have been weighing in. This legislation, I believe, was intended to hold us accountable for their overspending last year. And our intent, as we described at the end of last year, was to use the council's power of the purse and the legislative branch, as we are supposed to do, to ensure that the executive agencies spend within the bounds of their budget and to make sure that there has been a reckoning or a balancing between this year's budget in a speedy and last year's overspend. As we heard in the Budget Committee just last month, it is very highly irregular for our council to be asked to authorize spending after the fact and to have a retroactive authority granted should be something that is very uncommon and happen very infrequently. But that's not been the practice here as it relates to speed. Not only is it highly irregular, it's out of alignment with what we see in the states are S.W. 3532 A where it says there shall be no orders, authorizations, allowance, allowances, contracts or payments made or attempted to be made in excess of the expenditure allowances authorized in the final budget or is adopted or modified, and any such attempt in excess expenditure shall be void. That's what the RTW says. Yet that's exactly what happened last year. And so the provisos that we put into place we now know were ignored or dismissed by speeding at the time , and instead what spending was authorized for last year is our priorities that the Council did not want to see prioritized. And what it left on the table for funding was things that the Council absolutely wants prioritized, like payment for family leave and benefits and severance. These are items that we could not simply just not pay. So at the time, just as a reminder, the council authorized an after the fact authorization for those payments. That overspend total was 5.4 million. And there was a desire and I think there continues to be a desire by me that this budget rectifies that overspend and that this year's budget corrects for the overspend that SPV created in terms of their debt from last year, that the $5.4 million number is not arbitrary. It comes from the following three items in last year's overspend by a speedy 1.9 million FEMA reimbursement, 1.9 million in parental leave payback, and 1.6 million in separation pay. All of these things we knew were important to pay, but unfortunately, those were left to be paid instead of the department paid money on items that we heard about during testimony today. We've seen the videos and we've heard from firsthand, firsthand accounts of where people had been that with excessive force for expressing their First Amendment rights at the protests that were taking place just a year ago this week. The testimonials today constitute, I think, a makeshift tribunal on what was experienced at the time of protests a year ago. And we remain, I think, as a council committed to making sure that there is accountability for those pieces, not only accountability for the overspend in the budget, but accountability for the situations that we continue to hear about on a daily basis and that we're outlined in today's public testimony. We remain in the midst of a federal consent decree that's almost a decade old now. And we also remain committed to addressing the call for action from the folks who have been calling in for over a year to make sure that we align we realign our investments into things like mental health and case managers, making sure that homeless folks have social service providers showing up, and that when there's a traffic infraction, that we don't have armed officers showing up for these things. The council has begun some very important efforts, a lot of those efforts led by Councilmember Herbold through her committee and ongoing work in the budget last year. And I appreciate that those investors initial investments were made to align our values to what the community has been calling for and to divest in areas that have been overinvested in over the year. On this bill. I think that what we are trying to do is what we were trying to do was respond to the need to balance that $5.4 million addition that council was forced to make last year and to remove it from this year's budget. And doing that while also having to respond to the calls from the court monitor and judge, I think that made this bill a little bit out of alignment with what we were originally intending to do. I disagree with the concerns and the fears cited by the court in the monitor, and I hope that the court and the court monitor do listen to all of the public testimony that was provided today through this quasi tribunal that was offered via public comment, and that there is a careful examination of the central staff memo that accompanied the conversation around this bill. Notably, the Council has not put speedy in a position where they are not able to respond to emergency calls or perform basic functions. And the department does have the resources to fulfill the full hiring plan as we funded last year. Central Staff's Memo does the math that shows that Spd's entire staffing model is still fully funded and that it is expected that there will be 13 millions in salary savings over the course of this year. I think it's important to continue to remember that Spd's hiring plan, as requested by the mayor and the department, is still intact and that it can be what was known to be reasonably accomplished was fully funded. Through the committee process, we've learned that due to continued higher than attrition rates, that $13 million in salary savings is anticipated. And I am hopeful that with this bill, if it does not pass today, that we can direct those funds, those 13 million to things where I think that there is common agreement between what the bill offers and what I think we all would like to see. And that's more a quick response and accurate and adequate response to the public records request. Making sure more funding goes into community service officers. The I.T. needs the physical storage of space. And even if we were to fund all of those things and fully fund the and fully make the $5.4 million cut so that we could both fund just cares and participatory budgeting, there would still be over $5 million in unspent dollars at the end of this year. I think today's testimony was very powerful. I think it's heartbreaking that the stories have continued to surface about the violence, which has upset her. And I do hope that this testimony from today helps to paint a full picture of the issues that we have been trying to address, trying to rectify in this year's actions and last year's budget. But unfortunately, on this bill today, I will be voting no because I am concerned about the $5 million proviso that's being lifted. I'm concerned that there's not a full $5.4 million cut, though I appreciate that. It's a mere $3 million in cuts that's been suggested here. And I will continue to work with my colleagues here and look forward to continuing to work with the community to continue the path to make sure that we are holding accountable the department that overspent their budget outside of what the RTW directs the department to stay with within, and that we continue our efforts to reimagine and reinvest in community services and decrease the situations in which an armed officer is being required to show up again. The city of Austin, Seattle, New York and Los Angeles are among the four cities that are continually held up as being on the right path towards reimagining. And that work is not done, and we will continue even after today. But I appreciate the work that's gone into this, and I recognize the incredible obstacles that the good chair has had to address. Well, considering this legislation and I really appreciate her work and we're going to we will not be able to. Thank you, Councilor Muscat. Are there any other comments? On the bill as amended. Okay, colleagues, I just really wanted to quickly make some remarks as well. I do want to, like so many others have. Start by acknowledging Councilmember Herbold is hard work over the last several months to make progress on this legislation and to try to develop a sound and well-reasoned approach to this particular budget action that the Council has literally been considering since December. And so I do really appreciate her willingness, councilmember her willingness to engage all of the parties that have expressed concern or interest in our legislation over the past several months. That includes community advocates, CPD and the mayor's office, and also the Monitor and Department of Justice Representatives, as well as members of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. And I think that the fact that it appears that almost all of the stakeholders involved in this budget action or who have interest in this budget action, appear to be to be similarly dissatisfied with the current version of this legislation. I don't think that that's a reflection on Councilmember Hubbard's policy work and efforts in the background to get us a piece of legislation that we could potentially support. But I do think it's a reflection and the result of, quite simply put, the deep division that exists in our city on the issue of policing and and their budgets. So I think, you know, fortunately, despite Councilmember Hubbell's well-intentioned and thoughtful attempts to find a compromise solution here on this particular bill, I will be voting consistent with my vote in committee, which is a vote against this bill, as I expressed during the Public Safety Committee's discussion of this legislation. My reasons for voting no on this bill are a little different. I feel I feel primarily that it's premature for us to be making several of the budget actions that the bill proposes. We compromise on including cuts to the Seattle Police Department's budget that the Monitor has significant concerns with. I believe it's important that we have further engagement with the Monitor to provide additional explanation about how this cut will impact or more importantly, not impact the department's ongoing operations, specifically the staffing plan. It also, of course, lifts the $5 million proviso on the speedy staffing plan. In my opinion, I think it's still too early in the year to fully lift or begin the process of lifting the proviso in order to give us additional flexibility with our budget. I'd like to continue to have you know, we of course, continue to have significant policy disagreements with with leadership about how they manage the department's budget, including overtime. And so I continue to believe that this proviso right now serves an important role as an accountability mechanism. And it's my position that the council needs to retain this proviso, the $5 million proviso in place until later in the year, so that we can effectively execute our oversight role and ensure the Department is not expending resources in a manner counter to the policies set by this Council. So again, I think that more appropriate time for us to consider those lives would be in the fall budget process when we have a better understanding and fuller context of what MPD budget will be at the end of the year. We know that the executive will be back before the Council with proposed budget changes later this year. That's going to include costs associated with grant acceptances, special events, overtime cost, separation, pay, pay, family medical leave reimbursement. These are all issues that may need to be addressed, may need to be addressed via a supplemental ordinance or through the ordinary budget process. So months from now, when the council's making these decisions on a city's budget. I believe we will have more flexibility to take more thoughtful action if the proviso is still in place and if any of the other provisos are still in place. So for these reasons, I am going to vote consistent with my committee vote, which is a no vote on this particular version of the Council bill, but do deeply appreciate everybody's hard work on. This is not easy and I know that we are all reaching our votes for some similar reasons and some different reasons. But. But I hope we can continue to move forward on this really critical issue together with as much consensus as possible. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to close out debate so we can call this bill to a roll call. You. Sorry about that. Just a quick note. So closing out the discussion first, want to respond to a number of the comments I heard from folks during public testimony, speaking to their experiences with excessive use of less lethal weapons, which can be lethal. I appreciate the testimony and regret these experiences in our city. I do want to say that this is another issue that is under the purview of the consent decree. The Council adopted legislation prohibiting the use of most less lethal weapons. The judge overseeing the consent decree placed a restraining order on the council's legislation and criticized the legislation for not protecting public safety. The legislation under the consent decree requires his approval, so just barreling ahead in this instant means that nothing has happened. We have no ban or regulations unless lethal weapons similarly barreling ahead with the budget bill risk the same outcome that no budget reduction will happen. In my opinion, calling your vote about a political win on either side of this issue. Yes, those who don't support any cut at all don't like this bill. And those who want the cut to be bigger don't like it either. But this bill is not about a number. It's about bringing about accountability. The objective of this bill is to exercise fiscal oversight of the Seattle Police Department while simultaneously funding important public safety investments in areas where there was broad agreement and heeding the authority of the consent decree in these matters where the court is suggesting suggesting our actions overlap with consent decree obligation over the last to still was voted out of committee with a do not pass recommendation with three votes in opposition to despite the fact that the majority of committee members three members voted in favor of the amendment on May 11th and in favor of substituting the original bill for a smaller budget reduction in March over the summer and fall budget cycles. The council listened to people calling for a 50% cut to the Seattle police to budget budget. And we also listen to people who opposed it. And we demonstrated that we can listen to multiple voices in our city and compromise to meet our objective, objective to redefine public safety in our city. The ability to listen to multiple voices is critical to change moving forward. The councilmember mosquitoes point that request for funding after the fact should be rare. I agree, but it's June and this separation and technology needs funding. Funding needs were identified by speed in February. If this bill fails, we are virtually guaranteeing that this dysfunction will happen again later this year. To council President Gonzalez's point about the timing of the $5 Million proviso left. Just a reminder, this is not a full lift. This is a gradual lift as we get reports from us. PD and respectfully. This was in the amendments supported back in March that that we, the majority of committee members voted in favor of bringing it in front of us. And if there was concerns about that approach, I would have happily considered a different approach had I known. Speedy's highest spending is during the summer and as we found out last year during the supplemental budget process, most of the money will already have been spent. We'll hear a vote today. Please do not allow both those who do not want us to exercise oversight of a speedy budget at all, as well as those who advocate for an all or nothing approach to revert us back to the status quo. If this bill doesn't pass, there will be no budget cut at all. So council members who wish to support the investments in the bill and the Council's fiscal accountability over a speedy. I urge you to vote. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your final remarks. That does conclude debate on this particular bill. So at this point, I'm going to ask the clerk there, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended. KRAUSS No. Her bold. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. MORALES No. Must get to. Know. PETERSON No. Silent? No. Council President Gonzalez. Now. Three in favor, five opposed. Key. The motion fails and the bill does not pass. Okay, colleagues, thank you so much for that conversation and that debate. Again, I really want to appreciate all of the hard work that has that went into that very long legislative process. And again, that my deep gratitude and thanks to Councilmember Herbold, who is our current public safety and Human Services Chair, having served in that role for four years, I understand how difficult and challenging it is, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the work that you continue to do. And and I know that you will continue to lead us and work with all of us on these really important issues. So thank you so much for your effort. Okay. Next up is item eight. Will the court please read the short title of item eight into the record?

A proclamation recognizing Saturday, August 16, 2014 as Chef’s Appreciation Day. A proclamation recognizing Saturday, August 16, 2014 as Chef’s Appreciation Day.

DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0648

Thank you, Councilman Robb. All right. Moving on to presentations, Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations? Mr. President, Communications Manager. Secretary, do we have any communications? None. President We have two proclamations this evening, and we're going to start first with Proclamation 648. Councilman Lopez, will you please recount a proclamation? 648. Thank you, Mr. President. With pleasure. Proclamation 648 Series 2014 Recognizing Saturday, August 16th, 2014 as Chefs Appreciation Appreciation Day. Whereas the National Pink Tire Organization and PTO, a51 C3 nonprofit and their Chefs Against Cancer Division, were created to band men together in the fight against all types of cancer. And men nationwide wear pink or fuchsia ties to raise awareness, educate and empower the community about cancer. And. Whereas, the end PTO chefs and the NPT OHS Chefs Against Cancer Cancer Division includes more than 400,000 chefs and is growing in numbers worldwide. The chefs volunteer their time to stand beside fellow chefs and their family members to provide support and encouragement. And. Whereas, every third Saturday in August, chefs, physicians, nutritionists and fitness trainers will gather to promote healthy living and cooking, uplift one another, and give back to those who have already helped so many others experience how wonderful, happy, healthy life can taste. Whereas on August 16th, 2014, the Master Chefs Care Program will launch and chefs will share a new recipe, new recipes and cutting edge culinary techniques to help others share, and kitchen commander camaraderie to help promote healthy living and cooking. And. Whereas, and chefs are committed to their colleagues and others to the mission of supporting individuals undergoing treatment for cancer now therefore being proclaimed by the Council, the city and County of Denver. Section one at the City Council supports the National Pink Tiger Organization and supports its efforts in the Fight Against Cancer, Section two that the Denver City Council proclaims. Saturday, August 16, 2014. As Chefs Appreciation Day and encourages all men to wear pink or fuchsia ties on that day to support show support for all people in their fight against cancer. Section three at the clinic, the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seed seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Donald Crush, founder of the National Pink Tie Organization. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt. Mr. President, I move that council proclamation 648 series of 2014 be adopted. It has been moved in. Second comments from members of council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And unfortunately, because there are a lot of chefs that are probably cooking right now, we couldn't get any with us today. But they express not only their gratitude for acknowledging their efforts, but their regrets and not being able to come. All this talk about chefs has got me hungry, and as you can tell, I probably know more fitness. I probably know more chefs than fitness trainers. But this this proclamation really hits home for me because there's so many people who are being treated for cancer. Now, I could say that happily in October, God willing, it'll be five years since my first treatment for for cancer. And I'm cancer free so fast all the way to October. So I got to wait till October to be able to say that all the way. But I know there's a lot of people, especially especially us men, that don't like to talk about cancer, especially certain types of cancer. And we sometimes become a little bit too macho to to check or to acknowledge it or to look out for each other. It's not to say that cancer isn't as in an issue for women, as opposed to this is something that affects everybody. I think the the statistic was one in four people. Right. One point in their life. I think that's that's what they had told me. But this organization is doing a great job. And so I just wanted to acknowledge the folks with this organization, National Pink, entire organization, and to make sure that as men are wearing a pink or fuchsia tie on Saturday, August 16th, which is a very important day as well too, from for me. And I'll be wearing this pink tie again, because that was the day that my grandfather, who was diagnosed with liver cancer, had left this world on August 16. So it is a very, very important proclamation, a very important day for me. And I just wanted to share that being that we won't have anybody to receive the proclamation. I just want to make sure, Mr. President, that this was read in the. Council chambers and that we are supportive and encourage folks to support this proclamation and we will transmit this to the national entire organization as soon as possible. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments from members of council? Scene nine Madam Secretary, roll call. Lopez Hi, Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega I'm Rob Shepherd Brown. Brooks. I. Fights. I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Monteiro. I. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 11 eyes 11 I proclamation 648 has been adopted. And you said, Councilman Lopez, you did not have anyone to accept the podium today.

Recommendation to receive and file a Pedestrian Safety presentation from Department of Public Works, Long Beach Fire and Police Department; and Request City Attorney to prepare a resolution to recognize October as National Pedestrian Safety Month.

LongBeachCC_10192021_21-1099

So just appreciate all of you for for being involved in that. And obviously, one of the larger institutions that we have in the city, either on the public or private side, and certainly you can get engaged in all the volunteer work they're all doing. So thank you very much. And with that, let me go and turn it over to item number 15. Communication from Councilwoman Ciro. Councilwoman, then they have Councilwoman Price recommendation to receive. And finally, pedestrian safety presentation and request city attorney to prepare a resolution to recognize October as National Pedestrian Safety Month. I'm sorry. Thank you. So it's been a very alarming and just in the past year, the the rising rates in pedestrian vehicle accidents. And I wanted to make sure that given that in the recent pandemic, many people have been encouraged to go outdoor and walk. And also, in light of our budget discussion, we've been talking a lot about infrastructure and making sure we have better roads. But I think that we want to I want to make sure we bring back the focus back to pedestrian and that it's really important we recommit back to our 2016 Vision Zero goal to eliminate traffic, death and serious injury by 2026. And in July 2020, the Safe Street Long Beach Action Plan was adopted and outlined to eliminate traffic and related death and serious injuries city wide. So I want to thank you. Public Works and Long Beach fire and police for being here to do the presentation today. So with that said, I'll hand it over to Mr. Hickman. Thank you, Councilwoman Ciro and Mr. Mayor, fellow council members. I'm Carl Hickman, city traffic engineer and acting city engineer. With me this evening, I have Deputy Fire Chief Hardin and Deputy Chief of Police Lewis. To talk about this important topic regarding pedestrian safety. A few facts that we do know. On the chart on the left, you can see where if there were to be a collision between a pedestrian and a car, if the car is traveling at 20 miles an hour, there's a 13% likelihood that there will be a serious or fatal outcome. And if a car is traveling at 30 miles an hour, there is a 40% chance that there will be a fatality or a serious injury. And it kind of makes sense as if you could go up there. You can see at 40 miles an hour, there was a 73% chance or likelihood that there will be a serious or fatal outcome as a result of that event. On the chart on the right. We do know that from 2013 to 2017, if you look at all the collisions in the city of Long Beach, 6% of those collisions involve pedestrians. And on the chart there on the far right of all the fatal and serious collisions that have occurred between 2013 and 2017, 34% of those injuries that are fatal or serious involve pedestrians as well. This is a chart of the entire city. It's kind of tough to see there. But for all the vehicle versus pedestrian collisions, it kind of shows you the dense area in the downtown section of the city where we have the majority of our car versus pedestrian collisions. It kind of, again, makes sense where you have a more dense area cars, pedestrians and a smaller, dense area, you have more pedestrian related collisions. And that data there is from 2019 to 2021. One of the important aspects about pedestrian collisions is that drivers need to be aware that they must always yield to pedestrians, whether there's a crosswalk there at the intersection or not. It is legal in the state of California to cross at an intersection, even if there's not a crosswalk. And drivers take a large bit of the responsibility to make sure that they're looking out for pedestrians, bicycles, scooters and whatnot as they approach the intersections. The drivers also need to slow down and be prepared to stop when turning or otherwise entering a crosswalk. Drivers need to stop behind crosswalks and yield to pedestrians at all times. Drivers should never pass. Vehicles stopped at a crosswalk. There may be people crossing that. Drivers may not be able to see. And one final note is that drivers really need to be able to follow directions from crossing guards or emergency responders. There's many times where cars enter an area that is being controlled by someone and they need to be paying attention to what's going on in the intersection. Following along with our drivers responsibilities. Drivers should never drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Drivers should always follow the speed limit, but especially when there are people on the street. Drivers should be paying attention and driving a little bit slower. As a commitment to our Safe Streets action plan in July of 2020. I've recently looked at, investigated and changed speed limits on 50 plus of our roadways in the city of Long Beach. So over 50 roadways. We are looking at the speed limits and reducing them by five miles an hour in an effort to make our streets safer. Also, drivers need to make sure that when turning on a red, they need to come to a complete stop. Look for all traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. Folks on scooters, whatever the case may be. And then again, you know, when there's bad conditions out there on the road, hard to see conditions such as nighttime or bad weather . Drivers need to take extra precautions. So again, these roles, ideal safety tips are the responsibility of drivers and pedestrians. So now here are some rules and safety tips for pedestrians. One of the main problems that we're experiencing is that many drivers are distracted. So are the pedestrians. So pedestrians need to keep your keep their eyes up, put away the phones, pay attention. Look at what's happening on the streets. You know, pedestrians need to be looking out for scooters and bicyclists as well. There are times when collisions happen between between pedestrians and scooters or pedestrians and bicyclists. So those are unsafe as well. Pedestrians need to look left, right and left again before crossing the street. And if there are locations where pedestrians walking, where you don't have sidewalks, make sure that a pedestrian is walking on the far left of the roadway. That way. The the the pedestrian is out of the traveled way and less likely to be involved in a collision with the with the driver. That syringe should not run or dart out into the street or jump out between parked cars. Very unsafe. And pedestrians should always make eye contact with drivers as are crossing the street. Make sure that the driver of the car sees you before you cross the street and again look out for bikes or scooters. Now we're going to move into a section of the presentation where we talk about traffic signals and what happens at a traffic signal when a person approaches the intersection and pushes that button to cross the street. A steady walk signals the is that green man you see there on the top. That means you have 7 to 10 seconds to get into the crosswalk to start your crossing. Typically, I increase that time to 10 seconds around school zones or areas where there are senior homes. Next phase of the pedestrian walk time, you'll see the hand come up and usually a time, a number that will give you the number of seconds that is left for you to cross the street. That's the flashing don't walk period, where a pedestrian shouldn't enter the intersection from the curb. But if he's already in the intersection, he can proceed. And finally, you have the red hand at the very bottom there that's telling the pedestrian who might be approaching the intersection not to enter the intersection. You're not going to have enough time to cross. And that's a big problem in the city. When I walk around, I see people who are walking against that red hand. That's a big problem in the city of Long Beach. The pedestrian walk. Times are determined by the road, with divided by 3.5 seconds feet per 3.5 feet per second, minus the yellow time, minus all red time. So basically the average walking person is moving at 3.5 feet per second. And there are cases when I get phone calls to my office where folks want more time. So I make adjustments to make sure that they have enough time to get across the street when that's when it's proper. Next, we have additional resources. Again, you can always look at our Safe Streets initiative that was passed by this council in July of 2020. And I wanted to point out that many of our engineering projects, as we move forward, they do contain complete streets and safe streets elements to make the streets safer for all users, that is drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.. So we are making moves and taking giant steps to make our streets safer in the city of Long Beach. Now I welcome comments. From one of the deputies. Thank you, honorable mayor and council members. I'd like to present some of the data in regards to fire that we collected prior to this Council meeting in 2019. There are four we respond to 492 vehicle versus pedestrian pedestrian incidents and 347 vehicle versus biker motorcycle. 2020, those numbers did drop. Obviously, with COVID, there's a lot less traffic on the streets. And then 2021, we're on track and we had 528 vehicle pedestrians and actual vehicle versus biker motorcycles actually lower. And it was a 7% roughly increase in those pedestrian incidents. When you look at that heatmap, majority of our incidents were in that downtown area from ocean up to Willow or from Magnolia to Redondo, up Atlantic of all the intersections that had major thoroughfares. And then on the obvious, intersections such as lasco is diagonal. Santa Fe and PCH in Bellflower and Seventh Street have clusters at all those areas. Just an insight to how we operate. Any any incident that involves a vehicle versus pedestrian. We'll get at Charlie response which is a the closest engine or truck with a paramedic unit which has advanced life support the engine or truck and usually arrives on scene first and protects the incident and the personnel working on the incident. And then when the medics arrive on scene, if they determine that that vehicle is traveling over 20 miles an hour, that person is transported immediately to the closest trauma center, which for us is St Mary's Memorial. And that 20 miles an hour from reference, five or six is concurrent with what Mr. Hickman was talking about, is data of anything over 20 miles an hour. That 13% chance of increased injury or fatalities. That also includes the same procedure for an enclosed transport crash and significance over or greater than 20 miles an hour. And that relates to bicycles, motorcycles or scooters. And then if we have patients that do not want to be transported, we make a base station protocol contact and they can sign out against medical advice. Even then, we still encourage them to be transported to the local, local trauma center. But if they sign out, they can go with a VLF EMT ambulance or they can go by a family member. And that's all four of our. Vice Mayor and council. The police department is obviously an integral and important part of the city's city's overall public safety effort to reduce vehicular and as we heard already, pedestrian related traffic collision. This includes a big part of public education, traffic, engineering awareness and ultimately through enforcement. We understand this is a team effort in conjunction with staff and support from from other city departments, not even just sitting next to me tonight. It is important for residents and visitors to know the police department has an eye on traffic safety is in addition to in addition to standard patrol officers, the police department deploys specialized traffic safety personnel like motorcycle officers, DUI team and commercial enforcement officers to name a few types of personnel we have that are focused on traffic safety. All of this is in addition to staff who work with and support traffic safety efforts through the various city departments. Furthermore, in support of overall city effort, the police department deploys personnel in response to specific traffic complaint complaints and can include traffic safety issues in neighborhoods, business areas, entertainment areas and on large high volume roadways. In addition to the police department activities, the police department believes believe residents are a valuable piece of the overall traffic safety effort . The police department encourages all residents to drive safely report traffic concerns while providing suggestions or input on how traffic measures can be better implemented together through these efforts. We will make a positive difference on the safety of all the residents and visitors throughout the city. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Van de Haas. Think. Thank you, Councilwoman Ciro, for bringing this very, very important item forward. Thank you to Carol, not only for this great presentation, but also for continuously working with my office on finding solutions for pedestrian safety. I know that's an ongoing thing, and I thank you for always being willing and open to working with my office when we have questions from our residents. A 2017 CD report indicated that in 2017, 5977 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the U.S., which amounts to about one death every 88 minutes. Additionally, about 137,000 pedestrians were treated in emergency departments for crash related injuries that same year. Therefore, we are concerned not only for the loss of life that may occur during these incidents, but also for the the lack of pedestrian safety and also the health implications that come after being injured in an accident as such. Also, pedestrians, child pedestrians who are children, seniors and or wheelchair users are at the highest risk of being a being. We have an accident resulting in fatal. And a collision when a collision happens. It also is a matter of equity when we talk about increasing pedestrian safety. This is of high concern for my residents, especially around our schools. This is why I am extremely supportive of this item. And thank you again, council member Sorrell, for bringing this item forward. Yes, I think it raises the importance of having this discussion and it aligns with our city's interest in protecting and strengthening our public safety. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ciro. Yes? I wanted to. Thank. Mr. Hickman and Deputy Chief Hardin and Deputy Chief Lewis for your presentation. I think it's just so crucial. And thank you all the staff for their hard work in ensuring that everyone is safe on the street. And I just want to share that. While what Mr. Hickman presented isn't anything new, it's very common sense stuff. But I think that it's just like. Everyone needs to be reminded again and again, especially now as more people are on the streets walking and more people are driving as we're resuming back to working in-person again, and that we don't forget that this is a high priority issue and that we as a city have created many plans. In addition to the Safe Street Initiative of 2020, there's been the community of excellent nutrition, physical activity, but obesity prevention, the pedestrian plan, there's been that. And then more recently, the Cambodia Town Dry Vision plan. And a lot of these are within the highly dense area that was mentioned earlier where a lot of the accidents occur. And so we want to make sure we bring it back to the forefront that this is alarming. And the rates that people are being hit are almost hit. More and more people are not paying attention while they're driving and sometimes even walking. So that's why I wanted to make sure we recognized October as National Pedestrian Safety Month, is that we really need to recommit back to this vision plan. So thank you so much to my colleagues for your support and to staff for all their hard work. Thank you. Councilman Pryce. Thank you very much. And I want to thank Councilwoman Sara for bringing this item forward. We had the opportunity and the privilege to hear this presentation at the Public Safety Committee meeting, and I think it's a really fantastic presentation. It just reminds us all how important pedestrian safety is. And as I mentioned in the public safety meeting, and I'll do it again. You know, a lot of residents don't like the decisions that we make or don't make regarding traffic safety. But I always tell them I try. Perhaps it's just my background and profession. I try to tell people that even if you don't like the outcome or the decision, it's being made by an expert. And, you know, Mr. Heckman is I tell everyone all the time, he is an actual engineer that's required for traffic engineering. And sometimes I make him tell people that, too, because I think it it sets the foundation for why they should trust his opinion, why they should trust the decisions that he's making. It's important to me that when we ask people to take the direction of city staff in terms of a traffic measure or traffic mitigation measure or really anything, we ask the public to trust us in that. We tell them the expertize of the people. And and Mr. Heckman is a fantastic engineer. He spent a lifetime committed to the principles of traffic design and engineering, which include knowledge of physics and all the different human factors that take into account. When we're talking about traffic, traffic safety, this is a huge area for the city to focus on. It's no secret that I think we need a better a stronger and more populated traffic enforcement team with the Long Beach Police Department. I know that enforcement does not result in long term traffic mitigation and pedestrian safety, but it does provide for some directed enforcement efforts that serve as an outreach opportunity to educate drivers about the safety concerns. And our traffic division at the Long Beach Police Department has been reduced dramatically in the last ten years. We need to have more drug recognition experts hired by the Long Beach Police Department. We need to have more directed enforcement teams that do directed enforcement right now. I mean, I want to thank our police department. We don't have a commander. We have we have a commander starting this week. But in the past, the commanders we've had, you know, we've really had to beg for traffic enforcement because the resources are so limited. And again, that's a short term solution. The long term solution for pedestrian safety is Mr. Hickman and his team. But the short term solution, the solution that we need to remind drivers that you can't drive while you're impaired, you can't drive while you're distracted, you can't speed on especially on certain roads because it will result in great bodily injury or death. That's our police department. And so I really firmly believe that we need to route more money to the police department, specifically for traffic enforcement, because someone who loses a son, a daughter, a mother or father, a relative to a traffic fatality, especially by an impaired driver, that is no less of a murder than if someone is killed in their family because of a gun or a knife. It's still a death. It's still a major loss. It's still totally avoidable. And we need our police department to be out there educating people so that we don't lose members of our community due to impaired drivers and other factors that we can have a more active hand in . So I thank you for the presentation. I think Catwoman's sorrow for bringing this item forth. I know that when it came to Public Safety Committee, we talked about making sure that our California Office of Traffic Safety Grants are maximized right now, that we're looking at creative grant opportunities at someone who runs that program. In my day job with the jurisdiction I work in, it's important for us to change up those grants every year. We shouldn't be applying for the same grants with the same language. We should be looking at ways to be creative and including things like the mobility issues, the mobility options that we see into those grant funding opportunities , loud pipes, for example, speeding speed contests. We've seen a rise in speed contests in the region. These are things that we really should be trying to route money to, to have our police department be able to enforce. And again. Traffic engineering is actual real engineering. You have to trust the opinions and the decisions. Even though everybody wants a stop sign to solve every problem, that doesn't solve every problem. For reasons that our traffic engineer often shares with people. So thank you to our city team for being here. And I mean, I just think I'm always going to be advocating for more money to go to traffic, education, traffic, engineering and traffic enforcement, because that's what makes a difference in people's lives. Thanks. Thank you. We have Councilwoman Mango. Thank you. I want to thank everyone for the presentation. I want to thank the Public Safety Committee. Pedestrian safety has been a huge concern since I was on the city council. Many of you know, my story is similar to Councilman Price's, where our issue was about a crosswalk and a left turn arrow and protection for a neighborhood that had had far too many accidents and pedestrian deaths. And our neighborhood association kind of rallied around a woman who was going to run for city council, hopefully. And then she backed out. And here I am. And it comes down to the safety of the neighborhoods you live in. And changing driver behavior is definitely one of the best ways to solve some of these issues. Installing the stop sign that nobody's going to stop at anyway are the same people who are the ones speeding, are the same people who sometimes are the ones complaining. And I think that it's very poignant that I had a real heart to heart with a neighbor recently who was one of the people who complained all the time about speeding. And then his wife almost took the door off of the police chief's car because she was speeding in her own neighborhood. So we often forget and we get rushed and we have to remind people and the only way that we can really make meaningful change is to change traffic conditions. And I think that it's also really important to remember that our traffic engineer is also really restrained by state law. There's a lot of state law that is in place to ensure that when a driver drives from city to city to city to city, that they can expect the same standards across all cities. They don't always know when they're crossing from one city to another. And it's it's difficult to make changes that are meaningful. And we appreciate all the work you do. We know how hard it is. And on behalf of the residents, we want to thank you, all of you, for all three of you. Thank you. Is your public comment on this item? There's no public comment on certain. Customers or any additional comments. Looking to please members go and cast your vote. Careful analysis of motion is carried.

A RESOLUTION expressing the Seattle City Council’s support for a single-payer healthcare system (“Medicare for All”), supporting United States Senate Bill 1804, and requesting the support of Washington’s U.S. Senators.

SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_Res 31774

Reports for Introduction and Adoption Resolution 31774a resolution expressing the City of Seattle support for single payer health care system supporting United States Senate Bill 1804 and requesting the support of Washington U.S. senators. And I understand that there is an amendment to Resolution 31774. And I think opening. Would you would you like to make opening remarks before we consider amendments? Okay. Councilmember Swan. Thank you, President Gonzalez, and I appreciate you moving the item to the top of the agenda so that activists can go back to work or school or their other desk that they need to go to. So this is another, as we already know, Donald Trump, the right wing and the Republicans have tried again and again to dismantle what little health coverage we have. These are barbaric attacks that they are attempting, but the only way to defeat these attacks permanently is to not stay on the defense, but to play offense. And the best antidote to Trump's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act is to pass a nationwide single payer Medicare for All legislation. And as I mentioned before, this issue has garnered so much momentum, primarily tangs to ordinary working people, young people, people of all ethnicities and all sexual orientation who have fought, who have started fighting for this. And this issue gained momentum and got energized around Bernie Sanders this campaign last year. And now it has gained so much energy that when he put this forward in the Senate, he already had 16 senators supporting him. But two senators haven't yet. Many haven't, but two of them are in Washington State. Marian Cantwell. And I think this is one of the most important parts of our resolution. It is outrageous that Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, while repeatedly paying lip service to the agenda of working people, have still failed to co-sponsor Medicare for All. This resolution. Stage the city's position in favor of Medicare for All and asks Senators Cantwell and Murray to support Sanders's legislation. Single payer is overwhelmingly popular among regular people and consistently being supported in polls by over 60% of those polled. But popular is not enough. Establishment politicians always lean towards the profits of big business. In this case, the profits of insurance and big pharmaceutical corporations. And that is why activists on the ground have to bring pressure to bear. I specifically wanted to thank all the activists in the state of Washington especially, and also the nurses, unions and socialists and other activists in the state of California who really put forward a strong fight for single payer healthcare in that state. We know that even with the Affordable Care Act, 28 million people are uninsured and millions more remain uninsured. What would it actually take to win single payer health care? First of all, it is important that we carry out actions like today where entire cities take a very clear position in favor of single payer health care. But that won't be enough. We will have to build on what we went today in order to continue to build serious momentum statewide. We have a lesson from a country right now. You know, our neighbor, Canada, we don't talk enough about Canada. In Canada, universal health care supporters, socialists and strong fighting labor movement. One single payer health care by setting up their own independent party, which was then called the CCF, which later came to be known as the NDP, which won elections in just one province, Saskatchewan, after activists won their own seats in government. They established single payer health care in the province of Saskatchewan, and they used that position to really popularize a health care system that works. Health care system that is affordable and is humane. This health care became so popular nationwide in Canada that establishment parties at the center became terrified that if they did not pay heed to this movement, then their parties would lose elections at the central government level. And that is why it was in response to the strong momentum that Canada's Conservative Party passed their single payer system. And that is why sisters and brothers, eventually Washington, D.C., fails to support single payer. Washington State's elected officials have a duty to do it locally, but at the same time, we have to be clear that that won't happen without the power of mass movement of regular people, like many of us who are here today. I wanted to thank all the activists who came here, took time out of their day to speak about the need for single payer healthcare, specifically to thank Dr. David Springer, who who's a pediatrician and who spoke on behalf of the Puget Sound. Advocates for Demand Action, Bizarro and Health Care for All Coalition and activists from Whole Washington like Joshua Davenport, Physicians for a National Health Plan, Socialist, Alternative, and many others who are helping to build a movement. I urge the Council to vote yes on this resolution without any watered down amendments. And last but not least. And last but not least, I wanted to say I agree with Emerson, an activist from socialist students who said that homelessness, the housing crisis, lack of health care, these are not isolated problems, but they are all together symptomatic of an inhumane and dysfunctional system. And therefore, I wanted to conclude by saying that I agree with all the activists. We need a stop to the sweeps of homeless people. We need affordable housing to house the homeless. Thank you council members want. I understand that Councilmember Bagshaw has an amendment to resolution 3177. Wait, wait, wait. Wait. This is. Thank you. This is actually good news. After I am totally supporting councilmembers who want. I appreciate all of you here. I have been working with rank chop in our legislature about looking at something in the state of Washington, Ala. What the State of California has done in response to our Office of Inter-Government Relations today. One recommendation that they made was to expand it beyond just the Senate to be able to say to convey the support to the Seattle congressional delegation. And then in Section four, to say that we urge the Seattle the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. So the goal is to move forward with more than just one option. So that is my amendment and recommendation that is coming from our Office of Inter-Government Relations. So I guess now. I have to use the words. Okay. So I moved to suspend Council Rule 386 relating to presentation of amendments 2 hours before the full council meeting. Second. Okay. All those in favor say aye. I any opposed? Okay. So we have suspended the council rules and now I will have Council Member Bagshaw move her amendment and it will need to be seconded. Good. Well, I move this. I move this amendment as proposed and ask for a second. Second. Okay. Councilmember Magashule's amendment to resolution 31774 has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments? Councilmember O'Brien. Conservative. Could you restate the amendment? I didn't quite follow at all what and where it would go. I, I, i pass this out. I guess it's kind of stuck right here. Sorry. It's in the last page line seven that we convey this to convey this support to the Seattle congressional delegation. So it's more than just our senators. And then Section four, the Seattle City Council. I think it should be, urges the Seattle Congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate 1804 and in support of their future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. Are there any other comments? Members want. Thank you. I do not support this amendment. This amendment just to make sure all members of the public are with us on understanding what the amendment is. The original statement says the Seattle City Council request that Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray support Medicare for all by co-sponsoring Senate 180 for the amendment from Councilmember Bagshaw. As the Seattle City Council urges the Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor one or two or four and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. This is not an innocuous amendment, and I don't support it because it does indeed water down the most one of the most important parts of the resolution , which is naming Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell by name. And there's a reason. Why we're naming the. The voters of Senators Murray and Cantwell and their constituents overwhelmingly support single payer health care. Let's not forget that every county in Washington state in the primaries went with great majorities for Bernie Sanders, who was calling for single payer health care for all. And so it is very, very important for their constituents and for all of us in Seattle to know where Senators Murray, Murray and Cantwell stand on this issue. And by simply saying congressional delegation, it means everybody is responsible and nobody's responsible. We want to know where the senators stand on this issue. And I. Our eye is not naive. We know that when we name elected officials by name, it puts public pressure on them. And that is exactly what we need. We want to send a strong message to Cantwell and Murray that they have a choice they can support Senate wanted, you know, for and really push to fight for single payer health care or else movements need to gather steam and run our own candidates against corporate Democrats who will not fight for that. And then the simple question to Cantwell and Murray is that if they are supposedly carrying out efforts for hope for some future bill, then why don't they start by supporting this 1/1? Councilmember O'Brien. Councilmember Councilmember Bagshaw, would you be open to revising the language? I appreciate the ability to expand it to the congressional delegation and other legislation. I also would like to specifically name our two senators and hear where they are on the record. Would you be open to language that left that in but also added yours? I absolutely think that that's where the votes are going. And of course. Yes. So maybe someone else can talk for a second and I'll think of how to do this wordsmithing. Can I just offer some potential language? So on page two, lines ten, three, 11, it does specifically states that Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray have not yet co-sponsored the Senate bill. But I think what Councilmember Silence requests is that that also be included in Section four. So perhaps what we can just say is the Seattle City Council urges the Seattle congressional delegation, including Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, comma, to co-sponsor Senate Bill one eight the reform and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. Thank you. I appreciate your wording. So that we're specifically naming them in Section four. Wood. Can I just make a slight change to I'd say the Seattle City Council urges Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and the, you know, the whole of the Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor. Senate wanted you for. Him to support. I think that's. Exactly what I just said. But you reversed the. Order, and. I'm fine with it. It makes. A difference, and. It's fine. And this is this is not my amendment. So I should not be okaying it. It is Councilmember Banks amendment. So I would. Defer to you, Councilman, of actually in terms of whether you think that's a friendly. Amendment. I think we're moving in this direction. And I would like very much to see this statement made. And I'm going to be I'm going to support it. And I appreciate your suggested amendment. So. Peter, just for the clerk, I. I can I'm happy to repeat the language, if that makes sense, to do that now. Okay. So Section four would read the Seattle City Council Council urges Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate Bill 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all . Sounds good. Okay, so that sounds like we have consensus. I would second that. Okay. So the amendment. To the proposed. Are you withdrawing your original amendment and replacing it with us? I appreciate that. I just want to underscore that the recommendation from our Office of Intergovernmental Relations was to focus on the congressional delegation as a whole. If this language is supported by all of us, I think we're better off being unanimous than not. Well. Okay. So we have an amendment to resolution 31774, which would incorporate the language proposed by Councilmember Bagshaw in version D, one of the amended resolution that she distributed today that would change the language in Section four to read. The Seattle City Council urges Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate Bill 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. And there's been a second, Kate, all those in favor say i. I. Any opposed amendment passes unanimously. You guys just wanted to make this council president pro tem for me extra hard today. We want to keep you as long as we can. Great. 5:00. 5:00. So with that being said, we have a move to Florida for a resolution and seconded for passage of resolution 31774. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed resolution 31774 passes and the chair will sign it. Heather Graham. Ted just brought this. Into the senate and work as. You look at how many pieces. Okay. Uh oh. Okay. We will now have the report of the Park, Seattle Central Libraries and Waterfront Committee. If the clerk will please read the report.

