Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to direct City Manager to report back to the City Council on establishing an Artists Fund that would provide emergency $500 direct or other financial support for a period of six months to cover cost of basic needs, for qualifying artists who live in Long Beach and have been impacted by COVID-19. These funds would be paid through CARES Act Community Block Grant Funds. We should look towards funding up to 150 artists who qualify across the city.

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1113

Great. Thank you. Next, we're going to do. I think I've got four items I've been requested to move up. I will do those four, and then we'll we'll do general public comment and then the rest of the agenda. Item 52, please. Recommendation to direct city manager to report back to the City Council on establishing an artist fund for qualifying artists who live in Long Beach and have been impacted by COVID 19. Thank you. I want to just first start by thanking Councilwoman Mary's and de Haas, Councilwoman Janine Pearce, Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilman Austin for for supporting this and to their work. I also want to just begin by saying this is we know that we are living in a very difficult time with COVID. Ever since March and the major shutdowns, the industry that has been just one of the most impacted has been the arts and cultural workers, in fact. You think about performances in a theater. You think about our municipal band, the symphony, the playhouse, people that play gigs, you know, at a restaurant or a guitarist. It has been a huge impact to artists, and in fact, it's the most constant request. And what we hear is just the need for to help these people. The other piece of it, which is critical, is as a city, our artists and our cultural workers are the lifeblood of our community. They make our city strong, diverse. They already are. Many of them are already lower income folks who are, you know, who do the work because they love it, not because it's highly paid. And so anything we can do to bridge their ability to stay in our city during this difficult time is really important. This is this is a proposal that will go to the staff. Mr. Modica with them, prepare a program to come back to the city council, hopefully soon, for final approval. There will be final approval on that. But I want to also just think I asked them not to speak tonight because of the time constraints, but I want to thank all of the arts organizations that have been working on this, the musical theater, West Long Beach Opera, Long Beach Symphony, the Playhouse. Some of the musicians from the municipal band and really all of the arts organizations across the city A.C.T., the Museum of Art, Moala they've all been involved and been working on this. And of course, the Arts Council, Long Beach. I'm we're looking at these these are would be cares act community block grant funds. So it's already part of the CARES program. And again, it would be and also a great way of supporting this kind of guaranteed income work that is happening all across the country. And it's really an extension of the tenant assistance program that this council already adopted. And so with that, I'm going to turn this over. There's no public comment, and I'm going to turn this over to any comments from Councilwoman and the House. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, for this. This is something I'm very, very excited about. I'm so glad that this is something that we as a city can look forward to. Our entire city has been impacted by COVID health crisis, and I'm supportive of any and all assistance we can get to our residents at this time of extreme need. This type of assistance would target artists that call Long Beach home. So that's why I am especially excited for this. So thank you very much. And I hope that everyone can support this. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to just give my short comments on this. I certainly fully support this. Our our artist artist community has been devastated by the impacts of COVID 19, like every many other sectors of our economy. This item here is a creative initiative for a creative culture that is very important to the identity of our city. These are human lives individuals who will need to pay rent and pay their bills. And so I fully support this item because it will help provide economic assistance to another group that has been very, very negatively impacted by this pandemic. So I encourage everyone else to support it as well. Thank you, Councilmember and Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and congratulations to the artists. We still have to develop the program, but they certainly have reached out in over email and demonstrated their enthusiasm. I just. Just a note for staff. I know that if you could just speak to this quickly, I know that you identified a staff position and do some research. I'm interested and I certainly understand the connection between the tenant assistance. I know that we're going to expand the tenant assistance to include payments to help people get out of back payments. And then we have this program for artists. But I'd love to see a comprehensive or hear what you're thinking about in terms of a comprehensive strategy for this. We talked about outside dollars. You know, what's the strategy to bring in outside dollars? So I'd love to just hear from staff if they're uncomfortable about where this could go in the future. And that doesn't have to you can speak to it briefly, but that doesn't have to come back today. I'm hoping that you could do some work and come back to us. Yes. Thank you very much. Richardson, Councilmember Richardson. So when passed in the budget, the council did provide about $100,000. That was the recommendation from the mayor to provide some staffing to really start to dove into universal basic income for us to, you know, do some best practice research to help support some of that. And then, of course, as part of that motion, it was going to be some outside dollars that were going to be able to hopefully leverage to for that program. So we're at the beginning of that process. We're going to be bringing on that person, and that would certainly come back to the council for some of, you know , as we learn more to talk through that kind of program and what that could look like. Thank you. Councilmember. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to share my support for this. I think it's a great stamp on the work that we've already been doing on guaranteed income. So I look forward to seeing that comprehensive work that staff is working on. Thank you. Thank you. And actually, we may have one person for public comment. I apologize for that. Is there a public comment? Yes. Tiffany Davey. Yes. Good evening. Me a baby address. On. File. I just wanted to state my support for this item. And its prime request for a feasibility study from the city manager to assist those within the arts community who are facing devastating impacts of the coronavirus. Thank you. Thank you. Roll call. Roll call. Vote, please. District one, district two I. District three. I. District four I. District five. I. District six. And. District seven. By District eight. District nine. High motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. Next item we have that was asked to be moved up. Sorry, we're going to do item 66.

Recommendation to request City Manager to conduct a review of the city's hiring practices, and to issue a directive which prioritizes fully staffing the Permit Center as well other offices dealing with the review and approval of building permits; Request City Manager to provide a report within 30 days regarding the status of the city's permitting software and provide options for optimizing and expediting the building permit review processes; and Request City Manager to explore the creation of a "Development Shot Clock" for the review of local development in line with transparency, timelines, and standards consistent with state law.

LongBeachCC_06152021_21-0551

Thank you. That concludes the funds transfers we have now. Item 23, please. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Allen, Councilman Super Na recommendation to request city manager to conduct a review of the city's hiring practices and to issue a directive which prioritizes fully staffing the permit center. Provide a report within 30 days regarding the status of the city's permitting software and to explore the creation of a development shot clock for the review of local development. And Mr. Mayor, I might add, my thing is I'm working so I can not working. So can someone else. So I need to have someone queuing. Okay. Vice Mayor? Yeah. Thank you. So I think we have a presentation to queue up to help summarize the proposal. I can hear the clerk take a look at his system, please. Thanks. Okay, great. Thank you. So first first, it is great to be here in person to help make this proposal on this particular date. And great to see everyone. Today I want to talk about and propose a proposal called the MLB Build Initiative is building upgrades, incentivizing long term economic development. And this is focused on supporting our our team internally and creating a modern, efficient, permanent process within the city of Long Beach. I want to thank our city team. I want to thank our stakeholders. Building Industry Association, Base Fed, IAM, Southern California Association, Nonprofit Housing WHO submitted letters of support. And I also want to thank council members Mary's and de Haas, Sandy Allen, Darryl. Super so. So let's see. Okay there it is. Is working. So here's here's a bit of background. Last month on May 11th, our director of development services, Oscar Orsi, submitted a memo to the City Council detailing the challenges within the Building and Safety Bureau as it relates to issuing construction permits. The memo highlighted lengthy permit, turnaround times, lack of communication with applicants, a slow or delayed development review process, among other issues. During the pandemic, it's been hard on our permit center, and the permit center saw its fourth full time staff drop from 11 to 6, with replacement hours coming in the form of private contractors and overtime. This has resulted in substantial delays in the review process, which, although understandable, it can have and lead to substantial, significant impacts on our city. The situation has delayed our ability to approve permits and build housing in the middle of a housing crisis and make it more difficult for contractors to conduct improvements to homes, improve the habitat habitability issues within our city, threaten our ongoing economic recovery. So it's an important issue that needs to be elevated to the city council. So this chart shows a little bit about what we're talking about. So it shows the ratio of field full time equivalent positions, contractors and vacancies over the period of January 2020 to April 20, 21st. As we can see, the number of positions filled by city full time city employees is declined and the number of positions filled by contractors has grown. We want to turn that trend around. As a city council, we have a job to be responsive to our city's needs. This is important to elevate. We need to make sure we invest in our city employees. We make sure that they're adequately staffed and are able to do do the job that they're hired to do and that we trust them to do so. Here's a snapshot of April, April 2021, and it shows almost an even split between full time employees and contractors and vacancies and positions filled by other staff. And we need to we need to fix this pie chart. We'd like to see much more green. We're heading in that direction. But this sort of summarizes the issue at hand. Even prior to the pandemic. And this is this is a report, a study published last year prior to the pandemic. This this shows the 90 day goals set out by the state in SB 330. It's a goal, but it compares how long these fairs in comparison as it relates to how long it takes to actually approve discretionary projects within the city on smaller projects way beyond the state goal. But if you look across smaller projects from five or 25 units, 251 units and above, there is a big disparity between what the state set out and where we what we're achieving. So what we want to do is we want to make sure that I mean, to be hard to close that gap completely. But we do want to understand where we are from a benchmarking standpoint and continue to take steps take steps toward closing that gap. We have an opportunity ahead of us, and that's what this proposal is about. Despite these issues, affirmatively addressing this issue does present a real opportunity for us to create a modern, prevent permitting system that's efficient, transparent, accountable. If we get this right, this will help spur economic opportunity in our city, help support construction jobs, help support small business contractors. It will help eight local realtors and restaurants who are looking to make improvements to their businesses. It'll improve our housing spark stock. Help us address our aging housing supply and habitability issues. Although staffing is one contributor, expediting our house hiring process alone won't be enough to really spur the recovery or help solve the housing housing crisis fully. But let's use this as an opportunity to explore ways that we can not just fix the problem, but improve the system altogether. So this is what we're asking the city manager do with this proposal. So first we want to expedite hiring. I know a lot of steps have already been taken to start heading in this direction and we're supportive, but we want to support heading in the direction of expediting hiring, to conduct a review of our hiring practices and issue a directive that then helps prioritize fully staffing our permit center as fast as possible, as quickly as possible , and other offices that may be related to this this system. We also want to provide options to the City Council to procure a modern permit software platform that has the ability to optimize and expedite our building permit review process. And the third thing we want to do, we want to explore the creation of a shot clock of development shot clock. And this would prioritize customer service, accountability, transparency and how we deal with construction and development timelines within our city. So here are a few cities that are taking some very similar steps. These cities are right around the same size as Long Beach or around that, you know, around our very similar lobbies in many ways. And so what it shows is that the challenges we face this city are not unique. We want to look at some best practices and we want to, you know, ask our staff to really lean in here. Oakland implemented a quarterly permit tracking system to update assessment and update assessment. And as a result, they've seen a reduction in rent to income ratio from 51% to 44% between 2015 and 2018. And San Jose, they made an update to their software system and it's helped them remain resilient through the pandemic. It only received the city of San Jose after that, only saw a 9% drop in permits issued compared to their neighbors in neighboring San Francisco who didn't update their software. They saw a 34% drop in permits during the same period. San Diego updated its permit software and in in 2020, just last year, transitioning to a fully online system that prioritized customer full transparency in how it has the shot clock. It has estimated approve timelines while also making the permit process more sustainable by completely removing the need for paper. Submitting paper plans as completely online as more sustainable is what San Diego done laying some beaches planning, planning and building departments to transition to a new software in 2018. After 14 years without an update, their residents, contractors and interested people can can now visit their website up to date. Information on permit activity is live. They can arrange inspections, make payments, track the process of their project from home or their smartphone 24 hours a day. So as we can see, all of these cities took affirmative steps toward their, you know, to support their hardworking employees. And I want our city to our city council to make this step to to do the very same. So here's the shot clock idea. I mean, the shot clock and, you know, shot clocks, you know, some city some states have shot clocks. The state of California has a shot clock. What we're talking about is updating our software so we can help approve smaller scale permits like home repair improvements, bring some transparency to our our permitting system by providing top tier customer service and accessibility. We can align with state law on affordable housing shot clocks. We can also. So we can also, you know, regulate and improve habitability by better understanding and distinguishing between improvements to existing homes and businesses from the building of new homes. So you can treat it differently. The idea is to add accountability, transparency and better customer service by implementing a shot clock. So as the city recovers from the pandemic, I think it's important that we acknowledge, you know, we were we were dealing with a housing crisis prior to the pandemic, and that exists today. We're going to continue to tackle issues of economic equity. We should do all that we can to remove barriers that prevent us from building a healthy, safe and bright, vibrant city for all of our residents. We have an incredible staff, tremendous leadership, and we need to put them in a position to succeed. That means we need to make the investments necessary to bring, you know, bring them bring pride to their jobs, bring stability in the workplace, bring quality public service, quality services to our residents. So I want to thank you for this time. I'm happy to make this motion, and I want to ask staff to provide some updates on sort of progress since the memo on May 11th and then any reaction that they have on how they plan to respond to this request. Thank you so much. There's a second by Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I'm going to defer comment and I'd like to hear from the public and my colleagues before. Actually a bonus. Thanks. Okay. So, what are we. Is there. Before we go to public comment, Mr. Market, did you want to. I wasn't sure if that was a good question. Okay. So Mr. Motorcar. Yes. And of course, he would respond for staff. Thank you, Mayor and council members and Vice Mayor, for the opportunity to update you and just to let you know our thoughts on the proposal. We have been making some tremendous strides since the May TFF memo to you all. Just to highlight a few of some of our accomplishments, we've opened City Hall back in April, May and and started with express permitting by reservation only in the next week or so where we will be accepting reservations to expand that even further so that folks can actually come in and process over the counter applications on a reservation basis only. We have launched today a new permitting software for certain express permits. So now we have a web facing portal that will allow us to check off several of the most frequently requested permits, like reroutes and certain water heaters and that sort of thing. As the Vice Mayor alluded to, we are continuing to work with our civil service department and our human resources to continue to prioritize the interviewing and selection of staff. We've done some great strides and we will continue to to work on that. We have an open enrollment process currently that will allow us to continue to interview staff or applicants as they come in. Lastly, we've made, I think, a significant amount of of improvements to improve our our backlog. We've reached out to our partners in certain cities like Oakland, San Diego, Tennessee, Huntington Beach. And we are essentially consistent with their express permit timelines, their minor project timelines. And we're working to catch up where about a week or so behind them when it comes to the major project review. So I think we've done a pretty good job and in reducing that backlog. We're not perfect and we'll continue to improve that. And I want to thank the vice mayor for his recommendations. I think these are in the order that were were laid out. I think these are things that that we will be able to report back to you in terms of the additional staffing efforts, the technological improvements, as well as the shot clock. I think we are. Generally speaking, we're in support of of those recommendations and as a precursor, having staffing and technology in place to be able to effectuate the shot clock proposal. So that's our thoughts. Thank you. And Mayor, if I can add just a couple more areas that that Oscar shared with me that I think would be important for the team to know in two specific areas. One was expedited, permitting, all those ideas that that actors talked about during the pandemic. Yes, we were certainly suffering. We had employees get sick, employees leave, contractors leave. We had furloughs. And so we were seeing response times in that area of about eight weeks or more. We were back down to 1 to 2 days in those areas. So there's been huge progress since May that we were even at a point where we were getting so many calls and emails, it was taking a couple of weeks to be able to respond to everything. We're back down to 1 to 2 days as well. So there's been certainly a lot of focus on this. We know that there's more that we can do and look forward to engage in some additional study. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Appreciate that update, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to start by thanking the development services staff. Over the last six months, I've worked so closely with them because so many permits had been pulled on my side of town and there have been so many things that impacted residents. And I just want to say that not only has the management been excellent, but the staff that are there remain excellent. Some of the discussions that I've had with management about the implementation of the system that we've discussed, I'm thankful to hear, at least from our I.T. Manager, that. We are actively updating the current system to have those online submissions and this is kind of part of a bigger picture as well because other systems will plug into our system. So then there's a secondary component of the assessor's office and other things that really have a long term benefit in reducing the workload over time . And for those things, I'm grateful because I know it is a big lift and our city has many, many large IT projects at hand. We talked about during an Economic Development and Finance Committee meeting in 2016, the priorities of the city in terms of transparency. And we specifically talked about development services. And as I've tracked the progress with the department, I look forward to a time where this permit system is hooked up to a dashboard and whether it's called a dashboard or a shot clock, the transparency on all things within our city, whether it's the number of days it's been since an animal was impounded and receives its vaccination to the number of days it's been for a permit to be processed of different types. Individuals in our community should see what's happening at City Hall. As the mayor said when this was brought up the first time, 24 seven City Hall, and that was long before a pandemic that people should have access to that information. 24 seven. And so I look forward to us getting all of our systems to that place. And I know that the Long Beach Coast project has been a heavy lift and is a big piece of the resources that have really been a burden on the city to get us to this point. Other critical projects, including the Long Beach, one card and others, are making progress. But but slowly because there's so much going on. And I appreciate that. But one thing that I think we just cannot not address is the staffing shortages. Mr. Modica has done an excellent job both as city manager and as assistant city manager in trying to streamline. We had a presentation approximately two and a half years ago related to the changes made. However. On and on and on. Cities around the region continue to come in, cherry pick our excellent stuff, and they do that because they're able to get their training wheels here, learn the ropes, become excellent staff members, and then all these other cities are cherry picking our staff. So what I'd like to see is a friendly. A friendly. A friendly amendment. I can't even remember the things we used to say at the diocese, like looking down. Someone help me out here to dress and provide some ability for our executive team to whether it be with one of the committees of our council or independently be able to provide critical shortage recruitment rates. Critical shortage recruitment rates have been a very effective tool in the county of Los Angeles. Quite frankly, the county of Los Angeles has used them to ravage our prosecutor's office and steal them for the DA's office. And it's about time that we use those tools for ourselves. So the Los Angeles County Municipal Code, Section 6.10.050 outlines the critical shortage recruitment rate. I think it important to note that the steps in the county system are different percentages than the city system, but that the CEO, under certain considerations in that case would be our city manager, can provide between a one and four step increase during the shortage for both recruitment and retention of critical positions. And I think that hadn't Mr. Modica had that tool during this time, we would have been in a better position. Mr. Orsi and I and Mr. Koontz and I have discussed the specific item before this agenda item was even presented. It's something that we talked about back when we had the week shortages. Sorry. Speaking with a mask on. I'm like, totally winded in myself. But this is a critical part of our city's ability to stay competitive when we have the best of the best. And so for those reasons, I hope, Mr. Richardson, your vice mayor Richardson, will consider a friendly amendment to add in that Mr. Monica look at critical shortage recruitment options for this Council to consider. Right. These three ideas are a starting point. If there's other things that make it better, I think we're just sending the message that these are the types of things we want to explore to really turn this around. So absolutely happy to accept it. I thank you. Councilwoman the house. You think if I smear Richardson for this item? As we all know, many departments experience cutbacks in staff as well as a slower processes in some instances due to online transactions we had to make during during COVID 19. However, as as this item, stress and such changes created more barriers for our permitting center and others per many permit and building related offices, which translated to greater barriers to our affordable housing expansion efforts. And that is something that we cannot allow to continue. Anything that we can do to help ensure that our response to housing crisis and that are and that our pandemic recovery is as speedy, comprehensive and efficient as possible is something I want us to do. I am very supportive of everything that this item proposes and will continue to support this item and these efforts to make sure that we we are able to provide these permits in a timely manner. Thank you. Kathryn Ringo. Thank you. I am supportive of the item, but the complaints that I've received haven't been along the lines of the permit. It's the customer service that the individuals get their delays. Excuses are being made and using the using the understaffing as as a reason for not being able to provide the service. I think that while we get a solid chart, we have maybe just about equal amount of contractors and employees. I think that when you get contractors, you get what you pay for. The customer service is just not there. So I want to see that we can improve our our customer service in the area that we get up to, up to speed with our staffing. But I also want to encourage our department and maybe with h.R. To do maybe a compensation study in terms of where people leaving and where are we being cherry picked as a councilmember, Mungo stated, why are we going to other cities or the stimulus in general for our either better employment or better working conditions? I don't know. Might want to do a exit interview of these individuals to find out why they're leaving. We know some because they got sick and probably would didn't want to come back or couldn't go and couldn't come back. But for those that replaced them, I think we also have to include a training program on customer service, being able to deal with the public. Many of these contractors, we know, are not trained in that area. They're just trained to do the job and probably not sensitive to the needs of the community for to be responsive. So I'd like to also see some kind of customer service training that would bring these contractors up to speed. If we're going to be using them, let's get them. That's getting trained so that they can work in the municipal environment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes, I thank you, Mayor. And I just want to say thank you to Vice Mayor Richardson for introducing this item. And I'm so happy that I have signed on. I have heard from so many folks in District two that are having or had issues with their projects. I recently, just last week, was talking to a personal friend who has done construction in this city for over 40 years, and he has never seen these long delays. And I know that were what happened with COVID. And I explained a lot of the issues that we've had. I was encouraged when I just heard city manager Tom Modica say that this would be a focus of his. I think that it's important as a city that we do everything possible to get things done in a timely manner and that we have good customer service. You know, we need to return people's calls. I know what we did as a city during COVID. I know the amount of calls that we were receiving then, and I know how responsive that we were to all those calls. So I'm confident that we can get this under control. With the commitment from staff. And I also think it's important that we hit you know, we hit the ground running. And that means, you know, all these contractors. So this is going to help us. This is these issues are going to help us really with our with a strong economic recovery. I also think it's going to be critical that we address address some of the staffing issues that we've talked about and then updating all of our technology as well. So anyway, this is good stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I also want to just first of all, thank our Development Services Department for. I'm just doing an amazing job of responding to just the enormous amount of development that's going on in the city at this time. It is not it's not normal times. Right. And I would believe that particularly over the last year with people staying at home or paying a little bit more attention to those household projects that we need to take care of in terms of maintenance of homes. There was probably an unexpected demand on our our our services here in the city. And and during a period of time probably that we didn't think there would be that demand. And so there were some factors that I think we need to acknowledge over the last year that that. That certainly led to a changing dynamic. In my view, this is a personnel and priority management issue at I that the I appreciate Councilmember Richardson for bringing up the graph showing the the disparity and the the the trend of contractors versus full time employees. I'm one that believes that employees actually have more vested interest in their work, particularly in a critical function like this in terms of permitting of for development services. I mean, there's the specific codes, there's specific institutional knowledge. That is, I think, very, very useful. Employees are going to have that grasp and long term interests more so than a contractor in the future. So so I guess I have a quick question of how did we get to this point with it? And I heard from my colleague, Councilmember Mongo, and it seems to be some some thought about pay disparities and people being kind of plugged off to other agencies. But to the director and to city manager. What, what, what, what? Because it was a drastic shift. I mean, literally 50% of the workforce in this particular function went away. What contributed to that? Councilmember First of all, you're correct. 2019, we had a banner year in terms of the number of permits pulled and issued. 2020 was not that far behind. I think it's our second highest permitting. So although we were in COVID, we did have a tremendous amount of requests for development. Uh, I think what, what we were managing some of the absences and whatnot throughout the better part of 2020. It's towards the end of the year 2020, the beginning of 2021, where we experienced delays or excuse me, vacancies, and they all seem to happen all at once. So it's kind of the perfect storm, if you will. We have the added development activity now. We have vacancies, and now we have to bring up staff contracts to have private consulting staff to train those. And we've we've done we've done well at being able to fill those positions. But again, those positions are transient in nature and they require training, which didn't help us in terms of our backlog. So that's essentially what what transpired and why we created these why these delays were created. And just add to that a little bit. We agree, we want most of our staff there on a daily basis to be our own city employees. That is our model. We then use contract staff to help on the surges and the supplements. And so we got to a point where people were retiring, people were leaving, they were getting sick or they were moving for other jobs. We are not known as the best paid municipality around either, so pay is certainly a factor, but that is something that we see in multiple different areas. One thing we did do is we've authorized over hiring. So they have the ability to now hire more than budget in order to get back up so we can get city employees. But just like other employees were, other employers were affected as well by just the limit of a labor pool. So this permit tech is one of the main positions down there. We used to get about 70 to 90 applications a year when we opened it up and about half of those would be unqualified. And then you get maybe 30 or 40 people to choose from. In this recent time, working with civil service, they opened it up and they got about 36 people and 63% of which were not qualified for the job. So that leaves you with about 13 people to then, you know, go through and make sure that they're a good fit for us and have all the qualifications. So we are just like other industries having a hard time finding people to replace them. So, um, it sounds like we, no matter where we get to, the bottom line is we're going to have to have adequate staffing to be able to improve efficiencies in our system no matter what we do moving forward. So with that, I certainly support improving our efficiencies and I think this discussion was worthwhile. I'm really looking forward to hearing from public comment, but also the stakeholders who who deal with our development services department on a on a daily basis. I think that is a. An. Important element. Thank you. Thank you. Next up becomes one person. There is no public comment, but Councilman Price. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this is a fantastic item. I'm happy to support it. I do have in doing a little bit of research on the shot clock practices and legislation and in other. Parts of the country. One of the things that that I saw is that. Making sure that we have enough time and a. Process, a meaningful process from public input, I think is going to be important because that's one of the criticisms. Of other shot shot clock bills that. I that I've seen and read about. I think that's really important. So I'm. Hoping staff stays. Mindful of that. And also allowing staff to still. Have the opportunity to make meaningful changes and provide adequate oversight, I think is critical. Again, these are some and this is an area. Where we can really adopt some best practices. From unfortunate lessons learned in other jurisdictions. And I just want to make sure that moving forward, staff is mindful. Of some of those best practices and that's incorporated into whatever comes back to us. So that's kind of where I wanted to start my comments. I wanted to acknowledge our development services and our planning staff. I mean, they have done a tremendous job and just. Even in the short time that we really the city. Manager, has really put a focus on this, I've seen a major improvement. Too, to see that our response rates and our turnaround times have. Improved such that where we're on par with a lot of the other cities that were cited this evening and cities with within the region I think is very helpful and it shows just tremendous progress by our development services and planning team. So I want to thank. Oscar and Christopher really for their. Efforts in that regard. But but I'm wondering. You know, we've gone through the process of streamlining hiring and expediting our hiring process. You know, to what extent have those. Changes in our. Operations in the city changed our process? And has it been more efficient? Are we operating efficiently in terms of our. Hiring process so that we can get these positions filled? And maybe that's a question for the city manager. So yes, I do feel like some of the improvements that we've made have helped here. For example, this is one we elevated very quickly with civil service. They put it the test ahead of others, which they have been doing now for us when we see a critical vacancy. And they created what Oscar mentioned, open, continuous, so that they're not just opening it for two weeks and then it's whoever's on the list. It actually, if we find someone tomorrow who wants to sign up to be a permit tech, we they can get on the list do the qualifications and we can pull from that. So that certainly has been one. And on the other end, as we hire, we've been streamlining a lot of what it takes to go through occupational health and to bring them on board. That is going even faster. And we're looking at some additional improvements there to make that go quicker. There are certain things that you don't have control over, like, you know, a live scan and some of those where you have to rely on some of the other agencies for background checks. But the ones that we have control that we've made some progress on. Okay. Great. Thank you. I don't have any additional questions. Mr. Mayor. Thank. Councilwoman. Councilman. Mongo. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce reminded me of something that I had read about one other jurisdiction, and I thought it'd be appropriate to ask. The vice mayor if he had that intent, because that would be something I'd like to learn more about. When you talk about a shot clock, that would be a timeline. And typically when the shot clock is reached in basketball, you then lose the ball. And then in your mind, would that mean that it's an automatic approval? No. I've had good conversations with staff about there's a lot of ways to get there. And I wanted to kind of close out some of those comments, though, so I'll explain a little bit further when I'm queued up next. Okay. I think it's critical to know that because I could not be supportive of a process that would allow for projects that have not gone through proper approvals and requirements to make it to completion. So I think that the health and safety of the community and their neighbors is just critical. So as long as it's more in alignment with the dashboards and transparency that this council unanimously supported in 2016, with you on the committee at the time as vice chair, I think that we can continue and I know that Ms.. Eriksson, with technology and innovation, is supportive of continuing down that path, though we all know it's taken a little bit longer than we had hoped. I know we can get there together. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I want to I want to just thank all the council members for their colleagues, for their comments. You know, as we started off with this presentation, we want to lift up our staff. We want to support our staff. You guys have done an incredible job. I see it. We deal with habitability issues in my district. We're doing development in my district. I hear it. I see how hard you work, how hard it's been to get development going in certain areas of town. So. You know, from things like a plan. We want to be in a place where implementing those things now. And that's why it's important to have this the system in place. A few things. There's there's a few things we're asking for here. I think the city council is really lifted up. Hiring is important. We want to see what you've done. We want to see what you can do next. The idea that council the friendly by councilmember mongo. I think it's a great idea if there is other tools be created the software. There wasn't a lot of discussion by the council but I know how significant the software and how expensive this could be. We want you to come back and provide those options. I think big think about having a best in class software system. That's what we want you to come back and put us in a position to support you and do. And in terms of the shot clock. I've been really clear with staff. What we want here is transparency, accountability. Now, at the end of the shot clock, again, something, something, something happens, right? There's already under certain laws and affordable housing is already a shot clock. Now, I'm not asking to add additional penalties. This isn't about being punitive. This is about understanding how we are meeting our commitment to the public. Are we? Are we meeting the shot clock? Are we beating the buzzer? Right. Are we constantly delayed in that shot clock? So there's so many ways to achieve it. The idea is the software can really open up the playbook for us in terms of having a shot clock and understanding what our commitment is to the public. So thank you to the city council. Thank you to the staff. Thank you to the again, to the machinists, the Building Industry Association, the Southern California Association, our private housing and L.A. County Business Federation for speaking up and supporting us. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to just to close. I want to thank Mr. Orsi and just the whole team at Development Services and Planning. I think you guys have really done a great job under a very difficult year. So I just want to thank you and the team. And I personally want to just also think I know I have encountered a couple instances with neighbors or folks, a couple of folks that stopped me on the street and have been waiting on a permit or have had some concerns. And you've addressed those very quickly. And when I brought those to the department's attention. So I just appreciate you for for doing that as well. And I want to also just note and I think I know Mr. Modica, you and I talked about this or have been talking about this as well. As a as a snapshot as where we are today. We are are we close or fairly close to being cut up as far as the amount of time it takes for processing as we were pre-pandemic? I think we're pretty close. Is that right? We're pretty close, especially on the stuff that really is kind of the smaller the minor ones. Those were taking weeks. They're now taking 1 to 2 days. One thing we didn't talk about here that I do want to add and I want to hear what Oscar has to say, though, is we changed the system completely when we send it went home. We went from a very efficient system where you touch every single city department all in one day on one visit to having to now interact virtually with dozens of different people in different areas that couldn't see each other. And it was all done on email instead of over, you know, in person. And that had a very significant impact on our efficiency. And so now getting that back open and as you heard, Oscar bringing more people in and being able to get even more services, indoor permit counter is really going to help. Oscar, can you talk a little bit about where we are just in terms of being caught up? Yes, thank you. Mr. Motorcar Monaco. As you pointed out, we had to pivot as we shut down and shuttered our city hall. We went from a largely in-person service to a digital process. And it's not necessarily the most conducive way to conduct business, especially when you rely on on the development community to provide the information that we need to process it so that when you don't have that and now you're spending most of your time, whether it's through emails or through phone calls, it's not the most efficient way. So technology will help and be able to control that and regulate that and hold both parties accountable. Councilmember Mongo, you mentioned what what shot clock ideas would be, things like being able to to not accept incomplete applications. We've done that as a courtesy to expedite the services, but then we find ourselves on the back end, waiting for weeks for folks to to respond to those, to those efforts. So having staffing, having the tech will allow us to effectuate a shot clock type program. But, but, but as I mentioned in my presentation or in my in my discussion points, we are caught up in some of those cities that were referenced tonight. We are within their ranges and the only improvement we need on our on our LA, our large projects and we have we have seen development activity continue even during during this this pandemic and coming out of the pandemic. So and we're making, again, great strides in getting those. But our timelines have been cut down to what used to be eight weeks to one week, what used to be several days to return a phone call to a day or two. And we'll continue to do that. And and this effort, this program will just help us be kind of the leader among those communities that we that we identify today and throughout southern California. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think also I want to just note that throughout the the, you know, 15 months, 14 months of the pandemic development has continued to boom across the city. Projects happening at every scale, housing, affordable housing projects, large market rate development, retail development. And I just want to commend also all of you for just continuing to shepherd all those projects through. It has been a huge task. And in fact, in talking to a lot of mayors and other cities, we have not seen there have been some slowdowns in other places. And I feel I'm from a large project perspective that you guys have done a really great job of just maintaining those and moving those forward. I do I do agree that losing a big chunk of our workforce like we did and changing the whole system like you all had to do, it did cause absolute disruptions for particularly, you know, folks who were just trying to do additions to their home or smaller changes to within their own neighborhoods. And so I think that's that's absolutely correct. And I think that our planning and our development department, just like it was impacted, just like public works and or trash pickup was impacted, just like fire service was impacted, just like our hospitals were impacted. I think that all of our departments were impacted in a very in a very real way because of the pandemic. And so, again, just to you and your team, I think you've done a great job. And I want to just note, I don't I and correct me if my date's wrong, but I think we we we implemented the new plan check system just like two years ago. Wasn't that like two years ago? Yes, it's a recent implementation and I know that that and so we've it's it's that's been a huge benefit to to the planning process, an enormous change. And so that software and that system is just two years old, correct? Correct. And Mayor, just wanted to let you know that the developer community has not taking advantage of that EA plan software like we wanted them to. So we are trying to revisit the EA plans offered as well as our in for permitting system. They work they both work in concert to improve efficiencies and to upgrade our technology, including our E plan. We had a multiple phased a plan process. The most current one that implemented the online portal was a couple of years ago because I know we've had some folks use the plan process, but you're saying that we need to do a better job also of getting it out there and promoting it and making sure people know about it, correct? Correct. And we have been but it's just the community is typically likes to stick with the traditional process. Right. Right now, I think. Definitely understand. So thank you. Look, look, I think we all look forward to being fully staffed up and opening up the counters fully in city hall and letting folks come back up to do the planning. I want to make one more note. I think that the ability and you said it to Mr. Modica, and I think it's critical, the ability for staff to be in the same room. And to be able to share plans with each other or to walk across the hall and get get a plan checked or walk over to an engineer or walk over to the traffic department or to sustainability department and be able to collaboratively work on a project was dramatically hindered in during that year. And I think that we should and I think we have learned a lot of lessons. We have to be prepared for how we would how we would operate in the future if we were to have to have this type of closure in the future, which hopefully will never happen again anytime soon. But I think we we learned a lot of lessons on that because that back and forth is really critical. So thank you for getting things back to almost where they were pre-pandemic and will continue to make real improvements. So I appreciate all of your work. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity. Once again, I take a lot of ownership of this. This is something I've always been very passionate about. I want to kind of just say two additional things. Some of the bigger projects that I know are coming or have come, and a lot of the bigger developers from housing on Norwalk to the Amazon 360 or fresh or whatever it's called now in spring to the senior facility that is going through a process to globe master plan. I'm working with people that work in a lot of cities, and despite what we've had as a challenge, I will tell you that they consistently say that we are. The cream of the crop staff to work with. I know that occasionally a staff member might have a bad day, but on the whole, working with you and your team, I get rave reviews all the time, so I just want you to hear that again. And then in talking about some of the things that Ms.. Ericsson and I and quite honestly, her predecessor and I discussed related to these systems, there are a lot of tools. A lot of you talked about the pausing of the permit process when you accept incomplete documents. And you and I have had a lot of talks about this in the last two years because I got a complaint that no one's gotten back to them. And there was one email that let them know that X, Y and Z is missing and no one's responded. And so I really love some of the systems that that technology and innovation and I have discussed, which really have like a couple of major components to them. One is that you can get multiple approvals from multiple division simultaneously when a plan is at a certain phase. And that really gives you that online one stop shop that I know that you guys are striving for. And so I want the community to hear that that's in the works like long before today in this meeting, but that you guys have really been thinking about the developers and what they need. And then secondarily, when a plan is paused because of a change need or an issue or a request that there is a drip notice of notifications to all members emailed, which means that it says today your plan check has been put on hold because you are missing A, B and C. It has been three days since your plan check has been put on hold because you're missing an agency. It has been five days since your and that is an automatic in the system that doesn't take staff resources and really continues to put it back on the staff of the companies that are coming to the city and asking for that help so that they are reminded because often these architects, engineers, developers, they have 70 different projects in 30 different cities and they don't always remember and they forgot about a set of emails that came from our office. And so I just want to thank you again for that. And I know one of our council members asked this question as a series of questions, and they did it so politely that there wasn't an actual direct response. But I've heard some of the rates of our competitor cities. Is there anything you want to comment about the the variance of those rates and what we're really talking about? Or the cost. I'm sorry for the the pay to staff in other cities versus ours. Cause I just don't think people know. I think we're going to have to get back to you one time. Once we get that. I've heard in some cities it's double digits. Yeah. Some of them police staff have gone outside the organization for four or $5 and up for the same position. Yeah, significantly more worth a move and into areas of Southern California that have a significantly lower cost of living. And I think that that's important to recognize. And I appreciate our staff that stick with us, train and retain. That's my motto. And I appreciate you and and the staff that have been with us for the long haul. Note that you will be rewarded. Thank you. Thank you. There's a there's a motion in a second. Please cast your vote to call. District one, District two, high district three. I. District four. District five. Yes. District six. District seven. District eight. District nine. All right, Ocean Cares.

Recommendation to receive a report from staff on the feasibility of the creation of a 24-month pilot program to expand the tax base of non-retail cannabis businesses by streamlining processes, adjusting tax rates, and providing incentives, and provide further input and direction to staff on development of a pilot program.

LongBeachCC_07022019_19-0338

Great. Thank you, Congressman, but. Okay, fine. I close public speaking. Now we go to item 23. Item 23, would you please read the item? Item 23 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Chair of the Economic Development and Finance Committee. Vice Mayor, Council Member Pearce says announcement. Yes. Yes. My announcement is I have to recuse myself since global investments is a source of income for me and they are an investment company with from the Earth cannabis. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ready? Could you. Could you please. We got. Item 23 is communication from Councilmember Richardson, Chair of the Economic Development and Finance Committee. Recommendation to receive a report on the feasibility of creating a 24 month pilot project to expand the tax base of non-retail cannabis businesses. Please, I'm going to turn it over to the staff. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Council members, we have a presentation by A.J. Curie, who is our cannabis manager. And A.J., take it away. AJ, I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is A.J. Hillary and I work for the Office of Cannabis Oversight in the city manager's office. I'm here to present the findings of a report requested by the Economic Development and Finance Committee on Non-retail Cannabis Businesses in Long Beach. With a clear. Thanks. On April nine, 2019, the Economic Development and Finance Committee requested staff to refer to the City Council a report on the feasibility of the creation of a 24 month pilot program to expand the tax base of non-retail cannabis businesses by streamlining processes, adjusting tax rates and providing incentives. In response to this request. Staff from the city manager's office met with departments responsible for regulating cannabis activity in Long Beach to solicit ideas for a pilot program. Staff also met with cannabis industry representatives to receive feedback on the current licensing process. Before discussing the findings of the report, I'd like to first define a few key terms referenced in the EDI and F committee request. First, what does it mean to expand the tax base? Expanding the base means increasing the amount of economic activity subject to taxation for the cannabis industry. This can be accomplished in two ways either increasing the number of licensed cannabis businesses in Long Beach or increasing the amount of taxable sales at existing businesses. Next, what is a non-retail cannabis business? There are four business types that fall into this category. Cultivators which grow and harvest cannabis plants indoors only in Long Beach. Manufacturers which extract essential oils from the plant and use that oil to create other types of consumer goods. Distributors which warehouse and transport cannabis products. And finally, testing laboratories which test cannabis goods for mold, pesticides and other contaminants. The common denominator for all non-retail business types is that unlike dispensaries, they do not sell cannabis goods directly to consumers. The next few slides are meant to provide an overview of the Long Beach cannabis market. This slide provides a breakdown of all proposed cannabis facilities in Long Beach and where they currently stand in the application process. As seen in the table of the 248 proposed cannabis facilities, only 37 have been issued a license to operate. The remaining 211 facilities are at various stages of licensing process, which includes zoning review, application review plan, submittal and construction. The vast majority of these pending cannabis facilities are for non-retail business types. Non-retail businesses in particular have moved slowly through the application process, hence the significant discrepancy between the number of pending and licensed facilities in Long Beach. This slide shows general fund cannabis tax revenues collected in FY 18 and estimated in FY 19, broken out by business type. As you can see from the table, the city is collecting more in tax revenues from dispensaries than from all other non-retail cannabis business types combined. In FY 18, 51% of all cannabis tax revenues were collected from dispensaries. The remaining 49% were collected from non-retail businesses in Fy19. Staff estimates this discrepancy will grow, with 75% of cannabis tax revenues coming from dispensaries, 25% from non-retail businesses. The main reason for the underperformance of the non-retail sector are twofold. First, the slow pace of business openings. And second, the fact that those non-retail businesses that have received a license have reported minimal gross receipts to the city thus far. In preparing this report, staff contacted cannabis businesses to better understand why non retail activity has not taken off. The most common responses are summarized on this slide. First, almost every non-retail cannabis business expressed concern over the tax rates charged by the city of Long Beach compared to other jurisdictions. Some non-retail businesses indicated they were considering relocating to other cities with lower tax rates. Second, some non-retail businesses have struggled to navigate the building plan check process, sometimes requiring multiple corrections and resubmit prior to receiving building permits to start construction. Third, some businesses underestimated the amount of capital necessary to construct a non-retail facility and have been forced to secure additional investments midway through the application process. Fourth, some non-retail businesses report weak demand for licensed cannabis products due to the limited number of licensed retailers operating throughout the state. And finally, some businesses have found it difficult to cover the inflated cost of real estate charged by property owners, who often demand a premium from cannabis businesses relative to other business types. Staff has prepared a set of options for the City Council to expand the tax base of non-retail cannabis businesses. The options are broken into two categories. The first category includes options that require changes to the Long Beach Municipal Code and therefore must be approved by the City Council. The second category includes administrative improvements that can be made by departments. As a result, departments already began implementing these changes upon release of the report. In theory, all of the options identified in the report can be adopted as a 24 month pilot, as required as requested by the EDF committee. However, there are some limitations to taking a pilot approach. First, businesses tend to avoid uncertainty when making decisions. The shorter a pilot, the less likely businesses will respond by increasing investment in Long Beach. Second, given the significant, significant amounts of volatility in the cannabis market, it will be difficult for staff to measure the impact of temporary policies , which is typically the purpose of a pilot program. Having said that, staff can implement any of the policy options identified in the report on a trial basis if requested by the City Council. The first option is for the City Council to direct staff from the Planning Bureau to conduct a study of cannabis building, design and zoning requirements . Once completed, the study will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission may then recommend changes to the Long Beach Municipal Code and refer those changes to the City Council for final approval. Through the proposed process, the Planning Bureau will be able to study and adopt best practices in cannabis facility design. Currently, adult use cannabis businesses are required to meet industry specific requirements relating to signage, window installation, exterior lighting, visibility and other important architectural elements. These requirements are meant to discourage the construction of fortress like facilities that detract from the overall esthetics of the surrounding area. For businesses, however, facility design requirements create additional costs during construction. Since passage of the Adult Use Ordinance, the Planning Bureau has gained a deeper understanding of the cannabis industry and its specific needs relating to safety, security, lighting, product, visibility and other aspects of cannabis business operations. As a result, the Planning Bureau is in a position to conduct a one year review and recommend improvements to the Planning Commission. The second option is to adjust tax rates for manufacturers, testing laboratories and distributors to a level determined by the city council. Generally speaking, the lower the tax rate, the more commercial cannabis activity will expand in Long Beach. However, at this time, staff is not able to recommend specific tax rates without further direction from the city council. The reason for this is that the ideal tax rates for each business type will depend on city council preference in the following areas. First, whether the City Council wishes to stay competitive with other jurisdictions charging lower non-retail cannabis tax rates. Second City Council's preference for short term versus long term general fund tax revenues. And third, the impact that a change in tax rates may have on other non cannabis businesses through an increase in demand for industrial property. I'll discuss some of these issues further in the next few slides. But first, some clarification on City Council authority to adjust cannabis tax rates pursuant to the Long Beach Municipal Code. City Council has the authority to increase or decrease cannabis tax rates by ordinance, subject to the maximum and minimum rates approved by voters for cultivation. The city currently charges a tax rate of $12 per square foot of plant canopy. The city council can increase the tax rate up to $15 per square foot or reduce the tax rate to $0 per square foot for all other non-retail business types. The city currently charges a tax rate of 6% of gross receipts. The city council can increase the tax rate up to 8% of gross receipts or reduce the tax rate to 0% of gross receipts. In terms of the competitiveness of tax rates, Long Beach continues to compare favorably to many jurisdictions in Southern California. However, there is one elephant in the room, and that is the city of Los Angeles. Los Angeles charges significantly lower tax rates than Long Beach for most non-retail business types. Thus far, the Los Angeles market has had a limited impact on business location decisions in Southern California due to a delay in implementation of the Los Angeles application process. This delay has prevented most new businesses from being able to apply for a cannabis business license in L.A.. However, that is set to change with the announcement of what they are calling phase three of the Los Angeles licensing program, which will allow for new businesses to apply for a cannabis business license. At that point, Long Beach may no longer be able to compete for new non-retail cannabis businesses locally. If competitiveness and the ability to attract new non-retail investment locally is the primary concern, then City Council may consider reducing non-retail cannabis tax rates to a level more in line with the city of Los Angeles. The second consideration. Is for a short run versus long run general fund tax revenues in the short run. Staff estimates that a reduction in tax tax rates will lead to a temporary reduction in general fund tax revenues. Specifically, staff estimates that for every 1% reduction in non-retail gross receipts, tax rates, general fund revenues will be reduced by $31,000 in FY 19 and $120,000 in FY 20. In addition, for every $1 reduction in the cultivation canopy square footage tax. General fund revenues will be reduced by an additional $28,000 in FY 19 and $58,000 in FY 20. The projected loss in general fund revenues assumes that in the short run, non-retail businesses will not increase supply in response to lower tax rates, nor will the pace of business openings in fy19 and FY 20 change as a result of lower tax rates. In the long run, however, it is far less clear what the impact of a tax rate reduction will be on the general fund. The main reason for this uncertainty is the fact that in the long run, non-retail businesses have much greater flexibility to adjust supply in response to lower tax rates. For this reason, staff cannot estimate long run impacts without collecting greater amounts of tax revenue data. In summary, if regional competitiveness is the main concern, City Council may consider reducing non-retail tax rates to a level more comparable to the city of Los Angeles. If short term revenue, if short term general fund revenues are the primary concern, then rates may be kept constant. Finally, if long term general fund revenues are the priority, additional data is needed to determine the appropriate rate structure to maximize revenues. The third option for the City Council is to direct staff to research the feasibility of allowing for shared use manufacturing in Long Beach. In 2018, the state of California created a new license category called Type S Shared Use Manufacturing. The license type allows for multiple manufacturing businesses to operate out of a single premise, with the requirement that only one business utilize the space at a given time. Allowing for shared use. Manufacturing could expand the tax base for non-retail businesses by creating new opportunities for less capitalized businesses to partner together to share in the cost of facility design, construction and operation. However, should the City Council decide to pursue this option, staff would first need to complete a study identifying the resources needed to regulate this business type. As part of this study, staff would contact other cities in California that currently license shared use facilities. Once finished, staff would refer the study to the City Council for additional input and policy direction. That concludes the set of options requiring city council approval. In addition, staff identified a set of administrative changes to expand the tax base of non-retail business types. Departments began implementing these administrative changes following release of the EDF report. This includes adjusting the timing of the initial cultivation business license, tax payment to be due later in the application process, creating application flowcharts and inspection checklists to help applicants better understand and navigate the application process. And finally, closer coordination with Southern California Edison, who we met with during preparation of the study and identified some areas where the utility upgrade process could be streamlined. I have included a summary of items discussed in the report on this slide. I'm happy to go into more detail on any of the items if needed. That concludes my presentation and I am available for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. First, we go into public comment and then we'll. Come on, guys, would you please line up if you want to speak on this item? Larry Goodhew. As I've referenced before, my views of. Cannabis is in the same level as sex trafficking. Period. My views on it, I think I've shared this before or shaped back in the late sixties or early sixties when I would work up in Maine during the summer at a. Nice Resort hotel where every year General Paul would rendezvous, who is Ike's chief of staff with his Oasis buddies, and reminisce about those days and so forth. And one of the things this was back at the time that Timothy Leary was advocating LSD, and he pointed out and he to all the people my age and even of people older, how dangerous that was. He's pointing out that LSD was so dangerous, even the Nazis. Would not deal with it. So far, so unstable. Is it so unstable? And that's to have shaped my view. And it's absolutely the same view with cannabis. It's this city. Certainly should have. I know we've got some dubious leadership. There's no question of that. And, you know, we don't have to do that. But there should be enough solid citizens in this city. Sitting behind this council. And those with proper elections will get you get a full council with. Good mental stability to figure out how to meet the financial challenges of this city. Without getting into the drug business, which is essentially what you're doing. And don't try. Try. Tried to try to dance around it. It's no ifs or buts. It's a it's a dangerous road you're going to travel down. So I would suggest you do your research and diligence and find out just how dangerous the drugs can be. And then figure out a way how to. And I think we will get, as you referenced earlier, we're going to get some federal money, considerable federal money to help the city and dealing also with the crime issues. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, stephanie Dawson. So Second District. Thank you again for your attention to this issue. Crafting good public policy takes time and constant bickering, and I'm glad that we can cordially address these specific issues where we can make the system better work for everybody involved in the city. When voters approved measures made in this earnings council later passed, I spoke to Municipal Code Section 5.92. It demonstrated the city's collective decision to create a highly regulated local monopoly for commercial cannabis, including these policies, were a strict commitment to preventing underage sales, enacting labor standards and unionization, ensuring purity of products at the local level. Given the absence of the FDA in this matter and providing local tax revenue to offset any increased regulatory burden on the city with regards to the taxes, it must be said that this local industry here has been consuming, has consistently more in the city about the highest tax threshold placed be a major may specifically were concerned regarding a consumer choice to participate in a local licensed retail market and be preserving a competitive advantage for non-retail businesses in this city. As it stands today, businesses in the city are suffering both points and immediate moderate as modernization is necessary. We've seen similar actions in Oakland, Berkeley, West Hollywood and Palm Springs, all of which are either in the process of drastically reducing their tax rate or already have done so in direct response to the falling wholesale price at the commodity level for commercial cannabis. With regard to the specific regulatory burden, I think that Mr. Corey's department is deserving of praise as well as the rest of the your bureaucracy, for doing their sincere best to keep these projects chugging along despite constantly changing regulations at the state level. However, it is also clear that the fire department specifically is dramatically understaffed for this work, specifically in licensing volatile manufacturing within the city. The opposite seems to be true with regards to enforcement. Despite dozens of officers assigned and funded for the four narcotics abatement, it seems that very few, if any, misdemeanor charges or municipal code violations are being filed by the Long Beach Police Department or the city prosecutor. Despite the flurry of unlicensed scab delivery services currently selling untested marijuana to any child capable of operating a smartphone, again, thank you, council members, for your willingness to continue sharpening this policy and seeking out ways to improve it. Please modernize the total local local tax system in a manner that increases the competitive edge for licensed businesses. Please allocate additional forces in Long Beach fire departments so we can complete the inspection process for the manufacturing businesses. And please direct the city prosecutor and code enforcement to follow similar campaigns in the City of Los Angeles and the city of Anaheim against unlicensed delivery services who are selling untested marijuana to children. And with all due respect, the pilot program is not broad enough in its scope or fast enough to address these systemic issues. We need an expansive and thorough approach, including reforms to the retail rate. Thank you and have a nice day. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Dear City Council. My name is Hab Hadad. I am the CEO of Greenpoint Holdings. We are a cannabis manufacture and distributor located in District nine and on the border of District eight. We wanted to take this opportunity to thank you, the City Council, for being proactive in reviewing the burdensome tax code placed on cannabis businesses by local and state regulations. We wanted to thank you for broadening the tax base and allowing cannabis businesses and the industry in Long Beach to evolve into the great industry it can be. We want to bring a few points to your attention as you consider this topic. Cannabis is taxed at every step in the supply chain. Do not tax the supply chain. Manufacturers, distributors and testing labs should have a lower tax base to keep the entire pricepoint competitive at the retail level. This will curb the underground market. We recommend evolving the tax base to be competitive with neighboring cities, let alone the entire state. For example, the city of Oakland has recognized us recently and modernized their tax base to help small businesses compete. Los Angeles does not burden the supply chain with aggressively high tax rates. Companies have already started to exit Long Beach as a result of the high distribution tax. GROSS receipts needs to be redefined. The way that Long Beach defines gross receipts is oppressive to businesses. Cannabis businesses need to take the cost of goods deduction in order to stay competitive, let alone survive. Oakland voters, for example, approved Measure V, which amends the tax code to allow for cannabis manufacturers and cultivators to deduct the value of raw materials cost of goods sold when calculating their gross receipts. In Long Beach, under the current definition, when a distributor facilitates testing and is reimbursed for those costs, the city would tax them at the entire transaction, which would net the distributor losing money. Distribution businesses typically charge 10 to 20% for their services. So for the city of Long Beach charge, 6% on gross revenue realistically means they receive 30 to 60% of earnings before income tax, employee wages or expenses. Long Beach is not attractive until we fix the tax rate and cost of goods sold deduction. Thank you for your time and considering an evolving our cannabis business tax rates. Thank you. Thank you. Well before the next speaker, is anyone else Spanish speaking? We're close enough to speak English right now. No one else. Okay, fine. This is the last speaker. Hello. My name is Stacey Loucks. I want to thank vice mayor in the council for meeting with us tonight. First of all, I'd like to also thank the city for the research that was done to put this report together. I get asked quite often why there aren't many more manufacturers open and running. I manufacture license here in Long Beach. I got calls from AJ. I got calls from other people in the city. The research was done. And so I just want to thank you for the for following through with that and saying we would do our research and dove into it. So thank you for that and other members of the city to the help that we get on the fourth floor. It's not always crazy there. We did get some support there and seventh floor, too. We do get some great support. Like I said, I'm a licensed manufacturer in Long Beach and to my knowledge, there's only a few handful of us that are open and operating. There are other licenses issued, but a lot of them are not open and operating. I'm asked often as to why they're not open and operating included by the city. I was asked that the expenses of licensing filled out equipment purchases. Legal and compliance issues are certainly the first hurdle, but not the last. The limited number of licensed retail outlets which result in less places to sell our product has obviously changed our model significantly. Price increases due to taxes and other compliance issues have driven people to the black market. And that's not good for any of us. Many of us, many people have just simply run out of money and cannot operate with a five figure loss every month. In the supporting documents for this agenda item, there were two estimates for cannabis revenue tax for manufacturers. One was 78,000, the other was 17,000. Based on the number of operating manufacturers, I don't know which number is correct. However, based on that the number, I would suggest that is probably closer to the 17. Just to give you some perspective on that number. I personally have already paid $10,000 and I saw two more quarterly payments that I have to make this year. I'm currently losing $50,000 a month in my business. I think Long Beach has one of the most well-thought out and fair social equity programs, and I am proud to say that we have completed the orientation and certification for this. We would love to be more involved and benefit more individuals, but the reality is we cannot afford to hire them. Instead, I worked 70 hours a week wearing many hats. I would like to point out two potential issues with the agenda item. The two year pilot program will cause businesses to think twice before setting up shop in Long Beach. Cannabis businesses need to be able to operate on a five year plus plan. The investment is very significant and the returns are very slow. Most will not be profitable for 12 plus months. Second, the recommendation that cultivation be excluded is not in the best interest of the cannabis cannabis industry or expanding the tax base. Cultivation is where everything begins and we need the starting point to have financial stability as well. Again, I appreciate all the efforts of the City Council said in city offices for taking the time to dove deeply into this issue. We are facing and addressing these issues tonight in the meeting. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me turn this over now to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you all for for attending. I want to start with just thanking staff, including Deputy City Manager Kevin Jackson and AJ. I don't really know your title, AJ, but you're the czar on these issues. So thank you for taking your time and particularly the really good outreach. I know how seriously you've taken this issue and you've learned a lot, and that's clear. And you're very, very open and transparent about the things you've learned since we took this step forward, since adopting this this this ordinance. So just in terms of the process here, you know, this you know, this issue has been raised over the last few months. And the idea here is this is a big, big issue. It's not simply something we can place on the agenda and move forward. We're going to need a number of levels of review. And the council has talked about doing a lot of work in the appropriate committees. When we talk about taxes and and growing taxes and the bottom line for the city, the appropriate committee, city council committee is the Economic Development and Finance Committee. And so we took up this issue. And, you know, and the idea here is we want it to go over a basic overview of the facts. We can't make policy changes at the committee level, but we can begin with a high level overview of the facts. So we asked city staff to take a look at the facts and sort of break out this issue into something the city council can deal with. And they have they've come together with some changes that need city council direction in order to take that next level of review and then administrative changes that they can move forward with administratively if the case is made. And I think that's what's happened here. So I want to thank staff for seeing the distinction between the things that need further city council review and the things that just simply make sense because they were asked to talk to the industry about making those changes. So that was sort of step one, the community committee high level review. And so we've asked for this broad conversation and this study and that moves now to phase two. It's been referred to the city council. And what you get is instead of just a simple agenda item from a council member saying, look at this, now you . Have a lot of. Facts and data and details to begin to look. At. And the city council can now, you know, the committee has limited power. We can't ask for full review. The city can now say thank you for doing that high level review, go ahead and conduct a further fiscal impact on this or the Planning Commission review on that. And so that's where we are today. The idea is that next, after, you know, we get past this next level review, all the things that require city council action will come back and we would adopt changes based on that next level of review. So if anyone's confused about it tonight, we're not actually adopting anything tonight. We're taking these questions that are really organized by staff and taking the next step of a deep dove and asking staff to go back and connect that conduct, that next level of review that's been happening tonight. So there's been a lot of questions and and I'm thankful to my colleagues for raising some of these questions. And I had a chance to kind of warm up on some of this earlier today. Why retail versus non-retail? Why not retail versus retail? Right. Why the non-retail? Why are we tackling non-retail versus retail? And there's a number of reasons why it makes sense to address this in this way and to start this conversation with non-retail number one as a political issue. The retail businesses have been a political hot, hot button issue for generations of this council. And it's really comes down to a real need to protect the quality of life or any perceived impacts to the quality of life to residents that are brought into a neighborhood with a dispensary. And so sometimes we can't even get to the substance of the conversation because of the impact of a dispensary. What we're going to do, some dispensary, we're taking that and setting that to the side. We're talking about the part of the industry that largely has zero blight impact or neighborhood impact because they're not dealing with customers as residents there. These are business to business manufacturing entities and sort of upstream supply chain industries. So let's make that clear. We're not talking about dispensaries tonight. Secondly, it was brought up that we have this you know, it was brought up that we have a robust cannabis equity ordinance. Many of the economic opportunities associated with this industry are not with the dispensaries. Much of the economic sort of benefits are with the supply chain and the upstream businesses. These are these are jobs. These are union jobs. These are prevailing wage jobs. And this is the segment of the industry that is really stalled. And that's, frankly, the part of the industry I'm most excited about. And when we say stalled, we're talking about 37 out of 211. And we know that in conducting the staff review, staff said it today. The number one message coming back from the industry is number one, the check, the challenges with our ordinance as we're learning. And two, the tax rate associated with the non-retail businesses. So number four, why why why focus on non retail? Well, one, we've learned a lot in the last year or two. For example, this conversation about type s didn't even exist when we started this conversation. And state law has changed and the industry has learned and our staff has learned. And so we know that sometimes these new industries and these big issues need to be tweaked. And so this is why, again, focus on non-retail. And then and then lastly, I'll say, if this were any other industry, I don't know that we would have, you know, a tax structure that touches every single level of the industry. If this were if we were manufacturing other things, I don't know. You know, I don't know that it would be treated in such a way. And my I never really expected a huge windfall of taxes. I would love to see that. But what I see when a new industry comes in, I want to see that we milk all the economic benefits, including the jobs and most importantly, the jobs and opportunities to sort of invest in that that industry and that. And those are the opportunities that really haven't really taken root. And so so to kind of wrap my comments, I want to go through. So my hope today again, is the things that we know need further review and direction from council. We can start giving some direction on that next level of review. And I want to start going through that, some of that right now. So let's start with there were broken into sort of the changes that need direction from council, the options and then the administrative changes. The administrative change has already been handled. So we're just talk about options one, two and three. So option one really focuses on the facility design and zoning. These are non-economic issues. These are things that we learned through the process. Our intention was simply to make sure that things don't look a certain way or don't look like fortress fortresses. And and it's a good thing and we support that. But we've learned that there are some challenges with, you know, installing, you know, $6,000, $10,000 windows simply to just put plywood over it because it's a factory. And you wouldn't just put a, you know, window at a certain wall and factory and some of these planning standards could maybe be changed or tweaked. And so option one is requesting us to further send this collection of issues that's been reviewed at, you know, economic development. And now here, send it to the Planning Bureau and the Planning Planning Bureau and those folks in the Planning Commission to do what they do, take this feedback and come back to city council with something that's actionable. And so in terms of option one, it's not economic. I think that's something we can move forward with tonight. So within the my motion, I'd like to move forward with option one. And then the other thing that really is non-economic is option three. So if we look at option three, which begins on page 16, the shared use manufacturing, this is something that, you know, we have a shared economy. This type license didn't exist in the state when we started. That's something that we simply need to evaluate. So option three asks us to ask staff to go ahead and began researching the feasibility of option three. So again, it's not economic. If anything, it may be able it may be some opportunities for us to grow business here. And so I want to move forward with option three, which again will return to the full council as staff has the opportunity to evaluate the feasibility. So I want to begin with options. I want to also include option two, an option to into the motion. I mean, option three. And so the motion now as we get to option two, this was a high level review, right? We had we didn't do a full fiscal analysis on the tax rates yet. What we're able to do is really kind of break out, see what's happening across the region, understand what's happening with phase three, with the city and with phase three in the city of Los Angeles. And really take this time to understand fully what the industry is talking about. And so the idea here why it came to our committee is we want to expand the tax base. And so and the premise is the premise here is that if we have a you know, if we have a more competitive rate, we may see more than these 20, 30 businesses adopt, you know, roll out. But maybe we see a full, you know, a full adoption and roll out of these businesses, which creates more jobs. And so what they need from council here is further direction on what are some buckets of rates to do a full economic get full fiscal analysis on . And so I think that we need to take a look at a fiscal analysis of something that's in line with the city of Los Angeles and bring us some options. I think we need to look at 1%, 2%, 3%. We need to do a fiscal analysis on all three of those, bring them back to council so we can make some decisions. And that and with that analysis, one thing that is missing that I'd like to see is if what's driving this for me is jobs, I'd like to see a job. I'd like to see an expectation of if we're able to ramp this industry up, these types of businesses that have very little impact on our neighborhoods, but high sort of economic impacts and job creation impacts. I'd like to see what the projections of job creation is. If we if we are able to get 50% of these permits through or 75% or 100%. So I'd like to see a real projection or forecast of what the job creation numbers are so we know what we're getting in exchange for a tax rate that's that's diminished, that's lower than what we initially set out. And so I'm certainly open to hearing more from the city council, but that's the framework of my motion. It's option one, option three, and then come back with fiscal impact on one on 1%, 2%, 3%, with also a jobs impact to the city council. So we can have the next level of of the discussion to make a decision. And so that that's my motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank Congressman Rex for bringing this forward because being chair of that committee. But, you know, a lot of things that I'm seeing and hearing is that these individuals. I put together a business for people that can. Getting things done in the city of Long Beach. I don't like to do that. We want to take a look and look at other individuals because most of these individuals who are doing business, they're very intelligent individuals because these are businesspeople. And I think we as the city of Long Beach are going to have to really get up off our butts, make sure that these people be able to do what they're planned in doing, what they've waited for many, many years and gotten this start started. So by getting this thing started, we're going to have to be very considerate and understand that the tax that we're putting on these individuals are making it almost impossible for them individually to do what they're supposed to do. And that's. Now. I'm not the guru on this. I'm just telling you what I feel and see. You know, the council is an industry which potentially could bring in huge new revenue to this city, but only if the cannabis industry can locate their businesses here. You know, as we find out, the industry has many different components manufacturing, testing, distribution, as well as retail sectors. Each of these sectors have their own special needs and require to open up and get established. Our audience, unfortunately, really doesn't seem to fit. Non-retail business. Further, our planning and zoning code should be looked at and ensure and not turn business away unnecessarily. We need a city manager review that we are doing as a city to recommend as a way in which we can ensure and capture the revenues and the opportunities for the jobs our citizens need. So this key, bring it in, look at it. I mean, how long have you guys been at this? I know you know what you're doing. Everyone knows that. The longer we wait, the more the underground will take. So I just want to let you guys know. Thank you for being here tonight. BECK. Thank you, vice mayor. Next up is council woman Mungo. First, I want to thank the czars of marijuana. They've been available to our calls at any time. I know that working hand in hand with the dispensary and facilities in my district, I've had a lot of calls, not only to them, but but an extensive amount of calls also to Lynda Tatum and our development services. And for that reason, I have personally seen requirements that just don't make sense related to you need to put a window here. There's three fronts to this building. You need a a sheer wall and there's a window. So how is that going to happen? And then you talk to the contractor onsite and they're like, that's an extra $30,000. And then the neighbor who lives next door is like you told me, they weren't going to have a window and now they are going to have a window. What the heck? And so I'm super supportive of option one. The requirements are too cumbersome and often confusing, and I know the fourth floor is very supportive as you go from desk to desk, but it really needs to be more of a one stop shop to each of those desks speaking the same language and coordinating, because sometimes you don't know the impact of the move that you're making until you get to the next desk. And that's another $30,000 and that's just not acceptable. Option two I'm supportive of a fiscal impact study. I think that when we look at page, um. Whatever it was. Here it is, page 14. If we talk about $178,000 of revenue per percent, a 1% reduction in the rate of 170,000, a 2% reduction would be 300 and 400,000 and so on and so forth. I think that it's important to think about over time what have we invested that money in and where do we see the long term implications? So currently we've invested about $1,000,000 into a heart team. Heart team that I think has been impactful for all of us, a quality of life team, a clean team, and a health outreach team. All homeless related services, which was the intent of the bill. I think that that also helps the community. I think that it's also important to discuss if the tax rate went down, would that even impact the number of people interested in coming to Long Beach? Because from what I'm hearing today, there are more interest than there are facilities. So there are a certain number of vacant facilities in the city, and many of them will not take a marijuana use. Others of them are through a bank that won't allow a marijuana use at the facility because they hold the title. We've had a couple of discussions about those. I'm interested in what the others are. And so in the fiscal impact, I know that our vacancy rate is super low. And so I'd be interested in knowing we want to expand the tax base rate. So instead of having ten people burden 100% of it, we'd rather have 20 people and 50% rate lower the base by 50%, but have the double the number of businesses. I don't even know if that's possible. So I think that it would be great if our marijuana czars could work with the. Either those in the industry, the brokers on the industrial commercial side and or EDI and F are economic government department to to better understand where we could help and support. Are the buildings not facing the right direction are they? What is the missing step of why there's still a vacant building in the city? And then I would ask, what would the other use be if it was not marijuana? And I think that people aren't always aware of what high paying jobs are in the industry. And so when you talk about it, if you have like an Amazon factory or a marijuana dispensary, how many jobs are at each of them? Because I don't see a lot of robots doing work in cultivators in cultivation facilities versus I see that more in the automation that we're moving through in the manufacturing side. But. It's a good question to ask because I don't know how many people work in a cultivation site. I just don't know. I have two in my district, but I've not seen a lot of people at those facilities going in and out of them. I don't know how many jobs they are. I don't know what upgrade they are, and I don't know if there are more jobs or less jobs at, say, a plumbing warehouse that has 70 plumbers that work out of it and help the community or a cultivation facility. And do cultivators make more than plumbers? I just don't know the data, and I'd be interested in that. I also think people forget that in the marijuana industry there's a created career path. Often when we have a dispensary opening in my neighborhood and one of the discussions was, Wow, it starts at a pretty reasonable price. And I get a 50 cent raise every six months or a year until I reach X percentage. And wow, I didn't know that I had a pension involved in these other things that people are looking for in jobs. And so I think that that needs to be included in the study. So even if there is a slight variance between one use and another, what's the total impact to the economy based on jobs and those facilities? And then. What would the other use of that facility be and is it even taxable? A lot of our first tier manufacturing is wholesale. Some of that is taxable. Some of it is not taxable. Some of it is service goods. When you have a drain cleaned, you don't get a tax on that. But if you purchase a product like a drain that actually is installed, then you actually have a tax base. And so I just think it needs to be a robust look. And does the tax rate decrease or increase really make that big of a difference in the total? I think that at least when I ran a business, one of my biggest challenges was cash flow because of the upfront investment. And so I didn't hear the maker of the motion make any direction related to the administrative changes at the end. We don't have to we're just going to move forward with that because I think the timing of the payments, how often you have to pay, all of those things are also a really big impact to a business owner who at the end of each month literally needs to sign checks for people to get their paycheck. And that's important. And so I'm very supportive of these administrative changes and better coordination with Southern California Edison. That has been a barrier on multiple properties in my district, not just marijuana related. And so I hope that those will be lessened. And then option three, while I don't really understand it, it sounds like a good idea, but I think I need to meet more with staff. I go the council members comments to date, but I'd like to better understand the specifics because I just it's a lot of nomenclature and terminology that I'm not familiar with, but it seems like something that would would be a good direction to go in. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Thank you very much. First, I'd like to just appreciate the E.D. and that committee for bringing this issue to the council for discussion and consideration. I've had several conversations with some of our advocates in the community and in researching this issue for quite some time. Watching trends throughout the state with state legislation just came back from Oregon. Some interesting things are happening up there. And I love the issues that come before us that challenge us to think about today, but also the future. The cannabis industry is now legal in California. The voters in Long Beach have spoken loud and clear, as well as in the state and as local policymakers. I think we should be striving to make policy that is flexible and we're bending with the curves, particularly with this new industry, that that is changing still by the day. I'd like to make. And I think this proposal before us and what Councilmember Richardson's motion does is give us the opportunity to make some adjustments that allow our local businesses to be competitive and to succeed. We talk about often creating good jobs in this, and I believe this industry has a potential to do just that in the future as well. We have to, I think, be focused on and be very deliberate about facilitating an environment that's conducive to creating economic prosperity in our city, for our businesses and the jobs that they will create. And I also think we need to be looking at the long game. I think it's just a matter of time before the cannabis industry is legal on a federal level. Right. And I think supporting manufacturing here in and here in Long Beach, maybe put put us in a position to be ready for that long term. And so particularly those states, I think 11 states where it's legal, where we have the infrastructure, we have the manufacturing capacity. Once that happens, there's going to be economic benefits to our local economies, but our state. And so I think our businesses obviously are depending on us to get this right. Our consumers are depending on us to get this right. And the employees whose jobs are are dependent on this industry are depending on us to get this right. And so this is an economic development decision before us that that that I'm going to support wholeheartedly. And I really like option one. When I look at this table, I see. Two three cities that that connect. They have borders with Long Beach, Los Angeles, Carson and Bellflower. And looking at the the retail rates but not only that, I guess we're looking at the non-retail, but those rates are I think we need to be doing I think the proposal before us puts us in a position to be competitive with with all of those those those cities. And we have to look at it from strategically that way. I do like and I'm intrigued with the option three, so I look forward to hearing more about that. And then certainly I think a job analysis is merited with the option to. I still would love for the social equity piece to come back because I have some ideas about that and I don't know if this is the appropriate time to talk about that, but I think we're we have not discussed that. And I'm talking about it now. We have not talked about, you know, gang intervention and prevention programs in terms of social equity. We've talked about it from a job component. But when it comes to, you know, the profits that are that are coming from from this industry, I think it would be really, really wise for us to look at that direction as well as I look forward to having some further conversation about that. But looking forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And just let me go to Councilmember. You just I want to make sure I had a request this also just to clarify the exact motion. And so let me clarify please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. The motion currently, as it stands, is to basically take option one and for that after the planning commission so they can begin to do the work on those recommendations as kind of outlined by staff. Then to take option three and to basically ask staff to come back with recommendations and to examine that as as a possible see the feasibility of option three and bring that back to the City Council for for discussion. And then to take option two and four have to have staff do both kind of a fiscal and job analysis on option two and to come back with options that are within the range of of Los Angeles, which I believe the councilmember said between one and 3%. So I think I got the motion correct, but I get any of that wrong. I agree that the job impact, fiscal impact in one one, a 1%, 2% to 3%. Okay. And those would those would come back to the city council. Right. Okay. And I think that was I will ask Vice Mayor Andrews, just ask just to clarify the motion. So obviously, we we I know that the planning the the vice mayor part one, which is the planning to go to potentially planning to staff and then measures. And that will kind of go through that process through the Planning Commission, I imagine option three, that piece of it and the option two piece of it. What do you think the timing would be from staff on that? So for option one, which was. Well, we're actually I just want to I just want to understand not the planning commission piece, but the piece that that that that that our staff would have to do on option two and three. Would either of those come back first or to where they both come back at the same time? What's the timing on that? We'd probably be able to come back with option number three more quickly because I suspect from number two, which is that the tax analysis, we would probably have to hire an outside consultant to assist with the level of detail that city councils are requesting. So I don't know how long that might take, but option number. Three but you can get you can get back to us on the timing pretty fairly soon at least. So we know the timing. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let me let me just I just wanted to clarify the motion. Just let me continue with the with the with the council members council meeting. Thank you. Just for a clarification that we started out in the beginning with the possibility of a 24 month pilot program. So I guess, Councilmember Richardson, where are we with that? Is it still in place? Or do we want to look, consider a shorter period of time or a longer period of time? What's the what's the viewpoint on that? So though the viewpoint is I like 24 months because it gets us going into a pilot and if we want to make it permanent, we have the option as opposed to, you know, starting off with a permanent change that may change in the future. And so so I like the concept of a pilot respecting that. We heard all the concerns about it. I like the concept of a pilot. Well, also in that discussion that the staff brought forward with the 24 month pilot program, they were also concerned with the fact that it might not really be helpful to the industry, because there's so many unknowns in regards to having a 24 month program as opposed to having maybe a longer view for them to consider what's happening in Long Beach and all the changes and recommendations that we're looking at implementing. So I'm more in favor of extending that if it's a pilot program or basically just make it. Nancy, let's adopt a program that lets adopt a program that we're looking at for a permanent establishment. It's opposed to a pilot, but. I think it's time to have a recommendation because I'm flexible. Okay, I'll leave that to you. One of the other things one of the things that that I have here is is a somewhat unique perspective on this whole issue. As many of you know, I also serve on the Coastal Commission and cannabis growth and manufacturing and distribution has been a big issue along the 1111 100 mile stretch of California's coast and the establishment of not only manufacturing distribution, but growth of growth along along the the coast, in outside the locations not not only inside of case in point is a very large I don't want to call it a plantation, but a growth area after the Santa Barbara coast and up there and all the all the. Issues that that brings along with them. And that's including your employees union jobs at all at all parts of the of the chain of of getting cannabis ready for market. So the I think that in terms of the employee market, I think it's there. I mean, it exists. We're just not having a good handle on as far as what it would take for here in Long Beach. But so I think that the jobs basically are going to be there. Some might be automated and and can lend itself to automation, some aspects of it, but certainly not all. And so I could see I consider this as a job maker. And just like anything else, it's a it's a manufacturing, it's a new business. It's something that we're just getting into the the the tip of the iceberg, if you will, of an industry that that is new. And when I look at this chart of the report, which is an excellent report so far, that's that put together, you know, looking at already only 37 out of 248 applications being accepted. You know, that's 15%. And we've been going at this now for at least, what, two years that we adopted our our plan. And everybody who looked at law was saying, you know, language is really at the at the forefront, cutting edge of of marijuana licensing. But I see 50%. I see. No, we're not. We've got a long way to go still. And there's too many applications out there still hanging on the edge at all levels. So the time I'm talking about zoning and planning and building and those that are under construction with 53, which I hope is I hope they do finish. But in terms of what I was saying earlier with with the with the Coastal Commission, I've had an opportunity to visit a number of cannabis growth, distribution and testing labs up and down the coast from Arcadia to to locally to here. And I see a lot of people doing work in there. And, and I've seen the product itself in regards to its per in particular, it's always the, the big emphasis of the medical benefits that cannabis has. So I see this as something that is growing and we need to get behind it. I think that Long Beach is is at a very good position here to create a manufacturing capital, if you will, in Southern California, especially when it comes to this this this manufacturing area. So I'm going to support the motion on the floor. But I like I said, I would like to see that that not be as restrictive in terms of a 24 month pilot program. But to be more open on that open ended, if you will, maybe come back after a three or four year, five year evaluation to see where we're at with that. I especially think that in in like in any other manufacturing industry, we need to be competitive. I mean, if if our taxes are too high because we tax it at every level of production, it's ineffective, we're going to lose. And I think that we have to reconsider the the options that we have here in terms of taxing every step of the process. So we look at one process, one tax and get it and get it done. Also, looking at the in terms of of of that and also looking at the at the access to capital, you know, we have to be a little bit more flexible on that. I, I don't recall which of my colleagues stated this, but, you know, we know that that the federal regulations are going to be coming. We know that it's it's going to be delays. In fact, if truth be told, we're looking at other options of other natural world plants that are going to be available, though. Yeah. Mushrooms. Yeah. And mushrooms are the under consideration nowadays. So I mean, that's that's on the edge of coming in here. And we're probably going to be hearing about mushroom cultivation and distribution and manufacturing. Maybe not now, but but that's that's coming. Okay. Let me back let me backtrack it a little bit anyway. At the end at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I think that we in Long Beach need to consider ourselves to be competitive. We're a large city as we as we know. And we have some great staff and we have and we have people who here who can do can do the work. And and like I say, we're in a cutting edge. So let's. Hey there. And then let's let's move on. And hopefully staff can come back with a recommendation that will really be able to be put to use. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilwoman Mango. Yes. I have two additional small things. One is a jay. On page five. You have almost the same number of businesses in building round review and under construction 130. That is more than 50% of the businesses that are in the process at all. Do we have a timeline that we can get some of these guys online? Like what is. I mean, a lot of these people are already interested. They've already made the investment. It's the process that's holding them back and or construction. Do we have anything besides options one and three we can do to speed it along? Or do you have a timeline of how many will be online in 30 days? 90 days? 120 days? Yeah, it's hard for us to say because the timeline, once businesses start construction, is primarily up to that business. The timeline that they're construction team is on. We do have inspections, but generally once they reach construction, the holdup is the project itself. We have averages for those businesses that are licensed that have been able to get through the process, and we use those averages for our tax projection purposes. But offhand, I don't have those. Would you be able to work with development services to give us a a update on the 77 Building Plan Review? Like, have they been sitting on desks for weeks or are they back with the contractor so we could at least know that from them? Sure. We can provide more of a breakdown for businesses that you said. They're in the construction phase or in. The building plan review. That's on our side. In the city side. Sure. Perfect. Thank you. I have one last statement, which is I see the greatest ability to increase the gross receipts of the marijuana industry in enforcement. Until we crack down on the illegal marijuana sales in our city, it isn't going to. I mean, these things are all minor compared to that. A large percentage of the sales are still in the illicit market. And so one of the things I would ask Council Member Richardson to consider, if we do go to a consultant, which sounds like 30 days to get a consultant, all that stuff, the difference between 1% and just doing the cost out across the whole percentage. The one thing I've heard from I've talked with Elliott, Johnnie Adam consistently. They'd be willing to put money into a pot for enforcement. I don't know what we can do. We've talked about some options. We've offered to sit down between some of the industry, individuals and PD to talk about what options are available. But if there was a discussion of, Oh, we would like to settle on X percent tax, but we'd be open to 1% more if that $178,000 was put into enforcement of getting these illicit individuals out of the market. I know there was a a write up of a potential program that kind of came through the industry. But we need to be more serious about enforcement and we're closer together. So I hope that the industry will take us up on the offers we've made to meet with PD on potential options to help all of you, because the greatest path to increasing your gross receipts is enforcement. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Price. Thank you. That's kind of the topic that I wanted to talk about. I'm really grateful up until this point that we haven't had as much of a problem with the brick and mortar illegal dispensaries as our neighbors in L.A. have had. I think that's a lot of that is a testament to how seriously we've taken this issue as a council, how much of a priority we've made the enforcement issue, and really honestly, how often we talk about it being a priority for the neighborhoods. But the delivery concept is is completely out of control. And I don't know. I mean, I'm really looking A.J., I know you've worked really hard on this and on all these issues and you've been really plugged in to what other cities are doing. I think we've taken some really good, proactive measures as a city to increase our enforcement, our fines and fees for commercial property owners and things that we have passed as a council. That has been great. But the delivery market is completely something that we don't have control over right now. We need to figure out what to do in that regards because, you know, I'll tell you, I'm sick of the advertisements all over the city for the four places that. Deliver from businesses that are not licensed in the city. There's no testing in place. There's no consumer protections in place. And we're basically, you know, not we're allowing these people to advertise here. And we have zero consumer protections in place. And we and and we're not even able to tax these entities so that we can put that money back into to enforcement. You know, maybe it's what I do for a living every day that makes me think there's an opportunity for enforcement here, that we are not capitalizing, we're not being aggressive about it. We're not and I don't know, that's not a criticism because I think everyone's similarly situated. It's more of a we need to figure out some out-of-the-box ideas. You know, it's kind of like not exactly the same thing. But when we talked about short term rentals, one of the concepts we had is we've got this entity that's an intermediary between the homeowner and the renter, and that entity is trying to distance itself from regulations, doesn't want to be involved in the regulatory aspects of the industry. Well, that's kind of the same thing that we've seen with a lot of the advertisers for marijuana. They don't want to be involved in figuring out who's licensed and who's not before they advertise them. So maybe we can go to the table with some of the biggest online delivery companies and we we ask them if they can refrain from. I don't I don't know, maybe they can refrain from advertising from businesses that aren't located in the city. What that looks like, I don't know. This is not an area where I have subject matter expertize. But I do know that if you're violating the law and you're not allowing for some of the consumer protections that we are all entitled to as residents in the state, you should be held accountable. And if you're bypassing the testing requirements and you're bypassing all the different regulatory requirements that are brick and mortar operations, or are operations that are licensed in Long Beach have to follow, then you shouldn't be receiving a benefit. You should be held accountable for trying to bypass those because it's just not fair. And so I'm really hoping that we can figure. Out a. Way to find some out-of-the-box ways to go after the illegal delivery market that we're seeing here. In regards to this particular item, I'm totally in favor of looking at it and studying it. I do have a question probably for our city attorney, though, and perhaps you can just educate me on this because I will tell you I'm glad of the direction this item has taken, because when I initially read it, I was having a really hard time understanding how we could in one vote, vote to increase taxes potentially for our residents, and then in another vote, vote to reduce taxes on an entity that's providing income so that we can support enforcement operations. But so I'm glad that we're the timing of this is such that we're going to be able to evaluate it some more. But the question I have is how does changing our ordinance impact the fact that this has come to the city as a result of a ballot measure? Because I think it's very, very important for residents to understand that we're having the marijuana discussion, that we're talking about marijuana industry and we're talking about sales tax for the marijuana industry because of a voter passed initiative, not because of this council's actions, but because of voter passed initiative. So how does changing the ordinance impact the fact that this came to us as a ballot initiative? Well, it would it impacts what changes you can make to the ordinance, because it's a citizens initiative or the initiative that was passed by the voters cannot be just changed by the body itself. But the study and the taxes that have been approved were approved at rates that offered the opportunity for the council to adjust it up or down. And so you could do that. And that's within the authority of the council as. Long as you stay within that range. Yes, exactly. Otherwise it would have to go back to the voter. One of the other comments made from the Dias about dedicating a certain percentage of the tax if you're changing it would probably not be allowed based upon the voter action because you're creating a special tax by dedicating it to a specific resources as a general tax . And so you could allocate any amount you'd like, but that would have to be done during the budget process. Okay. The other question I had, and I love the concept of a shared manufacturing space, but one of the things I'd love the report to include when it comes back is how we go about enforcement. When we're talking about a shared manufacturing space, how do you apportion negligence? How do you apportion lack of compliance? How do you apportion that when we're talking about a shared manufacturing space, especially when we're sharing? Utilities, other resources, assets of that nature for the manufacturing process. So that's something that I would be really interested in. But, you know, as a as a as the wife of an engineer who has worked in labs for many years and understands the lab industry, it's not it's not cheap to set one of those up. So anything that we can do to help bring quality. Industry to the city and work together to keep out illegal industry that is not complying with what the residents, the community and everyone here who's who's serious about consumer protections work together to keep those businesses out. I'm all in favor of. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Let me I have a couple a couple of questions, such comments for when this comes back. And let me go first, since I know that the next few speakers have had a bite at the apple already. Just a couple of things. So the first is, obviously, I think I'm supportive of of where this is going and is certainly of getting the information detailed out to the council. I think option one is is very interesting. I think there are a lot of planning, I think adjustments that need to be made to ensure that we just have a just a better system in place. And I think the Planning Commissioner is absolutely the right approach. I am also interested in the shared use manufacturing. I think that's that's certainly something I think Mr. Modica and the team can get back to us hopefully fairly quickly just to get that information. So that can be part of, of, of this process. It doesn't seem like it's something that is too much different than what we're doing, but certainly a way to to create some some synergy within within the industry. And certainly I think if that looking at what our our tax rates are and coming up with the recommendation from staff, I think is a very reasonable request. I do have one question as it relates to that, and I think this is something I've actually talked to some of the BCA members in the past about and it's actually something I want to understand better because I, I remember in our conversations and setting up on the cultivation side. We did this $12 a square foot number. And I know if you look at a bunch of cities, there is a difference. You know, some some cities are using the square footage measurement and others are just using the flat percentage. And so if when this comes back, can you just kind of walk us through why we went that in that direction and how and why this changes is is better or or in your opinion, not better, you know, for for the city of Long Beach, because I know there was some extensive conversations that we all had as to whether this was the right approach. And the truth is and I think it's important for us to note that as the council developed these rates and these percentages, it's not like we had the perfect formula to get this 100% correct. We were building something as we went as best we could, hearing input, ensuring that we would have the resources that we needed to provide, the services that we committed to with the residents. And we wanted to make sure that we found the right balance. And so a lot of these numbers were developed in partnership, I think, with with our partners, but also in a discussion and debate the council had. And so I'd love to hear from staff just a little bit more explanation on the square footage and the percentage when that comes back. I think that would be good for the council to hear. And then the last thing is I'll just reinforce something, something that a couple of councilmembers just added to me. The the, the when I hear, you know, you know, maybe the, the, the taxes aren't coming in maybe as high as we initially projected or, or not the numbers that we'd like to see. I mean, to me, the biggest reason for that has got to be or a huge reason has. Got to be. The illegal transportation that's happening across the city. And I think it's been mentioned now, and I think that the delivery services that are not getting taxed and they're not paying into our system are absolutely causing a major burden to the current operators are now illegal part of our process and so I don't know if there's more that we can do it I can't imagine that that that we're doing all we could be doing in that area. And maybe it's a resource question or a technology question, but I'd love to know and see how we could either invest on our side or figure out a way to capture more of that market and crack down more on the illegal deliveries. And I think that whether that's we do that through the budget process or whether there are maybe some additional new best practices that are happening in other communities, I will say this is not like unique to Long Beach. This is happening in a lot of in a lot of communities. But I hate that. I don't I don't like that our local, ah, local folks that have gone through the process and that are illegal entities we recognize are essentially being put at a competitive disadvantage. And, and the other group is being put at a competitive disadvantage is us because as a city we are losing. Do we have any idea how much how much we're losing in revenue because of the illegal deliveries? It's it's hard to say for sure, but I've read reports that estimate the size of the illicit market to be around 75% of the total market statewide. Whether that applies to the city of Long Beach as well, I'm not really sure. Well, I think I you know, I'd like to to do a little bit more if it's possible. I'm not sure if it's available data, but I'd love to understand how much we are missing out on it from a revenue perspective for the city because of the illegal because of the illegal delivery system we have. And if we are losing out on as much as I you know, I assume we are just by looking at what's out there from an illegal delivery perspective, that is an immediate place where we should be. We really want to focus on our public safety services and our health components and all these are the things that we want to do and ensuring that our current operators are successful. We I think we got to kind of figure that out. I'd love to see a number or a guesstimate on what we're losing. Can we get that? You think? We've we're working on analyzing the illegal market and we can prepare studies. Yeah, but I want. I want how much we're losing in tax revenue every year. Oh I see. Sure we can include that in the in the report. And may I think would be helpful to also show kind of the history of how we became to this decision. We spent a lot of time as we were developing the ordinance, talking about what our enforcement mechanism was going to be, what kind of staffing resources we were going to need. Try not to make this a police activity, but more of an administrative activity in keeping with state law. So we'd like to provide you a lot of that background to and just understand where we are today. And of course, we'll look at other cities if they found a way to do it within that model. We'd love to know that as well. Great. Thank you very much. And Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just. Just the talk. Just come back to a couple of things. So, one on timing. I know the mayor asked about option two. An option three. I want to go to option one. So. So, AJ. Mr. Jackson. So this planning commission. Look, how long do we think have you already engaged? Planning. Planning department? How long do you think it takes to do that process? We have and Planning Bureau believes that they should be able to complete the study by the fall. So as soon as three months that that would be the estimated timeline for that. So about three months. Okay. So three months on some of the planning stuff. How does that align with what we think is phase three in Los Angeles? Phase three, I believe, has opened or is scheduled to open soon, but within phase three, they actually have more phases within it. So the complete rollout of phase three, I'm not sure, but possibly by the end of this year. Okay. And then so option two, in terms of the consultant. So so I would imagine the job piece that we added in that something, you know, I don't think we need to do like a, you know, like a Buxton report or some elaborate economic analysis. I'm thinking we talk to Pacific Gateway, our internal folks. Figure out what the formula is on jobs and sort of forecast that out. So like an internal calculation, that's something we can do on the job. He's right. Yeah. We can take averages for existing businesses and apply those tests. That's, that's what I'm thinking. And then in terms of, you know, comparing what the fiscal impact is on 1% to 3% range, the fiscal impact we're talking about, that's not something that we can conduct in financial management because we see that all the time in the budget process. So we have prepared an estimate for for every 1% change in the tax rate, what the impact would be to the general fund. What I'm hearing is that city council wants us to dove more into the details and study those numbers further. So for that, I think we would need a consultant to help us prepare that analysis. And how long that would take? I'm not sure at this time. Well, so what? Like what? And and I understand people have asked about option three. I don't have a question on that. So what I'd like to do is understand. So when I think fiscal impact, I think, you know, let's compare what our our initial forecast was short. Right. We we looked at what we anticipate to open based on a certain amount of businesses opening. The forecast we're looking at is, you know, sort of looking at 1%, 2%, 3%. And assuming that we get a higher, the idea is we get a higher sort of open rate. Or sort. Of clearance rate of these businesses, and the idea is to try to offset it. So are you saying like to do that kind of analysis, you may need to bring in a consultant to do. Yes, I'll go ahead and take that. So what we have what the council. Has before them right now is a fiscal impact analysis that's been done by staff in order to do to go deeper, to do analysis. On the jobs impact and some of the other questions. That were raised in terms of the fiscal and economic analysis, we it's likely going to require some professional services to do that. We certainly can, you know, work with our economic development department to see how we might be able to economize on that or partner on that and get support on that. But based upon what's being requested, it looks like we're going to need to get some professional services to help us with that. So what what I would love to do is get an update sooner on what that timeline looks like, the fleshed out timeline. So like within the next 30 days, come back and just say, hey, after, you know, talking to planning, after doing our initial review on option three and looking at our resources internally, this is what the window could look like to bring this back. Because my my expectations, I and I want to put that in comparison to like if the idea is to be competitive and to try to boost, you know, sort of be competitive, to boost the tax base, then I want to understand that in comparison to sort of the timeline on phase three in Los Angeles. So if what we're saying is Los Angeles phase three begins in in fall and we'll fully optimize and people are making big business decisions within the three months of fall, by the end of the year, then that tells me you've got, you know, your 90 days to do your initial review and then implement over another 90 days or whatever it is to make sure that we're competitive. So so what I don't want is to put restrictions on you here at council that somehow trip up the intent, which is to try to be competitive. So that so the hope is we can do as much as we can in house, not spend the money on consultants if we don't have to and see if we we can sort of achieve that. That's that's the hope here. And then the other thing here. The other thing I'll say is so, so, so yeah, a two from four early that says, hey, this is what the timeline could look like and this is what we heard. I think I'd like to see that in the secondly on the conversation on on enforcement, I completely I completely agree on the conversation on sort of the legal delivery stuff. And and I would grapple with I, I understand that this is something that people have unanimous generally unanimous support for sort of tamp down on that market. But I also understand I understand that also understand that when we say new industry, I put quotes because it's not a new industry at all. It's it's it's not a new industry. This product is existed in the community. This is the process of bringing it into the into the sunshine. I think while, while we do a lot of enforcement and we should still think of the innovative ways to do that, I think we should focus our time will figuring out how to capture as much as possible of the legal industry. And if they have if they're overburdened with regulations and taxes and all those things, it doesn't help us. It doesn't help them to compete with the illegal market. And so we just have to keep that in mind as we connect that to the timeline. If we're overburdened, we're overburdened and we have a long time on this process. All it does is just support the legal market and support the legal delivery market as well. So so those are those are my thoughts, my comments. So is that okay? Can we do that? Is it okay to get back with the two from for within 30 days on simply the timeline? Yes, because I know there's been a lot of questions by counsel. I know you need a minute to kind of think all this out. Yes, absolutely. We can do that. Great. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. So I think what I heard of Jason is that page 14, 178,500 number is the loss to the general fund per percent. So 178 times 3% would be 534 over a 24 month period. 36 month period. You go 1 million, you go 1.5 million and so on. I think that I'm in complete agreement that we don't need an outside consultant, if possible. I don't want to spend $60,000 to save $178,000. What I'm really looking for is a staff member to reach out to the industrial real estate community, pull a report of vacancies in the city. They say everything on it. They say cost per square foot. They say all these things. It's a quick survey of the vacancy, our vacancy rates 2% or something that I think that they presented that I see not that easy enough. Give a call through. Real quick, are you open to taking in marijuana facilities? If so, find out which one of these they fall in and how much revenue we think they could bring in. Make them growth estimates. Here's the high. Here's the low. That's what I'm looking at. Hope that brings some help to what my series of questions was, because I don't I just don't think it's that complicated. Sure. Thank you. There's a there's a motion and a second on the on the floor. It's a motion by Councilman Richardson as presented. And so with that members, please go ahead real quick. Bickerstaff, just respond to Stacey's comments about the council, about their consultant. Mine is just an opinion. It's still their decision. I think at the end of the day, I think it's I think they're suggesting to staff that that the government members suggestion of staff that if you can do it in-house, preferably preferably to do it in-house is the suggestion. And so there's a motion and a second. The motion as made by Councilor Richardson. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Motion carries. We're now moving on to the rest of the agenda. So thank you all for being here for the other item. Item 20.

Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For Qualification (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway Project; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles, Base Reuse Manager; Lisa N. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City Manager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3) Approve the Finding Related to the Surplus Lands Act that the Property Constitutes Exempt Surplus Land; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the RESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget. (Community Development 819099)

AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7678

Well, you know, if if it's a matter of crossing our T's and dotting the I's, then I'm all in favor of continuing it to a later time. Okay. My preference is continuing to a date certain because I want to just have as much information as possible to make an informed decision. Vice Mayor. I'd like to hear tonight. Councilmember Vela. Deciding vote. I actually would like to continue it in light of the question that was raised. Okay. So that is a 22 motion. Okay. So you can make a motion. I'll move to continue the item. Do we have a date? Certain to have a date certain? I would like a date. Certain. I'd recommend March 3rd. Okay. So the first meeting on March 2nd. Okay. We have a motion. It's been seconded to continue the item to March 3rd, the first council meeting in March. Any discussion at all in favor? I oppose. No, no. Okay. The motion carries 3 to 2. This motion will be heard, as we noticed and heard on March the third. To those in the audience who came to speak on this item, I apologize. But once in a while an anticipated events occur and we just play the hand we're dealt. So thank you and see you soon. Okay. So then we we had decided before the break that we were going to go with the item that has the most speakers and that is item six. E Madam Clerk. Introduction of ordinance amending the Civil Code by amending various provisions of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two Administration, including provisions related to public access to public meetings and public records and Sunshine Ordinance enforcement, including recommendations to eliminate the null and void in order to cure remedies and replace such remedies with the authority for the Open Government

Recommendation to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2017 Second Budget Performance Report. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08152017_17-0690

Motion carries. Thank you. 21 Please report from Financial Management Recommendation Receive and file the fiscal year 2017 second Budget Performance Report Citywide. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Can we have a brief staff report, please? Leah Erickson. Good evening, Vice Mayor, Members of City Council. This is the second performance report for fiscal year 17, which covers the first eight months of the year. And this information that is in this report is consistent with the projections used for the fiscal year 17 in the manager's proposed 18 budget. So general fund revenues are expected to end the year lower than expected due to a one time drop in revenue. This is due to a $5.4 million decline from successful property tax appeals by companies in the harbor area. This results in a one time large revenue impact as well as smaller ongoing revenue reductions in future years. Partially offsetting the shortfall are higher than estimated property tax revenues and oil revenues, which are coming in at $45 a barrel instead of 35 a barrel. On the expenditure side, we're projected to end the year with the savings rate under budget. This includes factoring in unbudgeted medical marijuana expenses. It is expected that general fund departments will save the point 5% of their budgeted appropriations per the city manager's request. And given the revenue shortfall, departments have been asked to save additional funds above those 0.5% targets to mitigate the revenue shortfall and end the year in a balance. So it's expected that with this approach, the city could ultimately end the year with a small surplus. However, at this time, the General Fund is not projected to have significant zero funds available and may not have any additional funds left over four 5% for unfunded liabilities or any funds for FY 18 one time uses. Also, measure a ballot initiative was passed for this year and we have 35.6 million of anticipated revenues this year. And so to date, as of as of June 30th, 15.2 million in revenue has been received and the 11.2 million has been expended and 8.5 encumbered are obligated for ongoing and one time public safety and infrastructure purposes. While these revenues are in line with estimates during this ramp up period, it is a new revenue source and so it's being closely watched from other funds. There are no revenue concerns and no significant issues identified for expenditures. While all revenue is coming in higher than projected, as mentioned, the revenue is being used to offset previously mentioned shortfall in the general fund revenues. So therefore only a small surplus is possible for uplands and in the Talents Fund. The overall status of the fund makes it unlikely that any additional capital funding will be available at the end of 17. But we will know more at year end close as it continues to closely monitor revenues and expenditures for the remainder of the year and report any significant changes. This concludes the staff report and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. And then I go to Councilman Andrews, just your good Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. So, Miss Erickson, that was a really fast recitation. And I understand, given the hour, the night, that this seems kind of like an important topic to me. So I know that you reached out to all the departments to ask for us to reduce our budgets, and that was including city council . Can you tell me, did did all the council officers participate in that? It is my understanding that they are. Okay. And and I know we did that last year as well. Right. Okay. So that's I think that's great. In terms of the surplus, you said that we're it's possible we'll have a small surplus at the end of the year. Is that correct? That is correct. If departments are able to meet their savings targets and save additional funds, we should have you know, we should end the year in balance or have a small surplus. You know, there is a risk, though, that it could could be a small shortfall. And that's why we're watching it very closely and asking departments to save more. And so what is that amount? The small surplus. Right now, we're actually officially estimating zero. So no, no funds available. No extra funds available and no shortfall. Okay. And so when will you know whether there will be a surplus, if at all? So really, we it takes a while to close our books. So we come back to city council in February, but we'll have a better feel of probably in November if there's going to be a major problem. If there was a major problem, that's why we do have an operating reserve and the operating reserve is used for these . And it's unanticipated one time or mid-year shortfalls that we did that we had with revenue. We're hopeful, though, that between other revenues coming in higher and department savings that will that will end the year in balance. Okay. And I just want to note one thing, and that is, you know, we talk a lot about the Tidelands funds. And sometimes people say, well, we don't have a Tidelands Fund in our district. There are different enterprise funds in various districts that you can benefit from those funding sources and some where you can. We talked about it earlier tonight in terms of grant moneys and things available. But I just want to just so that we're clear the bathrooms and all the things and the parks and the things that we normally maintain through the Tidelands Fund in in 17, we don't expect to have any capital improvement, but we will still have operating. So a small amount of operating moneys coming in. Councilwoman Price We have 1.5 million of capital investment planned in the 18 proposed budget using funds available in Tidelands. But there is no anticipated any additional surpluses at this time. But that also could change when we do year end. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I will not ask any more questions. Thanks. Thank you. Next, we have Councilor Mungo. You mentioned a reduction in property tax revenue from a port port from port related locations that did a property tax appeal. What year was their appeal? Was it a multi-year refund that impacted an end to future fiscal years? Include the new adjusted rate. Councilwoman Mingo. So it was over several fiscal years, I believe at least three might have been four when you count the current fiscal year. And so that's why it is considered a one time hit. But we do believe that that appeal alone, those appeals alone could result in about $1,000,000 of ongoing revenue shortfalls. And that is hopeful that that it would be offset by other properties going up higher than anticipated. So right now, that's something that we are concerned about and we're watching for FY 18. And then also, there could be additional appeals filed. And so we're we're looking at that as well. And the. Volatility of those properties also can be. Restored at the same rate in which they were decreased. So let's make. Sure to keep track of both sides of it. Correct. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item saying please cast your vote.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any related documents, with the Helen Sanders Cat Protection and Welfare Society, of Boulder, CO, and The Little Lion Foundation, of Long Beach, CA, to partner with Long Beach Animal Care Services for the Long Beach Little Paws Project, to be housed in commercial property at 1179 East Wardlow Road, in Long Beach, from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, with annual renewal options through December 31, 2023; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR) by $50,000, offset by revenues from Animal Care Donation Trust Accounts. (Districts 5,7)

LongBeachCC_01082019_19-0013

Okay. Now we're going to go to a public guy who if I call your name, please come forward. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me let me let me go and do that. I'm 13, ma'am. Court report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Helen Sanders Cat Protection and Welfare Society to partner with the Long Beach Animal Care Services for the Long Beach Little Paws Project to be housed in commercial properties at 1179 East Wardlow Road in Long Beach from January 1st through 2019 through December 31st, 2019, with an annual renewal option, increase appropriations in the General Fund in Parks, Recreation, Marine by 50,000, offset by revenues from animal care donation trust accounts, districts five and seven. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo would like a short staff report, Mr. West. Yes. Ted Stevens. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and city council for this opportunity to talk about this item. This has been a kind of a long time coming for this project. We have two great groups, the Little Lion. Foundation and Helen Sanders, Cat Paws. They've been instrumental with us, working with us for the last two years on saving the lives of hundreds of underage kittens. The focus of this nursery is for the bottle babies, the kittens under eight weeks of old, but even more specifically under four weeks of old that need 24 hour care. And they're. Just two really great. Groups, a great group of volunteers, and they've found a location and we're going to be supporting them financially as best as we can, as well as with other things social media, fundraising. The adoption process. Afterward as much as we can. Spaying and neutering. And then again, the financial the $50,000 that we have in our trust right now for cats and kittens. And we're really excited to get this project going. We hope it's approved. It's been something that we've been dreaming up for a long time and we're really excited to be working with. These two groups. They're really great. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I just want to appreciate Mr. Stevens for his continued commitment to this. I know it's been ups and downs for several, several months trying to get this done. And then also to give you a bit of praise related to your press release today that euthanasia is, ah, again down and the great work that you've done while you were there. We will be sad to lose you in the next few weeks, but congratulations on your new opportunities and thank you for all that you've done. Thank you. Constable Pearce. I also want to say that this is a great step in the right direction, and I look forward to more good steps in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you. Public comment on this item. Please come forward. Is there any public comment? Is there any other public comment on this item? The closing of the speakers list. 1/2. Just the three. Okay. Speaker's list is closed. Just the three that are here. Just please go ahead. Good evening. Mayor and City Council. My name is Patricia Turner. I'm the director for No Kill Long Beach. I've been over I'm a trained researcher. I've been doing research on the Long Beach Animal Care Services shelter for over six years. We're very happy to see this kitten nursery. This is an excellent move. Partnerships with rescues are part of the no kill equation, which is something we've been working very hard to educate the public about, educate city council about, and let people know what's out there that this is a wonderful step in the right direction. Long Beach Animal Care Services killed 601 kittens last year. Many of them were healthy, treatable and maybe just a little too young. But many cities across the nation are saving these animals. And I'm very, very happy to see the city of London joining the rest of the country in a humane care for our our shelter animals. However, I was dismayed to see the clause, the provision in the description that restricts the right to free speech of the rescues who are going to be doing this heroic, wonderful work for you all. So I'd like to read into the record what exactly that clause says. And this is from the description that's on the that's on the city website. It says, Publicity takes me a moment to find it. I'm sorry, publicity. Okay. Additionally, no one affiliated staff or volunteer with any party in this agreement will engage in negative verbal behavior or written posting towards another party on social media or other online or public venues to make negative, defamatory or inciting remarks about another party in this agreement. Further on, it says all backs reserves the right to determine at its sole discretion what is negative, verbal or written posting behavior. So I just would like to say that getting to this point with the city has not been easy. I've been advocating for six years and I've had to say some pretty negative things because what has happened is the shelter has been killing animals without impunity and without putting in proper safeguards in place. And we have two audits now that have have shown that this is the case. They have showed they have vindicated every remark I've made on social media, and I am very thankful to the U.S. Constitution that gives me a First Amendment right to talk about the killing of animals in shelters that have been recalcitrant in doing their job. Mayor Garcia, you yourself have hidden people's posts. And I know this because I personally documented those postings that were hidden by people during the last election. And, you know, if you hear some anger in my voice, it's because it is there. I dedicate nearly all of my free time to helping to change this shelter, and I do it in as principled a way as I possibly can. I'm a trained researcher, and I'm employed by the University of California. And I have principles. And I have been I've been threatened by people on this council that they were going to sue me because of things that I've said that were absolutely 100% true. So I am thrilled that we have this kitten nursery, but I am not thrilled about this violation of First Amendment rights. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Alex Armstrong, and I lived in Long Beach for 39 years and I'm also very happy about this program. I think it's a great thing. I'm very happy that you're putting this in place finally. But again, I also cannot stand by and watch my First Amendment rights and the rights of my fellow colleagues. It's being pushed aside. Section 1983 to Animal Rescue. There can be no dispute that complaining about abuses or violations of law at a shelter is a constitutionally protected right. A rescuer not only has the First Amendment right to speak out against abuses and violations of law committed by a governmental entity, he or she also has the constitutionally protected right to demand that the government correct the wrongs that are identified. This includes to the rights to threatened or sued or to actually file suit against the shelter. So great program. I don't know why you would need to to put the end of it. Mom, put this statement a gag order on on the staff and the volunteers. If a staffer or a volunteer member sees something wrong at this program, something that they have every right to speak up about it, it's only common knowledge that they should be. You would in you would invite that it should be brought. You would want my staff who work for me. I don't tell them. Don't say anything to anybody if Joe does this wrong. I want you to bring that to my attention. So things like this. Again, he seemed to want to stop people from saying anything bad about the shelter. And I disagree. Very happy about the program. Thank you for bringing it to Long Beach. Thank you. Next speaker. Mayor. Vice mayor again. My name is Christy Maloney. I'm a resident of Long Beach. Was born and raised here. Schooled here. Grew up with animals. Lots of animals and in rescue. Yes. These two groups are a godsend for our city's kittens. That's for sure. Please don't tie their hands by disallowing them to disclose negativity that does exist. Or we end up with a negative shelter again. So we're trying to get back. To having positive relationships and having a gag order on these to. Groups are is something that I want you to think twice about and hold off on voting on this and. See if that can be. Taken out. Or reworded. Thank you. Thank you. You know. No to have comments from. You have another speaker? Occupy Roll Call. Vote no. Have a. Fine. I have a question for Charlie Gray, Mr. City attorney. I am reading this as well. And I'm curious. I know that there's been some tense moments over the last couple of years, and I know that some of the concern has been around false information. Is there a way that we could amendments to make sure that it's, you know, that people can share accurate information around accurate numbers at our shelter? It does seem kind of vague. And I'm just wondering if there was a way to tighten up the language. Well, certainly we could we could change the language or rework the language. It obviously would have to be agreed to by both parties in order to do something like that. But this language was put in at the request of the department. We could we could certainly change it in any direction that the council would like. Seems like a. Port. It seems like a poor direction for us as a council to just put something that as up to one party's discretion that we could put that into any agreement, you know, in any department. And I haven't had a lot of conversations about this. And I know that you guys have done a lot of work on it so far, but if there was a way to make it specific, to make sure that that people are talking about truth that happens in our shelters and that we leave, I know that that's a difficult to prove. And I know Councilmember Mongo has something to say, but I would just love to see it where we could get a little bit more comfortable with it. Councilman Mangal. Thank you. Councilman Pearce, I'm glad that you brought that up. We started these dialogs with the staff. Currently, anything that is factually based, they can post whether it is negative or not as long as it's fact based. I think that the the root the root of it is more the name calling, antagonizing misinformation or saying inappropriate or harassing things towards our staff members. And so this is also a similar clause, I think, that was mentioned. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Stevens, is this the same clauses in the volunteer agreements? I believe so, too. And from my understanding, both of the fosters that are involved have no issue with it. And they also believe that they have many other methods to be able to say anything they want. Is that accurate, Mr. Stevens? Yes. They the two groups were. They were totally fine. With it. And I don't want to delay the ability to have the agreement with them, because we're getting a ton of little kittens at the shelter at this time. And so I appreciate you guys taking the time to inform me. I actually met with the department head for Parks and Rec as well, so I'm just glad we're going to have the opportunity to save these little kittens. Thank you for that. And I just I know that it's going to come back in a year, so I would ask that it could come back maybe in nine months for us to see how successful the program is. That would be helpful. Okay. So we'll get an update in nine months. Thank you. Two from four. Would that be okay? That's fine. Great. Please. Going to do a roll call vote. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Sabrina. Hi. Councilwoman Mango. Hi, Vice Mayor Andrews. Council Member, Your Honor. Hi. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. And I just wanted to and I just wanted to thank all of you. This is obviously an amazing going to be an amazing partnership and program. You're already all doing such amazing work, saving so many lives and just thank you. And we look forward to the expansion of the partnership. So thank you all very much for being here. We're going to move on to public comment. If I call your name, please come forward. John Kilgour, Donald Shumaker, Anna Huang are the first three.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2100 South Colorado Boulevard, 4040 East Evans Avenue, 2140 South Albion Street, 2130-2150 South Colorado Boulevard and 4102-4108 East Evans Avenue in University Hills. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 2100 South Colorado Boulevard, 4040 East Evans Avenue, 2140 South Albion Street, 2130-2150 South Colorado Boulevard, and 4102- 4108 East Evans Avenue from C-MX-5 and C-MX-5 UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-12 (urban center, mixed-use, five-stories to urban center, mixed-use, twelve-stories) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1058

Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill of 19 dash 1058 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 1058 is now open. May we have the staff report? Yes, thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2120 132, 21, 50 South Colorado. Boulevard, 4040 and. 4102 to 40. 1 to 8 Evans Avenue. And 2140 South Albion Street from see Amex five and select 501022c Annex 12 property is located in Council District four in the University Hills neighborhood at the southeast corner of Evans Avenue and Colorado. Boulevard. Just south of the Colorado station. Light Rail Stop. The property is just. Under two acres. Currently has a single storey retail structure on it and a parking lot. As I said, the request is to go from six, five and six five, you zero one, you go to. Most of the property is 650102. Which is. Urban center mixed use, five storey maximum. Height with the adult use. And billboard overlays. And then a small. Sliver of select site does. Not have the. Adult use and billboard overlays. The request is to go to see an x 12, which is urban center mixed use 12 story maximum. Height in order to redevelop the property. So you can see the existing zoning there with the surrounding CSX five to the south and east s and X five to the west across Colorado Boulevard and see an x 20, which is 20 straight zoning to the north across to Evans Avenue. The property is also part. Of the Corridor Station General Development Plan, which was adopted in 2008. It's in the secondary GDP area development area, too, which generally calls for office and retail uses with. Heights up to six stories. However, the GDP does not specifically allocate use height or density, and those things. Can be changed without any amendment whatsoever to the general development plan. As I. Mentioned, the property currently has a. A. Retail structure on it and parking lots. And then you can see surrounding uses a new residential structure immediately to the south. Commercial uses up and down. Evans and Colorado Boulevards. And here you can see the subject site and some of the surrounding properties. This application went to the planning board on October 2nd or received a recommendation of approval by a 7 to 1 vote. Three members of the public spoke in favor of the application at that hearing. I went to Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on October 22nd. In your packet you have public comment, including 35 letters of support from members of the community and two letters of support. From registered neighborhood organizations. The University Hills North Community and the University Park Community Council, the University Hills North. Community support is based on the. Signed Good Neighbor Agreement that is also included. In your packet. In order to. Approve a rezoning, the city must find that. These five criteria have been. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four adopted plans that apply to this property. The first adopted plan is Comprehensive Plan 2040 that was adopted earlier this year as described in the staff report. Staff has found the proposed rezoning is consistent with these seven strategies from Plan 2040, including strategies related to equitable development by concentrating development in areas close to mixed use development and near transit, which this site would be, as I mentioned, just south of the Colorado Station Transit Center, and also served by transit on both Colorado and Adams . The second plan is Blueprint Denver also from 2019. The future context for the. Site is Urban Center, which is consistent with the key context of. The proposed TMX 12 zoning, calling for high intensity residential and employment areas and. Substantial. Mixed abuses. The future place for this property is what's called Community Corridor, which calls for a mix of office, commercial. And residential. Uses and says heights generally up to eight stories. However, that's just a. General guideline, and that can be higher or lower. Depending on specific factors, which I'll get into in just a minute. Both Colorado. Boulevard and Evans. Avenue are mixed use arterials, which indicate a. Appropriateness for higher. Intensity mixed use. Development, such as the. Proposed TMX 12. Zoning. It's also within the community corridors and. Center's growth area, which calls for 25%. Of new housing and 20% of new. Jobs over. The next 20 years. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with strategies from Blueprint Denver, including general policy one strategy which calls for encouraging higher density mixed use development in transit rich areas, particularly areas community corridors such as this, where transit per priority streets are planned. Both Carr. Colorado Boulevard and Evans Avenue. Are transit priority streets in Blueprint Denver. So this is an area appropriate for higher density. And then as I mentioned, there are factors in. Blueprint Denver setting when higher or lower heights should be considered. So I'll run through some of those. First is guidance from a. Current small area plan. I'll get into the small area plan guidance in just a minute. But the. Small area plan that applies to this property is fairly old, so not exactly. Current. And does not provide clear guidance. The second factor is surrounding context, including existing and. Planned building heights. As I mentioned, there's five story zoning on three sides, three sides of this property and 20 story. Zoning across. Colorado Boulevard. To the north. With 20 story buildings on the north side of Colorado station. So there are taller buildings in the area and zoning for taller buildings immediately adjacent to this property. The third factor is transitions, including transitions from higher intensity to lower intensity areas. So as I mentioned, the 20 story zoning immediately to the north, five story zoning to the. South, the 12 story zoning would act as a transition between those. Two. The fourth factor is. Adjacency to transit, especially mobility hubs. So as I mentioned, this is just south of the Colorado station. Light rail stop and also served by busses. On both Colorado Boulevard. And Evans Avenue. And then the last two factors for. Achieving planned goals or furthering urban design. This proposal at. This time does not specifically address those, but given. Are the three factors around context transitions and adjacency to transit staff finds that the proposed request of 1212 story zoning against 12 is appropriate and consistent with. The recommendations of Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the Colorado Boulevard plan. The small area plan that I mentioned is from 1991. So as I said, fairly old. It says continue appropriate mix of land uses and new development should be compatible with existing development. Also, the. Proposed TMX 12 zoning would allow mixed use zoning consistent with what is currently allowed, and the 12 storey zoning would allow appropriate. Development heights. Consistent as the transition from the taller zoning to the north and the shorter zoning to the south. And then the last. Plan is the Colorado Station. General Development Plan, which, as I mentioned earlier, calls for. Office and retail uses consistent with the. Proposed TMX 12 building heights of 1 to 6 storeys. Which is less. Than the proposed TMX 12. However, as I said, the GDPR does not. Specifically control height, use or density, and those can be changed without any amendment to the GDP. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with all four plans. And the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the Annex 12 Zone District. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and promoting. Walkable mixed use areas. Promoting people walking and getting to transit safely and healthily. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed. Rezoning is justified by changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been a fair amount of redevelopment. As I mentioned, there's a brand. New apartment building just to the south. There's been new development around Colorado Center Station. At that higher height, this is turning into more of a transit. Oriented development area. And so concentrating more. Growth here, allowing more height. Especially at an intersection of two major. Arterials close to transit, is justified by the changes in the area. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context. District purpose and intent. Steffens The proposed rezoning would result in. Development consistent with the urban center neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent of the same x 12 zone district, which is intended to apply to areas and intersections served primarily by major arterial. Streets. Or building scale 3 to 12 storeys if. Desired. As I mentioned, both Colorado and Evans are major arterials, so this. Is an appropriate location for the next 12 zone. District. So staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have 21 individuals who signed up to speak on this item this evening. So I do apologize. But I'm going to ask if that front row, if you can just move, there's still front row seating available over here just so that we can bring I'm going to bring the speakers up in sets of five and use that that bench. So I will call you up five at a time as soon as I call your name, if you'd make your way up to this front bench and then I'll call when I call your name, step right up to the podium so that your time can start. I also took a quick look and it looks like of our 21 is overwhelmingly signed up in support of this tonight. You are free to take your full 3 minutes at the microphone. But if we get further down the list and someone has covered the points that you're going to make, you're also welcome to introduce yourself state how you feel on this and reiterate quickly some of the points that were made and you don't need to take up the full 3 minutes if you don't need it. All right. Vincent English. Brit Probst, Sandy. Heck, UNMOVIC Chairman Say Qu and Robert Forster. If you'd come to the front bench and Vincent English, you are up. Thank you. Mr. President, we are currently passing out an information packet for the council here. To the count. To the council clerk. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Vinny English. My address is 3825 Tone Street, Denver, Colorado. 80211. I'm the chief development officer for Q Factor. And for those of you that are not familiar with CU Factor, we are a contemporary development company, most notably recognized for industry, the modern office environments in the Reno neighborhood. We have been working with the property owners here with us tonight, Z portfolio in our team for more than a year on a mixed use concept as well as this associated rezoning process for the site located at Colorado Boulevard and East Seventh Avenue, adjacent to the Colorado Transit Station. We've been involved with leading a long and proactive outreach effort with the city, the University Hills North Community, the Arno, the primary and closest Arno to the site, as well as the University Park Community Council, the neighborhood and R.A. to the West across Colorado Boulevard and the East Evans Business Association, as well as other local organizations. We are honored to have a great deal of community and neighborhood support for the application, which I think is a reflection of the type of outreach and genuine communication that we have sought to provide throughout this process. Furthermore, on page 13 of your packet is a list of the letters of community support received for our application. Since that time, both the project and our community outreach have both evolved significantly, and we are excited to be here in front of you today. We've taken a lot of the concepts and recommendations and blueprint. Denver and the comprehensive plan to heart, such as urban centers, community corridors, design, quality and mobility just to name a few. And we've truly let a number of these concepts drive some of the inspiration for our project and mix of uses. I would like to thank the city planning staff for all the time and hard work they've put in. I also want to thank the community and neighborhood leaders that we have been working with. I'm here to answer any questions you may have, and I thank you again for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, Brett Probst. Hello. I'm Brett Probst. I live at 2255 South Jackson. Street. In Denver. I'm going to be very brief. The architect who has. The honor of working with Q Factor in Z portfolio on the design of this project. I'm really excited about it because I know. They have such high intentions. To create a really. Noteworthy development here. I'm also excited because I live just a few blocks away from this property, so I feel especially. Invested. In making sure a great. Outcome. Occurs. And again, I'm here to answer questions that you may have. Thank you. Next up, Sandy Hook, UNMOVIC. Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Sandy. How of itch? Our family owns the property at the south east corner of Colorado Boulevard and East Evans. My address for the record is three, three, three South Monroe Street. Number 401 Denver. My family has owned and developed real estate in Denver for over 100 years. In fact, my great grandfather was one of the original stonemasons here at City Hall. We have on the land to Colorado Boulevard and Evans for as long as I can remember. And that's a very long time. As you can imagine, we have had a ton of offers over the years for a variety of uses, including fast food chains, automobile dealerships, drive thru Starbucks, and of course, the proverbial five story rep style apartments as many other sites in the area have developed. However, as a tribute and legacy to our family, we have turned down these less than visionary projects and offers and took the time to consult with the city, with the council, with the community to deliver a project that the community desires and can be proud of. We are looking at this property as an iconic long term legacy for Southeast Denver. Our goal has been and continues to be to build a true mixed use development that will provide the community with a gathering place much needed restaurants, shopping, office, residential and a hotel. We actually had an architectural competition and ultimately ended up retaining two very talented architectural teams to help us create our vision. We're excited about the partnerships that have been developed and the conversations we've had with so many along the way to get to this point. I would like also like to thank the community and neighbors who have taken an active role in the development of this project and helping further our quest for rezoning. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. You got to go in here. Okay, here we go. Chairman SEC, who likes our action movement. Also the next United States Senator. 2020. Here we go again. The vote on this one is going to be 13. The two who stop playing games up here. Because this is the way it goes down down here. You scratch my back, I got your back. There is no moral turpitude whatsoever in the game. It corrupt thoroughly. Mr. Speaker, I would point to our decorum rules. Please follow them. Do it now. If you could please follow our decorum rules. What did I do now? You are not to question the motives of the council members. Speak to the issue. I did not question the mode of the city council. All right. Continue is apparent and evident how we have to do that. Your history speaks for you before you even walk in the room. Here we go. Now. Who is this bull? Who spoke. And as you go about doing the development and getting and hiring the subcontractors who don't work, that no black people guarantee. White, brown, maybe. But guaranteed white workers can't be doing this. So once again, as a city develops, they leave us out conveniently under the as someone once said. Unintended consequences. Oh, yeah. Get real slick with the language. So as we go on, we move this thing down the road. You're going to do what you're gonna do. And black people have got to be put in another category call endangered species. Like doo wop, who they are and the world and the tree and the beetle, because they give more consideration than we do as a human. Being in this town. And that's been going down for 67 year. And the ball keeps bouncing. And the faces keep changing and the song is still the same. So what was the real change go down here? It wasn't a changing of the guard or the regime. No, it wasn't. It was game changing faces. Same rules, same regs. Just different folks doing it. Lying about their. Intentions and not wanting their end. I didn't. Question How can you sit up there and tell me it's against the rule to question? I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up is Robert Forester. And we have I'm going to call the next five up, Jesse Paris, Rita Henry, Matthew Hubbard, Jennifer, New Haven and Brooke Webb. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Robert Forrester. I live at. 2461 South Holly Place to Denver mailing address. But it is Arapahoe County. I'm about a mile from the project and I wanted to come speak on behalf of this zoning request. It's a beautiful project that I think will enhance the area. Its closeness to you. And the light rail resonates with what the community needs. It's. Really a lot of thought has been put into it. There's been community input. There's been an effort to reach out to people in the area to answer concerns and questions. I think the project is. The best use of the area. I think it will. Enhance. Values for everyone concerned and I would like to ask the council to approve it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening. Council President Clark, members of the council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse Larson, Paris. And I ran for city council while large with almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor, Mr. Pierce. Do you have something germane to this issue reside? And can you see the Backus District Court, District nine? And I am speaking against this proposal tonight. I was at the last meeting when you guys deliberated on what you were going to do in regards to this. And I asked the developer straight up, what was the ammo level for this. I was told that only 10%, ten units out of. 360 were actually going to be affordable? Or was it more like ten units out of 500? Either way. It's a joke to say that this isn't even remotely close to affordable. It's 80% at my level and only ten other units are qualify for the tax credits. So really, who are you building this for is my question, because you keep screaming out, we can do better. We have a housing crisis in this city and this town. But yet you keep building honest luxury housing for who and what community spoke in favor of the still white afloat community. Really? This is honestly a joke. But you're going to do what you're going to do. As has already been stated. You already made your minds up before you come into chambers. So I had a few questions that I want to answer. I wanted to know if there was going to be a traffic study done on this area, because currently the traffic is atrocious in this area. And as a pedestrian walking in this area. You're putting your life in or at risk. You have to play Frogger. I know because I used to work in this area when I was selling direct TV for Amazon Satellite, which is right next door to where this proposed development is going to happen. So I would like somebody to please answer those questions because you keep ignoring my question. So I would like somebody to please answer that traffic question. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Rita Henry. I am Rita Henry three, three, three, three is Florida Avenue, Denver 80210. And I'm here to say that I really like the design for Colorado and Evans, and I think people hear 12 stories, but that's misleading since it's only a small portion of the project. That's 12 stories. The other parts are open and green available to the community for their use, and that's seven or 8000 square feet on the ground floor that will be open to the sky. And I asked if they had done. The Sun tests. They said they did and it will not be shady any time of the year. So I like the upscale design. That area right now has derelict corner vacant. Nothing there. So and I like the glass restaurant that spans the bridge connecting the two buildings with an outdoor patio. So I think it makes it very desirable. And I like the idea of a boutique hotel with 120 to 130 rooms. And I have heard that. Do you parents coming from out of town have limited options? And the residencies are, I've heard, 125 units. And it's such an improvement of what is in progress being built that's allowed without any questions asked. Five stories, zero light line apartments that if that's what can be done on this property with no questions asked, then I think. Definitely needs to change because that project is pretty bad looking. Everybody's talked about that and that's 350 units and they say that's what you could do on this property without going for a zoning change. So. And I do think parking is a problem and people can't ride their bikes. And I think it's probably right about that busy intersection. And I don't know how that will ever change because it's not going to stay undeveloped. So I think a subway system is really the answer, but that won't happen either. So I feel like people move to Colorado to be outdoors. So I think by limiting parking, you're not going to get people to just. Take the light rail to Broadway and downtown. It's got to be more coming. So I would say that's probably. Something to work on which is difficult. Thank you. All right. Next up, Matthew Hubbard. Hello. My name is Matthew Hubbard. I'm a resident at 515 Franklin Street in Denver. I'm here to speak in support of the Evans and Colorado Project. I believe the design of the project will bring some much needed architectural interest to this part of the city. My wife and I own a modern bungalow, a custom almost furniture store located just down the street in you hills. We have been there for 15 years. I was impressed that the developers reached out to us directly. They shared their project motivations and design. They asked for honest feedback and before asking us if we'd be willing to speak in favor of the project. That's the first time that's happened in 15 years. Density is good for small business. Innovative design is good for the soul of the city. This project offers both. With that said, I would like to support what Jesse Paris said about pedestrian traffic, and I would add cycling traffic along Colorado. That would be a really nice upgrade to the area. And with that, thank you for your time and thank you for your service to our city, especially Councilman Hines from my home district, District ten, thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jennifer, New Haven. Good evening. My name is Jennifer New Hoffman. I live in the University Hills Norris neighborhood. Although I'm a co-president of the Hills, Norris Community are an oh who already provided a support statement in support of this rezoning. This statement is mine and should not be interpreted as a statement from the board. I also support this rezoning. He Hills North has been going through some dramatic changes over the last five or so years and it's obvious there will continue to be development in the northern portion near Evans Avenue. Hundreds of new townhomes have either recently filled or will complete construction soon. We're about to see a 350 unit apartment building open to renters in just a couple of weeks ago, another 360 unit apartment building broke ground. Well, I'm not against density there. In fact, I think it's the exact right place for density. I have concerns about how quickly the density was preceding the zoning for this property. The southeast corner of Colorado Boulevard and Evans currently allows for yet another five story apartment building, paying the linkage fee for affordable housing and like the five plus storey building immediately to the south, they would not have to look to the access to the existing businesses or residents to gather feedback and opinions. Although we may ultimately have more of those developments, the neighborhood needs more than just housing. Bringing in a development that consists of a diverse mix of tenants will help activate the community around it. This also gives Denver extra time to provide better infrastructure to support future density. As we know, the Evans corridor struggles to manage its current traffic off traffic levels. When I heard what the owners and developers wanted to do with that property, I became excited. Excited to have an architecturally interesting building at the Northwest entrance to University Hills, excited that someone had vision enough to design something that would provide the same amount of density a use by right build would get, but supplying so much more to the community. Excited at the prospect of having an open outdoor community gathering space, a new desirable restaurant, a new dessert shop to walk to on a hot summer night. I'm excited to think there might be something in our neighborhood that instead of bringing more residents, it would bring a destination for all our existing and incoming residents to go to . I am most excited for there to be a place between the hundreds of single family homes and the transit station. To better activate the transit station, give the residents a reason to head to the station on foot or meet friends coming in from the light rail for a social outing. I'm grateful the owners kept going to the drawing board to find a concept that would benefit everyone. I fully support this rezoning and hope you will too. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Brooke Webb and I call the next five up to the front. Pamela Whitney Walsh, Ryan Morrissey. Lori Bissell, Max Everett and Barry Rosoff. Brooke Webb. Hi. I'm Brooke Webb. I live at 5382 East Colorado Avenue in Virginia Village, which is about a mile from the project. I'm involved with Ellis Elementary School as the parent teacher organization president. And one of the reasons I'm speaking in support of the project is because we need to attract and retain families in Virginia Village. I like the many of the points that have already been brought up, so I'll just reiterate the fact that this is a legacy project for the corner of Colorado and Evans, that it's very close to the light rail station, the Colorado station, and we want the Colorado station to become more of a destination station like some of the other light rail stations throughout the city, where right now it's more of just a commuter station. This would help improve the Colorado station tremendously. I really liked when I met with CU Factor, the accessibility that they talked about as well as the wide sidewalks. I think that that's an imperative part of this project for the pedestrian and cycling concerns that have been brought up. I really like the fact that it's a luxury, high quality project that other areas of the city have seen and our little neck of the woods hasn't really benefited from quite yet. And the hotel, the housing. And currently it's just a defunct site with a really old building there that has had no use for us. So from what it is to what it is going to be, I think it's very beneficial for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Pamela Whitney Walsh. Did he mean? And Pamela Walsh and I. Reside at 1316 South Elm Street. And I'm here tonight in support of the redevelopment project. I'm very excited about the opportunity that this represents for our neighborhood. Specifically, if free zoned to be mixed use, we could have a greater mix of amenities like broader choices of restaurants that we see in other thriving neighborhoods like Walsh Park and Platte Park. Currently, that area is dominated by fast food restaurants and chains and would be would rather prefer to have a range of healthy choices from fast casual to more sophisticated dining that you might find in other great cities like San Francisco and New York. And it would give local restaurateurs the opportunity to create something really special in their own communities. It also promises greater access to what is currently a concrete wasteland. By carving out open space for public use. And finally, I was really relieved and furthermore inspired when I heard from the outcome of each family about their desire to build a legacy project on the southeast corner of Denver. I believe that it will bring a level of visceral, visual sophistication and appreciation for design to the neighborhoods so that it really elevates our community rather than having it blend in or worse, diminish the beauty of our neighborhood. So again, as a neighbor within walking distance to this promising new development, I hope you will consider approving the rezoning that will enable the project to create something that maximizes its full potential for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Ryan Morsi. Good evening, council members. My name is Ryan Morsi. I live at. 3434 South Claremont Street in the New University. Hills neighborhood. I'm here tonight in support. Of CU Factor and Z Portfolios. Application to rezone the corner of Colorado and Evans as a nine year resident of University Hills. I've seen a lot of changes. In our neighborhood. Not every project allows us. The opportunity to discuss. The proposed development with the developers or owners. Q Factor and Z Portfolio. Have taken the time over this past year to meet with our neighborhood. We've been able to discuss. And view the proposed building and mixed uses of space. It is clear that they have spent a great deal of time wanting to create a building that will bring a unique architectural design. To our neighborhood. And not just a planned structure that we often see built. Because of this, I believe the building will become a center of gathering that our community has been lacking. By creating a variation in height and density, they will be providing a plaza with open spaces and amenities not seen by any current development. Providing this mix of uses, we will gain shops, restaurants, offices and living spaces all in one location. This will allow both walkability. And. Vibrancy that the future of our community will need. With easy access and use of Colorado station. This mix of uses will allow the outreach for others to enjoy enjoy. Not just our neighborhood. Please support the growth of. Our neighborhood and community by approving this. Project to move forward. We will all enjoy the strong precedence this building will make in our community and hopefully will encourage other developers to follow suit. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss my support in this development and rezoning. Thank you. Next up, Laurie Bissell. Yes. My name is Lori Bissell. I live at 2167 South Belcher Street and I am probably the closest neighbor to the project and I've lived in the neighborhood for 24 years, so I've seen a lot of changes. I was community president when Light Rail went in and Colorado center development and all that and I think this is a really good project is bringing excitement to the neighborhood because it's kind of been just sitting there for a long time and I thought, How come this isn't being developed like Highlands Ranch? I'm like Highlands or that. And finally the development is coming and I think this is a good development. It's well thought out. The developers were willing to talk to the community. These six blocks are going to be developed and how they develop is really important to the community because I've traveled in, you know, in Europe, like I'm sure some of you have, and you'll see that the train stations are a place where people go, they go to buy their cheese, their wine, pick up their laundry and have a really nice meal or meet people from another that come from another station. And you meet there at the station in Zurich. I remember my friend said meeting where the singles meet and I go, What the hell are you talking about? And she goes, Yeah, we have a place where people come, where singles meet, and then families meet in a different place in the station. So I think as Denver develops as a metropolitan area, it's really a good thing that we get out of our cars and have the option to take light rail to places like I took light rail down here tonight, so I don't know how many of you did that in, but I did. And I think that's a great option to get people out of their cars. Even though I drive for Uber and Lyft, I think that that's going to help us in the future to be able to do that. So I hope that you vote for this. I'm for this project, and I think it's going to be good for standards, set standards for the development of these six blocks that are right there. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Max Everett. Max Everett. All right. Very brassed off. And then I'll call our next group up. If you could make your way to the front bench. Sam Muir of Sharon Pearson. Elizabeth Davis. Kyle Exner, Kimberley Tyson and Paul Leone. Go ahead. Excellent. Good evening. Members of members of council. I'm very proud to preside at 333 South Monroe Street in Denver, Colorado. Although I've only been a member Colorado resident for about 12 years, I've seen an incredible amount of development all through the city. Living in Cherry Creek, I've kind of looked at LoDo, LoDo, the Highlands, Reno, all these areas popping up with incredible, vibrant destiny, areas that have become destinations. Sitting in Cherry Creek, we look at this and say, You know what? Where do we want to go? Where can I go? The University Hills area really has, and it is really just a wasteland of just information of a transportation corridor from I-25 down to Hamden. It's kind of it's a wonder why this area hasn't developed. And I think this this project is an unbelievable way of bringing an incredible amount of diversity and development to the area. And I'm incredibly excited to see this to see this this area develop. I think the project that that that's put forth is really, really an architecturally amazing thing, which is which is also really interesting because I'm tired of driving by another big box of just plain box and irresponsible development. This does a really nice job of combining what the community needs in a very in a visually pleasing way. And I give my unconditional support for the project. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Sam Mira. Good evening. My name is Sam Europe. I own a business on Monaco and Evans is triple-A. Swing and vacuum. I've been there since 1985. And I must tell you, I've seen a. Lot of changes. During the time I've been. There. And when they approached me. With this project on Monaco and Evans, I'm. In Colorado and Evans, as of now. I do a lot of driving in that area. And every time I see that corner. I just shake my head because all I. See. Is people frying in a green chili. Some people selling sunglasses on the corner. Uh, and I've seen. People, you know, I mean, all kind of stuff, and it would attract gravity. And it's really sad to see that corner like that. So when they told me about this project, I really felt excited and I really wanted to give my $0.02 worth about this project. And I. I appreciate if you guys will give it consideration to approve it. It's a it's a great thing for the city. And like I said, I've been there. For almost 35 years. I'm very excited about it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Sharon Pearson. Hi. My name is Sharon Pierce, and I've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. I'm about six blocks southeast of the project. I think the points I'm going to make are with all the development that encroaching on your neighborhood. This is the first group that's really come to us with vision and looked at it as How can we improve your neighborhood instead of just plopping a building down in the middle of it? The project that was just built just south of their building is not anything I think any of us are proud to look at every day. And the idea that someone is bringing something to us that's going to produce some architectural interest and bring new things to our neighborhood is refreshing. And my major point would be I hope they set a precedent for the three other developers that are currently on the north side of our neighborhood going after their projects. So get out there and make your plea to those other guys. So I am strongly in favor of this project. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Elizabeth Davis. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Davis and I live at 2575 South Cherry Street in Denver with Jenny. I'm co-president of the University Hills North Community. R.A. I'm speaking today to represent my personal support for this project. As a resident of this neighborhood for over 20 years, I see this project as an opportunity and an investment in the future of our area. I'm committed to working for smart development in a safe, walkable and vibrant future for University Health North and all along the Evans and Colorado Boulevard corridors, the developers and owner in this project have proactively engaged the community. They've been accessible, they've listened and responded to feedback. Although the increase from five stories to 12 stories sounds steep, they have agreed to design to match the equivalent of five story density and have included open space and retail at this property. They have also agreed to active engagement in an implementation of transportation demand management strategies. These elements are important to me and to our residents and are captured in the Good Neighbor Agreement that people have referenced already. For all of these reasons, I am in full support of this project, and I hope you will, too. Thank you. Next up, Kyle Exner. Evening. My name is Kyle Asner. I live in University Hills. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'll try to keep this short because to keep it from getting too repetitive, a few bullet points. I think it's an exciting mixed use project that isn't your standard five storey apartment building that a lot of people have spoken against tonight. The developer is local and has a history of successful projects in the Denver area. This has been mentioned before, but they've made a significant effort to engage the community and gather feedback and that the project helps increase density near light rail and all the jobs at Colorado station. And those are the main points I want to highlight tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kimberly tests. Yeah. You're not going. I apologize. How you doing? It's too. I live in University Hills, and I've been there for over a decade. And before that, from 2000 to 2008, I was in five points where I also enjoyed living. But I actually went over to that area because it seemed like I had more yard and. There were things that were going. To be exciting and happening there. And as I've been watching it grow over the last ten years, I can say that this group has been very good about cooperating with the community. They have scheduled one on one appointments with anyone who asked. They have scheduled tons of meetings where anyone has been able to come. It has been well advertised. And I find it, as a resident of University Hills, a little. Disturbing that the two people have spoken against it. I had not seen it a single meeting or participated at all. So I believe all the people who have stood up and spoken so far have been at the meetings and they have been very well and engaging. And like they've spoken. The architect has just been so thoughtful and they've. Answered all of our questions. We brought up the concerns about traffic and pedestrians. They told us how they were looking into that. They did studies. They were opening up that lane for the cars to pull in more. There have been thoughtful in every way and they've answered every question and they've been nothing but cooperative. And as you can see, the support by the people actually live in that area is immense. So I really hope you guys go all the way for it. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Paul Leone. Good evening. My name is Paul. Excuse me. Good evening. My name is Paul Leone. I live at 4225 east. I live which is the Observatory Heights Development in. It's about a block diagonal southeast of the development we're discussing. I wanted to say that I relocated to the area from North Central Westminster specifically to be near the transit. I haven't lived in the area for over 11 months. I consider myself the unofficial gentry representative to the University Hills North Community as I appear to be the only one living in a slot house development that comes to the meetings. And so I have done so out of a commitment to avoid the conflict that we've seen in other areas like Rhino and Highlands and other parts of the city. Um, sorry. Uh, due to. Do not come out from. I just repeat what some other people say. The applicant's commitment to a legacy building is important and important. The applicant's commitment to vertical density over horizontal density is important. And I wanted to bring up one point that was not brought up by the staff or by any of the commenters that the applicant has committed to permanently remove the billboard and adult use zoning overlays that currently govern the part of the property. I'm a firm believer in First Amendment rights to adult operations, if that's what they want. But I wanted to bring that up for the record that that's part of the deal and that I personally welcome that commitment. Otherwise, I implore the Council and Councilor Black to continue to bring infrastructure improvements to our neighborhood, including sidewalks. Sidewalks is a big issue around the city. It's an issue in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers tonight on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Well, there we go, Councilman Torres. Thank you so much, Mr. President. QUESTION You know, the president. Of the Auno was here. If I know you spoken on your behalf. But I wonder if you could just answer a couple of questions about the Arno Gina. Just for a clarification. The DNA is directly with University Hills. North Community. Arno. Yes. Were you already in Arno? I'm sorry. If everyone C-3 prior to this agreement or did that. Come as kind of seeking. Out the DNA? I don't think we're. 523 So you're not a 523? No. Sorry. Let me. In Virgina, it states that. University Hill's Arts Community, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. That's not accurate. No. Okay. I am sorry. There is legal speak in the DNA that I didn't recognize. I was just making sure that the points that the residents in the neighborhood wanted to be met, like the transportation demand management plan and the reduced density for the 12 story max. Those things were being met there. Maybe. Can I have somebody from Z portfolio? Hi. How are you there? Can you introduce. Yourself real quick for the record? Sandy, how come of it? Thank you. Sandy, do you know the answer to that? The DNA that I'm looking at states that UNHCR I'm sorry, you agency. Is a right and this is an I.R.A. It's been in existence for quite some time. It did not become an R.A. because of us at all. A nonprofit. Because of this. They're nonprofit. No. Who signed the Good Neighbor agreement then? As far as Z portfolio I did on behalf of the neighborhood who signed now I as the co-presidents of the R.A.. Okay. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know if this is even matters, but it states that you're in a5a1c3 nonprofit in here. So I don't know if that. So are you. Do you know if you're five or 23, which are okay? All right. You might be because. I'm sorry. We have lots of folks watching on TV. So if you're responding to the question, if the council would like to pull you up, you have to come to the microphone. I think that they might be is that the organization has been there since like the early fifties. So and we vote presidents and as a community and, you know, around Denver, each community has a council, most of them have a council. So that's the way that we can talk to you. And I do believe so there's a it's a nonprofit. Sure. I think there's a difference between registering as an R.A. with the city and registering as a. Nonprofit entity with the state. Yeah, but I think it's it's more of the community council's that's been there for years and years and years and years. I would just encourage you to be very sure. About what that means, because there's also language in here that is a transaction of money for possible. Legal fund, legal. Legal needs, should the R.A. need them. So just be very sure what you're signing. Right. Yeah. And that's. Yeah, I think. I think we have our attorney trying to chime in here. And. Figure it out. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel. Apparently this is a similar question that was asked and another evening that I was not here, an unusual time when I was not here. But there are various ways to incorporate. And so, you know, I don't advise the Arnaud's, but you know, it doesn't have to be a nonprofit 501c3 model to qualify as a Colorado nonprofit corporation, if that's the question. And that's fine. I'm just stating, I think what I'm reading here in the DNA. That you HNC. A Colorado nonprofit corporation. And that doesn't sound like familiar. Language to the R.A., so just wanting to make sure that you're you're signing something that's sure to stay on that question. Okay. I will definitely look into that. I can't speak for Sandy, but I'm willing to sign a just an identical DNA if we correct that part of the language. We'll find out for sure what their designation is and we'll change that. The good neighbor agreement, if we need to, to reflect that. Okay. And I recognize you probably. Have more trust than. Than I'm aware of, but. I think that's a significant thing. Okay. No other questions only. Okay. I'll come in later. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, the University Hills North Community is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. It was articles of incorporation were filed in 1978. And so but it's just simply just as Kirsten Crawford said, it's just not a they never saw 2513 tax exemption, but it is a nonprofit corporation. Okay, Scott, I'm curious if you could run me through again. Or run through for me, not run me through. Holy cow. The reasoning for the exception to the general guidance in blueprint on building heights because community corridor in this location the guidance is up to eight storeys but this zoning allows a 50% increase over that to 12 . And I did see in the staff report the citation to some of the guidance and blueprint that I that I called up to review here as well. And so why why was the exception? Why was it why is it being recommended for approval here? Is it the adjacency to the Colorado station, to Colorado Boulevard, to Evans? Yes. So there's the guidance and blueprint is general height guidance. And this has generally updated stories, but it says building heights identified in this plan provide a general sense of scale and are not intended to set exact minimums or maximums. So and then the plan provides further factors to consider in saying should it be higher or lower than the. And I see there are six bullet points here in Blueprint that suggest, you know, when we can vary from that. And I'm I guess I'm curious, you might not know the answer to this, but if you do, that would be helpful to me. Are have there been other rezonings or are there other applications you're looking at right now where where these where the general guidelines are are being modified with with these specifics? Or is this sort of our first case at this? Well, the one you approved earlier tonight had general guidance up to eight and you approves the next 12. So similar situation. Right. I think these may be the first two. But that that was an existing structure that that's already five. Correct? Right. Yes. So I think as far as I'm aware, these are the first two that have gone through. Okay, I'm going above the gentleman. I'm just wondering about the precedent setting nature of this and how broadly these exceptions might be applied so that the general guidance doesn't really apply anymore. Yeah. So to get back to your original question of why we think 12 is appropriate, right. I think it is the things you mentioned, you know, there are six factors, but one of them is proximity to other allowed heights are building existing building heights that are taller than that, which as I mentioned, this has 20 storeys zoning directly across the street to the north with. So there's not a 20 storey building there. Not immediately to the. North, but a little. Bit further north on council center, that's 12 storeys. It has taller than 12 storeys, I believe. Okay. But it's also zoned for 20 storeys there. So that whole area north of north of Evans is zoned for 20 storeys. Serving as the transitions of that. 20 storey zoning to the north, five storey zoning existing to the south, 12 storeys serves as a transition and then yes, proximity to transit. So with the current station light rail stop just across Evans to the north. And then bus. Service on both Colorado and Evans at the intersection of two major arterials. Right. We felt. That this met those factors to go above that general height that say. Thank you. That's almost present. Thank you, councilman. Next up, Councilman Central. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for the developer. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you. So tonight, several speakers have talked about the architecture, and I'm pretty familiar with good neighbor agreements and I'm pretty familiar with zoning. So tonight, we're only approving the entitlement. And tonight, there's an executed grid neighbor agreement. But within that document, it doesn't talk about the architecture. So talk to me about how you ensure this project to the people, because a lot of times bait and switch happens. I'm not saying that that happens. You're going to do that. But it's reality in development, right? So can you just talk to me? How come you didn't add architectural language to the Good Neighbor Agreement? So architecture language is not added to the Good Neighbor Agreement, Councilwoman, because we felt that the design was still in such an infant phase of the process. Right now, first and foremost, however, we did tie the overall design of the project to the Good Neighbor Agreement and really to the overall development through the 8% of private open space that we did commit to, as well as a form of mass reduction. That's a zoning code allowable piece. And even though it wasn't able to factor into any other document here in front of us tonight, we did paper those two with the with the in the good neighbor agreement. And so through what you did here, spoken to by the community, was a representation regarding the amount of density that we're crafting on the site. And even though there is the overall and overarching request for TMX 12 density here or actually sculpting with that amount of density is comparable to that, which is that of a five storey project. Because you're taking the massing and moving it around and that's how you're going to address that architecture in more easy language. Is that what I understand? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then are you building? I couldn't figure. I couldn't find it. I'm sorry if I missed it. Are you building in your hotel? But are you doing rental or for sale product there as well? Currently, we do have residential as a long term residential as a component of the project. However, it's it's a minimal component of the overall project right now. So, yes, in addition to hospitality use that's been discussed here, we do have a a lesser component that will be planned for right now long term rental. So, yes, multi-family rental. And so one more question with that. Will you be doing the on site affordable or will you be paying out the linkage fee? So as it currently sits right now, we would be. Paying the linkage fee for the entire project. And that linkage fee is calculated under the 2019 rates is in excess of $600,000. And so while that's not to be denoted as a significant impact to the to the overall project, it's definitely notable. However, regardless of whether there's the the other components of the project, be it. Commercial. Office or hospitality, would be required to pay that linkage fee no matter what. So it would be our intent to pay that linkage fee as of today. Yeah, I get that. The commercial, there's the three buckets, right, that commercial. And so I just always questioning whether developers are going to build the on site and help our affordability issue crises that we have in Denver or they pay the linkage. So thank you for answering that. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Vinny, thank you. How many? Thank you for staying there. Thank you, Councilman. How many residential units are you envisioning at this point? Currently, at the time at this time, we only have about 86. Units. Currently planned in the project. Okay. And how how big is the open space and square foot? I mean, you said 8%. I don't do math. Afternoon. Understood. We're currently looking at a total open space of about 15,000 square feet. When you say total, is that that one space in the middle that that. So the one space in the middle is is actually terraced. So there's multiple levels of this open space. The technical definition of open space per the zoning code requires it to actually have dirt all the way to the center of the earth, essentially. So that is where we come to a smaller square footage number in this 78,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Since you're there, I have a question for you. So in a similar vein to Councilman Sandoval, this I guess this is a little strange for me because, you know, I can't really say that I'm new for much longer. But this is one of the first rezoning applications that doesn't include affordable housing. So I'm. Was that something that you considered or how did. You know, how did you get by with not having an affordable housing requirement? I guess it's part of my question. So that is my question, actually. Yeah. Councilman Hines, thank you. And I appreciate the. The question there. And I can totally understand where it's coming from. As as mentioned and as Councilman Cashman asked, we currently only have 86 long term rentals currently planned for the project right now. So over two thirds of the project. Is really dedicated to other uses. And at this infant stage of the project, we're really trying to reserve optionality for the project. The needs of. The project may need to pivot to additional commercial. Office. The hotel user may see the need for additional hotel keys there. So as it stands. Today, the residential component, the long term rental component is so minimal that we didn't feel it appropriate to. Tie this or this project to an affordable housing commitment. Is there a if you say that in its infancy and, you know, currently you're planning 86 units, if some if you say, you know, this these were great ideas, let's just throw it out and start over, you know, is it would there be another comment period? The I mean, I I've heard from a lot of the people who came here tonight that they were very happy that you engaged the community, that you were very proactive. I really enjoyed that. I'm glad that you as a developer chose to engage the community also. I don't I don't know if the the phrase bait and switch, that's a little I don't think that you would do that necessarily. But people do do that. And so I guess I'm asking a similar question. I, too, feel a little uncomfortable saying we're going to go to 12 storeys and it be open and wonderful and then it be a 12 story box with a million units. None are affordable, you know. So. And is there any other way outside of it? Can you can you help us feel better about the project and that it'll stay? It really will be in the spirit that you are describing to us. Absolutely. And so I think, Councilman Hines, I think it's important to remember that. We do have an executed good neighbor agreement with the registered neighborhood organization that was discussed. As part of that. Good neighbor agreement. There is mass reduction, so it's currently not allowable for us to build the entire site out to 12 storeys. There is a commitment that we have to to further the. Overall design of the project in. Alignment with what we've currently shown. And as. We as you heard from the. Community, we listened to the feedback that was provided to us. And so pieces of the community's desires for this project, for this location are things such as retail and restaurants and open space. And so those are the pieces. Of the project that we're. Committing to and that we've executed with the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. Did you have something you want to. Get in the good neighbor agreement? It has the owner obligations. So a lot of these questions you have are addressed in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We've committed to not going more than the what the total density would be for the five storey building. So we're putting it at different levels though. Even though we're asking for TMX 12, there's only one of the buildings would actually be 12 storeys. The rest of it would be scaled down. Well, as it's currently proposed in its infancy. Yes, that's true. Okay. Thank you very much. And just one comment about Colorado nonprofits versus 501c3. Maybe this has already been addressed, but Colorado nonprofit is in the state of Colorado and 51c3 is a federal IRS designation. So there you can have one and not the other. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 1058 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for being here. It was very, very nice of neighbors to come up on a very cold December night. And I want to thank the development team. When I was first elected in 2015, one of the first people I called was Sandy because I heard a rumor that she wanted to develop that corner. So this was four years ago, and she's right. There were a lot of people coming to them for a drive thru liquor store, drive thru restaurant, all a lot of things that nobody wanted. And I just kept meeting with her and we kept talking about what would be nice for the neighborhood. And so it's mean so much to me. I've lived in that area most of my life and just I know you are also a Denver native and everyone's right. It is not an active part of town. They're just transportation corridors. And it's such an incredible opportunity to have an active light rail station. And there are some new things coming to the actual light rail station that are positive. This is going to be incredibly positive for the area. Everyone is concerned about transportation and safety. I'm so happy to see Stewart in the audience along with Bill James and Chris Nevett. The city also cares about getting people to the station safely and making it more walkable. And so Public Works is trying to get an Evans Corridor study done and Colorado Corridor study done to plan some improvements. I worked with Stewart before the 2017 was it 2017 bond on some improvements around the station, which hopefully those will get started, but there's much more to be done. But everyone knows about it and everyone cares about it is a priority. I really appreciate that you all came together for so many, many meetings and got to a point where you all thought this was a good idea. And I really appreciate you doing the good neighbor agreement, the affordable housing. I would like to address you are doing what the law allows you to do. So you're not getting any special favors. You are paying the linkage fee that was set forth in the ordinance that many of us voted for. But there are other things going in there that are going to be really a benefit to the community. And I hope then that good things spread from there around the station east on Evans, South on Colorado Boulevard and north on Colorado Boulevard. And that we get Colorado Boulevard to be more of an active transportation corridor, getting people move, moving outside of their cars. So a BRT or something. And I think with that, that is all I wanted to say. Jenny and Liz, you guys have been incredible. President of your neighborhood organization. Thank you so much for leading. And thank you all for this. It sounds like I'm going to support it. And I am. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you so much. And thanks for the clarification, everyone, for the R.A. status. That's helpful. The comment I wanted to make, there was a public commenter who remarked about previously on This Lot. There had been Green Chili Roasters. And so as this starts to take shape, please come to District three for your green Chile. All along, federal boulevard. We have plenty of options for you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. It's tough to follow up. Green Chile Roasters who will say that? This is really interesting. I hate to see any piece of ground built on without affordable housing. This is a small piece of ground. This is a very small piece of ground. And the $600,000 hopefully will will go towards financing affordability elsewhere and the design. I came into this job while I'm still concerned about height of structures. When you see that five story rectangle immediately to the south of this project, just south of the southeast corner of Evans and Colorado, you realize that that it's about design, I think is what everybody's flipping out about is the crap that we see being built in some areas. You know, and what this does have is, is exceptional design. And I know that's always a matter of taste. And I think to Councilman Hines is quite a line of questioning. I'm from from what I read in the agreements. I'm convinced that the requirements of massing prevent a giant box, that the 12 stories will be minimal. So what does concern me and it's not about this development really is the reality of our city right now. And the reality of the Evans corridor is, as Councilwoman Black said. So we've got to we approved the development of three 500 units down by the highway last week. We'll have a couple hundred more townhouses at Holly and Evans in the next couple of years. We'll talk later about the proposal for 800 more units up at the old see that site and all this to say we're we're acting right now in the way we are about what we give out incentives as if we have a real life mass transit system and we have a skeleton of the mass transit system that we need. We're giving out parking incentives. We're expecting we're we're allowing height, encouraging height, which we should buy by transit stations. But we're all watching the same thing with our our primary transit agency, reducing service and reduced releasing reduced ridership numbers. So all of this to simply say we really need to get extremely serious as a city very quickly about creating a mass transit system that actually gets people out of their cars in the numbers that we need to. I think this council did a great thing in in the voters in approving the Department of Transportation and Mobility. But we need to make use of it. You know, we just we can't leave it up to any outside agency, be it RTD or something else, or we're going to run into real trouble. You know, and I don't know whether the number I don't know what the number is that creates problems for us on our corridors because we've got problems now. We all know it. You know, people people say we have we have too many people in Denver and we don't I don't believe I mean, you can go get your haircut, go buy paint at Home Depot, change the tires on your car. What? You need to do buy groceries and you check out in a few minutes and you're on your way. But when we get in our cars. So I would ask our new director of Community Planning and Development and our director of Public Works to get real serious about how long are we going to go before we take action that matters in Denver. So I will be approving this tonight because I think it. I think it enhances the community. And but as I say, it just brought up all these concerns about moving people around and we need to do better. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I. I want to thank Councilman Cashman for his concerns about RTD and. And our struggle with getting people around the city outside of a car. 73% of Denver employees or Denver workers commute by single argument vehicle. And, you know, as we move from a cow town in a flyover state to a destination that, you know, our airport has, we're either number one or number two in the most direct destinations of any airport in the US. So as we become a destination instead of a flyover state, we really need to to lower that percentage. And on July 15th, when when we were all inaugurated, there was a reporter that brought the five new city council people together. And they asked, what is the biggest issue facing Denver? And I said, in my wonky way, I said, it's the relationship between land use and transit infrastructure. And so I'm obviously we can't rely on a another agency that is reducing service, increasing fares, has a massive rider shortage who's talking about significant reductions. So I would also share Councilman Cashman's thought about, you know, Denver, we can take a leadership role and and and now's the time for us to do that. We're at an inflection point to this particular project. I heard I'm I really like the the widen sidewalks that you have have drawn in your your plan. I think that that's, you know, one of the key components of making sure that people get out of their cars is to make the non car experience a positive one. And and I've seen a lot of recent development that has a curb for foot sidewalk and then, you know, 12 storey building and that's not conducive. Well, no wonder why people want to drive because they don't feel safe, you know, in this little it's like threading the Death Star or something, except that, you know, there's only one wall and then there's cars on the other side. So I like that. I like that. It's right next to a transit station. That's one of my key components. When I campaigned, I talked about the 20 minute neighborhood as and we should have everything within a 20 minute walk, right. A role and and locating density around transit is certainly in accordance with our adopted plans, but it's also very much in accordance with my personal values. As one of my colleagues said, unlike District ten, District four is not perfect. Councilwoman Black, I'm a little jealous about this this project. This is this is something that would easily fit in District ten. And, and I'm really excited that we're doing more placemaking around transit stops because that's how that's how we get that 73% lower is we have people located near places where they can easily take alternatives to cars . I would say one other thing. One of my staff went to New Mexico over the weekend and since green chilies come up Colorado, green chili is better than New Mexico. Green chili. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So I think every neighborhood needs a catalytic project. I remember touring this site as a council aide, working for Councilman Espinosa, and walking around this area and thinking how it was a missed opportunity. And so when we put public information, public dollars, such as transit into areas, I would really like to see catalytic projects take take shape around there and make them destinations. In northwest Denver, we've always had a really robust, eclectic neighborhood, so we didn't really need that. My whole entire life I've spent living there. So but I think as sprawl has happened, we need catalytic projects and just to re-emphasize work, my colleague, Councilman Cashman, said about affordability. I understand that you're paying a large portion into the bucket, and I will just ask you that your future projects. I know that the bottom line everyone has a performa everyone. I come from a small family restaurant. We had a performer and it was really important when health care came to the topic that our place had health care. And so now I think the topic of affordable housing is on the forefront of everyone. And so I just ask you, as a developer in Denver and I'm a resident of North Denver, that next time in your projects that maybe you can pencil them in and not have to meet by law, you are meeting the criteria . Absolutely. And by law, you're meeting the height. Right. And so tonight, we're just approving a rezoning. We don't get to approve projects. That's one of the hard things that I sit up here and feel handcuffed by is that we don't get to approve projects because I like to take deep dives into projects. That's my specialty. But you're getting the density. So just be true to this neighborhood and be true to Denver. So in your next project, just pencil them in, even if it's a couple units paint into it. Yes, you are. You are following the rule of the law. So thank you for doing that. You're not getting any special treatment. You're getting entitlement, but you are. I just want everyone to realize that that you are getting entitlement. So please be good stewards of that land and please make sure that you're thinking about that in the next seven generations . And don't. And I would just also ask that you don't value engineer anything out. I think a lot of times communities are presented projects and then as bids go out, things are value engineered out. And so just do your best to mean true to the integrity of this project, because I really believe it could be a catalytic project for right in that area and that area really deserves it. It's a long time coming. And with that, I will be supporting this project. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. So I heard one of the speakers talk about the opportunity for this to be a destination. And hearing her ask for a place where singles can go was, you know, one of those suggestions. And, you know, this is a project that really I think I've been in this area. And to Councilman Cashman's point about the traffic on Colorado Boulevard. We all know what a nightmare it is. Right. So how these projects are done and the fact that, you know, a traffic study will more than likely be needed to address how you move pedestrians across this very busy corridor. We deal with the same problem along the federal boulevard corridor, which is our number one corridor for fatalities. And, you know, the fact that we are seeing so much development in this city, we have to be so thoughtful about how we address these issues on the front end. And we don't get to do that because we don't approve the details that you have to go work on with our folks over at the Community Planning and Development Agency. But I appreciate the fact that you had an opportunity to have this conversation with the community. And the fact that you've got residents pretty unanimous in support of this project is is exciting because I know this particular corner could really use some help and be that anchor project for the neighborhood. So. You know, I support the comments made about affordable housing. I was one of the original co-chairs when we did our inclusionary housing ordinance. Wasn't necessarily that. Favorable to developers in in terms of, you know, having to comply. But it was a tool in our toolbox that gave us the opportunity to ensure that we were incrementally addressing the needs of people in our city. And we're seeing our city change so drastically that people cannot afford to live here. And when we start looking at all the development that is proposed along the I-25 corridor and the potential impact that will have on the neighborhoods to the West, if we are not thoughtful about this, in looking at this at the front end, we lose our city. The the the part about what is so great about this city is its diversity, its diversity of the neighborhoods, its diversity of the people, the economic incomes. And I don't want to see Denver become like our mountain communities, where people have to live so far away that we struggle to find the service workers to support the components of many of these developments that build in restaurants and hotels. And when people have to live so far away and they can find jobs that pay the same wages closer to where they live and where their kids go to school, we as a city will struggle trying to figure out how we get workers to work in this city to support different sectors. So it's it's an important component of how as a city, we need to be a lot more thoughtful. And I know that development is expensive. I sit on the board of a nonprofit housing development group that does housing development for, you know, folks that are struggling financially. And it requires a lot more stacking of resources to make those projects pencil out. But if we're not really focused in addressing this problem, I think we start to lose what is so good about this city. And I think we all have to be very intentional about how we move that needle forward. And I think this project, again, is one that will will make a difference in this neighborhood. I will be supporting it tonight. But we have to keep it keep keep at it. And, you know, I know it's a priority issue for this body of council. We've had many, many conversations in our retreats about this this issue. And I guess, you know, this is my plea to our development community. And we have development partners in this city who are private developers who have stepped up to the plate and said, I'm going to do this. You know, this is important. We're going to incorporate it into our project. And, you know, yes, it takes getting your low income tax credits and some of those things that are an extra process that is added, but it adds value to the project in the long run. So I'll stop with that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Seeing nobody else in the queue, I have a few things I'd like to add. One of the advantages or disadvantages to sitting in this seat is you always get two or have to go last. So Councilman Cashman usually beats me to the punch on talking about conformance with our adopted plans when it comes to climate change. And since he didn't steal the thunder, this time I'm going to read not the entire thing, but just a piece of it as we look. And this is this is in our blueprint. This is in our plan. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. And so as I'm looking at these rezonings, obviously we're all looking at that criteria and do you meet that? And I think that we're not talking enough up here about this. I think, you know, you'll hear us talk a lot about affordable housing, which is critical, and you'll hear us talk a lot about transportation, which certainly has climate implications. But talking directly about climate change and the impact of how we're planning and how we're building our city, I think is also critical that we're talking about and we're talking about every chance we get in a hearing like this. And I think what doesn't get covered a lot right now, because talking about density and redevelopment in Denver is hard right now. We are experiencing a lot of growing pains and a lot of communities are feeling a lot of change. And a lot of us like me who got a driver's license when we're 16 and you could get anywhere in Denver in 10 minutes, are grappling with the fact that that's not the same. City that I live in as the one that I grew up in. And so often that is overshadowed that conversation is overshadowed with some of the things that I think we should be talking about like that a project like this that is talking about having a very small portion that is residential housing is still going to build the equivalent of three or four, depending on where you are, five blocks of single family housing into it. And that's a small part of what we can do when we're building dense. Having conversations about the carbon impact of building places where people can live, but also where they work, where they play, where they stay. Like this has a much smaller carbon footprint than a lot of other kinds of development. And as we're looking and having conversations about density that is right on a transit station, right on major transportation corridors, that is, you know, supported by the community, that this is the exact place we should be talking about. How do we build density and what is that impact for our planet and for our species and our ability to continue inhabiting this planet? And we're not talking about that as a way that this is conforming with our adopted plans and meeting a critical criteria for rezoning. So I just wanted to shine a light on that, and that's not to discourage anyone. I really appreciated the speaker who mentioned and called out Plat Park in Walsh Park, two places in my district as great places to go grab food. I also have the other side of federal and maybe we should have a an east west south federal showdown on green Chile. Bring it on. Or whether you're coming to the Little Saigon district to get Vietnamese food. I mean, we've got it all in District seven and hear other communities say, hey, we want to be able to walk. And here's a development that allows us to walk, not to take away from driving to all the awesome places in my district. But that is those are the conversations that we have to be having about how do we build communities where people can walk and get there and can get out of their car? Because we have to be making those changes and we have to be making those changes yesterday. So I know that we've talked about all our wishes and dreams on affordable housing and transportation. Also throughout that, I hope that you will really consider climate. I hope that you'll choose to opt in to our stretch green building code when you get there and when we've adopted it. I hope that you'll outpace your requirements in our green building ordinance, and I hope that you will not put any natural gas infrastructure in for things like gas stoves, which we will have to transition off of long after that. This infrastructure, we're a long outlive our ability to continue using fossil fuels for those things. So with that and for all those reasons, I think this meets the criteria and thank you for the presentation from staff illustrating all of this. I hope we'll also continue to focus on climate in our presentations on how this meets how things like this meet our criteria. I will be happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary Rocha. Black Eye. CdeBaca I. When I. Gillmor, I. Herndon High Hinds High Cashman. Five. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 as Council Bill 1058 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1245 on the floor?

AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120017

Agenda item. For. Council 1 to 0 zero 17 relating to grant funds from non city sources. The committee recommends the bill passed. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. This one is yours as well. So I'll hand it back over to you. Thank you. Council President Colleagues Council 120017, which is co-sponsored by Councilmember Herbold, accepts a grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council for the West Seattle Bridge. Many thanks to Council President Gonzales and Councilmember Arias as well as to our city government staff members who enabled us to secure this grant to help pay for the restoration work for this bridge that is so important to the city, the region and the state. We look forward to the high bridge reopening which is scheduled for the middle of next year. Thank you. And not a moment too soon, I tell you. All right. I imagine that there are additional comments on this bill. So are there any other comments? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. What a. Send my. Thanks. Councilor Juarez. You're on my list, so I hope it's okay. I want to thank the IOC Executive Board Members Council President Gonzalez, Councilmembers Lewis Strauss and Mayor Durkan for their work at the Executive. Committee. And to the Our City Transportation Policy Advisory Board Members. And Alternate. Council President Gonzalez. And Councilmember Suarez and Petersen. For their work on the Transportation Advisory Board for making the recommendations in the first place to move this funding to the Executive Board for their final action. Really support. Appreciate the support and the commitment of all of the city's elected officials to obtaining funding for this critical work and a recognition that this is a regional asset. To date, $124 million has been secured for the overall project, in addition to the 100 million approved by the council. The total of grant secured so far is 15.9 million. With 9 million of the funds coming from the Transportation Benefit District. Last week we all signed a letter to your US DOT Secretary Buttigieg in support of an Infrastructure for Rebuilding America grant for around $2 million or $20 million. And that we're also the city of Seattle seeking 25 million in funding from the state during the current legislative session. So. Feeling feeling good about the funding piece. And yes, this this this bridge can't open soon enough for a lot of folks. Thank you for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Yes, I have one comment. Council President. Councilor. Warren thanked. I want to thank everybody for everything all the time, but more importantly, I want to thank how long it took us to get this money and not name names because it's been going on for about six months. Finally got across the finish line for people to recognize. At least Seattle needs their bridge fixed. A lot of people go over that bridge. It isn't just Seattle's bridge. It's everybody's bridge. And let's see, who did I forget? Yeah, everybody. I want to thank everybody. So thank you. I just want to make sure you got everybody. All right. Let it be known that we are very grateful group of council members from here and to every other corner of the state of Washington. We are incredibly grateful. So thank you so much to everyone. If there are no other comments, I'm going to ask the class to call the roll. Hearing no other comments while the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Morales. Yes. Macheda. I. Peterson I so want. Yes. Strauss Thank you. Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item five into the record? Agenda Item five Council Bill 120002 Relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports or city lights.

Resolution recognizing May 6-12, 2022 as "National Nurses Week". On motion of Councilors Breadon and Murphy, Rule 12 was invoked to include Councilor Flynn as a co-sponsor. On motion of Councilors Breadon, Murphy and Flynn, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_05112022_2022-0619

06190619 Council. As Brendan Murphy offered the following resolution, recognizing May six through 12, 2022 as National Nurses Week. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes Councilor Brady. Councilor, right before. I move to for suspension of the rules and to add Councilor Flynn as an original co-sponsor, please. Councilor Flynn. And so additionally. I offer this resolution today with Councilors Murphy and Flynn and recognize to recognize May 6 to 12 as National Nurses Week. Some of you may know that I come from a family of nurses. My mum was a nurse, her two sisters were nurses, and I spent my professional career as a physical therapist working alongside incredible caring, dedicated nurses in hospitals, in the community and in schools. And in 1982, President Reagan proclaimed May 6th as National Nurses Day. And since 1990, National Nurses Week has run from May 6th through May 12th, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, who is regarded as the founder of modern nursing. In addition, May 8th is designated as National Student Nurses Day, and today, Wednesday of National Nurses Week as National School Nurse Day. So nurses are everywhere. I also want to recognize and appreciate Constable Murphy's leadership and bringing us to recognize Emergency Medical Services Week, which is coming up. Nurses are public health heroes working to make our communities safer and healthier day in and day out. But certainly they are on the frontlines of the pandemic as well. They they have been in the trenches for the last two years working and dealing with incredible stress and delivering care to those most in need during our pandemic. Over 10,000 nurses provide compassionate care and healing in hospitals and medical centers located in the city of Boston, many of which are charitable, a nonprofit hospitals making contributions to our communities while others have been converted to from nonprofit status to nonprofit entities, for profit entities. I want to recognize members of the Massachusetts Nurses Nurses Association. I was expecting some, but they don't seem to have missed. They're not here today, but I want to recognize them and for all their great work in advocating for nurses in all of our hospitals. As we celebrate and celebrate National Nurses Week and recognize the contributions of those in the nursing profession. We must also call on hospital executives to provide safe working conditions and safe staffing levels for nurses and their patients. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Braden. The chair now recognizes Councilor Murphy. Thank you. So I am honored to call many nurses, family and friends nurses and as a Boston public school kindergarten teacher. You can just imagine that we spent many times in the nurse's office and it was oftentimes for a Band-Aid, but also a hug and a kiss. And they offer so much more than just the medical support they give. So definitely want to shout out to all the school nurses and the nurses around the city, around the world. So this year's theme is nurses make a difference to honor the varying roles our nurses play in the health care field and the positive impact nurses have in our lives. I think we would all agree that we should celebrate our nurses every day and recognize the sacrifices they make. We know that they showed up on the front line throughout the global pandemic, risked their own lives to keep us alive, and they continue to show up. So I hope you all support this resolution recognizing May six through 12th as National Nurses Week because they deserve it. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Murphy. The chair now recognizes council President Flint. Thank you, Counsel Arroyo. And thank you to the. Sponsors. Thank you to counsel Brady and counsel Murphy for including me. I just want to echo what both of my colleagues mentioned the incredible role nurses play in our city and our society and our country, especially during this pandemic. They've been on the front lines of the health care and providing exceptional support to so many people in need. All of my colleagues here in this body have been strong supporters of helping nurses across our city. Most recently, I was with Council of Louisiana at the Tufts Medical Center, where they their clothes closing believe this, believe this or not that closing the pediatric hospital at Tufts Medical Center. It's moved from Tufts over to Children's Children's. But it's going to be a huge loss of jobs for our nurses. But the Nurses Mass Nurses Association played a critical role in making sure that nurses are treated with respect, that they have safe working conditions. It's a tough job and they do a tremendous job at it. So I just want to say thank you to the nurses, say thank you to the nurses in our public school system as well. And I'm honored to be honored to be part of this. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Flynn. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Councilor Fernandez Anderson. I'm on fire today for every battle you need diplomats and warriors. And in my humble opinion, I think teachers are the diplomats, the guardian angels of this world, and nurses are certainly the warriors. And shout out to Jennifer Cavallo, my auntie and my uncle, all the nurses in my family, Kim and Yellow, all of them today. But shout out to all the nurses in my family and you guys are lifesavers. I personally have worked with nurses overnight in the hospital setting and they are they're like robots. They're like not even human. They just save lives. They keep their heads down. They work hard, they're sleep deprived. They just do it humbly without complaining and just keep going. And I thank you for all of your hard work in saving lives and keeping our city safe. I strongly support this resolution and thank you so much to Councilor Murphy, Councilor Flynn and Councilor Brady for filing this. Thank you. Councilor Fernandez Anderson, would anyone else like to speak on this matter, seeing nobody? Would anyone else like to add their name? Mr. Clarke P please. And Councilor Baker, please add Councilor Bach, please add Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Please add Councilor Farideh, please add Councilor Lara, please add Councilor Louise and please add Councilor me here. Please add Councilor Allen, please add my name. Councilors Braydon, murphy and Flynn seek suspension of the rules and passage of docket 0618619. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Docket 0619 has been adopted. Score. Thank you. Mr. Clarke, please read your code. 06200620 Councilor Murphy offer the following resolution recognizing the contributions of the Boston Emergency Medical Services and recognize Boston Emergency Medical Services Week.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for the area bounded by 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, 16th Avenue, Newton Street & 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in West Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD 8, U-TU-C to PUD-G, U-TU-C, (planned development to urban, two-unit) for the properties located at the block bounded by Newton Street, 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, and 16th Avenue and 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures of the owners of at least 20% of property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% within 200 feet of the outside of the subject area) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 27.36%, respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0401