A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to provide emergency shelter activities and integrated health services for people experiencing homelessness and housing instability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Amends a contract with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless by adding seven months for a new end date of 8-31-22 to provide emergency shelter activities and integrated health services for people experiencing homelessness who are experiencing housing instability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. No change to contract amount (HOST-202157443-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-1-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-21.

DenverCityCouncil_10112021_21-1127

Ten eyes. Council Resolution 1084 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Steuer. Go ahead with your questions on resolution one 1 to 7, please. Thinks that a president I believe host is here. Thanks for being here, you guys. Just a couple of questions about this. So it's a it's an amendment to a contract that already exists, this contract. What is the original? How much is the original contract for? So the original contract and the amendment are the same amount. So this amendment is a no cost amendment just to extend the term. And the total cost is $932,358. Okay, great. And so it's a it's just a term extension. How long is it being extended until? Seven months total. So going from a previous end date of January 31st of 20 to out until August 31st of 22. Okay. And does is maintenance of properties included in this contract? No, this is just a contract for the provision of integrated health supports as part of our COVID response under the Emergency Solutions Grant Coronavirus Relief Fund. So this is particular to the Coalition for the Homeless Provision of Integrated Health Services at one particular shelter location. Okay, great. So do you know how much we have contracted with CCH over the course of just this year? I don't have that number. But through many contracts throughout the Department of Housing Stability. Okay. Do you know how many partnerships, separate partnerships we have with CCH in the city? Contracted partnerships. I don't have that number either, but could work to get that to you. Okay. Appreciate it. Just so we have several properties in District five that and CCH has failed to maintain them, has struggled to be responsive or accountable to the residents, to residents of the buildings themselves, residents of the neighborhood that the buildings are located in. Resident failed to be responsive to the council office. It's it's a little bit concerning. We have to have six month check in meetings with the residents of the buildings, the two neighborhood organizations, the council office, the police, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure host as an invited the city attorney's office has been invited. And so I'm just a little bit concerned about the number of contracts that we have and with CCH and how many, you know, that we are giving them extended responsibility when they are not maintaining the current agreements that they have with our community. Thank you for sharing that feedback. I think that's something I definitely want to talk with the Coalition about. I know in our space of homelessness resolution they are really vital partner, particularly around the the efforts we have around street outreach, the efforts we have around supportive housing and the efforts that we have around integration of health care . And so the I, I just want to say, you know, they're a really crucial partner to the city of Denver. And so it sounds like we have some work to do to work on that partnership, particularly around your concerns of property management. And so I will absolutely bridge a connection back there and see how we can work to to improve communication and feedback about the efforts that they're doing. I really appreciate that. Thank you. And I recognize that they are, you know, really important partner to our city. But I do think it is concerning that they are not held accountable for their existing contracts, that we continue to extend contracts and create new contracts with them. Does this contract cover the Coliseum? No. This is particular to the shelter at 4600 East 48th Avenue. Okay. So who then is in charge? Which of our partners is in charge of management of the Coliseum? So our contract for operations at the Coliseum is between the Salvation Army and the Department of Housing Stability. Okay. There's also additional staffing provided through Bayard Enterprises. And then overall, many of the overall maintenance issues related to the Coliseum are actually handled directly by the city through arts and venues and our city facilities teams. Okay, that's good to know. Our office received some really concerning emails regarding an. Elderly gentleman who is currently residing in the Coliseum, who is wheelchair bound and who has purchased his own shop vac to to clean up the sewage that is backing up underneath his bed. Can you explain why that is happening and what steps have been taken to ensure that that is no longer going to continue to occur? Yes. So we'll work to provide some more formal feedback as we get all of the resolution worked out. But I also received that email on Friday afternoon and we sprung into action with our partners at arts and venues getting plumbing on site immediately. They have since dealt with the backflow issue and I understand as of today's report that everything is back to functioning normally. Ultimately, this emergency COVID shelter that was set up at the Coliseum is providing residential spaces in a building that was never designed for that, with infrastructure lacking to handle the amount of human waste that that it's seeing every day. And so we're working with our partners at arts and venues and city facilities to work on some regular clean out of that. But definitely. Appreciate that that issue is flagged to us and we're working to resolve it, as well as working to address where folks are situated, if there are ongoing concerns around this particular backflow. Okay. I appreciate that and would really appreciate an update because how many seats does the Coliseum have? Seats? Yeah. Do you know? No, I don't know. I think it's somewhere around 10,000. So that's a. That should have capacity. How many people are staying at the Coliseum right now? So we have a capacity of 425. It's a mixture of the you know, during an event, you might have up to 10,000 people at once. But it's the all day, every day where and here's how it's explained to me as well as I sometimes folks flushing things that don't belong in toilets. So there's there's often some infrastructure. Part of what we put forward in our ARPA requests around helping to support for infrastructure improvements are things like waste grinders in the in our plumbing at big buildings like this to help handle in the future if we have to repurpose buildings for residential shelter that can help handle that load. Okay. I really appreciate that. Thanks for bringing into action and sorting that out. It's an incredibly concerning report and I hope we don't ever hear anything like that again, but thank you for being responsive to it and thanks for your partnership and all of your hard work and everything you're doing to oversee all of our shelters right now. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, council members, for your for the record, do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and share what agency you're with? Yes. I'm Angie Nelson, deputy director of the Department of Housing Stability, overseeing homelessness resolution and Housing Stability Division. Very good. Thank you, Angie, for being here. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.

AN ORDINANCE relating to environmental review; amending Sections 3.02.110, 25.05.035, 25.05.055, 25.05.070, 25.05.100, 25.05.440, 25.05.448, 25.05.545, 25.05.680, 25.05.800, 25.05.900, and 25.05.914 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify timelines and the content of administrative appeals, to authorize the development of Director’s Rules to clarify the content of environmental documents, and to make corrections and technical amendments.

SeattleCityCouncil_10072019_CB 119600

The report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item one Constable 119 600 relating to environmental review amending sections 3.02.1 1020 5.05.0. 35.0. 55.0. 70.100 point four. 40.4 48.5. 45.6. 80.800 point 900 and point 914 of the State of Espaco to clarify timelines and the content of an administrative appeals to authorize the development of directors rules to clarify the content of. Environmental documents. And to make corrections and technical amendments. Committee recommends were passed as amended. Thank you very much, Councilmember Pacheco. Are you leading with a request from O'Brien? I would really like it. Did you want to talk to about the amendments first or did you not? I'd rather talk about the base legislation first. We have four amendments, as I understand them. But let's get through the base legislation and if possible, I'd like the proposers to try to address many of the what seem to be valid concerns from both sides that we heard from public testimony today. So we'll start off just the base legislation. Councilmember Sure. So colleagues, thank you for being here today. And this legislation is a culmination of a three month process that began with environmental organizations like Feature Wise Transportation Choices, Coalition Climate Solutions and Sightline. That's in a letter to the Council requesting that we update our city keeper policies in response to changes to state law. The proposed changes are common sense reforms to make our CPA process work better for the environment. The legislation would align our city code to match changes in state law limits. Here in Examiner appeals to 120 days. Clarifies which portions of the environmental impact statements are subject to appeals and aligns. Are CPC thresholds for urban villages with urban centers. In shaping this legislation, I have met with stakeholders including the hearing examiner Mansell environmental groups Megan Cruz, who spoke earlier today in downtown residents CCI Ted Hunter from the Wallingford Community Council. And I've also had the opportunity to go on the Jason Ranch Show to speak on behalf of the importance of this legislation. So my committee has done is due diligence with regards to meeting with a variety of stakeholders who have had an interest in seeing this process through. We've also held three committee meetings and a public hearing process as well. I also want to take a moment to address some of the claims that I've heard and clarify a few things about what this legislation does not do. This proposal does not and SEEBER review it, does not eliminate SIPA challenges based on transportation impacts. It does not allow CCI or design review boards to unilaterally set rules or thresholds for seat review. And it does not change CPA thresholds for downtown or other urban centers. Opponents of this legislation have unfortunately portrayed this effort as training away environmental protections in exchange for affordable housing. But I reject framing this conversation as a tradeoff between one or the other. This council understands that building dense, sustainable housing in our city and addressing the climate crisis are not contradictory. They go hand in hand. That's why so many environmental advocacy advocates are supporting this legislation. As Brittany Busch Belay of the Sierra Club and Alex Lockhart of Thrifty Seattle wrote in today's Seattle Times, One of the most powerful ways Seattle can safeguard the environment is by welcoming more homes into the city, curtailing climate pollution and sprawl. This legislation helps us do just that. It makes modest changes to update our code to better reflect our climate priorities. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues on the Council. Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Herbold for working with me and my team to offer amendments in this legislation, as well as which what's on central staff for all of this work. It's getting us to this far. I also want to thank all the environmental leaders who advocate for advocated for these changes in Olympia and challenge the city of Seattle to move forward as well. So I will I'm happy to discuss each of the amendments, if you like. Council President Let's before we get to amendments, sure. Might be some questions on the Bass legislation. Councilmember. Thank you. Councilmember Pacheco. I don't know if this is something that you want to address or Councilmember O'Brien on the phone. I know that recently, last year, after multiple years of work at the legislature, that laws were passed there that authorized categorical exemptions for infill here in Seattle. And I wonder if you can talk about what the intention was for the legislature there, what the intention of the conversations have been at your committee and where we are now, because we listened to the audience and they're concerned about losing rights of appeal. And I'd like to. To know whether or not, A, we're in a line, we are aligned with the state's legislation. And secondly, how you address the questions that they have said, we're losing our our appeal rights. Sure. So this is in response, direct response to House Bill 1923, which advocates here today had outlined as well to Olympia. And Olympia acted in response to what they had seen in the examples here in Seattle, where the CPA process was misused and weaponized in a way such to see have delays for affordable housing projects and different projects, as we've seen throughout Seattle. The Burke Gilman, for example, as we heard today in testimony where the bullet center as well as for Maté the 82 legislation as as well as for Layton and so Olympia and the state provided until April spring of 2021 for this for cities across the state to update our CPR standards. As such, we led an extensive process that did the outreach with a variety of stakeholders to respond to what the state has allowed us to do. It has not taken away anyone's authority to to to appeal or to use or to allow development projects to not go through, undergo CPR or to circumvent any of the processes, such as some proponents have claimed. Rather, it streamlines that process and allows us to move forward in response to what we've heard from different affordable housing advocates as well as environmental groups. So can I just quickly follow up. Talk to me, please, about the streamlining, because we heard today that many, many concerns have been raised, that their appeal rights had either been eliminated or reduced. Can you describe that? So appeals will now have a 120 day time limit and a 30 day extension if both parties agree, 120 days is the average of what we've heard from the hearing examiner, which is why that date and that timeframe was selected. We've seen appeals where they've dragged on for months, if not years. And so, again, people will still have the opportunity to appeal. But we've now put the the processes in place and a timeline in place so that these process, this appeal process, does not drag on for much longer than that it is intended to. In addition to that, we've also asked for the hearing examiner to come back in the annual report that's due next year with opportunities for us to make additional process improvements. And so we will go through that process again as a council next year to make any additional improvements and hopefully accept those recommendations from the hearing. Examiner. So I had a question to customer, please. Customer Well, thank you. I just want to share with y'all some information from the hearing examiner about the language in the in the ordinance that relates specifically to the timeline. I don't think it's a problem, but I think it's important that people understand the examples where the amount of time has exceeded 120 days. Those examples are times when both parties, the city and the appellant agreed. To. Take more time. So, for instance, during the delay of the MHRA appeal, hearing examiner Vance Hill explained to me that all parties, including the city, had scheduled conflicts for their representatives and witnesses that delayed the conclusion of the hearing. And so that was a that extension was an agreement of both parties. And that is that's pretty that when that happens, it's standard. It's very unusual for one party to object. The Fort Lawton case, the hearing examiner explains that that case was delayed most significantly because it originally required four days to complete, and the hearing schedule could not accommodate four days because the MHRA hearing schedule and other already had already scheduled meetings. So given that the city and the appellant typically agree to extend the timelines and this bill itself doesn't actually prohibit the extension of timelines, even though. We're we're. Giving another another timeline. It's unlikely from the hearing examiners perspective that this aspect of the bill will have an actual impact on the timeline, because it doesn't affect what is the practice that is that has led to previous longer timelines. So that's not these aren't comments to oppose this part of the bill. It's just merely to make sure that we have reasonable expectations of what this language in the bill will actually accomplish. If I may. Because. Brian. I'll recognize you in a minute. I wanted to make a comment or question. So perhaps in your response, you could. Respond to it as well. Part part of my concern on the the base legislation is it seems as though we are put in a position to pit our need and desire to build affordable housing with a a person's right to use the SIPA appeal process as he or she sees fit. That when I hear terms like CPA being used or weaponized, I think it was the term. Perhaps it has been abused in recent years or even some time ago, but it's also been effectively used, I think, to make sure that people's rights are intact and that there there's a CPA appeal process for a reason. And my question really is, is the process here that as we are in the middle of budget, that we're asked to look upon some pretty important legislation that could no doubt affect the our Seattle for years to come. And that shouldn't be taken lightly. And so I'm trying to get a feel for how long you all have been working on this, how much outreach was, in fact, done, and whether we should delay this until more outreach is done. I don't think we I don't know how time sensitive this is, because we shouldn't have to pit one great need versus another one great need for affordable housing versus someone's right to even question or challenge some of the decisions we made. So, so so I'm trying to get a feel for how long we've been working on this and why we're sort of doing this in the middle of a budget and whether it makes sense to have it done when more process is warranted. So that's just my personal concerns. Councilmember O'Brien, you are recognized, sir. Thank you. I just want to reiterate a couple of things that this bill does and doesn't do. The two major substantive, two major substantive things it does do is it provides categorical exemptions to a slightly longer list of projects that would no longer be required under the CPA. And I want to be clear that when we asked federal staff to analyze recent CPI appeals in the 30 plus appeals that came through, only two of those would now be categorically exempt based on this legislation. So maybe five or 6% of the appeals in recent timeframe. So that's a fairly narrow part of the list. But the rest of them, what it does do is require a certain timeline. And as Councilmember Herbold, I think mentioned, we often see that our own attorneys are agreeing to extend that. And I think that part of this requirement is to get both sides to accelerate that process. Multiple times we've heard that attorneys typically on the client side have have been on vacation for a long time, and that required extending eight months, sometimes multiple times. Council President Herald To your question about not pitting folks against each other, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to do that. You know, this process has been going on, I think, for about three months now. The reason we didn't vote on this before budget, even though it cleared through committee before budget was because of some notice requirements. So it was held by, I think three weeks. So apologize that it's coming up during budget. But I do believe there's been significant chance for public input. And I think the reality is here we're going to have to pick where we want to come down. And I also want to add that it's not just about affordable housing. It's about bike facilities. It's about market rate housing, whether there's zero apartments or backyard cottages. I think about transportation impact fees, which we're not going to be able to act on in 2019, despite the state proposing those in 2018 because of multiple delays during the CPA process. And I think folks should do have access to the tools are almost always wealthier individuals that can afford attorneys. Rarely ever do we see low income communities of color using this tool. And so it's certainly disproportionately used, too, which is, you know, beyond the scope of this legislation. But I think there's more work you need to do to address that. Thank you for your comments, councilmember Brian. Any further customers get a councilmember city on the floor. Thank you. Mr. President, I want to take that chance to say thank you to the co-sponsors. Councilmember Pacheco and Councilmember O'Brien. As you heard, this is a process that have been that has been out there for three months. It's been an inclusive process, one that we knew was coming. And I completely understand, given the amount of huge pieces of legislation we've taken on this year, how this can feel like a big thing to take on prior to budget. But I think the timing is essential. How many folks have red on fire? How many people went to see Naomi Klein? How many people have been talking about the year 2030? The fact that when our kiddos are now going to be 11 years old, if they're born this year, that is going to be too late for us to turn the tide on some of these environmental protections. All of those issues I think we have in common in this body and in this city we've been talking about how do we address the issue of climate change? And that is precisely why we've been on the forefront of supporting the Green New Deal, making sure that the environmental protections that we have put into place are not being used in unintentional ways and predatory ways and as a delay tactic to create the very thing that can help us reduce emissions in this area is to create affordable housing, to create more bike infrastructure, to create more transit infrastructure. And the very tool that we all advocated for once upon a time through the Environmental Protection Act and at the state and the city level has been used, I think, wrongly, to end the ability or to delay the ability to create affordable housing, transit options, multi-modal transit corridors that get people out of cars. And the result of the use of these super provisions has been that less housing has created a delayed timeline, fewer bike lanes, fewer pedestrian opportunities. It has been weaponized in ways that could never have been intended. And when we don't allow for affordable housing and don't allow for more bike and pedestrian and infrastructure projects that keep people in the city, that allow for people who have multi-modal needs and who have different incomes, to stay in the city and work in the city, retire in the city. The consequence is displacement. We are now the third. Largest mega commuter city in the entire country. That means we are third in terms of the longest commute to get into the city to work an hour and a half in an hour and a half out. And one of the folks in the audience talks about they care about birds. They care about trees. They care about wetlands. They care about decreasing commuter idling. They care about water runoff and the mammals that are living out in our Puget Sound. That is precisely what we should be building within our city and is precisely why we should not have tools that are being used erroneously. When we use the opportunity to make sure that Seba is used as a tool to promote green living, to promote denser options, to make sure that there's more tree canopy. We can see ourselves actually moving forward on our shared goals of reducing carbon emissions are promoting more biking and walking, of getting people out of their cars because they live in this city. I'm really excited about how this piece of legislation dovetails with our broader goal of creating more affordable housing, more transit options, and a more welcoming city. I just want to say that I think this is also part of our response to how we're dealing with the crisis of climate change globally. There's about 200 million people on up to 1 billion people who are being forced to migrate because of climate change. Think about raising rising sea levels. Think about desertification. Think about deforestation. Think about crazy snowstorms that we've not seen before. And heat and fire here in the Pacific Northwest. Yes, we've experienced some of those. We now have a new season that Naomi Klein writes about, which is smoke season, wildfire season. And yet here in the Pacific Northwest, we are going to have some of the most temperate climate compared to other parts of the country and, frankly, other parts of the world. We have to be a welcoming city and we have to build housing and transit and infrastructure. If we are going to be that welcoming city that wants to welcome those who want to come here for a good job, come here for cleaner air, come here for economic stability. We have to build density. And we can't let these tools that have been weaponized in the past prevent the ability for folks to live in the city. This is an environmental justice policy, and I'm proud to support it. I think that it will be a good opportunity for us to show what it means to be a welcoming city and to live our environmental justice values as well. Thank you. CASTRO Mosquito tents, applause on that. COUNCILMEMBER So what? Thank you, President Herrell. I will be voting yes on this legislation to alter Seattle's cyber procedures because these changes will, on balance, be a positive change. But we should be clear that they will not necessarily work in every situation, as public testimony has indicated. As has been mentioned, cyber, which of course the State Environmental Policy Protection Act is nominally a policy intended to protect the environment from particularly destructive development. In practice, however, it has most often been used by a tool by anyone who wishes to embroil a land use policy or development in red tape. As a tool. It is imprecise. It has been used in a progressive direction by community activists who correctly desire to negotiate community benefits or affordable housing or for large corporate developer. The threat of a SIPA appeal is the threat of costly delays, which sometimes is enough for community organizations to successfully extract some community benefits. However, it has far more often been used by some elements to delay affordable housing policies and project. For example, the Fort LUDDEN Affordable Housing Project was delayed for years with SIPA appeals, as was the accessory dwelling unit and the detached accessory dwelling unit legislation. And more recently, the tiny house built on my office has been subjected to a SIPA appeal by Elizabeth Campbell, who incidentally is the same person who appealed the Fort Lawton project. To give you a concrete example of how these SIPA appeals have nothing to do with the environment and are only used to slow down legislation. Here is one question out of the 11 pages of discovery questions that Elizabeth Campbell has put forward in her SIPA bill of my tiny house bill. Quote Interrogatory number four Identify every employee of the Office of Housing or the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections who owns property or resides in Seattle. Not only does that have nothing to do with the environment, it has nothing to do with tiny house villages. The legislation that we are voting on today restricts EPA appeal somewhat. It exempts small buildings from CPO review, but not big buildings. And it puts some time limits on how long something like my dining house bill, which actually is a bill that will that is in the interests of our homeless neighbors. How long such a bill can be delayed by appeals? When we consider these changes should be supported, we should not only consider the fact that was most of the time not being used in the way it was intended, but also consider whether limiting this tool will ultimately do more harm than good based on how it is actually being used, not on the intent of the bill. I strongly support affordable housing advocates extracting a couple more affordable homes out of a corporate developer using the tide of the SIPA appeal. But I do not support SIPA being used to disrupt and delay progressive legislation like affordable housing on Fort Lawton or expanding tiny house villages which which actually have a strong track record of addressing housing needs of our homeless neighbors and should be expanded. I do think we should try and avoid exaggeration of the impact of the bill today, and I think both sides have exaggerated the impact of the today's bill. On balance, however, I'm convinced that these changes will do more harm, more good than harm. The reality is to use, as Councilmember O'Brien and others have said, to use CPA to delay policies and projects require requires money and financial resources to hire lawyers to employ many of the tricks like this. 11 pages of discovery questions employ regular people. Ordinary people do not have those resources. Only corporations and wealthy people do. And because of that, frivolously, power bills have been used to delay far more progressive projects and harmful development. And given that balance, I will be voting yes on those reforms today. Thank you. Cassandra Swann So we've had discussion on the base legislation. Casper Pacheco Would you like to say more on the base legislation? Do you want to go through the amendments? How do you like to proceed? Let's go through the amendments and I can have closing remarks. Okay. So we're going to take some amendments to the base legislation. Let's hear any of the comments on the substance of the process. So amendment number one is proposed. By whom is it Councilmember Herbold or Pacheco? Sure. So, member number one, I just want to thank Councilmember Herbold for working with me to improve upon a previous amendment that we had in committee. This amendment goes further towards ensuring the community is involved in shaping the hearing examiners improvements. And I am happy to support. Okay. Can you say a little more about it? Oh, sorry. We we went through the committee and talked about having it in the hearing examiners annual report that's due next year. Additional recommendations that would be provided for the counsel to the hearing examiners would outline additional recommendations for the counsel to consider for and streamlining that process on the front end. This amendment just clarifies the stakeholder group by which the hearing examiner is going to convene to come back with those recommendations. Customer heard what did you want to add any to that? Just want to mention that we worked with the hearing examiner on the amendment and he is supportive. Very good. Councilmember actually had a question. Thank you. Councilmember Pacheco, can you describe how a stakeholders group could work with a hearing examiner? So in particular, the concerns we're hearing today that people feel like their appeal rights are taken away. How can they continue to participate and make sure that they do have a right to appeal concerns? And I'm considering particularly downtown Seattle, because I know many of the voices that are out here that they're focused on that. How can they participate with this amendment? Sure. So we met with the hearing examiner last week, and what we heard was that the hearing examiner will be convening a group of stakeholders who have had experience going through the hearing, a hearing process, expertize in environmental justice and a representative of the city council. So my recommendation would be to get in contact with the city, with your city council office, a city councilmembers office, with regards to trying to get involved with the hearing examiner. But it would be the hearing examiner will be determining those stakeholders and convening them and going through that process. So will the individuals who are interested in participating have an opportunity? And you mentioned next April that there will be some additions to this legislation potentially. Will they have an opportunity to actually influence what comes out from the hearing examiner? Yes. And just a little something to add. I just want to clarify that we made sure to include within the scope of what we ask the hearings, Amina, to consider with the stakeholder group the changes that we're making today. Okay. So for folks who. Have concerns about what we're doing today, that as well as other issues that have an impact on the timeline and the ability of the hearing examiner to hear hear appeals that will still be permitted even after today's vote. That is within the scope of this work. Thank you. Okay. I'm an understanding the amendment number one proposed by consumer check or basically adds a new Section 14 and remembers the remaining sections as presented in Amendment one. As he is, he is articulated. The motions are second, second in all those in favor. Any questions before I call on the vote on amendment number one? All those in favor of amendment number one, say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number one is passed. Amendment number yes. Oh, Cassie. Brian, what did you do? I hear anything okay from Brian? You're. You're on board member number one, and we're going to move to amendment number two, I believe it comes from I'm a skater. You were proposing amendment number two. You have the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I will tee it up. And I want to thank Councilmember Pacheco for co-sponsoring this with us and working on the amendment. This really harmonizes the policy with the comprehensive plan Dockett amendments that we passed earlier in August of this year. With respect to industrial lands. As you'll remember, the comprehensive plan docket resolution signals the Council's Support for work plan and action from the Executive on a review of Seattle's industrial lands as the basis for conversations about future industrial lands. And I'm really interested in how we take these policies and prioritize workers in the industrial sector, as well as thinking about how we marry those areas with mixed housing options. Councilmember Bagshaw earlier this morning talked about, you know, how do we have mixed use housing, preserving industrial lands as we promote affordable housing potentially for those workers or housing just in general? And I think it's a really great strategy that we've used in other areas of the city. So as we look forward to making sure that we're advancing good living wage jobs, also including housing mixed use options, this amendment basically just says let's have a comprehensive strategy across the city and make sure that we're looking at the entire city in our analysis, not just piecemeal sites for land use changes. So this harmonizes our effort with the comprehensive plan docket language from August. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm hearing councilmember skate as amendment and basically I'm in section ten, as I recall. So she has made the motion described it has been in writing. I would like to move to amend council bill 119600 as presented in amendment number. 2/2. Submitted and second, any further comments or questions on amendment number two? All those in favor of amendment number two say I, I opposed councilmember o'brien is an i i. My amendment number two has passed. We have an amendment number three, I believe is proposed by Councilmember Herbold. Indeed. Thank you. I move to amend Council Bill 1190 600 as proposed in Amendment three 0 seconds. Okay. Can you describe it a little more? Absolutely. So this amendment would direct SDC to report to council on their draft administrative rules that this legislation requires STC to develop. It requires this DCI not only to report to council the draft administrative rules before they they come into effect, but also to convene a stakeholder committee to help them develop the the creation of those rules. And it also I think there's one other thing it does. It also directs SDC to publish notice of the adoption of the rules in the Land Use Information Bulletin. Very good. Any further comments or explanation or questions on amendment number three? Councilmember Pacheco. Just want to clarify. If Councilmember Hubbard had a chance to connect with Director Paulson about this amendment and the Second Amendment. I'm uncertain about that. I've been working through council central staff. This is it's not unusual to ask a DCI to notify us of the content of a director's rule before it goes into effect. So I don't think it's in conflict with prior practices. Okay. Any other questions or comments on amendment number three? Okay. Okay. It's been moved in second. And all those in favor of amendment number three say I. I can remember. Right. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three passes. Okay, let's move to our last amendment, which is amendment number four. And that's Councilmember Herbold again. Councilmember help you. Thank you. So this council has done a lot of work to limit parking requirements in urban villages and urban centers. But we haven't done much to address the impacts of developers who build too much parking, particularly downtown. This amendment would clarify that a project which includes more than 40 parking spaces as non required parking is subject to CPO review and appeal. The. I passed out two articles. One was from 2015 where editorial writer Danny Westgate reports that there were 34 projects in the works that included a total of nearly 12,000 parking spaces. He followed up that report in June of this year, and in that report it documented that at Mercer at Aurora, which in 28, 2015 was already reported to be at capacity carrying 28,000 cars on an average weekday was now carrying 38,000 cars daily, 36% more. State law and city CPA regulations exempt parking lots with 40 or fewer parking spaces from CPA Review. Parking lots with more than 40 parking spaces are currently subject to review under CPA, as CCI has interpreted the code to exempt required accessory parking and to exempt any parking accessory to development in an urban center where growth estimates have not been exceeded. So that means under Stsci interpretation, residential projects that include more parking spaces than they are required to provide may be exempt from CPA review. This amendment is intended to make sure that impacts from building more parking than the code requires. Our study doesn't doesn't prohibit them, but it requires a CPO review. Our parking policy is intended to encourage non single occupancy vehicle commutes. In recent years, parking for the equivalent of six Mariners Stadium garages has been built in South Lake Union alone. More recently, an employer downtown has put up one of the biggest parking complexes in Seattle with 2300 parking stalls. Twice the parking in the six story parking garage at Pacific Place. So I'm concerned that this loophole in our CPA policy makes it very likely that people will continue to drive when we're trying to implement parking policy that discourages that. Very good. I move to amend Council Bill 1196. Oh. Okay. I can and then have some questions. Okay. So it's it's been moved. And second, there's discussions continues. Councilmember Pacheco, I saw your hand go up where Councilmember Beck says you wanna ask questions, first of all, either way. And. Either way. But here, here's my concern. I really like your intention. And my concern at this point is that having seen it starting at about quarter of one today, I appreciate where you're going. I'm going to ask it whether or not there's some way that this could be reviewed a little bit further. And I know that's unusual request, but I'd like to know what the impact is. And I appreciate the Danny West need article that you passed because there really are concerns about I mean, you name the Expedia without saying Expedia, but that's what we're looking at. And until light rail comes through and, you know, 30, 35 people are going to have to figure out alternative ways of getting there and not just make the congestion ridiculous. So I'm just interested in how this is going to work, and I'd love to be able to say let's spend a little bit more time getting analysis from CCI so I understand how that works. So I don't know, I'm not sure how procedurally that this happens to say I like a lot of the amendments. I'm concerned about this one just because of the speed with which it came toward. And I'd like some more thinking. I'd just like to. Say for the record, it did it was sent by the new deadline. Just I understand that you did not see it until 1:00 AM. Yeah, but I just want to say that. For once again. Once again, the Herbold slipped it in at noon. I the chair just sort of recognizes your point that we do have a live amendment that you, as a matter of fact about that, that there there's some appetite for maybe postponing it, but there might be sufficient votes to vote it up or vote it down as well. So let's keep that in the back of our minds as we continue our colloquy. Councilmember Pacheco. Sure. So I appreciate the amendment. Unfortunately, I'm going to vote no on the amendment. It just largely this amendment would have unintended consequences of making far more delays in projects in downtown core. To go through the CBO review process specifically, I had a chance to reach out to Director Tolleson and we received a rough estimate from SSI that about 4363 additional units of housing every year would be subject to CBO delays if this amendment passes between 2012 and 2017. If this amendment were had had been in effect, 120 additional projects in urban centers would have been subject to CBO review, meaning that the units would have been delayed in that time period. In addition, 155 projects in urban villages that would have not been subject to review under the legislation would again be subject to review in this amendment passes. I agree with the premise that this amendment would like to reduce the number of parking stalls as we were adding. But I think this conversation is just better had in regards to parking maximums rather than as part of the CBO conversation. Thank you, Casper and Pacheco, for your comments. Katherine Herbold. Thank you. Rebuttal? Mm hmm. I just want to make the point that 85% of housing development over the last ten years has been luxury housing development. The kinds of of housing developments that are providing more parking than than is needed under the law are unlikely to be affordable housing projects. Affordable housing projects are looking to reduce the costs of of building housing both to the low income housing developer as well as to the tenant. And so this amendment, I believe, is very unlikely to address in impact those types of projects. I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow for the public to move towards analyzing these projects for their environmental impacts from the provision of unnecessary parking. That is something that doesn't exist right now. And I think it's an important tool that we can use to change public policy. As it relates to the overprovision of parking, we have to balance the housing development. Housing development for whom? Home needs housing development, as well as our needs to impact public policy as it relates to to to parking development and the use of space for the development of parking. Thank you. Councilmember, I have Councilmember O'Brien in queue. I just have this vibe from the phone that you want to speak. Is that right? Councilmember Brian. That is correct. See that? Amazing. You have the floor, sir. Thank you. I appreciate the incentive, this legislation or this amendment, but I will also be voting against it. I believe, as others have said, that the amount of parking we're building in many neighborhoods is too much and we should address that. But I don't think that that should be through a CPA appeal process where the hearing examiner decides. Rather, I think we should revisit our parking maximums where we have them and perhaps consider lowering them and where we don't have parking maximums, consider setting them. And I think that's a specific policy that the council should take up. I think it's appropriate and consistent with our environmental rules. But I don't think that should be up to whoever has money to appeal to make a decision, I think is an important policy decision that the council should weigh in with the mayor and setting specific targets. Thank you. Thank you. You came in loudly and clearly. We still have an amendment on the table. Would anyone else like to express any opinions or ask any questions before we vote on it? I think we have sufficient information. Councilmember Herbo, would you like to make any closing comments on your proposal? Everyone ready to vote? Okay, so amendment number four, dealing with the. Parking Spaces issue is described by council member Herbold has been moved and seconded all those in favor of the amendment. Raise your hand and say i. I. I'm not gonna leave my sister hanging there. I'll get. Get on that one. Got to ice their accounts from O'Brien. All those in favor. Thank you. All those opposed say no, no, no. No. Okay. The. The amendment fails. Okay. So now we have an amended piece of legislation that had three amendments that did pass, and we're going to vote on that in a minute. I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to say anything they like to about the amended bass legislation. Guzman Pacheco. Sure. Again, I just want to express my gratitude to Councilmember O'Brien for co-sponsoring this legislation with me, Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Mosqueda, for as well for working with me on some of the amendments. You know, as I kind of heard a lot of public comment, both through this process in committee as well as here today and in the public hearing. Very often I heard about the desire to have the next council, the next council, the next council. And as many of us have heard, week after week, just you know what? Don't you know this this council should just wait for the next council. I am appreciative of the fact that we've all been working and continuing to do our jobs, but also mindful of just the urgent need of not just housing and environmental stewardship. And so that's why the value system by which we've acted upon today and I will be voting on today. From a personal experience, you know, I heard just that when I've heard stories of both the ADA legislation being being delayed for a lot and being delayed MHRA for those that have used that process, the CPO process to delay projects for affordable housing, those have very real consequences. And it's not until you have to look your mother in the eye and you have to struggle with her to help her find affordable housing. Do you realize that there's a price to be paid in those that have to pay or the closest to you? That's something that I kept in mind as I kind of went through this process and why we needed to reform it, because those affordable housing projects that are delayed have consequences. Those are consequences that are paid by by those that are most vulnerable in our community. And for me and it happens to be my parents. And so I thank my colleagues on this council for helping me with this through this process, as well as hopefully voting in support of this legislation in a few minutes. Thank you, Councilman Pacheco. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Herbold, thank you. I just want to speak to some of the things that I've heard from members of the public. I am concerned that people who I believe are well-meaning and who do care about their community and their environment and are not folks who are weaponizing this type of process have significant concerns about this bill. I think, you know, these were characterized early on as common sense super reforms. I think it's when so many people, again, who I feel have really legitimate concerns. We have not been able to use this this process to assuage those concerns. I would suggest that they perhaps are not common sense concerns and that the dialog around this legislation would benefit from more more engagement with the public. That said, I have asked central staff to do sort of a deep dove. One of the things that I heard from a lot of folks is that CPR results in really positive outcomes for the city and the community. Some of those outcomes include better projects. It includes putting the city in a better position to defend its own projects if it goes through that separate review, first in central staff did a review of the 54 cases that were either amended or remanded over the last ten years. An example of one of those cases is this gala tower, which we hear about where the hearing examiner amended the CPA determination on light impacts on adjacent buildings and loading dock management. It appears that some of the the cases that were 25% of 54 cases that were reviewed that were amended or remanded to the hearing examiner. None of those those cases that were actually resulted in positive impacts through the appeal process would be exempted from appeal in this legislation. So that's that's the good news. I do remain concerned about the project action and non project actions that may not be appealable under this legislation. So over seven years of appeals, central staff analysis showed that two of a total of 32 project actions or development proposals appealed would not have been required to undertake CPR under this new legislation. But in both of those cases, the hearing examiner ruled in the city's favor as it related to CPA issues, not in the appellants favor. So though, in one of those cases, the appellants won their case on the basis of the land use code interpretation, not the city issues, not the CPA issues. So that was on the on the project actions on over seven years of appeals of the non project actions. Central staff analysis showed that four of a total of 22 nine project actions would subject would possibly be subject to a waiver of appeals under this law in one of those four cases. It could still be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board on other grounds. So I bring this as a little bit of context and texture on a review of the the last seven in one case, seven years and ten years in another case, to basically echo Councilmember Sawant's statement earlier that I think a lot of folks have on both sides have over promised what this legislation will require. I don't think it's going to so limit SIPA appeals as some people fear, and I don't think it's going to so eliminate CPA appeals as some other people are hoping. And so just a couple other issues I want to I want to comment on that. I've heard from members of the public. Many constituents have reached out to me concerned about the lack of ability to use CPA appeal for economic issues. It's important to remember that this legislation will still include economic issues in CPA review and analysis, but not allow for their appeal. This goes beyond what the state already requires. The state does not require the use of CPA review on economic issues. That is something that the City of Seattle has chosen to do, even though the state does not require it. And then lastly, some folks have been writing recently concerned that STC inappropriately and in conflict with. Eight law doesn't follow the code when it comes to the timeline of CEPA consideration. CCI publishes its environmental review in combination with its decision on the permits, and some people suggested that that is in conflict with the requirement of CCI to publish its environmental review on at the earliest possible moment. It's actually the city's practice means that a determination of non significance is published with the master use permit and that is a decision that relies on the design review boards final decision. And so the city legally must weigh into the design review board acts before publishing a determination of non-significant. So the concern that where were dragging out the the determination of significance in the analysis on the CFA process until the last possible moment. And that's why we're getting all these decisions in favor of appellants from the hearing examiner and that that is somehow in conflict with state law is actually not true because state law requires that those things be done together. So just trying to it would have been better if we had been able to use the process, I think to dispel a lot of the create a frequently asked questions document or something to dispel some of the myths about this legislation. So thank you for indulging in going through some of this stuff right now. Can we put an epic you together now? I think that would be a great thing to do. Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Herbold, any questions or comments? Customer Brian, any closing comments? Not for me. Okay. So with that, I'll just sort of say that. Thank you, Casper Herbold, for those comments. Those are and I want to thank Liz Whitson and central staff for for the viewing public. We sort of have a. Impartial agnostic researchers and analysts who just sort of look at the issues and the facts and they give us the facts on prior appeals. And that was very helpful. I take any appeal process very seriously, and even when we have seen, I guess you could call it weaponized or abused is a good word. The process abused anyone's right to appeal. I take very seriously, I guess, as an attorney and someone who's litigated matters against the city, I just take it very seriously. I'm convinced that these are reasonable changes and that we've looked at these from a variety of perspectives and and the amendments and all still make good sense to me. So I will be supporting it as well. Okay. Having said that, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill. Pacheco. I so want. I make sure. Herbold i. Whereas. Mosquito I. O'Brien. My. President Herrell. Hi. Aid in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and share of Senate seats. Please read the next agenda item and I'll say a few words about it and then get to there. I'm going to sign off. Thank you. I'm okay. Thank you. Casper. Brian. Sure before the clerk reads the next agenda item as provided under RTW. 42.178555 will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31911 and the conclusion of the Council Member comments. We will hear from comments from the public who wish to speak on the resolution.

Recommendation to Accept $2,205,300 Grant from the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program and to Amend the Fire Grants Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16. (Fire 3210)

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2029

Recommends you to accept the $2.2 million grant from these Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program to amend the Fire Grants Fund. But Budget for Fiscal Year 20 1516. Good evening, Madame Mayor. Council members. City staff. The Gong Fire Chief. Come with me, Chief. Good evening. I come with good news for you tonight. The fire department has once again applied for and been awarded a staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant, also known as the SAFER Grant. This current one is for $2.2 million. The Safer grant is administered and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The grants provide financial assistance to fire departments to help hire additional frontline firefighters or replace laid off firefighters or replace firefighters who have been lost through attrition. The fire department applied for safer grants in 2009 and 2011 and were granted those awards also both for $1.76 million. The grant will allow the fire department to hire six additional firefighters for two years. It covers all associated costs for salaries and benefits, including workers comp ers and OPEB costs. The only cost that it doesn't cover is unscheduled overtime uniforms and ambulance differentials. Fire Department's current authorized number of firefighters is 92. So our internal staffing analysis, we've concluded that we need 98 personnel to provide the service that we currently provide to the city. Adding these six additional firefighters will get us to that number of 98 that we need to do respond adequately in the city. On an annual basis using the C4 grant to hire these six additional firefighters. It'll save us approximately $500,000 annually in overtime cost. I recommend the Council accept this current save for grant. And amend the Fire Grants Fund budget for fiscal year 1516. The grant has no match required. It's a really good one. I completes my report. I'm open for questions. You. I swear. I think this is always good to get a grant. I'd like to have us approve the acceptance of this grant, but I also like us to prepare for when we don't receive it. I think we're getting used to. A level of service that has been provided by this grant. And I think we need to prepare ourselves at some point, not either receiving the full amount or six. Or any amount because there may be communities more needy than in this community. And I don't want to have that day come on us and be unprepared. Remember Ashcroft. Thank you, Chief. You mentioned the dollar cost and overtime savings, but what was it again? $500,000 annually. Once, once the firefighters are trained and online. Right. Because they have to go through academy in there. That's correct. To bring them up to speed. I. I don't disagree with what the vice mayor said, and I but I also agree that this is a great opportunity to get this grant. We just heard an exciting presentation about the library and the vice mayor, and I know that it was a state grant that got us the the money. And in that case, we needed to come up with a local match, but we had that, too. So it's always great when you can leverage, in this case, federal dollars for our needs. And and I do know that we've had a lot of firefighters recently working a lot of overtime hours. And not only does this cost the city money in overtime costs, but there's a human cost, too. Because when you think of the hard, physical labor of fighting fires, it adds to all kinds of injuries. You have people out on medical disability and leave. They're away from the department. There's recovery time. So I think this is something that's important. And also, I think some of the community is aware that we actually had an engine company, one of our engine companies, doing a mutual aid assignment in helping fight the lake fires. Valley Fire Valley. For Guy Fires. And they were gone for. Just under 14 days. Yeah. So almost two weeks. And so, I mean, and that's the sort of thing that was one company that stayed there and they would get their 24 hours off from time to time, but it was pretty intense. So anyway, I like I read through this in the grant agreement and I'm prepared to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Have a question. First of all, congratulations on this. And I'm wondering, back in 2011, was that for two years also or when did that one expire? They are. They're all for two years. What we've found is we've been able to extend them by a few months each time, because what they're figured out on is is. At full cost of a firefighter or academy. During the five months that they're in the academy, they're only paid 40% of the normal cost of a firefighter. So at the end of the two years, we still have funds that we can apply and request to move forward. Okay. So did you apply in 2013 or 14 or can you not. Those those positions were filled then. So nine got us through a couple of years, then we got to 11. The problem with counting on the safer ground as councilmember matter, he pointed out, is that they expire. And then we're in a period where we're short people and we're waiting to see if we're going to get a grant or not. And then by that time, once we've found out whether we're getting it or not, we have that time where we still have to recruit and hire and train people. So we end up with these large gaps where we're backfilling with overtime and our overtime costs go very high. But it looks like the 2011 would have expired in 2013. Then you probably applied in 14, I'm not sure. Yeah. And were. You denied at. All? No, we've been waiting to hear. This one took us longer to hear. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you for clarifying that. Okay. So then Brody. Thinks about America to move recommendation or move the staff recommendation to accept 2,205,300 grant from for the staffing for adequate fire and Emergency Response SAFER program and to amend the Fire Grants Fund budget for fiscal year 20 1516. A second. Those. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chief. Long for this report. You know, we're as you well know, you know, we're a city of 75,000 and growing slowly. And what that implies is that on the cost side and we always have a demand for services, whether as we had heard earlier, whether it's demand for services for library or as important demand for services for a fire. And those services, demand for services continue because the population is here. Unfortunately, on the revenue side of things, things aren't always readily available. And so, as you well know, and as our executive staff all knows and councils and past councils know, you know, we're always scrambling. So this is part of that scramble. And fortunately, we were you were able to secure another level of funding. And for that, I think you should definitely be thanked and this should be definitely supported. So I look forward to doing that. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I'd like to consider in the motion. Direction or some sort of return back to us to have the the present the plan of what we're going to do if we either cannot apply or do not receive a grant at the end of this grant. So that we avoid a situation where we don't know if something's going to be renewed. That's one scenario or that we don't get the grant renewed because again, I'd like to be prepared now. Rather than wait till that time is on us and have to scramble and maybe make a decision in haste. Do you want to modify the motion or do you want to bifurcate that issue and have a second motion on that? Could I just ask for some input from staff about how you might anticipate moving forward with the Vice Mayor's request? I think what we would do is I would ask Chief Long to take a look at their staffing. And you know what? What does it look like without those six bodies? What does that look like? What is the service level look like without those six bodies? I mean, I think that's what the vice mayor is asking for. And counter-balance asked. Right. And maybe if it's not six, maybe it's three or something like that. So my only concern is just reading through and maybe this isn't a problem, but reading through the attachment for the safer ward, I believe you have to show that you have approval of your of your city council. And I'm just wondering whether we wanted to do a cleaner motion and direction to staff. So my preference would be to separate the two issues. Okay. And go forward with your motion member already. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, I think we just did the budget that goes out to 17. These these grants expire in 18. So it seems to me maybe the more proper time to have this discussion is when we do the budget for 17, 18 and 18, 19. We're continually analyzing our numbers to to see, you know, where we are with this, what it would look like when we're at this 92 level. We've trying to maintain the level of service that we currently have. We are starting to incur a huge amount of overtime, specifically mandatory overtime, and our injuries are starting to increase. So yes, we'll come up with a staffing plan of what it looks like. So at this point, I'd like to proceed with a member of this motion and circle back. I just I'll make. One quick comment. And then when it comes to a sudden shortfall of funding, the fire department has made a really tough decision. I remember recently, I think you had to let go a certain number of people who were part of this program because the funding had ended. And I think there was a good number of people who, you know, they were here temporarily part time. I think it's like some kind of ambulance type of program. The bill assembly. Yeah. And, you know, that's under that that was under your purview. And so unfortunate. You know, it's unfortunate. But when you have to make those kind of hard decisions. You know, you pull the trigger. But by the same token, we will always need some level of staffing to to accommodate a city of 75,000 people. Whether that staffing is made up by actual new bodies or whether it's made up by the same people but working longer hours. You know, that's that's the situation we're in. On the revenue side, that's why we need to go after these kind of things. So we have emotion, memory. Can you repeat your emotion? Okay. Just to accept the recommendation I read. Right. Okay. So we have motion to accept the recommendation or recommendation to accept the grant and we have a second. So all those in favor. I. I so that part passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now, did you want to make a motion. Or is it just direction to staff? This isn't even an agenda item. So I'm concerned about having this discussion at this point without, you know, notifying the community that we're going to be discussing staffing levels. Where we can direct staff to look into the the topic, can't we, and come back at another time? Actually, I don't think we're discussing staffing levels. Well, why don't you say what you think your discussion was? I think it's pretty simple. I don't want to wait until the we're in the midst of a budget and trying to slice and dice everything. I'd like to have us be prepared before that happens. This is two years we're talking about, and I'd like to know in advance what our strategies point. And if we get an extension, that's fine. But if not, I want to avoid some of the problems that resulted in some tough decisions. Part of them being tough decisions was they were made under that pressure. I'd like to have that. That analyzed. Absent the pressure. Amber Ashcroft. I don't disagree with any of that, but I would prefer to have it come back rather than make a motion now and vote on it. Something that we haven't had any report on. I'd love to hear a further discussion. And, you know, give staff and the fire chief and fire department an opportunity to assemble that information, come back to us with a report. But I am not prepared to vote on a motion, but I certainly would support direction to staff to that. And I think that's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking. For them to come. So we don't need a motion, is what you're saying just direction? Well, that's what I want to clarify. I definitely. Need consensus, but I need you to say yes or three of you to say no. Madam Mayor, if I. If I from my vantage point. If staff, whether the executive level staff or the department has staff are going to do. Are contemplating doing anything different. Then they would when it comes to losing funding. And then, you know, take the time to let us know. But if it's if your approach is basically, you know, you know, the situation that we we deal with. You know, we go through the budget process and and we allocate a certain amount of dollars for for our personnel. And if you have to meet those, if you can meet those personnel with new people, if you can get the existing people to work a lot more hours. Not the best of situations, but. Then I. I'm not quite sure why we have to have a discussion that is altogether some kind of new approach. And that what I would suggest is that. The vice mayor if he has specific. Ideas on how to deal with a staffing shortage that he worked with, with our executive level staff and then come back to us. So I would like to. If I swear. And I can't, I'm not the expert and we hire experts to do that. I just want to be prepared. And that's the direction I'm looking for, is instead of waiting until budget time and when other distractions are there, instead of waiting when the grant is either not receive and we have a gap that's it's that's why that's all I'm looking for is that we give direction. They have to come back to us. So I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if the direction is okay, let's say two weeks from now, the direction is in the event we lose staff, we lose. We don't get the safer grant renewed in two years. The direction is the people who were hired by the state for Grant. Unfortunately, are no longer hired. Well I suspect that would have been the approach anyways by staff. So I'm at wit's end to understand why we have to go through this special discussion on how to deal with this uncertainty when we kind of have a protocol in place on how to deal with, I don't know, maybe, maybe. I would agree. I would agree with member Ody and member de SOG that we do have a process and this grant is through the end of the it's through February 20th, 2018. So I would expect come maybe 2017 or something like that, that we would hear from staff and yourself if there's a change. But I don't I think it's premature at this point to prioritize that when we have especially. So I think it's we're it's too early and we have many other issues that need to be addressed sooner. Member Thank you. So I don't remember anyone saying prioritize and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it's it is something we are going to do though, a goal setting workshop at some point. But no, I just meant that it's something that staff can look into because I think we're verging on having a discussion of a non agenda item right now anyway. But I wasn't saying it needs to be a priority and come back. We've, we've got the grant. We should celebrate that this is good. It's and we know it's in place so it's not imminent. Before I get to the vice mayor's point, it's always good not to get complacent, but we've got time. And you certainly could put this down lower on your ever growing list of things to do. So I'm one for gathering more information rather than less, but at this. Point, I don't think there's a consensus to do that. So we can proceed to the next item. Thank you. Six. Thank you very much, Chief. Thank you, Chief. And congratulations. Six C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending various sections of articles eight Sunshine Ordinance and Chapter two administrations and adding new sections 20 dash 90 .3.4 and 20 Dash 91.18 concerning local standards to ensure public access to public meetings and public. Works. 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.

Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications. (Community Development 236)

AlamedaCC_06022020_2020-7975

All right. And this item is. Being presented by, I think. Is it misfits, Miss Potter together? Yes. So this is going to be and if Mr. Potter is going to start off at the presentation this evening. Thank you. Hands over to her. And and as she's coming up on camera, I hope I want to say that earlier this week. Now, maybe it was last week, man. I can't remember. It's only Tuesday. I sat in on the meeting, a monthly meeting of our Social Service Human Relations Board and got to hear Misfit's awesome presentation. So this is sort of like déja vu all over, over again to me, but it was I commend our Social Service, Human Relations Board and and misfits for Alda and Miss Potter for the awesome work they're doing as a very important topic of our day. So. Ladies, please. The floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the city council and staff families are fed up with the Housing Authority. And tonight I'm going to talk about the three programs that are proposed to help provide food and shelter to our needs most impacted by COVID 19. As you know, the city of Alameda receives community development block grant or CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, and on April 2nd had announced that the city of Alameda would receive an allocation of $683,116 of CDBG funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act. South proposes to amend the current action plan to accept and allocate 100% of the CARES Act funds to public services that provide food and shelter to individuals and families who are vulnerable and in crisis as a result of the coronavirus. Specifically, we are proposing three programs. Emergency food distribution administered by the Army Food Bank in the amount of $50,000 COVID 19 emergency rent relief administered by building futures in the amount of $583,116 and emergency shelter administered by the Family Violence Law Center in the amount of $50,000. Please note that in two weeks I will be back to present the five year consolidated plan to you. At that time, we will recommend an additional $130,000 of CDBG funds from the upcoming fiscal year to be allocated to emergency rent relief as well. So at this time, staff has begun coordinating with city staff to ensure that the CDBG and we need a strong emergency rent relief program. Descriptions, messaging and advertising are consistent and that applicants will be directed to a single website to apply. While the proposed program administrator was evaluated for qualifications and capacity, staff recommends that Council authorize the city manager to enter into a second agreement in the event that demand is overwhelming and with the explicit purpose of getting funds to those who need them expeditiously after complying with CDC requirements. Pending council approval tonight, we will begin the work of engaging the service providers so that the programs can be launched as soon as possible. In summary, the recommendation before you this evening is to amend the current fiscal year 1920 action plan by adding the three proposed programs and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents . In addition and in the interest of deploying resources as expeditiously as possible. Staff would also like to ask Council to authorize staff to appropriate funds in the current fiscal current 1920 fiscal year so that we can incur costs in the month of June and before the start of the next fiscal year. And that concludes that presentation. Thank you. I would like to just have money. Yes, please. We have our three proposed providers here this evening and they are all here. And the clerk method man, if there are questions of council members or the for our proposed providers. Okay. Thank you. And those would be the Building Futures and the Family Violence Law Center current. And the food bank. And the food bank. Yes. Okay. Okay. Any questions? That's our assistant city attorney, Lisa maxwell. Okay. Councilmember, I mean, Vice Mayor Knox has his hand up. I answer to both. Thank you. Good. Just just a quick question. In the in the determining if somebody meets the average minimum income for the housing grants. Is the what what is it? One assumes that in applying for this, they've already had an impact to their salary. But it's not clear whether the salary that's being used to determine whether they are above or under the hammer is from pre-COVID or after the impacts of COVID. Can we clarify what our intent is there? I just we're that we're clear. We're clear that you have to be up to date on your rent before March 1st. The question is, is your salary before March 1st also the I am I determined nurse post. You know that the. Sorry. You understand what I'm asking? Hopefully. Yes. For CDBG purposes. The income would be at the time of receiving the benefit. So it would be post-COVID. We would be looking at there pre-COVID to verify that there is a significant change or a substantial loss of income. Okay. Thank you very much. And I had a question, see if I can find it. So explain or maybe Miss Potter. So I, I heard you mentioned the community fund that we're starting, as is Alameda Strong. So how does how do these city city TB funds work with the funds that are being raised and allocated to the Alameda Strong Community Fund for Rent Relief. It is for anyone listening. We have a certain amount of monthly rent, one month's rent up to, I want to say 30 $500 that a person could be eligible for that rent money if they're shown to qualify as paid directly to the landlord. So this is also helping landlords, especially some of our smaller mom and pop landlords. But how does people just explain how are these parallel programs are all one or how does it work? Sure. I had a good conversation with both Louis Butler and Eric Thompson today, and the thinking is that rather than advertising two separate programs, let's have consistent messaging for a single program, have a single portal, have a single application, and then on the back end the processing. So for applicants who wouldn't necessarily qualify under the CDBG program, because the guidelines are a little bit stricter because they'd basically be referred to or paid by the Alameda Strong program, that ultimately for the applicant , it's hopefully going to be seamless. So because the end goal is to make sure that the tenant gets arrested. Right. And but there wouldn't be there wouldn't be duplication. So you would get your one month of rent relief from either of the two sources. Exactly. And that was another motivation. Okay. That's good to know. And then if I think people probably saw this in the in the they sent the staff report, but this is something that came up at the Shrub, the Social Service Human Relations Board meeting last week. That and I think it might have been reported here in this forum before, but in the month of April, because I don't think we've seen the police department's statistics for the month of May yet, but for the month of April 2020, the number of domestic violence calls that the police department received had increased 41.5% over April of 2019. So April a year ago. And it is upsetting when you read in the in the the staff report that due to the shelter in place order and Judicial Council's order to release offenders from jail, sometimes someone who has been arrested for domestic violence is taken, booked and sent back to the same residence in the same night . So that's where this emergency shelter program is so important because it provides funding for that battered spouse or partner or whomever to find a safe place to stay. So it's important program. Any said thank you very much great staff report and thank you for the input to Ms.. Potter. Any further questions I should ask? Sorry. Ms.. Quick. Do we have any public speakers? So we just need to ask anybody participating on the zoom if they would like to speak on this community development block grant hearing to please raise their hand right now. And we have nobody raising their hand. So we're good and we don't have any other comment to read into the record. Okay. So with that, do I have a motion to approve this proposed amendment to fiscal year 2019 2020 CDBG Action Plan and authorize city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications to implement the program described above. And I would also like to make sure the in the motion includes our request that the Council also appropriate these funds for the fiscal 1922 years so we can start spending money this month. Okay. All right. So do I have a motion to cover that? Is that you, Councilmember Odie? Yes, Madam Mayor. I will make that motion and just quickly comment. I appreciate your your words about the family violence center. I know you've been outspoken on this issue. And Councilmember Bell and I had a town hall on this issue. And I think it's one of the silent issues that people are facing in this crisis. So I'm glad that we're doing something about it. So I'll move approval of the item with the appropriation of the money in fiscal year 1920. I get that right, Miss Potter. Yeah. 19 Dash 2019 Dash 20. Yet we're not retroactive. Sorry, it's getting late here. Vice Mayor Knox. Right. Seconds. Right. Any discussion? Hearing, then may we have a roll call vote with council members? Decide this next fight. With great appreciation for misfits in our Social Service Human Relations Board. I Odie. I of course. And I believe council members Vella is having a problem with her iPad, so she I think, is not able to vote at the present moment. So we. Well, I guess she's absent so. And then Mayor, as the Ashcraft. Say again, if I could cast her vote, I know she'd be right on board with me. But yes, thank you. Thank you. All right. So that motion passes with four, four councilmembers present and one missing. Okay. All right. I'm sorry about that. Do we see anything we can do to assist? Anyway, thank you very much. Misfits and Miss Potter and Miss Maxwell. Thank you. Good work. There she is. Uh, Councilmember Vela, do you want to. You want to hear it's not too late for a roll call? You want to be on record? Yes. Yes, I was listening. I just was on a different device. Sorry. And we were doing a roll call vote. Would you like to vote? I yes. It's unanimous. Right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I love I love a happy ending. Okay. With that, we move on to item six B.

a. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957 and Long Beach Charter Section 300 regarding Public Employee Appointment: City Manager.

LongBeachCC_03242020_20-0257

Okay. Thank you. That concludes the regular agenda items on the meeting. We're going to go right into closed session. And just from a what what's going to happen is this meeting will stay open. I'm still going to put it out at the end. But now council members, you need to I'll log off there and what a number that you were sent and that's where we will meet for the closed session. And if we can start by reading the items first and we'll go into the other things so that of course we do. Closed session regarding public employee appointments. City Manager. The second item is regarding labor negotiations with unrepresented employee. Thank you. I'm going to close an online course in minute. Mr. City. Attorney, are you on? Ah. Yes, I'm here. There. We concluded the closed session and there is no reportable action due from the closed session this evening. Thank you.

A resolution approving a proposed Loan Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. (doing business as Catholic Charities Denver) to provide acquisition financing for a new women's homeless shelter located at 6240 Smith Road. Approves a 35-year loan agreement with Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. (doing business as Catholic Charities Denver) in the amount of $1 million from Community Development Block Grant funds structured as a performance loan to provide acquisition financing for a new women’s homeless shelter located at 6240 Smith Road in Council District 8 (OEDEV-201630186-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-17-16. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-14-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0778

Yeah, I'm going to ask. Thank you. Parks and Public Works. Please send that to the entire council so we can look over that. Thank you. Okay, let's pull up. 778. Councilman Herndon has a comment. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to to invite somebody up from Catholic Charities if they're in the chambers. And I believe I see Larry in the back, if you want to come to the podium. I just I didn't have the opportunity. To come to committee for this, but I wanted to point this out. 778 is an agreement between the city and county of Denver and Catholic Charities for another homeless shelter. And two things I wanted to point out about it. One, it's in District eight. I think as we are trying to house those who do not have housing, those are the surrounding districts need to be a part of that as well. And district data is no stranger to shelters. The we have the emergency shelter has been in my district for a while but. Even more I appreciate about this. It's more than just housing those without homes. It's also about helping those. And so I want to invite Larry from Catholic Charities just to take a quick minute to describe how this shelter is different. And it's something I'm really excited about. And I appreciate the city's partnership with Catholic Charities in making this a reality. So I wanted. To give you an opportunity to speak to it. Briefly. Thank you, Councilman Hernan, and thank you, City Council. We've been working with the Office of Economic Development here at the City Councilman Herndon, a number of other Councilman Flynn in order to try and provide additional shelter for and obviously Councilman Brooks for homeless women in the city of Denver, which there is a significant need for and a growing need, unfortunately. And one of the problems that we've seen is in trying to help some of these women exit homelessness. We're running into a real struggle, a more difficult struggle than with some of the men. So in this new shelter that will be building and developing over the next several months, we're going to add a new program that hopefully will allow these women to get a leg up on exiting homelessness by giving them an additional period of recovery from substance abuse and the homelessness that they're currently experiencing, where all they have to do is come into the shelter and be safe and sober and let us take care of them for 30 days while they recover from what's been going on. And what will what we're hoping to have happen is that in doing so, we'll see a much greater success rate in helping these women exit homelessness. And today, that is a very broad swath of women that were experiencing homelessness due to three primary reasons the loss of a job increase in housing and a break up of a relationship. And when that happens. And they find themselves on. The Street's very bad things happened to them. And now getting out of that becomes a real, you know, downward spiral. So this new program in shelter, with the help of the Council and the Office of Economic Development and Denver's Road Home and Bennie Milner has been very helpful in working through this, will hopefully allow us to begin to increase the number of women who'll be able to exit homelessness successfully. So your vote and support tonight would be very helpful in helping us get there and helping these women in a service that is greatly needed right now in the city of Denver. Thank you. Thank you so much. And Mr. Perez, I just wanted to let I know I saw a lot of all councilmembers attended, but certainly a great model for success. And I hope it's something as we prove it's successful, you know, shelter and services in one location, it certainly can be replicated. So kudos to Catholic Charities and Ed for helping with the finances to make this a reality. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. I think we have Councilwoman Ortega. Yes. I have a couple of questions for you. Can you tell us how many shelter beds this will provide? How many women can be served at one time? Sure. Currently, we serve about 100 women at the Holy Rosary at Samaritan House in partnership with Denver Road Home. We're operating a shelter on Pecos that serves somewhere around 100, 220, 130 women a night. That building is going to cease to be available to us as a shelter. And so the Smith Road Facility, which we are purchasing and renovating, will allow us to serve 150 women every night, which will be an additional 30 women on average. And then we have other facilities that we're bringing online over the course of the next several months and year that will give us group home capacity as well to help these women exit homelessness. Right. So I wanted to ask a question about. How the outreach is happening that will target the people who the women who actually need the services. I walk Sloan's Lake every morning and there's an elderly woman who literally sleeps under the bridge and gets up and has her own cart and has been there for a number of years. And, you know, I know that historically our street outreach has primarily concentrated on the downtown, but we have some of our chronic homeless that, you know, have have left the downtown. They're in our parks. They're they're kind of hidden a lot more so now. And my hope is that these are some of the very people, because when they end up in our emergency room or in our detox facility, it actually costs us a lot more than it is to house them. And so I'm just curious how that piece of it is going to be handled so that it's not just people who are downtown. Right. Well, thank you for the question, first of all. And secondly, I would tell you that we work with Denver's Road Home on an outreach program. Since we opened December of 14, 2014, since the very day that we opened the first Holy Rosary Women's Shelter at Samaritan House. We have not had an empty bed, and many nights we wind up moving chairs and tables out of conference rooms so that we can facilitate these women. I'm happy to say, unfortunately, that we've never turned a woman away. I say unfortunately, because that means that, you know, there are so many out there that need help, but we're always there to help them and we will put them up no matter when they come in to the facility. The Smith Road facility, you know, is a bust in facility. There's no walk up. So these women will gather at Samaritan House where we provide a hot meal in the evening. Then the women that can fit into the Samaritan House shelter at on Lawrence, of course, will stay there and the rest are then bussed out to the facility on Smith Road. But no walkup traffic is allowed out there from an outreach standpoint. You know, we do there is a street traffic network that these women know about. And as soon as we open up new beds, they're immediately filled. And the other thing, Councilman Ortega, it's important to point out is that we have an extended stay program that once they are sober and are able to, you know, recognize their plight and reach out for help to get out of it. We have a four month program that we move these women through very successfully. Once they get past that first 30 day period, we're seeing a success rate in the high 80th percentile who live with stable income. Unfortunately, housing is a bit more of a struggle because of the increase in housing in Denver. So I'm also happy to tell you that Denver Catholic Charities has 27 apartment buildings that we manage, and now we're working with HUD to develop a housing first initiative for the homeless that will allow them to get first in our waiting list for our newest property, which is over on South Federal and Councilman Flynn's district. It's called Golden Spike. And we're setting aside 40 units for women and homeless people in general who are exiting homelessness will then be able to move up on that waiting list. The actual outreach, though, is done through a network of street communication and then also with Denver Road Home, where they send people out to to find these people that are homeless. And we can always expand that and try and do a better job in the outreaches of the city. Well, I just want to commend Catholic Charities for their efforts in moving this project forward. We absolutely know the need is incredible, and I'm sure the women just can't wait for the facility to open. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Herndon. Okay. All right. We can bring up Bill. Council Bill seven 5778 on final. And Councilwoman Ortega wanted to put this on for Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put council bill 757 and 758 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?

Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter VI, Article XIII, Section 6-56 to Impose Requirements Relating to the Retention of Grocery Workers in Certain Circumstances Involving the Transfer of Ownership of Large Grocery Establishments. (Community Development 7010)

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1501

Six C Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapters six, Article 13, Section six, Dash 56 to impose requirements relating to the retention of grocery workers in certain circumstances involving the transfer of ownership of large grocery establishment. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. How about a short staff report on February 3rd of this year based on a referral from Councilmember Jim Odie, the city council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to require a workforce retention period when there was a change of ownership, control or operation of a large grocery store. The proposed Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance is modeled on the City of Los Angeles ordinance. That ordinance has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. In addition to Los Angeles, his ordinance staff identified three other cities with grocery worker retention ordinances in the state. All of these ordinances define grocery establishments as being over 15,000 square feet. Therefore, staff drafted an ordinance that maintains that same definition. There are 12 grocery stores in Alameda and five of which are over 15,000 square feet. So they would be required to comply with the ordinance if it is adopted. We captured all other key provisions in the city of L.A. ordinance in the draft ordinance. So pursuant to City Council's direction, we recommend that the Council introduce on first reading a grocery worker retention ordinance, and that's staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Q Thank you. We do have four speakers on this. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. It'll be Jeff Dale Bono, Mike Canterbury, Tim James, and then Gary Harris. Mayor, council members, city staff Jeff Bono and resident of Alameda, president of the Firefighters Union. And I'm here to support our grocery store workers tonight and this ordinance. And I think one of the things that I think about is being 15 years old. And my first job, one of my first jobs, was being a bagger at a grocery store. And at that time, the grocery store industry being a checker was kind of a big deal, like you could support a family on it. You had health care, you had a pension. And I think all of you know, over the past decade that's deteriorated. And that's unfortunate because the grocery store is probably where we spend some of what a big part of our life and a lot of our time. And it's important to have good workers in there, but not only good workers. A grocery store is the center of a town. It's a hub, and that is where the community comes together. We buy our food there, we break bread there. You buy your bread to break there. But the workers that live there are part of the community and most of the time are residents. And I think that is something that we really need to consider in Alameda, too. When you look at the housing prices and what the cost of living is here, we want to retain good jobs, good workers. And I'm going to end with this note. We talk about 15,000 square feet. I think Encino Market would be a prime example of a shop that retains good union workers and good jobs for working families and thrives. So I know Safeway. I know Nob Hill. I know our biggest grocery stores can absolutely do that. And we can provide great grocery stores, a great economic return. At the same time, thinking about the workers are checkers, are baggers, are produce, people are butchers, the delivery people that come there that deliver food. So I'm in complete favor of this. I hope you guys can find it tonight to support it. It's important. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. Lou Gehrig. Scottie Pippen. And I hope Babe Ruth becomes the next city manager. That would be awesome. Be a real dream team. My name is Mike Henneberry. I live on Otis Drive between Mountain View Sales. I'm a lifelong Alameda resident. I'm also privileged to be the communications and political director for United Food and Commercial Workers. Local 35 or Local 35. Local five You guys can correct me if you want. Dave. It has been a long day, actually. Let me introduce the members. Local five, they're here. Could you guys stand up? Right. Thank you. We have members from Safeway Food, Max and Lucky's here tonight. We do not have any members from Nob Hill because those members are in the process of taking a strike vote. So I hope this is in 2012 all over again, but that's why the Nob Hill members are not here. But thank you. Thank you very much, guys. Thanks for coming. I want to commence evening, make a few comments about the grocery workers ordinance and urge you to support it. Alameda Grocery workers face the same issues as our sisters and brothers elsewhere, and one of the primary issues that they face during their term of employment is when their employer changes. It's a it's a tough time for any worker. Fortunately, our members have been pretty fortunate with the Nob Hill takeover by Reilly's, the Albertsons takeover by Cerberus, Andronicus take over by Renault Evo and Safeway by Cerberus just this year. In each of these interest instances, the new entity purchasing the chains kept the staff on the payroll and for the most part, continued by keeping all the stores open. This worked out well for the employees in terms of being able to get on life without the threat of termination hanging over their heads. And it worked out well for the shopping public also in terms of having skilled clerks and meat cutters continue on the job and produce the quality products and services that the shopping public has become justifiably accustomed to, particularly here in Alameda. Despite the positive results of the above takeovers, the fact remains that when a new owner takes over, they have the unilateral right to keep or terminate any employee for any reason or no reason. And as a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened here in Alameda when the Snow family sold chestnuts and now the new owner let the staff go. And many of those people had been with that store for many years. So the dynamic of a small chain or a single store sale is addressed by this ordinance, and it's been implemented in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa monica and Gardena. The ordinance that is enacted by those cities also addresses another phenomenon that is just starting to take place in the grocery industry. Since Wal-Mart has reached capacity in rural areas and suburban areas with their supercenters, they're now entering the urban marketplace with their neighborhood stores. Those stores are 20 to 40000 square feet. And what they're doing is they're coming into urban areas and they're buying businesses that have gone out of business like Circuit City and putting stores in. And with Wal-Mart, it's only a matter of time before they start buying existing stores with existing employees. In this case, this ordinance is really going to be needed because under this ordinance, the new employer is obligated to keep the staff on for at least 90 days. This legislation does not restrict new owners from buying stores. It just requires them to retain the workers who are skilled in delivering safe, high quality goods and services to the public. And it will alleviate the stress also associated with a takeover for the employees. The staff has done an excellent job researching and put putting together an excellent staff report and ordinance. However, one item I would mention, there's a 15,000 square foot trigger for this ordinance. If it passes with a 15,000 square foot trigger, then Trader Joe's and it's now market who both have great staffs are going to be left out of this. I would suggest that you reduce that to 10,000 square feet so they are covered. I know there's some discomfort in apprehension about being sued because the L.A. ordinance had 15,000 square feet. I would recommend to reduce it to ten. And then if some someone threatens a lawsuit, I would say we could come back and discuss it at that time. So thank you very much. Thank you for your support of grocery workers and to the city manager and assistant city manager. Good luck. And have you been to Riverside? I was just wondering because you might want to check that out a little more carefully. Now. Now I. Jim James. Then Gray. Mayor Council members Tim James with the California Grocers Association representing several grocery companies. Operating here in Alameda. I think we haven't. Had the full conversation. Yet about this ordinance. When you really look at what this ordinance does, it's basically a real estate encumbrance. It's an economic development issue for a lot of ways. One of the issues that we've. Seen with the very few jurisdictions that have passed this type of ordinance, and I'd like to point out that no ordinance in the last over eight years has passed this type of ordinance. I think because they've learned. This lesson is it actually can be a issue between grocery stores selling it to another grocery store. As previous speaker speakers have recognized. Grocery stores are very important to the community as well as the workers that work there. But by placing an additional mandate, this additional regulation on grocery stores, they might grocery stores are looking to move to Alameda might not look at stores that are current stores are selling or look for open space that's it's already there. What we've seen in L.A. in a couple. Of other jurisdictions is that this has actually. Reduced the amount of grocery. Stores. In some areas and neighborhoods. Because of the retention issue and the challenge that that may present. There's a lot of open space in cities where grocery stores can choose to operate. So if you make it easier for them to not replace the current store, then that's a direction they may go. We've also seen these communities as non retailers purchasing grocery stores, since grocery stores may not want to encumber this additional regulation. We've seen grocery stores turn into karate studios. Other types of non retailers and whatnot that you then lose that value. As the city of Alameda for having the grocery store available there. So I think the challenge that we're looking at and the issue that I. Think Alameda should look at for yourselves is does this. Disincentivize? Grocery stores buying other grocery. Stores that are for sale. In Alameda? Or are you creating potentially creating a barrier where grocery stores may not want to move into Alameda or you are attracting or attracting non grocery. Retailers to take their space? So with that, that's our major concern. In all those scenarios, there's the very much potential to either. Lose a grocery store and if you do lose a grocery store, then the retention of employees, not an issue. Those employees would be also out of a job as well. So thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Gray Harris and then William Smith. Good evening. I'm Gray Harris resident. I also work for the California Teachers Association. I am here tonight in support of the grocery workers. With all due respect, I'm not really sure what else is missing from the conversation other than I see no reason why you wouldn't want to give someone 90 days to prove that they're still doing a good job. Basically, what I do all day, every day is advocate for people to have the right to some kind of process before they get laid off, fired or otherwise terminated. I don't know why grocery workers should be any different. I heard Mike say that without an ordinance like this, people can be fired for any reason or no reason. And I firmly believe that that is the wrong thing to do. If we want to build a sense of community and if people are doing a good job and they prove that they're going to continue to do a good job for a new employer, I see no reason why that would be a bad thing. So thank you. Thank you. Joe Smith. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, members of the council. I'm William Smith, the resident of Alameda and also president of the Society of Professionals and Scientists, engineers at the local level and of the university, professional and technical employees. And I am speaking as a resident of Alameda on this one. And just like I said, I definitely support the the ordinance as written and wanted to point out that the national laboratories frequently change hands in terms of management. And one of the things that is very, very important to do is retain the workforce at all levels. And it's very important, especially at the lower levels where a lot of the institutional knowledge resides. And we certainly have a lot of institutional knowledge. When I go to the grocery stores in town here and see the clerks and the people and it's just a friendly place and and I'd like to keep it that way, and I hope this ordinance will help us do that. So thank you. Thank you. As far as I know, we don't have anymore speaker setups on this issue. All right, we have a motion. Did we want to have comments first? Council member Ashcroft Thank you. Thank you to all the speakers and thank you to the staff and city attorney's office and Miss Potter for your research. And I actually went back and read the California Supreme Court decision on this. And and I thought it made a lot of sense that this is there is a public health and safety issue at play here , because these grocery workers also are trained in handling food safely. And we want to make sure that the groceries we buy are safe. But I think even more importantly than that, we we do want to make sure that people have their jobs. They've worked hard to get their jobs to advance through the ranks. And still market was mentioned. I grew up in Alameda and I can remember going every Saturday to the grocery store to internal market with my dad and the same checker lady was there. I think, you know, even by the time I grew up and had my family and then she retired. But there was a reason that, you know, people held this jobs. For all these years. I support this measure the way it was drafted by our city attorney's office. I, I have great respect for Mike Hanna, Barry, but this was the measure that we asked our city attorney to look into. And in Ms.. Potter office, and this is what the State Supreme Court has vetted and this is what I feel comfortable supporting. So I am certainly in favor of the the ordinance amending the municipal code as currently drafted. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Sure. I feel I can go after everyone else. All right. Vice mayor. Yes, I think the risk of. The Wal-Mart scenario outweighs the risk of the of the empty store becoming a karate studio in Alameda. I don't think that's that is our particular issue. I think the 90 day. A period is a good backstop for people in this in these unsettled times, economic times, where there's current turnover at corporate levels. And the litany was given to us from the podium, and I don't see that slowing down. So I think this protection is necessary. I live next to a lucky in Marina village, and I worry about that store. And I think for our own economic development, we need to have this kind of protection as well as for the people who service those stores. Member De SA. Thank you very much. For many years now, within the grocery store industry, there has been basically a race to the bottom as a result of the introduction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter and breaking even further into food. And I think this is just one way to help the working family in this era of change within the grocery industry . It's a small way, and I think comedians can play a part in it. When I look at the reason why we should play a part, certainly there is a public safety issue, a public health issue. But also, you know what? For many of us, grocery stores are places of community gathering. You know, you say Lucky's, I say Dana own tag. You know who works at the fish counter at Lucky's marina village? You say Safeway. I say Todd, my friend, who who? Greenwell, who and his and other friends who had worked at Hilo Steel, who had worked at Lucky's when there was one at the base of What's the Street, if we all remember. So there is certainly a community role that grocery stores have is a part of our fabric and. We should do what we can. We're not. We're not promising so much. We we should do what we can in the face of the changes that this industry has been going through. And to the extent that, you know, we're remaining aligned with. The Los Angeles model. I think this is a small, prudent step forward. On a final note, I can't speculate what would happen if a grocery store closed and it was difficult to re tenant. That is a possibility. Let's not romanticize this. But by the same token, think, you know, in Alameda, this is just one small part that we can do to help the working families in a much impacted industry. Other places like Oakland or Berkeley can can pass $15 minimum wage things. I'm not sure we can do that here in Alameda, but this is one small thing that we can do to protect working families. You want me to go ahead? You want to go last? I can go last. All right. All right. So I appreciate the comments raised by the speakers as well as my fellow council members. I agree with member Ashcraft in regards to the I would prefer staying with the 15,000 square feet as written that was tested by the Supreme Court as opposed to making a change at this point. I think that this brings balance in regards to maintaining the food supply or the safety of the food supply for 90 days. And then it allows the current workers to continue having a job and working and providing that service for the 90 days. So it's to me, it's not an undue hardship because it's a 90 day period. And I think it is a great benefit to our community to protect the safety of our food supply. And it also gives an opportunity then for the new buyer to meet the current employees and and make an informed decision as to who they think is would be a good match for their store. So I will be supporting this. So I want to thank the public for their eloquent comments, especially Mr. Barry, and thank Ms.. Potter for putting together this ordinance and also thank my colleagues for their thoughtful and eloquent comments. Just to address a couple a couple of points. I also had a chance to look at the case and the point that, you know, this could be disruptive to some employers. I mean, we have this at the 15,000 square foot level. I'd like to see it go down to ten, but it doesn't sound like there's consensus on the council to do that. But the comment from the the case was that the city rationally could conclude that disruptions at larger stores involving larger workforces would have a larger impact on the community and that larger stores would be more readily positioned to absorb any short term burdens the ordinance requirements might impose on employers. So, I mean, what that tells me is our large stores, our Lucky's, our ah, Nob Hill foods are Safeway's know this, they're, they're anchors to our neighborhoods. They're they're anchors to our city. And that these workers, as the staff report says, play a vital public health and economic role in our communities. So what we can do to to preserve, you know, some sense of security, even if it's just for the 90 day period, I think is worthwhile for these workers. And I think that if you look at the size of the employers we're looking at and even Trader Joe's, if we went low, I mean, they are a large enough corporation. I don't envision them moving out and I don't envision a Safeway moving in next door. But, you know, they would be able to absorb the impact of of keeping workers on and evaluating them for 90 days. And I, I do want to thank my colleagues for, you know, their their words of support and their support of of all of our working families, especially our working grocers. We have emotion. Oh, I would say this is a first reading of the ordinance. Is it? Okay. So I will move. Introduction of an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapter six, Article nine, Sections six, Dash five six to impose requirements relating to the retention of grocery workers in certain circumstances involving the transfer of ownership of large grocery establishments. I'll second that. All those in favor. I. Oppose motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now moving on to 60. Complete actions to expand municipal services and territory for financing district at Alameda Landing and Levy of corresponding special tax community facility to District 13 Dash to Alameda Landing Municipal Services District. You'll do so by conducting public hearings and adopting for resolutions.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Technology and Innovation (TI) Department in conjunction with the I-Team and Economic Development Department and return to the City Council, within 90 days, detailing the following: · Number of active patents in each of the following "key industry clusters" defined in the Blueprint for Economic Development: · Logistics · Leisure and Hospitality · Business Services · Education and Knowledge Creation · Health Services; · Complete number of active patents within all industries in the City of Long Beach; · Opportunities for increased collaboration with the CSULB Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship; · Recognition program and social media campaign highlighting Long Beach residents and companies that have been awarded patents in "key industry clusters"; · Measurable goals for increasing the density of patenting in Long Beach; · Opportunities and potential partners to host workshops aimed to demystify intellectual property protection and patenting for local business owners, students, and interested