I'm secretary. Please because voting announced results 12 days. Well, I. As Council Bill 547 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor. And move that council bill 401 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is open. May we have the staff reports? Good evening, members of Council. My name is Annalise Hoke and I'm a city planner with CPD here to present the rezoning number 2017. i001062 reason party number eight and U2 c to P.O.D. G 21 and U2 C. The subject property is located in Council District three and the West Colfax neighborhood. As you can see on the aerial site above the portion to the northern area of 16 Story Avenue will be zoned to Denver Zoning Code G and the southern portion will be zoned to U2 C, which is a two unit zone district with a minimum size of 5500 square feet. The proposed APD is based off of CMCs eight and is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the surface parking area and to allow for the continued use of the medical facility. The period contains a series of sub areas with different height allowances to allow for a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Increased pedestrian activity along 17th Avenue, as well as continued uses of the hospital and associated uses. The existing zoning of the site is pretty eight, with the small exception of one lot adjacent located on Newton Street which is zoned you two. You see the existing PWD is from 1970s and is as you can be indicated by beauty. Eight is one of our oldest ones still sitting around. The diagram to the left illustrates the planned buildings that are associated with the property, as well as the potential heights that are allowed under the putty. Ultimately, it allows for two large towers immediately adjacent on Newton with no setbacks or transition, as well as a series of other towers on the site. The portion south of 16th Avenue allows for a parking structure and that is the only use on the site. So I just want to note that those single unit and two unit homes are non-conforming under the current beauty. When we look at the existing land use of the site, you can see that the block to the east of the main block is considered off or Medich mixed uses and which is primarily comprised of medical uses on the site. And then the large block on the western portion of the site is currently used for surface parking. The finger to the south, the 16th is comprised of single unit and two unit uses. A couple of photos from Google Street View to better acquaint yourself with the site. On the top are looking from at the site from 17th and Newton and looking southeast as well as looking at the site from 16th and Newton looking northeast. And then the photo on the bottom left is a photo of the single and two unit homes on Main Street. The photo on the left illustrates area that's on to the site adjacent of GMU three where row homes have been constructed as well as single family homes along Newton Street. Overall, the purpose of Period G 21 is to provide an alternative set of regulations and a unique and extraordinary circumstances, and to provide for more flexible zoning than what may be achieved through a standard set of zoned districts, or require an unreasonable amount of waivers, conditions and variances. Specifically, I'd like to talk about the some of the key elements of Pudi G 21. The entire Pudi is located in the staff report and packet, so I'm just going to go over the key high level points of it. The the main purpose of Pudi G 21 is to allow for a nuanced approach to the height along the site. So as you can know, it's comprised of multiple sub areas with suburbia, a being located in the center of the site with the highest height allowance of 16 seat 16 stories excuse me, transitioning down to Siberia B which is a height limit of ten stories. ca3 stories and the lower E and F are intended to accommodate for the continued use of the medical care facility. Additionally, in exchange for some of these flexibility, we've also allowed for higher street level active uses along 17th Street and Newton to ensure that neighborhood amenities can promote a walkable experience along 17th Street and to limit the visible parking above the street level where the parking garages are going to be constructed to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. I would also like to note that we have reduced the parking requirements for the eating and drinking establishments as well as medical and dental offices. The intent of these uses are to serve the surrounding adjacent community with community serving uses that people can walk, bike or roll to. A key element of this rezoning application is a concurrent development agreement. Two key elements of this development agreement focus first on the multimodal connection between 16th and 17th as a continuation of Mead, which was called for in the West Colfax Plan. And I'll speak to further. And then the primary focus of the development agreement is the Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreement. And Laura Burtynsky will be joining us later and can speak further to details of that affordable housing agreement. But I want to give an overview. To begin. So the affordable housing agreement talks about the for sale units as well as for rent units. The for sale units will be primarily located in some areas A and B, and it requires for a minimum of either 7% of those units constructed or eight, whichever is greater to be income restricted at either 100 and 100% area median income for a period of 99 years. Additionally, it requires that a portion of those units must be two and three bedroom units to support the need for family friendly housing in multi-unit developments. All of the rental units are going to be income restricted for a minimum time period of 30 years. As you all note, the breakdown of these range from 60 to 50 to 40% ami going into much deeper levels of affordability than we might traditionally see through other affordable housing agreements and is deeper than what may be traditionally required through the citywide linkage fee. I'd also like to note that all affordable units will be subject to the city's affordable housing rules and regulations, which are to serve as a supplement to the DRC. Terms of the process that has led to today. We went to the planning board on April 17th. Planning Board recommended approval with a vote of 6 to 1, a planning board. There was a large group of speakers with mixed opinions expressing their support and concern for the proposed rezoning. Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee saw this on the 30th of April and we are here today. All standard notice scene was in accordance with the Denver zoning code and as required, we also notified all of the listed RNAs throughout the process and as you will note and are included in your packet, we recently received excuse me , two letters of opposition from we can as well as a flood like neighborhood association. As of the date of the staff report, we closed comments to be included in the packet last Thursday afternoon. So at that point the count was 30 letters provide an opposition 18 in support and for generalized comments primarily key key themes of those that were in opposition cited concerns over traffic, parking, loss of use due to the height of the 16 storey tower, as well as the density being too significant for what the area could accommodate. Those providing letters and support expressed a welcoming desire to bring new people into the neighborhood, especially those in need of affordable housing who have maybe been previously displaced. And they also acknowledged and appreciated the contact sensitive massing that was achieved through the planned unit development through the sub areas and the variation of height. I do know that additional public comments have been forwarded to your attention. So there are more public comments and what are illustrated here on this slide in regard to the review criteria, we have all five and I'll also jump into those associated to the beauty portion, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. Comprehensive plan, which was recently adopted, provides six key vision elements. And I'm going to highlight a couple here today. The first of which speaks to Denver is an inclusive, equitable community with a high quality of life for all residents, regardless of their income level, race, gender, ability or age. I think this is a really key vision element as we think about this rezoning application on the slide is a variety of strategies that comp plan puts forth that are supported by this rezoning couple that I would just like to highlight is that this is located and the PWD portion is located two blocks north of Colfax. The finger southern portion is one block of Colfax, which provides high capacity transit. This is a mixed use development, mixed use beauty that allows for community serving uses as well as employment within the the hospital use is being retained. So we are increasing those housing unit uses and the location that's appropriate with these strategies. We're also ensuring that there's a greater mix of housing in its commitment to provide two and three bedroom units to ensure that not only singles but also families have access to this housing that is affordable and that every neighborhood should provide a complete range of housing options. So West Colfax is not only a single unit and two unit and multi-unit, but also multi-unit. And I also want to talk a little bit about environmentally resilient strategy is to promote infill where infrastructure and services are already in place. The site is very unique in the fact that it is two entire city blocks, one of which is just a surface parking lot with such close proximity to Sloan's Lake Park, which is located just to the northeast of the site, as well as a regular street grids, we already have that infrastructure in place. This is an appropriate place for infill to be occurring as well as encouraging mixed use communities which this beauty would allow for for residents to live, work and play in their own neighborhood. We have employment on the site. We have community serving users, we have residential and there's a great park immediately adjacent jumping into blueprint. Denver Land Use Built Form Strategies once again talks about the encouragement of higher density, mixed use development and transit areas, and especially in community centers, which this area is designated from. Blueprint Denver It also talks about increased density and exchange for desired outcomes, such as affordable housing. This concurrent development agreement associated with the rezoning requires more than 50% of the dwelling units to be affordable. So this is certainly an exchange that is found to be appropriate. And then we also have strategies to rezone out a former Chapter 59 and bring the city into closer conformance with the Denver zoning code and also like to reiterate some of the key policies in the housing section of Blueprint. Denver speaking about increasing affordable housing and mixed income housing, particularly in areas of service and amenities. I've already spoken about the transit as well as many of the amenities such as the park and the recent. Redevelopment to the west of St Anthony's and amenities along Colfax Avenue as well. We also once again see more policies and strategies about expanding family friendly housing to which this agreement ensures and speaks to capturing 80% of new how the housing growth in regional community centers and corridors. And as I made note, this is in a community center. Once again, we're also trying to reinforce many of the strategies as found in housing and inclusive. Denver. Speaking to the design, quality and preservation, we have guidance to implement additional zoning tools to create appropriate transitions from higher intensity centers where they are close to residential low places. So as you can see in the sub areas of the city, this provides an adequate transition from the higher intensity, uses found within the center of the site to step down to the lower intensity of residential through a land use tool and then also talks about setting stronger street level active use requirements in community centers and community corridors. The beauty requires higher transparency and activation standards on 17th Street, which is a residential collector consistent with these strategies in terms of the future neighborhood context and the guidance that blueprint gives us. The larger portion of the site that will be rezoning that is proposed to be risen to the Pdg 21 is identified as an urban center neighborhood context, and the southern portion is identified as an urban neighborhood context. The larger site is identified as a community center, which is intended to accommodate a variety of uses and speaks to how heights can generally be up to 12 storeys and taller areas and should transition gradually down to the surrounding residential areas. I'll speak a little bit more to that recommendation on the following slide. And then the portion south of 16th Avenue speaks to the low residential, which is predominantly single unit into unit, which is consistent with U2. You see, 17th Avenue is identified as a residential collector intended to accommodate higher levels of residential trips, and all of their streets are identified as local. A key page in Blueprint Denver is found on page 66, where it talks about how Blueprint Denver is a citywide plan and therefore cannot provide specific, detailed height guidance on all aspects of a place. And therefore, when considering applying building heights through Blueprint Denver, the following considerations should be made. I'd like to highlight two of the bullets, especially where it speaks to transitions, including transitions from higher intensity to lower intensity areas which this beauty does provide, as well as achieving plan goals for community benefits, including affordable housing, which this also does provide. So therefore the flexibility granted with a blueprint, Denver does find the building heights to be appropriate and consistent. Additionally, the growth strategy area is a community center and it is intended to capture 80% of new housing and job growth throughout the city and I should say not the specific site, but growth areas in general. The portion to the south of 16th Avenue is considered all of the areas of the city where modest growth is intended to occur and would be allowed under you too. You see, in terms of consistency with the adopted plans that are specific to this area, we have the Blessed Colfax Plan, which was adopted in 2006, and as you can see, the site below is clearly identified as a residential growth opportunity area where additional reinvestment and intensities are intended to be commentated in these sorts of areas, ranging from anything from single family homes all the way up to rowhouses and condominiums. Speaking to higher intensity parts of this neighborhood should transition to the prevailing neighborhood pattern and take advantage of significant infill opportunities on larger than average development sites. Other than St Anthony's, which has been redeveloped. There are no sites of this size in the West Colfax neighborhood, so it's definitely larger than average development site where that residential growth is intended to occur. Finally, I'd like to address housing and inclusion in Inclusive Denver, which was adopted in 2018, and it speaks to core goals of creating affordable housing in areas vulnerable to displacement and areas of opportunity, preserving affordable housing quality, promoting equitable and accessible housing, and stabilizing residents at risk of involuntary displacement. Two key recommendations that are applicable to this rezoning request are to expand and strengthen land use regulations for affordable and mixed income housing through Blueprint, Denver and Supplemental Implementation. This beauty and concurrent affordable housing agreement certainly strengthens the land use regulations to allow for development consistent with these plans to allow for affordable housing as well as mixed income housing. And recommendation number five speaks to the promotion of new affordable housing, mixed income and mixed use, which this is, and that the city should find partners to explore new financing mechanisms. And this is a great partnership where they are finding new ways to support mixed income developments, where we have market rate units all the way ranging down to 40%. AMI additionally, the plan identifies West Colfax as an area having a wide variety of culture and diversity. But due to a sharp increase in rent and housing prices, many residents have become vulnerable of displacement that is involuntary or where it has already occurred. And therefore this includes further strategies to promote mixed income housing stock to which this rezoning application does. Two other criteria which are speaking to uniformity of district regulations are further detailed in the staff report, as well as furthering the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the strategies of our adopted plans and providing housing and services to residents. The justifying circumstances as the reasoning out of former Chapter 59, as well as the significant reinvestment happening a couple of blocks away to the west at the St Anthony's site, as well as if you look to the east of the site, anything that's zoned GMU three has almost entirely been redeveloped into multi-unit townhomes or of the like. Additionally, consistency with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. Pdg 21 is based off of CMCs eight, which is intended to accommodate urban pedestrian friendly centers with a mix of uses, including housing and jobs. And you, you see, is in urban context intended to accommodate low intensity residential uses of single unit and to unit on minimum zone lots of 5500 square feet. Additionally, because for the northern portion it is a pretty we have additional criteria which all run through here quickly and further outlined in Article nine, Division six. Speaking to the unique and extraordinary circumstance of the site, the former Chapter 59 party is highly restrictive in terms of what can be allowed on that site. And while it contemplates a significant plan for medical and associated care uses and parking facilities, that period is no longer relevant to the current needs and city policies for this area. It's also important to acknowledge that this PD is not intended solely as a vehicle for development to get around neighborhood plans, but rather it is consistent with the planned urban center and urban neighborhood context. And it's also intended as a mechanism to ensure that the development is compatible with the adopted citywide and neighborhood plans. It's also important to note that with a beauty there must be significant public benefit. Key ones of this is affordable housing commitment with focus on deeper levels of affordability than we otherwise be seen. Additional pedestrian activation along 17th and Newton requirement to not have any visible parking that is on a street facing facade to minimize impacts to neighbors as well as a multimodal connection between 16th and 17th to improve mobility options throughout the neighborhood. It's also important to note that this development proposal is not feasible under any other zone district in the Denver zoning code and would require an unreasonable number of variances and waivers and conditions. And it is intended to establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses and adjacent subject adjacent to the subject property , and that the Puti District Plan establishes building forms that are compatible with the existing building forms, or which are compatible through the appropriate transitions which are done through the sub areas. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on the findings of all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have 43 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what I will do is call up five at a time to the front row when I call you up. If you could come up here and be ready to speak when your name is called so that we can get through everybody and we don't lose people who have to leave before they're called. So if you'll just come up and then step immediately up to the microphone when your name is called, or call five at a time. And also, if you if someone has already made the points that you would like to make, you do not have to use your full 3 minutes. You can, you know, say who you are, where you're here, and support our opposition and agree with things that have previously been said. But those 3 minutes are yours to use. Our first speaker is going to be Councilman Paul Lopez. And while he is working his way up to the microphone, I'm going to call five. To sit in the bench are Brian Conley, Karen Cyr, George Male, Britt Nemeth and Teresa Saint Peter. If you could come up to the front row. Guzman-Lopez Mike Photoshop Thank you, Mr. President, and council colleagues. I wanted to give the opportunity for this rezoning to be heard before council. Therefore I filed the application and I stand in front of you and on the dais at which when I am done, I will leave. And PD former Chapter 59 currently requires that all property owners within the PD sign the application. The portion of the PD essentially is south of 17th Avenue. It is under the ownership of a single owner that was unresponsive to our requests to join in the application for three years. Several attempts were made to discuss a potential rezoning application prior to filing the application from both Zocalo and my council office with no response and no interest from Mr. Amo Almond. Azari And until the rezoning was scheduled for a hearing in the Planning Board. As you know, the only way to rezone a former Chapter 59 PD without the owner's authorization is to either have council member or the manager of CPD file the application. As you as you've seen in the report, this is this PD is outdated for the neighborhood. There have been several changes, the conditions of which on a lease brought to your attention. It would allow for more updated zoning. It's especially important to point out that the developer has been forthright, committed to making the project 50% affordable with 160 units, two rental units at 60%, 50 and 40% of area median incomes. The project is also going to have 64 164 sale units, of which a minimum of ah 7% or eight units, whichever one is greater. And this will be sold at or below EMI, the remaining affordable for a period of 99 years. This creates a real pathway to homeownership, especially for families. And having said that, has a strong commitment also to housing families by creating two and three bedroom units are also several other commitments that have been recorded via a development agreement recorded with the city and a good neighborhood agreement. A good neighbor agreement. Zocalo has met with the community for over three years to discuss improvements, solicit and implement feedback for the project. My office has done the same and as advised by our by our council, I will be recusing myself from the vote as the applicant for this rezoning and will be leaving the chambers to uphold the public hearing process and to make sure that there is due process. So with that, thank you. Thank you. All right. First up, Brian Conley. Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Otten Johnson. I'm here representing Zocalo Development, which is the developer of the project that is proposed for this site. I signed in as as being able to answer questions. Mr. David Zucker from Zocalo is going to hand in some materials for the record, which will include a memo that I authored pertaining to some concerns that were raised by members of the community relating to fair housing issues. In addition to being a land use attorney who works with you all frequently, I have also I'm the lead coauthor of the ABA's leading publication on the ABA being the American Bar Association's lead publication on fair housing and Land Use Issues. And I've authored several articles on that, so I'll be available for questions later. Should. Should time permit. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Karen's here. Hi. My name is Karen Cyr and I have lived in West Colfax for almost 19 years. I'm raising my four children there and it's been my home for two decades. I understand neglect. I know this neighborhood has long been forgotten and set aside, and I understand how exciting it is to finally have some economic attention in our community. So I'm here to talk to you today about community, not just the existing community who deserves a voice and representation in this discussion, but bigger than that. I want to talk about community as a goal. What makes us feel connected? What? Besides, housing is important for quality of life. One of the main ways to connect is in non-threatening, open, open spaces. We meet walking out to our cars, are sitting on our porches, calling out to invite one another for a chat. Well, sometimes we invite one another inside our homes. The bulk of the time is in these common open spaces. Anybody who has ever lived in an apartment knows that the place to meet your neighbors is not the hallway. That can feel invasive. And meeting in a parking garage is creepy, not to mention potentially dangerous. So where does this development have non-threatening, relaxed outdoor spaces for people to meet? For community to be built. Renderings today show solid building all the way around the block. No courtyard, no side yard, no outdoor sitting space. The developer is saying that the park is where that should happen. I'd like to agree that the park is a wonderful resource we all love, but it cannot and should not be an excuse to neglect, including common space for the residents of this neighbor of this development to enjoy . Research shows that a critical piece to maintaining the health of small unit high density living is the need for outdoor common space. Blueprint Denver describes the community center as having open spaces to promote social interaction and respond to the distinct uses within the center. This development is not building anywhere for the community to be. Denver Residents Deserve more than a big box people warehouse. Blueprint. Denver has named this area community center and the developer is calling this proposal that. But functionally that is not what they are building. This proposed development doesn't include anything to draw people in. It doesn't even provide open space to its residents. It has been suggested that those who have any questions or concerns about the development as proposed are the ones lacking imagination and progressive thinking. Denver Council People. I would like to assert that this development as proposed is not progressive enough. We need to respond, not react to the affordable housing need. And I and I urge you as representatives of the people of this community and citizens of Denver to respond to the affordable housing crisis in a way that builds community, not just warehouses people. This is an opportunity in West Colfax. Vote no and let's make sure it gets done right. Thank you. Next up, George Mitchell. My name is George Maile and I reside at 1075 South Garfield Street in Cary Merrill, District six. I am the President of the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation. And for those unfamiliar with it, we are the umbrella organization of over 90 registered neighborhood organizations encompassing 200,000 plus homes. And I am not being paid to be here. A little latitude first. But, Mr. President, if I may, I want to thank the president, council members and those leaving for the service you have rendered to this city. I thank you very much for that. Thank you. Also, one more thing. Channel eight needs to be its own entity and have achieved this. This is specific to this item. If you could speak to this item. Thank you. First of all, I'm here to point out that as a result of the issue of disparate impact and equitable treatment of affordable housing, residents raised in the rezoning being considered by you this evening, the I.N.S. Zoning and Planning Committee has formed an equitable, affordable housing subcommittee. The charge of this committee is to study how development plans in Denver that include affordable housing units can ensure that all residents of the entire development are treated equitably with regard to access, distribution of units, open space and other amenities, and that residents of new housing developments should not be physically separated by income after approval by the ANC delegation. The results of the analysis and recommendation will be presented to City Council, Community Planning and Development, Denver Economic Development and Opportunity and the Housing Advisory Committee, with the recommendation to develop a city wide policy or ordinance to address this important issue. More importantly, I and C's mission is to advocate for Denver citizens by bringing together, informing and empowering Denver neighborhood organizations to actively engage in addressing city issues. The extent to which the three active, residentially based Sloan's Lake and West Colfax, Arnaud's, have been involved over a long period of time. In addressing this rezoning. The fact that they. Have taken votes and taken strong positions in opposition to it, and that the residents surrounding the proposed rezoning have suggested they have successfully, legally protested, should not be overlooked, but should be respected by this esteemed council. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up is Frank Neiman. Hello. My name is Britt and I live in the Tuxedo Park neighborhood less than a half a block from the proposed development. As a newer resident on the block, we purchased our home with the idea that at some point a reasonable structure would be built on the parking lot at the end of our street. I'm sorry. In no way, shape or form could we have imagined a plan of such size and scale as the one that is being proposed coming from Congress Park. The allure of this neighborhood was that of more diversity, a smaller community and neighbors who could get to know and interact with this sliver of Denver has been just that. That is not to say that ourselves or our neighbors are opposed to this to development. In fact, it's just the opposite. To share a picture of what this community is like, we were welcomed with open arms after we purchased a new build that is different than the rest of the original homes on the block. This is an example of how the community is not opposed to further development nor affordable housing. We would all welcome a reasonable structure consisting of all affordable housing. I believe that as the city grows, the developers have an ethical obligation to provide appropriate open space beyond the overcrowded city parks for the residents. As someone who works directly with fellow developers in Denver, I have seen this done well in a way that incorporates how structures ultimately affect the community at large. The fact that this particular development is being built adjacent to a city park, which is over 60% water mass, should not be an excuse to subsidize the developer developers ethical obligation to provide open space for for its residents. As a Denver architectural photographer, I am constantly working with developers, architects, builders, structural engineers and more. And as I spoke with them about the details of this project, they became increasingly abhorred. The people I work with in this industry are here to better Denver and the neighborhoods that they develop within. I am simply asking that the same standard be applied to the proposed development at 17th and Newton. I implore members of the City Council to please strongly consider those mostly affected by the development, the neighborhoods surrounding it, and how the vast majority of us oppose this development in its current form and its rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Teresa Saint Peter, and I'm going to call the next five to come up to the front row Jonathan SHAPIRO, John Rickey, Dan Larsen, Daniel Gonzales and Anne Stanwick. Good evening. Denver City Council. Theresa St Peter. I live at. 1235 East 12th Avenue. I've lived in Denver for over 20 years. I've worked in communities across the city. My history here is a. Serious investment in Denver's. Future. I've witnessed a lot of change in Denver, and with that change, I continue to fall more deeply in love with Denver's character. Do I live in the slums like neighborhood? No. But would I support a project like this in my neighborhood? Absolutely. Central to the problem of white gentrification, traffic and high housing prices exist today is that. Too many zoning decisions are made. On the myopic, loud shouts. Of Not in my backyard. Neighbors. I get it changes really uncomfortable. But I believe in looking beyond my own front door to continue to support Denver's diverse, interesting culture. And I'm not interested in. Shutting the door behind me. Please, let's not zone things myopically. We're only going to suffer like San Francisco or Seattle if we continue to only consider our land use based on what's in our. Backyards or on the public street in front of our houses. I don't want my ability to park a. Car to take precedence over. Your ability to live near me. I like a. Diversity of neighbors, so that means I'm thrilled to make room. For the. Boomers who have. Single family housing, that want a down zone but need a. Place to live that's. Smaller. I want to make room for the artists and the visionaries moving here who have inspired me. Our Wolf and the Clyfford still museums to locate here. I will most certainly make room for our teachers and the folks that serve me coffee or lunch because I believe they also should be able to afford to live in the neighborhoods. They work in. I'll make room for top paying good community member employers. I'll make room for people instead of cars. Because that also builds environmental alternatives for getting around like safe, reliable bike routes and bike sharing. Like car sharing, like sidewalk networks that mean all of us can get around more easily. And heck. Yeah, I'll make room for all those amazing entrepreneurs. Who have started fantastic restaurants and food trucks with delicious offerings. In Denver. So I don't mind seeing an empty lot converted into the ability to have cool neighbors and what they bring to my city. I hope this happens at 17th and Newton. I hope it happens in my neighborhood and I hope it happens across Denver. Because this project is ideal. It is the perfect. Example of what Denver needs more of, and I believe your support today will inspire other developers to create more of the same. The 17th The Newton Project has. All of the right features to be really nice place for diversity of people with diverse housing and transit needs. Please support this project. Thank you. Next up, Jonathan SHAPIRO. Hello. Members of the City Council. My name is John. I live less than half a block from the proposed development site. When I bought in the neighborhood, I knew it was likely that the parking lot in question would be developed in some fashion. And I never had an issue with this. I am both for continual development of the neighborhood and affordable housing in general. My issue in opposition to this rezoning lies with the process in which these current developers have gone about this and the massive size and scale of the project completely out of alignment with community wishes. Despite the developer's claims of community involvement, I only even heard about this potential development when I received a piece of mail from the city about the rezoning only a few months back. At first I was excited as I thought development in that area may bring further amenities to the neighborhood. But upon understanding more of the proposed details, I was taken aback by the audacity of what they were trying to build and far too small of a space. This is a neighborhood of mostly single family homes, including a few duplex and townhouses. The parking lot is surrounded on three sides by single residential roads. The infrastructure and current build in the neighborhood is nowhere near set up for something like the developers proposed. I welcome any city councilmember to please come walk the neighborhood around the proposed site where the problem will become immediately evident. Since learning about this developers plan, I have constantly heard the refrain from them that they have to update the zoning because it's the only way to make their numbers work. With the amount of affordable housing they want to include, despite the fact I have chatted with numerous other Denver developers who disagree with this, that this is the only way it can be done on many different grounds. It's kind of besides the point. The Denver City zoning code, as far as I understand, disallows using the economic impact for the developer as a reason to allow rezoning. And it feels like that's exactly what they're trying to do here. The developer knew what the zoning was in the neighborhood when they bought the land, and making a grand plan that requires a rezoning is unacceptable in my eyes. The developer would be welcome to build whatever they desire within the current zoning code, but trying to drill for it through new zoning so the developer can profit more at the expense of the community, including its future residents that will live on the developers property should never be allowed by the City Council. It's admirable that they want to provide so much affordable housing and the community would be fine if the entire development was affordable housing. That's not our issue at all. What is an issue is the massive size and scale in given what the neighborhood could currently actually support, which is a development nowhere near what this developer's proposing and using as their primary reason. They require rezoning. Allowing the rezoning proposal in its current form will likely have a myriad of unintended consequences on the surrounding area. That is why so many people here today who actually live in the neighborhood oppose this plan. The developer is trying to make this whole issue about diversity and affordable housing, something everything in our community currently embraces wholeheartedly. It's not an issue from our perspective. We love that, but we care about our future neighbors and we don't want to see them put into a space with no designed open spaces, not large enough to support them and their families. Please vote no on this rezoning application and demand better from developers in our city when engaging with their communities. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Ricky. Hello. My name is John Ricky. I live in Sun Valley about a mile away from the development, for what it's worth. I support the development and I hope you will as well. I'm not here tonight to defend this rezoning because I don't feel it. Needs defending for it is self-evidently a good idea in a city with ever increasing prices for housing. This rezoning will allow hundreds of new homes. To be built, some affordable which are desperately. Needed, and some market rate which are also desperately needed. This zoning allows those homes to be. Built across the street from a large park, which is exactly where the city should be putting density. Think of how well-loved and well used Cheeseman is. On almost no one drives there they walk. That is good city design. It puts these hundreds of people two blocks from Colfax, the major transit corridor in the city, allowing for a car light or car free lifestyle. From Colfax, you can reach from Golden to Aurora and you can access tens of thousands of jobs and services from entry level to professional without ever getting in a car. Many people choose not to, and many don't by necessity. This location provides for that. Option and that need. But as I said, I'm not here to defend the rezoning. What I'm really here to do is attack the attitude which says that Denver is full and that neighborhoods are under attack, that parking is more important than housing, that views win out over affordable housing, that assumed traffic impacts justify an attitude of exclusivity. Of I've got mine of pulling up the ladder. I don't believe we can be a great city or even a successful one with such an attitude. No city has long remained great by keeping people out. Many a city has driven itself to ruin by attempting it. Hashtag Boulder. This rezoning is a. Way to open Denver to more people. People in need and people with means. Hundreds of people looking for a home, but. Who weren't allowed to be part of this conversation. People who hope and wish and would fight to be part of. And contribute to a great city. Why would we stand in their way? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dan Larson. Good evening. My name is Dan Lawson and I live at 1557 Main Street, one block from the planned development. I've lived in this neighborhood for 14 years with my wife and three kids. We moved into the city to find diversity for our family that we could not experience in the suburbs. We love all those who live in our community, no matter their income level, and I welcome development and want to see more affordable housing options. But I oppose this rezoning and building plan because it is dangerous, out of scale and incompatible with this neighborhood. This developer has presented a plan that offers affordable housing as a peace offering in exchange for the desire to build a luxury high rise that towers over all the other buildings in the area. Although the developer has stated they've included the neighborhood in and slogan and its organizations in this proposal, it should be clear today that affected residents have been excluded with a take it or leave it plan. Many wish to characterize this as a divisive issue with those in favor and against polarized around the concern for affordable housing. However, we appear to oppose this are not against affordable housing. We're against a massive development out of scale with the neighborhood and a developer who's turned a deaf ear to the needs of those who live in this part of the city, most of whom are low income families and renters being driven out by million dollar residences. There has been little thought or consideration to the way that this development in this scale will remake the neighborhood and may provide some affordable housing. But it will do so at the expense of many, if not all, of the low income residences that we already have in the area. We all need to be concerned about not just whether we have affordable housing, but the way it's achieved. The developer claims they have no responsibility to conserve open space as part of their plan. Instead, they place the burden on Sloan's Lake Park to provide any and all free and open space for the residents. The developers claim that this is one of the largest parks in Denver ignores the fact that the acreage of Sloan's is over 60% water and the remaining land is already well-used, often crowded. And that is before we've experienced the full impact of the completion of the St Anthony's development. A vote against this particular plan is not a vote against affordable housing. We need a plan that, as the West Colfax Plan states, promotes compatible development that reinforces our diverse urban environment. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Daniel Gonzales's. Hello. My name is Daniel Gonzalez. I live in the 3400 block of West 17th Avenue, two and a half blocks from the proposed development site. 11 years ago, shortly after I graduated from college. I chose to make my home in Denver. I did so because I believed Denver was a city with a bright economic. And transit oriented. Future. Then a few years ago, once I'd finally saved up a down payment, I bought my home in the Sloan's Lake area, and I chose that. Neighborhood precisely because of the redevelopment of the former hospital site Sloan's adjacency to downtown and the variety of transit options. That exist in the neighborhood. I actually. Work downtown. I live on 17th Avenue and I commute every day using RTD for these same reasons. This location is exactly. The sort of place where we should be encouraging developments like this. Density is not a dirty word, and density is appropriate at a transit. Rich in infill sites such as. This. Sloan's Lake has a high rate of homeownership. It also has a high. Diversity of incomes. It's part of what makes the neighborhood so vibrant. And this project supports those two goals of. Homeownership and diversity income. The existing zoning is antiquated and designed. For a hospital expansion. I, for one, don't want a tower with a zero setback. Coming right up against the street. I love. That the proposed pad sets the tower back deep into the site where it's not casting shadows on any. Of the neighboring properties. The proposed development is a great way to improve the sustainability of Sloan's Lake and add to the affordable housing stock here. Which is why I ask you. Vote in favor of the zoning change. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is in Stanwick and I'm going to call the next five up to the front row in a duet. Michelle, Michael, Keith Pryor, Rhonda martin and Christopher Callahan. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Ian Stanwick. I live at 1641 and 45. Went on a court. I am here in opposition to this project and there are many reasons for it. I am not opposed to higher density. I am not opposed to affordable housing. What I am opposed to is the simple fact that we haven't finished the Saint Anthony development yet in the impact that that thing has had on our neighborhood has been detrimental to everybody that lives on 17th Street. And you cannot deny that to ask us to have to now stomach a 16 storey building and another 260 units in that area at this time is just unfathomable traffic along 17th Street since the big since they started ripping down St Anthony's and now building everything up over there has been ridiculous and I ask you to vote no on this project, or at least to postpone it until we can come up with something a little more creative than just high rises. There's many cities around this country that are doing lots of things for affordable housing. Why are we doing the same old thing over and over and over again? So I beseech you, please vote. No, thank you. Thank you. Next up in a do it. Good evening city council and Denver neighbors. I'm honored to at a teacher at North High School and candidate for Denver's school. Board at large. I want to discuss the meaning behind housing choice. A school choice. And as a neighbors of slums like listen, I urge you to try to see. This project through the lens of someone. Who's not yet your neighbor, but might like to be. So housing choices, school choice. As many of us know, the politics of school choice in DPS are a little. Interesting and difficult to navigate. Yet we all have one goal to send our children to the best school possible. And some families have that real choice. They can send their students to. A quality public school, or they have the. Choice to send their children to another school outside of their. Community. But what if all your. Public schools. Had been shut down? What if the schools that replaced. Them were charter schools. With a hyperfocus on excessive rules and high stakes testing? This is happening in Denver, but it's important to note this is only happening in our underserved communities. Neighborhoods in Wayne, New Sussman and Cashman District aren't seeing this. Are more affluent. Neighborhoods, many of which see little multifamily units also. Have fewer charter schools. We have adults fighting over housing policy. In the meantime, our students are suffering. And as a teacher, I see this. I have several students who live in those communities I described earlier. Their schools have been shut down and now they have to drive 30 minutes out of their community to go to. The next public school. Their families can't afford the. Average price homeless in North High School. In fact, even Denver teachers can afford or can only afford 5.4% of the housing in Denver. We must stop building walls around certain communities. Walls of expensive homes that only accommodate certain groups of people and certain children. In their schools. We must allow projects that allow the middle and lower class. Projects out of affordable housing and projects like this so that we can rebuild diverse communities that have been shoved out by recent gentrification. Helping us usher in a new age of affordability and neighborhood. Schools in Denver. All students benefit by having a diverse range of classmates, and we can not honestly discuss closing the achievement gap between our students and ending the closure of public schools in favor of charter schools. Without. Discussing racial integration, racially biased zoning laws, and high housing costs in Denver. Our families and our working class deserve to live in the neighborhoods where they want to send their children to school. I support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Michelle. Michael. My name is Michelle Michael. I live at 1532 Main Street, less than a mile from the development. So far, it's been made abundantly clear that through this process, the well-being of the existing neighborhood is of no concern. To say I have been discouraged since we were simply a formality in the planning board meeting is an understatement. Denver is a place that can. Provide city dwellers an outlet to the mountains, which is why. Cars continue to be. Relevant here. Having 320 units access their residents on a locals owned road, which has not which was not meant for a building zoned in excess of CMCs three, isn't feasible. The equivalent of this PUD request would be CMC's 16. A building zoned as CMCs 16 require major arterial streets as specified in the Denver Zoning Code. Article seven, Section 72, too. Because this PD, because this is a PD and not normal zoning, there's a loophole. But this PD is not in line with the spirit of the law. This location cannot support the pinnacle style high rise, which it has continuously been compared to. The pinnacle is on a two lane road going in each direction, not single lanes. If lane, instead of placing highrises on streets that can accommodate them, are formerly safe, local streets have become increasingly dangerous. I ride my bike down 17th Street each morning to work and I own a car. The traffic impacts I have seen in the past year from the St Anthony's development are incredible and it's not yet fully realized. The unprotected bike lane on 17th is honestly become very scary. The lack of a traffic study was brushed off in the planning board meeting when the staff member said the excerpt was just a standard blanket statement. However, every developer, engineer and city planner I sent the application to all pointed out the lack of a traffic study as a red flag. All are all Denver projects of this scale filled out with blank blanket statements. In order to get this rezoning passed. It seems to make sense that calling attention to the lack of infrastructure. Isn't in the developer's best interest. Please don't do what everyone else has done thus far. Move forward. Ask questions later. We are not here opposing this rezoning today because there is a proposal for affordable housing on a parking lot surface. We welcome that. We're here because they're offering affordable housing. A rezoning which would not. Otherwise be allowed is being considered. I think I can speak for everyone in the neighborhood. And one. Thing we would like to see, this parking lot developed, but not at the expense of our. Neighborhood. This is lakefront. Property. There's going to be other opportunities. Please wait for the right fit. Set a precedent. The developer should care about the people their development will actually affect. Set a precedent. The developer should actually not just facially, which. Is what the only thing that has occurred. Try to work with the community. Wishful thinking that people won't drive cars is a fallacy. The traffic. Impacts this development will have on our streets will be. Detrimental. Infrastructure is so important and I wish that you would all consider that in making your decision today. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Keith Prior. Hi. Keith Pryor, 2418 Champ Straight. This plan is amazing. If we could like clown David Zucker, as he's done work throughout the rest of this community and coming together with very complex deals that allow for affordable housing, allow for market rate, allow for mixed use, all in the same development. That's what planning is all about. That's what Blueprint Denver is all about. This is what we want as a city because we want it to be walkable. You look at a lot of the neighborhoods that are the most desirable. They are walkable, they are transit oriented, and as a result, they're very expensive. People want to be there. This is what they desire. But yet, if you deny this, you're denying what people actually need, what people actually want, and you're actually furthering the problem that we're having. You can't build your way out of this situation in Denver. We can't add enough housing as fast as we need to. And just by building and saying yes in my backyard is not the answer. You need targeted, affordable housing, the missing middle, the lower income. And unless you actually go out and physically target this type of. Properties, this type of development. No one's ever going to do it, nor are you going to get it to where it's all in one project. If you look at the Walton corridor, you see all affordable in one building, you see all market and luxury. They're not together. They're not going to be together because financing is impossible on these. You're going to see all residential. You're not going to see a mixed use. Because, again, financing does not come together. David has done an amazing thing in pulling all of these things into one development. It is not easy. And by denying this and not seeing it go through to formation again, you're denying the city the opportunity to see a mixed use, mixed income community come to life on a really good opportunity that has the open space. You can't get everything. It would be nice. We'd be in Utopia. We wouldn't be in the situation we're at. That would be nice. Could it be better? Of course it can always be better. That's not to be debated. But what you're looking at is a model, an opportunity that has not been done in this city. And we need to go forward with this because it's critical. This brings together all of these opportunities. And so when you hear other people talking about these pieces of how it doesn't provide open space within the community, it doesn't build community, it doesn't do this. It doesn't do that. If you build another wider road, guess what? You listen your belt, there's going to be more traffic. I've never heard the argument. If you build more people, there's more traffic on that road. Now you do the resources. So this gets people out of the car. It gives them the walkability that they need. Please support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Rhonda martin. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Dr. Rhonda martin. I reside at 1712 Mead Street. My family has been property owners of this property for over 70 years. I have seen the first flight for life at St Anthony's to its demolition. And so I bought I have responded to a lot of the councilman asking for your support to not go through with this project. On June 10th, it took me 9 minutes to go from 17th in Meade to Sheridan, which is less than a mile. It was 4:00 in the afternoon on a monday. There was nobody leaving the construction sites. There was no event at the Park School at Lake Middle School was not in session. And, you know, this is they say there's no increase in our traffic. Well, that's bull. Also, we currently are male now because of the increase in all, the population gets delivered anywhere between six and 11:00 at night. Sometimes we don't even get our mail because of the lack of the male, you know, force, employment force of mail people. If we increase or if we get affordable housing, that does not actually guarantee that we will have diversity. It will hopefully be there, but it doesn't guarantee it. And we've seen this happen in other communities as well. We also need to make sure that we have the hook and ladders that need to support a fire in a building that is 16 storeys or higher, which we don't have many hook and ladders in the city and county of Denver. Also, we need to increase our police forces right now. And I spoke to some of the police officers are only increasing those who have retired, died or been fired or quit. So we need to make sure that that infrastructure has been maintained in order for us to take care of this. I do applaud Dan Larson on his knowledge and his support for this issue. And I'd really like to make sure that we can try to keep the integrity of this wonderful community of slums like Tuxedo Gulch in its place. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Christopher Callahan. Good evening, council members. My name is Chris Callanan and I work at 2100 Stout Street down in downtown Denver. I'm here to testify on behalf of Urban Peak. Our mission is to ignite the potential and youth to exit homelessness and create self to determined and fulfilled lives. We've heard from multiple people giving testimonies, asking to hear about the multiple lives that this type of development would impact. And I hope to give insight into that. The youth that we see at urban peak benefit from our continuum of services. They are anywhere from 15 to 24 years old, experiencing a variety of homelessness, from unsheltered to housing insecure. And when they benefit from our programs, affordable housing is often a key to getting them into self-sufficient lives. It is often the key at the end of our continuum of services, and it is very important. They benefit from our programs and they hope to get into a permanent, stable housing situation. And for many of them, that will mean an income restricted unit like the ones being discussed this evening. We recognize also that questions have been asked about the types and quality of the units in this development, and we think this is a good thing for the community to dialog about because oftentimes we are at the crossroads of choosing between meeting immediate needs and long term needs and thus improving and expanding the stock of affordable housing in the city of Denver is an immediate need that needs to be met in the nuances of affordable housing and zoning, I think can wait for another hearing. These are important. That shelter is the important issue that someone who is experiencing homelessness needs. Stable housing is the springboard for things that many of us in the House community take for granted. Study after study shows that stable housing significantly escalates student performance ability to access health and mental health care and follow prescribed medications, and the ability to hold down a job. And maybe even equally importantly, for somebody who has experienced homelessness, a way to connect with community. We do not need to tell you that there is a vast shortage of affordable housing here in Denver, and the income restricted units proposed in the project will provide a much needed influx in units and there is certainly hope for more projects like this coming online soon. When we benefit from being in community, it's important that all of us share and give back to our community equally. Please support this rezoning tonight and provide more opportunities to house our youth and the entire Denver community. Thank you. Next up is Tracy Hill and on by Dimitri Zandvoort, NE, Callie Anderson, Kevin MATTHEWS, Claire Shamblin and Jessica Domingues up to the front row. My name is Tracy Hill. I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning. I live at 1537 Meade Street in a one story bungalow with my. Husband, my four year old daughter and our canine. Buddy. We've lived here since 2011 and we are within 200 yards of the proposed development. There are people here that believe that we object to the development because we don't want affordable housing in our neighborhood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us rent our spare basements and bedrooms. At below market. Value, as my family has done for med students and foreign exchange students. We wouldn't objective the 210 story towers that are already permitted under the current PUD. We're entirely designed for affordable housing, but that wouldn't be profitable, would it? The proposed rezoning is about profit. Let's not be fooled. To be clear, and I speak on behalf of the vast majority of my neighbors, we are opposed to the size and scale of this project. In response to opposition from the community, including all three registered neighborhood organizations, the developer has stated that a 16 storey tower of luxury condos has to be built in order to make the project economically feasible. The developers argument is in direct violation with the purpose. And intent of. Pudi zoning. The code clearly states that PWD zoning quote is not intended as a vehicle to enhance a proposed development's economic feasibility. Our neighborhood has a right to expect that City Council will comply with PWD zoning requirements. The proposed parking garage has only 1.25 spots. Per for sale units and. Even less for the rental units. The tenants are expected to share with hospital staff and. Visitors, as well as visitors to the retail and community. Space. This is unrealistic and irresponsible planning. Without a doubt, the excess cars will park in our already badly congested neighborhood streets. As it is, two cars cannot travel in opposite directions at the same time. On Meade Street, which is intended to be the main access more cars, more traffic and inadequate roads inevitably means risk to limb and life. It wasn't that long ago that my neighbor's dog was hit on our street and died in their front yard. Well, I mourned his loss. I couldn't help but imagine. What if that had been my child? A few years back, my parked car was hit by a drunk driver. We were grateful because had my car not been there, he would have continued into my neighbor's yard where six children were playing. I respectfully request that you vote against this rezoning application. Building community. You should not ignore and disregard the existing community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dimitri Zamboni. Hi. My name is Demetrius Everett NE. I live in North Capitol Hill neighborhood. And you know, I think we can talk about the housing affordability crisis that we're facing right now. But I want to talk about something a little different, and that's climate change. So according to Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment, climate change is one of the greatest challenges to our generation. Cities generate more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which makes Denver a key part of the climate solution. Denver's 8050 Climate Action Plan defines how we plan to meet our long term climate goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% below the 2005 levels by the year 2050. The plan calls for deeper decarbonization in buildings, transportation and electricity generation. An important part of the action plan is Denver Sustainable Neighborhoods Program, which gives residents the opportunity to become active partners in making Denver a vibrant and sustainable community. Another part of the plan is the recently passed Denver Comprehensive Plan, which shapes the future of land use, mobility, parks and recreational resources in Denver. All of these efforts acknowledge that climate change is real, that cities are at the forefront of fighting climate change in a dense, urban, walkable neighborhoods close to parks, trails and transit are one of the best ways to combat our carbon footprint. According to a 2011 Department of Energy report, the US is responsible for 19% of the world's energy consumption, was with residential structures making up 22% of that number, beating out commercial structures which come in at 19%. According to the Energy Information Agency, new apartments over five units have the largest efficiency increases of all building types and use about half as much energy than freestanding houses. Additionally, 29% of U.S. consumption comes from transportation by locating affordable as well as market rates like market rate housing next to retail and mass transit near the corner of the city. Rather than sprawling out into the plains, we can reduce the average miles traveled per person, promote a healthier lifestyle, and help help build more vibrant and interconnected an interconnected community. The the project, the 17th in Newton helps move Denver, the front range and the whole world ever so slightly in the right direction by replacing a city block with which was traditionally dense and active. But for the last few decades, a depressing parking lot. We can help address a macro issue at a micro scale when we, as a city say no to common sense projects such as this, especially when they go above and beyond to address our housing crisis. We're also seeing that we're now responsible for correcting the manmade crime of climate crisis. This is something that we must all address every city and every neighbor. We cannot move forward as a whole if we allow the reservations of a few to hold us back from addressing our global collective problems. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kelly Anderson. So I gave you a visual aid because I'm going to talk through some numbers. So without question, this is a very, very large building. I'm sorry, could. You could you. Could you state your name. For. I'm sorry. My name is Kayla Anderson. I am in the Sounds Like Citizens group. I'm a vice president on the board there and I live pretty close to the site. This is both large in terms of height and also it's requesting setbacks, you know, from the normal residential or it's requesting variances to reduce the normal residential setbacks. So my question is, why does it have to be so large and why is it okay in this instance to grant a custom non-conforming zone district with variances from the normal standards? I feel that this is a question where details are very important. So I tried to make a visual aid for you here to show this. The justification the developer keeps coming back to is that this is just a conversion of the existing pad, and that would allow no more development than what. There are no more square. Footage than what the current deal would allow. I believe that statement is is categorically false. The existing PWD defines its massing. In terms of formal term is defined in the Denver zoning. Code, which is maximum above grade square footage. The developer has incorrectly redefined this term for his development as non parking usable square feet, and those terms are not interchangeable. The old Pudi allows 2200 80,000 square feet above grade for the buildings that would go on what is now the surface parking lot, a 210 story senior housing towers . In a long term care. Facility in the same area. The new development would have approximately 700,000 square feet of. By this definition of of of gross square footage above grade. This is not an apples to apples conversion of the existing pudi to the new pudi. The difference in massing is very obvious when you look at the renderings of the old Pudi buildings and the new Pudi buildings. When placed into the context of the neighborhood, we have some printouts we made for people that can't see the handouts. And then also there are some pictures in the handouts. When the justification for this Pudi is so reliant on what appears to be this misrepresentation that the new Pudi would result in no more square footage than the old one. I think this is something that the council needs to pay critical attention to. This justification has come up in planning board. It's come up at the hearing. It's been it's in the application. And even in the Denver Post last week, the developer said that we are not adding. A square foot more. Than what is allowed by the current zoning. This is approximately two and a half times more square feet in terms of growth above grade square footage, which is a formal turn in the Denver zoning code than what the old Peabody would allow. I'm not trying to manipulate the numbers here. I'm happy to answer any questions about how I derive this and provide more information later. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kevin MATTHEWS. Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street. I used to. Live just north, about a mile. Near Highland Square several years ago. And my wife and I are typical Saturday morning. Was to take a walk around Sloan's Lake. It's it would be a nice thing that many more people would have access to that. When I did love it live up. In Highland Square at the time, I used to see a lot of signs that said No high rises in the Highlands. And what was weird is you could look right there and there was a high rise. And so it made me think maybe it's maybe it's not the high rises. I want to talk about climate change because I don't want to pretend that I'm here for altruistic reasons. I'm here for completely selfish reasons. I have a three year old son and I think a lot about the world that he's. Going to grow up into. And I really don't know what that's going to look like. The climate goals. That this city has. 80% reduction by 2050 is simply inadequate. It's an outdated goal. It was a great goal in 2008. Everybody assumed we would turn the Fossett down, but we haven't. So when you when you're talking about your crime reduction goals, I don't know how you're going to beat them. You've an incredible challenge. Ahead of you. But this is a climate reduction project. Don't be mistaken about that. I want to quote someone who writes a lot on climate issues and about growing cities just because he can see it a lot better than I can. He's a writer, but then he Alex Steffen, who is a writer, speaker and a planetary futurist. Well, these cities and climate stable places that refused to take steps to welcome people fleeing climate impacts are unjust cities. People who talk about blocking housing, limiting cities, populations resisting growth are just building a. Different sort of border wall. While cities in the. 21st century are kept close to others, not by ramparts of stone, by housing shortages and high cost of living. Tens of millions of people will soon need to. Relocate from hard hit. Depressed areas to. Places that are safe and more prosperous by centuries. And it will be hundreds of millions of people. We can't pretend to care. Much about justice if we do. Nothing to help. Opposition to building. At scale in places that are. Geographically advantaged, wealthy and or ruggedized against climate is climate injustice. I hope you support this project. Thank you. Next up, Claire Shipman. Good evening. My name is Claire Shamblin and I reside on Mead Street, just south of the proposed development. I'm here to encourage the Council to vote against the MAP Amendment. This development, as proposed, will negatively affect both current and future residents by its density and the circumstances of the affordable rental units. I think it's worth noting that most of the group of neighbors before you today who stand opposed have never been here before, with the exception of Larry Ambrose. We have said yes to every other development in West Colfax. The first issue I take with this development is that of optics and the esteem of those who would be living in the affordable rental units. I and my neighbors aren't just for affordable housing. We are for the people who will live there. I believe strongly that this development would not support the dignity of these new residents. While we applaud the attempt to create affordable housing, the manner in which it has been proposed would serve to stigmatize those living there. There will be separate levels of architecture and construction, separate parking and less of it. The apartments will sit at the back of the lot, away from the lake, beneath and behind the luxury high rise. Affordable housing does not have to be done this way. And if we truly want to create diversity by density, then those living in the rental units shouldn't be made to feel less than by their location within the development. Our new neighbors would be negatively impacted by the density of the development, just as the existing residents would. The density proposed by this development is nothing short of astounding. There would be 136 residential units per acre while the surrounding neighborhood is less than 14 units. Belmar, which is a town center, according to Blueprint, Denver, is 28 residential units per acre. This development would be similar in size to the East River development on Roosevelt Island in New York City. But Tuxedo Park doesn't have the infrastructure or transit to accommodate density on par with that of New York. While I understand the as transportation recommended a traffic study, this is the cart before the horse. A traffic study should have been performed well before we went to planning, much less city council. It would be hard to imagine the council approving the zoning and then coming back to tell the developer to reduce the density. This is especially true when the developer has again and again said it has to be this dense or it can't be built. There are no plans to increase emergency services or school capacity and no plans for new open space. Our new neighbors would be crammed in and expected to get by on the services that we currently have. Our first responders and teachers would be expected to deal with potentially double the amount of work, with no increase in workforce or pay. The public benefits of job creation and economic benefit from this development have been cited many times as justification for the density and configuration. There's no evidence these benefits would be reduced. I respectfully request that the Council vote no to this map amendment request. Thank you. Next up, Jessica Dominguez and then I'll invite Skyler, Caitlin, David Zucker, Flora Mackay, Chad Malik Mullinax and Bobby Roberts up to the front row. Hello. Thank you for listening to me today. My name is Jessica Dominguez. I live in West Colfax. I am also a DPS teacher. I've been a DPS teacher for 17 years. I took the year off to study affordable housing options. I took a development class, and it really was because of gentrification and displacement that I saw in my classroom that I'll talk about later. I've lived in West Colfax for eight years. I'm the co-president of Weaken the R.A.. I have great respect for the board members who serve on we can they they value diversity and inclusion. But the R.A. does not tell the whole story of the neighborhood. It's true that. The R.A. voted against the development. My question is, did that vote represent the community in terms of the racial makeup, economic status and renter versus homeowner in the community? I say no because when I go to the R.A., I don't see my face there. I don't see the babies that I have taught. For 17 years. First graders who in Colfax and Cheltenham, I reached out to those two schools and asked them, Have you heard about this? They were so excited. The families were all on board. No one that I spoke to was against it. They were asking if they could live there. And I want to tell you, I taught in North Denver at Columbia Elementary 40th and federal for most of my 17 years. And outside of the walls, it appeared that economic growth was happening because of new restaurants, new homes. But inside the classroom, my own classroom, I had. Two students that were homeless. One was living out of the car. In another first grade classroom. There was a student who was living with her great grandmother who was displaced, and they had a stay at the school one day while she was sick because they couldn't go back to their. Shelter till 6:00. I recently saw that family at the Volunteers of America on West Colfax, still looking for a home. The instability. Affects their. Achievement. And while we do what we can at the school. Its resources are severely limited. What this development is going to do is going to provide homes for kids where. They can do their homework. We can learn from North Denver, who currently is in the late stages of gentrification. West Colfax is still in the early stages. We need safe, affordable housing because it is the foundation which determines all other quality of life metrics. Kids who experience home stability do better in school. I urge you to support the development because it will encourage the creation of more affordable housing, which will which will create housing stability for DPS children having long term positive effects on their education, on their life. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Skyler Katan. Hello. My name is Skyler. Kate and I reside in the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. Less than a block. From the proposed development. I would be directly impacted. I'm opposed to this project, but wasn't initially. I shared some of the enthusiasm for. A progressive. Community building development the first time I heard about it. Those two and a half years ago today I stand shoulder to shoulder with the vast majority of. Community residents that have come to oppose this project. I'd like to. Briefly talk and clarify the nature. Of the community's opposition and possibly refute some of what we believe to be mischaracterizations. It's just too much. That was what I heard from a gentleman who. Is. Developer friendly. A real estate professional who is being asked to sign the legal protest petition. And it came after he studied the development. He read the rezoning application. He asked for all the literature for. The developer himself, and he came back to me and said, I do not believe in telling developers what to do, but this is. Just too much. That refrain. Is consistent with the common. Sense approach, from what I've heard from. Many residents that we've talked to about this development. It doesn't meet the smell test. It seems too large. We know. The neighborhood. We live there. We know what's what's right and what's in scale. And it has never seemed to be appropriately scaled or opposition. The opposition to date is significant. It's been documented. The weekend vote was 250 people strong with 199 against. The legal protest poured 166 signatures. Of surrounding. Residents. And the opposition. Is not, as. Has been mentioned many times, about affordable. Housing in any way. It's opposition to a plan that has grave concerns related to size and scale, concerns about a design that separates rather than. Brings the community together, and. Concerns. About a process that's void of a collaborative spirit. The West Colfax Plan of 26 identifies our neighborhood as Tuxedo. Park East. And identifies. It in style. And character. And it affords it some level of protection when it comes to future development. It advises reinforcing the character, defining elements of the neighborhood, promoting discrete density. And focusing intense residential development away. From urban neighborhood areas. Nothing about doubling the size and population. Of our neighborhood on 10% of the landmass. Can be perceived as discrete. Let's be briefly remaining time. About the process to date. Issues with the density. With the design have. Been raised. Repeatedly when the responses came and they were felt were few and far between. To reframe stand out first. Is the statement that this has to be done this way. And the other is, if unable to rezone, it will be much worse. These are not the words of a collaborative spirit. And they've put the neighborhood in the position that it's in today. In trying to desperately. Voice our legitimate. Concerns and be heard. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, David Zucker. Thank you. Council Members David Zucker. My work addresses for 55 Sherman Street in Denver. I'm here tonight to speak as the developer of the project requires a rezoning at 1601 Lowell Boulevard. This project consists of two buildings. One building will be for sale units and one building residential rental units. Both buildings include affordable residential. The for sale building also includes market rate. In addition, the project seeks to deliver retail and office space and open space in the form of an urban plaza. I'm asking you tonight to approve this rezoning because it will allow for the helping to address the intense, persistent and unmet need for affordable housing in the city. The development agreement in front of you tonight legally requires that the affordable units be built. The affordable rental will be available for people with incomes at 40, 50 and 60% of of the average area median income, and will be deed restricted for at least 30 years. The Affordable for sale units will be workforce housing limited to those earning less than 100% of the area, median income and deed restricted for 99 years. Both the rental and the for sale units will include two and three bedroom units to address the needs of housing for families. According to the city's 2018 housing report, 667 units of affordable housing were built in the city in 2018, which required almost $13 million to assist in their development from the city. This project alone would deliver almost 25% of the total number of units delivered in 2018 with no city funds. What we do need from City Council is an approval of this rezoning that will allow for the additional of residential uses and a shift in massing within the current density that results in higher heights than is currently allowed. At the center of the block, the proposed square footage and the square footage of the current feud remain the same. These changes allow for the subsidization of affordable units. This is a good deal for the city. It's a good deal for taxpayers and a great deal for people who need affordable housing and in a decent, safe neighborhood . I will draw a bright line for them, for the members in this chamber tonight. If we can't develop affordable housing on what is currently a vacant parking lot in a neighborhood that has experienced significant displacement across the street from open space close to transit. After more than two years of process and compromise with community, it meets all review criteria for rezoning in the city of Denver and is consistent with the review criteria allowing for a pod. Then I'm at a loss for where affordable housing should be built. The if I could the council secretary to distribute both a legal memo as well as a neighborhood agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Flora Mackay. Hello. My name is Flora Mackay and I live at 1538 Equipment Street and I've been there since March of 2010. And I'm going to talk about the voice of Tuxedo Park residents within the process. I do oppose this development. First of all, a working group was formed through weekend. I served with this group. It was a thoughtful, thorough working group who then voted and sent suggestions and concerns to the developer in a letter dated for April 25th, 2018. For more, you can call President Lee round and no response. And there was no response for eight and a half months. We can prove co-president Jessica Dominguez contacted the developer by way of email to find out the specific points that had been addressed. The developer indicated that he would respond presently. However, an incomplete response came over a month later, and it did not address some of the concerns and suggestions open space and building heights and so forth. The voice of the working group regarding many of the suggestions and concerns. For the community was not addressed. And it's been ignored. And there was a vote from residents of weekend regarding those in favor or oppose. 75% of more than 250 people voted in opposition. A letter from weekend was read and submitted to the planning board asking for a no vote or delay in zoning application process. That request was not honored. Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association has submitted a letter of opposition prior to the date of the public comment there. So how is it that the voices of the R.A. is represented? Resident representing resident opposition of this degree have been ignored. Okay. And then also on Sloan's Lake Citizens Group had a recent straw poll of the board of directors. 14 opposed one. Yes. Now the voices of three resident RINOs have brought forth strong opposition and should not be ignored. And then also on before the working group was established, after one of the meetings, I quietly mentioned to the developer that I would not be back. He asked why and I responded. What's the use? In my heart, I discerned you was going to do whatever he was going to do. And at some point I did come back trusting the process. And I am hoping that council is sincere, responsible for the public will consider that we want to be part of this. And I do ask for a no vote. And I thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chad Mullinax. Hello. My name is Chad Mullinax. I've lived in West Colfax for over seven years and we live near the 17th and Newton project. I'm actually here for confession. As someone who has developed town and housing in the West Colfax area that I have disregarded the idea of gentrification with justice in my own neighborhood. You already know that housing has become unattainable to our long time, low income Sloan's Lake neighbors. The data is overwhelming, and this council is likely more familiar than most with the impact of gentrification. And so we shouldn't pass up opportunities such as this one to do better. But instead, I came here to apologize publicly to all of my neighbors who have lived their whole life in a distressed, blighted and low income neighbor neighborhood with lower performing schools, higher crime activity than anything I ever knew as a child. While there was a time when I lacked awareness of the impact I was having on my neighbors, I can no longer plead ignorance to the injustice that has occurred to my brown and black and low income neighbors and friends. So I'm here to say to them, I am sorry that when your neighborhood began to see signs of improvement, I didn't think about creative ways or participate in helpful housing solutions where you could also benefit from all the reinvestment happening in your own neighborhood. I'm sorry that every housing move I made in West Colfax over the past seven years benefited me and was always to your detriment. I'm sorry that I always attempted to maximize return on investment when giving up just a tiny bit of profit would dramatically transform your life while only having a minor inconvenience on my own. I'm sorry that while I've always said that my words that I'm for affordable housing because who isn't? We've heard it tonight, but have been resistant against those Bible low income projects in my backyard. I'm sorry for fighting affordable income projects under the disguise of transportation congestion, building heights and parking issues. When I'm mostly concerned with my own personal property value and my own economic game and my fear of people who don't look at or have the histories like my own. I'm sorry that I've been unwilling to be mildly inconvenienced when your whole life continues to be an utter financial, housing, educational and family crisis. I'm sorry that you have to move your family again and again and again to make more room for people like me who already haven't made. And I'm sorry that you've had to live in nasty motels, transitional homeless shelters, and even on the streets of West Colfax is too. Rent has doubled and even tripled in such a short period of time in your neighborhood. I'm sorry that I haven't applied the simple gospel that I profess to love my neighbor as myself. I can I commit right here that my next building project to be a low income housing in West Colfax. And in no case should we be letting projects like this one fall through the cracks on the backs of our vulnerable, our neighbors. Thank you. Next up, Bobby Roberts and I'm going to invite Jonathan Hidalgo, Joyce Alms Ransford Kosoko and Jean Parker, Ambrose and Ryan Kini up to the front row. Hi there. My name is Bobbie Roberts and I live 0.1 miles away on Main Street, which is the locally zoned road where the parking garage is planned to be built. One of the beautiful things about this location is its bike friendly access. I'm an advocate for public transportation, commuting to a cycling and using my own two feet. I believe this to be responsible and environmentally green thing to do. I personally cycled to work almost every day. With that said, on cold, rainy days I am driving when I get home from work and I need to prepare dinner. I'm driving, not biking the 1.2 miles to the nearest grocery store to get what ingredients I need. Not to mention days that I want to take advantage of what else Colorado has to offer and head to the mountains. Even if 100% of the residents in the proposed development were bikers, not enough attention has been placed on the need for car storage. Whether or not they use the much. People have cars and they need to be kept someplace. I keep hearing arguments trying to justify the general lack of adequate parking. But by show of hands, I'd like to see how many people in this room do not have at least one family vehicle. I'd like to know more about these unicorn people who live by themselves only ride bikes everywhere and don't own a motor vehicle. I urge you to view the traffic and infrastructure issues that this development will bring in a realistic manner. Reality is crucial to city planning. Please vote against this proposed rezoning in its current form. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Idoko. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Jonathan Mutoko. I'm a resident of South City Park at the moment with my fiancee. Although I should note we have been looking for a home in these Sloan's Lake and West Colfax neighborhood for the last eight months that we can afford. So we would like to be neighbors to this proposed property. Looking at this proposed property, I find it to be a breath of fresh air in an area that I consider to have been somewhat devastated by slot homes because of its requirement for street activation and below ground parking. It speaks directly to Councilman Espinosa's earlier concerns from our earlier motion about our zoning code not actually require requiring excuses such as commercial uses. In this proposed project and in the proposed change, we see required street activation of it that would allow commercial eating dining uses on the ground floor. I don't have time today to get into all of the benefits that this project has in supporting affordable housing or the good work it would do in supporting housing first initiatives for those moving directly out of homelessness, although that is a part of the proposal. But I do want to speak to a couple of the things that we've heard tonight from those opposed to the project. We've heard a couple of times that this development is out of character with the current neighborhood. And I would like to I know this is a common argument with any proposal. I think the concern or the problem with that statement essentially is that all change zoning requirements are out of character with the current zoning proposal. Right now what we have there is a flat asphalt lot that is fenced in and hardly used. So this would be out of character with that use. But in fact this lot prior to being a parking lot was a dense development and in fact, turning it into a medical center with single family homes around it was out of character at that time. We've also heard a number of folks say that this is bad for traffic and that we don't have the infrastructure for it. I would argue that, in fact, this location is perfect for getting people out of their cars. It's perfect for traffic. I dream of living in a place like this where with Corky Gonzales library down to the southeast route recreational center there, the transit center there, supers of the West Mainline to downtown on bike paths. I would not need to use my card. In fact, target is even close enough that for bigger purchases I could walk there. We've also heard that the proposal does not have any open space. I would note that I currently live in a building with a courtyard and underground parking and no one meets in that courtyard. It's not used. That space is not essential. Before living in Denver, I lived in the Netherlands in a large building with no open space. But because everything was walkable, bikeable, transit oriented, the way I met my neighbors, the way I made those connections was in sharing our walks to the grocery store and our walks, the library and our biking out in places which are sitting directly in front of a park. It's a perfect location to make those meetings with the open space afforded to it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joyce Arms Ransford. Good evening. I'm Joyce Arms Ransford. I'm a 29 year resident of the Sloan Lake neighborhood, and I am a 38 year veteran of developing affordable housing. I have worked for the Denver Housing Authority, for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Neighborhood Redevelopment Reinvestment. And I currently, for the last almost 20 years, have worked for a small faith based nonprofit called Archway Investment Corp. and Archway Housing and Services. I am always an advocate of affordable housing, but I'm not an advocate of this deal. The reason is in affordable housing. In good design, you have community space for people to come and gather. You have green space for children to play. You have adequate parking. Anybody who thinks a family is going to have less than one car has not been to any affordable housing property recently. I'm building an affordable deal in Lakewood, just down the street, and it is on about the same size lot that this is. We built the first phase that had 60 units and it is a lot lined along line. But we build a roof deck and we built a green community garden in the first floor level. We're serving formerly homeless veterans at a third the site, and we're doing an identical project that has 78 units right behind it, both of them on about an acre of land. We have compact parking, but we have enough parking for each person who resides in the site. So essentially, I, I hate to have to come to a meeting like this to say I don't support affordable housing or this kind of density. If it were just affordable housing, if there were 160 units, that would probably be just fine. But it is not. And the people who are in the high rise are not going to be confined to one car either. Most people of wealth have more than one car, especially if they're in a family. So, again, my my concerns are the parking is too light, the density is too great, the height is too great. The traffic, as was outlined by some other people, not meant for dual car travel. The roads are too narrow. The green space doesn't exist and there are no amenities. In our developments, we provide afterschool programing. We do after summer programing we do ESL, but we have community space. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up. Go. Should come. Good evening. My name is Joshua Kang. I live at 2031 Grove Street in a neighborhood adjacent to this development. I'm here tonight to speak in support of that development. I have two sets of sets of criteria on which I believe this development makes good sense. One, it's consistent with the adopted city plans like staff have noted. We have spent three years through the right process talking about where affordable housing should go and where to direct growth. And this is a perfect example of a site adjacent to job services and transit where this type of development, affordable housing, should go. Both Colfax and Federal are designated transit corridors, and they support the site. Another argument, a topic that's dear to my heart, is walkability. The pedestrian activation of the main floor, pedestrian friendly uses and transparency as well as improved public realm is going to make the place more affordable and more walkable and also more people make welcome, make places more walkable. Walking is a social activity. I also support this project on a personal level. As a resident in the neighborhood, as an immigrant from Poland, I'm married to Chinese, born in Korea. I feel very strongly about inclusivity. We have a lot of conversations about immigration and diversity, and I feel responsible for advocating for affordable and diverse neighborhood developments in all neighborhoods, but especially mine. When I built my dream home in Sloan's Lake, I bought into the quality of life that it affords. But I don't own it. I feel responsible for sharing the amenities and the quality of life with others. I don't own salons like I don't own the running path around the lake. I don't own the sunrise over the Slants Lake Sloan's middle school. I think as many people as possible should have access to this quality of life. I believe that the more neighbors make better neighborhoods. So I support this development. And I hope you will, too. Thank you. Thank you. Next stop, Jean Parker Ambrose. Good evening. It's nice to. See everybody here. I think we probably have worked and getting half of this council elected. So good work. And I know you do. Have to make heavy decisions and look at all the issues and the issue here. I'm asking you this evening to oppose. This project only because and my main major, major concern is that the. Federal rule states for. Every 1000 people, there should be ten acres of open space. This project does not closely meet that and we need to focus more on the history of this area, not in building the is the area out with buildings, for example. This is where the Jews started. They first moved to this area. This is where. Golda meir. Lived. We need to bring about history. Now we have a religious because of this project saying. Well, we're going to turn Lake Middle School into condos. So it's a fervor that shouldn't exist. What we should focus on. Is green space so. That people can walk in this area. There are no winding paths that move through this project. There are no rooftop gardens, green roofs. It's it's a we have to look at conservation. We have to look at the quality of the air. We need to create. Space to go. From Sloan's Lake to downtown Denver. The inside. Track of Sloan's Lake is three miles from Sloan's Lake. Park to the Denver Performing Arts Center. Two miles. We should have beautiful pathways, encouraging walking. This project does not encourage that. The affordable housing is connected to the exclusive units that are being proposed to be built. And that's against the law. I think that's poor, poor doors. And I think somebody else will speak to that. But let's focus on walking, creating paths, little parkways, pocket parks. Let's get back to nature. That's where our focus should be. We don't need to be blocking. I'm sorry, but your time is up. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is Ryan Kenney and invite Larry Ambrose, Paul Vonn, Tianna Patterson, Evan Darby and Jerry Glick up to the front row. Hi. My name is Ryan Keeney. I live at 1121 North Ogden Street and I do not own a car. So there are so many reasons to support this project. First and foremost among these is that there's just so much affordable housing supplied with this project. And I've heard a lot of opponents tonight talk about a lot of reasons to oppose, like there's not enough parking, it's too big, there'll be too much traffic. But when you look at human needs shelters right up there with food and water, everybody needs shelter. And this project provides a lot of it, a lot of affordable below market shelter that would provide housing for people who can't otherwise afford to live in this city. Additionally, as I read on the website, there is retail that will be rented out at break even rates. This will allow the potential for small businesses to come in as opposed to these big chains and have local and generate local economic opportunities as well as more walkability in the area. It is adjacent to so many multi-modal transit options. It's close to downtown. It's close to the 16 and 16. Well, on Colfax, I mean, this is a great place. If we're talking if we care about climate change, it's really important to provide these options to as many people as possible. There's already precedent for development on this stretch of slopes, like there's the lake house just a few blocks away. So this is not just a single family neighborhood. And then also there's been no displacement as a result of this development. This is not one single person will be displaced and not one single building will be demolished because this beginning built on a block size parking lot. So I don't live in this neighborhood. I live in Capitol Hill, across the street from a vacant Whole Foods. I wish they would build a project just like this on this fake a Whole Foods site. I would welcome it. And it would not degrade the quality of life, but improve it. This is one of the best and most inclusive development projects I've ever seen. Many changes have been made in response to neighborhood input. Even so, this was zoning requires, as I understand it, a supermajority as a result of a petition from homeowners in the area, not renters, and not potential working class people who might live in the site. This process, this process is inherently exclusive and in my view, should be reformed to become more inclusive. Supermajority or not, though, if council can't support something like this proposal, our city will never get ahead of the affordability crisis. I hope you all vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Larry Ambrose. Good evening. I had written remarks, but I'm just going to talk. I met David Zucker in August 26, 2016. He has to have a meeting to talk about the fellow that he had met doing a joint venture with a guy named Miki Geller who owned the medical center. The medical center has three different operations. It's a acute care center, a nursing home, and a long term and a rehab center. So in this PD that you're looking at, there's still going to be these three different operations. Keep that in mind. You know, we all you've heard this before, a lot of you of the same kind of testimony and a lot of you know and most of you know, David, he's a wonderful, affable, likable guy. David and I have had over the period of three years, I think we had breakfast, we had lunch, we had brunch. We had lots of meetings with people, maybe 100 different people as part of this process. At one point, we even, David, came over to light Hanukkah candles, invited himself over for Halloween. I told him he didn't have to wear a costume. He said he'd put on sheep's clothing. I thought that was pretty funny. So David is a is a person that has a wonderful reputation. And we worked very closely with David to try to come up with what the neighborhood wanted. And all of those meetings, all of those meetings, nothing came out of those meetings. That was anywhere near what the neighborhood expressed to him in terms of height, in terms of scale, in terms of density. And when the plan finally was revealed, it was just over the top. Literally, none of us could believe it. It was just too much. The fact that there's affordable housing came along later. And I guess the question before you tonight is, is anything any rezoning okay or possible because it has affordable housing? And is the quality of that affordable housing such that it's that it's acceptable? Nobody has mentioned also the fact that the 160 units of luxury housing is going to have a gentrifying effect in itself. It's kind of like pouring kerosene on a gentrification fire. Maybe it's not as much as what the three extra units will provide, but there will be something. So you'll think what? I passed out to you today. We have asked David to do a. The like the one that's there today. And what you see before you on the second page is the PD that exists today, that's been redesigned so that it's a more reasonable development. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Paul Wong. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Vang. I live in the Northfield area, Northeast Denver. And I am. I've been a resident of Colorado and Denver for only two years. I'm originally from California, and I would say about this development project that any Californian in any and I'd love it. This is a fantastic project development that encompasses and checks off the boxes for so many things. It's a wonderful mixed use, mixed income, transit oriented development with so many resources, slums, lake. Like many have mentioned, one wonderful neighborhood hospital right next door, 320 units of housing, mixed income housing, half of them affordable housing. That percentage of affordable housing is extremely difficult to come by. And the Denver Blueprint Plan, all the those of who have been intellectuals of all mentioned affordable housing to get that much affordable housing, that research and development is something amazing. So I strongly support this project. I strongly support what's been thrown out workforce housing, this, that, this, that this project provides for those 40% of Amy and above. So just for those who might not know what 40% of Amite looks like for individuals, only $26,000 a year for household affords 37,000 change a year. That's very limited income for someone who wants to have safe, decent, affordable housing. So once again, I urge the council to unanimously approve of this project, and I commend the developer and everyone involved in getting this through. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, T.A. Patterson. In Evening Council. I am Tianna Patterson. I'm the state and local policy director of Enterprise Community Partners. Sorry. I'm sorry for my voice. I actually just. I'm hearing it in my ears. But I am here in support of the zoning change because a stable, affordable place to call home is the foundation for a successful family and a successful community. Many of our neighborhoods are changing at a rapid pace, and buildable land is disappearing. At this moment, Denver needs at least 15,000 more affordable units, and that number is growing every day. That is why Enterprise supports this development, because it offers unheard of opportunities for affordable homeownership and rental opportunity for people between 80 and 40% . Am I in a high opportunity neighborhood and all of this will be done without city subsidy? I think there really needs to be emphasized and celebrated that this is exactly the kind of type of development that Denver should be encouraging our development partners to provide mixed income housing targeted at a high need income levels without city subsidy in neighborhoods that have been or are at great risk of rapid displacement and ginger ification. We know that tackling this affordable housing crisis requires nimbleness and innovation in this project, it sounds like is just that, and I hope the city will support this effort and encourage more models like this in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Evan Darby. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Evan Darby. I live near the University of Denver and that is because I am a student there. I really appreciate you all staying here so late to hear so many of the Denver members of Denver's community's opinions on this project. But I would like to offer one more. I am only 20 years old, and maybe somebody can yell at me, but I believe I am the youngest person in the room. And for me, I read an interesting statistic recently, which was, according to a real estate firm called UNISON in Denver, it would take me 22 years to save up for a down payment on a home so I can't drink, but my down payment can. And I would be 42 years old before I would be able to live in the city of Denver. In the same way that the residents of Sloan, like who are owners of their homes, have been able to for the foreseeable past. Now, a lot of people have talked about the different issues that have come with this project, the traffic, the height. But for me, it's a different sort of problem. I can't really stand here and say that it's okay to wait for another project to come along, or it's okay to let this this opportunity go by just so that we can have more parking spaces. The city really, really needs more housing, and having less parking spaces needs to be a way that the city can grow, having less space for people to own trucks. It needs to be something that goes away. Because for me and my children to live in Denver in the foreseeable future, we need projects like this. And I urge you, the members of the council to support this project because this is a stepping stone towards creating more density. It's a stepping stone towards creating more housing. And you've heard from many of the residents of Sloan's Lake and many of the residents of Denver, how much they enjoy their houses, how much they enjoy living in in Denver. And if you don't take this opportunity and the opportunities in the future, my generation and my children's generation will not have the same opportunities as them. We will not be able to live in Denver. And that's why you need to vote yes on this project, because it's not only an opportunity for me, it's an opportunity for low income people, and it's an opportunity for the people that I want to raise in Denver and who I want to have a great life in Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jerry Glick. No. Gerry Glick. All right. So Edward Featherstone up next and I'll invite Megan Yankey, Adam Astrof, Michael Hughes, Joseph Dominguez and Megan Sawyer up to the front row. Good evening. Thank you, counsel. My name is Ted Featherstone. I live in North Denver. I'm here representing Zocalo Community Development. Our founder, David Zucker, was up here speaking about so close commitment to affordable housing and inclusive development. I, on the other hand, am here to speak to the community process that Zocalo engaged in. Zocalo takes great pride in our reputation for engaging and listening to the community, and this project was no different. For more than two years, Zocalo had more than 20 meetings with area arenas and neighborhood leaders. And after that, we've made significant changes to the project. First in height and density, the goal is not to up zone, but rather to take the existing zoning, the existing density allowed in the site and reshape it in a way to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. In the time that we've worked with the neighbors. We have pushed the density towards the center of the site, stepping down dramatically to only three stories surrounding 17th and Newton streets in order to make the project more compatible with the area, in order to mitigate shadows, in order to lessen the visual impact. As far as traffic, we understand that any development will have an impact on traffic. But something that we think is worth recognizing is that this project will actually have a smaller traffic impact than what would have occurred had the existing medical use zoning been fully built out. But furthermore, after working with the neighbors, we made changes to the project and we've designed additional ingress and egress points to disperse traffic and lessen any bottlenecks on any particular road. Finally, we've engaged a traffic management consultant, Mike Hughes, with West Corridor Transportation Management Association to help us in the neighborhood, put together a transportation demand management program to help our residents and the neighbors choose transit and alternative mobility over single occupancy vehicle trips for parking. We've heard the concerns of the neighborhoods and we've worked hard to ensure that our project can accommodate all parking off street. We are providing more than 450 structured parking spaces, which gives our units an effective ratio of almost 1.5. Once you take into account the data sharing between the residential units and the medical office as far as open space in response to specific request from the neighborhood, we have designed into the project an urban plaza at the corner of 17th and Newton Streets, flanked by 4000 square feet of retail meant to serve as a community gathering place. And we have also in our development agreement added in a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that goes north, south through the center of the site to improve connectivity between our project and the neighborhood. In summary, working with the neighbors has undoubtedly made this a better project, and we thank the neighbors for helping us to design a program that better blends with and serves the community in which it sits. Should this rezoning pass, we look forward to continuing to work with the community on items such as traffic mitigation and our community serving retail space. We hope the Council will support our plan and innovative approach to affordable housing and with the service. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Yankey. Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Megan Yankee. I live at 14th and savior in the West Colfax neighborhood. I work as an employee of the city and county of Denver and serve as the vice president of the weekend organization. I'm not here to represent the values or positions of either of those organizations, and I personally did not work on the affordable housing plan with the city in this project. So my views represent my own. I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed development. I'm 35 weeks pregnant and my. Child, when born, will be able to. Walk to school and enjoy extraordinary parks. I am fortunate to be able to take the high frequency bus or light rail or bike to work every day. According to Zillow, there are currently no homes for sale for less than $400,000 in my neighborhood, which, as you've heard from others, keeps out a whole group of neighbors who I would enjoy sharing my space with. So when you say that you need to develop only single family. Homes or live at lower density in. My neighborhood, you are essentially saying that unless you are affluent, you are not good enough to be my neighbor. I witness cognitive dissonance being involved in this process for three years of people saying I value affordable housing, but I want open space. We have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes there are tradeoffs and be careful to not impose our values on other people. My home has no open space. Am I not good enough to live in this neighborhood either? Because I enjoy all of these amenities? And I'm sure that my neighbors as a part of this development, would have the right to enjoy those amenities also of. The proposed development is really only marginally more dense than what is currently allowed and provides much needed affordable rental and for social housing. This is not just in one building, it's in both. The reality is the Opposition wants a low density development at 74 Newton that incorporates open. Open space and design. In a way that would render all non-market rate housing infeasible. And I say that because I'm an affordable housing finance professional. It would require so much intense subsidy in order to provide these affordable units that I think it would be unfathomable for you to support. The development as proposed will provide. Options ranging from housing for. Schoolteachers and police officers to currently homeless families. A very wide range. The opposition. Desires to hold on to an ideal. Single. Family neighborhood in which none of its individuals can afford to rent. Much less buy a home to build equity. I've been thinking a lot about the. Neighborhood in the city in which I want to. Raise my daughter, and it is not one that has a backyard for every child to play. It's a place where children can play together in our extraordinary parks. My values are for inclusivity and diversity in my neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in my values in which her neighbors represent the wonderful diversity that we should come to expect in a world class city. Ask you to please support this rezoning application for her future and for the future of all families that as a result, will be able to call my neighborhood home. Thank you very much. Next up, Adam Astrof. Hi. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361a lady street in Baker and I'm here to talk in support of this project. And I wanted to talk about two things community and open space. I'm a Colorado native. And, you know, growing up here, I'm from Boulder originally. And, you know, I've heard a lot about community tonight. And we do have our community of our, you know, single block like we had the historic district approved tonight. We have our neighborhoods like Sloan's Lake and then we have our city as Denver. And we've seen a lot of changes here. But Denver isn't an island and it's actually not even surrounded by open space. It's surrounded by other communities. The metro area has continued to grow at an astounding pace. We're not really a city of 600,000, almost 700,000 now. We're a city of two and a half million almost that stretches all over the metro area. And, you know, we need to think about that broader community as well, because I've heard a lot of talk about open space in this development tonight. And I love open space. Growing up here, there was lots and lots of open space between Boulder and Denver. Across the front range, there are wide open plains. You know, there were lots of empty hiking trails everywhere, but now that's getting chewed up by more and more and more subdivisions. And the reality is, is every unit we refuse in Denver is another street on a subdivision where people have to drive and they want to drive fast through our city because they want to get home. After a long day of work, traffic isn't being caused by 100 units being built on your block. It's being caused by 10,000 people who have to live 45 minutes outside of town because there's nothing for under $400,000 in this city unless you get really lucky. You know, I read Jane Jacobs book Death and Life of the American City, and she talked about how this can often be a problem that we get really focused on our smaller community and we lose sight of the larger one. So I'd really encourage you all to support this. The developer has actually gone above and beyond in terms of commitment for affordable housing and community serving amenities like the ground floor, retail and the Urban Plaza. This is honestly something you can very rarely say that a developer went above and beyond. This is close to existing transit. It's close to a great park and it would be a great home for for people in Denver. And I believe that this should be voted yes. And as other people have said, if we can't approve 50% affordable housing on a parking lot, where are we going to put it? Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Michael Hughes. Members of city council. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Mike Hughes. I'm a Denver resident. But tonight I'm here as the executive director of the New West Corridor Transportation Management Association. We know that you are often faced with testimony that suggest you have to choose between traffic. Congestion and parking. And affordable housing. We think that's a false choice. We reject the idea that you can use that you could should refuse to to address the affordable housing crisis because of traffic and congestion or vice versa. We've been working with David and his team to outline some proven steps that they can take to change the demand for parking and for single occupant car use. Here are some of the ideas we've asked them to explore. Defining the development as a single neighborhood for purposes of enrolling every resident in our Teds Neighborhood Eco Pass Program, that would mean that every future resident of this project would have a transit pass. Then dedicating part of the project's parking to car share and then working with residents to consider using the combination of car share and their transit pass to choose not to have a car at all, saving the cost of car payments, insurance, maintenance, gas and parking, which they cannot afford to use those funds for the things that they truly need. In addition, things like real time transit schedules in the lobby of the building. A bike share program with an area of the building dedicated to bike storage and repair. Working with public works to ensure that the residents have the safest, most convenient access to the Knox station on the line and to what is obviously one of the best bus lines in the city, and that's on Colfax. We also recommend that the developer do all of this in combination with the renaults and with the neighborhood residents themselves, with the added benefit that we might be able to decrease single occupant vehicle use in the corridor and throughout the neighborhood by helping the current residents change their travel choices to. We. If we succeed, we might make a little peace between existing and future residents. Address climate change. Improve air quality. Put money in the pockets of future residents who are already feeling the weight of escalating housing costs and who spend way too much on transportation. And we can increase the supply of affordable housing at the same time in a neighborhood that is rapidly pricing out too many. We in the applicant have not concluded that work, and I'm committed to one more strategy for them and that is program support ongoing from the TMA for the long term to help residents and neighbors continue to plan their trips to maximize the use of biking, walking, transit, carpools, van pools, car shares and more. We in the applicant will continue to work together, I hope, and I'm committed to continuing to help them find the right strategies for their future residents and working with the neighborhoods so that they are part of that solution. We don't have to give up on solving congestion and traffic. Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Joseph Dominguez. Joseph Dominguez. I live at 1428 and Tennyson Drive in West Colfax, and I lived in West Colfax since 2010 and actually I was priced out in 2013. If it wasn't for my wife, I wouldn't be able to live in West Colfax right now because the gentrification that's happening, as you know, West Colfax, I'm sorry. Denver leads the nation in Hispanic gentrification. And West Colfax, actually from the year 2000 to 2016, has lost 20% of its Hispanic residents, and Sloan's Lake has lost 16% of their Hispanic residents. And one of the things that we really need to ask ourselves is what are we doing to stop this gentrification from happening? There's no more places to build single family homes anymore. I love the people and single family homes. They're not any spaces to do it. So we have to think creatively. This is the only solution that we can come up with. I can think of no other at this point. One of the things I want to do is think Paul Lopez, because during an election year, he really put his neck on the line to bring this forward and to create an opportunity. And the reason why he did that is for the greater good. He saw the greater good of the community and that it would be a positive thing for the community. So for that, I would I would ask you guys all to look at Paul Lopez and what he did for the greater good and sacrifice that for him . Vote yes for this. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Sawyer. Hi. My name's Megan Sawyer. I live on 14th and Irving. I bought my house three years ago. Three years ago. I share it with my husband and my roommates. I moved there because I wanted public transportation to get to work and backpacks. And I take those every single day. I enjoy Sloan's Lake Parco, Sanchez, Verde Recreation Center, the library, all of which are free or low cost for everybody. There's also shops and coffee shops and places to meet, and I don't want to just be people like me that can enjoy that any time you're going to build a building , it was already zoned for ten storeys. Anytime you do that, you're not going to make everybody happy. You know it is going to increase traffic. But we live three miles from downtown. That's going to happen. And I'm going to say from my experience providing housing as a landlord, when I post my ads, people are desperate. The people that are already living there and I can't afford to subsidize them in my own home. But if somebody else can, if they can come in and do this without subsidy from the city and provide affordable housing that's close to parks, close to public transportation, reliable transportation that runs frequently right in the downtown, right into employment centers. Good on that and I support it. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. We're going to move on to questions by members of Council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions for Alice and then a couple for David Zucker on Alice. In your presentation, it was clear that this project meets a lot of the criteria and aligns with a lot of our plans, including the two plans that we recently approved the comp plan and blueprint. Denver But can you explain to me and everyone here why traffic impacts aren't one of the criteria for rezoning? It seems to be that when I look at everyone's concern, that seems to be the biggest concern, but it is not one of the criteria for a rezoning. Can you please explain that? Yeah, absolutely. So rezoning criteria, why traffic impacts are not studied or acquired as a part of rezoning. It's a planning board or city council or really any point is because a standard zoned district or even imputed in this case is not a site specific development plan. Rather, it provides a framework of uses and intensities that can occur, but it does not approve a specific development program. And so for us to require a traffic study at this point and to make a determination would not really be useful in the sense that they could actually build a two storey building on the site. And that would also be in alignment with the beauty and an allowed use and would have significantly different traffic implications on the site and require different improvements to the infrastructure system. So the reason why it's not required at time of rezoning is because we are not evaluating a site specific plan. Additionally, I think it's important to note, while I didn't discuss it in our rezoning application in the review criteria blueprint, Denver does provide many strategies, especially in the mobility section, talking about a people first approach and also looking at further reductions of parking standards in many areas, especially when in close proximity to services and amenities such as transit. So does that clarify? Yes. And at what point would a traffic study be done? That's a great question. So once if a rezoning were to be approved on this site, the developers may make a concept application which would then ultimately lead to a site development plan. During the concept plan meeting, they will have representatives from public works and development services, transportation, evaluating that concept and informing them of the specific details that will need to be included in their transportation study at time of formal submittal of site development plan, at which time they will have a formal site proposal moving forward. Thank you. Okay. And David Zucker, I have two questions for you. So the first is several people handed out these images of massing. Can you can you comment on them? Because I think you said in your remarks something about the overall area or square footage or something. Can you clarify that, please? I can speak to the specifics behind this. One of the things that we thought from the beginning was very important was not to increase the amount of usable square footage allowed on the site. The current pod number eight allows for 515,400 square feet of usable density, office space, senior housing, residential units, so on and so forth. We're keeping the same 515,000 square feet of usable square footage. We are providing additional parking. The reason for that is we heard community concern that the park can be provided off street. So we are on the backside of the project, putting in a freestanding parking deck, which may explain some of the differences in massing between what you're seeing. But in terms of actual usable square footage where humans occupy and what actually generates traffic, that remains the same between the existing and our proposed new Pudi. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. My other question is about heights. And so in the existing Pudi, it's eight storeys. It's 110 feet. Okay. Yeah. That specific the story. It says after the first story. I found that confusing too. Okay. I don't know what that is, but I just, you know, just did a little bit of math about sort of the average height. So if it if it is eight storeys in the original one, if you kind of average the heights that you're proposing, it actually averages to eight stories, which I thought was interesting because the 16 storey tower is is actually very small for a plate. Is that. Yeah, the amount of height that actually exceeds eight storeys is I believe it's 11% of our total area of our site. Everything else is less than that. And in large areas, it's well less than that. Three and five stories. Okay. And then, David, you mentioned, I think in your remarks, something about the financing of the project. And I think you said the market rate units are helping you to fund the affordable units. And several people mentioned that the city is not giving you any money for this project. So can you talk about the financing a little bit? One of the things that we wanted to achieve was a blueprint for development that allowed for more substantial inclusion and development of affordable housing. And what we realized was that if we combined a for sale condo tower with affordable as well as market rate for sale units, that portion of the profit could be used from the tower rather than making application to the city or using the Office of Development or or for TEF. So rather than going to city or to Doura, we decided to self solve so that a portion of the profit of the condo tower will go to support the affordable project. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Next up, we have Councilman New. David, can you come back up? Both of you. Let me just get this hand out right here. Go back to the square footage. Question that councilman by. Yes. You know, and do you have this? Can we come here and get this? And because it says 283,000 square feet under the existing pad versus 601,000 square feet for your project, which is quite different than what you said of the comparable usable square footage, because some of that to 83% of the square footage was left out as a hospital. And there's some stuff can you can you comment on this? Is this incorrect or is this correct? It depends on how you slice it. And I said we are counting the whole area north of 16th, between 16, 17th Newton and Law and the usable square footage allowed under the existing putty for and it shows that it says on the total maximum square footage allowed. Okay. And I think two items were excluded, a parking garage and this hospital. So going back to more of a right. Okay. The existing hospital that's there is well less than what's allowed under the existing putty on the what would be the east side of need. We stopped at the site does not run all the way through. So again, when you add up the expansion of the existing hospital, which is allowed under the existing zoning, plus the development on what is would be the west side of Meade Street that in total adds to 515,400. So what you're saying is all homes, it is not proper to exclude those two things that they did to come up with the 283. You need to take the total at the very bottom. Is that what you're saying? That's right. So this this diagram focuses just on the west side. Our diagram focuses on the whole block. Okay. All right. And on the there's a real difference in the appearance of the, you know, the block diagrams that shows the square footage difference, I guess, because it is still related back to this 283 versus your 600,000, just the massing of you, two two pictures there. Obviously, it looks very, very large and out of scale. So. So I frankly can't comment to the creation of those specific sketch up models. I do know that probably the largest visual difference that you see is us, including adequate amounts of off street parking. Again, we keep the same amount of usable square footage, which is as far as what generates traffic, as far as what populates the neighborhood. I mean, that's the really significant number. And in fact, residential units, residential square footage is a lower traffic demand generator than would be a medical office or hospital use. So I think that's the biggest difference in the visuals that you see a lot of concerns that come up about open space, you know, and do you have any open space in this project that you're proposing at all or is that enclosed interior space? We have two different items. The first is we are including a small community gathering place at the corner of 17th and Newton Street, and that was actually called out in the West Colfax Plan. Is that the corner of 17th and Newton should be a neighborhood focal point? Is that outside space? That is outside space and a large is that that will be the plaza itself will be about 5000 square feet and will be flanked by about 4000 square feet of what we certainly intend to be community serving retail space. So restaurant bakery, something that we would work with the renos before we decide what would go there but intended to be a neighborhood gathering spot. Okay. A couple of things that you mentioned, the traffic management plan and the bike paths itself. I don't see them in the good neighbor agreement at all. Were they just left out or what what were the compromises that you gave there in the Good Neighbor agreement to give us an idea of how you worked with the community to reduce the scale of this project. There is a separate good neighbor agreement and then a development agreement, which is the development agreement is specific with the city, the landowner, and so close with the city. And there was a discussion with Councilmember Lopez and with CPD on what was appropriate to put in the development agreement versus in the good neighbor agreement. So we have a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that runs through the center of the site. So what would be made? Streets, and that's in the development agreement, not in the good neighbor agreement. And that was, again, part of our discussions on what's appropriate to be in one document versus the other. The public plaza and the neighborhood serving retail space in discussions with city attorney and the rest didn't make sense to go in the development agreement. So that goes in the good neighbor and you kind of have to triangulate that to different. This is traffic's been a big issue. It seemed like the traffic management plan would be appropriate for the good, good neighbor agreement. Yes, certainly. Just we were just left out. You're planning on putting it in back in our sample for sure that that document is far from finalized. We have we wrote that to show our commitment to the neighborhood, but that's still a living document. Okay. Last question. On the parking, you mentioned something about 1.5 spaces per unit, which includes medical space, as I understand. Can you explain what what that means? Yeah. One of the we think the really innovative things about this project is we have a great matching between daytime parking users and nighttime parking users. The medical office, especially the staff, is primarily there from 9 to 5 hour residents. Their cars will be there primarily after 5:00 and until 9:00 the next morning. So while we are providing more than a .75 ratio for the rental units and more than 1.25 for the for sale units, when you add in the extra 165 parking spaces that we are dedicating for the medical office use, those will be open to all of our residents at nighttime in addition to the retail users as well. So when you actually do the math and what's available at nighttime, when the greatest parking demand will be from the residents, it comes out to about a 1.5. And how has that working on at least those spaces? Yes, there will be leases, but there will also be a parking sharing agreement to. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, sorry, I, I asked them to when when those when the people who presented those graphics, they were holding them up in the back of the room so we could see them. But I don't know that you could. And so I asked them to put those up so that we could see them. And because I do have questions and I heard you. So you're saying that the the in your response to councilman knew you were saying that basically the entitlement that exists on the the existing hospital structure is being used in saying that these are balanced. Yeah, we were looking at the usable density for the site as a whole. So what could be built on that fall area between 1617, Newton and Lowell? There's not an intention to build out the hospital any more than it is. You know, we've we've worked closely in joint venture with the landowner. But are they going to put a deed restriction or moratorium so that they cannot develop to their full entitlement? The way that the way that I understand that the PUD massing, which is very restrictive, kind of caps your height. It really wouldn't allow for any more development of that hospital. You just under the way that the massing is shaped in the pad, there's no room to build it. Oh, so maybe this question around leak on a lease. So if they build, so is there a square footage restriction on the total pad? Because if I look at that pad, there's a eight storey 110 foot limit. If I'm looking at section F, actually, can you go to your slide that says. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. That shows the actually that's not the one that's I will want to talk to you about that eventually but can you go to the slide that actually has all the different. Oh. Yeah. The different. Steps in the in the the subdivisions of the of the beauty that one so. What are the what are f an e? So F is a maximum building height of 110 feet in eight storeys and is six storeys and 70 feet. The PWD does not have any square footage limitations as that was more commonly used in former Chapter 59 and as many of you have probably seen, is highly problematic because alone it causes for a very restricted development form to occur. And so the Pudi more closely follows the form based zoning, which speaks to building height and feet and stories and provides building envelopes as opposed to specific building footprints. So I think it's also important to note that these are not necessarily buildings where the form in Chapter 59, Pudi specified specific buildings with their appropriate footprint . So while, you know, the apples to apples comparison might be compelling, it's not criteria that staff is evaluating on this case. So the in the in the in the massing study here, the the F level would be somewhere between. So I'm going to use this graphic somewhere between this is which is depicted as six stories and this one, which is typically supposedly ten storeys, is that correct? You know, I'm not really sure. These graphics are a little bit hard for me to count stories easily for purposes of responding to that question. Okay. Then let's just use the developers. Oh, I mean, this this same map that we're studying here, the the F area is anything in the F eight currently eight stories in 110 feet tall. I believe the existing building is either seven or eight stories, but I'm going to look behind me to confirm. Yes. So it's just storeys currently. So it's the footprint that is closest to 17th and low. And so there is the half a block from from between little and Meade and the half a block between 17th and 16th that are still not developed to the full eight stories. Is that correct? Like where the parking access is? Is that what you're referencing, correct? That is correct. It is parking access. So what I'm trying to so if we could now go to that slide. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. I know you have multiple slides labeled that, but it's the one that has the future places. I'm hoping your graphic is incorrect is it showed so because one of the things that that I wasn't looking at until this graphic that shows the previously we only had f labeled we weren't looking at 100 at the number of stories here. I'm concerned I've always been concerned with how blueprint Denver suddenly had this community center and growth area right here in this little node of of of north Denver. And and what I'm now concerned about is in your comments, you talked about GMU three being this sort of gluttony of townhouses, which I will remind you, up until this year, townhouses were not an allowed thing in GMU three. Legally, they were built under false use of apartment forms. So what it's concerning to me is that your map shows that as being high medium to the east of this parcel. Is that correct? I believe that is correct. This was produced by our gas administration team. And that is if you go to the next slide or the previous one, whichever is your context, that is General Urban. So is what you're saying. Because what I was worried about was eight story, right? So this massive development getting approved in through this putty and this putty then essentially paving the way for something much more dense or much more massive in scale than what is existing on the remaining portions of the PUD and going for eight stories along Lowell. And what does that context what does all this speak to that land to the east because it it has historically been single family and now it's GMU three development. But that content being that is allowing. So I just want to be clear in. The in the. Well, I'm going to put this in the form of a question. So what is the what is the building general building height that is allowable in a high, medium residential area in a general urban context? I can't speak to that off the top of my head, but I'm happy to look it up here in a moment. Okay. You do that because I'm reading it says buildings generally up to eight storeys in height. And so why I'm concerned about this and this is this is that conversation that we should have had a month ago is, you know, are we what are we setting this area for? Right. Because this is an area that what we heard tonight was a lot about displacement and gentrification and that this is a solution. But there are still residual, affordable, modest homes there. Would you allow GM you eat in that area, given that it's supported by plan documents. Seeing that that is not an application before us or a staff has done analysis, I can't speak to what we would or would not allow on site adjacent. So then back to the previous question about traffic. One of those concerns is health, safety, and one of our criteria is health, safety and welfare. I mean, well, welfare I would constitute traffic and ride away concerns under that umbrella of health, safety and welfare. And when given the range of uses that are allowed here, they have different impacts. Would you agree or not? Or are they all the same? Can you clarify by what you mean of impacts. Different impacts on the right of way? If you're stating that new development has impacts to the right of way, then I think that is a fair statement to make. Yes. But is there a difference between the scale of mean because this could be a one story. Structure. Or it could be a mix of structures to the degree that has been articulated thus far. Would those be the same impact or would they be different impacts? Likely the different developments or scenarios will have different development impacts which will be evaluated at time of site development plan. So what you're asking for this body to do is seed that responsibility of making the determination of health, safety and welfare to staff after the fact. Or are we to sort of imagine the worst case scenario as we go through? I don't think it's asking you to imagine the worst case scenario. Health, safety and welfare looks at the planet as a whole and our city as a whole. And I think it's important to note that blueprint Denver is a land use and transportation plan, and that was done very intentionally, meaning that land use decisions are made in conjunction with transportation infrastructure and improvements. And so I don't think that the city staff and our community would have designated this site as a community center if there wasn't adequate transportation infrastructure either existing or planned for the area. The reason why I'm asking all these questions, though, is, I'll be honest, I looked at District one in the Blueprint Denver issue. This is not District one. This is District three. And I did not see an area I was not cognizant that we had an area that had been so rapidly gentrified as that area of West Sloan's Lake and had gone from single family duplex and triplex into in small apartments, into massive amounts of dense townhouses, single family townhouses, but with with under the under the guise of GMU three with now mapped density into the eight story range. And so now that is something that I am now trying to comprehend, is what is now an appropriate community center for that level of urban residential that we have just mapped to this area because there are still available parcels in that area, are there not? I can't speak to what is considered an available parcel. Are there single are there things that are under built even to give you three standards given the market conditions? Let's take a look at the existing land use form. So, yes, if in that area, yes, there are single family home uses as of the point of this dataset. So what we have is a history of assemblages in this area where we get massive development to, you know, and now we're getting essentially new contexts that supports something else that is completely different than the current level of development in that area. And so I who's thinking about what is an appropriate community center, because what we're trying to do is solve a, you know, this this project professes to solve an affordable housing project because we lost 750 affordable units in this neighborhood, you know. But by adding density that may not serve the actual proposed blueprint, Denver density that is that is mapped for the area to the east. So I'm just I'm really perplexed on how this our plans that we've laid out, how this is consistent with the current plan. But I guess I'll have to figure that out because I'm sorry, you know, because it seems to work now, but it doesn't seem to work with our 20 year vision. And so either we've over mapped the areas to the east that have already just been partially gentrified to, you know, to to a point that they're not recognizable . And and this is a fine solution or actually it's not an adequate solution given what we're what we've been mapping and proposing. So I don't know how to put that in the form of a question. I'm sorry. I'll go ahead and move on. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions for the development team. Can you speak to the difference in and quality of construction and finish between the market rate units and the affordable units? Well, in the excuse me, in the for sale units, they'll be exactly the same. I've built three IJo containing projects and the units, whether it's affordable for sale or market rate for sale, they're exactly the same. Quartz, countertops, gas. Cooktops. The difference between the the condo tower and the multifamily will still have things like quartz countertops built for durability. There'll be certain differences, though the units will generally be somewhat smaller. I would imagine that it would be an electric cooktop rather than a potentially gas cooktop in the in the mark of a project. The the windows, the fence, tration, the. The exterior is meant to describe a great deal of quality. So the same materials on the exterior of the building we would expect to apply. Okay. Remind me how many parking spaces you said will be on site? Approximately 400. Okay. So are they assigned to the units or is it an additional fee? That's kind of TBD at the moment. I would imagine if we're going to actually put into place this day night sharing and make it effective, it would be an open pool. So as opposed to one spot assigned to one specific person. It would be it's an open pool. Okay. So I guess what I'm thinking is mainly for the affordable units. It would be first come, first serve, rather than you pay an extra 60 bucks or 100 bucks a month and you get a parking space. I think that's fair. Yes. Okay. But you're not sure yet, so. Yeah. Okay. Why is on the affordability of the rental units? And why is it only 30 years? Because where we're heading now is a city where off into 40 years and more. And a at a point, the expense and revenue lines touch incomes and therefore rents increase historically at somewhere around 1.8% annually. And expenses are increasing by somewhere around 3% annually, somewhere around the 33rd 34th year, with a typical expense per unit and an A today's rent per unit. Those lines will cross. So at a point, it becomes infeasible to make operating expenses and debt service. So that's why in the wisdom of the the ancients in in 1982, when Bob Dole introduced Section 42 of the low income housing tax credit, it was not a perpetual or longer, I believe, that it was not a perpetual or longer restriction period. So the federal period is 15 years. Jaffa adds. Adds to that. And so this commitment is for 30 years beyond that. Okay. And I guess. Laura. We're moving past those numbers. Could you just address that real quickly? Laura brzezinski. I'm the director of Housing Policy and Programs for Denver Economic Development and Opportunity. Ditto. So this project does have an existing income restriction on it that is for 30 years for some affordable rental units. The proposed development agreement will go above and beyond what is required, but that 30 years does match the existing restrictions, and there are no city subsidies being contemplated for this affordable housing agreement. So 30 years is what we reached as a negotiation for this particular project for the rental. But I will note that the Affordable for Sale has a 99 year restriction. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And just just to add, that's off, Laura. Thank you. Go back to your seat. I just want to be clear on the multi bedroom units by my count for sale. We have eight total, two and three bedroom units and for rent ten. Am I on? Did I miss something? Hmm. If my recollection of the development agreement is right, you're correct that we have a minimum of eight for the for sale. Affordable six two bedrooms and two three bedrooms on the affordable side. It's broken down further by I levels. Okay. So we have seven three bedroom units at 40%. Ami. Thank you. We also have we have 13, 60% AMI two bedrooms and we have two 50% AMI two bedrooms. But those are minimums. Right. And we may well exceed those. Well, I would applaud that if you did. And one thing I wanted to add in, when when council recently passed a blueprint and the comp plan and the Parks game plan, we had it in the same paragraph and all three plans that kind of codified our commitment to reducing our impact on climate change. And I want to read I'll just read you part of that paragraph. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. So that tells me we have declared the responsibility of the development community to assist in mitigating or eliminating our impact on climate change. So I'll be asking in the future every development that comes through. So if you could just talk what your project, what your approach is in that area? Well, first of all, it is not just noble goal, but a necessary goal. I believe I'm correct in saying that Zocalo has build more LEED new construction projects than any other developer in the in the state. So we're we're keenly focused when we look at energy use. Thousands of British thermal units per foot per year, which is a great yardstick of electric use and gas use. The urban urban environment apartment buildings, according to EPA standards, range somewhere between 35 and more, typically 50 cb2 per square foot per year. Single family home would be probably half more of that. So 70 to 80 cb2 per foot per year. Fortunately, we've been able to monitor energy use at some of our projects over our River Clay project, for instance, was able to get down to 15 cb2 per square foot per year. So a significant reduction by by over 60% from EPA standards. So some of the projects that we've been able to achieve have inherently reduced energy consumption. But it doesn't matter if it's a really energy efficient project that's off in in the the greenbelt somewhere outside of the metro area and outside where there's transit. So where our buildings location are selected is absolutely critical. So this is exactly the type of location and the type of sustainable development that we would want where there is access to transit, jobs, affordability, retail and schools all close by. Not that nobody's going to get in a car. We know that they will, but we give them. And with Mike chooses help we give people a. A greater and greater opportunity to get out of their car, to live in a building that is inherently more sustainable by using less energy in a location where they don't need to be in their car, which is also a significant, obviously, use of fossil fuels. And you talked a bit about transit demand management plan. But we have not established it yet. This is one of the good neighbor agreements that we will that we would like to be working with with the neighborhood. But it is a commitment in our first and Broadway project, also 100% affordable at in the Baker neighborhood. Nobody required us to have a a transportation management plan. But we volunteered that with to the councilman's office, as well as to the Baker and West Wash Park neighbors, so that we actually can, over time, track it. So we have a two year engagement with, in that case, transportation solutions. And Stewart Anderson, to to help us determine whether in that case, our transportation demand management was effective and not just do it in with the expectation, but do it over time. So we Zocalo has a history of doing that and we want to do it with Mike Hughes as well. And the neighborhood and lasting. Mr. President, if this zoning were to pass and made this maybe four and a lease, I think you're back there somewhere. Is there anything in your agreement that requires neighborhood consultation or approval as as individual site plans move forward? I don't believe that there would be a requirement, but that is Zocalo is practice just as is emblematic at first and Broadway in the Baker neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. On a lease, according to the application, the area that would be reason to Pdg 21 only not counting the little finger to the south is about 5.2 acres. That is correct. Okay. And I want to make sure I understand what the proposal is for. Need my glasses. Sorry. F partial f where Beth Israel is. What is what is proposed for there? I think I heard that there's really nothing proposed there other than continuation of the the senior care facilities. Yeah. So in terms of what the PD allows, it allows for all the uses contained within the CM eight zone district as well as hospital and emergency access uses. That's what is allowed per zoning. However, the applicant will probably reinforce. The point that I'm going to make here is that no further changes are anticipated to the hospital and it is anticipated to be a continued use on the site, which is why the Puti caps at at its existing height. Okay. But it caps it at 110 feet. It's not 110 feet now. It's not exactly that, but it's what we generally use as a height for eight stories in the zoning code. So it's consistent with that. Okay. Because it says I think it says eight storeys and 110 feet. Correct. Okay. There's a little portion of the building that's eight storeys in the back. It's not at the street front. It's six storeys, I believe, isn't it? Okay. Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Featherstone, do you control that property or is that separate? We don't. That's so we're creating an entitlement for a parcel that is not under your control. That's correct. Okay. So I guess I'm probably answered this question. That was all to lead up to this at our next meeting, which will be in two weeks because we don't meet next week, we are going to have a public hearing and a vote on a changing the process for what's now a general development plan. We're going to go to a large development review. And when you come in for site plan review, it would be if it were more than five acres, it would come under that. But it sounds like when you come in, you're going to come in for slightly less than five acres. Is that is that correct? Just as a point of clarification. The hospital building is owned by the same landowner who controls everything north of 16th. Okay. So the big square, as opposed to the little sliver, and that is who our partner is on this project. It's owned by a different landowner. Is that little left that goes off to the south. Okay, so it doesn't own the property. We do not own it. It is our partner who owns the property. Yes. But when you come in for where the site plan, will it be for the whole thing, including where Beth Israel has. The 5.2 acres is everything north of 16th. So the big square. Now in our next meeting in two weeks, if we approve this new process, the requirement as I read it, read it and in our land use committee would require you to have 10% open space. But what I've heard is that there's the plaza at 17th and Newton. And what would happen under this new maybe this is a question for on a lease. What would happen under the new LDR process? When we examine a development that is more than five acres because we're reducing a threshold from 10 to 5 and I believe it's requirements 10% open space. So five acres is one of the thresholds, but there's other elements that are considered in terms of what will be required to go through the LDR process. So it's hard to say that this would definitely go through the LDR process. It would certainly be flagged for consideration and review. But I don't want to speak too much to that process and I'm not an expert. We can explore that at the meeting in two weeks time. It's my impression out of the committee was that it that you would be required to provide 10% open space and if there's a nuance to that, that or an exception, I'd be interested to learn that. Okay. One thing I just will add is there's different checkpoints in which an LDR might be required. One of those is rezoning, but another one is site development plan. So if they do come in for a site development plan, the LDR process could be triggered at that point at which open space and other infrastructure requirements could be considered . So I don't want to say that it will be, but it could be. Okay. I just want to make sure that Zocalo was aware of that, that this parallel track was going on. Can you let me ask, I guess, Mr. Zucker or Mr. Patterson, why did so many people come up here tonight and say that they've just heard about that? When my friend Larry Ambrose said that he's been talking to you all for almost three years, how why were there people in the neighborhood is still didn't hear about this until they got the mailed notices. And I don't know if Larry can address that as well, but I'm just curious. It just seems a large a high level of unawareness in the neighborhood for something that's been under discussion at the R.A. level for almost three years. We as a developer, we we trust that we hope that we're getting our message out when we. When we look on the city website and determine which RINO's are representative in certain cases, we didn't reach out directly to two individual neighbors. We didn't go door to door. As in you're not expected to. I understand those are pretty active. And Larry looks like he's anxious to to address that. But you've got to come up from. There were a large number of people that were involved in negotiating this over a long period of time. But the final plan didn't come out until about a year ago. Okay. It was taken to all of our groups at that time. The West Colfax Association of Neighbors formed a working group, issued a letter to Mr. Zucker. He didn't answer that letter for about ten months. And when the application was so, we didn't know that this actually was going on for almost a year. All right. When the application was filed, that's when everybody. Knew that that's what the social notification and the mailing. List went away for a while. Okay. Thank you. And one last question for Mr. Zucker, Mr. Featherstone. Why 16 stories? Why is 16 stories necessary? Could this be. Could the massing be arranged differently so that we didn't? I know that at Colfax and I think Quitman, there's a 17 story building has been there for ever since I've been in Denver, you know, 40 years almost. But that's that's pretty far away. And the lake house, I think, is 12 stories. Is it necessary to have something this high that is right there on the park and in the midst of of, you know, a lower density neighborhood. To achieve the level of affordability and the depth of affordability that we would like to be able to deliver. Mm hmm. The 16 stories is the the financial engine that allows for it. Okay. So I'm looking at what I think is based on your renderings. And it seems, you know, just to a layman, that you could pull down a couple of stories and spread out the wedding cake, if you will, instead of having a three story or a five story platform and then six stories in the middle. I don't know if that would go over any better in the neighborhood, but you could bring down, it seems to me you could bring down the 16 stories. I'm trying to understand that. We I think what we all responded to in discussions over two years and 20 meetings with Reno was that meeting the street had three stories so that it felt as if it were correct other and so which I think was done really effectively at City Park South with those two towers, two stories and 30 stars, 30 stories you don't really see, feel the density or I'm sorry, you really don't feel the height because they're wrapped with these elegant looking three storey townhomes on three sides. And in that case, as well, there's a there's an affordable project the mercy housing did immediately adjacent and to the south. So I think the goal that we had was if we were able to to sculpt the height in the center of this full city block, it becomes much more transparent to the resident, to the pedestrian. Okay. Would you be open to reexamining the massing and the height going forward? Well, the goal is for project that's 50% affordable and 50% market rate, probably actually a little bit more affordable than market rate. That's that's our goal. That is how we've engineered the project. We've looked at different different concepts. Obviously, the if the for profit is going to be subsidizing the affordable project, then the units of higher up are going to be able to draw more to create greater sales value. So we've not we I don't think that we'd be successful. We have looked at dropping down to 14 stories. We've looked at dropping down to 12 stories. So do you do the yeah. With the through our pro forma and it was not able to support the affordable. All right. I was actually on roofing. I have one more question from Liz in the LDR. Changes that we're making in two weeks are they're going to be asked to make in two weeks. Is it also isn't it also the case that if it goes through that ADR process, that there will be public engagement, pretty robust public engagement. The LDR process does require public engagement to occur on the forefront. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. I think Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. David, I have a couple of questions for you. The first one is about the good neighbor agreement. Was there is there an intention to file a covenant on the property to ensure that if you sell the land or the owner sells, that those obligations or those commitments would be followed through with. To answer that question, that was part of the discussion on what was most appropriate to put in the developer. An agreement with the city, which does have covenants supporting it. So the affordable housing and the multi-use multimodal path in in the middle of the site do have covenants or easements. The rest of the Good Neighbor Agreement, it was determined over the course of our application that that wasn't really the right avenue to put that into the development agreement with the city, instead the good neighbor agreement. So there to answer your question specifically, there will not be any specific covenants that go along with it, but many of these are commitments that really only Zocalo as the developer could make, and a lot of them go along with development of the project, like our commitment to union labor and to local hiring. Those would be things that burn off when the project is built. So I guess I just want to ask, are you all going to be the ones actually building the project? Yes, we are our own general contractors. Okay. And will you own the rental in the partnership? And a tax credit investor is in the ownership group as well. That's to make the financing work. To answer your question, yes. Okay. The single family block to the south for those units currently vacant. Or there are people living in those single family homes. I believe there are people living in most of them. I can't say all of them. Okay. So what's the timing and what's the plan for addressing the displacement of the families that are in those units? Well, actually, nothing about our plan changes the status quo for that leg that comes off down to the south. In fact, what the our proposed party does is it changes those from a non-conforming use to conforming use. Today, all that could be built on that site is a parking garage under the existing pad. So instead by putting in you t you see. So there is no intention to do any development on that. Correct. Correct. That is that is owned by the separate landowner now, not by our group. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Let me move on with a couple of others. The somebody already talked about the traffic and the need for the traffic study. I would assume part of that will recommend that there's a need for, you know, some other traffic calming measures. I walk that lake every day. I know what the traffic patterns are in the area. So I would imagine those would be some things that come out of the process and the city will through through the development review process, absolutely address some of those additional improvements. I wanted to ask Laura about the affordability. And maybe first, you can answer this on the 99 year that's just on the for sale. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then on the rental, the amount of time frame the affordability is attached to as at just 30 years. So if you can just clarify that, that would be helpful. Yes. The rental will be affordable for 30 years or more. Okay. And is there a reason that it's just 30 years? I mean, I heard the question asked earlier and heard your response, but we were asked to adopt something that addressed the 60 year affordability obligation. But that's where we have city money into a project. So I guess that presumes that this is all just publicly financed. I don't think that includes any preclusion on low income tax credits. Right. Can you just clarify that? Sure. So I believe the team is anticipating to use low income housing tax credits, which is a sustainable rental. State financial to net of local government financial. It's a federal tool. But we're administered by the state. Yeah. Correct. We are not utilizing any city subsidies for this. And that's where the 60 year affordability period. Okay. All right. I think that answers all my questions. I did have the concern about the displacement of folks that are on that one block. I know Dr. Arena ignores here in the audience and has been, you know, ensuring that as we have big projects happening all across the city, the issue of displacement and gentrification is folded into the conversation. What I'm not sure of is how we're utilizing our tool now that several of our departments across the city have gone through looking at the issue of race and equity and what that means to development and big projects that the city is doing, or if it's just solely applicable to city development projects. I don't know if that's something that anybody here can address either from the administration or the planning department. I will generally speak to guidance and Blueprint Denver as it brings forth new equity concepts that weren't previously included in comp plan and blueprint. Denver. And it does talk about when to apply those equity concepts, and it talks about large redevelopment sites, but it's not further defined. So that's something that CPD is actively working to define and to understand when we should explicitly be using those different equity concepts as a part of our analysis. And then it also states that anything that as a city initiated legislative rezoning should consider those as well. So in regards to Blueprint Denver, that's what we're doing to move those elements forward in close collaboration with NEST. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. President. I heard a lot of concern for residents. Who might live in this affordable housing tonight. And so I wanted to ask some follow up questions. First for Laura, if you wouldn't mind. Ordinarily, developments in Denver are bound to pay a linkage fee. In this case, they're going to build instead. Are there some rules that control access to amenities and the size of units and the welfare of the residents? In our current rules. Yes. So our linkage fee rules require that affordable units are reasonably distributed among other residential units within a development and should not be concentrated to any one specific area. That's when there's integration between market rate and rental units. Residents of the affordable units have to have full access to the same amenities that the market rate units would otherwise be able to access. The exterior design of the affordable units has to be indistinguishable from other units within the development and the interior design of the affordable units has to be functionally equivalent to that of the market rate units. And I think David has already addressed that. The market rate units will be exactly the same as you go to. This claim about corridors where some people get access to some amenities and others to others in the in the building where there is a mix of market and for sale, would that be allowed under our rules? That descriptor really has nothing to do with this project. The units would have to be distributed and they would have to have the same access as all the market rate residents. Thank you very much. My second question, I guess is for the development team. There was a claim about there being no access to community space for residents in the affordable building. Will there be any communal space lounge or any any space for the community for serving? You know, for folks to interact other than, you know, their units. There's a courtyard within the affordable project. There will be purely a guest since the building is is not yet really programed. But in all of our projects we have a relatively substantial amount of community space. So purely a guess. I would imagine that there's probably close to 10,000 square feet of space that is used for community gathering, for bike repair or for work spaces. So despite the fact that it looks as if it's a white box on the on the plan, it would be like all of the rest of our Zocalo projects. And we try to be to create habitable spaces not just in the dwelling spaces, but in the communal spaces as well. And another claim I heard tonight is that there will be no services for residents. So I guess I want to ask you, have you built rental at these AGMs before and what is your approach to property management? Will you self-managed? Do you have a manager? Do they have experience with these income level families? That's a great question. We would presume to self-manage and to bring in partners where we need it. When I was on the State Housing Board, one of my favorite programs was rapid housing for for formerly homeless school kids and their families. And the the Scholastic Records and the Income's scholastic records of the kids and the and the incomes of the parents were dramatic improvement in those programs. There was always wraparound services by a nonprofit family tree, for instance, was was one that worked in Jeffco. So we would presume to work with a partner. So are you committed to including input from those who, you know, serve the populations in the communities that you hope to live in, this building from this neighborhood in your planning for those services? We would. That's one of the continuing dialogs. I think that the neighborhood generally accepted some of these concepts. So those, for instance, the seven three bedroom units that are for formerly homeless school kids and families. I think there was general interest in that in the neighborhood and we would explore that further with with both neighbors as well as service providers, as well as the future residents of those units. Great. Thank you. I have one last question for on a lease, which is I realize might be slightly putting you on the spot, but one of the questions in the criteria is uniformity of zone district. And we heard questions about whether there is precedent or whether it's appropriate to have tall buildings near parks. And so I was curious whether or not you have any comments on the uniformity of zone districts in terms of proximity. The applicant has described, you know, a set of tall buildings near City Park. I'm thinking about others, but did you do any analysis? So the criteria, a uniformity of district application is not actually speaking to neighborhood context and uniform. Form building form standards. It's actually saying are we applying zoned districts uniformly throughout the city and being consistent in that? So it's uniform with the application of the pooled criteria, which is built off of CM X eight, which is an alignment and and uniform. So that criteria is less about whether or not tall buildings or short buildings or why buildings are long buildings are appropriate in this area, but rather how the beauty is administered and applied uniformly. Let me ask the question a different way then. Perhaps not. That's not the appropriate criteria. But in terms of maybe thinking about the equity requirements in the plans, right. So are we creating this neighborhood differently than other neighborhoods with regional parks in terms of, you know, the proximity of dense buildings near them, for example, or for example , you know, are we is there some some some precedent for that? I guess I'm trying to get at this question about whether we're treating this neighborhood differently or whether there are other regional parks that have similarities. I don't believe that we're treating this neighborhood any differently or, you know, acknowledging the neighborhood plan, as well as the citywide plans and ensuring that the zoning is in alignment with those. So should say, Capitol Hill. I live right across from the the vacant Whole Foods. Should they come in with a rezoning application to do an affordable housing agreement? They would be reviewed for the same exact criteria of Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan, but not West Colfax. One last question. Aside from a strict zoning density bonus, is there general plan support in the current plan or in blueprint for the idea that more zoning might be appropriate where affordability is higher? That general concept something that the plans reference. That general concept is not only referenced once or twice, but I think is a key backbone to many of the strategies and both comprehensive plan as well as Blueprint. Denver. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman the. Real quick question? Anneliese, could you Anneliese, could you put up that slide again that we had there? Had the properties with all the letters on it. Yeah. Mr. Whetstone, let me ask you a question. Featherstone. Yes, I've heard. Just want to make sure. I just want to make sure I understand it real clear. Now, the portions of this slide, the F, e, f in and E that's existing, that's the medical facility. That's a parking garage you're going to be sharing parking spaces with, right? Yes. F was intended to encapsulate the existing and even though it's part of the whole PPD, you're not going to be developing that p that half a block is just the block where the has A, B, C and D, right? E will be the freestanding parking structure that allows us to park all of our parking needs off site. But F is really what's supposed to encapsulate the existing building on the site, which we don't intend to change. So we will be a brand new parking garage. It will be a new parking garage. Correct. That you're going to build? Yes. Not an existing one. Not existing today. And so then the comparison of the square footage then is is really all that list of square footage that we talked about in the handout, I guess with the parking garage included, since that's going to be part of your project with the comparison that we've been focused on is between usable square footage. I just want to talk about what you're going to develop and the General Hospital maximum square footage is the only thing it'll be eliminated. Right. I'm sorry, because you're not going to f of their f of there. That's what you're not going to be developing. That's correct. Okay. So if you take that out, then you're down less square footage and the comparison of what you're going to build on there, especially that half block, the scale and mass, that's what everybody's been reflecting about tonight, is how much bigger that is than than what. And the additional parking that we are putting in to accommodate all of our uses is what adds some more visual density to the site. But the usable density remains. I just want to make sure I understand apples to apples. Yes. It's not the you can use the existing hospital square footage in a comparison of what you're going to be building. Okay. That's yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman to Councilman Espinosa. Okay. So, David, a couple of different people mentioned that the affordable housing will be built first. I'm trying to figure that out in the in the financing that you just mentioned, how do you use your engine? If it's going to be scaled, it is going to be built well after the fact. We will be borrowing, presumably until the payoff comes from the from the condo project. And okay, the linkage. So this is more a question for the city attorney. I know we have the build in, Lou, but how is the linkage not you know, how is that not a city subsidy if if they're essentially able to avoid the linkage fee because that would be a revenue that would otherwise come to the city if they were to pay it. Adam Hernandez, assistant city attorney. So they are providing more units than what would be required on the residential side. As for a build alternative number and any nonresidential development on the property would. Still be subject to the linkage. Fee. Okay. Is it the intent of this? You know, they're going to provide a considerable amount more than what would be required is the intent, because it's all one owner is the intent that this affordable housing also covers the affordability requirements for any redevelopment of F area f. No, that's not the intent. So is that clear that if the hospital's ever redeveloped, it will be subject to a linkage fee or affordable housing requirements? I think is what Adam just said. If there is commercial development on the site and we will have some retail even on our proposal on the west side of Mead, that that is subject to the linkage. So we've understood from the beginning that if it's a commercial development in Area F, it will be subject to the linkage fee. Yes. Okay. Can we make sure that that's codified in the developer agreement since the city already is responsible for that? It already is in the agreement. Okay. The question Councilman Flynn brought up about the LDR, this is something that I brought up when I was reviewing that, which is that large developments vary based on location. You know, what may be a what? Five Acres is a substantially large site in Sloan's Lake compared to, say, Green Valley Ranch, you know, or Penn Station. And so not all neighborhoods, particularly to native. You know, it sounds like is one of those neighborhoods that has never had a neighborhood plan. Not this part, obviously, but the totality of things like has never had as a statistical neighbor, has never had a neighborhood plan yet is consistently graded as not needing plans, in part because of the way it's established and it's existing. So, you know, how will staff how is staff intending to review make that judgment call on whether a five acre LDR requirement is is. And, you know, that's sort of arbitrary given the nature of the sort of development, the scale of development here versus other parts of the city. Is this a one size fits all or were you is there something here that you would recognize that this is, in fact, a large development? So the LDR review process is criteria to determine whether or not it should be subject to that process that goes beyond the five acre minimum. So the additional criteria will be used by staff to evaluate that. I can't speak to. Well, to date I haven't heard anything about granularity establishment. I mean, the length of the established neighborhood, you know, the size of existing roadways in exist, you know, the existing infrastructure fabric. So that those are all points that I'm happy to share with my colleagues who are working on that project. Okay. Thank you. And then did you were you able to verify what the height, the number of stories were recommended for the general urban hot medium to high residential or. So I actually do believe that that map that was included in the presentation and staff report might be an error. And when I look at the original blueprint PDF that was adopted, when I'm reviewing that, it comes up as residential, low, medium, which is the lowest residential intensity for the general urban context, which talks about a variety of building forms, up to three stories in height. But that's something that I would certainly like to follow up with you on to ensure that our maps are in alignment with our adopted plans. Yeah, and that's crucial because that's why I asked that question, because it did seem to be in error. But that really that really, really creates a stressor for me if staff is telling me that it's high, medium or medium high and what that means for that neighborhood. And now I don't know. And thoroughly not clear. And then why? T u c not esa in the tail? Because, you know, one of my concerns and I brought this up at Ludi is this is an area that has experienced unprecedented gentrification and displacement of minority families. And those are modest homes. There's five single family units, one, two duplex and one tri or quad. And so we have now blanketed all seven parcels with two unit development rights. Right now in this area, a two unit development, you know, those houses will have their their their days numbered. If we put to unit rezoning, I mean, zone mean development entitlement on those. And so that contributes to the same gentrification and displacement problems that have been mentioned time and time again. Why not go askew and then allow the nonconforming number of units allow those parcels that have multiple units, build multiple units in the Urban House for the way we have in other areas. Why would we create deliberately the situation where this would now get, you know, be vulnerable to demolition and replacement? Because that seems more inconsistent with our sustainability statement that Paul Cashman just mentioned earlier. So the subject property IDs that you're referencing that are located south of 16th Avenue have had a history of R2 zoning. So even prior to the city number eight, they were zoned R two, which generally was converted through the update of the Denver zoning code into two unit zoning. If we then jump over to are going the wrong way. My apologies. Our existing zoning map, as you can see to the left, there's a significant portion of the area that is zoned UTC and that was done in 2010 as part of the citywide rezoning and found to be the best comparable zoned district to the existing entitlement of R2 on the ground. I think it's also important to note that while this is being proposed to be rezoning to you two, you see there is nothing stopping the property from being re zoned in the future to a single unit use or to a higher intensity use. But that is application zoned district requested today and we have evaluated it and found it to be consistent with the applicable review criteria. I think that the strategies that you were talking about of retaining existing homes and deed restricting them and allowing multiple units is not a tool that we have currently as a standard zoned district, and that would require an additional pivot and something that we would be potentially isolating out these specific properties as opposed to taking a more holistic approach and building that into the base of our zoning code. You know, the holistic approach was taken in 2010 and if you go to the GM, you three area over there, you see how how comprehensive that idea was in creating a very walkable, livable and easy to. You know, drive neighborhoods. I mean, I think we've heard it time and time again today. So thank you. Are you all done? Council announcement. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is closed. We're going to move on to comments. I will ask council members that the hour is late and we got a lot of people sitting in these seats for a long time. Thank you for sticking with us. So if you could keep your comments concise and attempt to stay under the 5 minutes per person, that would be much appreciated. Are there any comments from members of Council on this issue? Councilman Ortega. I would like to just thank Chad. Mellanox, I think, is how we pronounce his name. I don't know if he's still here for his comments in just acknowledging the impact that some of the development that has occurred in this neighborhood and particularly along that 17th Avenue corridor has had in creating the effect of gentrification and displacement to so many of the families that are in the schools that you talked about earlier. And I would just strongly encourage that. As you, you know, assuming the votes are here tonight, that as you move forward and look to identify who will be in those affordable units, that the schools be part of the outreach, because that's where the families are that are being so much affected by what is happening already in the neighborhood. I just want to say, I think the the discussion tonight has been very healthy and is important to ensure that the issues have been addressed in terms of, you know, ensuring that we've got the affordability on the project, the the agreement that you have. I know there isn't somebody that it's been signed with to ensure the enforcement and the applicability of it. But David, I know you've done many projects around the city, and I know when you say you're going to do something, you follow through with that. And I think that's important to not just this neighborhood, but any of the neighborhoods that you have worked within. The fact that this is along a TOD corridor is important for folks that will be encouraged to use other other modes of transportation. But overall, I know the scale is concerning for the community, but in general, I think this is going to be a good project that really does ensure that we have more affordable housing in this city. We cannot build housing fast enough in the city. It takes time to get your low income tax credits. I'm on the board of a nonprofit housing group and I know how long it takes. And oftentimes it's multiple cycles before you actually get your project funded. And so I think the commitment that's being made that is beyond above and beyond what the normal, you know, ask is shows, I think, a genuine commitment on your part to help. Be part of the solution. And if we had more developers committing to be part of the solution and addressing the affordability of our housing crisis, then we'd we wouldn't see so many families having to leave our city. And again, you know, this is happening where folks are having to move so far away. And in some cases, they're still trying to keep their kids in the same school and move back and forth, which exacerbates the traffic on the roads. But in general, I think this is a great project and would just encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. This is a bizarre night if you've been here for the whole night. I started on a comment, you know, on a rezoning, and I talked about three projects around Jefferson Park. David actually developed two of those projects and that was then weird or because so this is part of the weirdness is then we did the River Drive Landmark District and two of those projects, one he did and one he didn't do bring that landmark district. And now here we are talking about a David Zucker rezoning. So it's just interesting how my past life as just a community activist and Jefferson Park is sort of touched into reached into the work that I'm doing, all the work that I'm doing tonight. Anyway, we had this price point of housing in this neighborhood, but policies prioritizing density over quality of life have displaced these affordable those affordable units and distressed the roadways that you heard about and the park infrastructure, because we didn't do any improvements on the roads or the sidewalks or the park. Well, we increased the number of housing units and these displaced all of the embodied energy in and affordable, modest homes that were destroyed in the process. Apparently, the solution to those near-sighted regulations is now subsidizing the replacement of lost units with even more and higher value market. Higher value market rate units that still do nothing to improve the quality of life or further and further stress that right away that we just were talking about and the park infrastructure which isn't getting any more subsidy I getting any more improvement just because and then adds the pressure only adds pressure to those remaining modest homes that are still in the neighborhood to turn into the next market rate project because it's used by right without any requirement other than the meager leak and fee linkage fee which only perpetuates the problem. Three years of Denver. Right. And still there is no comprehensive strategy to what how to address what is only justification of more predatory development capitalizing on what was so the that is me talking in general about what I heard tonight you know, which is, you know, the Yimby crowd saying, no, this density is the solution. Well, density created the problem. You know, this was a affordable neighborhood. This was a viable place for generations. People never had a hard time finding housing in Salt Lake. You heard about the empty units. But somehow, you know, gentrifying it and making it so everyone. Neal, no one can can live there unless they have an income that can afford a $400,000 minimum mortgage. Is is an improvement. There has to be a way to do both. To have it both ways. You need to solve your problems in situ. You don't export them to other surrounding municipalities. Our policies are failing. And half. For ten years, we've we didn't get this right before and we're still not getting it right now. That said, this is how I propose that we do that. Right? Customized zoning, zoning that addresses as many of those things as we possibly can. Rather than create use by rights situations that don't dictate outcomes. So you have now a customized zoning that stair steps this development down and transitions it into the neighborhood in ways that Amex eight which would have been allowed and been justifiable and all the all the plans that we have would have had zero lot line and 810 stories at the property line. And that would have been perfectly fine. And we have seen that fail time and time again. So the idea that we would do customized zoning so that we get outcomes and we negotiate development agreements so that we get affordability, we start to hit some of those checkboxes. I agree that there is still huge question marks on right of way improvement and impact of parks, but I'm actually sort of not worried about it. Right, because the park self-regulate. It has been a regional, regional park for as long as we know. Right. It used to have an amusement park on the island. It used to have water ski shows. It used to be I used to have another amusement park on the other side. People will go there until they aren't comfortable or happy going there. They will love it to death. Councilman Espinosa, you have been gone for over 5 minutes. I'll just ask you to begin to wrap up, if you can. Sorry. That said, I have concerns about the mass and scale, particularly on the east side, where we're sort of blindly saying that the age story wall is going to take care of itself. No. We're granting this entitlement for the entire party. As written, CMC's eight. And I have those questions about that to you. So I am firmly in the I don't know where I'm going with this right now. I'm sorry. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will try and talk fast. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late. We appreciate your passion for your neighborhood. And on, please. Thank you for the great staff report. You are always so knowledgeable and answer our questions so authoritatively. I am going to support this because it meets the criteria and it's consistent with adopted plans. Couple of comments. I am a Denver native and I remember in 1991, Denver's population was at a very low point. Since then, our population has grown by 2 million people, our metro area population by 2 million people. So we want to talk about why traffic is bad. That is why traffic is bad. And most of us still drive cars. As many of us mentioned and many of us drive our cars by ourselves. I drove my car here tonight by himself, which means we're all part of that problem with all those new people. We are having a housing crisis and I think we all agree that we need thousands of units here in Denver, especially affordable units. Neighbors, I hear your concerns. And as is typical in a rezoning like this, traffic is the number one concern. But traffic is not part of the criteria, nor is traffic a vision element in the comp plan or blueprint. Denver But affordable housing is a vision element, and the only housing strategy we have to combat traffic and minimize the impacts on infrastructure and climate in a time of rapid population growth is density. And to quote Daniel Gonzales, if he's still here, density is not a dirty word. I thought that was pretty funny. But sprawl is a dirty word because sprawl increases traffic, it burdens our infrastructure and it is much worse for the climate. And so. Adam Nesteroff If you're still here, I could have just read what he said because he is so eloquent in this argument. But all of those people who live up the Boulder Turnpike and they drive their cars into Denver today, they're polluting, they're worsening our air quality. They're using infrastructure. We have to build roads that is bad for our city, that is bad for the whole metro area. Density is the way that Denver can achieve its housing needs, increasing supply in a responsible way so that our fellow residents can be housed. This project isn't using any city funds, which frees up our city funds for other affordable housing developers. So where we will get more housing. Additionally, this project is supported by affordable housing advocates. Many were here tonight. We also received letters and emails from some. So I vote for this project. In addition to it, meeting the criteria is a vote for affordable housing for our city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Listening to everyone who spoke tonight, thank you for for staying and being here and the development team and CPD folks as well. The one comment that struck me the most was by Evan Darby, the 20 year old student who said, we can't wait, we need more housing, not parking spaces. And, you know, traffic parking changes to a neighborhood are very important considerations. But looking at all five of the review criteria that we have to make our decisions on this project, in my opinion, has met them and exceeded some of them for for this neighborhood, but then also for the folks that are struggling to stay in this neighborhood. And, you know, a lot of people throughout the word gentrification. But I didn't hear the concern of the neighbors necessarily around how we are going to address keeping, especially folks who, you know, are categorized at a certain am I level or communities of color. How we're going to actually keep them within our city and in all of our neighborhoods, not just specific neighborhoods. I didn't hear any pushback on we need this affordable housing because we need to support the people in our neighborhood who are at risk of involuntary displacement. I heard a lot of we don't want this because of traffic and parking limitations and the hype, but this project hit so many checkmarks for me. We're going to mitigate the negative effects of climate change through sustainability, energy conservation, improving air quality. A little more than 50% of the units are going to be affordable with no city subsidy. Thank you for doing that, because that allows those funds to go to other neighborhoods who maybe don't have a developer who is willing or can make a deal. Pencil This area is three miles from downtown with a focus on multi mobility and transit. That's what we need to do as a city. Successful families and individuals have a right to stable housing. That includes individuals at the 40, 50 and 60% AMI level. It's going to have resources. It's going to have amenities. It's a high opportunity community that folks would love to be part of. Right next to a regional park. And so with that, President Clark, I will wrap up and I will be happy to support this rezoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Neal. Thank you. And this is a real difficult topic. I tell you, this is the crux of the matter that all our neighborhoods are facing. You know, here's density. Here's a need for affordable housing. What are we going to do to provide additional housing for residents in the future? It's a big, big concern. And we got all the best players sit in the room. I couldn't think of a better, affordable housing or developer than David Zucker sitting here helping us trying to solve this affordable housing issue. I can't think of a better guy and Larry Ambrose and all the resources here trying to defend their neighborhoods as well, making sure that they grow and develop and maintain neighborhood character. I hear neighborhood character often in all the planning processes we do, and I understand that this financial arrangement is so advantageous, is the right way to do it. So the city then to put money in to it. So David's. Really doing. This totally the carrying the load on this project. So. So it's a real concern to neighborhoods. I've got several of my neighborhoods that are pursuing overlays now just because they're concerned about this over densification. So it's a big, big issue we've got to address. Maybe it's not an issue we need to address tonight, obviously, but it affects this decision tonight. So so I appreciate all of the people who've come and testified, all the research and information you presented. And it's going to be very interesting to see how we come up tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll I'll start by saying, as I look at the the criteria where we're qualified to address, it appears to. Me this may meet that. But what I want to talk about is the reality of projects like this, because I have one exactly like this in my district, and it's easy to minimize the impact of of the traffic that that this will generate. Okay. I understand that density is a value. I agree with that. I certainly agree that affordable housing is a value. And this is, I think, an exceptional project to have 50% in the in the depths of 40 and 50% affordability as it has. But we can't, as a city, ignore our responsibility to deal with today, to deal with how do we keep traffic moving. And for the for the two years that my project has been in process, you know, I have continued to to lobby this tale with Denver Public Works that we can't just shrug our shoulders. We need to be creative. We need to stop talking about some day we're going to craft a more robust transit system in our community. We need it today. We don't need we don't need it, you know, 30 years from now, when when the whole whole system has has rearranged itself. So this is me saying, however, this turns out tonight that our our our public works department, you know, it's a big job. And I'm not pointing at them, but I am saying that's the department that is responsible for taking care of these issues and to start using more tools to calm our traffic and to move it better . And whether it's a shuttle or whether it's the the the agreements that Councilwoman Sussman has been fighting for for years with companies like Lift and Bridge, who was the first company I believe she talked to a few years ago. It's time now. You know, there's so much going on in this city that it's time now. And this is one of those things. So I just wanted to ring that bell one time. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I've been a strong advocate for affordability, as folks know, and for increasing our housing supply, and particularly projects that are close to transportation corridors, because the cost of transportation can be almost 30% of the expenses that a person of an area median income has. And of course, even more for somebody with an income of less than an area median income. So the idea of putting affordable housing in this sort of location when there is so much transportation available, actually does double duty for the audience with which it hopes to help. And the high cost of housing doesn't necessarily come around because of zoning. It comes around because of supply and demand and wage gaps and all the other things that go into it. Now, it might come about when you have lots of zoning for single family homes because they take up more space and they are more expensive, that that kind of zoning may have the effect of increasing the cost of housing. But in my in the literature, it's not generally dense zoning that is the major culprit to the high cost of housing. And I have been I've been looking a lot at the Ninth and Colorado Project because it, too, is a hospital and a school , although it was 26 acres and not as small as this. But it is interesting how when the when the project got more described and they did do the traffic studies, they found that when the hospital was there as this could be, it could be a hospital, the number of cars, trips a day were 30. Thousand a day, folks. Kind of forget about that when the University of Colorado was there. They have put in 1200 living units on that project and then an extra 112 affordable. I wish there were more and lots of retail all over that place. And the traffic studies show that it's going to produce 15,000 cars a day. It's going to be half the number. Of traffic. Cars than the hospital itself produced. And that's because it's also on a transportation corridor and has lots of options on Colorado Boulevard. I know that pretends to be a transportation corridor sometimes, but it's certainly on Colfax with that the kinds of amenities that this particular project will enjoy. So I am very pleased with the with what I've heard tonight about what this project is going to provide for affordable housing and for just general neighborhood interest and and amenities for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I was very interested to hear the remarks of council members Espinosa and Cashman, particularly Councilwoman Espinosa, regarding what we've been looking for, for at least for our term here, our first term. And that was more customized zoning, more prescriptive zoning. I know a lot of us have been well, some of us have been pretty displeased with granting entitlements for things that we had no clue what was going to happen afterward. And and I found myself persuaded by Councilman Espinosa's remarks, actually. But I do have to note that where we have added density, we've done the opposite of what we think our goal is. We've created unaffordability, the slums like area. Just looking here, in fact, looking at Larry's house, do you know what that's worth? You know what you could get for that now? It's crazy. It's totally unaffordable. It's not because it's a single family house. It's because the land you're sitting on has been made more valuable. Too valuable to keep your house on. Because of the density we've added. The density we've added in five points has made that now I think it's 70% white households. So adding density has not really created affordability. It's done the opposite. I represent a district that in which most of my residents, most of my families in my single family homes, which is about 60% of my housing units, are families of color, and they're still in an affordable situation. So I am concerned about the addition of density, but I am persuaded by the fact that this is a customized zone and drawn to such an extent that and with assuming we will adopt the LDR process in two weeks, that it will result in a robust engagement with with the community and try to refine the project. So I will vote in favor of this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kennedy. Thanks, Mr. President. Many of my comments were covered, but I felt like I just wanted to kind of respond because I feel like we're we're having exactly the debate we should have after hearing the testimony we heard. So thank you to those who came and also the same debate we should be having after the adoption of these plans and after a rigorous election cycle where this growth question was such a topic. And so I mentioned earlier in my comments about the historic designation that I think that it's about pairing things right. So for me, it's about both doing historic preservation in areas that meet those criteria and preserving the quality and character of historic buildings while also adding density on parking lots. Right? So I've mentioned River Mile is on a parking lot and I forget what the last rezoning we did that was on a parking lot, the Mile High Stadium, right where there was a plan adoption. But I, you know, adding density on parking lots is the right place to do it. And then you preserve, you know, historic areas for those places. And then that's my humble formula for trying to navigate this stuff. But I want to just say a word about this question of density densities like fire. Fire can warm your. House. Or it can burn it down. It's all about how you use it in densities, neither good nor evil. It's a tool. And we frankly had no accountability in place for density to ensure equity. Right. So that's the missing piece. So when you look at the generation of growth that happened, you know, maybe in the you know, ten years ago, we had maybe one plan. You know, there was maybe one or three. Dimensions of affordable housing and blueprint, and that was it. And, you know, community groups like Mine Hunger has an in organize like hack over two or three development areas that we had the capacity to, you know, advocate for equity. Meanwhile, 70% of the development going around was happening with zero accountability, particularly on the rental side, because we didn't have any policy in place on the rental side , we only had it on the for sale side. So I, in my opinion, is not the density that has caused a lack of affordability. And, you know, we can talk about economists for a long time, but it's the shortage of supply that causes, you know, a crunch for housing on the middle income side. Right. So when you don't have enough supply, you have a crunch. That's a lack of density or lack of quantity of units that affects middle income folks. And it's a lack of policy that limited our ability to ensure moderate and low income families could live there. Because the only way you the market will never deliver units that cost more to build than you can charge the market will never do that. Density will never do that unless you have a policy to go with it. In this case, you know, the linkage fee, this was not just out of the goodness of our developer's heart. There was a policy in place where they would have spent a lot of money and they're doing more than they would have and they're maybe getting more density than they would have. And all of that is part of having a pairing of density with accountability. Now, where we need to go next is one step further. And I appreciate Councilwoman Gilmore's comments that affordability alone does not prevent displacement. So what is the affirmative marketing of the units? Right? Will we get our resident preference policy done before the end of the year? I sure hope so. Where is it that we go with others? With the tools where you do have a plan for what I call the ripples? Right. So if this location is the where the rock hits the water, then the question that neighbors raised about what are the ripples around it that's relevant and we need more tools for those ripples, too. And that's where, you know, we talk about land trust and we talk about, you know, other types of methods. So so we we've got this first little piece in place. We need to get a much you know, the next step in the large development review is getting the housing policy piece. I hope it looks a lot like what we did at River Mile, which is if you're doing a large development, you have to negotiate a plan with us and it can be a little different depending on which your community needs. But I think it's all about how we pair these three things together preservation of historic areas, growth on parking lots and major thoroughfares and transit stops and all the places the plans say. And then pairing that density with accountability and equity every time. Right. And that means higher negotiations for above and beyond just the linkage fee or the, you know, the standard requirement. So so I feel like this thing we've talked about tonight and the things my colleagues have said, if you add it up together, that is the formula . And it's not pretty and easy, but we will just have to keep pushing for those further ripples. And, you know, just to add to the record, I think the criteria were met tonight and I will be supporting this. I hope you continue conversation about how to get to the ripples and with the resident preference and talking about affirmative marketing and the other ways your units aren't just affordable but help to fight displacement thinks. Thank you councilwoman can each councilman Herndon. Thinks that it is almost 11:00 and my comments will be done before I hit 11. I promise. I want to echo Councilwoman, can you just comment because with density, if you you add density but it doesn't keep up with the supply. It's not going to is not going to help affordability. And so that has been our challenge for a very long time. And for us to sit here, I don't find it productive now to continue to place blame. I think it's time for us to find solutions. I think this criteria has been met because that's what were your judgment on? I think this proposed development is one of those solutions. And so but I understand the the concern from the community members. And I want you to know that I hear that and I wrote down each person's name and how they wrote, and I hear that. But for us to solve our challenges with growth, each of our communities needs to evolve. And so I think this is a great direction moving forward. And I believe that you have a partner who's willing to work with the neighbors to address those concerns as best as they can. And I we recognize we're not going to make everybody happy, but I believe that this is a solution we need to move forward with. And so this is why why I believe the criteria had been met. But I also think it's a good project moving forward. And Annaliese, I want to say thank you always for your professionalism, because at times you don't get it from these from the dias and that's unfortunate. So to the staff and to the people, thank you for that. And I'll be supporting that. And it's not quite a. LEMON Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilwoman. Herndon All right. I see no other comments. I will I will end. So you just have me left and then you're out of here. First of all, thank you for coming down here. Thank you for sharing your. Or opinion, your viewpoint for being part of the dialog and doing it in such a respectful way, even though it is an area that, you know, so many people in here are very passionate about, it affects you right where you live. So thank you for that. Thank you staff for all of the work on this, getting this to us. A couple just quick comments I wanted to point out and I think Councilman is really grabbed on to it, you know, in in a different way. But what Councilman Flynn was starting to talk about about density doesn't mean affordability. And look at a single family home neighborhood. I think there are there are bigger things. And Councilman, can you just touch a little bit on that at play? Because that's not true. Everywhere on the block that I grew up on that my parents will celebrate 50 years living in that home. This year they bought a house in what was a fairly affordable blue collar neighborhood for $10,500. That has seen no density increases. That still has very low density, single family zoning. And this year I didn't follow what they actually sold for. There were two single family homes on their block that sold for 2.1 and $2.3 million. And so that isn't that that I just want to caution, you know, that what may have happened in some of the single family home neighborhoods in Councilman Flynn's district, that's not in my district. I grew up in Councilman Cashman's district, but it is not necessarily the case unilaterally that in places where we haven't seen density, oh, we still have affordability. I think that we've seen a lot of that and I think there's a lot at play and I think this has been a really good discussion and look at what is at play and what are the tools that can come forward that can lead to a guarantee and a promise of affordability. As we look at grappling with all of these things, I also just want to reiterate what Councilman Cashman had spoke to during the questions part about this language that is in our are our big guiding documents about the environment. And while not specifically something that we have had much time to grapple with and deal with, I think it's so critical to really be familiar with this language. You know, as we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. And I will say, beyond the zoning piece, one of the things that I heard that concerns me is that we and I am not blaming you guys, I think it's all of us, whether we're developers or we're citizens, haven't done enough changing of our mindset on what it's really going to take to to live those words. And so talking about, hey, we're putting gas stoves in some units and electric and others because it's an amenity that it shouldn't be. It can't be. We are our planet is dying and it's going to die if we make choices on units that will last for at least 30 years. If we're building infrastructure that doesn't allow us as the grid gets cleaner and the grid gets moves towards renewable energy, if it's still all I have in my kitchen is a gas pipe that's still dirty energy. And how do we move away from thinking about what is the amenity set and how do we really that commitment must be our overarching guide. And so my challenge to you is not just in rezoning but in building to take this language with you and remember that this is part of the criteria upon which the zoning, if it is approved tonight, enables development. And looking beyond that to how do we make sure that we are building the infrastructure for electrification because we can get the grid to 70, 80, 90% renewable energy if we're still using gas to heat, if we're still using gas to cook, and if we're still using gas to drive, then our planet is literally still cooked. And so I would just take that as a challenge to anyone who's coming here and doing development, especially enabled by a rezoning under this, that I think that's part of your challenge that we can't measure tonight, but that the burden lays on you to remember that that commitment must be our overarching guide. That being said, I do think that the criteria have been met here today as articulated by a lot of my colleagues, and so I will be voting to support this. And again, thank you all for your passion and your commitment and for being here. And so with that councilmember, just a reminder, since committee planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes, instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of counsel are required to pass this bill this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 401. Black eye. Espinosa. I. When I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Can eat. I knew. No. Ortega I. Assessment I. Madam Secretary, please close voting to announce the results. Somebody hasn't there, you know? We missing somebody? Very. Yeah. You have ten eyes, one name. Ten eyes. One day counsel go 401 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to issue and administer a new Right-of-Entry Permit to Conservation Corps of Long Beach, a nonprofit 501c3, for the construction for an Environmental Stewardship Center, for a period of two years, from September 1, 2020 through August 30, 2022, with the option to renew for one year; and, the approval of an Environmental Stewardship Center for public recreation at DeForest Park, which meets a recreational need within the City. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_10202020_20-1041