LongBeachCC_01232018_18-0063

Motion case. Thank you. Item 16. Item 16, communication from Kelton and then Gonzalez. Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Mango Recommendation to require City Manager to work with technology and innovation in conjunction with the I-Team and Economic Development Department on patents. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Actually, I'm sorry. You know, she was she's the maker of the motion is this is Councilman Gonzales could do on a switch set up maybe. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Last item, I promise. But this one is aside from digital inclusion. This actually looks at our patents. We know that patented patenting, sorry, is a very useful indicator of the culture and of innovation in the city. And in fact, 2.2 million patents were issued in the U.S. between 1976 and 2016. And Time magazine actually put out an article in 2016 named The 100 Most Genius Places in America. And I know Long Beach can definitely be a part of that list. And I'd love to showcase that in this item. So a quick patent search for the city of Long Beach yielded nearly 10,000 results. And I know that in this item, we've identified, of course, our academic institutions, but so many different entities that can assist us in finding out what type of patents we have. And specifically, I labeled and I brought forward the economic blueprint and I think John Kaiser for his work in helping us through that. But the economic blueprint details some industries that are specific to Long Beach that would perhaps have patents under them, and it would be good to look into that. And so I think this is a great item, a great start in quantifying the patents and seeing exactly what they look like for Long Beach and finding ways that we can continue demystifying how you can get a patent overall from the patent office. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Great work. Great work on this. I look forward to the report. Anybody. Come on the item. Yes, sir. Hi. I'm George White, a resident of the third District, and I'm in support of this item. After a career as an engineer and a high tech entrepreneur, I started a second career as a registered patent practitioner representing inventors and companies before the patent office. And patents are complicated area. The rules are changing all the time, especially for more abstract patents. But it's a fantastic business tool. I'm in the process now of retiring as a patent practitioner, and so I've got a lot of knowledge about it and will be having a lot of free time. And I'd like to volunteer to assist in this effort in any way you want. So you might be thinking, so are you a patent attorney? No, I'm a little known thing called a patent agent. In order to represent people before the patent office, you need to pass the patent bar exam. Get the patent office as it's an all day test that. Half the people fail. On patent laws and patent office procedure. In order to be qualified to take the test, you have to send them your college transcripts. I went to MIT. I'm an electrical engineer. I just send them my transcription. They had to count how many classes I had and various things to decide I was worthy to take the test and attorney or not. Being attorney is not relevant to becoming a registered patent practitioner or representing people before the patent office. So people who are patent attorneys are both state licensed and members of the patent bar. The reason they have laypeople doing this is not that many lawyers have an engineering degree, and there are a lot of you know that that in order to help somebody get something patented, you really have to understand the technology, you know? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, you know, the current public comment on the patents, please go ahead and cast your votes. Cause me a subpoena much in case. Thank you very much. And thank you, Councilman, for those items. Moving on to item 17.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to amend Long Beach Municipal Code 10.38.020 (B) to expressly ban electric or motorized scooters, electric motorized boards (CVC 313.5), and throttle driven Class II and Class III electric bicycles (CVC 312.5), from the beach bicycle path while allowing for continued non-motorized use and lower speed pedal assisted Class I electric bicycles.

LongBeachCC_10022018_18-0875

Mrs. Mongo, get ready. Yes. Thank you very much. Would you like to take the vote, please? Now we're going to move on to item 19. Motion carries. Item 19 Communication from Councilwoman Price Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Mongo Councilmember Your UNGA recommendation to request city attorney to amend the Long Beach Municipal Code to expressly ban electric and motorized scooters, boards and bicycles from the beach bicycle path while allowing for continued non-motorized use and lower speed pedal assisted electric bicycles. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. So I want to hear my colleagues thoughts on this item before I make a motion, but I want to share with you the background of where this came from and put it into context a little bit. So I know that our public works director is here and our city manager, of course, is here. And over the last many years that we've that I've been involved, mobility has been a major issue and something that we have become a regional leader on. And I'm proud of that. I am a little bit concerned, however, that our efforts to add mobility elements throughout the city are being done in a manner that maybe isn't providing for as much input and feedback and warning as, frankly, some of the residents in our community may want. And the Scooter Pilot program is one such example. It's possible that I may have missed something along the way, but the pilot program and perhaps this is a good question for the city manager, the pilot program was kind of put on to us. It wasn't something that we voted on as a council. Is that correct? Yes, we to prevent basically the business disruption program where we have 2000 scooters dumped on us. Like many other cities across America. We implemented a pilot program to invite people to come in for a three month period. Yes. Okay. And and and I get the reasons why we did it. I just I kind of want to just factually. Establish that the council did not vote on that. It was it was correct. It was offered to us. And as such, there was no input that was gathered in terms of the parameters of such program, at least input from residents with that. That my understanding I. Wouldn't say that I think there was you know, we have our traffic engineers who work with the community and stuff and perhaps maybe not specific residents or. Community groups. But we listen to what we're hearing from residents through our mobility program and also look at what's happening in cities across America. Okay. Well, I wasn't aware of any listening tours or any discussions in the third district. And the reason I, I raised that is because we. And Michelle Mallory knows this probably all too well. We have received complaint after complaint from our residents regarding the scooters. And the biggest issue has been the discarding of the the scooters in locations that do not that are not one of the areas where scooters are supposed to be dropped off. And some of the operators, I think, maybe more responsive than others, because there are some vendors that are actually putting them away more regularly. Others are not. I'm not sure what's going on there, but there's been a lot of frustration in the community with the existence of the scooters and the lack of input in terms of traditional community input, where we have meetings and we allow people to come forth and be educated on a topic. So this item really has come about as an attempt by me and my colleagues to try to mitigate some of the impacts that are being felt by the residents now that the scooter program is on us have upon us. Having said that, I'm open to talking to my colleagues about what a potential ban could look like, even if not immediate. And let me explain that, first of all. We've heard a lot of feedback from residents regarding the motorized bicycles. And although we attempted to exclude those from the language that we had presented in the item. Class one and Class two bicycles are apparently utilized a lot in the city of Long Beach, and they're utilized by a lot of our residents of all ages. And some of our aging population has indicated that they really find them useful in terms of having mobility on the beach, which which I respect, and I certainly don't want to interfere with that. So I would if we were to move forward with this, I'd want to make sure that Class one and Class two, e-bikes or motorized bikes are permitted on the path. But what I want to ask before we move there is do we allow scooters to be on the beach path under the current pilot? Right now, electric scooters are prohibited in our missile code. We've been talking to the city attorney about altering that. We believe potentially that when this municipal code was enacted, there probably e-scooters didn't exist. They were talking about vespers, perhaps those types of those types of scooters. So this is a brand new product that wasn't envisioned. So we were, you know, on the path of potentially talking to the city council about. About this just specifically when this popped up. But right now, the electric scooters are banned on the path. And my understanding is that the pilot, the handbook for the pilot program, actually prohibits them from being on the path. Yes. Okay. So if that's the case, then why do we have the beach path as one of the heaviest use areas in the city for scooters? I think it's just a very attractive place and for the use of the scooters. And right now and I don't think that we have the resources right now to police it. Okay. And I get that. However, there is technology available that would limit those scooters from getting onto the beach path. And my understanding is that a lot of the major companies have that technology available. And so is there some is there someone on the staff that might be able to answer any questions about that? Mr. Beck. Vice Mayor, Members Council Councilmember Price. I think as discussed in your opening, the city is moving forward or is engaged in right now a pilot program with the E-SCOOTERS. It was done in a way to try to create some structure around what other serious other cities have experienced as really a haphazard deployment of scooters where it's significantly affected areas within the right of way. As a manager talked about, we wanted to avoid that in Long Beach. We did not want companies to come in and drop simply drop 2000 scooters on our streets overnight and have our staff have to run around and try to chase and collect those scooters. So we worked with various vendors. There are six companies that have been authorized to deploy under this pilot program. The current pilot program is scheduled to run through the end of October. At that time, the plan is to come to city council to talk about information that we've gained through this pilot program. One example would be, and I think I've shared this with council through our bike share program is a heat map. Staff is very interested to understand where people are picking scooters up, where they are driving to or scooting to, I guess how far they are going, what the frequency of use is, because we think that that's really going to drive some policy decisions at this council we'll have to deliberate on and decide upon. We anticipate getting all of that data from the scooter companies. That was part of their permit to be able to operate in our city. They owe us that data by the end of October. We have put them all on notice that they need to provide that to us and will be coming forward with not only that data to the Council, but also staff's recommendation, what we believe a a permanent scooter program would look like. And so things like geofencing, miles per hour limits, helmet use, areas where riding would be allowed for examples in the in the bike lanes areas were riding would be restricted would all be part of staff's recommendation that we would plan to bring forward with that report. Okay. And I appreciate that. The question I had was, are there companies that have the technology, the geofencing technology that could implement it tomorrow? If we were to direct them to do so, to keep the scooters off the beach path. I don't have that answer for you. I anticipate the answer is yes, that there are companies that can do geofencing. How long it would take them to implement that? I don't have the answer for what ability we would have to regulate that with them. I don't have the answer for that either. Okay. So when you say this pilot ends at the end of October, will the pilot then end, meaning the. Scooters will be removed. From the streets until council votes on whether or not we want a permanent program? We're discussing that as an option. We're also discussing the option where we would allow it to continue until council makes a decision on what a permanent program would look like. Do we have any money for enforcement of any of the regulations that we've placed on the pilot or would in the future? This pilot program has collected minimal amounts. I think the permitting is about $2,000. So if we have six companies, we've collected roughly $12,000 today. Is there any. And so my team has reached out to a lot of other cities that have dealt with this. As I'm sure you're aware of, Santa monica just just banned these from the beach path. What happens is when they get left on the beach path, it's a hazard for anyone who's biking. If they're in the bike lane or if it's left on the walking path, it's a hazard for those running and walking on the path and they get left there and people don't pick them up. I'm not sure what the since they're not supposed to be on the beach to begin with. I'm not sure what regular patrols these companies are doing to get them off the beach, but it's not happening, at least not with all providers consistently. No, but in but I do agree with you that we are seeing vendors that are being more responsible about collecting their scooters, and that would be part of staff's presentation at council and would go along with our recommendation. We would want to recommend vendors that have been working with the city and within the city's rules on the pilot program. Along those lines, I know there's nothing the vendor can do about this, but I can count on one hand the number of people I've seen wearing a helmet on these scooters. And as long as somebody in your group has a license, they can rent multiple scooters. And I happen to have a teenage boy who's tested that theory. So the whole having a 16 year old with a driver's license read them is not happening. So my question is, do we and in talking with some of the other cities that have scooter programs in place, one of the things we've been advised in terms of my staff reaching out and talking to individuals and me talking with my counterparts in those cities, is that should the city move forward with a permanent program? We would need to make sure that we have cost recovery sufficient to cover the cost of enforcement. Have we contemplated that? And I know that's still come back on a staff report, but that that all goes into this item tonight because I'm trying to figure out how to mitigate this impact between now and the end of October. And if I know that what's coming at the end of October would include enforcement, that could be something we factor into the equation. I think the short answer is yes, that what would come back is staff's recommendation on a more appropriate cost to operate within the city. I don't have a recommendation this evening on what that cost would look like, but I do anticipate it would be greater than the $2,000 that we've charged to date. And we are closely watching what other cities are doing. We are also watching what Sacramento is doing. And I'm sure, Councilmember, you're aware of what the governor just recently signed, where helmets are not now required for adults 21 and over who are utilizing scooters. And we find it also interesting that the governor included a miles per hour limit in that bill that he signed at 15 miles an hour, which is, as you may know, what we set in our luggage pilot program here in our city, a 15 mile an hour limit on speed. And I think that's good. That's very prudent on his part. I look, I have a question for Charlie real quick, and then Mr. Beck, I'm going to come back to you. But Mr. City Attorney, if you were if an item was to pass tonight to change the municipal code, would it come back in time to be implemented before the end of the pilot? The answer would be no. We'd have to do first reading on the 23rd. Second reading wouldn't occur until the middle of November, and then 31 days after it's signed by the mayor would go into effect. So there's really nothing that we can do tonight to mitigate impacts of the pilot because the pilot will end. I mean, there's nothing we can do in terms of a municipal code change because the pilot would end prior to us adopting the municipal code change. That's correct. But as was stated earlier, they are currently banned under the current municipal code right now. So it's an enforcement and issue that exists today. That's true. And they're specifically banned in the pilot handbook, but we're not enforcing it. So my question would be to to Mr. Beck. If we were. To ask you to investigate whether or not these six companies have the technology available to be able to preclude these scooters from going onto the bike path during the pendency of the pilot program, or until such time that the issue comes before Council for further consideration. Is that something you can come back to us with next week? And report back on? Certainly. Councilmember We can reach out to the vendors that that are working under the pilot and understand what technology they possess that would allow them to move forward and get timelines for when that would be whether we could present that at council next week. Certainly I think we could get a memo to council in roughly that timeline. Okay. And I know that we you could probably get a memo to council, but what I would ask tonight is that if that technology is available. That the city require those vendors who have that technology available to employ that technology in order to prevent scooters from getting onto the beach path. For the pendency of the pilot. Is that something that you think is feasible? Again, I would have to check with the companies on how long it would take them to implement it. But if they were able to implement it, we can certainly ask them if that's the wish of this council. Okay. And then a memo back could indicate whether they can't or they can't. Okay. Because I think that's very important. And I want to hear from my colleagues on this. But that would address many of my concerns. I know we're going to come back. Staff is going to come back with some recommendations and some data on this topic. And I'm hopeful for I'm hopeful that the report back will include things like the number of scooter related incidents we've had in the city, whether they be collisions or people tripping and falling over scooters that have been left on sidewalks. The number of scooters on the bike path that are pilot scooters, because those are the only ones that we can track. We can't track personal scooters, which can go much faster than the 15 mile per hour that we've set. The number of resident complaints we've received from scooters at city. At the city I know we've been routing them to an email address, so data on that would be really important. What other cities are doing about Beach Pass in particular? Because we want to encourage access to the beach and make it safe for all folks with various types of mobility to be on there. And how we address the cleanup issues of scooters being dumped in locations that are hard to get to like beaches. And I'm sure that's something that was heavily considered by Santa monica when they banned the scooters on their beaches. It's just for whatever reason, the the scooters that are abandoned on the beach aren't picked up as regularly as others, assuming others are picked up regularly. So with that, I'd like to hear from my colleagues. But if but if my colleagues are okay with that, my motion would be that staff reach out to the existing six vendors and determine which of them have the capability to control the scooters access to the beach path. And if they do have that technological ability that that be implemented immediately pending the the the termination of the pilot program. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. Thank you. I think that the biggest concern that I've heard about scooters has been that they whiz by the bikers and create cut. They cut in and out, and they do this on both bike paths and park paths throughout the city. Many people know 70% of the parks are in my district. And when people want to be out on a normal bike ride and they have these little zippy scooters, and again, I'm a supporter of scooters. My office helps get scooters into the community for using for community watch all of that's great but there's a safe way to ride in an unsafe way to ride and a lot of the scooters have the ability to specifically limit their speed. And so I don't know what we can do about that. And I also think that it's important to note, at least on my side of town, most of the scooters are not the loaner scooters. While we have had loaner scooters dropped off at random places, specifically around Long Beach City College. I would say that a majority of the scooters used in our side of town are own scooters. And so figuring out and understanding and working with the providers that sell the scooters to do a better job of. Communicating to people who purchased scooters what the expectations are or if there was a scooter registering program in the city. I'm not quite sure how we get there. But then there would be some ability to provide communication on the matter related to the city policies. So I look forward to an opportunity to make it sure that. Our paths remain safe for our bikers, whether they're class one or class two bikers, and that there's some kind of leveraging of. Quite frankly, bike and scooter safety and civility. Through the process. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Olsen. Thank you very much. I want to thank the authors of this item for bringing it forward. I think it's overdue for us to have a conversation. I think it was I mentioned earlier that this was. The electric scooters were. The pilot program was initiated as an administrative action and not a council action. But however, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm a huge supporter of our Bike Boulevard program and active transportation modes in an effort to to to get people out of their cars and not pollute our our our. Our environment. I think these electric scooters are all Ray. Who knows what they they turn out to be and whether or not this is going to be the the the thing of the future or thing of today. I can recall just two or three years ago, you know, there was there were people lined up and they were upset over hoverboards. I don't see anybody riding hoverboards anymore. So I think I would just I'd like to see us. I'd like to see us proceed with caution on this. This particular item we just heard a great presentation from our Convention and Visitors Bureau. Our beach is one of the greatest assets that we have in the city, and I personally don't want to restrict it. I want to I want to just just touch on a couple of things. And I do respect where my colleagues are coming from. They're hearing from their constituents. This is a new phenomenon. They're probably seeing more scooter activity than in and in my district. But at the same time, people go to the beach to have a good time and have fun. I, I, um, I'm looking at the, the ordinance 10.3 8.02. It speaks to driving on sidewalks a speaks to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles or power driven scooters. So not drive on a sidewalk except at a permanent or a temporary driveway. And B, there's no operator of any motorized scooter shall drive upon any bike path on the beach or any bike path adjacent to a city marina. And so my my question for the city attorney regarding that particular ordinance. Was that in reference to the scooters, were scooters defined in 2002 as they are defined today? And the answer is no. But the section that you read, we believe, bans all those scooters until the council gives direction to amend that ordinance to clarify what, if any, electro electric type scooters you would prefer to have on the bike path or not. Own to motorized scooters. And they are probably £200. They they require gas. They are defined as scooters. These electric scooters are like razor scooters that were not were not in play in 2002. And I just want to I don't I don't feel like this this this language is speaking to that type of scooter. And I think at the time at the time it was written, it was these were not contemplated. I would certainly agree with that. I think that what we have asked for is we need clarity and direction from the council so that we can amend this section. Either way, you'd like to go on that. But currently as written, we believe that that distinction is not made when in that section. I also like to point out the fact that I was on this council when we made a very controversial decision to expand our our bike path. Right. And go from one bike path or walking path to a bike path. And that was a significant investment from our tidelands. And it was controversial, but it actually expanded capacity on our beach. And I think part of what we were seeking to do and I'm going back because I took a vote on that, but I think part of what we were seeking to do is to to expand opportunities for for for folks to use alternative transportation without impeding pedestrians. Right. It was a pedestrian safety concern. And so I think we need to be open as a council to to new modes of transportation, particularly those modes of transportation that don't emit don't emit knocks into the environment, but also just be be open minded to to to to the future, because I think that that is the future. I don't like I said, I don't know where these these moderate these these electric scooters are going to go. You know, they may be they may be obsolete in two years. But I think we need to allow the pilot program to work. I think there's a lot of information that still can be collected, a lot of feedback that we can can get from residents and stakeholders. And I would say all stakeholders, I mean, our convention and visitors bureau, I would be interested to know what their take is on this. I'd be interested, obviously, our neighborhood folks and beach goers, but we need to engage, I think are stakeholders a little bit more on this item before we move, before I can support a outright ban. Right. And that and it's. Not on the floor. But but but so did you make an amendment? Yeah. No, I made a motion to ask that the director reach out to the companies that are part of the pilot to see if they have the technology that would keep the scooters from getting on to the beach path, which is currently part of the pilot rules and regulations. They're currently not allowed to go on the beach path pursuant to the pilot program. They have a handbook that they're supposed to follow, and if they have the technology, they can they can actually cause the scooter to slow down as it approaches a particular location or stop. So the companies I've talked with that are operating here have that technology. Okay. And so I think the disconnect here is you knowing about the handbook and reading the regulations and the person who is accessing and getting a scooter, probably not getting that information is so part of this pilot program and part of the conversation that we're having here tonight. I think there can be some some good policy coming out of this possibly in the future in regards to how we educate folks throughout the city in terms of use of of electric scooters, safety and everything else that goes along with that. But I just think we're at this point, I think we're jumping the gun because it's only been a few weeks. Right. And yes, we need to be responsive to some complaints. I think you've heard from staff that they are responding and collecting data and getting taking that information in and reviewing best practices in other cities. These are things that we do when we bring in new policies. And so with that, I think there's there's some education, obviously, that needs to be done. I think we talked about, you know, massaging policy out in committee. A little bit more. I think this is an opportunity to do that. And so I'm open to hearing from from everyone else on this. But I would just just be hesitant to to jump into banning in a new a new mode of transportation that we really don't know much about at this point. Thank you, Councilman. Your anger. Thank you. You know, I have a favorite quote that I always. Use regarding change. Change is inevitable, and in a progressive society, change is constant. Benjamin Disraeli, philosopher, said that. I use it on my on my screen every now and then on my computer, just to remind me that we're always in the midst of change. And this issue here is one of those issues where change is happening as we see it. When I first signed on to this item, I was very much into what's going on in Santa monica, what's going on with a lot of other big cities regarding scooters. It's an issue up and down state because of the potentials and some of the the accidents that happen because of the irresponsible use or irresponsible operation of these of these scooters. But then again, at the same time, I could see that there's other types of of motorized or electric methods of transportation can be used on these bike trails that are very beneficial for people, especially those with mobility issues who want to have access to the beach. So access becomes an issue here in regards to people with a disability or with a mobility disability to access the beach. So I could see what the issue is here. Well, my recommendation and my my my spin on this, I guess, would be at this point is that it seems like we do have an issue with with data. I mean, we don't have enough of it. I think we still need to gather gather more. I would be especially interested in knowing. We're learning how many of those motorized scooters or bicycles that are along the bike path and especially here in Long Beach that are driven or used by people with mobility issues. I don't think we have enough of that data available. I see. So some people in the audience are raising their hands being there's three right there. Right. But, you know, we need I think we need to have more information on this. And, you know, I'm not sure that right now changing the municipal code would be the most viable path to take at this point, pun intended in regards to the. Nobody got that one. Okay. In regards to way forward with with with a full ban, I feel uncomfortable with it because obviously the information is not totally there. The maybe a question to the public works director would be, do you think that you have all the information you need right now? Do you need it? How much how much time do you think you would you would need to get to get the all the data that you would be required to make a a sound recommendation to the City Council in regards to moving this forward. Councilmember Urunga So we under the original pilot program had pointed to the end of this month, we're now in October. So the end of October we anticipate getting information from all the scooter vendors. I think the heat map and some of the things that Councilmember Price brought up about where are we seeing scooters that are dropped outside of the the pre-approved drop zones? Where are we experiencing the most complaints? What are those complaints? How are they characterized getting all that data together and bringing back to council? I anticipate doing that sometime in November at the latest early December. Okay. Well, I think that's that's good to know, because I think that we need to take our time with this and putting it through to the end of October when the end of the pilot program would be a little premature at this point. But continue the conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you want to go? Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. And I want to thank you. Good conversation here today. You know, originally when it was first presented to me, I thought it was just enforcing existing policies. And then I thought through our research that this was not in place. And honestly, I think the conversations are right. Conversation to have in the future probably fleshed out a little bit more before having it at the council. So I just I want to say I appreciate the conversation in my district. Our districts are so different, Suzy. Well, I haven't had complaints about the bike path in the district. I've had probably three or four of folks in our senior community that have, you know, been walking on the sidewalks and have had challenges with it just overall, but not necessarily on our beach path. And I so first, I have a question for the city attorney, as the conversation is now with the comments that Councilmember Price has made. If a yes vote tonight would not be on the recommendation that's listed in the item, it would just be to have our public our public works director work with these six businesses and to come back with with that information. But there's not an additional ban that is on the table anymore. I agree with you that the original motion has been amended. However, I think as I understood the motion, it would be to reach out to the vendors and if they have the technology available to implement that technology immediately to ban them from the bike path. So it wasn't I think, if I heard you correctly, it was a report back, but it was changed subsequently to if that technology avail is available, implement it through the remainder of the pilot program consistent with the handbook. Just for clarification, the handbook is the current existing regulations for the pilot program. So it would be if they're able to monitor the technology such that there they are in compliance with the existing regulations. I'm not asking for a ban there. Was that cleared? That's correct. There would not be a ban to any of the other type of electrical electric bikes or scooters. It just too would prohibit them from operating on the bike beach bike path for the remainder of the pilot program. If they have that capability. And I guess that that so one is thank you for that. That's been my understanding. So there's not a need to make any other changes if that's something that we're all comfortable with. My question to Public Works director would be, do we have any idea say they do have that technology if it's even possible for them to implement it in a quick turnaround? Do we know that? Councilmember I do not have that information as I sit here tonight. Okay. We will reach out to them this week and hopefully we can get quick responses and return to council, as I mentioned, with a memo and share that with all of you. Great. Okay. So just a couple of comments. As I support, you know, reaching out to them and trying to implement the technology, if that is something that is possible, I would imagine that some of them might have it and not use it unless we are actually in a binding contract with them. But I do want to say how much I appreciate having pilot programs. You know, I know that sometimes it can feel frustrating because staff goes out and does a pilot program and then the constituents call our offices. But we did a pilot program with the free ride, and I think it was a great opportunity for us to just say, okay, if this was going to happen in the open market, how would it work? What are the challenges, what are the opportunities? And I know we're working with your office to bring back that conversation so that we can look at the best way to implement it. So I appreciate being able to do pilot programs quickly. I think they operate, they identify, you know, what, we need to change in the city and don't set us up to be in a bind in relationship. So I respect that. I do want to say, as we look forward to the changes that you've mentioned being made around the scooters or bike conversation, I want to make sure that we don't create a two tiered system where if you're able to afford one type of transportation that's electric, but you're renting another one, that we're not creating opportunities where they're both not allowed to be on the same path, whether it's a bike path or whether it's a sidewalk. I also think our city's done a great job with our bikes and doing the registration with them and also having like Tony Cruise go out and do something. So I would ask that as we come back that not only are we looking at a plan and changing our policies, but that we're looking at an outreach strategy on education. So maybe we have one in each district or five throughout the city based on need and where the heat map shows us. I also wanted to ask, I think I heard a number about what makes a viable scooter program is something like three rides a day per scooter, and we're exceeding that. Is that correct? I don't have any of that data yet. I've not seen. The numbers, he told me. That number in City Hall is something like five per scooter instead of three, and I think that it just shows how excited people are. And so I want to applaud you guys for thinking outside the box on that. I support the change that Councilmember Price made to work with the vendors as possible and bring back some of those recommendations. And I look forward to a good discussion in October or November or December. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce. Councilmember. I thank vice mayor. So just you know, this conversation gives me a few thoughts. First of all, thanks for thanks Councilmember Price for, um, you know, saying that you want to hear from the council on this because I really, I haven't spent too much time thinking on this issue. But, you know, I have some, some thoughts here. So, one, it sounds like that the problem we want to address could be twofold. One, the dumping of the dropping of the scooters in the path and to the speed of the scooters. Right. I think we need to spend some time thinking about fixing the fixing that problem. And maybe maybe we begin evaluating how to fix that problem while we're in the process of this pilot program. So one strategy that that cities and agencies are using to change behavior is pricing, right? So there could literally be a process where if you if you're a company, well, the other parties, this concept that we have about if you have the technology to geofence and get off the path, then you should come off the path. That's counterintuitive, my opinion. The better technology should be the ones that we allow on the path and the ones that do not have the technology come off the path. And the reason is because if they have the technology, what if there was a way to say, you can ride the ride, but if you drop your your scooter outside of the designated drop zone on the bike path, then you are fined. Right. Or. And that way we can use pricing to discourage the behavior potentially. And if you don't have the technology, then your scooter cannot be on the bike path if you don't have the technology. I just think we need to probably take some time in inverse and try to resolve the problem. I I'm sorry. So anyway, so I think we should look at it that way. So I would I would suggest that tonight maybe we don't say if you have the technology, get off the path. The ones with the technology are the ones I'm most interested in seeing how they behave and respond. The other parties, the pilot. We should be able to distinguish to this pilot which which of these are the good actors and which ones are the bad actors as well. And that's something we should be tracking on our on our beach path. So I think we should go through the pilot. We should have a conversation with these companies about, you know, if they have the technology and it sounds like they're doing that. But I think it should go from the we should be rewarding the better technology, rewarding the folks who are using geofencing and the ones who don't. We should be encouraging them to do so. Or maybe they don't they don't get to participate in the full program once it rolls out. Those are my thoughts. Thanks. Thank you so much. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. So I have similar thoughts as well in terms of and I want to pull back and say to that we should have definitely gotten a little bit more information on the pilot program and what it entailed, because I remember I was just really sort of shocked that they just started showing up right in front of my building. And I was like, Oh, is this a random scooter? Did someone leave their scooter? I had no idea. So it's sort of taken a lot of residents I know in downtown to back a little bit, but now we see everybody on the scooters. Well, that's just what I'm hearing from from residents. So but I see a ton of people on the scooters. So students, downtown residents. And, you know, it's it's a really good and positive thing. And I do agree I know we're going to get the data back and the analytics back between October and December. And I think that the analytics will absolutely tell us a really good story of of where people are using them. And I just know from my residents a few sample cases, some of them have told me because Long Beach transit routes were changed or removed in some areas that they now use these scooters, which I think is a really, really big deal. So I also think in addition to the data we get back, although this item doesn't call for it, is just to be a little bit heightened of a sense. And I know we are in terms of Long Beach transit routes that have been changed or removed. So we know where these are. So we know where this data will lie. I just want to clarify as well the e-bike discussion. I'm having a little trouble with that. So are we removing are we saying that we're going to allow e-bikes on the path? Well, I think for this particular item, I'm trying to narrow the discussion to just the pilot program. The pilot program for the scooters, which has a specific clause in regards to the bike beach path. So I didn't want to confuse the discussion with the e-bikes because a lot of people do use them and they're not the biggest source of concern. We have a pilot program in place that says they can't no riding on sidewalks, no riding on the bike beach path and use of a helmet at all times. So this is something that they all had to sign to agree to participate in the city. So I thought we would take the e-bike discussion out of it, since that's not really the problem and just focus on the pilot program because we don't have any way to enforce the rules that the companies already agreed to. Okay. Sure, I guess. And I understand that we want to compartmentalize and be really focused. And I would just say just over on that e-bike discussion, those can go up to 30 miles per hour. So that's another issue. I think just in terms of mobility we do need to address because although a lot of people are using them, as Councilmember Pearce said, yes, they're not rentable so much. But they you know, a lot of people a lot of people purchase them and, you know, access, I think, for many of us is a is a it's a huge point that we need to amplify because there are a lot of downtown residents that want access to the beach. And the best way to do that is to provide to be provided a cheap scooter. And so we need to look at some other facet to be able to address e-bikes at some point as well in that discussion. What I like as well. And I know that there is technology to slow down the scooters and pause in certain areas. And I while I appreciate the discussion about implementing that with the six. With the six companies we have now. There are other areas that also need to be looked at. You know, I think a lot of downtown residents, especially with senior buildings that have major mobility issues, we can't even get the bike bicycle issue sort of down, you know, and we're sitting here talking about E-Scooters on the bike that we had to pull back a little bit more and start talking about how we address enforcement on just bicycles and scooters in these very vulnerable neighborhoods. A lot of my residents in downtown and I have a lot of senior residents do not have a lot of mobility. They have had Long Beach Transit cut some routes. And now on top of that, we have this scooter discussion. So I just want us to think about that a little bit more largely, but I love the idea. Councilmember Price, about the complaint data and cleanup issues, because I think those are absolutely issues we need to start addressing a bit more. So I'm still a little weary from this. I'm going to I'm going to listen to a few more people. But those are sort of just my thoughts preliminarily. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Soprano. Thank you. Just to follow up on the last comments. If there's some mission creep here, I'm going to do the same thing. I'm going to talk about Cal State, Long Beach, but it occurs to me that there's an immediate public safety need on the bike path, and it'd be nice if we could get that resolved here tonight . But that was kind of an unintended consequence, something that was anticipated by Cal State Long Beach before, as soon as the scooters showed up, is that they would be blamed for students riding them into the neighborhood. So we have an elaborate preferential parking district system north of the campus along Atherton. I believe it's a total of 18 north south streets have preferential parking. For the scooters to be lined up on the perimeter on Atherton of the school. You could not have invented a better system to screw up a preference of parking, because now you extend that distance that people can go can drop off their cars. So you're just going to anger the folks who are just north of the Préfecture parking district. So as I said, Mr. Beck, I don't want to get into mission creep here, but if that can be on your radar, also, if we're talking about some type of system where they can electronic electronically monitor that or prevent them from going to certain areas, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Congressman Stupak. Now, Councilwoman Pryce. I believe Council on Super now that they can. We're certainly not the first city to be dealing with this. And I know that there are cities that have limited access to certain areas. I just want to clarify, because I heard several of my colleagues say they're not going to support the item because it's a ban. So I started off my comments with saying, let's move away from the ban and enforce try to enforce our current existing policy, which all six of the providers had to sign, which has five provisions that they have to follow. They have to educate the consumer that they need to be 18 years old, must be in possession of a valid driver's license, must agree to the liability waiver. Covering the city of Long Beach contained in the vendor's end user agreement, must agree to comply with the California Vehicle Code and Long Beach Municipal Code, which shall be provided by the vendor to all users prior to use of the scooters. Notification of laws should emphasize the following No riding on sidewalks, no riding on the beach path and use of a helmet at all times, and may only park scooters outside of the sidewalk path of travel, allowing a minimum of four feet of clearance and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Americans with Disabilities Act. So these are rules that and everyone here is right. We were not consulted when the handbook was created. So a lot of the things we're talking about we didn't have a policy decision on. What I'm asking my colleagues to do is for the remaining next three weeks, can we try to hold the companies accountable such that the scooters don't end up on a prohibited area if the technology for that company allows it? If after that, we want to allow it and we want that to not be a perhaps prohibited area anymore, we can have that discussion. We can absolutely have that discussion and say, you know, what the of the rules and regulations and the pilot program didn't make sense. I don't like them. I want them on the beach path. But right now they're not allowed on the beach path. So I and and Councilwoman Pearce hasn't received these complaints. We've received a lot of them. And what we hear is, why can't you enforce this? Why aren't you enforcing this? And the reality is because we don't have police officers to have standing on the beach path enforcing these rules. But we do have technology. And I've checked I know at least one of the vendors, Bird, has the technology available now. They can implement it tomorrow to allow the the the the scooters to not go on the bike path. So I think, you know, what I'm asking my my colleagues to do is support our director reaching out and saying, if your company has the technology, please prohibit the scooters from going on the beach path, as you've agreed to do by signing on to our pilot. I'm hearing some resistance to that. I'm not exactly sure what the basis of the resistance is, other than what I'm hearing is that maybe people don't like the existing policy that prohibits them from being on the beach path, which I didn't write the policy. I'm just trying to figure out a way to enforce it. If people don't like that and they feel more comfortable, I would be open to a report back from the director on what of the companies have the geofencing technology that they could implement. But remember, the pilot ends at the end of October and we have folks that have expressed a lot of concern about us not enforcing our own agreement with these vendors. We we entered this agreement with these vendors, and we have the ability to force them to comply. And what we would be saying is, no, no, no, it's okay. Feel free to violate the terms of your agreement. We're not going to hold you accountable to it. So I'm open to hearing from my colleagues. I'm advocating on behalf of my residents at this point, and I'm asking for your support. But I'm also very, very open to any suggestions folks have on I mean, I understand the tenor of what folks are saying here, which is maybe you're not seeing a problem with it on the beach path and you're okay with them being on the beach path. And if that's what you're saying, I hope that you'll be very clear about that, because I know when I go back to my communities, I'd like to say these of my colleagues did not have an issue with this, because I do because the issue is presented a safety hazard in on the beach path. So I would like us to do whatever we can to adhere to our current policy and contract if folks would like to do a study instead. Totally okay with that as well. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Price. Councilman, also. Thank you, Councilmember Price. And I, like I said earlier, I do I do respect your position. I understand I'm not getting the calls from my constituents. I try to go down to the beach as much as possible. And for me, it hasn't been a hazardous. So seeing these electric scooters on here and as I mentioned in my comments earlier, I prefer a less restrictive model as opposed to creating restrictions for them. The the regulations that that you you mentioned were administrative in nature. They weren't legislative. Again, it wasn't something policy that the council developed. I think it was, you know, staff trying to do their best to come up with something to get this this this new transportation system or mode implemented into our city quickly. And so, I mean, I commend them for the work that they did. But, you know, again, this is this is an evolving issue. Just since we've implemented here within the last several weeks, there's been legislation in Sacramento regarding these these these electric scooters. And I would venture to say that over the next several months or a few months, we're going to see a lot of new ideas and possibly even some some best practices from other municipalities where they're dealing with them and these issues. And so I would I would offer a friendly to the stroke staff to do exactly what you suggested. But I also would recommend that this issue be studied further in committee. I think there might be two committees that that would be appropriate public safety and then Infrastructure and Transportation, Transportation Infrastructure Committee. I would recommend, if you're open to a friendly amendment that these these these committees also study these issues, this issue concurrently to to hopefully get to a place where we can develop some sound public policy. Kept that friendly. I think that's an excellent suggestion and I would recommend it go to the Transportation Committee because our public safety committee meeting is pretty packed for next week. So I don't want to add to our agenda and I know that committee, I'm not sure how often they meet, but this would be the perfect issue for them to take up. Thank you. Kind of if they're open to it. Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. And Councilmember Alston, I perfect. I think that that's where we needed to land. I do think I know that there's there's agreement is out there. I know that we've shared it with our constituents just in the first week that these were implemented. And so if we can maybe share that one more time, the agreement that we had with all six vendors so that the council offices can see that. I also think I have a question for staff. I know that we in our budget said that we were going to have more bike officers. What's the timeline for that? So part of that is we have not identified the revenue yet. To add those, we were going to come back to money falling from mid-year and come back with a plan for how to both fund Engine 17 and also to fund six additional motorbike officers. Thank you for that motorbike. Motorbike. It was going to be a team that was bikes, but also the ability to do motorbikes or bikes. It was a rapid response team that could use both bikes or motorbikes, either one. They just put them on scooters. We put a pin in. And say, For. Scooters? Sure, why not? Anything that's mobile, anything that gets them quickly around. And I, I think what I like the friendly amendment. I fully support the friendly amendment. I think, you know, studying this in committee is a great place to do that. I also just want to recognize that kind of a process. And sometimes I feel like we're trying to implement where we get a lot of challenges, whether it's with our homeless community or scooters, where people feel like we don't have enough officers that are enforcing and that maybe we need to discuss how we handle those those complaints. Because I feel like this is one that, like I said, I originally almost didn't sign on because I felt like it was just saying we need to be enforcing our laws. And the challenge is that we're not we're not going to have enough officers to enforce every single bike policy, every single helmet out there, and that we have to do some creative community engagement programs. And I think looking at models like we have with our bikes, whereas if you return a bike to a station that you get money back into your account. So instead of saying we're going to fine, I think the deal with our rental bikes is that you get money back if you return it to to a station instead of leaving it somewhere. So just I look forward. Mr.. Back to your creative presentation when this comes back and fully support the friendly and thank you everyone for the conversation. Thank you. I appreciate Councilman Price's flexibility in this. I think that the financial incentives is a huge one, and I look forward to that opportunity. In kind of working through what our next steps are. I think that a lot more of our work should be done in committee. So I really am supportive of the friendly and look forward to hearing what the Infrastructure Committee and Transportation Committee does with us. So thank you. Fine, thank you. And do we have any public comment on this item? Vice Mayor If I could, was the public comments coming? Just to clarify the friendly amendment. 1/2, please. The friendly amendment by Councilmember Austin was to adopt the motion by the council person to reach out to the vendors and implement. Immediately the technology of available to. Ban it from the bike path and also send it to. The. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for further study. Is that correct? I, I actually think it may have been modified with Councilman Austin's friendly that instead of banning it immediately, we're going to send it to committee. Okay. Thank you. Well, I think we still want staff to study. Look at what the geofencing, the possibilities for geofencing are. Right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I'm cute if possible, just because of the seconder of the motion when we talked about telling these organizations at least we should send them an email that says, Friendly reminder, you agreed that X, Y and Z and it should be all of them. The dumping in random places. I mean, leave it. I mean, if we could just remind them there are 30 days left in the pilot program. Here are the things you agreed to. Any technology you have to help us to ensure you meet the terms of your agreement would be helpful. Just a thought, Councilman Price, are you okay with a friendly reminder of the terms they already agreed to? And like I said, I know there's different providers and there's different levels of responsibility. I don't know personally all the representatives, but I do know Bird has a representative at the meeting. They've been very engaged with us and very responsive. So I think it doesn't hurt to give them another reminder. And our office has had to reach out to them multiple times, two for just scooters left next to the water, next to everywhere. So I appreciate the opportunity to remind them of what they agreed to. Thank you. Thank you. No public comment. Okay. Karen, recite. I'm a resident of the First District and I live in a senior building of which there are many downtown. And I just want to share my experiences. With the scooters. I didn't see the articles about them coming until after they were on the streets. The first week I was almost run over by three. They don't make noise. I'm hard of hearing and I have poor vision, as many seniors do, and I could not hear the scooters and the people riding them. Don't yell. They don't have bells or buzzers, so you can't tell that they're coming up behind you and you're not looking at who's writing these scooters. They are young men, primarily, and I travel all over the downtown area. They're young men. They never got the rules, so they are not abiding by them. They ride them on the sidewalks, they turn them up for grabs. And another big concern is that there groups of them I saw two groups within three days going down Atlantic Avenue of eight young men in the middle of Atlantic Avenue, both sides of the street. And this, I understand, is is getting to be a growing problem. They do a. Meetup or a Facebook post and they gather in a spot. So this is a huge potential problem. I live in a 17th floor of a high rise building and on Saturday, Friday nights, if you could put a time limit on them, they get them at night and they ride up and down Pacific Avenue, disturbing the residents. Fortunately, a lot of us are hard of hearing, but I'm on the top floor. The sound rises. So I've been awakened several times by the scooters and the youth yelling back and forth if we're going to have scooters. And I believe that any mobility devices that help people to move and get them out in the community are a good thing if we do it safely and responsibly. I don't know how you're going to work. With these young men so that. They follow the rules. And Susie, you're lucky I have not seen one person with a helmet, not one. And I've probably seen 150 people on these scooters in my travels. So. Pilot programs. We need to if we're going to do pilot programs, we need to think them through a little bit better. There's no signage indicating what the rules are on the scooters. And as a senior, I would like to ride one, too. But my balance is not good enough for a two wheeled vehicle. And I know there are three wheeled kind of trikes out there. And seniors like to get around and do things that are fun too. So please consider that when you take these things into a final vote. Next. Hello. My name is Greg NZ. I've been a resident of Long Beach for about 30 years. I lived in the third district for 15 years and I currently live in the seventh district. I have been there 15 years also, and as a owner of two electric bikes, I want to commend you for deleting the bike language from that . That concerned me and made me sit through the whole meeting. But I just want to reiterate and give you some information because I don't know if all of you have been on electric bike in the. Last three years. But what they're able to do is assist you. You could ride further, longer, harder. They don't make the noise that the gas powered by cycles do and they don't emit, you know, fossil fuels into the air. So they do a lot of good things. In fact, I'm working on a website to encourage people to use this as a mode of transportation rather than their vehicles for short distance rides to the gym or to a restaurant or to the bike path. With the class three bikes, they only go 28 miles per hour. You're closed. You have to go downhill. Really hard to go a little bit over that. But they're pretty much maxed out. The accelerators on the bikes, both class two and three, they top off at 20 miles an hour. So there was a recommendation for the e-bike language that there's a speed limit. I think all bikes should adhere to that because I have a race bike also that has no motor and I can get that over 20 miles an hour if I pedal really hard. So I think maybe he's putting speed limits posted throughout the bike path would be a good recommendation and then maybe citations if they don't adhere to it. But it's not just the class two and three bikes that are able to speed, it's all bikes. So I think we need to put that into consideration. But one of the things, Councilmember Price, for looking at the language and realizing that the Class two and three are not in the same category as the scooters. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Anything. I'm Beth Black, co-owner of Pedigo Electric Bikes of Greater Long Beach. And I want to thank you for your careful and thoughtful discussion this evening. It really became clear to us as we sat and listened that you have learned a lot about the bikes in the process. I do want to clarify that for Councilwoman Gonzalez, that Class two electric bikes are considered to be low speed electric bikes along with Class one. They are governed to a top speed of 20 miles per hour. They can be governed lower. And we've had some of our our customers request that it really is not an issue of speed. We always follow the speed limits on the bike paths. We're very cautious. We have six years in business with membership at times with the the convention visitors bureau. Lovely presentation tonight, by the way, and an excellent record of safety with zero accidents. Nobody leaves my bike shop on a bike without wearing a helmet. And one last thing before you go. I do have to say, guys, that we just last year sold a couple of bikes to the SEAL Beach Police Department. Just this morning, I was out riding with a guest and we ran into foot, not literally, but we ran into one of the police officers in her car. And she said just two weeks ago they had to pack their bikes up for the winter and they're hoping to get appropriations so that they can ride year round. There was one point where they had a lot of traffic. Now it's a little town. I know SEAL Beach is a small town, but they get a lot of congestion down there. And the officers in a car chase after a fellow in a car, they couldn't catch him. But the guy on the e-bike rode right up and had them pull over. So think about that. They can really help with crowd situations and beach patrol and that sort of thing. Thank you very much. We'll be in touch. Thank you. Next speaker. My name's Evan Lockwood. Um. I do have a disability. And I use class two e-bikes to get around. And also to commute. One of the introductory. Paragraphs said that people on the beach pets don't primarily commute there, which I. Feels is wrong. A lot of the spandex guys also commute and then change at work. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for having this discussion. My comments that I wrote initially have changed, obviously, because of the nature of the conversation has changed. But my name is Nick Rousseau. I work for Petal Movement, which is a local bicycling services company with headquarters here in Long Beach and operations throughout L.A. and Orange County areas . Pedal movements. The operator of the Long Beach Bike Shares program, as well as the city's bike station facility. We also work with Petco in Greater Long Beach to operate their service department, and we're a program provider for many bicycling and active transportation initiatives throughout the city. So we obviously understand the many concerns, safety and otherwise, that motorized scooters and bicycles present in our city and on our roadways and public infrastructure. We understand these concerns because we are bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists ourselves and many of our companies. Employees use the bicycling infrastructure our city has built to commute to and from work, perform their job duties and enjoy in their free time. And this includes the beach bike path as well as protected bicycling infrastructure downtown and elsewhere. So to the gentleman's last statement, the beach bike path is a place I regularly commute on, so I just would make sure that that's something we'd consider in the future. On a personal note, I can't count the number of times that I've been nearly injured while riding peacefully on the bike path by a triathlete attempting to break the land speed record. But their use of the bike path wouldn't have run afoul of the ordinance as it was presented earlier in might have realized some other injuries along the way. I also will note that I have a separate folder of photos on my phone that I take of cars, trees, street lights and other things like that, blocking my ways while I walk around the city. Any any time I see a car, you know, parked on the hood in my neighborhood, the ramp in front of their driveway that blocks my access to walk on my sidewalk. I take a picture of that and report it where I can. So the issues of dumping scooters, to me, not really that big of an issue when I have cars and street lights and other things like that that I need to regularly contend with. And I'm a fairly able bodied person. So I only imagine what it's like for folks who need to use assistive devices to get around. Anecdotally, cities across the country that have adopted scooter pilot programs have found that a lot of the users of these vehicles are overwhelmingly young and of color. So ordinances like bans, which obviously has changed now, are just another way to add to the list of justifications used to hassle young, black and brown neighbors to keep them from getting to where they need to go. And the same is true for a lot of other assistive and mobility devices. So thanks for the comments. Obviously, things have changed a little bit, but we appreciate it. Thank you. Next, bigger. My name is John Cannon. And not to be redundant, but I'm here for the same reason to thank you for removing the Class two ebikes from the list of things that might be prohibited in the future. I ride a bike often and I'm sort of representing seniors, I guess, at this point in time, because all those young people that came up here and they ride them and what they said, all true. I've been riding on the Long Beach path for 17 years. Not any bike all the time. I used to be able to ride a real plain old, hard working bike, but I'm considered a senior. And that means seniors definition is you're old, so you can't do things like you used to do. I like to. I would love to, but it doesn't happen that way. So I came across the e-bikes and was quite happy to find them and I've been writing them along with a group of seniors, mostly locally, and we do come on the Long Beach path. Often we stop and eat at your restaurants. So we're bringing some business into the community as well. The the throttles that are on those bikes actually are like a. And a. Excuse me, an accommodation for safety. I use it when I start up my ride and. To get a start. It's because it's too hard to get started on pedaling and that gives me the start I need. Then I can pedal and I have pedal assist to help combat the throttles are also helpful in I am sorry to keeping balance at times and we don't generally use them for racing or anything else. I never have done that, but I just want you to know that for seniors, these bikes are have been extremely helpful. Many, many people that have different kinds of ailments or artificial knees backs bolted together, all of which I have. I've had a heart attack. I have asthma, I can still ride a bike and I'm going to keep riding as long as I can. I don't want to have to ride on the streets. It's too dangerous. So I appreciate your consideration to continue to allow class to e-bikes on the paths. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you, Vice Mayor and City Council. And I want. To thank Council Woman Price for reconsidering. The class. Two E-bikes. My name is Brian Ballard. I'm co-owner of. Pedal Electric Bikes with Beth Black, who you just heard of. I want to read a statement here real quick. I've been a type one diabetic for 45 years. I work in the health care industry. And in addition to. Owning the bike shop and I do diabetic education and I do diabetic support groups. About nine years ago, Beth and I were riding on a regular pedal, pedal bikes. We were about ten miles from home, and my blood sugar started dropping rapidly. Fortunately, I had some couple. Bottles of. Juices. I had. To lie on the. Grass waiting for my blood sugar to rise. However, the experience scared. Beth and I both, and we did not ride regular pedal bikes for a while. About a year later, Beth and I. Discovered electric bikes. I was excited about this because I was able. To ride a long distance and not worry about pedaling home. If my sugar dropped, a low blood sugar can be deadly if not treated quickly. High blood sugar does not kill you immediately, but contributes to long term complications. Having to pedal a regular bike or pedal a class. One electric bike while my sugar is low. Can still drop my glucose drastically. Having a throttle to get me somewhere where I can get. Something to eat or drink without pedaling is a benefit and. Helping me prevent my hyper hypoglycemia. From getting worse. Beth and I have owned two electric. Bikes now for eight years. In addition to owning the electric bike shop. Since I started writing my electric. Bike, I worry less about. My sugar dropping too low. When I'm writing. And yes, I do get exercise on my class to e-bike. As you just heard the speaker before, me too occurred. To control diabetes, you need exercise, diet and medication. My class to bike motivates me to exercise. Gives me peace of mind. And when I'm writing, it helps me control my blood sugar. Exercise is hard. My father was a runner and a marathoner. He once told me, You have to make exercise fun for people to do it. Well, class two e-bikes do make exercise fun. Also. Many of our. Customers are seniors. Many seniors have orthopedic problems, a hip replacement, knee replacement. And many of their doctors tell them, we want you to. Exercise with. Caution. These bikes allow those orthopedic patients to exercise without overdoing it. And these are perfect for those seniors. Patients who do have knee problems, hip problems. Thank you once again for reconsidering the. E-Bike situation. On this subject. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Bob Nolan and I also have a Pedigo Ebike and my wife does too. And that was one of the reasons why. We. Started writing down here is we wanted it to be both our exercising. My wife has a bad back. And I have bad knees and the pedagogs allow us to get on the bike path and ride. She pedals more. I throttle more, but I still pedal. They just help us have mobility. And as far as I know, in our group. No one has has run into anybody. And we are just super cautious. We wear helmets, we follow the speed limits. So and I'm glad that you folks have looked at. The changes that might be needed. Scooters. Yeah, they do zip around you. But we actually have breaks. We have. I bell's to let people know we're behind them so. In summary, I just wanted to say thank you for reconsidering this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. No. Mr. Dean. The Vice and the city council to. We are always concerned about the. But. No more Palm Springs. I think the boat, the pismo wait is to solve this is to make a better law. Little red riding in the street. I think that's worth it to go down and meet these spray bys, be legally for leaving. Well, I know people hear me on the tape. Tell me tomorrow. I know we are and it is certain A-word out. When I think of fans, they save the import. They can write it or. Not that they've decided on that beach. I think that there's a lot more riding in the street. They can ride illegally in the street and everything will be okay. Right. And in the long. If they can. If they they can be respectable riding in the street. And if they can be respectable and riding. Without breaking the loading so much run. I think running illegally in the streets and being more safe. Thank you, sir. Thank you to the council for listening to me tonight. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, counsel. My name's Thomas Lord. I'm the general manager for Lime. We're one of the operators in the pilot. I think that this conversation's obviously evolved quite a bit since the original agenda item. Um, and I think you guys are on the right track. Um, there seem to be two issues. One is the leaving of scooters on the beach and the other is, you know, speed. Um, there I can speak for lime. We definitely have the technology to address both of those. I think one thing to keep in mind is that there are operators that do not have that technology. And in turning that technology on, we then put ourselves in a no bird has the technology as well at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage from a consumer experience. Um. You know, if you're if you're writing a line and it doesn't work on the beach or you're writing another company, and it does, you're going to continue to read the other companies. And so revisiting the pilot and asking operators to if they have the technology to turn it on. I would also ask that you either somehow penalize operators that, you know, refuse to or don't have that technology to put on. But that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. 1/2, please. I had just a follow up question. You said you do have the technology to be able to to cut them off or not make them inoperable. Do you have that? Does the technology afford you the ability to govern the speed? Yes. So actually, the technology we we have the technology to stop them, although we generally, as a policy don't do that because we find it unsafe. The speed is the solution that Santa monica went with. So we govern them on the beach in Santa monica at eight miles per hour. Um, along with that, we also do what we call no chip. No chip. And which is you can't begin a trip on the beach path. Um, and no trips stop, which is you can't stop your trip on the beach. So you would kind of address your problem of a lot of scooters being left on the on the path. Thank you. And I appreciate you being here this evening. Yeah, good to be here. Thank you, sir. Anyone? Yes. Go ahead. Miss me. Councilwoman. Two things. One, appreciate your coming today and being open to answering some questions. Your competitive advantage would be that because you followed the rules, you're in a better position to actually have a long term contract with our city. Yeah. And I guess my question would be, what would we need to be providing you as a city to create those geo fences? Or when you check it out on the app, would it be able to say like, note, you're near Eldorado Park, don't leave a thing on the beach path or you will be fined or I mean, could you do pop up messages of any kind? Yeah. So we can do it, not messages that that describe what what's what's happening. So if someone isn't confused, I think that what we've seen in in the past is that a lot of cities will say, you know, during our pilot, if you do X, Y and Z, you won't be considered for for, you know, the permanent program and then you're still considered for the permanent program. Yeah. So I think that it needs to kind of like. Concrete like this is what's going to happen if you if you don't. And so that all we're all on the same same page. That would be my suggestion. But I do see that as a competitive advantage for the long run. It'd be shortsighted not to consider that. Right. So just so you know, on any given Tuesday, we can change the laws by five votes on this council so we can say anything we want. This week and next week, five votes changes the law. So that's just how local government is. But I appreciate you and thank you for your feedback. And my office will probably be reaching out. Thank you. All right. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Next Vice. Mayor and. Members of the city council. My name is. On a consolidated man. I work for a government. Relations firm sanctioned by we represent Bird. I want to thank Suzy Price and the rest of the council for tonight's motion. We really appreciate that. We look forward to working with the Transportation Committee. Craig, your your office has been great and so we're looking forward to working with you. We believe that our client has gone way and beyond to reach out to most of the organizations. In. Various neighborhoods to make sure that we're a community partner. We want to continue to do that. So thank you for tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Richardson and Councilman Gordy. I also just wanted to thank you all for listening to the discussion and adjusting your comments. Oftentimes, people come to council and they're dead set on communicating what they came here to communicate despite the changes. And I think that one of the things that we really try to do on this council is start a dialog. Even if the original policy might be the most extreme, but to at least give us a range, an understanding of where we can go. And so I hope that you'll communicate back out to your constituents in the same way you did before to let them know where we are and what additional opportunities there will be for input and advocacy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I just wanted to raise up one thing that I just heard from the gentleman from lime. So you said you can you have the ability to limit stops, made trip stops in a geofence area. So what happens if someone gets off the you know, gets off the, you know, the bike? And goes to the beach and hangs out. Do they continue to get charged while it's just sitting there? Because that's a pretty good penalty. Yeah, that's exactly what we're. What would happen? So you wouldn't it would give you an error code in the error code would explain you're in an area where you can't and the chip and if you were to leave it in the the sender on the on the path, you would continue to get charged. And how have you implemented that somewhere in Santa monica? And do you have any evidence of, you know, what the response was or the behavior change? I mean. It's tough to to measure that because you could continue to ride at eight miles per hour through that geofence. It has drastically changed the scene in in Santa monica. You know, it went from Santa monica having to use a lot of their. Resources to have enforcement on speed and stuff like that to I think it's drastically come down. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks for that point. Staff. That's a great point. If we're going to evaluate something in the pilot, I want to know if we deploy something like that, what the what the impact is. That's what I'd like to see. If, you know, we may not have to create a fine, we can literally just have the clock keep running if they don't park it the right way. Seems like a good idea to me. Thank you. Senior morning comments which placed catchable. And now she can substitute motion. Right. Thank you. Okay. Let's go down to item 21, 22. Excuse me.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade private utility lines under and across South Holgate Street, east of Occidental Avenue South and west of 3rd Avenue South; as proposed by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”).

SeattleCityCouncil_09172018_Res 31835

Sustainability in Transportation Committee Agenda Item 22 Resolution 318 35 Granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, operate below grade five utility lines under and across South Holgate Street, east of Occidental Avenue, south and west of Third Avenue South as proposed by the National National Road Passenger Corporation, the committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. Member O'Brien. Q So Amtrak is working on a project that will help make the passenger rail system function better and better for our environment. They're upgrading the facilities to have electrical capacity for the diesel engines to turn off when they're parked there and be plugged in to essentially a version of shore power like we do with the ships. Also updates the systems for treating stormwater and emptying the bathrooms on the trains too. This is in part to accommodate the expansion of passenger rail, including the expansion of sounder rail, which is operated by Amtrak. So this is something that I think is a good thing to move forward. Excellent. Very good. Any questions or comments on this resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted in the chair. Will Simon please read items 23 through 25. Agenda items 23 through 25 appointments ten, 80, 21, 11 and six appointment of Lisa Picard as as member levy to Seattle Oversight Committee for term to December 31st, 2018. Appointment Hester Cerebrum as members levy to move Seattle up Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2018 reappointment Betty's faith Carol as member levy to move Seattle Oversight

Recommendation to request City Manager to communicate the City's support for Assembly Bill 1147 (Bonilla, Gomez, Holden), which would return local and land use authority to cities and counties as applicable to massage businesses and which promotes public safety by giving tools to local governments to address such establishments that are involved in human trafficking.

LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0339

Cllr greg item made his report from the office of council member. I lost in council member patrick o'donnell where the recommendation to request the city manager to communicate the city's support for Assembly Bill 1147, which would return local and land use authority to cities and counties applicable to massage businesses. Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll first of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember O'Donnell for joining me with this item. I'm asking my colleagues to join in supporting AB 1147, the Massage Therapy Act of 2014 in 2008 and unintended consequence of a newly adopted state law removed many of the local controls the city has. Cities have to regulate massage businesses. Since that time, there's been a significant increase in the number of massage businesses in cities throughout the state. I'd like to emphasize that most massage businesses are good, upstanding and reputable businesses. However, a small number of massage businesses have been known to engage in illegal and illicit activities. Our police department does an outstanding job of investigating complaints about these businesses and making arrests when appropriate. However, this bill will give our city more tools to regulate and enforce our local laws to protect the public safety, health and safety. This bill would also prohibit the use of sexually suggestive advertising of massage services, and the League of California Cities actually supports this legislation. I understand that our city staff has a few concerns with one section in this bill. So as part of my motion, I would like to request the city manager to communicate with the city's the city support of HB 1147, while continuing to work with the bill's authors and other stakeholders to further improve the bill for the city's interest. Their second. Thank you. So, yeah, this is a this is a I think. This is using their. Yeah. Pretty common sense. This promotes responsible business and local government authority. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Mr. O'Dell. Thank you. Actually. And Mr. Austin said it. Well, the goal this bill is to retain in our hands the ability to plan what to to plan our our local our local land use. What happened with this previous bill that took away our decision making power so that we couldn't require that these establishments wouldn't be allowed in our city? So this is a good bill. This is a smart bill. This is about public safety. This is about retaining local control. So I'm very supportive with that. I'll turn it back to you. Thank you. We have a motion in the second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the council on this bill? Please identify yourself. Very, very good. Do. Kirk has the address. I'm wondering whether or not there's any way this can be amended to deal with those elements that are attempting to various means of massaging various members of the elected in this city or city staff. Do you want this? This is ridiculous. It's not relevant. Please. I mean, I know you like to be witty, but this. Is there's a serious issue there. I really appreciate you made your point. Thank you. Jesus Christ. All right. We have a motion in the second members. Cast your votes. Would think motion carry six votes. Yes. Thank you.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 33651 with Howroyd Wright Employment, Inc., dba AppleOne Employment Services, of Long Beach, CA, for temporary staffing services, to increase the contract amount by $1,759,500, for a new contract amount not to exceed $20,417,500, and extend the term of the contract to July 1, 2022. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01182022_22-0066

All right. Motion is carried. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 26 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract with Apple one Employment Services for temporary staffing services to increase the contract amount by 1,759,500 citywide. We need a motion in the second. Move sorrow back your ranga. Is there any public comment on this item? There is no public comment. Thank you. Let's have a roll call, please. District one, high district two. High District three. My district for. My. District five I. District six. I. District seven. My District eight. By District nine. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to reallocate $18,000 Sixth Council District one-time District Priority Funds currently budgeted in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department to support the Juneteenth Celebration.

LongBeachCC_06182019_19-0591

He's pushing carries. Thank you. Next item is 26. Item 26 is communication from Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to reallocate 18,006 council district one time district priority funds to support the Juneteenth celebration. I think they were best managers. Yes. Thank you very much for me for. Actually, if we can. Mr. Kyser, can you turn the mic off up there? Thank you. Yes. Before we move forward, I would like to say that I would like to appreciate my colleagues reporting on this item, because I would been working with, especially in this office and putting these together is going to be a great one. So if anyone feels free, please join us in starting from 12 to 4 p.m. at Kings Park. And we're going to have live music, food trucks and some historical sketch. So if you're able, please try to get there Saturday. And that's some two out of four. Thank you. There's there's emotion and a second is a public comment on this item. I just want to support my councilman, Mr. De Andrews, and the allocation of funds. I'm going to be a little biased here. I am going to be participating in the celebration here. This is a great celebration supporting Juneteenth, which is the official end of slavery in the continental United States. I'm proud of the city of Long Beach for participating in the City Managers Group, City Managers Department for allocating resources. Part of the City of Long Beach for participating in the celebration of the defeat of the traitorous Confederate States of America and the the landing of General Gordon Granger and Galveston Island. This is a story that needs to be told. You know, believe it or not, while the traitor, General Robert E Lee, surrendered his forces, we formerly had an elementary school named after him, but when he surrendered his forces in April 5th. Believe it or not, there are multiple parts of the country that didn't have Twitter or Instagram then, but there are multiple parts of the country that continue to participate in this slavery of African-Americans. And so Juneteenth is a celebration of it's founded by a lot of our Texas brethren, much like our our councilman here, who when they they moved to the West Coast, they let the rest of us know that, you know, the man's emancipation came a little bit later. So Juneteenth is an important it's a it's a it's honor to to live in a city that supports it and celebrates it. And thank you for your time. And I hope to see you guys out on Saturday. Thank you. And now, real quickly, I'd like to know I wonder why I'm using him as my DJ for that event. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. There's the motion in a second scene to the public comment. Please cast your vote. Cosmo Mango Council Member Ranga Washing carries item 27. Item 27 is communication from Council membership in a recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund group in the City Manager Department in the amount of 500 to support the Historical Society.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the Open Streets Initiative program including outdoor dining through parklet and outdoor activity permits, in compliance with applicable Safer at Home Health Order for Control of COVID-19 (Health Order); and, extend the intermittent closure of certain non-arterial, neighborhood streets as identified, to through vehicular traffic, beginning January 1, 2021 and assess and extend quarterly as need and funding allows, through any point of the Health Order; Authorize City Traffic Engineer to review and adjust identified neighborhood street boundaries and closure hours, as necessary, for the purpose of increasing outdoor activities, and strengthening economic recovery, while maintaining appropriate physical distancing and adherence to the current Health Order, beginning January 1, 2021 and assess and extend quarterly as need and funding allows, through any point of the Health Order; and Adopt resolution authorizing the temporary closure of Pine Avenue from First to Fifth Street, to through vehicular traffic for increase

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1256

Councilman. Mongo, I thank you. Thank you. Item 26, please. 26. Item 26 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to extend the Open Streets Initiative program, including outdoor dining through Parklet and Outdoor Activity Permit authorized city traffic engineer to review and address identified neighborhood street boundaries and closure hours as necessary and adopt a resolution authorizing the temporary closure of Pine Avenue from first to Fifth Street City Way. Okay. I have a motion in a second or any public comment on this item. Yes, we have. Alex Sharon. I thank you, Mayor, and members of the City Council and thank you to staff for bringing this item forward. Speaking tonight on behalf of the Long Beach Restaurant Association, we want to signal our strong support for the item in particular. Thank you to John Keisler and his team for engaging the borough in developing this and other measures. The Bureau looks forward to working with the city in deploying us and making sure that it's a success citywide and agree with the discussion on one of the last items about making sure that as we go forth in these recovery efforts attached to or related to COVID impacts and we make sure we're doing it holistically, the borough has been tasked and has test me with making sure that we grow the membership so that it represents the entire city of Long Beach. And so if there are restaurants in the council members neighborhoods that they would like us to engage with, we stand ready and will do outreach as necessary and look forward to supporting this item and making sure that all restaurants in Long Beach can take advantage of it. Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, I have a motion to second count your anger. Any comment? I think we need to continue. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Austin. Okay. I stand in support. I'd love to see this continued and possibly after we we are we are back and healthy as a society, as a city, post-COVID. I'd like to see these. These street closures and open streets concepts expanded to other areas of the city. And when we talk about economic equity, this is one of those areas that we need to be looking at as well. So but it does have my support. I'm happy to support. Thank you. Okay. We have councilman's in Dallas and then we'll go to a vote. Thank you, Mayor. I am so glad that we are taking this step and our Open Streets initiative. I think it has been a great help for a lot of our restaurants in our city. I get so happy to see that so many people have been able to take advantage of this. This is something I've been passionate about for four years, and someone as someone who represents a part of Long Beach where residents have much less access to open and public space. I'm so glad that we have looked at this part of as a solution this year for this pandemic. I know that personally. It's been so nice for me to have space on time just a few blocks away from my home, to be able to be outdoors safely and physically, at least at the time that that was permitted. So I'm hoping that after this this time, we are able to go back to that. The Open Streets Initiative has given our downtown neighbors the space for art and amazing ways to activate our community and draw foot traffic to our north playing businesses. I hope that we'll continue to pursue these kinds of pedestrian friendly projects as a city, and I'm excited to see this one remain in place while we are under this health order. So thank you to two public works and thank you for everyone. Also the city staff that worked on this and continues to work every day on this. So thank you. Thank you. Let's go to roll call. Councilwoman Sandy has i. Councilwoman Allen, i. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman. I. I. Councilman Sabrina. All. Councilwoman. Mango. I. Councilwoman Sara. I. Councilmember Oranga. Hi, Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. High motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3759 North Inca Street and 3760 North Jason Street in Highland. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A, UO-2 to U-RX-3 (industrial to urban, residential mixed-use), located at 3759 Inca Street and 3760 Jason Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-8-22.

DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0160

Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1455 has passed. Thank you, Edson and the community members and development team that joined us here this evening. Our next rezoning. Councilman Clark, will you please put council bill 22, dash 160 on the floor for final passage? Council President I move that council bill 20 2-160 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-1 60 is open. May we please have the staff report? Good evening again. This is anyone else with CPD before you today we have 3760 Jason and 3759 the street. It's currently a light industrial billboard use overlays non-district in the applicant is requesting you residential mixed use up to three stories. Um, so the site is located in Council District one in the Highland neighborhood. Um, and so the site consists of two parcels, approximately 8750 square feet. It's currently vacant and a four bay car wash. And the applicant's requesting is a urban residential mixed use, up to three stories, which allows for residential mixed use development, which would be commercial uses on the first floor and residential on above that. Um, so the existing zoning, like I mentioned, it's a light industrial use overlay, as you can see, to the north and to the west is in this industrial mixed use up to three stories. You do have some two unit directly to the south and the yellow as well as some to the north. And then industrial. To the west. To the east. The land is commercial retail and vacant. There's a lot of single unit, residential, office and industrial in close proximity to the site. And then on the top, right corner is an aerial view of the site looking south on 38. Likewise, on the bottom right corner is street level looking south on 38th of the carwash, on the top left corner, you can see the billboard and the car wash. And on the bottom left corner is some single family residential road on the 1 to 2 stories in close proximity, as you can see, directly south of the site. This went before the planning board on January 19th and was approved unanimously. It is before you today and it has received a letter of support from honey. Now in there are no they have a unanimous approval for this and then this specific map amendment, we will have to we base it based off the Denver zoning code review criteria, and we're looking at five review criteria. And the first one is to see with adaptive plans. And so for this specific site, we're looking at four plans, which is Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver of 2019, the Highland Neighborhood Plan in the 41st and Fox station area plan. So this specific map, I mean, it's consistent with several goes down in comprehensive plan as specified in the this for here under equitable affordable inclusive goes to a strategy a create a greater mix of housing and options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. Environmentally resistant goal. Resilient goal. A strategy to promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place and environmentally resilient strategy. We encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Now looking at a blueprint anywhere within the future neighborhood context for this area, it's classified as urban. Within the urban neighborhood context, it's widely distributed throughout the city. Homes vary from a multi-unit development to compact single family houses, and then these areas offer access to neighborhood areas and commercial nodes with some small mixed use nodes within the neighborhood. Now within the future place type. This area is classified as order where primarily provides an option for dining and entertainment and shopping and may also include some residential employment uses with building heights generally up to three stories. 38th Avenue is a main street arterial with Inca and Jason Street as local streets. Within the growth area strategy. This area is classified as all areas of the city where we anticipate 20% of new household, new housing, as well as 10% of new employment within 2040. Now when we look at the highland highland neighbor hand Highland neighborhood plan of 1986 plan is intended to promote patterns of land use. Urban design as well as the overall vision for Highland is to create a stable, low density residential neighborhood, which offers a variety of housing opportunities. Um, specifically in this plan, it calls for a primary revitalization area within 38th Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Income Street. And some of that cost for the encourage re-use of vacant or abandoned commercial structures, as well as rezoning vacant industrial parcels back to residential for redevelopment and discourage further residential encroach. Industrial sorry, industrial encroachment. Now when we look at the 41st and Fox station area of L.A. 29, it's just outside of the quarter mile buffer. And this plan classifies this area as urban, residential, 2 to 8 stories here. And these areas are intended as new moderate density neighborhoods. Now for review criteria two and five, it's consistent as specified in the staff report for review criteria three, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. This is done by implementing the adopted plans as well as the building on standards for improved site and building designs that promote pedestrian interest and activity which is linked to improved built environment and improve safety and for justified circumstances. The applicant stated change changing conditions specifically in the neighborhood as well as the city adaptive time. Therefore, CPD recommends approval for approval based at all the findings and the review criteria have been met. And so staff is available for any questions you may have and as well as the applicant, Michael McCarthy is on line as well for any questions you may have. All right. Thank you very much, Edson. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak online. Jesse Perez. Go ahead, please, Jesse. That's the reason it starts to move. It's part of the vaccine command for social change as well as the part of your car. The East Denver Residents Council and from black knows now I'll be the next my number 2023. I'm against this rezoning tonight. I don't believe it's going to be good for the people of this neighborhood. I have a question and several questions. That's going to be the my level for the residential as proposed for the site. What is there a neighborhood agreement that's been put in place to guarantee there's going to be affordability for the site as a parking study done. Has there been a real study that someone can please answer those questions? I would really appreciate it. There's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind on this. It meets all five of the criteria, which is consistency with adopted plans. Uniformity of district regulations versus public health, safety and wellness. Justify circumstances. Inconsistency with neighborhood context. This purpose. And it's so. So I could please answer those questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 160 Council Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Mr. President. This is Councilwoman Sandoval's district. So if she's got questions, she's welcome to go ahead of me. I don't have her in the queue. And so we'll bring her up first on comments. So go ahead. Okay, great. Just wanted to ask a question about the 1986 Highland Area plan. Is this part of the, uh, is that the West Area plan that it's happening right now? I'm just curious whether this is set to be updated sometime soon because I was eight when that plan was written. Correct? Yes. It is part of the Near Northwest area plan. Okay. We are looking at the site. Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate that. Thanks, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn. Hey, Madam President. Edson, with the rezoning of these two parcels, that leaves one parcel. Let me get over to my map here. One parcel remaining at 3749 anchor just to the south of the other one that would still have the industrial, a zoning and sort of isolated. There was are you aware was there any attempt to include that parcel? It seems kind of odd to have an industrial parcel the size of a small home lot six 200 square feet zoned industrial in an otherwise not industrial area. That was probably better answered by the applicant. I believe they did try to reach out to that specific property owner, that applicant there. Maybe it can answer this. Okay. It just leaving a remnant zoning in in an area that has changed and it just seemed I'm not saying that that's that they should have done that or or should not have done that. I just wondering if they had done that. So. Thank you, Madam President. All right, great. We'll go ahead and get Michael McCartney moved in to the panelists. Okay. We've got Mr. Michael McCarty, one of the owners reps in the queue. And so, Mr. McCarty, did you hear Councilmember Flynn's question or would you like him to repose it? I heard it. Can you hear me okay? Yes, go ahead. Hi, Mike McCarty. I live in Englewood, Colorado. To answer your question. Yes, we did reach out to the neighbor to the south, and they they were not interested in combining or or rezoning at the time that we started this process. Thank you very much, Mr. Mack. And to the rest of the the rest of that block appears to be a two unit zoning. So I imagine we may see the other person at some future date. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And seen no other questions from my colleagues on Council Bill 22, Dash 160. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 160. Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Although this parcel said and is called out the 41st and Fox station area plan, it is actually, as the crow flies, very easy to get to. But if you're walking in a pedestrian, absolutely challenging, which has left this parcel vacant and really, really hard to get to, it's a one way street. So even as if you use the car wash, you are required to use the alley. And it's very complicated. I agree with this rezoning. I think that this is a good use of the zone district to have required commercial at the bottom and have co-living space. A lot of times, especially during the pandemic, people have changed the way that they live. Where you work below and but you want to live up top. The property owner met with the community and myself several different times, probably like three different times to talk about the esthetics of the building materials and other things that aren't necessarily taken into a rezoning application but are very important to my community. And with that, I would ask that my colleagues support this rezoning in Highland. And yes, thank you for calling that out, Councilwoman. So this is part of the neighborhood plan which will be coming forward in the next couple of years. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Or was that a carryover from the last? That's a remnant. Okay. We got that remnant taken care of. I'll go ahead and chime in saying that this meets all of the rezoning criteria. I am happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Death 160. See the ball. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. See tobacco. Clark, I. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Hines Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-1 60 has passed. Thank you again, edson and community member who testified on that bill. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 18th, 2022. Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-168 changing the zoning classification for 4116 Decatur Street in Sunnyside and a required public hearing on Council Bill

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

SeattleCityCouncil_06282021_CB 120106

The Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill. 120106. An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon the BORDO House, a landmark designated by the Landmark Preservation Board under. Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Missile Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through this committee report. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, this is a landmark designating ordinance for the BORDO House, which is located on 14th Avenue near Volunteer Park on Capitol Hill. The Bordeaux house was built in 1903, altered in 1913. The Landmarks Preservation Board recommended designation based on two criteria one that the structure embodies a distinct characteristics of an architectural style, and that this is an outstanding work of a designer or builder. Controls would apply to the site, the building exterior and the entry and stairwell on the interior and on the main entrance. We had the building owners present with us in committee who spoke about the desire to steward this in a historic way for future there themselves. Guests within the home, even though they own it and they have done immense historical research on all of the past residents of the home and are even in contact in communication with the descendants of the Bordeaux family. So I recommend you vote on this landmark designation today. Thank you. Council president, colleagues. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments? Hearing on will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill? This better? I. I want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Bold Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. S notes of President Gonzales. I didn't favor the menopause. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will propose to fix my signature piece of legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record and you can read the short title? Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 120081. An ordinance relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations.

Approves an increase in certain admission and facility rental fees at the Denver Zoo (XC40345).

DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0698

A question. Go right ahead, president. So Council Bill 698 approves an increase in certain admission and fees at the Denver Zoo. So if a representative from the Denver. Zoo would come up. Would appreciate it. If you could introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Shannon. I'm president and CEO of the Denver Zoo. I want to thank you, council president and the council members for being here today. It's an honor. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Shannon, when you came to committee to talk. About. Your proposal to. Increase. Fees. Your r your. Presentation was very compelling as to why there is a need to increase the fees. Could you go over that? Especially because. People love the zoo. And this. Is a good opportunity. To talk about why you need that increase? Sure. So at a high level, there's several different areas and one of them is the increase in food costs we're seeing. I told you about Billy, our elephant who eats over £100 of hay and produce each each day. And the cost of hay, for example, has gone up 77%. Frozen food up 27%. Dry food up 18%. Groceries 16%. In addition, we are fortunate enough to have an animal hospital on site, but our veterinarian costs of caring for the animals has gone up. And I told you about Mr. Orangutan that has daily nebulizer treatments. When we look at our vet operation budget, it's up 51%, vaccinations up 100%, medications up 150%. Diagnostic testing up 108% since we last came in front of you. Also, our maintenance, we have over 100 and city building. Over 100 city buildings were over 118 years old. We have 85 acres and we've seen a 39% increase in our maintenance since the last time we were here. And that being said, I don't take price increases lightly. We are the public zoo. It's all about access and affordability. So we talked about this before, but I just want to remind council that 69% of our admission is free or discounted. Absolutely free admission. So you're not paying a penny to come to the zoo. That's over 350,000 people a year. It's valued at over $5 million. We have over nine free days scheduled for the next year. And then for anyone that's listening, if you're like, I really want to come to the zoo, but, you know, I don't have a car or I needed to find a meal tonight or something like that . How am I going to have access to the zoo? Well, we have something called a Red Apples scholarship fund where we've given over $1.5 million. And if you do Google, you can Google Denver Zoo and Red Apple to get access to those funds to come to the zoo for absolutely free. And families can use it. Teachers can use it. It's available to everyone in our community. And if you submit a request, we get back to within 48 hours. When we look at everyone that comes to the zoo overall over a over a year's time, I know one of the questions I get is, is it affordable? Is our zoo still affordable? Our average ticket price, when you kind of look at it all together and take an average, is $5.31. So I feel that we're still very assessable to the community, but it's something that I think about often and I don't take lightly. When when we were having our conversation in committee, there was a program. That. You had talked about working with. Other cultural. And Denver Parks Recreation. Do you have any news on that proposed program? Yeah, thank you. So I didn't mention that too. So two very wonderful programs, five by five. So five cultural arts by the time kids are five years old, is a program. And then the My Denver Card, which is also a fabulous program. And the zoo is involved in both of those, but it's much bigger than the zoo. It involves swimming pools, a museum of nature and science in several different areas. So. So you are going to be involved in the. Absolutely. Absolutely. So in the five by five program, currently 40% of the program redemptions come to the zoo. And we're going to continue to be involved and support those important community programs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank, Shannon. Welcome. Congratulations on your new position. So I think Councilwoman Monteiro and you just answer most of my questions, but just a baseline question. I don't think we covered what's the increase, what's the cost now and what's the increase you're asking for? Yeah. So the increase in high season is $2 and in low season it's $1. And so if you look at I mean, there's only so many zoo comparables, but if you look at us compared to like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. It's still cheaper, even though we're twice the acreage, many more animals, much more attendance. So so how much does it cost today. To go to. Right. So it's going to go from $15 to $17 in high season and $12 to $13 in the low season. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other questions or comments? All right. That was not called out. So we will go to the SEC. Go to the next one, which is bills for final consideration, which I believe, Madam Secretary. The first one was 620, caught out by Councilwoman Fox.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with Public Works and report back in 60 days in relation to the current outreach efforts through the Clean Long Beach Initiative. Request staff to implement a pilot decal program within the East Village by applying informational city decals on locked bins distributed from the Locked Bin Program.

LongBeachCC_05222018_18-0423

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item is 18. Item 18 is a communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Recommendation to the city manager to work with public works and report back in 60 days on current outreach efforts through the Clean Long Beach Initiative. Oh, this is this is what we were just talking about. I'm sorry, I. Okay. This is decals, though. Oh, this is decals. What is this? Oh, there's two items. The first one was about the locked bins. Okay. This one is about putting decals on the lock bins, direct people to services. Okay. Got it. Councilman Pierce. So this is simply what we just talked about, what? We want to give some direction to the city staff around making sure that there's decals on the locked bins for people to have direction to services. We know that a lot of people do depend on, quote unquote, dumpster diving for resources, whether it's food or things to sell. And so we just want to make sure that we're directing people to the right place. One of the issues that we talked about, too, was making sure that we have the Go Long Beach app link on there and we're encouraging more people to download that as part of the decals so we can work with this . But I want to encourage my council members to sign on to this as well. Joe came. Back decals. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Any public comment on this, seeing none accountable. Gonzales comment This is great. Another good one for public outreach. Just wonderful. Thank you. Great members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Economic Development and report to Council in 60 days on the sales tax receipts for the Broadway Corridor between Chestnut to Alamitos Avenues and Alamitos to Orizaba Avenues.

LongBeachCC_03172020_20-0233

So are the six seven. By District eight. District nine, District nine. All right. Thank you. I'm moving on to item 19, please. Communication from Council Member Pearce. Recommendation to request a report to council in 60 days on the sales tax receipts for the Broadway corridor between Chestnut and Alamitos Avenues and Alamitos two or Zorba Avenues. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. Thank you. This is an item that would be historical from the past, so we'd like to go ahead and take a vote on it. But it is not an urgent item by any means. But if we could go ahead and make the vote tonight. I do appreciate it. Great. Can you make that motion, please? Most motions motion to approve Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Russell. Okay. Can I get a second? Sunday house. Mr. Kent, do you have a comment from the public? I would like to commend Councilwoman Pearce for bringing this item to the agenda. I own a small business within this corridor and I would like, you know, with the economic development team to really be mindful in particularly business corridors that don't is as prominent as, say, um, Bixby, Bixby Knolls or in Belmont Shores. The economic impact of things like the current pandemic they were going through. And I think that the numbers will show the informal economy sufferers the most in these kinds of moments. And I appreciate the city jumping on this. Thank you. Mr. Kemp. If you'll just stay up here for a second. Let's go out and take that vote. And so, district one. OH, Mr.. To. By District three. I Patrick for. All right, District five. By District six. By District seven. I. District eight. I took nine. District nine. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you.

Councilor Janey for Councilor Edwards offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Michael Bonetti, Yamina Lachmi-Benbokreta, Theresa Malionek, Ricardo Patron and Jesse Purvis in City Council effective December 18, 2021.

BostonCC_12082021_2021-1257

Docket 1257. Council Agenda for Councilor Edward. Chair Suspension of the roles and passage of docket 1257. All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. Good job, everybody. We're now moving on to late file matters where there will be more in the personnel file. But before it we must allow it. Before that, we have to have a total of eight late file matters in absence. Letter from counselor Janie and absence that are from Counselor Edwards and then six personnel orders. So we are first taking a vote to add these items to the agenda, all those seven seven personnel. I apologize. So we have a total of nine, the two letters and then. Two letters. And then seven personnel. It's. Six seven. Okay. So everyone's clear on what we are doing right now, which is just voting to put these matters before us. All those in favor of adding these late files to the agenda, please indicate by saying I oppose nay, the ayes have it. The late file matters have been added. Madam Clerk, would you please read the First Lady file matter in and place it into the record? To the clerk.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution to set operating days and hours for Parking Meter Zones 1 and 1A, pursuant to Section 10.28.130 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, to Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays, during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., for a maximum of two hours, at a rate of $1.00 per hour. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_03232021_21-0251

Motion carries. Okay. Next up is Adam 15. Please report from Public Works recommendation to request city attorney to prepare a resolution to set operating days and hours for parking meter zones. One and one a district three. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second, please? IV in motion by Counsel Murray. Can I get a second? Second bye. By Vice Mayor Richardson. No public comment on this item. So, members, please go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. By District nine. All right. Motion carries item 16, please.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the city of Kirkland's South Kirkland Park-and-Ride elevator and pedestrian bridge project; approving an interlocal agreement between King County and the city of Kirkland to provide partial funding for the project, and authorizing the King County executive to execute temporary and permanent easements for the project.

KingCountyCC_09072016_2016-0351

Thank you. Others in favor the minutes as written. Please say I I those opposed. Nay, the minutes are approved as written. We will be postponing item number four and we will be going into a briefing since we have employees here that we would like to honor their time. So we will start at number seven, and that is the briefing and the update of the sheriff's new domestic violence unit. Mr.. Does would you begin briefing us? And welcome to our sheriff and also to Mr. Martin. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Yes. As you mentioned, we will be hearing from the prosecutor's office and the sheriff on their new domestic violence unit, and that is relative to report 2016 be 0159. And as background for the briefing, the Council added in the 1516 Biennial Budget 872,003 FTE to reestablish a domestic violence unit within the King County Sheriff's Office. The prior DV unit had been cut in 2009 as a result of reductions made during the Great Recession. The ad was accompanied by a proviso that required the KSO to produce a report that included an analysis of expected impacts of establishing the DV unit and the identification of desired outcomes, goals and specific performance measures for the unit. The Kato produced that report and it was subsequently accepted by the Council in April of 2016. So with that as background, I would just go ahead and turn it over to David Martin, senior prosecuting attorney and the King County sheriff, for their briefing. Thank you. Mr. DAWSON Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to be here and talk about something that's been such a success. Now, when I came into office in 2012, one of the things I wanted to do was reestablish the domestic violence unit in the sheriff's office. As I mentioned, we had it through 2009, but I thought it was time to start over again and really emphasize these, particularly in these crimes are insidious in the effect they have on the community and the effect that they have on families.

Recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the Language Access Policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03032015_15-0174

I'm here. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 24 Report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the Language Access Policy Citywide Camera Tour. This over to Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members. As you know, we adopted the language access plan approximately six months ago. The council asked us to come back at six months just for a look see at the program. So without having to turn it over to our development services deputy director Angela Reynolds and her trusty aide, Tracy Klinger. Good evening, Mayor and council members. As I said, we're back with our six month status update. We actually adopted the Policy Council did on August 13th, 2013. As per the policy, the staff report is. To give you the biannual update. So several initiatives have occurred to further the implementation of LEP and there's a whole series of them which I'll go through fairly quickly and then we can have questions at the end. So a directory of staff receiving bilingual pay for LEP languages is complete and available on the city's intranet and that's a resource for people. The city staff that encounter the public, whether it's at a public counter or on the phone or any of the departments of the city. City employees have been notified about that directory. Tracey has actually worked with a number of departments to look at the directory and understand how to use it. And then one of the other things that was a big issue for us is the translation of important documents. We worked with the Language Access Coalition and identified 175 documents citywide to be translated. And to date we've done 106 documents, and the remaining documents will be translated by the end of this fiscal year. The Technology and Innovation Department is currently updating the city's website. The website was also a place that we wanted to do some language, access and translation. And during phase one of the website update, Google Translate will be made available on the city's website. So every page will have. A Google. Translate button that people can just press on. During phase two of the website update, the most frequently used web pages will be reviewed, revised and translated into languages. Oral interpretation documentation translation continues to be available upon request. As you can see on all city charter, there's tag lines on the bottom of the agendas. The language line pilot program with public works is now operational and public works. Refuse call center has outgoing messages in lap languages. So that's the first call center that we're experimenting with to collect data on how how many calls we get in each of the languages. And if somebody calls in a language where a call center person is not identified, that speaks that language, they they buzz right into the language line. And that's the way they're able to do the translation. And we are also going to start doing a beta test and development services. Since we both work there and that would probably be the easiest one and we serve many customers probably the most in the city at our fourth floor counter. We're going to do the beta test of doing a phone lines which have outgoing messages in lap languages. There are three types of phone lines, so we've been working with technology services to understand how we will get this up and running. It's actually kind of complicated in terms of the telephone lines. There are three lines or the call center lines and there are auto attendant, which means it's a voicemail box and then the live person . And each time each of these types of lines will be evaluated in the Development Services Department as part of the beta test. So we're hoping that lessons learned from that will be incorporated into doing additional city department telephone lines. And then we met with the advocates several months ago and staff about charged children as. Interpreters. So staff worked with our city attorneys to do a Paul. It's actually a procedure about child interpreters, and it's attached to your staff report as Exhibit B. It's not to be a part of the policy, but as an aside to talk about process and procedure, about how we actually implement that idea. The next steps include providing training for employees, receiving bilingual skill pay. A slap notice will be mailed to All Long Beach residents. We're going to continue translating the auto attended lines, analyze results from the Public Works pilot program, and then start to institute language line and all the other call centers. That concludes my report. And we can answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Randall. I'm sorry, Mr. Reynolds. Council Richardson. Thanks, Vice Mayor. So. So this has been coming along, and I'm very pleased to see that. I mean, at this point, you know, there are fewer and fewer people in the audience. And the conversations with the community about this are they've come a long way. They've come from this is something we need to do to this is something that we're tracking. It's progress and here are milestones and here are our benchmarks and we get to actually follow it. So so I'm very I'm very glad to see that this is this is where we are. At one point, it was a wish list, and now we actually have funding allocated to this. And and and it's a real commitment on behalf of the city. There's a few things, a few questions. So just some clarity. So language line. So we know that it was it was piloted in public works. Do you have any anecdotal examples or any sort of a how you know, how often is it being used? The language line program. Councilman Richardson, we're actually doing that tracking now. So I don't really have anything anecdotal for you other than to say Spanish is the most heavily used line. Okay. When do you think we can start seeing some analytics from that? Like how many people are actually calling? Because we wanted to do the pilot and I don't remember what the timeframe was, but the whole expectation was we wanted to use it as a pilot to see, you know, is this is this a real thing that that is actually helpful to to people? And that's why I moved it from the health department to the Public Works Department. So when do you think we can have an update on like analytics? Well, definitely by your next bi annual update, we will have that all analyzed and we'll probably have started on another call center by then. Great. On public area notices. I know that we said that we were going to start doing outreach. I know your memo says that you wanted to wait until the whole policy was implemented before going out and doing notification. But the notification piece was really important to me, I think well to a number of the council members from that discussion. So yeah. So why can't we go out and like talk about the language? What are we already talking about in some less formal way than public notices? And are there elements that we can go out and publicize now? Councilman Richardson, we're working to get notices out and to all Long Beach residents. Yeah. Through utility billing. But in addition to that. Um Development Services has quite a few large scale planning efforts in going on around the city, and all of those documents are translated or so people understand that, you know, that's how we're getting sort of the word out. So we're thinking. So we know that. So it sounds like. I don't know. I'd like to see, like, a deadline. I'd like to see, like, a commitment to, hey, we're out and we're talking about it, and we have public notices out there. So we're talking about put them into the get utility bills. I think that's a great solution. When do you think we can do that? When can we just put a deadline so we have some closure on that issue? We've been working with staff and we've got it slated for May or June. Okay, so June at the latest will have the notification. We're out there. Perfect. All right. So on telephonic messages. So you've begun the process. You've translated. What was the 106, was it? No, that's the documents. How many phone messages have we translated? Outgoing messages. Excuse me. Councilman, we're in the process of doing the development services main lines right now, so that'll be about three or four of them. Okay. So I guess the same question is what date can we. Make public that we can actually, you know, say that these numbers have been translated. Well, I can't give you an exact date at this point other than to tell you that we're working on it and we're working with technology services. And so there. To do these telephonic messages is really something that is. Very complicated. It takes a lot of manpower. And luckily, the one person in the city that's able to do this is helping us right along. So I would say if I had to guess for development services, we will have those. Trent, those three or four lines translated in all four languages because they're in Spanish now in let's say early May. Early morning. So definitely by June. So we'll have those done. I'm literally going through the check off list and everything that doesn't have a date. I'm just curious what those dates are so we can add some clarity to this. And it sounds like things are lining up for by June. These things can be implemented. So we can have analytics on language line by June. We can have our notices go out by June. We have a timeline on I know the website's a much larger project, but how soon are we talking about having the the Google Docs , the Google Translate piece? Technology Services is reporting mid to late April. April, so definitely by June. So that's that. I know that we're talking about doing the training piece later and I'm okay there. The vital documents. I think that's I think that. Thank you for actually listening. The the documents have been translated. So I appreciate that. And and how's it going in terms of the public meeting and hearing requests for interpreters? It seems like that that process is going pretty well. It's going very well. We have a vendor for that and any time anybody is having a meeting and wants to have translation there, we provide it through the vendor. Okay. So it seems like of the things that we fund it and we applied to $250,000 to, it seems like we've made progress on all of them, but we haven't committed to like a timeline that we can like a concrete timeline. So on those, but we've talked about like April, May, June, so at least by June when we have an update on those. And then the final issue that you touched on was the was the you mentioned the city attorney's office and you guys mentioned that issue. And putting this child interpreter statement into the policies and procedures manual was the option you the option you selected to go go in and go into and from. And can you provide a better explanation or maybe city attorney provide a better explanation to what the specific implications are if we actually list this language into the language access policy? In addition to your, you know, your policies and procedures. Members of the council at Councilmember Richardson. The statement is is attached as Exhibit B. I think that we were trying to reach some sort of a staff policy level and guidance for all of the departments to discourage the use of children being using children as interpreters or minors as interpreters. And so it's kind of self-explanatory. So I'm not sure if I understood your question. So we have the language access policy adopted, which development services put together, and a lot of work was done to that. And then this piece, this statement we're including in our Policies and Procedures Manual, it just makes sense to me that when you reference the language access policy, we should be able to see statements related to language access policy there. So I just want to know specifically, I'm sure there was a methodology for doing it that way. I want to have that conversation publicly. Why is it in this body, in this body of work and not in any other work? Well, Councilmember, it's like when we update an ordinance, we refer out to things that are existing, whether it's fee ordinances or any other thing that's part of that ordinance or the process or procedures. But we don't put them verbatim into the ordinance or the policy in case they change. So we don't have to come back and renew the policy. If we're trying to change something, we don't have to open it back up. So what we could do in six months is we can come back with a section in the policy about child interpreters and refer out to this paper, to this exhibit. Thank you. So that works for me here. So here's what I like to do, and I see that the maker of the motion is councilmember urine on here. So I'm going to offer some friendlies, councilmember, to your motion. And it's all consistent what we discussed. I think that we've we I like the report that we've gotten. I like the answers we've gotten in terms of the deadline. So I would like to say, see if you can add to your motion that we receive a report from city staff by June 1st on the implementation, like the implementation of the of the key elements we just mentioned that will be implemented by June. And those are the analytics on language line, the Google translate on the website, the recorded telephonic messages in the resident notices inside the inside the utility document. So I think that cleans it up. So if you can, that would be my friendly. And then secondly, oh, as well as the policy we refer to the updating the policy with the reference on child interpreters. Let me get let me get some clarification on this with this. Would this be something that you would do anyway in the six months report? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I think it's within it's within the motion to do those. All you're doing is clarifying, provide specifics in regards to some of those reports that you want back. So I think. Yeah. In other words. Yes. Right. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Although we're going to get it back anyway, but it's going. To remember you. Yeah. And the other part, just a clarification. If I understood it previously in our discussion that we had about this in terms of the, the the children interpreters, that that is more of a procedural type of effort, not a policy type of effort, that it would be something that that staff would be directed to follow in the event that they were confronted with a situation where there was a child being used as a translator. So it's not a policy per se, but more of a procedure. Yes, Councilman, you rank it. That's the way that we're seeing it in case anything needs to change in the future. But it's not a problem to actually have a section in the policy that we could bring back and have agendas at our next six month visit with you so that you could take an action to actually add that reference out into the policy. Okay. All right. I guess I have the Q You did? Okay. In regards you mentioned that you translated 106 out of the 125 documents. Are you prioritizing some of these? Because I see that some of these documents that have not been translated as yet include some in the fire and police departments to the most important departments that I think would require almost immediate types of translations. Yes, Councilman, you were right. Let me tell you the way we're actually doing it. Look, instead, we are we've already reached out to all the departments that have identified important documents. We are working with them. Tracy meets with departments at least three or four times a week to talk with them, try to get their data from them . And as soon as she gets it, it goes out to the translator. We have a translation vendor as well. So they everybody knows that they're supposed to what they're supposed to give. And we're just facilitating that and doing the staff work to get it done. Yeah, well, the only reason I've seen it, because I think that there was a translation service for like for example, domestic violence resource for four forms, temporary restraining orders. That type of information has not been translated yet. So I think that those are two very important documents that that I think would be very helpful almost immediately. And we'll take note of that and we will call the police department tomorrow. Okay. Those are the your questions I have. But I want to thank the language Axis Coalition for bringing this forward and and for and to Councilmember Rex Richardson for his support on this. That's an important job. We've committed a lot of resources to it. And I want to thank you for it, for your tenacity and perseverance in pushing this forward with us as well. Thank you. Councilman. Yes, thanks. You know what, Councilman? You, Ranka and Rex. I think it's really a this is a great, you know, item that you guys brought in the policy that you brought together, especially with the language access. And I would really want apply to all of the individuals out there, you know, for working so hard on this and especially what you and Councilman Richardson is doing, you know, about the kids, because that's very, very important, especially in my district, you know, being that of Cambodians, most of the times it's the kids. It does all the, you know, language interpretation. And that's you know, I think sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. But I think we really kind of hit it on the nail. We're working hard with that. So I just want to thank the staff also for your hard work on this policy because it's really exciting. And I know this is a long time coming because we started this, you know, last year and we're finally getting around to some fruition on this. And I want to thank all of you guys for your work on this and especially that, you know, the staff. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Andrews, Mr. City Attorney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Richardson, on the clarification of the motion, I believe you asked for a friendly amendment to come back in June. Do you want this or this is going to come back at the regular six month? No, I was. So what? I'm okay with the format that Ms.. Reynolds mentioned. So it was a report, a report by June on those specific elements. But when's the next check in? Six months from now. That's fine. I think I'll wait. But you actually going to have to bring it back to city council for the vote to put on the policy, right? Exactly. So if I could bring it back in six months, we'll have definitive answers for you like, oh, it's you know, we did the notification, we did the phone line. I'd like to I would prefer the two from four in June. Okay. The dates, we disagree, but we just talked. ATF is. Fine. A lot of them were. A lot of them were. April, May and June will just make it clean. And what I'm references in terms of in terms of the action to integrate into the policy like how long do you think it would take just to have just that action placing the reference into the policy, how much time you need. I'm flexible on. This. Okay. Well, we staff takes about there's about a one month cycle for staff to get something on the council agenda. So by June we'll do that to do everything by June one. Well, I can do that. Do you want to or do you want to just just come. Back to TF on the items we're going to that we're going to reference. Right, that just the specific like the update on implementation, I think in making the adjustment to the policy is a separate item that actually has become the council, correct? Well, you. Mr. City Attorney. Yes, that. Would have to does and that would be in your normal six months of September. If I may. Yes. Good evening, Vice Mayor Low and members of the City Council, Arturo Sanchez with the city manager's office through the chair. Councilmember Richardson. The cycle that you would be putting us on in terms of coming back to the Council in June? Would then you'd have a report in June and then a six month report in August. Really? Respectfully, just. I'm not asking for a report yet. No tff tff in June. But but right now I just to ask you for clarity, just to make sure that we're on the same page. So tff in June, the six month report in August, coming back with the policy edition that we are talking about regarding the use of miners. Because that would that would get both items in front of you at the same time. So you can knock out both the six month, six months. That's what you're suggesting. That makes more sense. I'm okay with that. Okay, yeah. If the maker of the motion is okay with that. So, yeah. So I guess his only changes, I guess is only changes when we when it, when we come back to city. So we have the two from four which confirms what we're, you know, the implementation we have that by June, the two from four that codifies that. And then when we come back to City Council, what's placed on the agenda actually amends the policy at the next update when it comes back city council. That way we don't have to take the City Council twice in six months. I'm comfortable with that. Okay. So there are no other speakers cued up. There's been a motion by Councilmember Your Honor and the second by Councilmember Richardson. Is there any member of the public that wish to address council on this item? Please come forward. State your name. Hi. Hi. Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor. City council, city staff and everybody who came out here tonight. My name is Alex Montano. Since I'm a first district resident, I'm with the Filipino Migrant Center and the Language Access Coalition. First off, we just want to thank everybody, City Staff Council and everyone who has been part of moving forward the language access policy. It's really a huge victory for the people of Long Beach, which is, you know, one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the whole U.S.. Tonight, I just want to provide a brief context about the language access policy and just outline a few basic requests from the Coalition. A Brief History. So in November 2011, the language access policy was introduced and the city staff were instructed to draft a policy in 120 days in August of 2013. The policy was approved by City Council, a major victory. And then in September 2014, the policy was finally funded for $250,000 for the 2014 2015 fiscal year. But now it's March 2015 and the language access policy has not been fully implemented. And we know that there's been great strides by city staff to move forward, but our community members have not seen a tangible result. We haven't seen tangible results that this policy has been fully implemented. And so all the all of our members of the community are asking, how long do we have to wait until this is fully implemented? And so our requests are, number one, we respectfully request that the city council direct city staff to fully implement the policy by June 1st, 2015. Number two, we also respectfully request that the policy is amended to include the children used as interpreters in the policy itself. It would be a stronger statement and better protection for the city and all of our children if it's written in the policy. And so we, the Language Access Coalition and thousands of other residents here in Long Beach believe that these are ways that we can move this forward and provide greater access to thousands of residents in the city. And so in the next coming testimonies, you'll hear stories from other Long Beach residents who have been denied language access here in the city. And so we also once again ask, how long do we have to wait? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. All my cancer council. Uh, my name. I'm doing that blue in the first three. And one, three, four, four Sandy Avenue. Lovely. And. Uh, carpeting. I think I can hide the baboon. I can't be. Hey, champ. MAN To. Galina. Yeah, that movie. Here they come. Again. On Monday, February 9th, 2015. I made a phone call to a public office. To get to some of them. Regarding garbage bins. So I pay them so much. So at that time I requested I would like to request it to speak to a an employee who can speak Cambodian. Japan. Now that we kind of got by on a salary. And they did refer me to an employee who speaks Khmer, which is a Cambodian language. Job that they hire. But amount of me and. At that time I waited for 5 to 10 minutes, but there was no person speaking Cambodian. Uh, how did they know me? And from the entire phone gets on my phone. And then this voice from the telephone just telling me to leave a message on that telephone. Which means that at some kind, I mean, uh. It's crucial if there is an employee or employees of the city of Long Beach who can speak my or the Cambodian language. Mm. How you. Was my to me in the room had got like a sonnet card line that you can. For example, let's say there's there's an urgency or emergency situation. Let's say there's a fire call. And when someone makes a telephone call and nobody is able to to respond in the language, the target language, it would be an issue. My phone. Yeah, but what it would be. Wonderful if there's a Cambodian speaking employee or who can converse back to us. And that we can understand. I thank you very much. Good evening, Honorable Council and Mayor. My name's Alicia morales. I am a second district resident and I am an organizer with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. Thank you for taking the time to address this issue of Language Access tonight. And while there has been a lot of good work done around this issue, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. For this reason, I brought with me today testimonies from many as our class that we conduct in the mornings in regards to experiences that our community members have faced within the last year with the lack of implementation and how this lack of implementation of the Language Act as policy has affected their lives in hopes that you would take their experiences into consideration. So does the story of Blanca, a resident from the first District. Blanca's child got severely sick and was forced to call an ambulance after this incident passed the ambulance center bill. She was then told to take the record. Her meant her son's medical records and a copy of the bill and take it to City Hall where she can finish the paperwork and pay for it. Blanca came to City Hall and had trouble identifying the proper window in which to pay her bill. She entered the first lane that she saw and when she reached the counter, she was told there was a wrong lane for her issue. There was no one there to help her because of her lack of English alone. Blanca grew desperate and frustrated, and after hours of waiting and receiving unclear directions, she left City Hall flustered without paying her bill. Not paying her bill made Blanca anxious, but she did not want to go into City Hall again, anticipating that there was no one willing to help her and she would meet some closed doors again as. As the deadline emerged, she had no choice but to attempt her bill again. However, this time she was successful because there was a bilingual person she was able to approach. But she avoided City Hall because she anticipated that no one would help her. In a more severe case. Marino, who is also a Long Beach resident, last month was wrongfully identified as an individual who stole a car. She was stopped by eight police officers when she was driving on the road. Because of her limited English, the situation which was stressful enough, already turned into something more severe for Marina as she tried to explain with flashing lights in her face and yelling that she could not speak English. She was trying to explain that she had just bought the car and that this was an issue of wrongful identity. But she could not. She was able to eventually communicate with someone. But Marina, who suffers from anxiety, was a point of fainting and couldn't even drive home after this situation. In these experiences of extreme stress, there was no a time for language access for people like Marina four for Blanca. And this further triggered harm to our residents. When should have an implementation of our policy been implemented already? They wouldn't have occurred. These common practices and experiences of our community members are a reflection of the lack of this implementation. While we have a long way to go, our community members are still paying the price for this inaction. I'm almost done. I'm almost. And I swear. So hope you can take their experiences into consideration and to push for a June 1st deadline because of the experiences that we've seen within the last year. A very. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. In evening. Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight about language access. First of all, my name is Renee Castro. I live at 616 Grand Avenue in the third district. And I want to thank my councilmember, Susie Price, for meeting with our coalition about some of our concerns. I really appreciate the questions tonight. Councilmember Richardson and I'm just really, you know, getting staff to be specific about dates, I think that's super important. And I also want to recognize Councilmember Urunga for your statements, particularly on the domestic violence resources, which I know is really important to Councilmember Price as well. There are critical documents in here that need to be prioritized. I appreciate staff's efforts to get some of them translated, but one concern I had in the council letter is there's a real pattern here of at least that I'm picking up the nonresponse from particular departments. If you look particularly at the council letter and the documents for Parks and Rec, there's been no nothing received from Parks and Rec. I can see on the council letter also gas and oil is there's a dearth of documents there. There's this it doesn't seem to be any response there. And then again, just prioritizing particular documents. So I understand staff, you know, Tracey going out and meeting with staff, but I think what we need here is leadership on the council telling these directors, you better get on this if you get a call from Tracy Kalinga. You need to respond to that. So once again, I think the council's efforts and I really appreciate your efforts to really drill down some specifics on this policy. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker. Rotate. Good evening, Mayor. City council members and city staff. My name is Laura Field and I'm speaking on behalf of building Healthy Communities Language and the Long Beach Language Access Coalition. You have heard several stories tonight touching on the importance of real language access in our city. Through my work in the community and in this coalition, I've seen firsthand that language access is a very nuanced process and one that requires our constant attention. I did want to address just a few things that were presented tonight. One, a very large one, actually, for our coalition. We were very happy to hear updates from development services on the progress, and we have been in communication at various points, but we also feel that we have struggled to main communicate, maintain communication in recent months. And as a folks kind of working on the ground with very invested community members in this process, we would just like to keep those doors of communication open and make sure that we are continuing this and are always sort of able to go off each other and understand what's happening, the policy, so we can best communicate that with people we are working with. Another piece I just wanted to place about children is interpreters, the language on that. We understand the concern of the difficulty of amendment for putting something in a policy versus leaving it as an internal policy document. But I think that's why we're here today in the democratic process, because we think if this is more visible, if this is something that's part of policy, that there's more opportunities for community and government to work on that and to give input, not to be left as a staff memo Lost in the abyss. And finally, as the Language Access Coalition, we are asking not for more updates and reports, but for full implementation by June of the pieces that have already had funding allocated. I think a staff report to offer from Memo, however it's delivered, is great information. But all the stories tonight speak about people on the ground not connecting to the services that there should be. So we are asking about implementation and not about reports. So just until language access services are fully implemented and in place, our city residents will continue to have their voices left out of the conversation. We are very excited to be this far in building more language access language thanks to the work of our staff, the advocacy from our council, and we thank everyone who has tirelessly worked on it. But again, we need services now and especially for what has been allocated. So again, we ask how long do we have to wait? Thank you. Thank you. Q We're gonna go back to council. Councilman Mongo. I want to thank the staff for the work that they've done on this and then also to the community group that waited so long to have your item heard this evening. Also, please note that while we are council members here, we also have other jobs and my other government entity is implementing multiple languages on our website in the coming days. So thank you for the information and knowledge you've brought to me, and I hope that you can appreciate that 10 million residents of L.A. County will soon get a new and refreshed website because of your efforts. Not solely. I do have to give my boss a lot of the credit. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Richardson and Durango for championing this. I did meet with the coalition. I think this is a worthy policy for us to pursue. I want to thank staff for the efforts that they've taken on this. I do want to point out that and it's your job and I respect it incredibly, the coalition. But to advocate for the very best situation that you can get to advocate for that the most and the widest amount of resources that you can get, I respect that entirely. And I just I want you guys to understand at the very deepest places of your heart that we really are trying to do the very best we can with the resources that we have. And I don't know if you were here earlier for the budget discussions, but our outlook in the next few years is not so good . So we have to be very prudent with what we do. And although this is an amazing policy, I know that there's always a desire to have more and make it better. I just I want to encourage staff to know that this is a priority for us. I think we've communicated that we would like there to be compliance that's meaningful. And beyond that, we understand and I hope everyone understands that there's financial limitations to what we're able to do and whether or not we can provide. You know, the ideal product at this time is probably not a realistic expectation, but the best that we can do with the resources that we have, knowing that the intent of this council is to provide access information to as many people and residents in the city as possible, regardless of what their primary languages. That's that's our intent. We serve everybody, every single person. So thank you. Thank you. And now we have a motion on the floor, which is Councilman Ringa and Richardson. We're going to go and take a vote on the motion. Motion carries seven zero. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all for for coming out, madam Kirk. Next item. Item 25 Report from Health and Human Services Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary agreements between the City of Long Beach and the Los Angeles County Children and Families. First to accept funding in the amount of 14 413,000 and increase appropriations in the Department of Health and Human Services.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of biomethane and related environmental attributes held by the county; authorizing an amendment to an agreement approved under Ordinance 18363 and amended under Ordinance 18439, for the sale and purchase of biomethane and environmental attributes associated with purified biomethane produced at the South wastewater treatment plant to IGI Resources, Inc.