I am 13 years. You didn't hear me come into the stadium. No no comments on the rest of these as we are collecting please media. I am please. Report from Parks Recreation Marine Recommendation to execute a new right of entry permit to Conservation Corps of Long Beach for the construction of an Environmental Stewardship Center. District nine. For any public comment. There is no public comment on this item. What you're saying, do you have any? No, sir. I just move the item. Would you please call for the vote? It was the second year on the item. Vice Mayor. 87 of our building. Thank you. District one. I'm District two and district three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. By District seven. District nine. By. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE related to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Seattle to serve as an operating agreement between Seattle Public Utilities and the Port of Seattle Drainage Utility including code modifications to exclude all Port-owned properties from the requirement to pay City stormwater and drainage fees; terminating the 1997 stormwater credit from the City to the Port; accepting a settlement payment from the Port of Seattle; containing details related to ownership and maintenance of infrastructure, authorities and responsibilities, system interconnections, access, coordination and dispute resolution; amending Section 21.33.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118774

Thank you. The bill passed and chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item and please read the short title. Agenda Item 12 Constable 118774 relayed to Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends Civil Pass. Councilmember Verbal. Thank you. This ordinance authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Port of Seattle in order to establish operational coordination and expectations regarding stormwater or drainage utility operations. In January of 2015, the port established a storm water utility in order to serve port owned land within city limits. Prior to that, the port was spruce, second largest storm water customer, representing about 4 million or 4.2% of total storm water utility revenue. Rates for 2015 were already set, assuming the port would continue to be an SPU customer during discussions with the city about the timing of the port's departure as a customer, the city and the port agreed on a settlement payment of about $3.9 million paid by the port to the city, reflecting anticipated port drainage fee revenue for 2015. The port's 100,000 annual credit from SPU for in-kind services is documented in the 1997 city port. L.A. is terminated as part of this new Ilay Interlocal agreement, and drainage rates for 2016 2018 were set excluding the port from future revenue projections. Thank you. Concerned for all. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Herbold. Hi. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Hi. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed in was sign that agenda. Item number 13.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB LB18-123 and award a contract to GSSi, Inc., dba General Security Service, of Wilmington, CA, for providing security guard services, in an annual amount of $909,000, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $90,900, for a total annual amount not to exceed $999,900, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, 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. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02192019_18-1074

Thank you very much. That concludes public comment. Let me move on. I believe we're going to item 20, please. Item 20 Report from Financial Management Recommended Contract to General Security Service for providing security guard services for a total annual amount not to exceed 999,900 CDI. Thank you. Short staff report, please. Guess we have a staff report by Terry Yates. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor and members of city council. Before you tonight is a request to award a contract to GSA Inc for citywide security guard services for a total annual amount of $999,900 for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one year periods. The Department of Financial Management's purchasing division facilitated an open and competitive procurement process to select the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to provide for these services throughout the city at its designated facilities. The bid was released in August and 50 potential bidders downloaded with six responses received in October. A provide for the continued for the continuation of these historically contracted services utilized by the Departments of Economic Development, Health and Human Services, Library Services, Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works to ensure safety and security of property and buildings along with their visitors and the staff. GSA is the incumbent, and the approval of this recommendation will provide continued support to our local economy by assisting in the preservation of employment for 37 GSA employees residing. In Long Beach. Staff recommends approval of this item in this concludes my staff report. Thank you. Vice Managers. If anything, Councilman Austin, any public comment? Seeing none councilmember appears. I just wanted to ask about the meet and confer process with this item. Are you? We'll have Alex Berkowitz talk to that, please. So. Good evening, mayor and council members just by way of an update. This item was scheduled in December and at the request of I am, this item was postponed. We did engage and we did meet with I am regarding this item. However, we did not reach an agreement. They contend that this particular contract involves contracting out their bargaining unit work. But that's where we disagree. We've we reviewed this item and and we found that this particular work has never been assigned to IAM. And so it doesn't involve contracting out their bargaining unit work. Please cast your votes. Councilman Gonzales. All right, can I just get. I'm a little. Confused by this as well. So what? Can you give a little bit of a scope of work on. I know it's security guard services, but where what how kind of a little bit more detail on on this. There are services provided at city facilities across throughout the city, including the health department facilities, libraries when they're open also for parks, recreation and Marine, there are specific requirements for security guards to be provided at events. Those are similar of those, you know, an example of some of the duties. Okay. Well, I. I don't know that I feel so comfortable at city facilities. It does feel like we're contracting out these services to non city employees. So for that reason, unless. Is there additional information, Pat, you. Yes. Just that this has historically been done. We've never utilized. I am. Or our employees. This this is historically been a company like this providing this facility for how long? Since 2006. So for about 12 years. Let me can I ask you, how many how many are in this? How many how many folks are we employing through this contracting service? Do we have that number? There's 37 that reside in Long Beach, but there are there are more that are provided. 37 companies are 37. Individuals, 37 individuals who are employed by GSA that we're aware of that reside in. Long Beach. But I don't have these. When I just wondering how many individuals. So, you know, and I may have I may have missed this, but did this so this did this come before the council in December? I'm trying to remember it came for the council. And then I believe the council didn't accept the analysis to work on this some additional. Is that right. The council passes the I am spoke and asked if they could take a peek at this. The council said talk to I am so we did we met with I am and basically this was not something in their purview because it's not a function that they've had in the past. And just, you know, and I, I don't know enough about this issue to, you know, make a good assessment of of on that. But doesn't mean that when these when these opportunities come up, it doesn't mean that the job couldn't be done better by city employees or by people that are represented. And I'm not saying that that's in this case, you know, financially feasible for us or I have no idea what what how these companies get paid. But I just want to make sure when these contracts are in front of us, that we're the the issue is not just about whether or not. I represent a group has done the job in the past, but whether a representative should do the job or should not do the job, I don't know the answer to that question, but I just want to make sure that that's something that we're discussing as part of our deliberations. And so I'm I'm supportive if we have some more conversations about this, but I want to hear from the rest of the council. Councilman Ringa. Yeah this that you comes from Gonzales to bring this up and especially this issue because from what I understand, this brings up a prop owl issue or study, if it's not mistaken, especially if there is some concerns regarding city employees being able to do the job, not only in terms of being able to, because whether historically or not they've been able to do this, but also being able to submit a proposal or be able to compete in a contract for that. So I think that I would probably I can't support this tonight. I would I would push this. We've got to do a proper study on this in order to ensure that we're well on the right track. Councilmember You're correct. And in 2005, when this was done, we there was a properly study study done that was approved by the council at that time, and it has been continuously contracted out since that date. So you are correct that this type of work would require that and there was the meet and confer also. Well, I think that at this point we need to revisit that and do it again. What you said the proposal was done in 2000. What? 525 when this was originally contracted out, beginning in 2006. So almost was about 14 years ago. Okay, Councilman Roston. Thank you. So I think this this this begs this issue begs to a process. We we we have a profile consideration for when we contract out. But I don't think we have a process for for in-sourcing work. And so, you know, that might be an agenda item for later. That might be an opportunity for us to to look at our processes in the work with our city employees groups to give them an opportunity to to in-source work. When we do have contracts coming up for for approval to lease, give them an opportunity to to to put forth a proposal to to to to look at the the cost analysis and to give the council an opportunity to make a prudent decision. I mean, in my opinion, it's best when you can control your your you control your own destiny. When you control your your your employees and can direct your employees. And employees are oftentimes better when they have a stake in the process, direct stake and process. And so I understand the the the intent the questions that have been raised here. You know, this this this has a this is a this. The past practice has been to to utilize this firm for for for contracted services. But it doesn't have to be that for the future. And I don't know if I necessarily needed to draw the line this evening, but moving forward, I think we need a process in place that will at least. You know, help us. Make decisions that are that that are in the interest of, you know, the city and our employees as well. I think Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I wanted to you know, I want to highlight how much work we're doing with H.R. and how much work we're doing with our employees, and that it really is important for us if we have the capacity to have employees that can do it better than somebody that's been outsources, we absolutely should revisit that. What does it take to do another properly study it? A It would just depend on our working with the union. It could be something as simple as 90 days or something. It could take up to a year. We should do it. Can I also add the count point I would support? It's been 1415 years since the last time we looked at this. I would support doing it again. If we. If I could let me, Mr. West. But I would also say I just want to make sure that if we move forward, that we're not in any way, of course, stopping the work that is continuing and ongoing. So I would ask the Council that if, as we look at proposal, that we give staff the flexibility to continue working with our current operator so that they can continue to do the work. And and then, of course, we can make a decision for a for a full contract or not. Once we conclude the properly so. So speaking to that point, Mr. Mayor, that is one of the key issues here, is that we are basically out of money for these existing services. These are services that exist today. And so we would need some type of direction either to suspend those services and not to provide the security guards or to do some type of interim six months, nine months while we do this review. So we would ask for some action tonight, otherwise it would be impacting current services of security services. Councilor. If we could do six months. And have you guys do the proper study and then come back in six months for us and. We'll come back in six months, will initiate the proper study. We'll come back in six months and let you know where we are and also the length of time it takes to hire us. So, okay. So I just want to be clear because the item reads for a two year period and so that we're coming back in. And so we would advise this to give authorization for six months and then we'll revisit. And if at that point we still need additional time, we would ask for a short contract extension to get us through that time. Thank you very much, staff, for working with us. Appreciate it. Is there any public comment on this saying nonmembers, please cast your votes? Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. I believe that was the last item. Right. Is there another item? I'm sorry. I don't have those on here for whatever reason, so I apologize. Madam Court, can you read those items, please?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3325 Denargo Street. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones 3325 Denargo Street from I-B, UO-2 (Industrial 4,500 sq. ft., Use Overlay) to PUD #G12 in Council District 9. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.

DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1080

We're going to wait for technology to catch up so you get a move and a second. Thank you. Public hearing on ten eight is now open. May we have the staff report? Thank you. Council President. Good evening, members of council. I'm Steve Daly with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at 3325, ten Argo Street. It's located in northwest Denver and Judy Montero's Council District nine, located in the Five Points statistical neighborhood, better known as River North or Reno. Getting down to the site is located along Tin Argo Street borders, the South Platte River, and it is across the street from the Navajo Market GDP area. The subject site is four acres. There's a warehouse structure on the site, but it is not in use. There's a single owner, Project BRINER. So Project Rhino LLC and the ownership group is represented by Bob Golic. Bob can be here tonight, but the development group is here and they are working group is here and can answer questions. And I believe a signed up to speak at the request is to rezone from I b you oh two. And that means it stands for heavy industrial or industrial general. It's C one of the heaviest is the heaviest industrial zone district in the zoning code. And then you go to allows for billboards. Thank you. The request is to rezone to APD G 12, which I have a lot of letters and numbers there, but that means a planned unit development general and it is the 12th update to come forward and a general PD is basically a standard zoned district and in this case the standards in district is C-Max 12 and the purity deviates from these standards within that zone district. The intent of this property is to utilize the urban center neighborhood context uses and building form standards found in C-Max 12. And that's the urban center neighborhood mixed use and about allowing up to 12 stories the deviations from C C 12 to acknowledge the South Platte River. There is not a street in between this property and the river. So we acknowledge that the river, by transitioning, allowed building height, increasing the transparency, altering the build to requirements, and requiring that the ground story of of the any future development facing the key frontage is have an active use. Also the intent is to anticipate planned infrastructure improvements surrounding the subject site, including future open space and a future realignment of ten Argo Street. This is an image of the general market. GDP in the of the yellow area indicates the subject site for rezoning tonight. It is outside of the ten Argo GDP. The areas in close proximity to the subject site is slated in a phase two of that build out of the GDP. It is slated as open space. Some of the standards in the party and you can find the beauty in your packet is to transition the height from the reverse though, so the development will actually step down to the river. Within the high transition zone, up to eight storeys is allowed and then on the remaining portions of the part of the property, 12 storeys would be allowed. Also the PWD calls out primary street zone lot Frontages. The zone districts are kind of built around the streets that the Zone district faces, so a future development has to address the street with an entrance with transparency or windows along the first floor. This would actually calls out the river frontage as a street, and so future development will have to address the street with an entrance. The PD would not allow parking in between the building and the river. Frontage would require a higher level of windows and transparency along the river's edge in addition to the dynaudio edge and would require active uses on those on those first floors facing these street frontages or river frontage. The the beauty controls that by basically drawing a line from any future development towards these zone lot lines or these the river frontage or the Denaro Street frontage. And if if you come that thick line drawn from future development touches one of these frontages, then that ground floor must be active. It cannot be a parking. So the surrounding site, there's IP on properties to the south and to the west of the site. The river, South Platte River is just to the north, along with some city owned property. And then there's Army 30 with waivers and conditions and pads associated with the to narco GDP. The site is industrial. It's surrounded by other industrial uses of vacant land, some commercial uses, and then some new multi-family residential that has been developed in the scenario GDP. This is these are a few images the top images of the site in the foreground with downtown in the background, there's an image of that new multi-family residential. And then the bottom image is looking north towards the river with the site just to the left of the image. So why opposed zone district? The zoning code allows use of zoning in unique and extraordinary circumstances when standard zoning, at least without multiple variances, waivers or condition, won't result in the desired development pattern form use consistent with the adaptive plans. And also when more zoning flexibility or customization is appropriate to get the desired development pattern form and use. So what are the unique and extraordinary circumstances? In this case? It is. The site is directly adjacent to the South Platte River. There are very few sites in the city that do not have a street in between the site and the river. And therefore that is fairly unique and the river is a gem of the city and the powder does build in requirements to address the river. Also there is some phased development and planned open space so associated with the group. So in return for some flexibility built into the PD, the zoning code requires a significant public benefit that's not achievable through application of a standard zoned district and some examples of a public benefit be things such as diversification in the use of land , the innovation in development, exemplary pedestrian connections and amenities and considerations. There are other examples of a public benefit and these are just a few of them. So what are the public benefits conferred by this? PD It would be those exemplary pedestrian connections requiring that ground source use the entrances along the river's edge and along the narrow street . Also additional quality fence and wall design standards. And then there are development patterns compatible with the nearby areas. So height and build to alterations to transition between the river and future plant open space. And then again, there's no parking allowed between the river and future structures. So this case went to a planning board on December 3rd committee on the 10th of December. We're here tonight. All our no's within 200 feet of the subject site were notified. Signs were posted for this public hearing in the public hearing for planning board. There are six review criteria in the code associated with APD. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to the site. The first is complete in 2000. The plan recommends and promotes infill development, designing mixed use communities, calling for more amenities and a variety of compatible uses. Because we're investing in the neighborhoods and creating and promoting those mixed use communities where folks can live, work and play. Blueprint. DMR recommends mixed use area of change and the goals include high intensity development with a sizable employment base as well as housing. The areas of change are called out as areas where a blueprint desires channeling growth and improving access to jobs, housing and services. Donato Street is a residential collector and Brayton Boulevard is a mixed use arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. Identified in Blueprint Denver, the River North Area Plan adopted in 2003 recommends residential mixed use for this property. Donato Markets placement along the South Platte River in proximity to downtown provides an opportunity to create an exciting mixed use area with its own identity. The plan identifies the Donato Market District as an opportunity for intensive, mixed use development oriented to downtown. Donato Market offers the potential for a significant mixed use development with destination commercial uses anchored by housing and benefiting from its relationship to the river corridor and to downtown. Also on page 76 of the plan in the Urban Design section, a goal specific to the John Argo market area calls for developing urban design standards and guidelines for new development. It calls for those guidelines to require facades on parking structures facing public right of way to accommodate pedestrian active uses on the ground level, which is the beauty standards require also requires. The plan calls for requiring appropriate massing scale and building heights for new development with height limits along the South Platte River. And then the plan also encourages street oriented building placement and architectural variation. CVD finds the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Development within this beauty will result in uniformity of district regulations. The district would be the PD district and would further, further public health, safety and welfare associated with adopted plans. The justifying circumstances, the land or its surrounding environments has changed or is changing, and to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. CBD finds. This criterion is met due to the area of change, planned direction and redevelopment occurring in River North consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent. So CMC's 12 the base zone district applies to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets. We're building scale of 312 stories is desired and CBD finds that this criterion is met based on the plan recommendations. Also, additional review criteria for rezoning to PD. The proposed scale and timing of the development project demands more customized zoning approach to achieve a successful phase development to anticipate the realignment of Donato Street and to address future open space along the South Platte River. A custom zoning approach is needed. The General PD complies with all standards and criteria stated in Division 9.6. The beauty district is necessary because there is no zoned district available in the zoning code that requires grounds, ground reactivation, activation along planned open space or the South Platte River. It only applies to existing streets. The General PD district utilizes the same x 12 building forms and uses to ensure land uses, height siting and ground spray activation are compatible with surrounding properties. And the General PD district utilizes modified building forms and standards to achieve the vision establishing adopted plans. Last slide CPD recommends approval based on training. All review criteria have been met. Thank you. We have six speakers for this public hearing. I'm going to say all six names and you can come up to the front pew. Sean Maley, Dana Crawford, Bill Parkhill, Bill Moore, Justin Cross and Mr. Sekou. So those six can start to make their way up here. And Sean, you can begin your comments when you're ready. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Madam Members of Council. Sean Maley, 1625 Broadway. Denver. 802 I'm here representing the owner and development team. As Steve noted in his staff report, this is an industrial zone site up near the market. There are a number of changing conditions that are leading to the request to rezone Blueprint Denver and the River North Plan both identify this site as a mixed use area of change. The River North Plan also goes on to say that the residential uses will be predominantly located along the river. So this rezoning is to accommodate for a residential. Mixed use project that will truly embrace the river. As Steve discussed in the staff report, the reason we're seeking a pudi, which largely resembles x 12 is such that we can agree to treat the river like a primary street. And with that comes ground story activation, transparency and other requirements. Additionally, we're seeking flexibility from the build to requirements such that we can design and responsibly integrate this project with the river and the surrounding parks and open space. We filed the application originally on July 7th, 2014, and at that time it should be noted that it was 420 storeys in height. We had a number of dialogs with the surrounding neighborhood groups, but it's fair to say that the real back and forth didn't start until a few weeks leading up before planning board. So we actually delayed the project three times at planning boards so that we could continue on with our meetings with the neighborhood and community. The results of those delays was actually that we reduced the application from 20 stories in height to 12 storeys in height. You know, there were some other tower heights approved in the neighboring and adjacent and Argo market GDP. I believe there's 180 200 feet and 220 feet towers approved and the site just next to us. But at the end of the day, the project team and the development team wanted to be good neighbors, good partners with the community . And after a long, lengthy series of internal conversations, found a way to make the program and the project work with the 12 stories. I want to personally commend the folks in the Rhino Arts District and that neighborhood group for the series of dialogs that we had with them. It was a really good process and we're happy to have their support tonight. That concludes my remarks, and I'll be here for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Danny Crawford. Mr. President, members of council, thank you very much once again for the opportunity to talk about a project. Mm hmm. I think it's been extremely well described to you. And we have obviously council chambers that are packed tonight in support of this project. And we we it most likely will be called to now go straight on the river. And it is really all about the river. And it is another opportunity in the Rhino District to to create a place where as a group, we are involved with placemaking and hope and think that we have a reputation for getting some kind of nice places done. The the group here isn't all going to speak to you. That's the very best news. We have people here ready to answer questions. And and the local development group is here, Curt Larson, all over in the corner, Bill Parkhill here and the architect. Bill, more can answer any questions that you might have. And we just want you to know that if you approve this tonight, while you can look forward to something very exciting in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Crawford. Bill Parkhill. Good evening. My name is Bill Parkhill. I'm at 631 High Street and I'm a member of the development team and I'm here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you, Bill Moore. My name is Bill Moore. I'm an architect. I'm at 940 Lincoln. I'm here just for questions. Thank you. Justin Kroll. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Justin Croft, about 34, 55 rings B Court in the Rhino neighborhood. And I'm here representing the Urban Improvement Committee, which is a committee underneath the Rhino Art District. The Urban Improvement Committee is specifically tasked with tackling land use, infrastructure, connectivity, zoning issues in the neighborhood. We were actively engaged in this project, as Shaun said, and initially we had some challenges with the design of the project as shown. But to the great credit of this development team continuing to enter into dialog with us, we were able to talk it through and really reach consensus on something that Rhino feels really great about, that our district feels great about, and we would like to recommend that it be approved with our full support. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr.. You. First of all, a long term long see them. All right. Well. Well, we already know. Ain't no po po gon be in this. You know, since they talked about it. I know the rent for a studio are going to be at least 2600. And that's okay. That's okay. Because I don't want people to get the impression that I'm not open for folks to do development. I'm not busy every time. And that's what piques me about this whole process. Every time there's a mention of affordable housing for poor, working, poor or homeless people or Section eight people, there is this bum rush of opposition that comes out Toronto District. They don't want none of that down there because this is reserved riverfront properties for the Hootie hoops. And it's marketing and they've got to do who's got to have somewhere to go? They're going to have to somewhere. You know, and I understand that. But see, this is a diversity. So and everybody needs to have an opportunity to at least one time in their life. You know, our studio window that they can look out to the riverfront and be around, you know, some nice stuff, you know, because we're not disease cause we're poor or we're bad, not bad neighbors because we're poor. And to help with some of the initiatives that they have, inclusionary housing ordinances and things like that. We never seem to get around building us. Nothing for us. You guys are going to have to share this in Rondo districts, Cherry Creek, all throughout the city because it's still a city. That has residents of human beings who have value. We have the right to live. In a place that's safe and secure and a place they can raise their kids and be a part of, as opposed to being isolated and stigmatized and feeling unwanted. So originally I was opposed to this thing. But I changed my mind. Because you're in danger. And I know your heart is sick. You need to address council, please. Thank you. So I know her heart. I know Dana. And I know that we can sit down and have a conversation. And maybe we can open up some doors here and see if we can get some done things so that this can be a more exclusionary project. And then we can break down some of the barriers that's going down down it right now so that we can combat some elite ism, some classism, and once again unite this city. Mr. Speaker, your 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of the council. Councilwoman Ortega. I have a couple of questions. So the first one is for. The developer. Dana? Would you mind coming forward? Where we're multiple. Okay, so this is a four acre site. Rice for four plus. How how many residential units are proposed generally in general? We don't know exactly where as we wait for the rezoning, why, we have discussed a number of different proposals. We don't know whether they will be for rent or whether they'll be condominiums. We just know that the primary use will be residential. And as I said, this is really all about the river because there are very, very few places so far. I hope that's just true so far in this community that people can live in a place and be really involved with the Platte River. You want to come in so. For Akers, you can do a lot of units if you're allowed to build up to eight storeys in some areas and 12 in others. So if you're doing any for sale units and they exceed 30, then obviously you'll comply with the city's FHA ordinance. Right. Okay. That's that's all I have for you right now. I'd like to ask Steve Nelli a question, and I'd like the map pulled up so we could see the surrounding parcels. It looks to me on one of those maps, like we have railroad to the west. Is that an active railroad line to the west? It is a very active railroad line. Okay. So what I would like to know is if there was any discussion in the process about the interface with the railroad and issues related to public health and safety. And raising this because we have had a number of meetings with the planning director in our fire department around how especially in the design review process. But, you know, when you're you've got people coming in wanting to rezone, I think the discussion about how do we ensure that if there happens to be any kind of incident on the railroad next door, that we as a city are doing everything we can to protect public health and safety. So, for example, some of the things we've talked about have been like, how do you make sure that you don't have, you know, exit doors, if you will, that face the railroad tracks so that if you've got to evacuate the building and there's some kind of spill and we know that, you know, we're seeing more and more tanker cars that are carrying crude oil because we've seen more and more drilling, although that's kind of slowing down right now with the oil and gas industry. But communities across the country have had situations and incidents. And I'm trying to look at how we can be proactive as a city to ensure we're addressing those public health and safety issues. So I want to know what kind of discussions took place around those that that concern. Right. So I should just add that the North and metro commuter rail line will actually go in between this property and the rail that you can see on the map. So RTD does owns a property in the north metro line will go through there. Also through the discussions that we've had to date, it was more about what what sides of this property should be active. And there there are no requirements to have an entrance along the edge of the railroad beyond that discussion. That's that's that's all we had for the zoning. Now when the development team comes forward for site plan review, I'm sure those discussions will continue, especially with the fire department. Okay. I appreciate that. I just I just think it's in our collective best interest to ensure that, you know, we're thinking about that, looking at how we address it. With with all projects, I mean, and what really brought that to light was going out to a particular site where, you know, you've got roll up windows and people have very active space. The tracks are right there. You see the kinds of, you know, tanker cars that carry different types of materials. You know, I mean, I have a long history with those neighborhoods where from time to time we've had to see evacuations, you know, because of various types of spills or whatnot. And if we can in our process, really make sure that we're addressing that public health and safety issue, I think we would all be better off. Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of really quick questions probably for you, Steve. First of all, I, I know I've written this section of trail, but I cannot for life. Remember, does the trail, the bike trail go between where the site is in the river or is it on the other side of the river here? It is on this side. It is on this side. So they won't just be interface with the river. There actually be interface with the transportation corridor first. Okay, great. Further supporting, treating it like a road. Second question is I'm bad. Also on the new zoning code, old zoning code, I be weaver. I can't remember seeing another rezoning from B. Is that old code. That is new code. Or new code? Sorry, Denver zoning code. No, it. Was it was updated. Okay. Got it. And then my third question is the sign overlay. Got asked this question recently about because there's a whole net billboard situation in the state, if I understand correctly. So does the site have a billboard now? And what happens to the sign overlay with the PUD? Is it written into the pad or how does that work? Is it being extinguished? So the overlay is going away. I don't recall that there's a billboard on the site. I could be wrong. The zoning is there, but it's not part of the current allocation of how many signs are allowed. Right. The zoning would allow a billboard there today, but there is not a billboard on the site. It's going away. And it's going away. Thank you very much. That's it, Mr. President. And Councilwoman Carlson. Councilman Brooks? Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I think the developers won't give us a hint on what this development is going to be. So I'll go to my next question and maybe Councilwoman Monteiro can answer this, Steve maybe can answer this. But for for the Rhino neighborhood, it's a it's a it's a great opportunity because it's a blank canvas. And there's going to be a lot of development in the future. I'm just wondering, has there been any talks about creating design review guidelines for the future just when all these developments start hitting oak shaking? So one of your can can answer this question. I just think I think it's important we talk about that. And then one, I think it's important that we get to action on that. But I just want to I want to hear from either one of you. There has been quite a bit of discussion, especially in the neighborhood. So I would defer especially to Justin. But in considering design guidelines, I think there are a few ways to go about doing those. The traditional way is to adopt design guidelines as rules and regulations and then establish a review board and make permits or approving permits contingent on approval from that review board with a finding of consistency with those design guidelines. Some other things that we've discussed with the neighborhood has been more of an informal design guideline design guidelines where developers work with the neighborhood and they have a conversation with the permits aren't necessarily contingent on approval. Justin, do you want to? So we've been talking about design guidelines for a couple of years, specifically for the reasons that you brought up, which are there's so much development coming to the neighborhood and, you know, what does that look like and what is the neighborhood looking for and what's the vision for the neighborhood and how is that articulated? We've actually talked with Brad Buchannan on a couple of occasions as to what the best way to move that process forward is, specifically because we don't necessarily want to create the typical design guidelines. We want to be the neighborhood wants to be pro-development and pro change. The other reason is that we're not particularly caught up in architectural styles. I think what we're really interested in is great urbanism and having reinoehl be a place for great urbanism in the city. And so what that tends to look more like is form and activation of buildings at the street. So we are in the process of determining how we're going to articulate that and what the formalized process will look like with Mr. Buchanan. The other thing is we're looking at forming a business improvement district in the neighborhood. The idea being at that business improvement district would fund the creation of a set of design guidelines which we don't currently have. Yeah, I just asked that question because I've heard some rumblings about it, but I didn't know if there was a formal plan to action this development. I'm sure it's going to be great, whatever it is. But I think this is a microcosm of the other 20 that are being planned in the future and this district has the opportunity to be incredible, like you said, new urbanism. And I just I'm glad that we're moving forward with that. It's good. Thanks. You, Councilman Brooks? Councilman? No. Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is for Mr. Neely, but anybody else on the development team may have the answer to this question. I raised this privately first when we had this at committee, and it was just a little source of anxiety on my part. Slip up a different picture, maybe the zoning picture. Yeah. On that thing. Right. No, no, that's the that's the land use picture. Is there a one? Yeah, that's a good one. That's it. So we're investing a bunch of money to make the river nicer, to make that, you know, a more of a a destination. And the developers are investing a lot of money in making this project actually speak to the river and interact with the river in a direct way. And then. But when I was looking at the map, there's this weird sliver of land that lies between the property in question that we're rezoning. And the Open Space C district, which is the river which appears to be owned by the railroad. And I don't know about y'all, but I haven't had great experiences with dealing with the railroad. So somebody somebody reassure me that this is understood and that there will be nothing standing in the way of creating developed space that speaks to the river and our investments on the river. That between those will not be a whole bunch of. Railroad ties and. You know, 50 gallon drums and Lord knows what all. Maintenance junk at the river. I mean, do you see you see what I mean about that? The space there. So the ownership is as well understood. The the the property is not abutting up for its entirety. The sliver actually ends and there is it's hard to see on this map. And I don't know if my pointer works on your screen. Oh, no, there it is. Yeah, I see your point. Okay, so this there's a very small sliver of upland in this portion, right? Just enough to fit some 15. I believe the ownership ends here and that it's city property and combination of city owned property and a property that is planned for open space associated with phase two of the Niro market GDP. Right. So a large portion of this area and here it's actually slated for open space to meet the center for the GDP. Now, I may ask the development team to to speak to any of negotiations or discussions they've had, but we do understand the ownership. I'd like to just dovetail on that a little bit. So first of all, we've really tried to approach the entire property almost in a sequential basis, and it's been very challenging. The acquisition of the land because of the seller was very challenging. The dialog and the and the zoning conclusions were challenging. And then again this the way we address the park and the open space will be a challenge. But so first of all, I will say we're very aware that it's a railroad property, it's a very small sliver, is probably 6 to 10 feet wide at the most at the biggest piece and narrows down. But most importantly, as has mentioned, we're very focused on trying to solve this problem and solve this river park, open space on the next step. So in terms of that sequence, that's our next next step. And then also will be the the actual land use the size of the project. To answer Debbie Ortega's question, we have engaged in a lot of dialog with the Greenway Foundation and Jeff Shoemaker. So far. We have engaged some planning and landscape architects with him. So we are working in concert with Greenway Foundation at the moment. It's very possible that it's a public private type of partnership that will solve that problem. So again, we don't really have any pat answers tonight, but but we do feel like we're solving these problems in a hierarchy that will get that accomplished. Thank you. I stand reassured. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Monteiro. Thank you. Would you mind coming back up to the podium? Would you talk to counsel about the general background of the property? And in that it's been an activated for quite some time. And what you saw in this particular piece of property we've talked about. Most of the conversation is oriented towards the river, but are there other merits to this property? So I want you to answer that also and then clarify again. I think it's a little bit confusing that we keep talking about the Dynamo Market General Development Plan, which is not your character, which is not the proposed property that we're talking about. And be clear about the connection that the property that you're talking about, the connection that it has across the street to the do not go market. Yeah. So I'm going to play planning staff in point. So we are. So first of all, to answer to try to answer your question. This property has been on and off of the development radar for over ten or 12 years. It's been a very difficult challenge with the seller to acquire this parcel. Wind and cargo market GDP was originally applied for in 2006. This property was was thought to be included in that. And then that didn't work out. And as a result, it remained almost sterilized by itself for four, eight years. We had the opportunity to reactivate that in negotiations for the purchase of that. We felt the the value of this property as another gemstone for the rhino neighborhood and on that river was worth the challenge to try to activate that. So I don't know if that answers your your question, Councilwoman, with regards to the assemblage piece, with regards to the Drago market, GDP, that GDP is across the street to the east of us, we are not part of that. However, the reason we keep referring to the general market GDP is the scale and the size and the planning of that property helps inform our decisions and how we want to interact not only with the rest of the urban context, but also the river as well. And part of that river and that open space is the negotiated open space agreement with the our market GDP to put that open space adjacent to our property. So we feel like there's a a need for the dialog between the two parcels that the target market GDP in our property. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Any other questions on Tinetti? See? No other questions. Public hearing on 1080 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. For quite some time. It's probably been 10 to 12 years. I've been very concerned about this particular piece of property, especially around the time that the the general market development across the street was being discussed in that particular zoning application. I think past probably 12 years ago before the Reno neighborhood even got any traction and is as attractive as it is today. This particular property has the potential to be a major anchor on that side of the river. Today, it's pretty isolated and it's a it's just it looks like it's an old grocery store garage where the semi-trucks were back up to the to the loading dock and take the groceries and to distribute this whole particular area to the merits of the diner go market, which is across the street, is because it really was a market at one time where people would go and purchase, I think it was wholesale produced fruits and vegetables and then distribute them around town. So there really is urban agricultural feel in this particular neighborhood. I was concerned about the height of the of the project and I was concerned about, you know, why are we doing another piece ? Those arguments have gone away as Steve, Nelly and the developers have explained why we do need to put under these extraordinary, extraordinary circumstances. The biggest one is that the project is oriented to magnify the use of the river. And it's my understanding that through going back and forth with the neighborhoods, the development team has has agreed to the 12 stories as opposed to the original 20. So that does build goodwill within the neighborhood. So I want to say that I am relieved that there will finally be an activated use for this particular piece of property . Today, it just sort of seemed like it's wasting away and it's kind of an asphalt parking lot. And the idea of activating and being able to have this kind of use is very, very important. I will say that in my mind it doesn't really relate to Brighton Boulevard in that, you know, it's several blocks away, which I know is probably not a popular thing to say, but I like that we have Brighton Boulevard developing as it is in terms of its uses bikes, pedestrians, automobiles and other vehicles. But this sits back, I don't know, two blocks maybe. And so it kind of gives it can give potential people in the future a respite in terms of being away from the the harshness of and maybe it won't be harsh in the future, but today it is the urban harshness of Brighton Boulevard. So you can easily just walk a couple of blocks and you're near the near the the river. So I am supporting this and want to commend everyone, Steve, Nelly and to the developers and the whole team for actually taking the time to sit down and listen and being able to work out all of the, you know, all of the concerns and come to presenting the application that we have to do. So I will be supporting this and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmembers. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be supporting this because of similar reasons that Councilwoman Monteiro mentioned. But I want to say something that's a little different. I believe this is Bob. Alex, this is the first time we we've seen a project that Bob Gorelick has been representing. And I want to thank Shamali for standing in. And we just as a council, just want to give our thoughts and prayers to Bob. We know he's doing a little bit better, but we want to see him to a full recovery and be up here talking that that zoning mumbo jumbo. So here's the here's to Bob Gorelick. I vote yes. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seen. Their comments on 1080. Madam Secretary, roll call. Montero I never i Ortega I Rob I Shepherd I'm Brooks. I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Kosovo only announced results tonight. Tonight 1080 has been placed on final consideration and does pass a one period German announcement on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1097, authorizing and approving an amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add to Sloan's BLOCK seven East Project and to create the Sloan's BLOCK seven East sales tax increment area and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1099 authorizing and approving an amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloan's BLOCK seven West Project and to create the Sloan's BLOCK seven West sales tax increment area. On Monday, February nine, 2015. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill six, changing the zoning classification for 2600 South University Boulevard. Any protest against Council Bill six must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, February 2nd, due to the Martin Luther King holiday. Council will meet on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned. Denver eight TV your city your so.

AN ORDINANCE relating to a lease agreement for office space; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with NearSU, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, for office space in the 464 12th Avenue Building to be used as the Central Customer Service Center; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_04102017_CB 118936

Agenda item six cancel 118 936. Relating to lease agreement for Office Space Authorizing Director of Finance Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with near Su LLC, a Washington limited liability company for office space and the 464 12th Avenue Building to be used as a central customer service center and ratifying, confirm research and prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass because remember. This is a lease agreement that moves the city's customer service bureau from the promenade at 23rd Avenue and South Jackson Street to 464 12th Avenue. The building that we currently lease at 23rd in Jackson is going to be redeveloped, and so the city has to move its office. It'll be on 12th Avenue, just north of the Hassler way, and the committee recommends the approval of the lease. Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill. Johnson. I. As I O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzales I Herbold II. President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and Chair of Senate. Please read item seven and eight together.

On the message and order, referred on April 14, 2021 Docket 0547, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend reimbursements in the amount of up to Six Million Dollars($6,000,000.00), from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for expenses related to the COVID-19 event, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_12082021_2021-0547

The grant funded planning and operating a safe and secure election administration in the city of Boston for the 2020 election. And docket number 0547 message in order authorizes the city of Boston to accept and expand reimbursements in the amount of up to $6 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for expenses related to the COVID 19 event. Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, chair of the Committee and Public Health Council. Arroyo, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. These matters were sponsored by the administration, referred to the committee on January 27, 2021, for Docket 0192 and April 14th, 2021 for Docket 0547. The committee held a public hearing on these dockets on December seven, 2021. And I want to thank Councilors Flynn, Councilor, Bach, Councilor, in any sense IP, George and Councilor Murphy for participating in that hearing. These dockets, both of them go towards reimbursements. So this is money already spent. The committee public hearing was attended by James Williamson or Jim Williamson, Deputy Director of Budget of the Officer Budget Management and Anita Tavares was the commissioner of the Boston Elections Department who provided testimony on behalf of the administration. Commissioner Tavares stated that the City of Boston's Elections Department implemented many temporary measures in response to the COVID 19 epidemic. Measures such as expanding voter access and providing a safe voting process. The city was awarded this grant to provide funding for the cost of emergency personnel due to the expansion of mail in voting operations, which includes overtime costs and the costs of printing signage and informational fliers to spread awareness of early voting. The Commission stated that these funds have already been expended. Mr. Williamson stated that the city of Boston received a reimbursement of 6 million to cover the cost of the city of Boston's measures in response to the COVID 19 epidemic. This reimbursement is from FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and it's administered through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This reimbursement will help support additional emergency food access, personal protective equipment, professional cleaning assistance, emergency sheltering, and administrative costs for emergency COVID 19 operations. In total, FEMA has reimbursed the city nine city of Boston 9.5 million, in addition to this 6 million reimbursement for COVID 19 related costs. The committee also discussed the possibility of continuing current mail in voting operations permanently and the prospects of receiving more grants and reimbursements from FEMA to cover emergency response costs in the future. As Chair of Committee on Public Health, I recommend moving the listed dockets from the Committee to the full Council for discussion and formal action. My recommendation to the full Council will be that the matters ought to pass. Thank you, Councilor Roy. The Chair recognizes the district councilor from Beacon Hill, Councilor Kenzie Bourque. The floor is yours. Thank you so much. Mr. President, I just wanted to add as an addendum, thank you to Councilor for chairing the hearing. I was pleased to be there. I, when I heard the numbers, was a little bit concerned that the the total of the ten that we had gotten before and the six that was coming in now from FEMA seemed low based on what's eligible and 100% numbers. So I did do some follow up, and I'm gratified to be able to share with the council that the Boston Public Health Commission, separately under the same FEMA program, has been authorized for $28.5 million of reimbursement. So when you put those two together, you're up more about 44, 45 million, which checks out better with kind of my sense of what we should be getting through this program. And it's worth the council knowing that now that it's been extended to April ten with the next wave of COVID challenges that we're dealing with, there likely will be further things that will be eligible for reimbursement. But I just because I did that homework, because I was I had some questions about it. I wanted to share with the whole council that the number of plus hours is more in the $4,445 million. Great. No, appreciate that. That's great context. Thank you, Councilor Buck. Any further discussion on dockets 0192 or 0547? Saying none. We are going to vote on these separately. So for docket 0192. All those that which is the $69,000 110 grant. All those in favor please indicate by saying I. I posed nine. The ayes have it. The docket is passed. And for docket zero 547, which is the $6 million grant. All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose name. The ayes have it. The dockets have passed. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0861. Docket 0861 order for a hearing to discuss predatory lending programs in the city of Boston.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at the intersection of North Shoshone Street and West 32nd Avenue, without reservations. Vacates a portion of the North East corner of Shoshone Street and West 32nd Avenue, without reservations, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-1-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-1016

No items have been called out. I miss anything. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your comment on 1016 thing. Mr. President, just a very brief comment as I researched this, a vacation of right of way. I just wanted to commend the Denver Housing Authority and Public Works, traffic design and engineering for the very creative way that they've handled this use of access right of way. It's at a very strange intersection of two old subdivision plots that are almost 150 years old, where our diagonal grid meets the traditional. Hello. Meets the traditional north southeast west grid. And the way that it's proposed to handle the traffic might require a little more funding from the city to accomplish the the reconstruction on the south side of West 32nd Avenue. But we're at Erie Street, 18th Shoshone and 32nd all come together. This looks like just a tremendous resolution to a really sticky problem. Plus, it allows us to proceed more effectively with the construction and development of 53 more affordable housing units on that corner. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the item. Oh, Councilman, I take it you also have something to say. Just very briefly. Go ahead. This is in my neighborhood. I drive this street every day. And with more and more residential units and more people walking in the neighborhood, folks don't always know who has the right of way because there are so many intersections or so many access points there. So cleaning up that intersection, I think will be really important move towards addressing a safety issue. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We're not ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I move, the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon. Final consideration and do pass on a block for the following items. All series of 2019 1040104110421043104410521023102510261032103310341035108410221015101610171020. We've. That's it. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black. I see tobacco i. Flynn I. Gillmor. I Herndon. High. Hines. High. Cashman. I. Connect I. Ortega y. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. 1313. Ays The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 817, changing the zoning classification for 3141 Raleigh Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 834 amending the Denver Zoning Code.

Application of Capitol Hill / First Hill development, LLC for approval of a contract rezone of approximately 62,000 square feet of a property located at 1203 E Spruce Street from Lowrise 3 (LR3) multifamily residential to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 65 foot height limit (NC3 65) (Project No. 3018576; Type IV).

SeattleCityCouncil_09052017_CF 314310

Thank you very much. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. The Reports Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Sees Me Clerk Filed 3143 ten Application to Capitol Hill for Sale Development LLC for approval of a contract reason of approximately 62,000 square feet of property located 1203 East Spruce Street from the wise three multi-family residential neighborhood commercial three with 65 foot height limit. Can we recommend the application be granted as conditioned? Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. Council President. This is an application to implement a contract rezone in the neighborhood surrounding Seattle University would take it from a low rise three to a neighborhood commercial, three with a 65 foot high limit and would apply our mandatory housing affordability conditions to that contract rezone as well. Happy to answer any questions of authority. Any questions of this clerk file if not those in favor of granting the application as condition? Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries in the application is granted as condition and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1190 59 Relating to planning and zoning in many Chapter 23.32 Systems for code at Page 117 the official land use map to reason property located 1203 East Spruce Street from low rise three to neighboring commercial three with 65 foot height limit and accepting property using development agreement as condition of reason approval committee recommends that bill passed. Councilmember Johnson This is a companion bill. In order for us to execute the legislation that we just adopted, the court file and item 11. We also have to adopt the corresponding council bill here in item 12. Any questions? And yes, we need to move the substitute because it gets sent to us empty and now we can execute it with the substitute version now that we've adopted the item before. So I'd move to adopt the substitute version. Do we have a and is the version A version B version one something like type exhibit. C, I think. Exhibit C, thank you. Is there a second so it's been moved in second to sub substitute the exact the the executed for the UN executed properties and development agreement. All those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. So now we have a an amended item council bill and I think we're ready to vote on that. Please call the role on the. Passage of the bill. Swan Bank Sharna Burgess Herbold Johnson Juarez O'Bryan I President Harrell. I. Adan favorite unopposed. Bill passes and serves on the amended bill. Please read the next agenda item.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall LLC concerning the predevelopment phase that will include project planning and redesign concerning the Great Hall for Denver International Airport. Approves a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall LLC concerning the predevelopment phase that will include project planning and redesign concerning the Great Hall for Denver International Airport. (201418237). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 8-17-16.

DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0610

12 eyes, one abstention. Council Bill 608 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please pull up Council Bill 610. And I assume this is going to be called out for vote. I'm going to. All right. We'll just go into commentary. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call out. Well, I called out 608, but then also 610. And I'm abstaining on both of these because my brother in law has an interest in this project. That's okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, will you just put this on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolution 610 be adopted. Okay. It has been moved in seconds. It will go into comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions. If I if I might, and I don't know if they're going to tag team through this or not, but. One of the it seems to me one of the ways that you get most advantage from this full P3. Procurement is to keep multiple proposers as far along in the process as you can in order to keep the competitive tension going and get the best pricing as possible. And and here it seems to me that we have made a selection of our preferred concessionaire a little farther upstream than normal. So I'm wondering, Kim, what does the airport have in its processes that will keep sort of a competitive nature going as we negotiate with only one party for the final agreement? Hi, I'm Kim Dan, the CEO of Denver International Airport. Well, first off, let me just say, Councilman Flynn, our process has been 18 months so far. So we have spent some time looking at this competitively. You should know that all of the proposals that were submitted to us are still active for the next six months. So if we were to have an issue and wanted to go to one of the other proposers, we could do that. Oh, that's that's good to know. Thank you. And how was the six month term of this pre-development agreement determined? Because that seems like it's a very compressed time frame, especially when you have to coordinate with TSA and outside agencies who really don't care about our calendar as much as we do. Yeah, there's no question when you get the federal government involved, it seems to take longer. This was really a thoughtful balance of the fact that we want to get this done as quickly as possible and relocate TSA. And yet we wanted to have enough time to truly do due diligence with this partner. So if we had not had the pressure on the other end, I think we would have extended this a bit. But we have a great work planned for the next six months and I think we're all confident that we can achieve what we need to do. And Kim you can do have already some and my view with with the TSA memorandum of understanding. We're in the process of actually we're in the process of executing that. Okay. I did watch the committee meeting where this went through. I was on vacation in California. That's how I spent part of my vacation. And one of the things that I found interesting was one of the submittals is what I thought would be what I would think would be one of the most crucial ones. And that's the submission of the fixed construction. I know an m price and it's a type A submittal, which means you have to respond in the next business day. And that's the middle is due the day before Christmas Eve. And I'm wondering, maybe I've missed something, but that would seem the fixed price for construction and for own end would seem to be the very core of the agreement. How can you do that in one day or what am I not understanding here? So we're still finalizing what all that submittal schedule looks like. We just reviewed it this morning actually with Ferrovial and I we've actually, I think, moved that day up to December 21st as I have, as I recall. So we're making that a little more generous. The reality is this is a very aggressive six month schedule. I don't think we have many turnovers. That would be 24 hours. Most of them are about five days or seven working days. But we're all committed. My entire staff is committed to work with Ferrovial to make sure that we comply with all of those requirements. Did you tell them they're going to work over Christmas? I haven't told them that yet. You just did. It's a gift. What can I say? And have you determined and affordability limit, you know, annually through this construction process of your cash flow and how much you'll be able to carry from year to year. And ask Gisela to come up and talk to you that. Good evening. Shanahan Chief Financial Officer, Denver International Airport. Councilman Flynn, could you clarify just a bit on. What cash flow you're. Well, I know from the terms of the term sheet there, there's there's still a lot to be negotiated. But I'm wondering if you have examined going into the not the full 30 years, of course, but because that's going to be negotiated. Well, let me let me rephrase it. If the term is the full 30 years or even less, will we know and in six months exactly how much cash we might have to pay to the concessionaire and in what years, we'll have to pay that. And looking ahead, will we be able to meet those obligations? I'm just concerned about cost overrun. Absolutely, yes. During the next six months, we will get to the details of the financial deal, which will include all of the payments either way, whether from the concessionaire to the airport or vice versa. We will run those through our airport financial plan and make sure that that keeps us exactly where we want to be from a financial planning perspective. But yes, we will make sure that we are very comfortable with the cash flows involved. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. I have had several meetings with Kim and her staff asking a number of questions about this particular contract. The first question is on the $9 million. Is that in the 2016 budget? I don't remember when we adopted the budget that that money was built into the 2016 budget. The project is in our capital program. So the 9 million would come out of the airports capital fund and not its Operation and Maintenance Fund, which comes due annually for budget approval. Okay. It's my understanding that the this project sort of is a result of a couple of things. Number one, we know we need to address some security issues. But number two, there was a concession master plan that was done that kind of looks at overall the needs of the airport and where we might be able to generate more non airline revenues. And so part of my question is wondering where that at in terms of dialog with both the public at large as well as the other concessionaires. Because this involved, as I understood, having input from lots of different people. And I saw something that came across like last week about a meeting coming up to talk about the master plan. So help me understand how that fits into the big picture if we're just doing some of those meetings now. But part of this is based on the master plan. So let's separate that into a couple of different pots, if I may. The concessions master plan has begun socialization. We have had conversations with our concessions association. We have had conversations with our airlines, but it's not a complete study. So they have just been briefed on the the processes that's taking place in terms of the Great Hall. While yes, I think the concessions master plan validates the need for for more concessions. In fact, I think the number in there is 200,000 square feet. The Great Hall is a little separate from that. It is addressing a specific need. We, in fact have had the concessions in the terminal on month to month holdovers for a few years, knowing that we intended to revitalize that space. Okay. Kim, as you know, I've shared some concerns about what the impact might be to the folks on A, B and C who have made significant investment to go into the space. And if. This is as successful as it's anticipated to be by capturing people once they go through the TSA lines and stay on the the main concourse before they go over to Terminal AB or C. What impact this would have. And then on the flip side, if people go straight to their gates, as many do today, then there is a chance that this is not successful. And I'm concerned about the overall fiscal health of the airport. And so help me understand the thinking of kind of how you all anticipate that this is a win win for everybody and not just for the people who will be in the main terminal. So first off, the first part of your question, we know there are passengers that fly our airport today that do not buy anything because the lines are too long and they cannot get what they want by the time their flight takes off. We do not have enough concessions to satisfy all of today's passengers. The study that you referred to, the concessions master plan, tells us that just where we are today, we need to add concessions. Add to that, we are an airport that is growing very rapidly. And so over the next few years, we will be adding lots of concessions. That doesn't take away from the concessions on the concourses. In fact, I would say to you that gives them more opportunities to have even more concessions. So it's a for the concourse concessions. Adding the concessions does not take away from them. Your other question was the risk of will passengers stay in the Great Hall or will they get on the train and go to the concourse? And I think this is really one reason we have chosen Ferrovial, because they have shown in the way they developed their property in Heathrow that they know how to make a compelling concession that will keep people there. Plus, they know how to use technology to give the passengers the power to know how long to stay in the Great Hall and when their their flight will leave, whether it is giant flight information displays or information that we push to you on your smartphone, we are going to let you take control of your journey. And we think that will, in fact, encourage people to stay and spend time in what will be a fabulous Colorado experience there in the Great Hall. Mr. President, I'm only going to ask one more question, if I might. Other questions don't get asked through the folks that are waiting in the queue. Then I'll, I'll chime back in to be at the end. But my last question for now is to ask Kim. I'm not sure that you want to address this or you want somebody from Ferrovial to address it. But I think the issue of the reputation of the company is one that has been brought to the attention of all of us. And I think it's important to not gloss that over and have it addressed upfront in terms of how I guess initially I'd like to know how thoroughly that was vetted by our DIA team in terms of looking at some of the allegations of. Bankruptcies that have existed in some of the other cities. I know this is a very large company, but, you know, that's a reality that has existed in some of the cities where they have operated around the world. And then the allegations of improprieties that were shared with many of us as well, where apparently there is a pending court case. And so if you can just speak to the the thorough the thoroughness of of vetting them, I think that's important. And then maybe somebody from Ferrovial would want to speak to that as well. I think, yes, we will do that. Just in terms of our site in tort, in addition to the normal process we go through to vet any contractor who is proposing at the airport, we actually hired an independent third party, KPMG, who and we also had an outside counsel, Mulvaney, O'Melveny Myers, who really looked at all of the proposers and gave us a great report back on Ferrovial. So I would ask Chris Butler of Ferrovial to come up and address specifically your issues. My name, Chris Butler and I'm from Ferrovial. There have been a number of comments I know that have been raised with council folk about the reputation of approval. And I can say absolutely that from Vale's approach is it's it's an ethical management is the topmost quality. We are absolute we have no tolerance at all for bribery and corruption. Let's look at the scale of the company that that is ferrovial. Its market capitalization is something like $16.6 billion. It has an EBITDA of over $1 billion. It has an employee workforce of something like 100,000 staff. This is a large company. It operates with the highest of ethical approaches in its policies and its processes. Now, there are two particular cases that I'm conscious that have been raised with councilors. Let me address them one at a time. The first one relates, I think you refer to bankruptcy, and that was associated with a project that had been run by Cintra. And before I talk about a specific project, let me just again set the context of Cintra as an organization. It's invested some $21.7 billion. In its overall investments. It runs something like 27 toll roads in nine different countries. These toll roads cover something like 1166 miles. This is a large company. There has been one particular toll road where forecasts were made of passenger or sorry transport movements. Before the financial crash. The consequence of that is that the forecast number of movements did not materialize. But what I should say about that is that the less was in Texas, the the state of Texas received this, I think by now something like $142 million worth of revenue from that. It was Cintra as an organization. That was out of pocket as a consequence of that, not the state. So there was a loss. That loss has needed to be absorbed by the investor syndrome. So that that's that particular case that I think you were referring to. The second case relates to. Ay. Ay. Ay. Ay. Position in Catalonia where there is a cultural center where Ferrovial had made contributions to that cultural center running something between 1992, I think 2009. And the allegation and I should stress it is just an allegation. Is that the in making those contributions as a consequence of that, there were some favorable allocations of contracts. As a result, there are two members of Froebel staff who at the time afraid of staff who have now, it has been alleged, were involved in this wrongdoing rather than the company. But the company is very clear, ferrovial is very clear that the we firmly believe that those two individuals will not be found guilty when this goes to court. It has not been to court at all at this stage. So nobody has been found liable. And at this stage the details are private. So the information that people are reading is kind of based on secondhand reports. So that's the that's the backdrop to that. So, you know, we're in a position here and it's difficult for those individuals. They can't make their defense public. That's not part of the process at the moment. So we're in a position to try to defend something which is which is only half the story has been made public, which I think you'll recognize the difficulties. So just to repeat, we were very, very clear about zero tolerance for bribery. Corruption is a large organization, and we take our reputation extremely seriously. Thank you. Gentlemen. I appreciate you addressing these important issues because I think at the end of the day, none of us want to find the city in a situation where, you know, we might be in the middle of one of these situations. And that's why I asked how thoroughly did we that this to make sure that we are protecting this asset. It is a city facility and it's our responsibility to make sure we're doing our due diligence. And I fully understand credit. All right, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak a little bit about this. Pre-development agreement. And I. I think the last speaker said something very interesting to me. I just believe that public private partnerships are a very judicious way for us to manage and leverage the dollars that we have, and particularly in investments in infrastructure, not the least of which reason is that it sort of transfers risk. And just as in his description of how the private company had to had taken on more of the risk than the state of Texas, I think that's an excellent example of what a public private partnership can do for a government entity. But you can also get with the expertize that you have. With organizations like this that have such experience, you can get a shorter time to delivery and. And probably at a lower cost. And. It just makes a lot of sense. I know that a lot of governments are doing public private partnerships to make their money go farther. This, of course, is just a pre-development agreement. It's agreement to talk about how things are going to go forward from here. But what I also like about this project is that we are going to own all the assets that may come out of this pre-development agreement, even if the agreement doesn't go ahead. Although I believe. That it will. So I just wanted to comment that on so many fronts, an agreement like this makes a lot of sense for a city. And I'm really excited about the all the planning and the thoughts that have gone into the Great Hall and to kind of restore that beautiful architecture that we have there. And so I just wanted to commend you all for entering into what might be a wonderful private public partnership. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President, I. All right, you, Mike, please. I wanted to make sure I ask a few questions. I was really intrigued if somebody can talk about the process now. You mentioned the RFP process and. It seemed really competitive. What did that RFP process look like? Who was there? Who were the other bidders? And how did Ferrovial and I do respect who has not. But in the U.S. market. But what made the difference there? Sure. The RFP process was quite robust. You've heard a bit about the interactive process that occurred before the RFP was issued that allowed us to make sure that we had a project that was well-suited for a public private partnership. Once the RFP was issued and we did receive the three proposals, we had an extremely well-qualified. Panel to review the proposals. And conduct the interviews. We had Westfield and Manchester Airport Group. Were the other two teams that you just asked about, along with Ferrovial. Of those three, generally, Ferrovial scored highest and at the outcome of the review. When you look at the RFP, which. Is now public and the particular areas that were reviewed by the panel, FERROVIAL being first and foremost an organization that has conducted itself in a in an operating airport, one of the largest in the world, the largest in Europe, and has taken that airport from a hub that was at one time considered the worst hub in Europe to now being an award winning installation that gave the panel and the airport a great deal of confidence that we were working with a team moving forward that did have a proven track record in an operational airport environment. That is key. Along with that, their understanding of what it takes to invest in and then maintain a facility long term that involves concessions as well as the airport core function was also very well received. And in addition, the customer experience, which is another key component of this project, the proven track record as well, that they have been able to elevate the customer experience portion of an airport to a new level. And that is exactly one of the goals of our project as well. So we wanted to make sure we could safely move security, elevate the customer experience, and move forward with a partner that had proven not just that wanted to be in an airport operating environment , but that had proven that they can do that very well. In the in the RFP. As you look at what was cost in terms of how much it would cost us as the city of the airport to implement this weighed versus projected profit. Right. What did that picture look like in the RFP process? I'm curious. Sure. So there were a number of ways that teams could propose. Kim mentioned earlier we had KPMG as the financial advisor with expertize in pieces. Each of the proposals was compared from an apples to apples comparison basis. So in other words, all of their proposals were brought together in a way where the panel could very. Efficiently. And clearly understand what the long term impact to the airport was from the financial proposal. So the revenues that were projected were reviewed. The costs of operating and maintaining and reinvesting in the facilities over the term of the lease were reviewed and then as well as how the airport and the team could potentially split not only the ongoing maintenance but also the revenues in the long term. So all of that was evaluated and compared among the three teams. Bid for overall score the highest when it came to revenue and. Cost. Can we? And it's your specific I'm just making sure that within our procurement process, I'm staying within the parameters of of what I. Yes, as a matter of fact, in the financial category, that is my understanding, was the highest ranking of the three teams. The other the other question I have. Well, I just wanted to understand what made the difference between the three. Right. I mean, I know I've heard of Westfield. I mean, in committee, we were told that the operate lacks we I wasn't too familiar with with. Manchester Airport. Group. They operated in the US. No, not at this point in time, not in airport. They do have several airports in the UK. Okay. I figured that part if I can, Mr. President. I mean, do committee work on the fly? Just want to make sure when we're looking at this, this is the opportunity to negotiate and negotiate. Look at what the proposal for any further proposal will be. And I do understand I mean, the airport will I mean, on the intellectual property that we gain from that, we are actually entitled to that if, you know, if things go south or not. My other question would be, you know, we've had a lot of change at the airport. We have a lot of growth at the airport. We have a lot of new things happening at the airport. The one thing I want to remain constant is that we have great labor at the airport, right? That the men and women that are maintaining our airport here, you know, we get this all the time. We get bragging rights for having the cleanest, coolest airport in the country. And I appreciate the saying, but what are we doing to make sure that in this process that those men and women that are maintaining our airport and providing the services that our airport are are at the table. And what I'd like to see us to continue the work with the folks that we have a commitment, do we have to that to avoid any kind of labor dispute or any any issues that arise from that? So I'm not as trivial to talk about that as the commitment. But let me just begin by saying the wonderful thing about this program is it means jobs, it means construction jobs, and it means new jobs at the airport, which is a great thing for all of us as we grow. That's a way to share the economic benefit we are. We are very lucky that we have this growth happening at the airport and we constantly are out there recruiting, trying to bring new people in to fill these jobs. We're also looking at ways that we can make it easier for people to understand the jobs that exist at the airport. So we're talking about some sort of a technological bulletin board, essentially that will show the jobs that are there. We are doing countless outreach events. In fact, we've gone to a couple of your districts in the recent months to do outreach for concession workers. I think the key here, and you mentioned it, we won't we don't want just we don't want to leave workers behind. And so Ferrovial is planning a thing called they they've done in Heathrow called Heathrow University, which I will let Chris talk to. I think the the one thing you need to know is what they want to do here is give amazing customer service. And in order to do that, they need amazing workers. And so they are going to provide some training and some ability for us actually to let the the concession workers benefit in ways more than just a salary. So do you want to talk about that? Thanks, Ken. Just a brief resumé that the of the Heathrow Academy. It's something which we've been undertaking now for some considerable time. And what it provides is, is one of these situations that is a win win. So we work with local providers and with colleges and with employers to provide an opportunity to give people an entry into work. So through this academy that we've created, we have had some 5000 people go through that academy. It has put over 3000 people into work, which has got a multiple benefit. It's clearly the people themselves have jobs. It has a benefit to the employers because those people, they work ready. So there's lower recruitment costs. It also has a benefit to the state in the sense that they're not paying unemployment benefit. Rather than that, they're actually receiving tax income. So everybody wins from that scenario and it provides some of the recruitment training, but also then some development developmental training as well. So we have over, I think it's 1500 apprentices that have gone on to get jobs as a consequence of this particular scheme as well. And we are very keen to work closely with the airport and develop a scheme of this nature for Denver, because we think it's a fantastic opportunity and it's particularly important. Whereas as Kym says, one of the things we're trying to do is we want to create a an airport which is second to none. We want Denver to be the benchmark and we will create that subject to the council approval and clearly the airport approval. So we have a great facility, will have a great concessions program in that, but we've got to staff it with great staff and we want to help develop staff as part of that as part of that process. So are there any. Sorry. Sorry. Have there been any kind of commitments or any anything anything that you've used at Heathrow or anything else that that really speaks as you move into and as you moved into Heathrow Airport, as you've seen the issue that was at hand, you went and you say your company turned it around. Did that happen using the workers that you had that happen using the talent that you had? Here's the thing with Diane. Right? And I wanted to I want to hear what your strategy is and what your vision is with that here in the council chambers, in DIA. And Dan, as as the airport is evolved. Right. What it's done is, is build. On and just in build that success. With those with the talent of the folks that were there with the talent. And it doesn't require that those folks leave right to become successful. Otherwise, the jazz model hasn't been over the last years to to create success on the backs of workers, but with them. Right. And really rewarding those workers and moving that forward and really rewarding that model. I want to know if you guys are committed to that philosophy. So if I may give you some examples that leads us to answer your question. And there are a number of examples. And so Kim was talking earlier on about the way in which since we either purchased Heathrow back in 2007, there have been some transformational performance, and indeed there has. So if we start off looking at things like baggage performance, where when Ferrovial purchased the company, there was something like 40 bags per thousand that were missed. They're now around 17 and that's a significant international connection. So the banks have to come in, be rescreened and then back out again to slightly significantly different from a local or domestically based airport. So they're the same. The same teams is just better organized and better processed with new investment in new equipment. So that's an example. Another example would be on security in the U.K., the airport is responsible for the resourcing, the provision of equipment, the the maintenance and the delivery of security performance. And we moved the number of people who were waiting less than 5 minutes moved from something in the order of 84% of passengers to the end of 2015 that have reached something in the order of 97.4%. So these are these are transformational percentage changes. We've also improved things like punctuality that's been significantly improved under the under current ownership. So almost every one of the metrics that you look at, it seems a significant improvement. And the level of retention at some of our major airports is very high. So you see a lot of the same people who want to deliver. That is the way in which it's organized, the way in which it's planned, the way in which it's been delivered, and the way in which the staff are then trained, which is important. I hope I've answered your question. Yes, Councilman Lopez, I have five other folks in here. Can I give them a shot? Absolute. I just wanted to. Make just one more statement. And that's I mean, it's a question I really appreciate the the questions you had. I just want to make sure that we are making sure that those workers in the area that have made it great, that we are rewarding them to stay, that it's benefit the benefits outweigh the risk of having this new contract. I mean, potentially this new change and making sure that the folks who are at the airport who have built their careers on the airport since they've been there, can continue to securely be able to say, I my job is still there. Right. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Chris, question for you. If you could come up here just for anyone. So if you're not familiar with Skytrax, Skytrax is the organization that ranks airlines. So if you get a SKYTRAX rating, good or bad, then they know what they're doing. And I bring this up just so that people can have some context around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, SKYTRAX rated terminal five and Heathrow, the best place to fly in Europe for the past five years. Is that correct? That information? Yes, it's got it is. It's got the best place to shop for many, many years. And it won the best airport in in Europe in the last year as well. And you all have been running that, I beg of you, Ferrovial has been running that during the fight. We're partners at Heathrow. We've been we bought the entire company, including six other airports, I think it was, and some international interests back in 2007 eight. Perfect. That's all I you know. Thank you. So I want to put some context. It's a good question to ask. You know, why are we these not familiar? You know, this is a global organization. We are a global airline. I'm from Kansas City and I love Kansas City. We're not competing with Kansas City. We're competing with these airports all over the world. So for us to to create this experience, a global experience, we need somebody that has the history and the experience of being successful. So I appreciate just you acknowledging that I have all the faith in the world of the airport team as they go through this RFP process. They hired independent consultant consultant to look at the financials. That is I am comfortable with. Councilwoman Sussman talked about the P three. I'm not going to go there. Let's talk about the concessions real quick, because I think that's an important avenue to talk about. 2015, our concessions made $340 million. 2015 Acdp is made 140 million. 54 million passengers went through DIA. About 60% of that is owned, originate and ending here in Denver. We can't create enough concessions for people to eat and have a great experience at DIA because I think that's a valid question. But we can't have enough. And of the conversation when we're talking about concessions, it's just the Jefferson terminal. And I say just from the whole big experience, the A, B and C terminal are not even impacted by what's going on. This conversation that we're having, so concessions will continue to thrive. And my vision of this project, we're going to have more concessions at the main terminal, so more job opportunities for people. So I am comfortable and confident that this pre-development agreement where it is right now should go forward. There are several questions that we as a council should have as we get a little closer. But as we get into the weeds right now, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. I am comfortable with all the work that the airport team has done moving forward. And my last point, which I honestly think is the most important, you know, our airport was not designed for a post-9-11 environment. Our airport is vulnerable. And we need to move forward to. We create a space where the people that come through and fly are safer. That cannot be understated. And for us to not move this agreement forward, I think would be wrong from just a safety perspective for all the work that the airport has done moving forward. So I am in full support of this and I certainly hope our colleagues will move this forward because I think once we get to the final answers down the road, everyone will be happy. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Espinosa, you're up. I the. I'll get into the weeds. I have an actual problem with one of the particular articles in your agreement, and it is what it is. We're not going to ask you to change it, but 4.08 A on the ad services. That's the developer initiated services. It doesn't require actually any approval by then. You know, it reads if the developer desires to perform services in addition to the pre-development work, under this agreement, developer may advise the city of any such changes by written notification to the city. And then and it goes on into how that is now part of the agreement. I. I. I. I'm going to say I trust that you'll manage that. But that is that's letting ferrovial I mean, the state of Delaware. So. Right. This and maybe this maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. But this is the great Hope P3 agreement that's on my screen. That said, the other important thing is, is that we keep talking about this is a pre-development agreement, but this is very much a developer agreement as well because that is one of the work products of this agreement. Correct. Yes. In addition or as part of all that. Sorry. Good evening. Dan Ramer, the city attorney's office, in addition, or as part of the submittals required under the pre-development agreement, will be the negotiation of the development agreement. And the intention is that that development agreement will be presented to the Council at the end of the six month period. Great. So the important thing there is that that is an agreement with the city, which is all of us. So what I'm getting at is that one of the nice one of my one of the as I've been developing a comfort level with this process, with this agreement. I mean, I having been in the airport as a young architect before, it was anybody was moving through there. I've seen that. I mean, I want to commend us having 20 years into this thing. We've actually done a pretty damn good job taking on the changes that came with 911 and whatnot. But I've been struggling with physically how we were going to improve this, given the the constraints that the building has, but maintain the sort of quality of that environment. I am getting more and more comfortable the more and more I learn about the approach that potentially the technology that's out there on how we might actually be able to adapt and move forward for the next 20 plus or 30 years. Is this case may be, but in and in one of the things that gets me excited about this is that I think we could be as innovative and ahead of the curve as we were, as when Pioneer first proposed this, that the concept of moving out there in the middle of nowhere seemed so forth, but it ended up being an incredible asset. So how do we take ourselves to the next level and be this international destination mid midway through this continent is by providing a level of service that we couldn't even predict back 20 years ago. And I think the potential is there if we get in the right partnership. But well, and I've made this very clear, and that's why I'm telling my colleagues that this is our agreement, is that while we're setting a new precedent and a new paradigm for airports in America or worldwide, we should be. I believe that you have the capability in your partnership to actually do that on the labor front, to bring something new to the air. And so that's what I'm asking as a member of the agreement, the developer agreement, because we're the city, the developer agreement that will be a work product of this process provided that it goes through and we're happy with the work product, is that we have something on par or, you know, to the Heathrow Academy that we're actually because this is a stable this is a this is this is a stable revenue generator for the city and for this state, really. I mean, for the city in general and for for the enterprise, I should say. And so these are it's got the potential to be a real stable job and a real for anybody that gets lucky enough to get employed out there. And I would like this culture to sort of permeate the sort of stability of the place, the beauty of the place and how it performs permanent permeate all the workers that go out there. And so that's going to be my expectation is while we're doing all this stuff on on security and concessions, we're doing it for the people, too. And I think we're going to benefit from having a potential partner that's actually sort of more familiar with sort of more pro-labor governments and things like that than than our own what we've got going on here. So I just I just want to say that that's when you guys come back. That's what I'm going to be looking at. So if I could just make one comment, I think we have heard loud and clear in our meetings with many of you that this is a clear priority for you. And in the next six months, we will develop a very specific and robust program with regard to workers and education and recruitment and all of those elements that will be part of our work during this pre-development agreement. So thank you. Thank you. Kim Yeah, so thank you. Kim Because I do think the things that I'm seen thus far, I've questioned at multiple, multiple levels. And I'm, I'm comfortable with this pre-development agreement. I'm comfortable with the terms both if we continue or choose not to, but if we choose to go forward as a city, I think that we all have that expectation that we're actually going to deliver the next 30 years comfortably and quality out at DIA. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions. Then you can decide whether you want me to give my comments. Sir. Put me back in the queue to do those. So I first wanted to say thank you both. The team, as well as the contractor team have spent a number of hours with me and trying to do my due diligence. So I appreciate that. But I do still have a few questions because the most recent large project at the airport was the Hotel Transit Center. I have to ask a few questions about that just for comparison purposes. So my first question is, is the hotel performing well? Yes, far above our expectations. And it's my understanding that there's an agreement related to how the workers and the hotel interacted at the at the DIA Hotel. Is that correct? Yet there is a legal agreement that determines the relationship between how workers in the airport and in the hotel will interact with each other. Is that correct? That that was a piece of it is not an agreement with the airport, but Starwood has an agreement with their workers. There was a there was a piece of the RFP when the airport was initially committing to build this hotel that the city had in its policies. Correct. I don't know if any of us know the exact words. I think there was something about neutrality. Yeah, that. That's the agreement, too. So have you had any issues with labor disputes at the hotel? Not that I'm aware of. And has that agreement impaired the performance of the hotel at all? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. That's helpful to know. And then we had a change in teams on the hotel design project at one point. We had. And was it when that change took place? It was my recollection that the following team could not just pick up exactly where the prior team left off, that there was a certain bit of reworking they had to do of the product they got from the prior architect that that it took some time to then get back up to speed. Is that correct? I would not clarify that way. We actually did indeed pay the the original architect and we owned all of the work that had been done to date. And we started from that point and went forward. Was it the same exact design carried forward or were there changes and adjustments made? It was early enough in the process that there were normal changes that would happen as just as design evolves. Okay. Thank you. My next question is, what is the status of the current concession contracts in the Great Hall that are operating today? They are on a month to month holdover. And what will happen at the point at which this contract and in the construction down the road takes place to those existing concessionaires? So just like any concession contract, when they expire, the concessionaire has an opportunity to bid on another location. But the current concessionaires will be closed. Correct. Any lease there? There actually. I mean, I will just say that their leases expired some time ago. We have actually extended them on month to month to get us to the point of this construction. Right. But at a certain point, they will terminate and this new P-3 will operate their spaces moving forward. No, this P3 does not operate any concessions. This P3 will this partner will go out and put together proposals to bring in concessionaires. And we hope that some of the existing concessionaires in the airport will apply and win spaces in the terminal. They also have the opportunity to apply for spaces in the concourses. But in the interim, the construction, all of these locations will be redesigned. There will be I mean, maybe Ferrovial wants to answer. Are any of the concession spaces that are there now going to continue to operate in perpetuity, or will you be rebidding each of the spaces? No, obviously what they're going to do is a massive construction. So all concessions in in the terminal will be closed while we renovate. Yeah. And I'm just trying to clarify because we've had a lot of questions about the workers. And so I just want to be really clear that every worker in that terminal will lose their job at some point during this process. I would say that, yes, in their current job, but they all have opportunities at the other concessions. Right. But they have no guarantee to those other jobs. That's correct. Okay. Thanks so much. That's really helpful. So I just want to move into my comments, Mr. President, or would you like me to go back into the queue? Go ahead. Okay. So I appreciate some of my colleagues mentioning that they're willing to kind of take this conversation about some of the pieces of this contract that are unknown and, you know, hold them over and see where things happen in six months. My recollection of the costs and some of the changes that occurred in the scope was not that if things didn't work out with the first team, it was really easy to switch to a new team. It was quite controversial and challenging to make that transition. I do believe there was additional costs that we incurred when we changed architectural firms. And, you know, we can, I guess, debate that a little bit. But having been at the table and having to approve some of those contracts for the new teams, it did not feel seamless to me as a city, and it certainly did not seem seamless to our auditor in terms of the costs that were incurred. So I don't think that it's the case that you should choose lightly the first time around. Right. And just say, well, if it doesn't work out, it's only $9 million and we can switch teams. I just that's a lot of money and I think it's important for us to treat it very seriously. I've been very impressed with the general concepts that the Ferrovial team has brought forward, and I agree with Councilman Espinosa that, you know, the potential for the hall to be reworked. But I see a very real chance for labor disruption in this in this situation. We have an entire terminal of people who will lose their jobs. And we've had a lot of emphasis on the fact that there are hundreds of jobs open at the airport, and it's really easy to get a different job. We have really low unemployment right now. This contract, if it goes to the final development agreement, could last for 30 years. We all know that unemployment rates change and it's not always the case that there's a ton of extra jobs. And I think that to the extent that this team has has has not been clear in committing to what their policy commitments are. It's great to do training and it is great to have a conversation about the kind of interaction you want to have with your employees overall or your concern. Engineers, employees. But I'm in the government business and in the government business contracts include policies or they include very clear terms that indicate what relationships might look like. And in this case, I often approve things from this dais that aren't all the way done, that are in the works. But I have not had one conversation to indicate to me that any of those policies are in the works. They've been open ended conversations. And there is I've asked several times, is there a conversation scheduled to work on a policy related to the things Councilman Lopez was asking about? And I have been told there is not a meeting scheduled which does not give me comfort to say, trust us, we'll work it out in the next six months. I think it's really important that intentions are clear up front, even if the work isn't all completed. So for me, I also have similar questions about the construction contracting. I really appreciate, you know, Sadr's team has been, you know, very responsive and trying to get me information about how much of this work will be competitively bid. But I don't have a clear answer on that. And again, this is a public private partnership, which means that I expect high standards for competitive contracting to keep costs down, to make sure there's fairness. You know, I can't speak to allegations in other countries from many years ago, but public competitive contracting is the best way to avoid those kinds of allegations. And so I just don't see the clear path of commitments that I would need to see to approve a relationship that has the potential to go this long. I don't believe the first six months. I don't take $9 million lightly as an early relationship. I want us to get this right. So I'm going to be a no vote tonight. I this very well may pass, in which case I hope that these conversations that are not scheduled today, these intentions that haven't been made clear in terms of how to avoid the economic risks both to workers and to our airports, operations from all of the we already have labor disputes occurring around this issue. And my fear for their economic impact on our airport and on passengers is real. So I will not be able to support it. But if you are successful tonight, I do hope that you will come back with a clear set of written policies about these relationships rather than just, you know, broad statements about training colleges. So with that, I will be voting no tonight. Mr. President, thank you. If you can hold your applause so we can get through this. Councilman. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. President. I think, you know, I think you and your staff are going to do a great job. I think it's a wonderful project. And I'm sort of surprised that this safety issue had come up before now. I mean, you know, yes, the recent incidents that we've had around the world, you know, just emphasize how important the safety of that Great Hall are. The lack of safety in that Great Hall really is. So I think the project's going to be good. Yes. I got a couple of questions. You know, financial monitoring of performance is going to be critical. Can you describe the process going to go through how you're going to monitor that, the financial performance of this country council? And who are you referring to post the development agreement or as measures. As you're building, going through the building and you're putting your financial monitoring process in place, what are the key things that you're going to be looking? Are you be concerned about and how is it going to work? Sure. We are going to have some very specific requirements will be negotiating over the next six months. That will be similar to what we've put in place with the hotel, for example. There will be monthly reports required on both revenues and the costs. We will monitor those very closely. We will have terms in the agreement that will spell out a range within which Ferrovial and its team would need to remain in order to meet the terms of the agreement. Along with that, we will have a cross-functional team within the airport that will monitor all of the facets of the operations , not just financially, but as you know, that does impact the financial bottom line as well. We do that currently. We have a cross-functional team that monitors all of our projects to make sure that they're staying within delivery, time, scope and of course, budget. And that will be something that we will also implement the minute that this project goes live, and that will also be reviewed within the context of our larger financial plan because as Councilman Hearn mentioned earlier, this is just one component of a very large operational airport. All right. Thank you. I would you I have great confidence in your ability to manage the finances. And will there be a member of the city finance department to be a part of the creative development process? Will that be somebody there to help you out? Absolutely. So I work very closely, almost on a daily basis with the city's chief financial officer. And we will have a member of his team, whoever he appoints, that will be part of that process. Will it be a role for the city auditor in this process down the road? Maybe not in the pre-development, but somewhere down the road. Are you thinking about using the city auditor as another safety check to help you? Yeah. Yes. Those conversations have actually begun. Great. Wow. And then the risk sharing part, that'll be part of this agreement. This pre-development is so. So we'll end up with a great deal like the state of Texas did. And so. So will we. But there will be a main issue that you'll be discussing, I'm sure. Absolutely. Okay. And then at the end of this pre-development phase, will you be sharing information with the city council about how this how it ended up? Yes. Okay. Move forward to. Right. Yes. So when the development agreement comes forth, at that point, there'll be quite a detailed discussion, as you can imagine. All right. Well, thank you very much. I wish you best of luck. I think you'll do well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't be more excited about this project. The the Great Hall, as it exists today, has proven itself not nearly as timeless as the great roof above it. And so I think it's going to be a wonderful opportunity to really move DIA into a 21st and 22nd century product. But I as with a lot of my colleagues, I share concerns about labor retention. And I really I appreciate Councilwoman Canete so clearly stating the the problem of the potential for lost jobs in the Great Hall businesses themselves. And so I'll be looking at that closely. I share concerns about the the effect of the Great Hall concessions on the concessions in the terminals. But I also believe the opportunity exists that the existing concessionaires can share in what we hope will be bounty from this new project. I'm really concerned about security at DIA, and I think this is something that that we need to address now. And so I'm going to be supporting this tonight. I think I want to move forward now. However, there's going to be a whole different ballgame. And next time we meet about this project, I don't think anyone up here. I expect this will. My guess is this will move forward. But I don't think any of the votes tonight that may be moving this forward should be interpreted as in the bag. Six months down the road, when the when the real deal comes forward now, I expect there's going to be labor peace. I'm expecting that. I'm expecting the questions about all the city policies that we all hold dear, about how we deal with minority contractors and so on and so forth, will be part of what comes up to us down the road. But we will be reading it carefully. So cross the T's and dot the I's, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, back up. Yes. Two quick questions and then I'll make some comments. So, Chris, would you mind answering whether or not for a will is in in looking long term, would be providing transportation vouchers for the workers? You know, one of the challenges we have is that it is so far away and the cost to either park or to take the train or even the bus is is a little pricey. And with most people making minimum wage, it's. Frankly, a little more affordable for people to work elsewhere than the airport. And if we're going to have more concessions, we know that we still have jobs at the hotel that still need to be filled. So that is just one small tool, if you will, that could could help defray the costs for workers. So can you address that? Yes. I mean, I think I would put that in the context of wider work, which we are going to be doing to attract the employees that we will need for the airport. So making sure that there is affordable travel will be will be important. Quite the level of commitments and who that will be given by will it be by the individual concessionaires and by the work that we're going to be doing in conjunction with the airport as well on things like recruitment fairs as well, to make sure that we take all the opportunities that we can do to publicize the jobs and they will be good jobs that are available at the airports. When we multiply the number of concessions in the Great Hall, you know, potentially by some like 300%. So this is a great opportunity and I absolutely recognize that the cost of travel is an important factor in people's considerations. Okay. And then my next question is probably for Kim. And this is about just looking at how we keep the cost per employment down. So if. The Great Hall is so successful and it's capturing the majority of the spend. You know, people will come through TSA. Once it's reworked, they'll be able to spend there. Once they spend there, they're not going to go spend on A, B, or C. And one of my concerns is if. You know, this is capturing people coming in. And, you know, for for folks traveling through the airport, whether they're, you know, changing gates or just, you know, arriving. I think we have a greater opportunity to capture the spend of people who are, you know, changing. We're Denver's just a. The transfer facility for them. So so part of my question is how do we. How do we get it? Making sure that we keep that cost per employment down so that we continue to be a competitive airport? I mean, because at the end of the day, we're first and foremost an airport. Yes. It's important to have the kind of concessions that people want when they travel through our airport, whether they're international or local travelers. We also need to make sure that we keep the cost of the the goods and the serve the the the food and the goods affordable. So, you know, we may have a lot of people flying through that can afford some of the pricey things. But we still have a lot of families that travel through our airport. We have, you know, people that that travel for work, not all of whom have all their costs being covered. So a lot of them are doing it out of pocket. So having different price points, I guess, is is what's really important. But at the end of the day, how do we make sure that the money that's going to be generated in the main hall is not all captured by Ferrovial? We know that. You know, we need to figure out how to pay them back for the investment that they're going to make to do the improvements. But. I know you don't know what the share back cost is just yet, but knowing that we need to keep our airport competitive and keep that cost per employment down, I'm just asking you to look into that crystal ball and and tell me what that thinking has been about how we ensure that we don't compromise, again, the fiscal health of the airport by keeping that cost for employment down. So that was a very complex question. Let me just say this. I'll try and have a simple answer. In the next six months, we will be working out the specifics of the cost sharing with FERROVIAL. Every cent we make from this great hall we the airport make from this great hall agreement. Every cent we make off of the hotel, every cent we make off of our parking and anything bought in the terminal, we put into our overall model that allows us to reinvest that money to keep the cost to our partners down. And that is one of our primary goals. Every decision we make at the airport, we evaluate what is this going to do to the cost of our carriers. Because, as you know, Councilwoman Ortega, if we can keep their costs competitive, they add flights and that helps us to grow our airport. So this this initiative is just one more piece in that overall goal. And my hope is that we continue to have spend in both places so that we don't have the impact to A, B and C, which is where we're going to rely on really 100% of what's generated on A, B and C, whereas in the main terminal, it's going to be a percentage of what's generated there. And just remember that on the concourses, you have a lot of passengers who never take the train to the terminal. They are just connecting, as you mentioned. And so the entire spend by those passengers will be out on those concourses even after this program. That's right. Okay. So let me just make my comment that we don't need to do that. And so, first of all, I want to thank Kim and all of the folks who have met with me to answer my many, many questions. Apologize that I wasn't able to be at the committee meeting when this was brought forward. I was out of town, but I did send questions over to my colleagues in hopes that we would get to some of those. You missed magic. Pardon me? You missed. Magic. I was just saying. Anyway. I think it is important that we keep our airport fresh, compatible, competitive and affordable with the concessions that we have. And I think this new concept will will help do that on the main terminal. And I think how we put the language in the contract for the next phase becomes really important in terms of what that share back looks like. That absolutely ensures that we maintain control over the contract, but also that we keep it competitive in terms of the cost per employment. And yes, we are a worldwide airport, but at the same time, we still serve families and others that travel, you know, within the U.S.. And so I don't want us to just focus on being that international airport and lose sight of the, you know, the main focus of of serving local travelers as well. And. Yes. It's important to to attract what we have heard from the folks through the various surveys that have been done in terms of the kinds of goods , the kinds of meals, etc., etc., that they would like to see at the airport. But again, we need to keep those prices competitive. The fact that we do not have a worker retention policy built into our executive order, I think this is something city council needs to look at just adopting as an ordinance for contracts that come through this city where we know worker retention is a critically important issue. We've had to deal with this contract after contract after contract. We had one with the janitorial that does work in many of our city buildings where, you know, we had to address that very issue. And I think it's an important one. And particularly at DIA, where cost to get out there is so expensive. I think it's important to have routine updates to City Council. We still have not yet had close out information and I've requested this and brought this up several times. We have not had close out information on the hotel and transit center. And if we keep pushing these things down the road where we never get to them on our agenda and we're doing that with the main hall, that's going to be a problem. And I think we need to look at how we stay engaged in this conversation because the air is part of the city. We're all, you know, part of this decision making process and. DARPA is not autonomous from the rest of of the city. And so the process of keeping this body informed is vitally important to going to the next phase of of where this is all anticipated to move. I just have to say that I am not comfortable moving this forward. I have serious heartburn with a long term contract that has been talked about for this. I know that's still something that would be negotiated as part of the discussions in the next phase. But I think basically privatizing the operations of who selects the concessions that will be at DIA and ensuring that we have a level playing field with the folks that operate on A, B and C. As you guys know, there is a used to be a 20% limitation on ownership that was changed to 25%. And it's not absolutely clear that that same percentage of ownership will apply to any of the concessions that will be in the main the main concourse, the main terminal . So some of these details. Yes, the devil is always in the details and knowing that. This is the first step that really kind of knocks down the door to ensuring that the next piece, you know, just kind of moves forward. I'm not I haven't reached that comfort level and I have shared some of those concerns with with Kim and her staff. And again, I appreciate the time that you all have shared with me and trying to get me to that comfort level. But, you know, maybe at the end of the six months, when you all bring that package back and show us how we've addressed these issues, maybe I'll be there on that next phase. But right now I am not there. And so I'm going to be a no vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I first of all, thank you, everybody who has been working on this. And this is a big deal, right? I mean, this is worth the conversation that we have that we're having right now. It's a big deal because there's there's a lot of things that we have pride in in Denver. Right. There's a lot of things that there's some things we don't have pride in. I mean, we can. The food over at Kasarani does not a good thing about this. You know, Denver pretended it's not even Denver. We'll just say that. But there's a lot of things, right? We have championship football. We have great downtown, we have great neighborhoods. But we have this amazing airport that in the last 20 or 25 years of this airport, it is went from it has evolved from old Stapleton Airport to this world class facility. Right. And there are folks in this room that have made that possible. I look at Abby or from Councilwoman Stanton, manager of Parks and Rec, Debbie Ortega, who's who served before. There's a lot of things that have happened to make this airport great and. That's also in the same breath. That's also the workforce, because a lot of the folks that begin working at this airport are still there. And they have made this airport, the world class city, a world class airport and a world class city that it is right. They continue to do that every single day. So the reward for their work shouldn't be sorry your job is gone. Got to reapply for another low wage job somewhere else. The reward for their work. Should be. Thank you for making this airport. Great. Let us take you. Let us take you to the next level. Let us advance your opportunity. Let's create new jobs for the airport. Absolutely. Things change. Nobody's going to get in front of the jumbo jet and say, okay, sorry, you can't take off. Right. It's taking off. This airport's growing leaps and bounds. Change is happening. We can't get in the way and over to petty things. We just want to make sure that we have the insurance assurance that the people who are making this airport great reap that return on investment. Right. Yes. We expect this this this this agreement moving forward. Right. We expect this to have the the reflect the the the value of the world class airport. We want to see great businesses, new business come in. Right. We want to continue to reflect the flavor that Denver has to offer in this airport. Right. We want local businesses to thrive. We want new businesses to enter the airport and thrive. But at the end of the day, we want to make sure that the team that is at the table. Right. And, you know, I don't want you to take this as a as a sign of not being welcome to Denver. You are absolutely welcome to Denver. We have great football is a different football, but is good. The other the other football's not so great, sir. But here's the other thing. We we expect those values that we have in Denver to be reflected at your table. As you were negotiating. It is not a separate country with different values. It's not a separate state or a political entity with different values. We have those values. You know why? Because we are pressured. To find affordable housing. That's really not necessarily about housing. It's about the lack of quality jobs and well-paying jobs. And this is where that rubber meets the road. This is one of those ways that we can help. Address other issues in this city and continue to make the city great. Ross No one's going to want to visit. I. And here's the thing. As we move forward, I do have faith. You know, I know some people at the table. That are talented individuals and that understand these values. I, I have faith in that. I know we have a good team and I know they have the same values we do. And I think it's it's it's up to us in the diocese and in the city and the leadership to be able to say, you know what, here's the values that we back. Here is what we expect from our airport. That way, there's no question. What our values are as a city. Right. So as you go negotiate, as you go flesh this out. Please remember those values. Now we want to reward the people that make this city great. From mop to plate to service to greeting to the people that are designing the logo of our airport. Every single body, we want to make sure that they are rewarded in championship teams. Especially from the Broncos all the way to the Rockies. Right. Everybody gets a ring. Because everybody took part in that championship. Everybody gets a ring. And we want to make sure this airport, everybody knows we don't necessarily to pass out championship rings, but we want to make sure that that respect is there. That commitment is there. Right. Those are our Denver values. And that's what we're trying to really express at this table. So if that, you know, I am going to support this moving forward, I was teeter tottering about this for weeks. Everybody's not been getting phone calls from me because I'm just completely indecisive about it. Right. So but I do have faith. I have faith that that at this table is going to be broad. It's going to include the people that work in it. It's going to be amazing. So I want to see this move forward reflecting our values. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you. I'm calling you, Mr. Commander. Councilman Lopez. Been a long night already. Okay. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to let my colleagues know that October will be at the busy committee, the close out for the hotel and transit project. So pay attention to your calendars and we hope you can join us in October for that close out report. Thank you, Mr. President. You know what? I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you so much. Seeing no other comments. I'll say this. I have a picture, a new picture in my office. It is of Pena looking over a huge field. And it's the groundbreaking of the airport. And you know, I have so much respect for that man and that visionary leader today because of where we're going and what we're building on. And I'm so excited to make this a global airport. Now we know we're global. We know we're competing with Zurich and in and all these other global cities. But I say global because it has it has a intertwining with the local fabric. And so I think I share the values of my council folks here. However, we've been I've been on I've been at this for about five or six years. And we've we've had some issues that were resolved. And I have faith and I have to, because guess where I'm at? I wasn't hired by the airport, so I don't get to work out the negotiation. And I just voted up or down. I have faith that the airport is going to come back with a a deal that is good for all of us that we can support. And so that's why I will be supporting this. The presentation, if you didn't get a chance to see the committee, was excellent because we spent a large part of the time talking about neighborhoods. We spent time talking about neighborhoods in the community. No one's talked about that tonight. And that's the thing that I'm most excited about, that we had a commitment from an investor, which I have never seen before in the city of Denver, say. We're we're going to be about these neighborhoods. And so that's what I'm about and that's what I'm support. So I will be supporting this. Madam Secretary. Rocco. Gilmore. Abstain. Herndon. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, close voting. Announce the results. Ten eyes, two nays, one abstention. 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?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary for a Lease with GCC LONG BEACH, LLC (Landlord), and the City of Long Beach (Tenant), for the use of the premises at 2019 East Wardlow Road for the temporary location of Fire Station 9, for a period of three years; Increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Fire Department by $246,400; and Decrease appropriations in the Capital Project Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $246,400, to offset the transfer to the General Fund Group. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_07142020_20-0662