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0230

I think we can do it in 4 minutes. Mr. REED 4 minutes. We went a little long on the charter review, and this is with respect to our environmental attributes legislation which the Council has adopted before. And I think we've got a fine tuning ordinance. Yeah, very much so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. So this is 2013 0230. You will recall that in 2016 you approved two pieces of legislation. First, that authorized the well that authorized the sale of bio gas from the South Premium Plant to II resources, and it also authorized the sale of environmental credits which are associated with the bio gas. These credits are created under the Federal Energy Independence Security Act. Under that act, EPA used to authorize credits to generators of alternative fuels that are used in the nation's fuel supply. So in this case, Air Resources, which is an affiliate of BP products, North America, would purchase the fuel and the environmental credits in 2016. The council actually approved two pieces of legislation. The first would have approved would approve the sale of the bio gas and the environmental credits. The second, because there was going to be a waiting period during which an EPA registration process to authorize county participation in this market would be required and the legislation allowed for storage of the bio gas during that registration period. So the EPA approval process did go forward. Approval came in August of 2017 and the sale to IEI went forward. The county realized actually $629,000 for the bio gas purchase. A portion of the sale realized $5.6 million up for of the environmental credits piece. So since that time, county attorneys and AGL attorneys have been communicating and I identified a number of changes needed to the legislation. They are those changes I'm going to jump in here are listed on pages 233 and 234 of the staff report. That's too numerous to list here. Morally, right? That's true. All right. But I will quickly note, Mr. Chair, that that is a striker. I, I have to apologize. I got that. The request for your sponsorship for the Stryker to you quite late. And so as I understand, you are considering not acting on the Stryker this morning. No, I. I'm happy to do that. I thought we had advanced this on the consent agenda when I spoke to you in the meeting here. So I thought it was too late to do the Stryker, but I'm happy if the peo and department, you know, it's fine to further refine it. Right. So we're short on time. Okay. Is the committee willing to advance this? Yeah, it can be subject to signature. Is the committee willing to advance this on a regular calendar, which I understand is basically a contract clean up? The legislation? That's correct. Councilmember Lambert. So, yeah. We can do without recommend. Yeah, I think so. I just wanted to make sure that that I'm reading this correctly, that this is an existing contract where they pick up our gas from rent and treatment plant. That's correct. It's gas and environmental credits that are created under VICE, which is the Federal Energy Security Act. So there's an I have no problems with the contract. There are some issues with that. And as far as the leachate and stuff that's coming and some of the gas issues that we can talk about that another time. So I'm okay with doing that, that recommendation. Does this change the fundamental economic return to the county on this contract there? Is there a major change in the economic benefit to King County? Because we spent a lot of time looking at this before. It does and it basically extends the process that's in place. I will will note that there had been contemplation of an actually increase in the environmental credits revenue that has been pulled back through the striking amendment force, which I could go into. But I don't want to unless you ask me to. Just for our department. Could I ask colleagues that we advance this without recommendation to full council on the regular schedule? And I understand that we've had a very limited time here, and people may want to look into it a little bit more. Councilmember Lambert, would you be willing to put them on force without recommendation? 2018 230. Thank you. I'd like to propose ordinance 2018 0230. Whether you pass out is Iraq without recommending that recommendation? And would you be willing to offer the striking amendment? I would be happy to. I'd like to move a Stryker amendment, number. One S-1, all in favor of S-1, making technical and legal changes, say I. Any oppose that's approved, ask the clerk to call the underlying ordinance roll call. This is without recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett, Councilmember Qual. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott, councilmember of the grove. Does not have the votes. I. Councilmember von Richter. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote has five eyes. No nos. Right. We've given a a. We've advanced that legislation with that recommendation to the full council on the regular schedule. And Councilmember Lambert has a question. To I just want to check item number six, which was earlier today, the tentative Cedar Hill. Yes, that was on our consent calendar. Yes. Are you putting that on consent for the full council or is that going to go regular? We did advance that on consent. So if you wanted to pull it off at the full council to discuss that, you would want to do that. Well, maybe if they could talk to me beforehand, because the tonnage that's on here is considerably less than the tonnage that we have had. Okay. So I was just wondering why the numbers were different. We had Pat McLaughlin and a couple other folks from Solid Waste here for that item, but we did move it out early in the meeting. So I think, Erin, I'll get you answers.

Resolution urging the Massachusetts Legislature to oppose H.1234 and the proposed 2022 state ballot initiative. On motion of Councilor Lara, Rule 12 was invoked to include Councilor Arroyo as an original co-sponsor. On motion of Councilors Lara and Arroyo, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_05252022_2022-0686

Borough Council. Murphy Council. All. Docket 0684 will be assigned to the Committee on Government Accountability, Transparency and Accessibility. Mr. Clarke, docket 0685 has been withdrawn. Mr.. Couric, please read. Dr.. 0686, please. Duncan Number 0686 councilors Lara and Louisiana offered a following resolution urging the Massachusetts legislature to oppose Pulse one, two, three, four and the proposed 2022 state ballot initiative. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes counsel. LRA counsel. Laura. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. I would like to suspend the rules and add Counselor Arroyo as one of the original co-sponsors. Counsel Arroyo is so, so added as an original co-sponsor counsel. Larry of the floor. Thank you so much, President Flynn. Today we had a couple of dozen app based drivers and workers downstairs with us and elected officials, city councilors and labor leaders from all across the state coming together in support for this resolution. App based companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash are proposing a disruptive ballot question that's going to deny employees vital workplace protections, such as minimum wage, equal pay, paid leave, retirement, workplace safeguards against sexual and racial harassment, unemployment and worker's compensation. Essentially, they're denying all hope of a workplace where people feel respected, protected and well-paid. Undeniably, we've seen that technology has given workers more flexibility through the gig economy. But the price that working people in Boston are paying for those flexible hours is incredibly steep. We are currently in a pivotal moment where the future of work as digital tycoons are building empires on the backs of underpaid workers who are facing escalating housing, food and fuel costs daily. During the pandemic, women accounted for more than 68% of the nation's 2.1 million job losses. And as a result, many of our friends and families turn to the gig economy in record numbers, especially women of color. At Uber, women drivers increased by 80% in the last year. At Uber Eats, the number of women delivery drivers doubled from April 2020 to January 2022. And at Instacart, over 70% of the company's 600,000 drivers are women. So when app based companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash propose a disruptive ballot question that would deny employees vital workplace protections, we take it as a direct attack on working women, especially women of color and especially immigrants. Many of our friends and loved ones have turned to these jobs out of necessity to care for their own families and to earn extra cash. And it's been to all of our benefit app based services, help us get dinner on the table, travel home from the doctor's office, and have groceries delivered. At the end of the day, they provide ease and convenience, particularly for working class people, the elderly and disabled who have who heavily rely on these services. They are an asset, but this asset is made possible exclusively by the workers whose rights are going to be put at risk by Proposition 22. The statewide measure is being bankrolled by app based companies, and it's an attempted end run around labor law that would create a permanent underclass of underpaid workers of all ages in every community, but especially in black, brown immigrant communities. Big Tech has already spent 224 million on Proposition 22 in California in a successful attempt to exclude rideshare and other app based workers from workplace protections that are afforded to them under the law. And they plan on spending another 100 million here in Massachusetts. If House Bill 1224 passed is going to create a permanent underclass of low wage, mostly black, brown and immigrant workers, by allowing these companies to pay their workers less than minimum wage and provide few, if any, benefits. The numbers that we're currently looking at range from $4.82 an hour to $6.35 an hour. I'm filing this resolution because I believe that the Boston City Council has a responsibility to prioritize workers over corporate profits, to protect our consumers and oppose any measure that's going to facilitate wage theft and undermine the rights and benefits of the working class people who keep our city running. I'm requesting that we suspend the rules and move for a passage of this resolution today. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel. Lara, the chair recognizes counsel. Royal counsel, royal blue of the floor. Thank you, counsel. President Flynn And thank you, counsel Lara, for your leadership here to 2020 to state ballot referendum is essentially asking mass legislators and voters to grant special exemptions from our labor, civil rights and consumer protection laws that are anti-worker, that are anti the rights of our Massachusetts residents who are working in these places, in these gig economies, Uber, Lyft and the different ones that that are partaking. We know that people depend on this work. We know that the current advertising campaign, frankly, to call it what it is, is calling into question that the idea that if we give folks these rights, if we give folks the dignity that they respect as workers, that they should get as workers and the respect they deserve as workers, that we are harming them by removing their flexibility. And I just want to be clear that nothing prevents any of these places from offering flexible schedules or flexible working hours. They are fully able to do that and to continue to provide that flexibility to their workers. The only thing this does is ensure that they're paying into Social Security, that they're paying into unemployment, that they're providing civil rights protections and sexual harassment protections, that they are treating their workers with respect and dignity that they deserve. And so I'm in full throated support for this. It is incredibly important that we stand up for our workers, for folks who are holding it together during much of COVID. Folks were quarantined and ordering their groceries and ordering different things through these apps and relying, frankly, on workers who are putting themselves at risk for very little money and for very little respect from the organizations that they have made very wealthy. And it's important that we change that, that we make sure that that's not the case any longer here in Massachusetts. And so I thank counsel for her leadership here. I think other council colleagues who have stood up on this and have been very loud on this. And I think counsel President Flynn for this moment to share my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. L Would anyone like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counsel. BLOCK. Counsel, block. You have the floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you to Counselor Laura for leading on this. And Counselor Arroyo and I think many counselors are united on this front. It was moving to see so many folks, labor allies from across the state outside in front of the building earlier. And I just really want to briefly emphasize that what Counselor Arroyo said about how there's nothing that prevents these big businesses from providing their workers with flexibility within existing Massachusetts labor law. Where they don't like about existing Massachusetts labor law is that we have some of the best protections for workers in the country, and they're trying to undermine those because they know that these are not outside contractors, that they're dictating far too much of people's workday for that to be the case. And they don't like the idea of having to fund all of those protections. So I just want to emphasize, you know, I think, unfortunately, if if we allow this third category to be created in the name of flexibility, when in fact it's just letting people be workers without all of their workers rights, it's going to hugely hurt our rideshare drivers first. And then it's going to be a category that any number of workers in the Commonwealth could then become shunted into and lose a lot of their rights. So I think it's just a super, super important thing for worker power, for all of us to be pushing back on this and and making sure that Massachusetts voters know what it's really about. It's about the rich getting richer. It's about companies that have already basically set public transit and all kinds of other things in their sights and sort of like captured this big transportation market. And now they're trying to have as much of the profit from that as possible go their way and not to the workers who are, in fact, not even just the ones driving, but also the ones bringing the cars and paying the fuel and stuck in terrible leases for a lot of these cars. It's just it's a really exploitative industry. And this question would make it even more exploitative. And it's just something we can't allow. So thank you so much to my colleague and please. Hi, my name. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK The chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Counselor Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counselor, for putting this on. Putting this forth over and left. This is not our first fight with them, and I don't think it will be our last state. They have been around for a little while and I was involved pretty heavily in with the taxi drivers. We totally crushed that industry there. And that was mostly an immigrant driven. You know, sort of good American story where you could get it, you could legitimately get a taxi. And earn a living in that in that taxi or one or two of them. So we we lost that battle here. Now, they coming after Kensi was eloquent in what she talked about in in taking away the workers rights. So let's keep an eye on them, because I think ultimately it's about it's about getting rid of those workers and replacing them all with automatic automated vehicles. So but thank you for putting this forward and please. And thank you, Counselor Baker. Anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes. And anyone else like to add their name. Mr. Clarke, please. I'd. Councilor Baker Council Bar Council President Council of Kolkata Council of Clarity Council, Media Council. Murphy Council were all and pleased that the chair. Councilors Lara and Arroyo seek suspension of the rules and adoption of darkened 0486. All those in favor say aye. All right. All oppose. Say nay. The ayes have it. The resolution has been adopted. We're onto personal orders. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0687. Duncan Smith 0687. Council of Flynn for Council.

Recommendation to Consider Adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct and Councilmember Handbook, and Code of Conduct, Providing Guidelines for Councilmembers to Follow in Conducting City Business and Fulfilling Their Responsibilities as City Elected Officials. (City Manager/City Attorney)

AlamedaCC_12172019_2019-7532

and direction on how you want this policy to be be used. Moving forward, the background, just to remind everyone the background on this policy proposal is on June 11th, 2019, the Alameda County grand jury recommended that the city more formally establish a council member Code of Conduct Handbook. That is what's before you tonight is a draft code. A Code of Conduct Handbook. On July 16, 2019, the Council agreed with this recommendation and directed staff to return with a Code of Conduct Handbook. The draft is before you tonight and following the Council's direction on July 16th, the city manager's office and City Attorney's Office have been collaborating on consolidating existing city policies and reviewing best practices from other jurisdictions in order to create a Code of Conduct Handbook. And here in the draft that best suits Alameda. The the draft city council handbook in front of you includes the following. The principle areas addressed by the proposed handbook include City Governance, City Council meetings, agenda setting, staff attendance and participation at Council Meetings, public participation at Council meetings, meeting minute in Council Communications with staff and with the public. With that, I want to hit on one highlight. A couple of questions have come up in particular regarding Section e, general Council Communications Policy, in particular with city staff and responding to public. That was just a concept. It was towards the bottom of that particular policy, a concept. It was not meant to be an etched in stone way of communicating with the public by council, but more one strategy that could be used to make sure that there's consistency and in communicating with the public and to make sure that the public communicate with on different, different items. But we are open to a variety of different approaches there. Also, I have sent out based on some impressions with the Sunnyvale policy, the Sunnyvale policy, which I think has some excellent points to it. And so that might be an alternative in looking at policies moving forward with that and over the presentation to even to finish it up. Mr. CHEN. Yes. Thank you very much. I agree with the city manager that we worked on our offices, worked on this policy together to give at least the beginning roadmap for conversation. And we were very much looking for your feedback on any number of fronts. I want to touch a little bit up on one of the alternatives that's in the staff report is that part of the main recommendation, which is the social media policy and this in particular, we put it in the alternative because it really is one that we want to trigger conversation versus having something that's ready for necessarily ready for complete adoption. And we want to get the council's thinking just because there's a range of options available to the council from adopting nothing to adopting a very, you know, a policy that creates a number of limitations. You know, in today's world, the councils and boards and commission members from time to time post social media, that's what happens throughout the state and in fact throughout the country. That happens all the time. And without a policy, the what governs essentially this the Brown Act. The Brown Act basically provides that council members and boards and commission members cannot create a collective consensus outside of a notice public meeting. And so with no policy in place, that is the guiding principle. The concern that could occur is that it leaves a lot of self-regulating to boards and commissions and council members. And one example that was given is that let's say there is a post on a social media page and there is, you know, a thousand comments council members will have to or boards and commission members, if it's within their jurisdiction, will have to look through them to determine how many have posted to make a decision whether or not they violate or not. The Brown Act by posting or not posting. It's something that occurs today and the lack of a policy doesn't change that status quo. With that said, the council has a number of options available to you tonight. You could continue with the existing practice, which is simply comply with the Brown Act and do nothing else. The Council could decide to adopt a policy that only applies either. Or to itself or to boards and commissions or both. The council could decide to make the policy simply a recommendation versus direction. You could take the position that it is recommended, for example, that, you know, members, whether council members or commission members, you know, engage in the practice of not posting if it's something that's coming before you instead of making it a clear direction. And so that softens the policy and gives more discretion. A direction is obviously a more hard and fast rule. So there's a range of discretions there. You also have a range of discretion if you wish to have a policy at all, to think about what are the limitations that you want to impose, a clear limitation you could impose as to say and this is all assuming you want a policy at all, is that you want to limit posting only when there's an item pending or agenda before your body. And so that means if it's not agenda's then not pending, then there's no governing policy and members revert to just general compliance with the Brown Act. You may choose to go a step further, as some jurisdictions have done, and make a determination that in addition to pending an agenda size, you want to limit it to items that a member knows or reasonably should know would come before that body. That's a difficult determination to make for members. You may or may not want that to be a limiting factor, and if you do, you may even want to limited to a discrete time period, because over time almost everything will come before the body. And you may want to say, well, we would you know, we like that limitation, but we wanted to limit it to the next 60 days or 30 days or some concrete timeframe. And so these are the range of options available to you, which is that, you know, not adopting a social policy, social media policy at all, to having a recommended policy to a policy that provides direction and to decide, you know, and if you chose to do any of it, to decide whether or not you want to cover only currently pending agenda items or to reach out a little further. With that, we're very happy to take your questions. And we have no public speakers on this item. Okay. So I'm just going to jump in quickly to say I read through the draft proposal, the hand, the handbook and code of conduct and the social media policy and all that. But then I saw the city manager's email with a link to the Sunnyvale Handbook, and I really like that. And I, because I made a lot of notes when I was going through the proposed policy, I thought some of the language was a bit antiquated and maybe could be, you know, stated a little differently. And then I went to Sunnyvale and it just seemed like it was kind of up to date and they thought it through. So and I'm actually was just looking it up because I don't remember now, did they do it? Do they do a social media policy? They're in the backyard of Facebook and all those places. So anyway, that I just I think whatever we do, whatever we decide to adopt, assuming we do, should be as simple and straightforward. And we and I will say that the policy that staff came up with, I mean, it certainly referenced its various citations of where certain policies were found. But I don't know, I just like Sunnyvale is kind of plain spoken, common sense language. So with that, I'd like to hear from my colleagues. Am I right? Councilmember Odie. Sure. I'll chime in. So I usually look at the agenda with a cursory review and then after I let it percolate, I look at it in more detail. So in between those two days, we received that email from League of Cities and that's where are and I saw at the bottom it was adopting a code of conduct . So I was like, Sounds interesting. I'll click on it. And sure enough, there was the article that popped up, I think it was from Western Cities magazine and it talked about, you know, how councils should you know, this is basically our rules and how we want to work together. Work together with the public, work together with the people we serve, work together with our staff, and, you know, talk about how it's good to have a workshop to develop these type of codes of conduct. And, you know, then there was I couldn't find them just now, but there were links. And then Sunnyvale was one of the links and then the others. And I thought it was a very comprehensive code of conduct. I mean, we have a, you know, ignoring how we got here. This is a great opportunity, I think, for us to kind of show people, you know, what we stand for, what our ethics are and what our values are. And, you know, I think what you guys put forth was a good start. But, you know, I think with some input from the council and if, you know, I like city mayors a lot, I mean, it covered things that were missing, you know, like boards and commissions and our interactions and the mayor being the point of contact for press because, you know, that's what our charter says, that he or she is the is the official head of the city. So I think I mean, I could go into more detail if if we're going to have a more detailed discussion. But I thought there were a lot of things that that covered, you know, like there are some elected officials that weren't covered by the proposed policy. And I think all elected officials should be covered by by this policy. And I don't even know if it's something we could require. As you sign, I guess you you can sign it when you take an oath, but, you know, sign it to file. I don't know if that's something we could add as a as a requirement, but, you know, it would be something that I mean, at the end of it, there was that thing you signed about your, you know, what you were going to promise to do. And I. I can't say I have any complaints about this council, but I think in the past those type of rules and somebody was signing it or not signing it would have made my first term a lot more comfortable. So not so sure. So, again, if we want to give more direction to go back and draft, I mean, I'm happy to have that discussion. But, you know, at a high level, that's my initial reaction on the social media. Wow. That was interesting. I mean, the first thing I did was Google and see Brownback's social media and it sounds like it's covered. So I'm just curious, see what everyone else thinks before I chime in on that one, because I could see where, you know, the mayor and I may have a discussion on something and we've picked each other, has a Brownback person, and then we read Councilmember de Saag feels that way on social media. And then all of a sudden, you know, we know how three people think and maybe, you know, I don't know. Do we not read it? Just it's just very interesting. So I want to hear what others have to say. I just use that as a hypothetical. You weren't driving the chief's car. Or anyone's package. Okay, thank you. Can somebody who's next? Councilmember Vela. Um, so I like Sonny Vaile's code of ethics and conduct. I like that it includes. One change that I would like to have is that it says that it's for the members of the city council and the city's boards and commissions. We have more than just the city council's elected officials. So I just want to make sure that whatever handbook we pass is for all elected and appointed officials in the city of Alameda, and that would include our city auditor and city treasurer. I think that we should all be held to the exact same standard when it comes to code of conduct and ethics. And I think just keeping it general to all elected and appointed officials will have us covered in the event that there's any changes in our charter moving forward. So another thing is, I think that we've had a lot of presentations recently and a lot of laws on kind of safe workplace environments, workplace harassment, that sort of thing. I like that. The Sunnyvale policy includes elected and appointed official interaction with staff. I think that this is something that we can do to bolster the classes and the training that we've had surrounding safe work environments. I think that our staff are working with not just the council but with all of our boards and commissions. I think sometimes there can be differing opinions. What I really like about this Sunnyvale handbook is that it's really about providing a safe place for dialog so that people can have an open conversation but done in a respectful manner. I think that's really the heart of what they're trying to get at, and I want to make sure that that's something that we we strive for and protect, because I think it's very important. I think sometimes in the heat of advocacy, sometimes that can be lost. And I want to make sure that our staff are also understand that and our boards and commission members understand that they're to behave appropriately with staff as well. And those interactions. The other thing that and I don't know if it would belong in the handbook or somewhere else, but I know we lack a fraternization policy as a city. I know that we have kind of we generally adhere to sexual harassment in the workplace policies, but I don't think we have a fraternization policy or a policy on a situation where, you know, there could be a previous relationship and how that could impact people that move department to department or up for promotions, that sort of thing. And that was something that I think is is lacking. Or also, if there's a Border Commission member that I just I want to make sure that when we're doing this, that would be something that we also look to include perhaps in this. And I did speak with a council member from the city of Sunnyvale, and she informed me that that they adopt this it's on their consent every single year. So it's not just when there's a new council, it's every single year and they do it on their consent calendar. And they also let all of their board and commission members know that it's on the agenda. And if especially if there's any changes and they do try to update it regularly to comply with law. And so I think those are things that this is a living document. That we may need to adopt and amend over time. And so, yeah. And then I saw the vice spirited. So I want to thank staff for for four for all of their work I think. Yeah I two when you sent the Senate fail example it answered some questions because I think we have two different handbooks and the Senate bill is much more about kind of ethics and behavior in the the, the, the, the original one was a little bit more of how we run the city and whatnot. I think that there are a couple of things that I that we might they don't really believe belong in the code of ethics and conduct. But I think that there are some longstanding issues and questions that have come up over and over again related to agenda setting and some things like that that were in the Alameda version that may not belong in the Sunnyvale version, but we should find a place to clarify that because since I was on the Transportation Commission in 2001 to that issue of is it the chair of the board and the commission or the staff or is it the council? And, you know, who who who is the final decider? I think it just could use that clarification. Other than that, I would be ready to, you know, with staff's input, but adopt something almost word for word in the Sunnyvale one with with Councilmember Vela's expansion to yes all elected officials that we can cover on the social media policy. You know I like the idea of having something in the in the in the book that basically reminds everyone of the Brown Act potential violations. It's not a Brown Act violation of you and Councilmember Vela. Do talk and then you read something. Tony has Tony could write to the paper and talk to all you know and all of us can read it. That's not a Brown Act violation. It's when you're engaging in actual conversation. So if you if all three of you ended up in the same thread, that's where it gets dicey. Just I just want to clarify. Clarify? Yeah, I. I'm sorry. I'm an American. I may I? Okay. Your Councilor Brody Green ification. The thing that struck me was reading articles like if three people press like then that's kind of an expression of, of support. So that's where I got. Wow. So I don't know. No, no, no. I suppose emerges. I will say the clicking like one was the one that jumped out at me like you know, because I'm like they just click like to say thank you, right etc.. So I will definitely in the future be more careful about that because I do not look at who's like everything, you know, especially in there, 65 people. I'm not going to scroll through that, but I do think that we can trust each other also, or we should start off by trusting each other to look through the comments before we join. There was a conversation the end of last week that I went and I'm like, Oh, I had something I was going to say. And then I quickly went through and there was the mayor commenting and there was Councilmember Vela comedy. And so I stepped back, you know, and I wasn't thinking Brown act at that point. I just thought like, I don't need to add my voice as well. It's, it's, it's but, you know, rather than I, I also I talked with staff earlier. I would be a little nervous as a saying. We can't comment on social media because I don't think it should be required. The people comment. But I will tell you that I think if this if everybody on the dais goes silent on social media, what's the impact in the community is going to be? They don't respond. They aren't, you know, because because at some point or another, all of us have commented on something that that was important to them. And they wanted to know that people were thinking about it and whatever else. And so I think we just need to I think it would be good to have something that reminds us and, you know, adopted every year. But that that that we should be very mindful of not having three people in the same thread. But I would be a little leery of, of voting to outright say no social media commenting at all. And I think we should also, you know, we're all grown adults, I think is becoming a problem. We should we should then at our next not tomorrow, but at our next workshop, we can maybe set aside 45 minutes to talk about it. Before I go to Councilmember decided you want to say something else? Councilmember Vela Yeah, I just on the social media policy, I think sometimes also we click like just to say we hear you like we've we've heard you. Thank you for voicing this. We'll we'll do something about it. I think what we all need to be careful. I know we all want to be responsive and it's difficult. I, I think my my fear is also that we we censor ourselves too much, which I think is what the vice mayor's fear is, where we are no longer being responsive or engaging in a dialog on something that is not actually a matter coming before the council and therefore in Brown Act issue. Thank you Councilmember so. Well thank you. I think the reason why we're having this discussion about the code of conduct really boils down to the part of the draft that has to do with section policy implementing charter review Section seven dash the. Which among other things, has to do with inquiries made by council members of the city manager of administrative tasks. But it also has to do in the last sentence of seven das three. It also has to do with prohibitions on council members in in involving themselves. And this is we have to understand this specific word involving themselves in the appointment of persons to particular jobs within City Hall. So in my opinion, whatever code of conduct that we have, it needs to speak to that particular the last aspect of 7-3, because there really are two or maybe even three elements to seven, dash three one, as I had indicated. First has to do with any queries made about, you know, made of administrative duties that are rightfully belonging to the city manager. But the second part has to do with the appointment intervening or involving themselves in the appointment of individuals with regard to the code of conduct and the appointment of individuals by the city manager and the possible intervention of city council members in that job appointing process. The one thing that I would recommend is that that council members, in no specific instance, never look at council members, never specifically, uh, inquire about or specifically advocate for particularly particular individuals or sets of individuals or particular who are named. They can talk about, inquire about jobs and the type of characteristic the city manager is interested in or the type of characteristics that they are interested in seeing. But as a code of conduct, I believe we need to speak to the prohibition on pursuing, and it can enable even the phrase, the word inquiring can even apply here inquiring about particularly named individuals or even sets of individuals for appointments. And remember that 7-3 isn't is when it comes to the job. It's about appointments of individuals to positions. And I think I need to say that because it's altogether possible that council members might be concerned about a current department head and might want to raise some questions in their private one on ones with a city manager about the the performance of of department heads. That is not an instance of a council member involving herself or himself in the appointment process. The appointment process, in my mind, refers to when there is a position open and the prohibition when it comes to the conduct should simply be a sentence or two that prohibits the inquiring about or any kind of verb about specific named individuals or sets of individuals for appointments to city positions. Thank you. So I'm just going back to the executive summary of this staff report that reminds us why we have this item before us to begin with. And it says that the city council agreeing with recommendations from the Alameda. I think that's Alameda County civil grand jury directed staff to return with a draft council member code of conduct slash handbook in order to provide additional guidance for Council members in the conduct of the city's business in fulfilling the duties of their public office. And that's what we have before us to consider. I also agree with Councilmember Odie, who said I believe when he started his comments that regardless of how we got here, this is a great opportunity and I happen to agree with that. I think that this current council and all future councils are only better equipped, better prepared to do this job by having a clear set of guidelines. And and the clearer and the more readable, the better. I also agree, though, with the vice mayor that the Sunnyvale handbook, I think is great, but it also lacks some of the specific references to our charter and things that I think are important. And so I would hope that when we send this back to staff for further work, that we can meld the Sunnyvale Guidelines Handbook with the with some of the pertinent parts of the proposal that. The. City our city staff came up with. I also. O The one thing you can omit from the Sunnyvale Handbook are the quotes. I do not know why and who. Maybe the city librarian or something chose those. But no, let's just, you know, stick to the basics. The social media policy. I do think something needs to be said. I mean, we can't pretend that we aren't here in almost 2020. And there just are some things I don't you know, we we have First Amendment rights, but we also have responsibilities to adhere to the Brown Act. So good to have those reminders. And I think as as Councilmember Otis said, this is is a great opportunity. And it also just clarifies what we're doing. I mean, this really is a noble endeavor and it should be treated as such. And I also think it's it's exceptionally important in today's world, especially in our country, looking to Washington, D.C., I think we can show that at the local level, we can communicate with civility and respect. We don't all agree all the time, but we can still have a good, productive discussion. And so sometimes we need to be reminded of that. And I think, you know, we've got some really good material to work with here. So, Councilor, ready? So your hand up. Go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to add. Whoops, I just flipped over. I mean, if you look at the Sunnyvale, I mean, it devotes like two pages to an analysis of member questions, inquiries to staff. So I think there's a a good base there to address a lot of the concerns my colleague brought up. And, you know, there's actually a set in a paragraph which I think could be expanded on based on some things that are specific to Alameda, but do not get involved in administrative functions. And it spells out elected and appointed officials must not attempt to influence city staff on the making of appointments, awarding of contracts, seeking of consultants or selecting of consultants, processing of development applications, or granting city licenses or permits. And again, that that's probably a good start. I mean, if it needs to be expanded on, you know, I think we should we should expand on it. But, you know, it's a good start. The topic that came out that did concern me when I did read, uh, the original draft is, you know, I think there needs to be some guidance around what is allowed and not allowed as far as people that aren't are our direct reports because I really don't want to get in the business of disciplining or evaluating anybody. That's not our director party. So I don't know what the answer is. So I'm counting on on our staff to kind of bring that back. It's a fine line between saying, you know, I wish somebody had done this better versus saying, you know, something that councilmember days have brought up. I mean, I'm not sure that's appropriate thing for for a council member to get involved in. You know, maybe I'm wrong and maybe people disagree with me. But, you know, to me, it should be limited to boom, boom, boom. Right. One, two, three. Referencing our direct. Reports. Right. Yeah. Sorry. The question. Is my night, deposition, desire. Nonverbal communication. So, I mean, so basically that's why I like this because instead of, you know, a sentence in a charter, it's two pages of analysis on what an inquiry is. And if we want to expand on that, I'm sure there are other other charters or other codes that have that. But, you know, that's what I like about it because it was pretty clear and. Okay, yeah, things that I don't know if we thought of. So that that's kind of my comment on that. So I would just say that I do think there should be specific reference to Alameda City Charter in and that may be just a melding of two areas. Back to you, Councilman. I'm sorry. And then there's. The last sentence of that said The Sunnyvale charter contains information about prohibition of interference. So, I mean, you can easily just plop our section in there. Okay. Councilmember Avella So I was just going to say the Sunnyvale policy includes, I think, what is really lacking, which is an interpretation of our charter. I think it's great that we have a charter, but I think part of the issue that we've been asked, but part of what we've been tasked at doing is is actually interpreting the charter in terms of how it's applied. And I think referencing our charter section as Sunnyvale has done would be helpful. But I do think our charter says very specifically and it uses the word I think Councilmember de SAC didn't, I think he maybe interchanged the words, but it says that that neither the council should the council should not interfere with the execution by the city manager of his powers or duties, except for the purpose of inquiry. And that's where the the Sunnyvale language defining what an inquiry is is helpful because our our charter lacks that. And then it says an attempt by the council member to influence and I think, again, outlining and defining what we mean by influence would be helpful in the making of an appointment. But part of the city manager's listed duties includes the appointment, discipline and removal of all officers employees of the city under his jurisdiction. So I think, again, there's that fine line. I don't I think that's been pretty clear and pretty clearly drawn. So I think there's an I and I've looked I also looked at the Sunnyvale Charter. Its language is very similar to ours. So I think to the mayor's point of referencing and inciting back should be pretty easy to do, especially if we compare our charter with their charter. One thing I really liked about the Sunnyvale Handbook is it had a little glossary section. Not even section was like half of a page, but pertinent phrases. Were. Spelled out, okay, are we ready for some? Do one more quick things. And I also thought that, you know, it had a really well thought out progressive, I guess sanctions is the word they use. So there was actually some guidelines in case there was an issue. And we had an instance before where, you know, somebody had asked for a police officer to be disciplined based on an interaction with that member's family. So I want to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I mean, to me to me, that's a violation of the charter, if anything is so I want to make sure that, you know, we make sure that that's especially pointed out. So is the direction. If I'm understanding council the direction is we like the Sunnyvale language minus the quotes and but we want to incorporate the the specified aspects the areas where the Alameda the draft Alameda handbook went more specifically into charter a reading of meetings some just some things that Sunnyvale didn't I think I think we really can combine both of them for the best of all worlds and zation policy. Um you know. I. This is a code of conduct for the city council, um, and other electeds, I think an appointed, um, you know, I, I think that one may merit a little further discussion. I don't recall seeing that in the Sunnyvale Handbook. So at this point, unless someone feels awfully strongly. Barrett. I think maybe we get this done. And I. Understand. Is there a separate policy? I just. Well, it's not before us in anything that was provided council or vice mayor. And that's why I think. Well, I guess the first question is, are we going to make a motion to do something or are we just going to send staff off with a general sense of the council. Going back to the the staff report? So. Well, it's and I think the city manager even said this in the beginning that he doesn't necessarily expect us to to come up with a record or that to adopt somebody tonight. But the recommendation is that we adopted as drafted or adopt a truly proposed social media. And then, you know, we got the Sunnyvale language, I think, after the staff report was drafted. So but the city mayor and city attorney, Mr. Chen, can you tell us, what do you think is preferable? Should this council make a motion or is staff direction sufficient or something else? It's you know, we're always happy to take your motion, especially if it means that you would give us specificity so that we can go back and do our work better. But my colleague, the city manager, may have a different thought on this. We definitely want to get your feedback one way or another so that when we bring something back to you that's consistent with your thinking. Mr. Levitt, your thoughts? I'm good with either. Either way, I've been writing down different elements. It sounds like Sunnyvale is sort of the baseline. And then you have some specifics out of Alameda that you want to do. So if the better direction we get, better, we are. But I'm I'm good with either. Vice mayor next. Page. So I'll just try to make a motion which would be to give direction to staff to return to the council with, with a code of ethics that is very much based on the Sunnyvale document. I did not as I didn't hear a lot of significant changes that needed to be had. And given that you've made the list, I'll say consider adding or where the appropriate place to provide the additional items, agenda setting, fraternization, etc. that may not belong in the ethics, but that, you know, I think you could come back and talk about how the city is going to address that issue or would propose to address that issue if it's not the right place. So then I was trying to figure out where it goes. Right. But this is fraternization among council members and board and commission members because that's what this handbook is addressing. And elected and I think we. Could be staff, etc.. Yeah. This. So just so I'm clear, this is a city council code of conduct in council member handbook. Right. I understand. So I guess I'm saying there's an interest. It does overlay with city of elected officials and appointed officials. The fact I would say we should expand it to the staff for consideration and we're just asking staff to consider it and come back with what the recommendation might be. I respectfully disagree. I don't think that it is the City Council's place to implement policies for the staff, especially in this item before us. That is a city council handbook, but I'll defer to the city attorney. And so maybe I think we can we heard the council's concerns and the city manager and I will work together to bring back whatever is appropriate. And it may not be an item, it may be some of the format, but we'll we'll come back to you. So I'll finish making my motion because I didn't get there. So it would include that direction for that consideration, but it would also include the direction to include social media language that does not prohibit but does highlight the Brown Act considerations. What did you excuse me just for clarification based where did you say we are directing them to bring back a fraternization policy for a staff sitter? Whether they should come back with a fraternization policy. Whether that's appropriate. And where where it would go. It's not I didn't they were not directing and put it in here. And there might be a fraternization. They may say we already have it covered. They may say that we think that this is a good idea. We'll bring it back as a policy. But yeah, yes. But referring to city staff when we're talking about a city council handbook. Referring to elected and appointed officials, but also broadening it to include city staff. Yes. I hear you don't like the broad name, but but I haven't heard that that this is an inappropriate, minor amendment to the direction that everybody should play by the same rules. And so if we're considering it for elected and appointed officials, we might as well also just included a B on that. So I think I think, you know, the city manager and I think understand that there's some interest in the council for us to bring in this information back and we'll just bring the information back to you at whatever appropriate form that will be excellent. I could live with that. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I mean, I'll second it. Okay. We have a in discussion. Councilmember Daza. Yes. I will support the motion. Only because I think it's important for us to have language come back to us where we can make a decision, yay or nay, howsoever we want. The thing that I'm going to look for, though, is language that is specific to the code of conduct regarding interference in the appointment process. Because if we leave it vague, then the code of conduct is going to be as vague as the charter that were last. So many people are saying is vague, which I do not believe the charter is vague. The vague is quite clear. The charter is quite clear. So but I think it's more important than just to have the conversation just started so that we can make a decision. One last point. So in terms of department heads, the city council does have a role with department heads in the charter. So it's the city council that determines the offices of the departments and that the city manager then fills those offices. But it's the city council who determines the offices of the departments. And we can make we can change the composition howsoever we want. So there is a review process and it's charter item two, dash three, take a look at it. So I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing is in the spirit and in keeping with the recommendations of the civil grand jury. That is the reason we're considering this today. So and I understand that the city attorney and city manager are also cognizant of that. And, you know, this civil grand jury was not concerned with fraternization among staff or whatever. But I trust our our city staff to come back to us with an informed product. So we've had a motion, we've had a second all in favor. Oh, I was going to add one more comment, but. I. Think we've had a lot of comments. One last one. And, you know, we are going back into closed session. Okay. Just a drafting request that we don't have to cut and paste like parts of our charter and sunshine urns. We can just incorporate them by reference. That would be a preference of mine. Okay. Are we ready to vote? Let's do it. All in favor. I oppose. Abstain. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay. We are moving on to item seven City Manager Communications.

Final Passage of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building 8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2730

To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation. Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker at this time. Michael McDonough. Good evening, mayor, and members of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to repeat our support for this project, the chamber's support for this project. In the last reading, I made the point that the formula for evaluation had been set by presidents, so that should not be an issue . But as one going on further than that, as one of the esteemed members of this council said after the last reading, and I paraphrase, It's not just the price for the land, but the cumulative value for Alameda after the project has been developed. And this project really is a tremendous value to Alameda, we believe. Number. Me tell. You. I know that last time. I think you're sitting in the corner. Number. Number one, it transforms a long, vacant space that no one else has stepped up with. Another offer that would make a better value to the city. It's also an opportunity to expand on the maker's movement that has sprung up in Alameda, but not only adult makers spaces. There's been one very interested tenant that will bring a kid's maker space there, and I think that's tremendous for the kids that we have. I've also spoken to the developer about making vocational educational opportunities available. Things that are now no longer available in our high schools. But I think an important part of the future employment of our kids who don't choose to go on to college and. Lastly, the project will bring about 480 permanent jobs. But don't forget the temporary construction jobs, which many of our local businesses will bid and receive those contracts for the construction. And I know several that are members of the chamber that I know personally who intend to build on those projects. So we do believe this. This continues to offer great value to Alameda. We believe the value to the city as far as the price of the land is fair based on the improvements that are going to go in. And also the fact that it's a work live space really does mitigate any kind of traffic issues that might come up as well. So I think it's a win win for all and we support it. Thank you. So I had pulled this item at the last meeting. It was discussed. I believe the developer was thinking about having up to 100 space, 100 of these work live units. And at that time, the valuation per my question did not consider or was not affected by whether or not it had work live units. And the concern of mine and another and another concern is that these units do not count as housing for the city's code, which means they do not impact the number of housing units that we're required to have as the city. By the state. And now with this report that it appears that actually there's another part of the city's code, so that the number, the maximum number of work live units is anywhere between 73 to 86. Now that there's the city's. Change the number of units from what the what was spoken last time. Can someone speak to that? Evening. Mr. Spencer members of the Council. In terms of the number of work live units allowed on the site, the city's work LIB ordinance sets a maximum number allowed on any particular piece of property. It's almost based on the size of the property. This 73 number is based on a the specific amount of land that is available to this project. Today, there is another small piece that we anticipate will become part of the project in the future when the Navy conveys it to the city. It's the reason why we expect it to be part of the project is because we know where the roads are and that peace is between the building and the road. So it's a natural addition. So if you do the calculation on how many work live units they can do on the property today, based on the actual land that we have from the Navy, it's 73. If you assume that that sliver of land that's adjacent, which is on their side of the road, comes to us from the Navy, which we fully expect it will, and that then becomes transferred to this project. And then when you do that math on the project, it goes up to I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe it's 86. So. And one last just. Just so I know I know the mayor understands this, but for the public, the way this process has to play out, of course, is they can't do a single unit without a conditional use permit issued by the city of Alameda. There has to be a review and approved by the city, the planning board, and then is subject to appeal or call up for review by the council. And it's that process where the city and the community can decide what the right number of units is. It might be less, but it cannot be more. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that the point of about the residential portion of our work, live spaces is is a good point. But as you point out, that question is not on the table at this point, though. It has to go through a use permit process. And I think we do need to have that discussion because that that option is available in commercially zoned areas, and there's other restrictions that are described in our code. But I think we need to have a broader discussion on that. But as far as the item that's on the agenda right now, I, I think it's very specific to the entitlements that go with the lease option to buy. And I'd like to call the question on that. Um. On this. This is it. This is doing the motion. Go ahead. I'll make that motion. I move. Final passage of the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with 210 year renewal options and an option to purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopment LLC for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Street and Alameda Point. All those in favor. Oh, well. Okay. So then you can. Okay. All right. Because when you said call the question. Yeah. All right. Oh, well, thank you. I just want to quickly say that, you know, with the building project, we're really getting into the, if you will, there and the hand combat portion where of of base reuse, where we're really getting into those buildings that are so decrepit and that that we need people who are willing to take that entrepreneurial risk as it is already. You know, several would be developers have already fallen by the wayside in attempting to tackle these really, really difficult buildings. In the case of Caruso, they wanted to do the E Oak or BQ and also another site. So, you know, I think we're making a decision with our eyes wide open on behalf of the residents of Alameda. And in terms of the the financials, I'm satisfied that that we've done our due diligence and I'm satisfied with with the capacity of this entity to do follow through. But it is a difficult situation. And and, you know, that's why I think on the matter of work live, I'm okay with whatever the number is. So that's going to go through the process for the decision that we have to make tonight. I think. Are I speaking of one off, I feel satisfied having exercised due diligence on behalf of the residents of Alameda. And Brody. Surely you have called the question. So that eliminates or is going to. Say it's time to. Vote, have anything more to add that hasn't been already said. So. All right, then. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose that motion passes 4 to 1. And next item. And when you say. Oh, yeah. Yep. So I'm very sure my apologies. Thank you. All right. Now we go to the regular agenda item six, a. Response to a city council referral regarding a possible wetlands mitigation bank in Alameda Point. Good evening, Mayor. Council members like. My name's Jennifer Bass, race director. Been here a couple other times. We're going to talk about wetlands mitigation banks in the Bay Area. When there there's development that occurs in the Bay Area, there are times when that development impacts or potentially impacts wetlands along the bay. And typically the regulators like the Army Corps and other folks try to essentially eliminate those impacts, if possible, or avoid them. But there are times when that there's reasons that coastal development, it's unavoidable to avoid impacts to wetlands. And so what the regulate the regulatory system in the Bay Area has allowed is that essentially if you impact mitigation or you impact wetlands, you have to essentially mitigate your impact. And so that that overall that there is kind of a no net new net no net loss of wetlands along the in the coastal areas and in

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and B & M Construction, Inc., for construction of tenant space at Ellie Caulkins Opera House. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) pproves a four-month $591,201.04 contract with B & M Construction, Inc. for construction of approximately 5,400 square feet of new tenant space on the third floor of the Ellie Caulkins Opera House (201627352). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-18-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 6-16-16.

DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0428

Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you know the results. Ten tonight, final consideration of 437 has been postponed to the end of the public hearings tonight. All right. Our last one, 428. Councilman Espinosa, would you like for us to do with that? I just have some questions. Go right ahead. I don't know who if it's Lisa, somebody or somebody else. And I apologize again to my colleagues for not asking this as intended at the council, but where are these tenants currently located? Does anyone know? And you. And how many are there? Good evening. I'm in front of Denver Arts Venues Project Manager. Currently these are different. Divisions within our. Office are in three. Different locations. Some of us temporary. Temporarily relocated during the McNichols renovation, and this will consolidate all of our shared business services into a single office space. So it'll be a lot more efficient. Just as a side note, we're also rearranging this is current storage space, so we're rearranging that storage to make it more efficient as well. It's UN built out core. Space value engineering during the original renovation of the Lake. Hawkins. So, you know, it's. Haphazard right now, storage. And so we're making that much. More efficient as well. Where's the storage? Because it looks like the renovation is happening on the third floor. Where was the storage? It's the other half of the third. Floor, back of back of house. Space. I mean, it's. Looked at the plans and looks. Going up 12,000 square feet total in that storage area, the back of house area. And the office space that we're renovating is about. 5400 square feet. So the storage will take up the remaining square footage. Okay. And there are four directors offices there in an open office space? That's correct. What directors are they. Are executive director or deputy director or director of finance. And our director of marketing. And there is. A fifth office for our new hire. Newly hired chief operations. Officer. Okay. And is this a temporary or is this a permanent location? So no going back to mechanical. Correct. All right. Thank you. You got them? Yeah, I think I remember. Any other questions for 28 CNN? All right. Those are all the bills and resolutions that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction our order published were ready for the black vote. Councilman Brooks, we make the motion for us tonight.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with One Five-Year Option to Extend, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Lease, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue, Building 529, a 3,200-Square Foot Building, and Building 600, a 343-Square Foot Building, at Alameda Point. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6967

Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with one five year option to extend substantially in the form of the attached lease with Non-Listed Technologies for building 530 an eight 82,251 square foot building located at 120 West ORANSKY Avenue Building 529 a 3200 square foot building and Building 608 330 343 square foot building at Alameda Point. This requires four affirmative votes and we have 12 speakers. So just for clarification, we have that many speakers. Each one will have 2 minutes. And Kelly. Evening, Miss Mercado. Hi. Good evening. I'm Ninette Mercado from the Community Development Department. This is not our first time with Natalie's, but I'll walk us through it again. Natalie's is a data center that uses innovative water cooling technology that reduces the cost of computing, cuts power usage, eliminates water consumption, decreases air pollution and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. NOVELIS has been interested in developing a data storage facility at Alameda Point for approximately two years. Initially, they were interested in the barge water cooling system they're implementing in the Delta. But after touring Alameda Point and seeing Building 530 with its proximity to the water, lack of windows and privacy, they thought the building would be perfect for a land based facility. A proposed lease was presented to the Council on April 2nd and May 7th. The Council continued its consideration of the lease on May 7th until after a special meeting and tour of Site B Enterprise District. At this special meeting, council toured Building 530 and reviewed the footprint which was reduced to accommodate the future development of Site B. At the May 7th meeting, the Council requested that Naa and Nautilus agreed to eliminate a five year option from the lease required third party environmental monitoring weekly established standards for monitoring at a public meeting with regulators and city biologist allowing public comment. Then the standards for measuring the monitoring will be developed by scientists and regulators. They agreed to report monitoring results to the city and the city would have the ability to terminate the lease should the shared materially adverse environmental impacts be identified. Not a Nautilus estimate said its investment of $6 million and improvements to the building, which includes a new roof facade improvement, environmental asbestos, mold remediation, landscaping, security and parking upgrades. Nautilus will have a significant impact on the Alameda Municipal Power's rate. The Cartwright Station at Island Alameda Point has space capacity to accommodate much of the project demand from Nautilus, but ample require Nautilus to make a contribution to the expansion and future replacement of the facility if Nautilus exceeds a certain capacity. At the May 7th meeting, council expressed concern about AMP staff and capacity to service a large new power user. AMP has confirmed that current staffing levels are adequate to accommodate the project through construction initial ramp up and to which is 2 to 3 years and then full operation at full buildout. AMP estimates there will be 20 to 25 million annual revenue generated from the Northwest project. The increased revenue puts downward pressure on future rates and rate increases for all AMP customers. Nautilus has worked an agreement with Building and Construction Trades Council to hire union workers during construction, which is estimated to be five years at buildout. Nautilus will have 30 full time data center jobs. Staff has followed up on many of the council inquiries, including reaching out to East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager. Regarding the opinion, getting an opinion on the technology, we were told by the the services manager that the Regional Water Quality Board will be equally, if not better qualified to evaluate the projects and that whatever they would tell us would be just as good as what East Bay Regional Park District would say. Council has asked that there are other tenants who have to go through such rigorous lease conditions. Other green tech companies like Makani, Google or Mattel Energy. Neither of those companies had had to go through a regulatory review. Nortel is a research and manufacturing company. Their operations are fully contained within their building. Mcconney Google did their tests outside, but they have only interfered with the California. They would have only interfered with the California leased turn. So we did not allow them to test within the leased turn season. Subsequently, they moved their testing outside of the lease term buffer zone, so there was no impact to the environment. We have had tenants who were required to secure separate stormwater permits because of the nature of their work and they were required to provide monitoring reports to regional agencies. One tenant was sued by beekeepers for their for their dirty runoff. The tenant paid fines and was under a multiyear consent decree. We have a tenant who wants to test their technology in the Northwest Territories. They've performed all kinds of sound monitoring, reporting, which the city's biologists will bring to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to see if that's the location, if the location works. Those are the only similar situations that we have to Nautilus. If not all this is approved and receives all its permits. They have agreed to come back to the City Council with a report out on on the conditions of approvals and requirements from regulatory agencies. So the city and the residents will know what would be required of their tenancy if the city council approves this lease tonight. It does not comment to the tenants occupancy approval tonight, approves the lease, but more importantly commences the 15 month due diligence period for the tenant. Nautilus must immediately begin its secure process through the city as well as secure permits through regional water quality Control Board Bccdc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California State Lands and a variety of other regulatory agencies. If the tenant is unable to secure a permit, the lease term terminates and the city retains the security deposit and collects an early termination fee of approximately $50,000. Tonight, we hope the Council will make a decision on the lease, approve the lease to start the environmental evaluation process so the city and the tenant can understand what will be required to implement and monitor this new technology or reject the lease, allowing the tenant to quickly identify another land location that could work for them after their focus on Alameda Point for several years. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Mercado, are there any questions of staff before we go to public comment? Councilmember Desai Yeah, just one clarifying question. I couldn't quite recall. You said AMP expects revenues from this project. Was that 2.5 million or 25 million. As 20 to 25 million at full buildout? And that's over X number of years. Yes, about six years. They expect to be at full buildout. So that's 20 to $25 million that would go to AMP's bottom line. Okay. All right. Thank you. QUESTION Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Chair. So on that issue, I mean, have we evaluated if AMP will need additional headcount to manage that extra load? Because I believe that's pretty, isn't it, 40% of our current load. That's a number I heard batted around. I don't know how much it is of the current load. Okay. Sorry. Well, if it is 40%, I mean, is that your contention then that we would be able to manage that workload with our existing employees? So we check with AMP to see because it came up at the last meeting and they said that they would be able to ramp up over the 3 to 5 year period to handle the operations and maintenance. And I believe you're correct. I think I believe it is about 40%. Okay. So by ramp up, does that mean no headcount or additional headcount? I believe it's additional headcount. Okay. So then the reality is it's not 22, 25, because you'd have to deduct the cost of of of the employees. And we don't have an idea of what that number is. Yeah, it'd be 20, 25 million in revenue. But you're right, there would be increased expenses also. But we don't know what those are. I don't have that right. The top. Yes, there there would be increased expenses. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Councilmember Villa. I'm going to take that. I hear that. So no no questions. Okay. So with that, let's go to public speakers, please. And the council, the clerk will call three names in just a word. We'll get out of here earlier if you all hear your name and move toward the aisle. Thank you. Okay. Who's up. First? Jim Cornette and Mark Klein and Lisa Baker. Not American Council members. Good to see you again. We're really pleased to be here and really pleased to have so many now interested people from the environmental community. When I was in earlier my career, I had the great privilege of working with thousands of people to get the first federal mandate, phasing out incandescent light bulbs, cutting energy efficiency out of light bulbs by more than 70%. Our project is that big. I mean, the success of our project just from energy efficiency, will drive more than 70% improvement in data center performance. And if adopted widely, it can have as big an impact as incandescent bulbs. But I was also fortunate in my career to work on marine conservation issues. I was part of a large group of people to get unanimous legislation at the federal level to end overfishing in America. I had the privilege of working on the earliest programs to tackle marine debris in the marine environment. And I worked hard with many, many people and many from the environmental community to establish four of the largest marine protected areas in the world, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same heroic effort by thousands of people. And I just want to underline the environmental conservation benefits of what we are seeking to do here, not only to showcase now the media are that big and our commitment to protecting the environment to be sure that we'd have negative consequences of that strike. So the only thing we're asking today is the approval of a lease that's conditioned on us going through the gantlet of regulatory processes, including the biggest one led by the city itself on Sequa. We just want the fair chance to teach people about our technology and show that we will 100% comply with the law. There's only two outcomes of this process. Either we pass muster and we have no environmental impact or we don't pass muster and we have no environmental impact because our project will not proceed. And so all we're asking is just to get to the next step. We welcome the conversation with the environmental community. We welcome their engagement. We're going to be 100% transparent. We want to share the hearing. And the speaker is. Thank you. Thank you. Mark Klein, then Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor. Okay, remember everyone, you've got 2 minutes. Okay. I'm with the Harvard SEAL Group. Originally, I was neutral on this lease. You get a little close to the microphone. We can all. Hear. We always neutral, but now I'm against it. The company has brushed off too many key questions by just by just saying wait to the permit process. Specifically, for instance, of course, I'm concerned about the Harvard SEAL flute. And we figured out that there's no room under the float for a five foot wide pipe. So I sent an email to Mr. Kirwan. How are you going to deal with this? The flute will crash against the pipe, and it'll be destroyed in rough weather. And he answered, Don't worry. We'll look into that later. Well, that's not good enough. What's going to happen on the. What? I'm trying to get my thoughts together. When I asked when I asked for that and that that question and I got a brave, vague answer. We'll look into it later. Well, that that worried me. I suspect that he didn't give me a specific answer of how to do with that, because the only way I can imagine they'll deal with it is is to dredge the whole area all the way to the rock wall, and that would destroy the entire habitat. And he didn't want to see that because it would be politically unpopular. So he just pushed me off with a well, look into it. Well, there's no way to fit a five foot wide pipe under that float without dredging, as far as I can see. And dredging would wreck the habitat. So that's why I'm against this. Thank you, Mr. Klein. Our next speaker. Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Byrne offered. Hello. Hello. So I'm Lisa Baker. I'm an Alameda resident, and I've been one of the harbor seal monitors for almost the past three years. And it's been a labor of love. A huge number of people involved with it was amazing to get it together, to have the float made for the SEALs and then to learn that this five foot wide pipe with warm water is that's coming out of a highly estimable environmental conscious group. It just I just don't see how that could be allowed to happen. I mean, if the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and San Francisco Baykeeper all have serious concerns about this, and apparently the technology of this five foot wide pipe that will drain warm water out into the bay is actually mandated by the state of California to be phased out. So why is that technology being used for this project particularly? Is it supposed to be cutting edge and wonderfully environmentally sensitive? Obviously, I'm very concerned about the harbor seals, but my dad was an eminent marine biologist and he told me years ago about the effect of heat on marine organisms and how small differences of temperature in marine water can cause devastating effects to habitats. And so I don't want that to happen. I think I think building the facility might be fine, but find another way to get rid of your warm water. That's it. Thank you. Next speaker Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Brentford, then Linda Kurland. Hello, Mayor and City Council. As a lifelong Bay Area resident and a 30 year old Alameda resident, I am extremely aware of how essential a healthy bay is to the livability and quality of life. To quote something that was said earlier that we enjoy in Alameda and throughout the Bay Area, I have memories of living next to a bay that was less healthy than it is now. And I'm aware of how very small changes can create large environmental consequences for the better or the worse. As a registered nurse, I am a bit of a science geek, so I was extremely concerned when I read the article in the paper about the notably static technologies use proposed use of cool bay water to cool their towers and then pushing out warmer water into the bay. I did a bit of research on this technology and discovered that it's already been banned by the state of California for use in cooling power plants, and the technology would cause warmer water than it's a norm for the bay to be discharged into a fairly placid section of the bay. Even water that is slightly warmer than the norm has potential to cause algae bloom, which decreases oxygen in her bay and can sometimes cause toxic algae blooms, which are toxic to aquatic life. Water that's been discharged at such a high rate, 10,000 gallons per minute will also cause a great deal of sediment. There's evidently a herring spawning ground near that area. I did some research on that. This was all in the last day or two. Herring spawning grounds do not move and they are very adversely affected by sediment. They don't live. Herring is essential to the ecology of our bay, sierra club baykeeper, etc. are against it. So am I. Good job the next speaker and we don't applaud because it'll just get us out of here later. So yeah. Jeffrey Bernard Ford, then Linda Colony and then Burkett Evans. Good evening, everyone. $25 million gross charges of electricity. That's a really big toaster that they're running over there. Heat. Heat is amazing. And people these people have to dissipate enormous amounts of heat. So they're using they're using the electricity to create data. And who are they, by the way? What is Nautilus data? Titan Technologies? What organizations are they affiliated with? Who? What and how will it benefit the Bay Area? Rent will be collected by the city, so there is some money in the coffers for the city. And aluminum usable power will also get a fairly large chunk of money out of these guys if they're allowed to do this. The companies that were developing the hotel projects on Bay Farm Island and Park Street in particular were really scrutinized and they were put through a number of ringers in their process for acceptance. I'm hoping that this project will get similar scrutiny, or much more so because of the just the very much unknown. You know, this project is it's unknown. And Lynn was just talking about them not being this technology being, you know, phased out. I think they should build a 5 million square foot barge, take it out in the middle of the ocean and let the ocean dissipate the heat. I think the Bay Area, the bay itself is much too sensitive an environment to allow these people to heat up. Thank you. Thank you. Linda Colony, Denberg Evans and Jill Sexy. Hi. I'm speaking tonight as a concerned Alameda resident, but also as the president of the board of Golden Gate, Audubon Society, and co-chair of its local conservation committee, which is the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. We urge the Council to vote against the proposals to Nautilus. The proposed cooling system will cause water turbulence at the point of discharge will tend to trap aquatic life at the intake point and will discharge water into the bay. The temperature warmer than when it is drawn in this part of the bay and which will occur is critical environment for the SEALs, as you've heard for our least terns, who fish in that part of the bay for brown pelicans, which there's a huge roost on Breakwater Island just past where this discharge would be. They also need to fish and water. Warmer water temperature is known to adversely impact fish at certain stages, certain species, particularly vulnerable parts of their lifecycle. In addition, warm water cause holds less dissolved oxygen than cooler water, and dissolved oxygen is a critical component of a healthy bay. So if we reduce fish, we're going to reduce the food available for the pelicans, the terns and lots of other birds that eat our fish. So the bay is an important part of what makes Alameda special. We've worked very hard to protect the environment as the council has, and the city as a whole has worked really hard to protect the environment. We can't afford the risks that are posed by this project. Thank you. Thank you. Speakers. You're all doing extremely well. Evans then Jill Sachs and Marjorie Powell. Mayor and city council. I want to speak in opposition to the 15 year lease with Nautilus Data Technologies. Our bay is a delicate ecosystem already badly impacted by human activities. The proposed project would pull 14.4 million gallons of water per day from the bay. That 5,256,000,000 gallons per year from the bay hit it and discharge it into another part of the bay. Even with the best possible fish screens, Nautilus will be pulling in countless aquatic organisms every day, hitting and probably killing them. It will then dump the heated water into the bay, changing the overall temperature of the bay and without doubt affecting the natural processes in a complex ecosystem. In the past, communities across America have allowed corporations to come in, exploit natural resources and extract profit. Those companies often closed down after doing incalculable environmental harm, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. You have only to look at countless mining towns that have been left with toxic tailing ponds. And when one of those ponds fails, destroying life and rivers for miles around, we ask ourselves, How did this happen? This is how that happened. Please deny this lease. Thank you. Next speaker Jill suggested that Marjorie Powell, then Richard Baker. Hi, Madam Mayor. And council members. First of all, I want to thank you, Mayor, for supporting electric vehicles. Keep on doing that. And also, I hope all of you will support the Climate Action Resiliency Plan when it comes before you. On that note, I'm baffled as to why we didn't hear much about the Nautilus Data Technologies project before it became publicized in the paper. I think it's not appropriate for Alameda unless it completely revamped its cooling systems and its energy usage. They proposed dumping 10,000 gallons of warm water per minute. Unbelievable in sensitive wildlife areas, raising the water temperature in those areas for up to four degrees. This is where, as other speakers have said, spill seals, hollow out fish spawn and lease terns who are endangers feed. Even even switching the discharge to the estuary side would still impact wildlife. This is in addition to the vast amount of energy needed to run this facility and its impacts on. Where is AMP going to get this extra energy? Not to mention the higher costs related to that. So I just urge you not to approve this lease. Thank you. Thank you. Next, speaker. Marjorie Powell, then Richard Bangert, then Pat Lamborn. Thank you. Members of the city council. I'm an Alameda resident and I'm also a member of Golden Gate Audubon and the committee that is working on conservation and protection of the least tern reserve. As you've heard, there are concerns about both water intake and expulsion of heated water into areas. That have. Fish that are needed not only by the list terns and the harbor seals, but by the great blue heron and the osprey, that nest around Seaplane Lagoon by the black oystercatchers that nest and raise their young on both sides of Alameda and the estuary and in Ballina Bay by the Caspian Terns that are now nesting at the Alameda Reserve by any number of other birds that nest in. The area, in particular. The least terns because they are so small and their chicks are so small, they need the very small fish that are most sensitive to the temperature concerns with the water. And while we heard from the first speaker that this is innovative technology, we at this point have no information about the technology except that according to some documents I've seen, it's an old once true calling system, and that is going to raise the temperature in the bay that will have harmful impacts on the fish that all of our birds need. There have been examples around the world, in particular this year, of bird colonies having abandoning their young because there are no fish because of increases in the water temperature. And this has happened in South Africa with the flamingos. It's been happening with the pelicans. I'm sorry, the Galapagos. Penguins in the Galapagos and. We urge you not to approve. Thank you, Mr. Bangert. And Express. And then Pat Lamborn. And then Mary Spicer. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, I'd like to speak just briefly about the permitting process and your role in in this approving or not approving this project. Yes, there's a there's a rigorous permitting process that would take place if you were to move forward tonight. But the fact that there's a rigorous permitting process does not mean that there will be no impacts. The threshold for getting a permit is not zero impact. Quite frequently, there are mitigation measures that are required as as a condition of a permit. Sometimes it's simply paying money into a fund that will later be used for some other worthy project, restoration project around the bay. And given the size of the bay, what are what are the chances that that money will end up back here in Alameda? So you could say that one scenario here is that that you go forward with this project and you're trading away part of our environment for short term economic gain here. I'd say that besides besides the regulatory process, there's your role. Regulators are the ones who work in the permitting section of various agencies are there to issue permits. But you were elected to manage our public property here on Alameda, and it's your decision as to how we use that property and whether it's proper to have this system with its impacts be authorized here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Lambert. Good evening. So many speakers have mentioned my points. I'll get to to the asks in reading through the beekeeper and everything that people have said. I have three asks of you tonight. One ask is that you did not sign the lease with Nautilus. It means that you're giving your stamp of approval to the once through cooling system using the bay. That that is what that signifies to all the regulatory agencies that were mentioned, too. If you wanted to delay a vote and consider Nautilus or any other data center there, there are other cooling systems. I shared with all of you an article. It's how do we use waste heat from data centers intelligently, the closed systems and people around the world are figuring out ways to take the waste heat and then use it as renewable energy for homes and businesses. Notley's come back and give you a truly green alternative. Dumping warm water into the bay isn't one of those. Number three, you can convene a study session with scientists, and I want to just share my concern with you. Mr. Cunnington is the CEO of Nautilus. He's not a marine biologist. He's not an and he's not a engineer or a marine engineer. He's a CEO. He's a masterful lobbyist. You say yes tonight. He has access to all of those bureaucracies. He has a long reputation, folks. He was a corporate lawyer for all the major polluters in the nineties who had Superfund sites that earned him a seat as the chair on the Council on Environmental Quality for George Bush and Dick Cheney. We don't have time to talk about their impact on climate change in 24 minutes, but they manipulate science. So I'm going to leave with you in the last 19 seconds, an article that I got. It's from a true scientist. It describes all the current science about the concern for algae blooms in the bay. It is the opposite of the memo that was submitted to you by the kind of experts who hire, which said there was no danger at all. Thank you, Ms.. Lambert. And if you present that material to the clerk, they will give it to us and our next speaker. Hi. Yes, I love speakers. Mary Spicer. Hi, I'm Mary Spicer. Nice to see you all in person. I sent you a letter today. I'm a recreational athlete and I spend probably 10 to 12 hours a week on the water. I'm on an outrigger team and we leave from in a small beach. Go out, paddle out the bushes out in the center of the bay, come back through the hole. Exactly. The area where we're talking about building that technology. I spend so much time out there with the harbor seals recently, with the whale, with the two dolphins, two to 1 to 5 dolphins that live on the other side of the wall. There's art in me and the Golden Gate Cetacean Institute has been researching them for years, using the outrigger team to give them data points on what's happening with the pod that's living out there. If you need more information on that, I'm happy to send that to you. But it's directly in the area that will be impacted by this this technology. I think that is our media citizen. And as comedians, we have a real responsibility to the nature and to the water and to the shoreline and to the wildlife that inhabit our area. And I think that there's so much amazing, true, innovative technology in the Bay Area. And I would love to see Alameda really targeting new technology that really is innovative and really does actually help with what's happening with climate change and with the global issue issues that we're having. I think if we came up with the type of plan that we can actually find those right type of companies and invite them here and create a hub for true innovation, that would be amazing. My father owned a company in Oakland that was a that helped retrofit energy savings for industrial light fixtures that PGE ended up giving a discount for because it was such a great invention. I would love to see people like that coming in here and taking over the base. And I. I also do cleanups with the city of Oakland. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Nevertheless, speaker. Okay. At this time I am closing public speaking and the public comment period and I am going to take the unusual step of going first in my comments. So please indulge me. Counsel, I can't support this project and I'll tell you why. We have met with Mr. Connaughton and his team for quite a few months now, even going back to last year. And we have met in closed session because when an item involves a lease or sale of property in price in terms of the transit. Action that is rightfully held in an closed session. We don't do our negotiating in public. But without disclosing specifics, this council has certainly and the council before this, too, had heard this has certainly had a lot of questions that they asked of the Nautilus team. And I am largely persuaded by the letter we got from Baykeeper a couple of weeks ago. And I also think all of the members of the public who wrote me letters, but I was what I paid attention to most in the Baykeeper letter was that the this went through cooling, which is a system, is an antiquated technological approach. And the system proposed here could harm San Francisco Bay in a number in a variety of ways. And in fact, these negative environmental impacts have led the state of California to phase out the use of this ecologically detrimental cooling process by 2024. And the Baykeeper report goes on to talk about the large volume of water that will be processed in in a minute. And they and they they cited some studies, some recent studies from 2019, from 2018 about how waste, heat innovators, things like energy hogs, can the world's huge datacenters be made more efficient? But this is not the way to do it. And then there is that information, science based information from Bay Keepers. And on the other hand, just this week, maybe yesterday, we received from Nautilus a report from Anchor QCA, which is their environmental engineering group that is based in San Francisco. And they, you know, pointed out that, you know, not us would need to get all these environmental approvals and permits. But what I haven't seen from Nautilus in all the months that I've been dealing with this, this outfit is any change in the approach. And so even the Anchor QCA report that seeks to assure us about what Nautilus wants to do says that, you know, San Francisco Bay is still relatively turbid and historically considered a light limited estuary where growth of algae is hindered because of high turbidity in the water. And the U.S. Geological Survey researchers studying first harmful algae bloom in the bay stated that the bloom occurred in the South Bay quotes during a coincidence of unusually weak neap tides. But if you look at the footnote, the studies were both dated 2005. It's 2019 now. And I would submit that climate science has changed a great deal in the intervening years. And but the fact that that was the most relevant data report that could be submitted, I think speaks volumes in itself. I also listened carefully to Mr. Norton in his report remarks, because I'm always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt. But when you spoke to us this evening, you talked about past projects working on phasing out incandescent light bulbs, previously working on marine environmental issues, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same. And that's certainly laudable. But what I care about and what I'm responsible for is what happens in my city. Money isn't everything. I mean, as much as I hate to say no to millions and millions of dollars. I also very much agree with the last speaker, Miss Spicer, who said there's so much true innovative technology in the Bay Area. Find it, bring it here. And I think that's also been a desire of this council with the loss of the Navy and those 18,000 jobs. We've looked to backfill those lost jobs, but not just any jobs. And Nautilus in particular wasn't going to create a lot of jobs and certainly not a lot of high quality jobs on its own. Certainly it had benefits. I'm not saying this is all one sided, but I am saying that on balance, I cannot find sufficient reason to support moving forward. And I think that at the end of the day, that's actually more considerate of both the Nautilus and the city. So and again, I'm one vote but if the majority of the council. Feels that way as well. It leaves Nautilus to go on and look for other areas to locate. And I will just add that there is talk in the staff report about the project that is being done by Nautilus in Stockton out of a barge in the river. There's a little difference there, a barge in the river. It's also a five year lease. The one we're considering is much longer. And finally, I'm just going to close and say that I was really taken by the saga of Ali, you know, the the whale who found her way into Seaplane Lagoon. And I think she was a it was a she bet. But it was noted that her her color, her sheen wasn't what it should be. She was malnourished. There's a number of reasons that could be, but a large factor has to do with the quality of the waters and what's happening to is and much of it manmade . And so I cannot in good conscience support moving forward with something and taking time and effort to go through the environmental process. When nothing I've seen to this point makes me think that Nautilus is aligned with my values for what I want to see around me to point. So with that, I will call on the next speaker. Councilmember Odie. Can I speak? Should we let Councilmember Vella go? Yeah, she's she doesn't get to wave her hand at me. So, yes. Councilmember Vella, you're next. So I think that we we've spent a lot of time and all of that, spent a lot of time looking at this project and looking at the cultural uses in this building and also this area. Um, you know, I had reservations before regarding the total number of jobs created by whether an office of the refuge for this building and also environmental concerns relative to the marine wildlife and to the nearby sanctuary. And I do think members of the public that have come up to speak on this, as well as the various groups that have come and said that, I think that for many of the reasons that the mayor stated and the other ones that I just stated regarding the earlier to the area, I urge you to count on support of the project. And I think that at this point, you know, especially in light of the fact that we have gone over to this area, that I want out that equal opportunity and to me to see the harbor seals, I think that , you know, in many ways we look at projects, even if we were to take the applicant at their word, that this is environmentally better than, you know, air cooling, these impacts to our marine, local marine life and to the overall bay, I don't think make it worth it. And so I won't be voting in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Avella Councilmember Odie. Okay, well, thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to thank everyone for coming out. This has been on the agenda a few times and you know, we haven't had a lot of people come out. So I think it's true testament to our council that we listen to the public when they come out and they present arguments to us. So I'll try to get through this with not too much emotion, even though I think to me this is an emotional issue. I mean, it's rare that we see all of these groups together aligned. And I think the mayor alluded to a lot of what I'm going to say, and I think a lot of the speakers did. But it bears repeating, you know, the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Baykeeper, the Golden Gate, Audubon Society and the Harbor SEAL Group who originally was neutral. And another person who sent in an email, a person who's actually their main focus when they sat on this dais, was the creation of jobs at Alameda Point. And that's my former colleague, Frank Madras. He opposed it and said it's not going to bring the jobs to Alameda Point that he thought it should. So, I mean, those are five very respective names in in my book. So I respect a lot of what they have to say. I look at the I think one of the speakers might have been Pat or Marjorie said, you know, the bay is a fragile ecosystem. Right? So that's something we have to we have to be cognizant of. I mean, that is one of our city council key priorities supporting enhanced living. Stability, livability and quality of life. So if we're going to stay true to that priority, then I think we have to protect our wildlife. And I, I think protecting it means that we don't open up that fragile ecosystem to a laboratory experiment on whether this this technology is going to work and or whether it's going to harm the environment. So, I mean, to me, the best way to avoid adverse environmental impacts is to reject this lease altogether. So I had that opinion last time we had this discussion. My opinion has solidified hearing the public comments and reading the experts. And I think, you know, just real brief, some of you all have touched on it, but, you know, the lease turns. We spent a lot of energy and a lot of time and it's our value to protect them. You know, the spawning grounds, if they're gone, they're gone. And every other ecosystem and species that relies on them will be gone. The SEALs and I was in San Diego last week and we went to lunch one afternoon in La Hoya, and we walked down to the beach because we had an hour to kill. And I saw the I don't know if you've been there, but there's a bunch of seals there on the rocks on the beach. And I thought to myself, isn't it great that these seals don't have to worry about a five foot pipe being stuck underneath their habitat? Like like we're having to deal with here in Alameda. But it sounds like there's not the votes to go forward. So I'm grateful for that. The toxic algae, again, you know, once it's there, it's too late. You know, I don't think we can afford to be an experiment and I'd prefer to avoid that adverse impact. And lastly, no one's really touched on it, but, you know, the impact of a five foot hole on on the sea wall, I think I mean, you mentioned that to me on the phone either yesterday or today, and no one's really talked about that. So this is just too risky for me. I'm also not convinced that it's best in our economic interest. That's our fourth priority, encouraging economic development. I think by tying up an old building in the middle of site B I think actually diminishes the value. And I think our citizens and our residents will suffer long term by not maximizing the value of site B. And I also I'm not sure of the total impact on EMP because while we have a revenue number, we don't have a corresponding expense number. And to me, if you're going to increase load 40%, that's 40% more than we're doing today. I don't know how you do it with without increasing your headcount tremendously and no one's accounted for that. So I appreciate everybody's time and effort and letters and on this and I thank you all for speaking and protecting people that can't do things that can't speak for themselves in seals and fish and and so on. Thank you. Thank you. Who's Councilmember de SAC? Well, great. Well, thank you very much. I am of the opinion that the regional and state regulations that are in place are strong enough to make make sure that this project does right by the environment. But it's not to the to the regional state organizations that I am accountable. I am accountable to the residents of Alameda. And in this case, I mean, it was overwhelmingly a lot of people were opposed to it. I didn't get one email, frankly, from an Alameda residents indicating that they are supportive of this. I don't think that the project proponent did their own cause any good either, because, frankly, the message really hasn't changed over the over them. Over the past several months. I was hoping to see better examples of why this is good for Alameda or maybe even YouTube videos or something indicating how it is indeed could be safe for the environment. But you know, all we we we didn't really get that kind of information. So, you know, absent a case made by the proponent myself, I think I think the the. Words of caution that the residents are encouraging of us is something that we need to listen to. And in terms of the benefits to AMP, $25 million is a lot of money. But I think one way to think about it is that the load that is the the Marriott the Marriott ships may already constitutes roughly 10 to 11% of our electric load. And in order to get that to accommodate that 10 to 11% electric load, I believe it was back in 1988 that the city of Alameda had expanded our infrastructure in order to accommodate 10 to 11%. I kind of wonder I don't think the issue really is manpower. I think that the issue would be accommodate having the infrastructure to accommodate an additional 40%. But the story about the accommodating the Navy was that in 1988, 1987, the Navy asked Alameda to accommodate them by improving the load capabilities to to handle what were at the time, you know, naval warships. But we all know what had happened was that the at the Navy left and we we still had to pay off the bonds for those for the infrastructure to accommodate. Fortunately married came in in that and married is helping pay for that. But imagine if we had gone into debt in order to to accommodate the 40% increased load and then suddenly, for whatever reason, they weren't here, we'd be up creek. So so that was you know, that's certainly an issue, too, to think about. I still am confident, frankly speaking, that that the regional state entities would have provided us guidance as to whether or not this this project would have been environmentally sound. And so I'm not going to change on that. But I do believe that the residents have clearly spoken that this is not a project that they that they want to see happen here. Thank you. And vice mayor. Next, what. I will just more or less echo what would I've heard earlier today or earlier in the in the meeting? I think I've told almost everybody who emailed me and including the project manager or project applicant today that I did not expect to vote to approve the project, the lease this this evening. And I'm going to just. Call for the vote. At this point, I don't think I need to add on to anything anybody out of June thinks. I appreciate that. And so what we have is an ordinance, uh, authorizing city manager to execute this lease. So let's have a. A move approved, a move rejection of the staff recommendation to approve this. Lease. Okay. Second. Okay. It's a move by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Odie. May we have a voice vote, please? Councilmember decide. Yes on the motion. Not slate. Yes. Vote yes on the motion, Vela. Some emotion. May be. Ashraf also. Yes, on the motion. That carries five, five eyes as well, you know. All right. Thank you very much. This project will not go forward. Okay, we are. Thank you, everyone, for coming out. We now move to item seven City Manager Communications.