It gives me great cause. Could we please do item 21? I'm sorry. Absolutely. We're going to look at 21. Item 21 Report from Economic Development and Fire. Recommendation to execute a lease with JCC, Long Beach and the City of Long Beach for the use of the premises at 2019 East Wardlow Road for the temporary location of Fire Station nine. District five and any further comments in the statement? Vice Mayor. We do have a presentation on this item. A short presentation? Fine, thank you. Can we please hear? Right. So economic development will be given a presentation on this. This is a wonderful item on our new temporary location for Fire Station nine. The team has worked really hard to find a new place to have our temporary headquarters, which also helps reduce response times. So with that, I will turn it over to Sergio Ramirez, who will give the report. Thank you, Tom. Good evening, Vice Mayor and council members. As you know, Fire Station nine had located at 3917. Long Beach Boulevard had a was forced to close in 2019 due to environmental and health concerns that forced us to relocate the crew, equipment and apparatus. The staff and the apparatus had to be relocated to two nearby fire stations in the area fire station 16 and 13. Accommodations for staffing include temporary trailers that are not considered sufficient for long term habitation and compliance with health and safety and operation requirements. A permanent site development is likely to take place for another 2 to 3 years. Is that that. No, no, I'm sorry. I have a little bit more. We're having technical difficulties. Okay, but go ahead. If if we have the item to display for the public, we would like to get that. Sure. We have identified a temporary location at the former Boeing. Fitness facility, which is located at 2019. East Wardlow Road. As you recall, the Boeing sold the property, the former C-17. Site, which included the Boeing. Fitness facility to Goodman last year. The building is approximately 16,500 square feet and can accommodate the of the the temporary fire station. This will help reduce response time by about to approximate 2 minutes. In regards to proposed lease terms, we're going to be the city will be paying approximately $10,000 per month for about a three year period . This will allow this lease will allow us to activate the building. For during the temporary. Period while the Permian location is identified and secured. And built. As part of the lease, the city will pay the maintenance and improvements of the building. The total fiscal impact as mentioned for the for the the lease based on the 10,000 roughly $10,000 a month will translate to about $123,000. Utilities are anticipated. About. $43,000 per year. And we are anticipating a one time capital tenant improvement cost of about $200,000. Funding sources for this project will. Be a mixture of measure. Refunds, as well as the admission or temporary savings from the elimination of the trailers and some general fund. Annual operation. Budget savings. If approved this evening, we will immediately execute the temporary lease and move forward with tenant improvements over the next couple of months and target a moving date of October 1st. And with that now I complete my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Sergio. I did want to add one thing. Actually, our response times are looking at about a minute and a half for the engine in terms of an improvement to the response time and up to two and a half minutes for the rescue. And with that, we are available to answer questions. Fine. Is there any public comment available? There is no public comment for this item. Any comment about an error? I can go ahead and just I'll go. I know we had Councilman Austin and Councilmember Ringo that did the first and the second. Councilmember Austin, did you have any additional comments? Yes. This is actually welcome news. To our community. I want to thank all of our staff for the focus, the commitment from Tom, the entire team, economic development, obviously our fire department, public works, everyone who had anything to do with moving us to this position. Obviously, this is not the optimal solution. We would love to be able to say that we have a permanent fire station, a fire station nine secured. That is still underway. We also have the money from air fly 20 to help us achieve that. I did have a couple of questions just to get some clarification and. I guess this is for the city manager. How soon will the tenant improvements be able to be completed and that this location can be opened? We have an estimated date. Yes. So with there, with your approval, we would sign this lease agreement in July. We would do the tenant improvements immediately and have Goodman do those. And they're going to do those very quickly in August and September with a target moving date of October 1st. Okay. That's very encouraging. So little over two months. And so I've also heard from several residents, and I just want to put it out there who would love to see Fire Station nine? Current Fire Station nine preserved and adaptively reuse. I know there's some current. There's apparently a drought. The air that we're currently studying in the former site along the boulevard probably. And take your time. By the council approved in the lease for Fire Station nine. Does that help to fill the temporary station? Does that help take off some of the urgency of having to take action at the former site? Yes. So we had originally when we started this about a year ago, we were looking for a the fastest temporary site available. So that looked to be station nine at the time. We got, however, deeper into it and discovered we needed to do a full year. That air is just about done and ready to be released. However, we do expect that our common period to take some additional time. We know there's a high level of interest in the community and so this was a quicker building for us to be able to get into. We still want to finalize that air process, but and then the council will be able to make some decisions on what to do with that city asset. I appreciate that. And and I think it's important to mention that this is not negotiations for a permanent site is is the search in negotiations for a permanent site is still ongoing. And then one final question time. I would just say, with the air still moving forward, is it correct that ultimately it will be up to the city council? What happens with the former fire station site? Yes, that's correct. It will be a city asset and we'll have a lot of information from the air on the status of it, including also some of the challenges that that building has in terms of, you know, the damage in the mold. But it would be up to the city council, first in closed session and then an open session on how to what to do with that facility going forward. Okay. Well, thank you for for clarifying that. Again, I want to thank the entire team, city team for all their work to do to help address our public safety response system. This temporary site, I believe, will help do that. Again, I want to thank Chief Espinal, especially for his dedication to help make this happen as well. And with that, I would just ask for my colleagues to support this. Thank you. Thank you, customary, Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Cosmo Rossett for his comments on this question. He addressed basically everything that I had in mind, especially when it came to pay life. And I'm very happy to see that there will be a continuation of service in that area, very much needed. And hopefully that the time, the response rates will stay as low as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you Councilmember I'm seeing nobody else queued up customers and day house I know you had try to second the motion or did you have a comment. Good. Thank you, Mayor. Great. I just want to I just want to add I want to just concur with the council members. This is such an important project and just so important to have for the community. And I'm just really want to thank first both Councilmember Offset and Councilman Ranga. They've both been working on this issue incredibly hard and in the community. So I just want to thank them both for this and also the staff and the fire department. We want to make sure that obviously fire service all across the city, but also in this part of town, that people are well served and the people feel good about their access to the department. So just thank you for all the work. And with that, we do a roll call vote. District one. I district to. On District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I just put seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Right. Thank you. We are now moving on to the next item, which is going to be item number 18.

A bill for an ordinance relinquishing an easement established by the New Avondale Subdivision Plat located near West Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard. Relinquishes certain easements established on the New Avondale Subdivision Plat recorded in 1963 located at West Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard in Council District 3. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-30-17. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-27-16.

DenverCityCouncil_01172017_16-1331

Okay. Thank you. I was confusing this with that other project and thank. You for saying it's easy to get those confused. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to bring up 1331. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Councilwoman. Last one. Yes. This is for the Avondale Shopping Center property. And I just want to know that when we relinquish certain easements, if properties that exist to the east of the shopping center, if their access will be affected in any way. And I don't know if there's anybody here that can speak to that. Anybody here. So that's your district. Lisa? Lisa Lumley, back up here. Sorry, Lisa. Three out of four of the bills. You're on fire tonight. So there are a number of businesses on the east side of that shopping center. Right. That basically access off a 14. Mm hmm. And I want to know if the. Relinquishing the the easements in any way, shape or form affects their ability to access their properties. I will check on this for you. This is not one of our bills. So but I am familiar with the center because of acquiring the parcel and I am part of the board for Avondale there representing the library. We do have a cross access agreement, though, with the other owner, so it should not impact it. But let me follow up and see exactly where this easement is an awful lot with you in the morning then. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. That concludes my requests. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Lisa. All right. This concludes the items that have been called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block votes on the resolution, on the bills for final consideration and councilmembers. Please remember that this is this is a consent or block vote and we need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call at each item for a separate vote to form Ortega. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills on final consideration for final passage and do place on the floor? Will do I move that the following be moved in a block vote. Council Bill 17 000 for I'm sorry. Resolution. Resolution 16. 1294. 1295. 1318 0003 of 1217 1207 of 2016 1209. 13. Ten. And then. Council Bill 1193 series of 2016 and 1199 also of 2016. You u Ms. 1342 1274. Those other two were not on there. Okay. I thought those were bills for those are final. Sorry. Okay. So let me add 2016 excuse me, council bill 1274 and 1331 of 2016 as well, all in a bloc vote. Okay. And want to make sure, Madam Secretary, she got 1342 series of 12 and 16. I don't I'm sorry. And 1310. We got that one right. Okay. Yes. And not the other two. Okay. Okay. Good to go. I think. So. Okay. We're good to go. Take out those other two. Scratch. For the record, it has been moved the second it. Mr. Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I. Gillmor I Cashman Canete Lopez knew Ortega I assessment i. Mr. President. I. 12 I's to advise. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing of Council Bill 90 1193 changing the zoning classification of 2099 and 2101 31st Street and require a public hearing for Council Bill 1199 Changing the zoning classification for 4211 Inca

Recommendation to request City Manager to create a $5 million Personal Services and Fitness Resiliency Fund from the next federal COVID-19 stimulus fund package. This fund could be increased depending on demand and final federal stimulus bill.

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1252

Okay, well, look who we're going to. We're moving on to the regular agenda item 22. Item 22 Communications from Mia Garcia, Councilmember Muranga Councilman Austin Vice Mayor Richardson Recommendation to request City Manager to create a 5 million Personal Services and Fitness Resiliency Fund from the next federal COVID 19 stimulus fund package. Thank you. I just want to first thank the the staff and just the team for working on this. We, again, are very optimistic. And in conversations that I'm having with the Biden administration and the transition team at looking at a really robust federal package that will be coming to two cities and states very soon, obviously, in a matter of weeks. Now, we want to make sure that we have this program in place and ready to go the day that we receive resources from our hopefully next large stimulus package. We think it's going to be large. We think there's going to be significant support to help small businesses and other priorities that we will have as it relates to health. And so this fund matches the fund that we did for restaurants at the last meeting. And again, it is $5 million that we are setting aside for personal care services and fitness. And again, the dollar amount, of course, if we end up receiving a lot more, then we're looking forward to even providing hopefully additional resources. But we want to do is have these two funds developed and the process really ironed out. We know that, you know, whether you're have a barber shop or whether you're an institution or whether you're one of the many personal services, your industry has been hit very hard. Obviously, there were some shutdowns that happened earlier in the summer. But now, of course, we're back to a place where there is just no support coming in because of the additional closures that we've had to make. And so this will give this industry, which is very large in Long Beach, an opportunity to to get by. We want to keep these small businesses in our community. There's so many particularly independent and small gyms and trainers. They're doing amazing work and we want to be sure that they're supported as well. And so I ask for your support on this and look forward to the staff developing these programs and then bringing them back, hopefully together so we can get this thing adopted and move forward. And with that comes Murray Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. I think the proposal that you put on the table is an excellent one. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting the needed relief from the Biden administration. And they strongly support this. And I make the motion to. Thank you. There's a second by Councilwoman Mango. Councilman Mango. Thank you. I appreciate the mayor for all of his work on this in dialogs related to industries that needed support. This was one of those that was top of the list. I appreciate working with those in the industry and the many calls that we've received over the last several months. I especially appreciate those who have gotten together with me in a small working group, and I hope that that will be revitalized again. And finally, I know there are more industries that need help. We need to continue to work through the list and find solutions for each of them that really match their business needs. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much for this this item. I think that it is very important, especially right now, we're seeing that some of these businesses have kind of been feeling neglected. And so they also need that our support very, very much so. I'm happy to support this item. And thank you very much for bringing this forward. Thank you. With that, that concludes the council comment. We will go ahead and go to any public comment, please. Our first speaker is actually Richardson. Hi. My name is Ashley Richardson. I'm the owner of the 9 a.m. kickboxing studio next to the high school in the fifth District. As you're aware, fitness studios have been hit extremely hard. So thank you for finally addressing this. But I'm really talking about the brick and mortar gyms. I recently listened to this piece where Mary Garcia talks about how successful his personal trainer is and the Zoom classes and all these at home virtual gyms that are coming about. But those don't grow the local economy. Those are also not the people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and the indoor gym faces jumping through hoops to get business permits and licenses, paying property taxes, sales tax while hiring and employing residents to keep the economy going. My story is not unique, but one that I hope helps you understand why we in the fitness studio space are going through. I have my gym just four months before the closure of March a lot and had added five new jobs, had 138 members were growing. I had to lay off lay off all of my five employees. We were able to pivot, offer online classes, but I still lost 85% of my best monthly income. June came, July closed again, and all of this fall just hitting only 40% of my monthly income. Building that on top of that, we moved out to a part brand workout when we could only have earned back a mere 50% of our monthly revenue month over month. Some of you may feel that outdoor workouts are great and I don't disagree. However, from a business owner standpoint, we have to pay our employees a shuttle equipment that we can move outdoors, set it up, break it down to size hours and for payroll expenses. Then we have to buy outdoor systems, outdoor lighting, flooring, cell phone, iPad hotspot, additional insurance that covers outside all of this while we're still paying rent cans, property taxes and insurance and business licensing fees, office space that we can't use. And it's just not sustainable. We never ask restaurants to move their complete operation outdoors. We never said Your custom chef has to move your kitchens outside. But effectively, that's what we said for fitness studios, plain and simple. How long can gyms endure this while every other personal service has been allowed open? We keep getting pushed to the end of the line. There's no data showing gyms or any more dangerous or deadly. The mental and physical health benefits that gym offer far outweigh those of any other personal service that's been allowed open. And according to several medical journals, exercise boost immunity by immobilizing or infection fighting immune cells. And those activated during and after exercise are the best friends we have. Even more so after speaking to multiple pediatricians and doctors here in Long Beach. The biggest issues we face after COVID has come and gone is the true and silent pandemic our children are falling victim to, and that's obesity. We have to keep the gym industry going here in Long Beach, not only with the idea of a popular brand, but we need to have a plan to allow gyms to open as essential businesses, whether through application permit process that we all know so well. We need a path to opening, sustaining and in order to offer the mental and physical health we all need right now, if our Long Beach Health Department can determine who gets the vaccine and when they get it. All of this outside of L.A. County's jurisdiction, then I'm confident the Long Beach Health Department can determine how and when . Long Beach. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christine Bass. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Christine Bass and I serve as the government affairs manager for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm speaking today on behalf of our 670 members, representatives and community stakeholders. We applaud the Mayor for deepening the response to the pandemic and supporting our most vulnerable industries and our small businesses. Our cities, business, community and local workforce face unimaginable challenges during this unprecedented time, and we must do everything that we can to keep these industries afloat. Initially, it was predicted that the pandemic would have had the largest impact on the hospitality industry. But recent findings show that the pandemic has negatively impacted the personal care services, restaurant and fitness fitness industry. For this reason, we respectfully ask the Council to approve this fund for personal service and fitness centers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Think your next speaker is Mike Murchison. Good evening, Mayor and council members as a resident, a lifelong resident of Long Beach in the eighth District. Now, I appreciate the mayor's comments on the Resiliency Fund and his support for local businesses. I noted that there was 5 million for restaurants predicated upon the CARES Act funding. It's a bit concerning for the following reasons for me, not because the mayor is pushing for it. I applaud that. It's more about the fact that there are over 300 full service independent restaurants in Long Beach. So if they all apply for funding, that's only $12,500 each and that's not going to cut it. That amount goes down if you expand that list to the entire food service industry. In reality, mayor and council members, these independent restaurants to survive, to get through the next several months, they need about $50,000 to really make a difference. The other problem with receiving federal funding that goes through the city, through economic development. When you apply for a grant. You go through a process with the city. That process takes 2 to 2 and a half months to actually physically get a check. So while we talk about getting the money to the restaurants and all that through the grant process, the economic development staff is terrific. In reality, it's taking too long. The city needs to find a way to expedite that process, to get the money in the hands of these independent restaurant owners who basically have poured their lives into their restaurants and their businesses. Finally, I would also add the hotels have been impacted by this, not just the hotels in terms of ownership, but the employees, the tenants that live in Long Beach. They need some cares act money. So I would respectfully ask that the mayor and council look at the hotels in Long Beach along with their employees, and come up with some funding for them too through the CARES Act. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. I think, Councilman Austin, I think you queued up for this item. I'm assuming not for the next one. Yes. And I just wanted to obviously express my support for this item. Thank you, Mayor, for your work, lobbying and working with the administration in advance to try to secure all this. The floor. It's a relief for that that will help many of our residents, business owners. I just want to just just highlight the intent here or get some some clarification, as I understand it, because I think one of the public commenters made a very good point. So the personal services and total. What would be the applicant had to tie or somehow show some nexus to brick and mortar business, as opposed to just being an independent personal service. Trainer or something like that. Well, let me add to that. I think now I think that's a good question. So I think the staff is going to come back with both of the programs because that is going to be a consideration when we look at the amount of personal services, the amount of brick and mortar versus those that are more, you know, do work not to a brick and mortar is substantially different. And so that's something that staff will look at. And one of the reasons why we're bringing this program and the restaurant program forward now, instead of waiting for the money to come in, is for the exact reason that one of the commenters mentioned that we don't want to wait like we did for the Last Cares Act money right then to create the program. We want it done now. We want the council to approve the programs. When the money's here, everyone's giving their input and we have a good system going. So I think those are good questions and hopefully staff will address those when those come back in January. Yeah, I just want to make sure that is going to the individuals that are that are hit the most, make those individuals whole, particularly those who have been impacted by the stay at home orders and an inability to utilize their facilities. Great. I think that concludes public comment and the item comment. Right, Madam Clerk. And so with that, we'll go to roll call. Councilwoman Cindy, House right. Councilman Allen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. Councilman subpoena. All right. Councilwoman Mango. I as a woman, Sara. I Council member Oranga. I am Simon Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Well, in case.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary amendments, with Motorola Solutions, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, for the purchase, delivery, and implementation of radio communications equipment, for a total purchase price not to exceed $17,700,000, which will be automatically reduced based on multi-agency purchase volumes achieved under Motorola Solutions, Inc., Territory Los Angeles Volume Subscriber Pricing Program; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a lease-purchase agreement, and related financing documents, with Motorola Solutions, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, for the financing of the radio communications equipment, in a total principal amount not to exceed $17,500,000, and in an aggregate amount not to exceed $23,300,000 including principal, interest, and fees, payable over terms not to exceed 12 years; Increase appropriations in the General Services Fund (IS 385) in the Technology and Innovation Department (TI) by $541,000 for implementation costs, offset by a transfer from the General Fund; and

LongBeachCC_09112018_18-0806

Guess motion carries. Thank you. I am 20. Colloquially the item. Item 20 Report from Technology and Innovation Financial Management. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Motorola. Solutions for the purchase delivery and implementation of radio communications equipment for a total purchase price not to exceed 17,000,700. And execute a lease purchase agreement with Motorola. Solutions for the financing of the radio, communications equipment and total principal amount not to exceed 17,000,500 citywide. Thank you. As you have a first and second to any public comment and follow. Now. Would you please cast your vote? Oh, staff report, please. Okay, fine. Please. Sir, we have a staff report. We have our technology innovation director Olivia Erickson, and the deputy director case, Lee Leah. Good evening, Mayor. Members of city council. Tonight before you, we have an item related to radio communications, public safety technology. And I'm turning it over to Kasim Lee, who is our Infrastructure Services Bureau manager, to do the staff report. Honorable Mayor and members of this city council before you to recommendation to adopt a resolution and authorize city manager to one execute a contract with Motorola Solutions Inc for purchase of radio communications equipment for total purchase price not to exceed $17,700,000 to execute a lease purchase agreement with Motorola for the financing of the radio communications equipment and three appropriate $541,000 to technology innovation for the implementation of the radio communications equipment. As background, the Long Beach Police Department, Fire Department, Police, Public Works, Disaster Preparedness and Airport rely on a motorola based radio dispatch, radio signal and portable mobile radio infrastructure for day to day emergency response radio communications. After providing more than 12 years of reliable services to the city, the currently used x t series of portable and mobile radios will no longer be supported by the manufacturer beginning December 2018. This obsolescence of the x t series radios not only affects the city, but also many of the public agencies across the region. In addition, the C series does not support the current interoperability standards and objectives of the city and Southern California region. City Council approval is requested for acquiring replacement Apex Series Portable and mobile radios from Motorola. The Apex Series radios support all new interoperability standards, increase interoperability within the city and with agencies across the Southern California region, and positions the city for reliable radio services for the next ten years. In December 2017, T.I. presented $88 million in critical technology. Infrastructure needs to City Council. City Council authorized the city manager to prepare and submit purchase transactions for City Council consideration for $67 million. While staff continue to research alternatives and negotiate pricing on $21 million needed for replacing public safety communication technologies, today's recommendation to enter into a contract with Motorola follows after one work to confirm the total number of portable mobile radios needed and confirm the interoperability features needed across the city and regions to confirmation that the Urban Areas Securities Initiative U.S. grants are now available for the purchase of these radios. And three, negotiations with Motorola on an enhanced volume pricing program that are significantly lower priced than any other known contract with similar volumes. The pricing program combines all the purchases from L.A. County government purchasers to achieve volume discounts of approximately 50 to 64% off list pricing , depending on volume purchase commitments received by the October 19, 2018 deadline. The total purchase price not to exceed $17,700,000 is based on a 50% discount off list pricing, and the City Council letter details the pricing program at other levels of L.A. County purchase volume two commitments. Under the pricing program, Motorola will automatically reduce the city's invoice downwards following the October 19th deadline. Our best estimate at this time is that the total purchase price will come closer to $50 million or could be less. The city will enter into a 12 year lease purchase agreement with Motorola to finance the cost of the radios. Although the lease purchase agreement is technically for 12 years, is intended to be fully paid off in FY 22, with Measure eight funds as previously recommended and consistent with the current measure a plan in Fy19 proposed budget depending on the volume of the county's total purchases and final costs. Measure eight funds may or may not be sufficient, and additional funding sources may be needed to identify net fy22 in order to pay the lease purchase as intended. But this purchase is proposed without a competitive bid process because the city's installed radio dispatch system has features that are integrated with Motorola portable and mobile radios. In addition, the city's purchase of Motorola radios, along with other Los Angeles and Orange County public safety agencies, will allow for better interoperability with regional resources and could play an essential role in the city's timely response and recovery in a major disaster. We believe that this recommendation to purchase is the right decision for our public safety departments, and we believe that the volume pricing achieves a significantly lower price than any other known contracts with similar volumes. With that, I conclude my report and would be happy to take any questions. Fine, thank you. Do I have a first and second on this? Okay, fine. Thank you. Any more public opinions in more public comment? L. L. No, I'm just. Thank thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor. And I want to thank our staff for for such a thorough report and the great work in negotiating a what I think is a pretty, pretty impressive package, I think. And we're being smart with the taxpayer resources here. My my question is regarding the technology and understanding that this is a 12 year plan. Will the radios be sufficient five to 7 to 10 years from now for our public safety to be able to effectively do the work? I mean, iPhones change every year. And I just wanted to make sure if we're making this a significant investment up front, it's going to be be sufficient for us, you know, ten years from now. We believe that based on the history of the Motorola radios, that they tend to be supported for at least 10 to 12 years as our current platforms are currently have been supported for 12 years. And I'm seeing nods of affirmation from our fire and police chief. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Would you please cast your vote? Motion carries now removed item 21 1:00 please.

A MOTION confirming the appointment of Patti Cole-Tindall as the chief officer of the department of public safety.

KingCountyCC_05182022_2022-0191

Thank you so much for being with us today. And we will be in touch and look forward to our next meeting. With that, we will now move to something that is urgent. Number seven on that large and as proposed motion 20 20191, which is to confirm the executive's appointment of Paddy Cole Tindal as county sheriff. And the staff report begins on page 25 with Bowman will be briefing us. We do have with us again Director Debrief and PSP and Arena Hashimi from Director who's director Council Relations from Executive Office. We also have Melody Garcia, Public Safety Advisory Committee member, and Katie Cole Tindal, who is the appointee and is currently serving the interim share. Director Di Bain has requested that she be able to introduce the interim sheriff. And so we will follow the same process. Go right ahead, Dwight. Thank you, Councilmember. So it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to introduce Executive Konstantinos, a nominee for King County Sheriff Patty Cole Tindal. I've been here at the county for a little over 12 years, and I worked with Patty that entire time. She worked when I started the director of the Office of Labor Relations. Many of you know that she later also took on the role of the director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. She subsequently then went to work as one of the senior staff in the sheriff's office. Most recently was the undersheriff and then has been the acting sheriff while we went through a national search. I had the privilege of participating in that national search, and we had some very strong candidates. And at the end of the day, council member executive Constantine felt that Patty's somewhat unique approach to the work, her very diverse background and her experience in the sheriff's office meant that she was the best candidate. And I have to say personally, I agree just a little bit about her professional background. She has a bachelor's degree from Central Washington University, a master's degree from Troy State, has worked in a variety of law enforcement related positions throughout her career before she came into the Office of Labor Relations. Perry has a very strong familiarity with the sheriff's office. I think you'll find in the pack a strong support from many of the employees in their bargaining units in the sheriff's office. Also, we had extensive involvement of our contract cities and other contract partners. And you should have some information in the packet about their support for her nomination. So I have to say it's been a great experience for me personally, working with Patty throughout her career since I've been here in the county. I will also add that my observation in, you know, roughly four and a half months that she has been the interim sheriff is she has moved forward some very thoughtful and perhaps long overdue initiatives that are the kind of thing that I think all of us expect from our sheriff's office. So with no further ado, I would put in front of you the nomination of Patty Tindall as King County sheriff. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the introduction and I'd like to welcome the sheriff called Tendo. We are going to go ahead with the staff report before we turn to you for your remarks and Q and I just wanted to welcome you and congratulate you on the nomination for confirmation. So with that, we will turn to Nick Bowman from our central staff to provide the briefing on this item. And we will also hear from Melody Garcia from the Public Safety Advisory Committee. Go right ahead, Nick. Good morning, Councilmembers. For the record, Nick Bowman, Council Central Staff Proposed Motion 2020 2019. That one would conform to confirm the executive's appointment of Patti Tindal as the Chief Officer of the Department of Public Safety. Also known as County Sheriff. The King County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services for unincorporated King County and several governmental agencies, including full service policing to 12 contracted cities. In addition to providing patrol services. KSO delivers numerous specialty law enforcement services, including an air support unit, Marine Unit, SWAT, major crimes investigations, bomb disposal, major accident response and arson investigations. KSO also performs other functions such as emergency 911 call receiving and dispatching service and court orders related to civil court filings, issuing concealed weapons permits and sex offender registration. The Sheriff's Office 2021 2022 biennial budget is approximately 409 million, with 1177 fees, including 782 commissioned officers and 395 professional staff. For a bit of background, from 1852 to 1969, the King County sheriff was an elected position that operated more or less independently. In 1969, the voter approved home rule charter went into effect, which made many elected officials, including the sheriff, appointed positions subordinate to the executive as an appointed position. The sheriff became subject to the selection process set out in Section 340 of the charter. In 1996, the King County Council adopted proposed Ordinance 9575 five, which submitted to the voters a charter amendment to establish the county sheriff as a nonpartisan elected official with a four year term. In November of 1996, the voters approved this charter amendment, returning the sheriff to an elected position. Fast forward about 25 years. In July 2020, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 19139. We submitted to the voters a charter amendment reestablishing the sheriff as an appointed position. And in November of 2020, the voters approved Charter Amendment 25, returning the county sheriff to an appointed position with a requirement for the consideration of community stakeholder input during the selection, appointment and confirmation process, which was to be prescribed by ordinance to fulfill the Charter's obligation for community stakeholder input in the selection, appointment and confirmation of a new sheriff. The Council adopted ordinance 19249 and established the Public Safety Advisory Committee, otherwise known as Peace Act. The Peace Act consists of 13 individuals from various stakeholder communities representing the geographic, ethnic and economic diversity of Ccso service area and those with expertize in law enforcement reform. The committee was charged with two distinct bodies of work first to engage with and receive input from stakeholder communities to provide guidance to the Council and the Executive in this selection, appointment and confirmation process for appointing a new sheriff. And second, to solicit input on the value stakeholder community's hold for how law enforcement services should be provided and the way the county can improve the delivery of those services. The ordinance further required the Peace Act to deliver a report to the Executive and Council detailing the Committee's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities to interview candidates for sheriff identified by the Executive, and to attend a meeting of the Committee of the whole to provide its input on the sheriff appointee selected by the Executive. The SEC met a total of 21 times from March 2021 until its delivery of its final report on September 30th, 2021. The report provided recommendations for the qualities and expertize the new sheriff should possess, including a law enforcement background and track record of making decisions with community as a focus. Strong leadership and commitment to lasting change and have a history of collaboration and partnerships. A record of success with elected officials, other jurisdictions and unions. And knowledge of bipoc and LGBTQ plus issues. On April 13th 13th, 2022, after a nationwide search for qualified candidates, members of the Peace Corps met with three finalists chosen by the Executive for the Position of Sheriff for impression interviews. Each finalist candidate was given approximately 45 minutes to answer the panel's questions and talk about their vision for Casey herself. The feedback representatives delivered their impressions of the sheriff's candidate to the executive on April 20th, 2022. Michael Tindall, who has been serving as acting sheriff since January of this year, was then announced as the executive's appointee for sheriff on May 3rd, 2022. Acting Sheriff Colton Doyle has over 30 years of experience in public service for law enforcement, the labor relations and human resources. Acting Sheriff Court Tuttle started her career in law, first in law enforcement in 1991 as a special agent for the Washington State Gambling Commission, a position for which she completed the state's Basic Law Enforcement Academy or earlier chief in working for King County government in 1998 as an investigator in the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention and later as assistant director in the Department's Community Corrections Division. In 2010, Acting Sheriff Cultural became the county's director of Labor Relations, as she also served as interim director of the county's Office of Law Enforcement Oversight in 2014. In 2015, the acting sheriff serves as the Chief of Technical Service Division for the Sheriff's Office, where she worked for almost five years before becoming undersheriff in 2020. She was then appointed acting sheriff in November 2021 and has served in that role since January 2022. Her full resumé is included in the confirmation packet under attachment five. While Acting Sheriff Cole Tindall was at one time a certified peace officer. That certification has since lapsed. According to the executive, upon confirmation by the council, acting sheriff Coach End will complete Boyer to be recertified as a commissioned officer within one year for appointment. The Academy is currently 19 weeks long and she will attend at no later than January 2023 to meet the certification requirement. While at the Academy, an acting sheriff from Ccso leadership team will be appointed now in accordance with King County Code 216 110. The executive has requested confirmation of Patti Call Tindall as the Chief Officer of the Department of Public Safety, who may also be referred to as the county sheriff. Staff has not identified any issues with the proposed appointment. And furthermore, once the Peace Act members in attendance today deliver their impressions of the appointee, the process for which the acting sheriff general was elected and appointed will be in compliance with King County Charter Section 350, 2040 and Ordinance 19 249. That concludes my staff report. However, there are some amendments which I can brief now or wait until later to discuss. Please go write prescribing. Amendment one on page 32 of your packet would align the appointment motion with the language in charter section 340. The appointment provisions of the Charter as well as Charter Section 350 2040, making the sheriff position an appointed one and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Public Safety. And then there is a title amendment which would simply align the title with the changes made by Amendment one. And that concludes my support. Thank you very much. Now, before we go on to hear from apparently three Peace Committee members who are with us, are there any questions of Nick? Cenac You did such a great job. No, I think. Reporter No questions. That's always the hope. Okay. We, as I mentioned, we do have three members from the Public Safety Advisory Committee. Those are Melody Garcia from Giddings and Livio de la Cruz. I hope I did not mispronounce today, but we very much like to hear from you. Just one reminder. It's 11 I seven. The committee is due to be adjourned at 1130, but we can go a little bit longer. So who would like to speak first? I think I can go. This is Melody Garcia pointed to his work as Melody. Garcia, good to see everyone. No, I'm going to I'm going to let Livio and Frank do most of the talking. But I just wanted to say, I am I'm really excited to have sheriff got involved and especially as a woman of color myself. Really excited for the partnership and the opportunity to work with yourself. Thank you so much. Thank. Play with one or the other two. Like to go hurt. I see. Livia. I can go next. Please just. Say so. I'm going to divide my thoughts into two things. First, you talk about shared content of a candidacy, why it's so compelling. Then my second bucket of thoughts are kind of bigger picture like How did this process go? I figured the council would like to hear our thoughts because this is kind of a unique approach. So first, introduce yourself. The director. Oh, yes. I'm Olivia Dela Cruz. I'm one of the members of the Public Safety Advisory Committee. And specifically, I was one of the members appointed due to my experience with activism and police policy and all that stuff. And so the you kind of I feel like you all know the pitch of why behind Catena's candidacy. Like it's a pretty compelling pitch, like the unorthodox background, the mix of public service, and that's outside of the sheriff's office and also inside the sheriff's office. And on top of that, there's just a lot of like strong core, fundamental leadership skills. It's like promoting steady direction, refreshing vision, strong communication skills, strong relationship building like this, the core stuff that you really need to be in any leadership position. And but the, the, the, the, the background is particularly compelling because at one point the piece I did consider the question of what if we had a sheriff who was not a cop, basically, like what if they did not come from that background? And after weighing like the pluses of that would be, well, we could potentially get a more refreshing leadership approach and more willingness to question practices that have led to tension between police and community before. But on the other hand, it would undermine their ability to lead the department effectively to build the kind of reputation and credibility within the department. And so Cortinas kind of this almost appears to be like the best of both worlds, in my opinion. And yeah, and Cotillard was also at most of the meetings. And so while many of our recommendations in our report are kind of simplified, like she she actually understands it and much more, which is exciting for us. And just to remind the committee members that the one of our core representation recommendations was the idea that the sheriff's office cannot and should not be the end all, be all for public safety. It's really a larger responsibility shared by all of the departments, all of the pieces of government. And for that reason, whenever anything goes down, any big concerns about safety come up. We need to all collectively learn not to reflexively bang on the door of the sheriff for all of them. We need to kind of all come together and evaluate the issue holistically. And that means funding it holistically as well. And so Sheriff Cotillo and that vision and is on board, it's pretty helpful for us. So the next set of thoughts I have is about the process. And you already heard an overview of the process that was followed. One of the biggest recommendations, the piece I made was that we have community involvement as early as possible in the recruiting process. And in this case, we were able to get a community rep in the first round interviews, which is remarkable. I'm I'm honestly, I want to I want someone to fact check, like, is this the first time this region that something like that has happened for the first round of bids for a law enforcement agency later? I'm curious about that. But it's very big. And one of the main concerns historically has been like, well, it needs to be confidential because you need to maintain a confidentiality of these candidates who are not quite announced to everyone that they are applying for a new job. And we were able to do that. We got a confidentiality agreement. We did that. So the piece that actually selected me to be that rep on those first round interviews, it's my understanding that there are two hiring panels, two individual panels of people, and I was on one of the panels and I recommend that it improve them for reasons that I'll explain upcoming. I do think it would have been strong if there was community rep in both home panels. So another. Then the next step. After the first round interview, the finalists were selected and a piece of work had an opportunity to meet with the three finalists and have what we call impression interviews in which informed the they were opinions of it. And I tried my best of the one person who actually met all the candidates already to not interview. The with everyone's formation of opinions during these interviews and to it was kind of it was interesting to see that most of our opinions aligned anyway. So then so that that that's pretty good pretty successful. I don't have much insight into how the public forms feedback fed into the internal process for evaluating the final point. But I just have a few more thoughts. Which is it really? I was really amazed by the quality of the candidates that were attracted by this process. It is a sign that the process was working successfully, that we attracted so many good quality candidates particularly, and I have to disclose that the SEC ultimately did recommend in favor of though, and also in favor of Mr. Kimball a bit. And Mr. Kim was kind of the top choice by the piece. However, the fact that Kim was someone like Kim on made it that far in the process is is positive. It's what we'd expect. I also have to disclose that the third finalist or the piece, I felt like they did not meet the requirements and should have probably been filtered out earlier in the process. And so that is a bit of a weakness in the process. And how did this happen? Maybe there probably and this is just my opinion, not the piece, because I met all the other candidates. I do feel like there are multiple other candidates are more qualified than the one here. Yes. And that's the end of my piece, actually. Thank you. Thank you very much for your perspective as one member of the Public Service Advisory Committee. I do have thank goodness you're with us as well. If you would like to make remarks. Here. Apparently it's not here. She was here, but I think he had to leave. Oh, that's too bad. Okay. Thank you very much for speaking with us, both of you. Melody Garcia and Olivia de la Cruz. We will now turn to our sheriff, interim sheriff, coal tingle. And first of all, I'd like to find out how you would like to be spoken to. Identified. You're married? Yeah. My first name is fine. Okay. Thank you, Patty. And to give you the opportunity now to speak to us, to tell us about your printer and what you bring to the position, although, of course, we know you've got a tremendous background and did a great job of providing that to us. But we may have some questions for you, but I'd like to give you this opportunity to tell us more about yourself and. Go right ahead. Thank you very much. I appreciate being able to speak before you council. And I just want to say I am very honored and privileged to have been the nominee, the executive's nominee for the permanent appointed sheriff. As Livio described, there was an extensive process that I went through and the other candidates, and I'm just thrilled that I was chosen. Let me talk a little bit about myself and my philosophy and what the work we've been doing here at the sheriff's office. So Nick explained my career, so I'm not going to go over that again. But I will say that I am a nontraditional law enforcement executive. We all know I've had some time in law enforcement, but then time outside. And I think that's what gives me a unique perspective and a different lens. I'm able to translate from inside the agency to outside and from outside to the agency. And also that my working with the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, the fact that I oversaw that office, which is oversight into this very agency. So giving me also a unique perspective into the sheriff's office, how it operates, the issues that it faces. So in my almost six and a half years here at the sheriff's office in various leadership capacities, has also, I think, uniquely prepared me to be the leader of this agency going forward. I am excited to kind of do some different things that we started in the beginning of the year. One is our engagement with community in a way that I think the Sheriff's Office has not done previously. So we are just starting that work. But I see this as a wonderful opportunity to engage with the community so that they can help us create the co-creation of the law enforcement agency that they want for King County and with the specific communities, because their needs are different. As we know, we have contract cities. We also police in urban unincorporated areas. So we have to transit contracts. We police for the Michael Shoot tribe as well as the King County International Airport. So our you know, we have 2300 square miles that we are responsible for. And so I just feel like this is a great time at this space and time to lead this agency and move things forward. The other thing I want to say is I have been working diligently, along with my leadership team, to create a workplace that our current employees want to be part of going forward because they are the key to our recruitment issues is retention. While we are working to staff up, we need to retain our good and qualified well-experienced officers that we have. So any opportunity that I can work with you council in addition to the executive on how we can create incentives potentially for those that are almost at retirement age to stay while we staff up will be appreciated. So we do have a large number of vacancies, I will say that. But we are working hard, like I said, to create a positive workplace that people want to be part of going forward. I'll kind of end it there because I know time is short and I don't want to and I know there will be questions. Thank you very much for speaking with us. And I think there will be some questions. I don't want to shortchange your time. Our previous agenda item went a little bit longer, but I hope that most of us, all of us can stay here for a few minutes beyond the 1130 timeframe because we do plan on taking action today. Okay. With that, are there any questions? Council member Perry. Thank you. I think I don't know if it's a secret that I'm such a big fan, but one of the reasons I am a great fan of interview currently interim, the sheriff called Jindal's eye right until until the vote. Is that the correct title? Yes. Yes. Okay. Interim sheriff called, though. One of the reasons I am such a big fan is that she's a Girl Scout, once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout and has worked on women's leadership from very early ages. And I have such a great respect for engaging women in leadership, engaging our girls and junior girls, junior Girl Scouts in leadership. And and just a shining example, because it does take a great deal more to be a leader in your position, in this position, than it takes someone who identifies as male or someone who identifies or who is wise. And. And I really appreciate that the just the the all things being equal, your your incredible leadership in this space and you being brought to this position visually, as well as the amazing leadership that you bring to the table. So I'm very excited about this. Thank you very much. I appreciate those kind words. Thank you. Are there any questions from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Sarai. Thank you. Charcoal Wells. Thank you so much for being here. Interim sheriff called Tindall. Could you speak a little bit to your vision for alternative crisis response mental health responders? You know, there's a large movement right now to make sure that our response systems create more good and are more tailored to people who are in behavioral health crisis. I know part of our movement for making the sheriff an appointed position and creating Charter Amendment six as well was just to integrate the sheriff's services more closely with our public health systems. And now you will sit on a board, leadership board with the executive, Constantine's other department heads, where you will be more in close touch with DHS and Public Health and all of our other public health systems. Can you speak a little bit to your vision for how we respond to people who are in need from a mental health perspective, from an addiction perspective? What is the future of public safety look like in your in your view. Your council members? I mean, so the way that I view that in my philosophy is we need to make sure that we are bringing the proper resource to whatever the issue is. And we all know that sometimes we don't need somebody with a gun and a badge to address what is not a crime. So I'm proud to say the King County Sheriff's Office has already started to engage in that work. We already have a program called Radar, where we have a mental health professional riding with a law enforcement officer so that when they get that call, the right person is there that can provide immediate service to the person in crisis . So if it is somebody who is experiencing homelessness or a mental health issue, we've got that person right there and we can tap them into the appropriate resource. So I do think I believe that law enforcement needs to have a seat at the table with community, with social service agencies, with our partners in King County government to create and address issues systems where we can help those who need it and bring them out, connect them with the resources that they need so that they can get their basic needs met. And I believe that will then allow us and law enforcement to respond to the calls that we should be responding to. But more importantly, folks are getting the help that they need. But I see this as a societal issues. So it's not just law enforcement, but we need to be key in Interpol, because what happens is the 911 calls call comes in and then we get dispatch. So, you know, we need to find out what is the source. Why did somebody maybe if they stole something to eat, it's because they were hungry. You know, they were trying to provide for their family. We also have other programs where we have a lead, which is law enforcement assisted diversion, where low level crimes deputies have the ability to divert people to resources rather than have them enter the criminal justice system. So we already are engaged in some of these activities, but I see us in the beginning stages and there's so much more work ahead. And so I am ready to lead this agency to work with community, work with the council, other department excuse me, executive branch agencies to really address this issue holistically here in King County. Thank you so much. Thank you, both of you. Are there any other questions from colleagues? Councilmember Dombroski? Thank you. Chair Wells and Sheriff Tyndall, congratulations on your well-deserved and well earned nomination. I look forward to voting yes. Following on from personalized comments, I do think it's a big opportunity and a big challenge that's coming with the rollout of, I think, nine, eight, eight, the new non-police number, which our state legislature has set up. And now they've made the vision. But you're going to have to implement to some degree. And how do we choose that through our our call centers and that and I, I know that the practice with our navigator, it will be helpful to build on that. Just by way of opening remarks, I want to reflect that there was a big question about whether we would ever be here today when the Council put a charter amendment before the voters and the voters did something quite unusual on that is they gave up power that they held and they entrusted us, the executive and council, with this decision who should be the sheriff of the county. And I'm very, very pleased to say that I think the executive, our public safety advisory committee and hopefully this council are taking that trust that's been granted to us and performing and delivering with a tremendous person. And that's you and me. I think it's worth reminding folks that when you were appointed interim sheriff, you said you would not pursue the job and you didn't pursue it until you were asked to pursue it by a number of folks here at the council, I think, including myself, that also in your front line, your your deputies and people within the department and in the community, I need you to know that our deputies stop me when I'm coming into the courthouse and are supportive of what you're doing and appreciative of what you're doing and are grateful for the way you have come in and are leading this department by caring for them, by having meetings with them, by communicating with them, by supporting them. And we see that here at the council and your leadership and your engagement and your commitment is making a difference. I think we want to see you and your department succeed. Frankly, we we have a never obligation to the voters entrusted us with that. And so I'm excited for your leadership. I am inspired by you. I've now got to work along side you in different capacities here in nine years. And I want to share just two things with folks about why I'll be voting. Yes, probably. And there's a lot of reasons, but one is your independence, you know, in different capacities. I think back to your work as the Labor Relations Director and you present to council and sometimes I'd have a tough question to for you a little dialog and you did not hesitate to stand up and push back and say, this is why we're doing this and this is where we're at and disagree with somebody in power. And I think that that is essential in this role as the chief of our law enforcement department, our sheriff, that you have that trait, have that ability and will use it. And I. Respect that. And the second thing was a recent observation. Our law enforcement officers are charged to run toward danger and put themselves at risk. And some may wonder, well, sure, Tyndall hasn't been a patrol officer. She has some law enforcement background. But what are her instincts in that regard? Okay. At a recent press conference here in the courthouse, it was interrupted by somebody who was angry, who came charging in, who disrupted the event and was threatening and angry. There were a number of electeds there and you were there. He then left the room and you went after him. You went into the danger. I observed that, and I also observed that you went alone. That said All I need to know about your instincts for this role. In addition to everything I've seen from you here in my time with the Council, I'm very proud that you're willing to serve in this capacity, and I hope you'll let us know what we can do to support you as you undertake this important role. Thank you so much for your willingness to do it. Thank you very much. Thank you both. Councilmember Bowdich, followed by Councilmember Penny. You're muted. Council member. Council member. Terry had her hand up before me. I saw your hand. No, no, no. You are going to hear. I want to try to chair the meeting. Thank you. But so I just want to again state my support and for this this appointment. And a lot of the reasons why you're you're the right person with the right experience have been said already. I think what I'll say your content is that. The challenge that you are accepting here is to build an approach to public safety that creates trust between the communities that we serve and law enforcement professionals, and builds a more robust and nuanced. Response. To crises. We have for a very long time, maybe going back to deinstitutionalization and in the seventies relied increasingly on people, as you say, with a gun and a badge to respond to all kinds of crises. And, you know, as somebody who has worked alongside folks in uniform for a number of years myself, they know that they're not always the right answer and they're put in a very difficult position. In addition, we have to still yet address the the racial component and disparities in public safety and how we approach public safety and how different communities feel either. Either protected, you know, or persecuted. And and we are building that mutual support among all of the professions that it takes and the public. That's really the challenge, because nobody we cannot succeed at what we want to do. We cannot have a safe, welcoming, equitable county if people don't feel supported by their law enforcement and if law enforcement isn't supported by their community. And so building that bridge, I think, is really where your challenge sits. And I also think that you are the perfect person to be on that bridge, helping to build it. So congratulations. And we will, of course, have lots more opportunity to work through these challenges together. And I look forward to doing that. Thank you. Thank you both. Councilmember Perry. Thank you. One thing that I am really encouraged by is experiencing interim share of call Tindal. Your willingness to work on behavioral health issues which are very, very close to my heart. So and it's a national crisis and a statewide crisis and we absolutely can do better. And so in the efforts of that, we're working on in District three to bring the police chiefs together, the fire chiefs together, and the sheriffs together. You representing? I am very encouraged by our recent meeting to look at radar as a co responder model, mobile integrated health model, looking at no wrong door in response as well, so that everybody can participate in ways that are meaningful to them. And while we figure out the lanes of fire and police and we figure out the gaps and the overlaps, and we identify the statistics and identify what's needed with all of these incredible efforts going on throughout these ten cities and unincorporated area. So and I'm very excited about Major Pingree and his promotion and working together with him as a representative for the unincorporated areas. So I just want to recognize that you were right on board right away in an area that is sometimes King County and cities can be a little middle school. You're not the boss army. And sometimes police and fire can do that. You're not the boss of me thing. So you just really stepped up in that terrific leadership and everybody willing to work together for the betterment of our family, our loved ones, our friends, our community members that really need to stay in each of our communities . So thank you for your leadership on that. And I feel very excited about the hands that we're in going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a question and I am the sponsor of the motion, so I am very supportive. But as we all know, you're in a very, very tough position. And assuming that either claimant is confirmed, I think there will be continued attention on a lot of the high profile, very high profile officer involved shootings that have occurred within the King County Sheriff's Office. And now we're getting an inquest. Back after a long pause to hear about your thoughts on the inquest process and also how you will handle officer involved shooting investigations going forward if there are many more. Thank you. Question button. Yes, well, the first one on inquest, I'm supportive. I actually believe I mean, it is the public's opportunity to learn the facts related to an incident where officers used force in somebody's life, then did so. I think that's key. Right. We need to be able to provide that information to the public so the inquest process is happening and I support that. Now, to your question about officer involved shootings, where and how we would investigate? I think you're all aware of the state law reforms which now prohibit law enforcement agencies from doing their own investigations. So we are subject to state law, which means an independent investigative team would conduct any officer involved shooting. So we had a recent shooting the day after I was named as deputies nominee. The next day, our SWAT team during the execution of a mission. A step was dead. So the Valley Independent investigative team was at the South End. It depends on where the event happens, depends on who investigates. So in this case, that team investigated, which means by state law, I don't have any control over the investigation. Or as of January one of this year, I don't even get a briefing by that investigative team because they the rule makers, the lawmakers wanted a true independent investigation. I have minimal information. So I do think that's important for me to come out as the sheriff, as I did in this one, to say, you know, we had this event. This is what my people were doing. The subject is dead. None of our people were injured. But they're this other investigative team is doing the criminal investigation because any time somebody loses their life in resort, it's considered a homicide. I mean, even if it was in the execution of official duties. So it is investigated. So what I can do is what's called an administrative review, which is an administrative review into the events. But that is not something that we we have to keep that separate from the criminal so we cannot like contaminate because otherwise, if there were an issue of any conclusions by the independent team that charges should be filed, that we have interfered, then it could, you know, impact. So I don't really get to do much with with those types of shootings. So except to cooperate and stay in my lane. Thank you very much for your response. Are there any other questions? And I'm sure of culture. I'd like to now move on to take action. So I am a big gun supporter. Sorry. Thanks. The inner circle turned out great to see you. Thanks. I appreciate there's been a lot of the dialog back and forth on important issues. I look forward to supporting your your nomination appointment. My question is, you know, there's been a surging crime problem with gun violence here in the community. More than 460 shootings last year and the murder rate is way, way up. What is your sort of. Two or three things that you are sort of planning on doing to to really take on that issue and try and reduce crime. Sort of the center, I think, centerpiece and arguably the. Most important part. Of your job, I would say. What is your basic strategy on that? So thank you for that question because you are right. That is that's the bread and butter of what we do is reduce crime and the fear of crime. And so Key is partnering with other law enforcement agencies for insurance. And we have our I already do that working with the other chiefs around the area. But I think also something that's important is working with community because often they are aware and know where the issues are in their communities. And so we need to work with them to help identify what those are and what are potential solutions to those issues. The third thing is we need to use data right where these things happening. What are the indicators around what is happening? So I think all of those things that's kind of simplistic, short answer, but there's so much more and I know there are supports being created, which I think is very great, that that's an opportunity for our best and brightest to get together, to try to figure out how to do it. But this is really a societal issue, and I appreciate that. It's it's not just on law enforcement, right? There's a lot of different components to it, a lot of different players. But we need to be front and center and involved. And that does also speak to officer presence. And with a 113 Commission vacancies, it's a little more difficult to have the type of presence and the patrolling in the communities which could deter potential crime. So we are working hard to staff up, but those are some of the things I will be working on with my leadership team and in the community and with with you, the Council on the Executive as well. Thank you for that response. I appreciate that. And, you know, my my job is to help you succeed at yours. And whatever I can do, perhaps this council can do to get those hundred and 13 individuals hired in the office staffed up with you, come up with creative ways or thoughtful approaches to try and do that, perhaps best practices being used across the country right now. So we've got a good, robust, highly functioning sheriff's office. Thank you very much. I thank you, Councilmember Dunn. And I believe we will now go on to take action on the proposed motion. 2020 20191 I'd like to hear more from our interim share, but we are way past adjournment. Time for the meeting. So with that, Councilmember Dunn, would you please move this action? Because I am the sponsor of the motion. Very well. I would move to approve Protocol Tindal as our sheriff and director of the department, as has been briefed and provide present to the council. Thank you very much. Councilmember Dunn and Nick Bellman, would you please just remind us very briefly about Amendment one? Yes. Amendment One would outline the language of the proposed motion with that charter, section 340, as well as charter section 350, 2040. We just because we haven't done this appointment in a long time, we wanted to make sure we got the language exactly right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions about amendment number one? Okay. Consider it done. Google Amendment one. Amendment has been moved. Any comments? All in favor indicate by saying i. I, i i in. Person of the amendment has been adopted. We now have the title amendment counselor. We can. Move to 1. To 1. A title amendment one has to move to any comments. Questions on paper indicate by saying I, I, I say no to the amendment has been adopted. Is there any further discussion on proposed motion 2020 20191 as amended? Come back and ask. If it's okay with you. I'd like to have my name added as a co-sponsor to the motion and encourage my colleagues to join in the show of unanimity by doing the same if they're so inclined. Okay. Now add me. At me to. Damond City Council member. But did she? I think Councilmember Perry and Councilmember Cycle. I also feel like things that irk Councilmember Van right there as well. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And I will just say I am enthusiastically supporting the confirmation of the nomination of sheriff. And I'm sure Cole turned out to be unacceptable, sheriff. And since the time is right, we will go ahead and have a group called The Roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember by the Chin by Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. As a member done by Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember Perry. I don't remember up to the councilmember, but by about one. I council member starline. I. Madam Chair, on the borders. I know North and West Council member MacDermid. Excuse me. Okay. Thank you all with a vote. We have approved proposed motion 2020 20191 as amended. And if there are no concerns with placing this on the consent calendar, we will expedite this motion with the due course recommendation for the consent agenda to the May 24th Council meeting. That's next Tuesday because there is some urgency here. We want to have our confirmed sheriff in place. Any comments? Okay. Very good. That concludes the agenda items on our agenda. I apologize for going past our usual time, but we did accomplish quite a bit.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract with Acme Auto Leasing, LLC, of North Haven, CT, for the lease purchase financing of 51 Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles and 19 Nissan Leaf electric vehicles with related equipment and accessories, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Sourcewell (formerly the National Joint Powers Alliance), of Staples, MN, with 72 Hour LLC, dba National Auto Fleet Group, of Watsonville, CA, and the Climate Mayors’ Electric Vehicle (EV) Purchasing Collaborative, for a period of 30 months, in a total amount not to exceed $2,310,930. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03192019_19-0264

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. Report from economic development recommendation to authorize the city manager to enter into an agreement with the California State University of Long Beach Foundation in an amount not to exceed 1 million District one. We heard this one already. This is. I'm sorry. Next item, please. It's. Item 28. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Acme Auto Leasing for a total amount not to exceed 2,000,310 930. Citywide. With in motion and a second public comment. CNN members. Please cast your votes. Actually, Councilman. Cast your. Vote. I just wanted to point out that this is for purchase of electric vehicles. So city heading in the right direction? Absolutely. Thank you. Item 29.

Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. (City Council/SACIC) (Finance 2410) [Not heard on February 6, 2018]

AlamedaCC_03062018_2018-5094

All those in favor I hear is unanimously. Now b3b is a recommendation to accept the fiscal year 20 1617 audited financial statements in compliance. Thank you. And our our speakers. Kevin Kearney, our auditor. Mayor, City Council. Jeff, nice to see you. Just wanted to talk briefly about the, uh, the catheter that that's being transmitted tonight and just make a couple of points that I think that just to be clear of a few things. Regarding the financial statements. The financial statements are a snapshot in time. It's indicating the assets, the liabilities at a particular time and the results of operations at the end of a period. In this instance, it's June 30th, 2018. And over the years, there's been different items have been included in this snapshot. And gas by the government accounting standards. Boards of pronouncements have mandated over the years various adjustments in what actually goes into the financial statements. And some of the items now that are in the financial statements due to recent pronouncements are the net pat, the net pension liability and the OPEB liability. And on page 52, you can see the amounts. And the total is $266,000,267 million. And these were approximated by GASB 73 and 74. And in my discussions in the current audit with the outside auditors, there's going to be an additional change to the OPEB liability commencing next year. And the liability that's about $39 million right now is going to be about $100 million. And this is as a result of Gatsby 75, and that's on page 53 in the audit, if you if you want to check that out. So that's going to be some additional liability that's going to hit our balance sheet. And then in my discussion with the outside auditors, I was asking him if there are any additional Gatsby's that are, you know, on the horizon that, you know, that he would thought would be, you know, kind of big deal, you know, not ones that where there's actually going to be, you know, an impact to our financial statements. And one of the things generally the way Gatsby works, they they start out, they solicit opinions, they come out with a pronouncement in it and it hits the footnotes first. And then there's a run up period. And eventually it actually becomes a number in a financial statement. And in my discussion with the outside auditors, one of the things they were talking about is the recognition of deferred maintenance and the quality of your infrastructure. Now that's much like the the pension liability and OPEB. You know, several years ago they weren't a part of the financial statements, now they are a part of the financial statements. And he was confident that at some point in the near future, this additional liability is going to hit the the financial statements. Well, based on the you know, the last meeting in the presentation by staff, $293 million of infrastructure that's been estimated that eventually will I'm just going to keep trucking that'll that'll eventually hit the financial statements at some point so there's going to be another liability that's substantial that's going to be a part of our financial statements. And I think it's important for you, the counsel, to be aware of these, you know, possibly pending pronouncements, because it certainly would, you know, affect probably your decision on certain decisions that are, you know, fiscal in nature, where you're going to be considering expenditures. And for the public, I think it's particularly important just just to know that we have this liability that soon going to go on the financial statements, much like these other ones that I've mentioned before. So the other point that I think is important on page ten, when you're talking about unassigned fund balance, $26 million. Well, that that I mean, I think that's it's a nice number. It's been lower. It's been higher. But. There's no recognition of $293 million, certainly based on committees I've been on over the years. Fiscal sustainability. Regarding the pension and the recent consultant's report that indicated that the pension liabilities are going to be increasing substantially in the next couple of years. In my mind, although it's not committed today, again, this is a snapshot in time today that is every bit true. This this is unencumbered. But next year, the subsequent year, when you have to start recognizing additional liabilities, you know, it might be $0.26 or it might be 26 million. It just it just depends. And I just want everybody, mainly the public, because you guys are aware of this, that there are this fund balance is for this snapshot in time, not tomorrow, not now. It was back in the rearview mirror. So I think it's important that everybody realize that, especially when you're in, you know, your charge now is to maneuver through budgets with very, very severe liabilities. And if somehow make this thing work and it's then, you know, it's not a task that I that I envy and I and I wish you well. And I'm confident you guys will do a great job. But I really want the public to understand where we stand. So when somebody says, oh, we have this big fund balance, you know, just take another step back and realize what that represents. And so finally. For the, I guess, the 27th year in a row, we've received a certificate of achievement from the Government Finance Officers Association, and that's a part of your packet as well, and that's on a Roman numeral x 515 and that was for the preceding year. And in talking to the outside auditors and staff, we've submitted for this this current fiscal year. And so I'm going to be very confident that it's going to keep a perfect record going. And then and then finally, I just would like to commend the staff for the outstanding effort during this particular audit. And I want to commend our finance director, Elaine Adair, who up until basically the 11th hour was here trying to pull these numbers together and just doing a real bang up job before she went out on maternity leave and talk about somebody that, you know, had definitely some other pressing issues and really, you know, put her nose to the grindstone. And I think that we're lucky to have somebody of that commitment to the city working on behalf of citizens. I'd also like to thank Edwin Godwin, who stepped into her shoes and did a wonderful job and, you know, is wearing about 15 hats in the finance department and also the staff back in the day when the the staff was located in a little bit different area, there was a lot more people in there working. And over the years, because of various reasons, there's a lot less. And they're really having to do a lot of double duty. And I commend them for doing a wonderful job. And also, I'd like to I'd like to thank Jill, our city manager, and Liz, our assistant city manager, for having to pick up the slack in areas. You know, they're not the finance director and they were doing double duty as well, being a really integral part of the audit and making sure that the timelines were followed. And I commend them as well and thank you very much. I wanted to give Council the opportunity to ask any questions while our auditors here. I do have a question for a couple. So if you could just do the highlights of the, um, the amount of the unfunded pension liabilities. Well, if we look, if we look on page 52, you're going to see that the, the net pension liabilities, 227,000,320, let's say 227,324,000. And I can't read my writing at the end, so it looks like 871. And then the OPEB is 39 million 668 326. So again, that's at that snapshot in time at 630. And do we have an estimate of the deferred maintenance that's. Well, the deferred maintenance doesn't appear in the financial statements because by pronouncement it's not required. So not not only is there not a number, there's not footnote disclosure. And that will probably be something that Gadsby is addressing as we speak. And at some point in the future that will definitely be a part of the financial statements. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. On this item, then, I'd like to follow up with questions. The staff. So the 227 million for the unfunded pension liabilities of. Do we have a payment plan of how we're going to be paying for that? Yes. It's we've had a work session with this council, and the council has shown a lot of foresight and funding as much as possible to get that down the council to date. Last. Fiscal year, they committed about 15 million to the unfunded liability that has saved us about a million annually in our CalPERS payment. And then coming forward, when we do the midyear, we are also, because of the council policy of 50% of any surplus is proposed and directed to go towards this unfunded liability. And so when you see the mid-year, we'll have an estimate and then at the mid-cycle we will put that money into the CalPERS unfunded liability and continue to draw down and. Flatten the curve. So if you remember, we had a bell curve of our payments going forward and our payments to CalPERS are going to increase exponentially and then especially in the next 3 to 5 years. And so what we're trying to do is put as much money up as soon as we can to bring that bell curve down at a flatter level. So it looks like out of the 15 million that we've given, we have savings over that time period of 150% of what we put in approximately. And we'll be talking to the council about that. In. Midyear. In regards to the Bell Curve, what was the highest amount that we will have to at this point estimate that the city will have to pay? It's, I think, 34 million. Four for one year, 34 million. And what year is that year you call? I don't. It's pretty far out. Like. 2020. Probably 2025. Yeah. And when do you anticipate coming back with the update on this? We're preparing it now and it will come at the next meeting. Next council meeting. Oh, next council meeting. I was coming for mid-cycle. Yeah. Midyear. Okay. So midyear. So very not yet. Remember addressing and can you also give the rundown on the OPEB? Because in 2015 there was a contract agreement that had public safety employees paying in ahead of time to the operating room. We're going to we flatten that curve by was it $30 million or is that still on track there? There was a contribution to that OPEB as well. And it went from just two or three years ago, a 0% funded to now I believe it's in the 12% range of being funded. So we have made a significant dent in, you know, the last several years and that will also be coming to council. And my last question is a technical question. Mr. Kennedy mentioned that Gatsby's currently sorry, Kevin. Kevin mentioned that Gatsby is going to in in his auditor's estimation, going to be requiring this on our financial disclosures, the deferred maintenance. Is there a way? Because I think that's a good thing for us all to know what what the liability is and the public to know is there a way that we can do that without being required to do it? Including yes. The council can make that. So we can do something about that. In talking about that, probably at mid-cycle mid-cycle. We can talk about. That which is not the next meeting, but. Or it's. Coming July one. Okay. I'd like us to bring that up so that we get ahead of the curve. And we started collecting that data with that for the infrastructure form that came before council. So we already have an initial number for that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one follow up. So you will also come back then with the estimate of the deferred maintenance when you can not come back at the next meeting. I don't think we can't bring that at the next meeting, but we can do that for mid-cycle, which would be coming to council in May. Okay. So we need a motion to accept that report. Second, all those in favor. I. I. That motion carries unanimously. I will now adjourn the Joint City Council FCIC meeting, and now we will open the revised regular City Council meeting. And the agenda was revised on March 5th. For those of you that aren't aware of that, so you'll need to pull that up and get the latest version if you don't already have it. Roll Call council members as you're here. You're here they are. Spencer here I present. Thank you. Agenda changes. Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor. I would like to move up item six be since we continued the Greenway Golf lease from last meeting and I believe we have a number of individuals who are here again tonight.

Adoption of Resolution Establishing a City Council Policy that a City Council or City Staff Member Who Knowingly Violates the City Charter, an Applicable Criminal Statute or an Applicable Ethical Code of Conduct Shall Not be Entitled to Reimbursement from the City for Legal or Other Fees Arising Out of the Violation. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC_12032019_2019-7466

I see. Okay. So you want to make a motion? Yes. You're welcome to make a motion. So my motion would be to bifurcate this hearing into two parts. The first part I would not participate in, I would recuse. And that is for. All events occurring prior to this, for which there could be a claim filed. And then the second vote would be, uh, which I would like to participate in would be for any events happening after the adoption of this policy. Uh. Where in a claim could be filed. Okay, we've had a motion. Do I hear a second? If someone wants 2 seconds so we can have discussion, that could happen. If no 1 seconds, the motion will die for lack of a second. I'm sure you have got no idea what you think we discussed briefly. Okay, I take that as a second. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Vella, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Did you want to lead the discussion? Vice Mayor. I understand my question, and I believe it's going to get to the issue of how we have the conversation. I think that there are a few things that I'm a little concerned about how we can be comfortable using language in conversation, but not playing out in the second part, where in a way you can also say, you know, we're not talking about now we are going to discuss this problem adequately in North Carolina. There are currently no jobs. He still has a flaw. Are you? I'm not clear. I can try to clarify. I I think he was saying that it was would be difficult to keep the issues separate was what I heard. Okay. All right. Council Councilmember Desiree. Well, thank you. I think the thing that concerns me is that. If there is litigation. I'm concerned that if we proceed down this path, if I say something in a way that. Could be injurious. So I just I'm not. I just have to be careful about that. And I'm not sure I can be that. Eloquent and trying to do that song and dance. It just seems to me if we just have a clean discussion based upon what's in front of us. Because. As a council member speaking, you know, from from my perspective. I don't see how even though there might be a bifurcation, I don't see how I would have two different thoughts just because there is this. Procedural layer that we have imposed. So if I'm not and if I'm not going to have two different speaking patterns, I just want to make sure that. I don't see something in one hand that potentially proves injurious if there is litigation. So to me, the wiser course of action is just to proceed. Like we had agenda this on. So. And I'm sorry I didn't. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, for my part, I favor action that is simple and straightforward, because I think that at the end of the day, that's easier for the public to follow and understand our thought processes. And I also go back in recent history to the reason that we're even considering this policy tonight is it was one of the recommendations that came out of the grand jury report and the council, the three non recused council members voted unanimously to adopt all all of the recommended policies of the grand jury. And so I see this as a continuation of finishing that task that we started. This is just one of a number of policies that will be coming forward to us. But, you know, it's taken staff time to put this together. So while I appreciate the motion to bifurcate, I cannot support it. So, Councilmember Vela. Can we hear from the city attorney because there was a question initially posed by Vice Mayor Knox White. I think the vice mayor's question and if I get it wrong, the vice mayor can correct me. Was that would it you know, what would the vice mayor would have which would he have to compartmentalize his thoughts between the two processes? The answer's yes. The law authorizes you to do it if the council chooses to vote that way. But you do have to compartmentalize your thoughts so that you are taking two different actions so that you would. And I'm hoping that answers your question. And if I missed understood your question, I hope you'll re-ask it so I can provide a better answer. Thank you. Now, you know, if there was. A breakthrough in order to turn signals to computer. I think you're going to have a little bit more information before on and understanding how I think we may forgetting the first time taking care of your arm in a situation where the discussion in the second part of June is somehow still playing out, and then the ongoing issue that no one has ever been. Well, you know. Little legal issue, one of the leaders of a conference in Europe. I'm struggling with how our nation can achieve the kind of discussion in which we actually have a conversation and don't really bring them. Have you done that? I think you design the discussion forum together, but I you know, I that that's how we how we understand. I mean. So can. Councilmember Vela. So I think that there's a number of different portions of the proposed. Well, first of all, it's a council policy. And so as it's a policy as applied moving forward to events that. Potentially could apply in the future, I feel like. I should be allowed to weigh in on those as it especially for the elements that do not necessarily relate to even the portion related to the Council. There's other elements of the policy that include other things. I suppose I could bring a referral for those matters if it's not discussed to those specifics. In fact, the things that I care about don't relate at all to the Council, and that's what I had wanted to discuss. But it's I understand the conflict, which is why I'm trying to bifurcates it so that it doesn't at all apply and that the two to anything where there could be a potential conflict for things that have occurred. Thank you. Are there any further council comments or questions? Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second to the motion to bifurcate this this item of motion. Second. All in favor. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. So we do roll call votes. Thank you, Councilor of dissent. No, not quite. I know. Vela, I and Mayor, as Ashcraft know. That fails. All right, so the motion fails. And just to confirm, I can bring a referral for the. I'd like to get it. Councilmember Avila In theory, if a referral is forward looking, you likely could do so. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Who's presenting on this? I will. All right. And. And we can. Can we see even just fine on the screen? If he stays where he is, he doesn't need to come. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Good. Good evening, Mayor and Council. And today we bring forward to you one piece of the recommendations that you directed us to bring back to you as a part of your adoption of the grand jury recommendations. The grand jury made a recommendation, and it's it's number three of the recommendation that asked the council to consider a policy whereby council members would not be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter. We've taken the council direction which was to bring this back to you before the end of the year, and we are doing so to you for you tonight. I want to add a couple of things that we've received in terms of comments so that the Council can have a full consideration. One was that we received comments to indicate that it may be helpful to lead with something to the effect of to the extent authorized by law and and not otherwise preempted. While we recognize that that preamble exists in every policy in the city. For this policy, there may be utility to include this preamble explicitly. So we are recommending that you consider that as part of your discussion tonight. To the extent allowed, say it again. To the extent authorized by law and not otherwise preempted. And I'll just interrupt my presentation to indicate to you that it is my understanding that the city clerk will be putting the substance of this policy on the screen for you. So that much like what you did with the grand jury responses, you will be able to have live discussions, direct the city clerk to make life changes, and you and the public will be able to see it on the screen. And so that preamble is one recommendation we're making to you tonight. We've received another communication, which was that perhaps this policy should apply to boards and commissions. We don't have any concerns with that, though. That was not part of the grand jury recommendation. And so we did not include it. But the council chooses to do so. You could direct you can give us that direction tonight. And finally, we've received some communications regarding delegation of authority there. We've received some concerns with respect to, in particular, delegating decision making authority to the city manager or the city attorney, especially with respect to council members, because both the city manager and the city attorney are retained at the pleasure of the council, and that delegation may not be appropriate. Well, and it wasn't I'm sorry to interrupt, but it wasn't just decision making. It was a determination of whether a council member had. That's right. That's right. And to be more specific, it's, you know, to to make the decision to to make the determination of whether or not a council member had indeed violated a charter provision or an applicable statute. The comment we received that it was a direct report of the council may not be the best suited to make that determination. And we that is a point well taken and it is something that the council could also make modifications to tonight. One solution could be that for council members, if the council wishes to delegate, that may only be to special counsel. All of these potential changes are at the Council's disposal, and we are ready to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chen. Comments as well. Any clarifying comments and questions and do we have public speakers? We have to public speaker. So Council, at this point, let's just have any clarifying questions or comments you might have that we'll hear from our public speakers. Then we'll come back and discuss. Councilmember de SAC Councilmember I'm Vice Mayor Knox White. I think my only question would be, I think I am concerned in the media environment and my own students, I know right now is going to be the winner because our income line has been touched by and we can play a little bit of that in the council by an individual from the point of view of innovation about how to impress me, perhaps some some form of formal determination of one of. Oh. Did you understand the question? You that? I think so. There was a little bit of garbled communications, but I think the question was, you know, who's making the determination to delegate? And the answer to that question is that the policy as written is that the city council or a majority of the council will make the decision to delegate, if any. I think I might add, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but everybody might have heard him say, will there be a formal process to determine a knowing violation of the charter or law? Was that a fair, approximate approximation or not? Vice Mayor Not quite. Yeah. I think the question was who is there any consideration of any more formal consideration? Of the other violation. Correct. Engineering should have happened because right now it seems dangerous to go looking out a manager or company telling me to find out whether or not there were the nine violations and you know, how they have been, you know, barred across the board. If you have the discretion to decide whether or not to use them by this point in time, I'm just trying to figure out how we how we find out. Do I think, you know, raising the bar further, if we know, for example, to be an issue and be really clear my mind or is clear right away, I think about anything. And and if I could just interject, I was at least one council member who raised the concern. And this goes back to my firsthand experience with the saga that gave rise to the grand jury report to begin with. It's a very difficult task to ask a direct report as the city manager or city attorney or city clerk or the city clerk wouldn't be making these determinations, but to to make a decision, a determination of a violation of the law or charter against one or more members of the city council, knowing that those members, those same members of the city council vote on their at will employment. And that's a that's a very significant factor. And so I felt that it would be better if the council were to delegate to a special council outside council so as not to put any of our direct reports in a a potentially precarious position. And you know it. Okay. Then the other thing, I mean, there's a lot of projection that goes into this or, you know, you try to look into the future a little bit, but you wouldn't want to establish a process that could give rise to political attacks. I mean, there might be a reason that a majority of the city council was turned against another member. So that's why I think the outside special counsel is just the best avenue on a number of levels to to pursue. Those are my thoughts. Um, do we were we in the middle of getting the decision? I think I cut you off in mid-sentence, probably. Were you put up? Are you going to tell us about comments or whatever? Yeah, I think we're at the council question stage and I think the mayor may have answered the vice mayor's question. A mr. Vice Mayor, if there's if there were anything else that was unanswered, I'm happy to answer it. If you wouldn't mind just repeating any portion that you would still like answered. She must have begun the language here in Southern Africa, which now is very much African American or more about at the time, and very new ground. And just from proceeding down the reporting of the conversation from there. I think that's right, Mr. Vice Mayor. We wanted we are breaking new ground in many areas, and we were keeping this policy short and simple. I think if you were if your question has to do with, you know, could this policy lay out a more detailed approach to how the council make the determination? We do not propose it because that could be, you know, procedure could be up to the council at the time and how the council wants to handle it. And we did not think it was essential to this policy, though if the Council wants to direct us to come up with more detailed, you know, beforehand policies on detailed procedure, you're certainly welcome to direct us to do so and we'll certainly do our best. Thank you. Council Did you have any further Vice Mayor. No. Okay. Councilmember Desai So here's my question on this subject matter about delegating or so. So what's the theory behind it? Because in the sentence, the first part of the sentence says that the city council can exercise its authority to not reimburse. And then in the latter part of it, or they can delegate. So what's the theory as to why a city council might want to delegate that? And so one example could be because the policy applies to staff. The Council may want to delegate to the city manager or the city attorney to make those determinations, especially vis a vis staff. And it you know, the mayor's point is well taken that you may not want to make that delegation to the city manager or the city attorney with respect to council members. But with respect to determining whether or not staff has violated a particular, you know, charter provision, let's say it is relatively common that, for example, city attorney or county council officers oftentimes will make the determination on whether a staff member acted outside the scope of their employment. And that determination is critical to whether or not the city would then defend that particular staff member in a civil litigation. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further clarifying questions or comments before we go to our public speakers? And let's take public speakers. Steve Swanson and then Kathryn Polley. And you'll each have 3 minutes to speak. Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft, council members Steve Schlosser live at 2426 Otis Drive. Before we get into the meat of the subject, I believe there's a typographical error on page six or paragraph six of the resolution regarding the date that this takes place. That it's been noted. Good. Okay. We are in agreement with Mayor Ashcroft's idea of an event. Just for the record, Ashcroft not like Ashcroft. ASHCROFT Sorry about that. ASHCROFT Yes. We are in agreement with Mayor Ashcroft's thoughts on an independent special counsel speaking on behalf of a group of concerned citizens. We are upset over the previous expenditures made by the city of Alameda for certain attorney's fees incurred by Councilmember Ody and Councilmember Vela. The total cost of this is approximately $40,000. I spoke with a member of the city attorney's staff this morning and have found that none of these monies have been recovered by the city of Alameda. We would like Councilmember O'Day and Councilmember Abella to take the high ground and voluntarily reimburse the city of Alameda for these expenditures. Barring that, we demand the city of Alameda take whatever action is necessary to recover those monies. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Pauling. I'm mayor and council. I'm. 1/2. So in looking at this, I understand that staff wanted to be good on their promise to begin to bring these articles before the end of the year. But I am concerned that you start with Article three. It appears to me that you're really putting the cart before the horse. The one of the big problems noted by the earlier I investigation and by the grand jury was the vagueness of the term undue influence. I can't help but think, you know, if we're talking about a thief, I mean, is it someone who robbed you at gunpoint or is it someone who accidentally left something in the basket and you have not yet completed the work on whether on what exactly how you're defining the violations, what is the scope, and to determine a penalty and an outcome before you've even defined that seems just simply out of order. I'm also very disappointed that Council has decided to have this very important discussion with only three members present, because somehow it's going to be difficult for you to compartmentalize, I think, on an issue as poor as this is going forward. I would really prefer a full discussion by all five people and it's very disappointing to me that you've chosen to limited just to three people who have already made a determination that actually picks the grand jury decision over the much more intensive earlier investigation. There are a number of things here that I find distressing, and I respectfully request that you wait on this decision until table it, until you actually decide what is undue influence. The two council members on this last debacle didn't have the benefit of knowing that clearly. And there is a line between free speech and what happened. I'm clearly someone who puts a letter of recommendation on letterhead is not subterfuge. Someone who discusses something in a meeting is told it's violation, then does not continue with any discussion. And I think it's very important that this that you follow the grand jury's recommendations and not start with the penalty phase before you even done the hard work of defining what the violations are. Thank you. Thank you. And are there any further penalties? Okay. So with that, the public comment is closed. Who wants to? Oh. I would like to make a comment and then I want to hear from everybody. I heard the city attorney's say that there had been some suggestion that board and commission members should be included in this policy. I would not support that. These are volunteers who apply to serve, who are appointed and voted on by the council. They receive no reimbursement. We don't receive a lot. They receive absolutely none. And I, I also don't really see the potential harm again. I don't have that crystal ball. But in in the case of the hiring of the fire chief by the former city manager that involved, as I mentioned previously, council members who were direct reports of that city manager who had the ability to hire or fire her at a board and commission member wouldn't have that power. So, I mean, that was not my suggestion. If anyone wants to make a case for why we should include board and commission members. I'm certainly willing to hear it, but I'm. That certainly gives me pause. Anyone want to chime in on that one? Councilmember de SAG. My feeling is the grand jury had given us recommendations and we're putting in place policies that that kind of grow. It's like a tree. And then we've got these limbs that are now growing. And to add in this extra item regarding boards and commissions, while in and of itself, that might be a sound policy, I think, if we just stick to. The Council and what the grand jury had suggested. I feel that I'd be on firmer ground. I mean, continue with my tree metaphor. I feel like if we go. Out and go out on a limb, exactly where. We're going out on an on a tree limb, the further you go, I don't know how steady it is. Whereas, you know, the the matter regarding the council and whether or not to allow reimbursement for legal costs, I mean, that there's a substantial body of discussion and actors who are involved in that discussion and there's a substantial amount of understanding people might disagree with with some of the policy recommendations. But nonetheless, there is some agreement on the policy recommendations, and I just feel that's firmer ground if we just stick. To the essentials that the grand jury had suggested. So I will just note that this policy recommendation goes a little bit beyond what the grand jury recommended, because it also adds city staff. No council member nor city staff member should be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter. I mean, I can live with the city staff portion. I mean, there's some some limbs. I could you know, it might be a little bouncy, but I could still feel a little comfortable on it. But perhaps the board, the commission might be taking me a little too further out. But I could live with the city staff passing. Hey, Vice Mayor Knox White. In terms of the average amount by the city attorney, I should like to be able to write that, but better. But I think we're we're starting to get into conversation more and more with the commission, but I don't think we should be, you know, not moving very quickly. Q Okay. Okay. And I will say that I am I also agree with that in the preamble that Mr. Shen started out with that the lead with the language to the extent authorized by law and not otherwise exempted. And then, okay, so we and we don't want to add board and commission members. And again, I think that the city of Alameda is, you know, a little bit on the cutting edge here. But I also think that, as has been said, more than once, the city of Alameda is also making an attempt to make to rectify past situations and to follow the grand jury's recommendations. So then we touched on briefly, but the the question of so in the resolution, I was concerned with the language on page two that says that says that the I'm sorry, it's not on page two. It is the, uh. Okay. Where is it that. Is it just in the. I'm looking for the language that says we could delegate to the city manager or the city attorney. If I may help you. Please help me. It's right there. It's on the top of page two. You were correct. It is in the seduction to. Yeah. And where the cursor is. Right? You're right. You're right. Yeah. Okay. I'm looking at my finicky iPad. Yes, it is. So I. I believe and I will say that I discussed this with Mr. Shen a couple of days ago, that we. What was the language that we said that, um, uh. Do you remember the language? I do. I believe the gist of it was that your preference would be that the delegation would be to special counsel with respect to council members, and that you were comfortable with the delegation to city manager, city attorney or special counsel with respect to city staff? That's exactly right. And so we can make that change on the screen. Okay. As you deliberate further on the item, I'm going to go and work with the city clerk to make that change. Okay. Council member de is GAZETTE does that sound okay to you? Yeah, that's fine. I think, you know. Teeny bit of wordsmithing here, but you know, the part where it says committed the violation or delegate such decisions shouldn't be committed the violation comma or because that's a whole independent clause of its own. After the word or those it should be a comma or. Sure would be happy to add a comma right in front of or. Yes. Especially since you're going to add these other. Yeah, right. And then at the top of the page you've already made that ex. Yes. The, um. There was a extraneous word than you already. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then, let's see. Did we put in the, um. Do we put in the preamble? Yep, we did. There it is. Highlighted. Okay. Okay. Oh, you know what? It's where we look in. The OR is after a violation where your cursor is right now, right underneath the cursor, the word violation and then comma or because I think that's what we're intending. Right. Because delegate is the verb that's associated with the city council over there, the city council. The city council may decide comma or. Or delegate. Comma or delegate. Right. That's. So we start from the beginning here. Aware that the city council and then may decide is the is the verb. And then and then all that. And then right where she has a cursor, that's where you put a comma. Because when you say or delegate, you're saying the city council. I don't know. It's not it's not a numerical kind of thing. I don't know. What I would. And take out the Corvette. That's all I'm saying. You put the comma there or delegate. That's grammatically correct. Yeah, I believe. Okay. Thanks. So it's there, right? Exactly. The comma is there. Okay. We found the comment. Any other. Any other proposed changes or. Vice mayor of New York, a conversation about the European Union and concerns about it. And I'm going to try to get to the video of this meeting in about ten or 15 seconds by time, so that we have the language where we're going to prepare for the showdown between me repeating that. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. People said to me that I think the first time is going to be somebody is going to commit a violation in not really adding too much power. So, you know, you don't already have the ability to detain them. If they're not going to reimburse conventions, she's going to influence the Supreme Court. I guess I would say that the grand jury's reporting that we're doing to, you know, kind of where is the trigger for even for somebody being declared to have knowingly violated that according to the rules? And I am a little uncomfortable with it just being the special counsel I had for ten years to a leading special counsel. And one of those I thought that was just alcohol in it, you know, not even following it should be not California law and, you know, the grand jury and about it. But, you know, you're very correct. And so, you know, even even, you know, the special counsel's just a big old. And I knew. You were going to. Bind the future council by making you determine that it needed to be not being allowed to determine whether to buy I. And there should be more than just the first two years in the company after being ordered, you know, an hour before not going. I'd hate the idea I or my mind, but NPR could be in the grand jury or could be a finding of the court, etc. But I think that we are trying to litigate the past and in doing most important, really thinking through, I don't know, we're totally battling or intervention of our novel in the future. And I'm just a little worried and that I'm just saying you can go. You don't even think. That you. Did that. Yeah, so I'm too. And I didn't want to cut you off. Vice Mayor, I heard you finish your sentence. No, I don't think so. I think those are well-taken points. What I might suggest and again, from direct experience, I think part of the problem was that the city attorney, who was also a recipient witness to the events that gave rise to the grand jury report and the events examined by the special counsel also chose that special counsel. So I would say that moving forward, I would leave it to council members to determine who that special counsel should be. So I think that this gives us more control over the process. We can interview some firms. But it also I'm still trying to build in that protection from council members who might be a majority and might , you know, have it out for a council member. I want fairness in the process, but I do think that this is a responsibility that the city council could delegate by being the ones to choose the special counsel. That's my thought. Gentlemen yours. I am. This is. This is Tony. Yes. Chasm of desire. I thought the point that Vice Mayor Knox White raised about a higher threshold or his use of the word trigger is spot on. I. Because I. I'm going to try to make this summarize. I think what I hear you saying is. Okay. The policy of reimbursing or not reimbursing should follow an event or a decision made by some. For lack of a better word, third party entity, whether it's the grand jury finding or the district attorney finding that that some kind of charter violation had occurred. So once that hire that that trigger is pulled, so to speak, then the council can can decide to pull its subsequent trigger of not of not reimbursing legal fees. But the first trigger has to be pulled first. My correct in saying that that's what you're getting at. That's a question posed to the vice mayor. At the end of the day. You already are a property that are legal in Quadrangle and you follow and you have that trigger point because you put in another comment in a meeting about, you know, how do we if we have nothing but we involve people that are more political among themselves. And I think I think we need to be careful about what rules you put in place with respect to the future. So follow up question. So right now, is it your reading that by virtue of being silent about that? About the grand role of the grand jury in making a determination or or the role of the D.A.? I don't know which one you prefer. By remaining right now silent about that role, it's almost like, well, okay, if three council members decide you made a it's the policy is reading such that it's almost like if three council members so decide. Is that the concern? So in that sense. I think Germany or America could decide to hire a special counsel and give them very specific instructions about what they want to see. Oh, okay. I think Israel may not be even a reality for you, but to be able to respond in a private way, all you know is a grand jury also has no due process in its court. I just think that, you know, that, you know, we in my minority, we had one grand jury in 20 years. I live in town. It's not overly difficult to independent reporters and a lot of people in town. I was reporting on both sides in case you feel it was wrong and you did not do a good job and you got a great job and the was. But there are a lot of people I don't know if you can talk about anything you can support. And therefore, you know, I think that indicates that the only thing we have to be doing with the grand jury, I would think that that would be it needs to be much. I think you can ask information. Okay. And the minimum threshold, again, if I'm understanding, is that three or four council members could vote to bring in a special counsel. I believe the threshold for me would be in a grand jury found a violations of the rules. Yeah. Well, so here's the thing to keep in mind that the grand jury, we don't direct the grand jury to look into as a scenario. They they reach down and and do what they do. So I, I think we need to build in a little better protection than that. And again, and maybe I wasn't being clear enough, I, I think the process of selecting the special counsel itself was flawed. And, and didn't have the the input of the city council. Councilmember Daza I. Hear what you're saying, and I probably would have agreed with you had I been there. But I think the situation that we're dealing with now has specifically to do with reimbursing legal fees. So the point at which most of the time people ask for reimbursement of legal fees is after some kind of process had had unwound most of the time. Unfortunately, this previous time, some legal fees were were were reimbursed prior to the decision by the grand jury. But let's let's forget about that for now. Let us suppose that there were no reimbursement of legal fees that had occurred in 2018. Let us suppose that and let us suppose further that the grand jury made a determination in June 2019, and the grand jury report comes out. That's the trigger that I believe Vice Mayor Knox White is referring to when it comes to the question of do we reimburse or not reimburse for legal fees? And to me, I would agree that that that on the question of reimbursing legal fees, that that is that is the I think that it's appropriate to have that it's appropriate to have that that that triggering event, that IEEE, the grand jury, had made some kind of determination in terms of the issue of the counsel. I think that was kind of a parallel issue that was leading. Up to the grand jury. That that I think. Okay. So if I can just jump in. I am just saying that I. So the reason that someone's legal fees would be denied is that there was a determination that they either violated the charter or violated an applicable law and in the language proposed. It leaves the possibility of who would determine that to be the city attorney, the city manager or a special counsel. I think it's perfectly fine to for the the the for the city attorney or the city manager to determine a violation or not for a member of city staff. I worry about, for the reasons I stated previously, of giving them that responsibility when it puts them in a precarious position, as the director reports to the City Council. So that's the only circumstance under which I would bring in a special counsel. Oh, I see. But but again, the and maybe the city attorney wants to weigh in here, but it just I don't think it's just after a grand jury makes a finding that someone will claim their legal fees. I'm we've seen it before, and I'm not sure that it's just the outlier and the exception that will never be repeated. And again, we are following a recommendation that emanates from the grand jury's findings based on the the the events that occurred in 2017. So that's the only I don't want to belabor the part of the special counsel, but I just think that there is a time when it's appropriate to take that decision outside of the city, especially for people who are our direct reports. And Mr. Chin, do you want to weigh in? Yes, I think I understand exactly where the mayor is coming from, and I think I also understand where the vice mayor is coming from. Mr. Vice Mayor, I think the concern expressed by the mayor, which in a way I share, is that there are very few times that the grand jury actually is involved in a city process . And so if the triggering event is a grand jury determination or a district attorney or an attorney general investigation, and that triggering event could be both over and under inclusive. It could be under inclusive in that those law enforcement agencies just intervene so frequently that this policy would never be applied, essentially. It could also be over inclusive, because this policy makes more clear what a knowing violation is. And because the Council has no control over those other agencies, you could not be confident that those agencies are applying your policy properly. They may be applying some other policy and decide there's a violation whereby you may or may not agree with. And so that's why this policy is drafted, to give the council as the elected governing body of the city, to essentially make the ultimate call. I think the mayor's point is also well-taken that special counsel should be appointed by the council, and that was always our vision that the council would appoint the special counsel. And so I'm proposing that right in front of special counsel, we could add council appointed to make clear that special counsel would be appointed by the council and not by some other appointed employee in the city. And I hope that was helpful. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It was helpful. I guess I would be counsel have already been denied company indemnification because they feel that they knowingly committed a violation. We're not changing that ability right now. What we what we're doing is whether or not there should be more specific policy, any specific trigger for requiring that to happen. I concur with Mayor, when you read your comments about Josh, the attorney, David, out of that investigative role and and the. Bob, is your point about picking up all of the need? The question is, can we report the need for anything, anybody to figure out that they're going to improve our lives? And perhaps we're not really at any point where we need to kind of pick up all of that time and being able to get a reimbursement for a fee. But I feel like we are a policy. Yeah, I. We had such a mouthful. You know, you're right. They were. I thought that they were hired by the city attorney and the people related to that. But I hate to call it the council, but I think you have to be there for it is going to be without parties or governments or whatever else. I honestly believe in the fact that we have a council of the people who are really trying to act ethically in this regard. And I have very little problem working with the Council to do that. But I think we're talking about, you know, I mean, I'll talk to you tonight in person out there. Although I feel obligated because I'm looking for somebody to make me an attorney. So if I could just chime in, I do hear your concerns. I have a concern about due process and to make sure that whoever is making a determination has the the background and the ability to do so. And I think in some cases and I don't say this because I'm a lawyer, but I think in some cases you do need a lawyer. But what if rather than just delegating to a special counsel, we bring a special counsel in to work with us the the non recuse council members. Council member I mean, Madam Clerk. Yes, I'm. Sorry to interrupt, but if the council could just take a vote to authorize additional time since two members. Yes. This is true. We have our clerk. Okay, I will move that. We allow this discussion to take as much time as it needs to take. I think it's too important to cut us off at a certain number. We do have a second thing. Okay, wait a second. Let's take a roll call vote. Council members desire. Yes, not quite. I may or as Ashcroft. Yes. That's two yeses in an I three. Affirmative. It's okay. It passes. Thank you. Okay. So I think I was saying that, you know, maybe a compromise position would be we don't just send it out to the special counsel, but we bring that counsel, that special counsel in to work with us, because after all, we would know the the case facts certainly the best. But I, I just am not sure that in every instance, the Council is is equipped to make that determination. And there might even be a way to word this so that the council reserves the discretion to appoint a city council, a special counsel, to work with it, if, if necessary, if it felt the necessity to do so, or words to that effect. You're grimacing Councilmember De. So what? Yeah, translate that into words. I don't know if I'm becoming more Catholic than the Pope and by by glomming on to Vice Mayor Knox's white's phrase of triggering triggers and higher thresholds. But when he referenced grand juries, I believe in particular, I might use the word D.A. I don't know if he used the word D.A., but when he referenced grand juries, as , you know, an example of of a higher threshold decision making body, I still I think that that is a correct point so far. So, for example, one way that we could potentially deal with that is in the very first in in section one, in the first sentence of paragraph two, it reads, No council member nor city staff member shall be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter. An applicable criminal statute or an applicable ethical code of conduct period. Maybe where we say period, we introduce comma as determined by a grand jury, D.A. or counsel appointed special counsel. Well, I mean, that's a possibility. I would also just be mindful. I mean, I think you probably wrapped up wrapped into that language. The city attorney's reminder that law enforcement agencies intervene so rarely that we it could be an under inclusive policy to rely on their determination. But maybe we're getting both that we can have our cake and eat it, too, or whatever. But, um. But I take what you're saying about what you just said. But again, we're responding to this very rare, historic event that we just don't want to see happen again. And so and so that historic event was, you know, some some some violation of 7-3 that then, you know, required the D.A. and the grand jury to make a determination. And they did that. And so going back to the tree metaphor, staying close to the trunk as much as possible. That's why I don't know. I'm still okay with inserting or asserting a role of the grand jury or a D.A. in this. I don't. Know. Well, I and again, I'm sorry, did you finish? Okay. So I am I'm also mindful of the fact that we will not pass this policy unless all three of us agreed to it because we were the three person majority. It will take I, I think the language that Councilmember de SA just suggested that we referred to a grand jury proceeding, the district attorney, or a determination by a special counsel. I thought you said council appointed special. Okay. Well, it is counsel by special counsel. Yes. That that might suffice. And I again, yes, I hope that this is a rare occurrence, but we don't know that. And I think that it's really important to have clear policies that just leave. No question about. And this is you know, this is what what what you can expect if this if a in alleged violation were to occur again. I mean, and Vice Mayor Knox. Right. Are you about to say something or. Because I was about to make a comment. Vice Mayor. Mike Huckabee. Okay. The weakness of what I just said and you know, I want to of course, I would love to say it's all good, but there is a weakness. The weakness is that if something goes wrong, does that mean that let's say a city staff does something wrong? Does that mean the city staff has to go to work and get some kind of grand jury seal of approval or so? No, because, again, the special counsel involvement is only triggered when it's a it's a city council member. And that's only to keep us from requiring our direct reports to make that determination. Yeah. And I guess as I hear myself saying that, well, the city attorney is obviously an attorney. City manager isn't, although he's a wise man. But, you know, he won't always be here. But. But I think we I'm hoping we, with your suggested language council member decide the the specification that it would be a council appointed special counsel that we might have enough to move forward on. But what do you think, Vice Mayor. I don't think I'm going to support any litigation and having internal counsel, regardless of who they are appointed by. During the. Day. We need to be clear about that. I think we have to be able to feel comfortable that we're open minded. Both of them are problematic in their own way. And I think that giving an individual or firm, even if they're voyeurs, to trying the power with you on the left hand side, you know. Okay. I'm here about the attorney. I'm concerned about how people interact. It's not that big of a concern. They can hire a special counsel and they can use the special counsel's report of a referral to an individual with that in mind and so on. I mean, the model that I would hope is that you gave the grand jury to take it out. I don't think that the ability to hire language when you do that. I guess I may have less to do with special counsel, both of which I know you agree with. Okay. So I'm not suggesting that we go down either of those two paths. What I'm suggesting is that I do think that there may be times when a city council needs to confer with a special counsel to get an opinion. We aren't we wouldn't need to be looking for a special counsel's report, I would envision as sitting in a closed session with that person and raising our concerns and getting legal advice. And so the fact that there have been two examples in recent memory where special counsel didn't, you know, it fell short of the task they were assigned. I'm not looking to replicate that, but I am looking to at times and only if a majority of the non recused counsel decides that we could bring in an attorney to work with us and advise us. We could also decide, no, that's not the path we need to take. But I think that there is an element of safety in at least knowing some legal considerations that if we're not consulting with our city attorney, I don't think that it's reasonable to assume we can just rely on ourselves for the legal advice that may be required. And obviously, you you're willing to to take the determination of of some attorney, like a district attorney. And the district attorney certainly advises the grand jury. So I'm just saying, this is just be like a resource vice mayor. I'm not I'm not saying we do what was done before. Okay. Have at it and come back and tell us what you think. It's come sit with us. Here are questions. Here's where we think we want to be. Is is are we, you know, going down the right path anything that to keep us out of legal jeopardy and to ultimately achieve the outcome we're trying to achieve. But I'm not looking to replicate past models. So I guess I'm still not sure I'm on board with it being a sympathetic company for determination and have their interests in consultation with the special counsel. I'm sorry at their interest. What they. Can handle any special counsel in higher education, that special counsel will be notified not to do. So again. I didn't say delegate. I'm saying to bring them in to sit and work with us. It would only take place in the presence of the counsel and this legal adviser, that of our choosing. Right. To give them the language and instruct them. So. Well, I yeah, I mean, we we're in the drafting stage. And so, yeah, I am trying to. Say that whatever it was that needs to be done to get the proper training going, including being helpful in coping with the special counsel that we're not hearing that special counsel is threatening to. Be if we are not. And I'm not suggesting that. Okay. Let's work with that wording. I think we might be on to something. Okay. So we're looking at me. Put it up in my screen. This is going to have to be guided by on all of these triggering of an execution by or not back. Yeah. I mean, are you saying that the council will determine whether they are going to come on board with everything else but making the determination of violations and giving them patients based on their findings? Do you want to jump in, Mr. Shin? Sure. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor Knox White. I think what this policy does is that once a decision or body makes the determination that there is a violation, then the Council could not exercise its discretion to indemnify. So in essence, once a knowing violation is found, the council doesn't get to step two. The council just simply doesn't exercise its discretion to indemnify. That's that's all that this policy does. I think the grand jury recommendation was not an intended to be a sea change. It simply just moves the discretionary indemnification to mandatory non indemnification to the extent that the council or whatever body has found a knowing violation. I've been scribing. I guess my question is where is that? What is that threshold for that finding of the city council. As it is currently? Yes. Right? I mean, I think that's all right. So how would you how would you address that problem? No, I wouldn't do anything by injecting that. We're going to just buying something that probably I think it has to be following to get there. The company decided to not get it down the highway or not to pick up the rights of the individual, you know, and after November five, regardless of the fact that the grand injury is involved or not. We're not we're not trying to eradicate it with Germany. And again, we're just trying to figure out at what point in time, but no longer the council's ability to say that. And I think at that level, that personal need to be much higher than just to be on the level. Yeah. So we're. Well the okay go ahead cancel everyday. So I think you know the way in which the city attorney had modified the first sentence of a second paragraph to section one, the modification occurring where we, we replaced code of conduct period with code of conduct comma as determined by dot, dot, dot the things. I think everything is satisfactory there except for the last thing or the city council. I think it's just basically attorney general, the Alameda County district attorney and or the Alameda County grand jury, period. I think that's what Councilmember Vice Mayor Knox White is getting at. Is is those are the decisional that those are the higher authority, higher threshold decision making bodies that signal to the council. Okay. Council, yes, indeed. These reputable bodies have made a decision that that, you know, goes to the due process that the vice mayor not Suarez speaking to. And based upon that decision through that due process, the council will not reimburse legal fees. So so I don't think you can have the last thing or the city council is it does that some close to what you're getting at. Thank you. Mr. Chan. May we ask the Vice Mayor? Could you. Could you actually see these live updates from where you are? Oh, you know, on my camera, on the screen. I will ask them to. Oh, okay. So you're not actually seeing the changes that are being made. Okay. I enjoy it because I go. Has got. It. After. And I'm going to highlight the sections that were changed for your viewing convenience. That would be helpful. Yeah. Okay. So on the screen. Um. Can't. Can we email it to him? It should be okay. Your concept of that just having to do with city staff? No, I think. I believe based on what I see in Europe, there will be karma or the city council. I will be under my watch because I don't think they will have a significant change of anything sitting up our country ability to not have anything. Yeah. I think that's where he's going at. The top. Oh, well, I would still leave in that. The city council may have that right, but we should still specify specify that that should be should not include the council members who are alleged to have council member or members who are alleged to have violated the law. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. May I ask a question of the vice mayor? Yes. And then I have a question for you. Mr.. So, Mr. Vice Mayor, if your your request that the lead comma or the city council. Are you okay with the rest of the highlighting? The rest of the highlighting essentially provides that if none of these public bodies actually make a determination, then the council gets to do it. Or is it your request that we delete everything? If you look at the second round of highlighting. Yeah. Yeah, I think the the situation. So that we can create a very small industry by saying that whatever, you know, get motivated by people finding the particular looking children not to identify that, correct? Well, essentially, the policy as it's written would be that the city council would then make the finding. Right, that there was a violation. Yeah. Yeah. And so I. I just want to jump in and say, I'd like to get to a vote, but I also want to make sure that whatever policy we're adopting, the city attorney thinks will hold up to legal scrutiny because there's no point in having a policy that just brings us into court to to clarify, did we you know, did we have the ability to make that determination? Maybe we do. And it you know, we just haven't had a specific policy telling us that. Councilmember de SAC. On the point that the discussion item that we just had where we said if none of those three top echelon decision making bodies make a decision, then the city council could make a decision. I'd be concerned about that because if the attorney general or the district attorney or the grand jury is not is not making a decision on this item, that that's telling you something. So then I don't but but yeah. I think I think that we can't read too much into that. The Alameda district attorney has quite a few items that the grand jury considers. And, you know, even topics that are suggested. And then they vote on which ones are going to hear kind of like the US Supreme Court. So that doesn't mean just because it didn't come to their attention that it's not significant. It just could say that that particular year there were a lot of things that took more time and attention. King. Question. Yes, vice mayor. Has been saying that match the game by game council can make a finding that something was knowingly done in their lifetime themselves to not reimburse. We don't have that language. We use the. That's not appreciated. Well, I mean, I would say that we want to make sure we have a firm legal foundation for making that determination, which we might, because maybe the charter language is so straight forward. But I again, this is this is a recommendation of the grand jury that we not pay legal fees to council members who are found to have violated the charter. So how is it they're found to violate the charter? And I try to when I look at a situation and maybe this is my, you know, Arbitrator Day's coming out, I try to look at it from both sides. So it's one thing for the three of us to be sitting here determining this policy. How would it feel if we were on the other side of the equation is, you know, did we maybe, maybe once you elected a council, you were just, you know, imbued with that wisdom and knowledge. I, I wouldn't mind having someone to consult with, but I don't think it should be the city attorney in this instance. Um, and I, and I think if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying just leave it silent. But I again, I'm just trying to do what we said we would do, which was to adopt this policy that the grand jury recommended in the three of us unanimously agreed to do that. So how best to do that? Let's let's see. We can come up with some language that I mean, I think you I think you understand my concerns. I'm hearing yours. I think there's got to be some some middle ground language in there that can satisfy all of our concerns. I mean, I have no concerns about the use of the special counsel's counsel in their actions. I'm not proposing anything that would change that. I don't know that we can call a meeting in my mind. We will make a determination about whatever. And I just I feel like that's already been my part of what we're doing, is following the grand jury's recommendation that people who are knowingly found guilty of violating the charter cannot be identified. And I think what we're just tapping into, where is that determination going to violating the charter or other rules? And I think jumping the gun is a part of it. Even if the due process that you do not spy three politicians sitting on people who may or may not be aligned. So your options are strong. And if I was on the other side, you know, never to be. But I know that there was some sort of due process that I was following that would be followed in making that determination. And I didn't feel that the three people that I am opposed to or something like that, which I think that might be, and I think we've seen in the past few days around the Bay Area and country in the world that you don't need to be doing anything other than just kind of climbing, that it's a binding issue. Of. Being in a council meeting, that determination, making and determination and choosing to follow the lead of the attorney general and not have done that by any time we talk about the country. I think, again, it is awkward when we're asking the city attorney to make that determination with regard to another city council member. The reason that I would leave in the council appointed special counsel is to make sure that a future council is aware of that. And I see that as a protection because I've seen what happens when it's not a council appointed by the city council. And again, it is exactly what you said only to consult with us. We're not delegating any authority, but I think to your earlier point about how the the the ones who are seeking legal reimbursement would feel , I think that consulting with a lawyer is actually is actually a a level of protection and safeguard. Right. So what I'm proposing, I think people are buying a couple of things. I don't know if you disagree there at all. You know, I'm already part of the determination. I mean, I think that the council should make up the language. I don't think that they can be precluding community banking, and I don't think we're not trying to or politically unpopular, but that's what we're trying to do. Anything else about the competition? Well, right. Is there a way we can sit in the affirmative rather than the negative? I'm sure make. So let's see. So here's the highlight. So in the absence of any determination of etc., etc., the city council, excluding bereavement share, shall shall retain the ability to make. You design. So retained. Did you say the authority to decide to determine the time to decide whether. Okay, sure. So this term. You shall retain the authority to I think we're saying determine rather than decide or that's pretty close to determine, but a better idea. Okay. And then, um, I would like something about that gives us the ability to consult with a special counsel appointed by the city council. Those are two different spellings, but city clerk knows that. I'm bored with that. Okay. Let's see if we can get it offline. Are you and by the way, Vice Mayor, are you seeing these changes in real time? Okay. Um hmm. Okay. Let's see how this looks now. In the absence of a determination by a court. Um. The City Council shall retain the authority to determine whether the Council member knowingly committed a violation or delegated, um, decision. Okay. Um, in making determinations required by this. Okay. So on that last highlighted sentence that I think should be modified and moved because it's not going to apply to staff at all. Right. We don't need to. And city manager, city attorney can make that those determinations with regard to city staff. So I would like to say, um, uh oh, I know that, um. Is the council actually going to make a determination about the city staff member or are we leaving that to the city manager and city attorney? Mr. Chin. So as written, it gives you the choice to either. Downgrade or relegate guy to zero vice mayor. Yeah. Okay. In making determinations required by this policy, the city council, I would say, may consult with special counsel. And it's a make and sell with council appointed special counsel to provide necessary advice. Consultant not consulted? Yes. Okay. In that last year, take the EDF rate. Yeah, you got it. Okay. In making determinations required by this policy, the City Council may consult with counsel, appointed special counsel to provide necessary advice. What do we think? So let me go back up. So the first sentence that starts with to the extent and then right now we have as determined by court of competent jurisdiction jurisdiction, the attorney general, Alameda County district attorney, the Alameda County Grand Jury Karma or the City Council? Do we really intend to have or the city council there at the tail end? Councilmember de SAC I think you do if you want to keep the latter part of the policy, because the latter part of the policy makes clear that the Council retains the jurisdiction to do it. And so if you delete the City Council from the first sentence, then it could clear. That confusion. As to whether or not the council could do it at all. Oh, I see. Okay. Vice Mayor. Yeah. That sounds good. Okay. I would be okay with that. Okay. And that just just. For the. Record, some every day. So I want to make sure that we captured what the city attorney just said in the minutes, because that to me, it's it has to be understood what we mean by that phrase or the city council at the tail end. So yeah. In the minutes of this meeting. Yeah. Okay, we got it. And then okay let's see here. Section two. In Section three. I don't see any necessary changes unless you all do. Council Member De SA. Vice Mayor. Are. You ready to support that? Me You'd like to make a motion. I'm open to all of the document as written. Okay. As amended. Right. As amended, yeah. Now that we have this kind of thing going on. Okay. So we have a motion by the vice mayor. It's been seconded by councilmember designee. We have a voice vote. Councilmember DeSantis knocks way. I mean, as the. Ashcroft. Yes. All right. The measure the this ordinance to enact this policy passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. So, yeah. Good work. Good work, everyone. Thanks. And now let's let's take a brief. I'm going to call a ten minute recess. It's 924. Well, let's make it 11 minutes. We'll be back at 935. And let's bring our council colleagues back in. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Ready in the balcony. All right. Okay, everybody. Well, we're all here. It's 934. We'll go a minute early.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Pacifica United, LLC, dba Sorrento Italian Kitchen, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 4102 Orange Avenue #123, with conditions. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0351

It's like item 12 cookery. It's not a comment. Mr. Clarke. Try to extract quietly, if you can, please. Mr. Clarke item. Thank you, Mayor. Item 12 is a report from the police department with the recommendation to receive and follow the application of Pacific United doing business in Sorrento, Italian Kitchen for an original ABC license at 4102 Orange Avenue with conditions in District seven. Don't move. Second. Moving. Second. Any member of the public have any comment? Item 12. Mr. Manager, any comment? No, sir. All right. Members, cast your votes in item 12. You. Councilmember Lowenthal. Motion carries five votes. Yes. I've got we've got a bare quorum here. So everybody stay in place, please. Item 13.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Beer Belly, Incorporated, dba Beer Belly, for an inter-county premise-to-premise and person-to-person transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 255 Long Beach Boulevard. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_02162016_16-0141

Thank you. Item 17. Report from police recommendation to receive and file the application of beer belly for an Inter-County premise to premise and person to person transfer of an ABC license at 255 Long Beach Boulevard, District two. Thank you, sir. Staff Report. Commander Konate. Honorable Vice Mayor City Council Item 17 is an application for a Type 47. Person or person premised the premise on sole ABC license for a restaurant. The police department has conducted our investigation and do not anticipate any adverse impact to the for the issuance of this license. That concludes my staff report and I'm available for questions. Thank you. And I just wanted to make some comments. I'd like to welcome the owner and Jimmy Horn, who's in the audience today and to I'd like to welcome to the neighborhood and thank you and your wife for investing in Long Beach for their second restaurant. The first one is in Koreatown. And thank you also for taking the time to meet with my staff about verbally and sharing a little bit about your vision. I think you when you look around, you'll see how very fitting it is. And so we appreciate your focus on food and craft beverages. Aside from fitting in really beautifully with our craft beer and foodie culture, I do look forward to having our folks come join you at some time. More and more, our downtown is expanding. I think it's really become a very welcoming place. And you probably saw the L.A. Times article a couple of weeks ago about the craft brew culture shaping up in our town. So thank you. I'd like to thank you for really your confidence in our city and with this council and and prior members have done to make this a very welcoming place for business as well as for entertainment and residents. And so it's that full 24 three shift culture, not quite 24 hours, but close enough that I think will make our downtown very exciting. So with that, there's been a motion and a second. And I also want to encourage you to stay in touch with our office. I think it's a great start. And as you continue to expand in your patronage there, it'd be nice to have that contact. Members, cast your vote. I'm sorry I didn't call for public comment. Is there any member of the public who has to address this council on this item? Seeing none. Members, cast your vote. Councilman Andrews. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to update the Long Beach Strategic Plan for Older Adults and create an action plan to highlight and address priority areas, as well as, the feasibility of creating a City of Long Beach Office on Aging; and report back to City Council within six months.

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-1007

Thank you. 22. Yeah. It's okay. All right. I know. Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilman Andrews, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Council Member, Supervisor, Councilmember Muranga recommendation to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to update the Long Beach strategic plan for older adults and create an action plan to address priority areas, as well as the feasibility of creating the City of Long Beach. Office of on Aging and report back to City Council within six months. Thank you very much. Turn it over to Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, there's been over 65,000 senior citizens in Long Beach, which is the largest aging population within the city, borders yet the most underserved. As a senior myself, I know the difficulties that are faced and it's time to address these issues and to get help that is deserve. So at this time, I would like to ask my chief of staff, John Edmunds, to present a special presentation on this item. Thank you. Good evening. I'm bill mayor, vice mayor, council members city manager in the public and hope to keep this brief but it's background information for your deliberation. This plan was created in 2005 to identify the. Issues and recommendations solutions for our aging community. The Long Beach Health Department, under the direction of former department director Ron Ears and Health Department manager Teresa marano, spearheaded a Long Beach strategic. Plan for. Older adults. Task Force. This task force was made up of valued partnerships. That involved more than 60 representatives and stakeholders from the neighborhood and older adult service community and as well as various cities departments who participated in over two years. During the plan, the. Research and development stage. The purpose of the plan was to address the needs of the elderly, including safety, transportation, housing, health and improving their quality of life. The vision for the plan is one that still holds true today. Long Beach, the best city to live in for a lifetime, just by way of background. Long Beach is currently home to over 65,000 seniors, which is the largest age population within the city borders. We need to champion this population by providing all of the resources available to them. Each year are seniors and their. Families are faced with difficult situations from in-home in-home assistance, elderly abuse, transportation, housing and all of these can be difficult. Without the proper assistance. 60% of the seniors in our city are under the national poverty level, and one third of our seniors do not speak English. Updating the Long Beach Strategic Plan for older adults, the original plan is very comprehensive and very thorough. After reading the plan in its. Entirety, one would be left with the. Impression that not much should be changed. We do think, however, there are a few. Possible gaps to bring the document up. To date, and there should be new availability. In terms of services, education and technology. Many of our seniors are more active than ever. As I can attest to my mom. She puts things up on Facebook, Twitter, and everyone in Scotland messages her back. The plan was. Introduced to the. City plan in 2010. However, a few of the action items have been implemented since the plan was created. We need to demonstrate our commitment to this community. Through action, execution and the plan of implementation for this policy and support for the community that we are directly either part of or soon to be part of. Creating the City of Long Beach Office of Aging helps to achieve that. The City of Long Beach is fortunate to have many. Organizations services in our aging community. This includes Park Recreation, a in Marine Department Health Department, senior advisory committee, Long Beach Senior Police Partners, Long Beach Fire. Ambassadors, as well as other key. Senior partners like housing facilities, medical centers and foundations alike. Each entity carries its wealth of information and resources. But the information does not have a central hub for the community to draw upon its services. And therefore, many of our seniors are missing out. On key quality of life services that are, in some cases, could be lifesaving. Having an office of Aging within our city would be a central hub to providing much of the needed information and services, as well as being a conduit for future services and funding opportunities. The City of Long Beach Office of Aging would be under the Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate. Senior programs across all cross functional department lines, including tho county, state. And other agencies to address the. Priorities in service of the Long Beach Strategic Plan for older adults. The Office of Aging would also reflect the diversity of Long Beach by offering services that have specific needs to their cultural. Ethnic. Identity. Throughout California, many cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, Fremont have realized the need for an office of Aging to further their support of the increase aging populations in their communities. It is suggested that we look at this city, our city, to examine funding sources, possible seed money from general fund as well as exploring additional revenues. The City of Long Beach is the best city to live in for a lifetime. Our city's senior population is ever growing as well as their needs. In updating the implementation of the Lumbee Strategic Plan and creating the opening of the Long Beach, aging within the city will reflect our commitment we have for our. Seniors in our community. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you very much, Councilman. Your anger. Thank you, Mayor. I'm very glad to have co-sponsored this resolution with the. Can't remember. Jesus Christ. Andrew. Andrew, don't say. That. Look, don't say that again. I'm not saying nothing. You don't say anything. Okay. Rex got Rex off my bed. And I'm very happy to say this item because I know I was a planet long, long in the making. I recall when I first started at Long Beach State as a freshman and I traveled Long Beach, I saw a wealth of aging citizens here. I think it was I thought it was a senior citizen city back in the day because there were there were that many there, of course, with the influx of myself and young people at the time who changed the face of Long Beach and helped it grow. Now, here I am on the edge, on the verge, on the cusp of being a senior citizen. And it's something that I think we need to address, obviously, with the aging population of the boomers. You know, I'm part I'm part of that boomer generation. And where we're getting we're getting there. And our services have not kept up with where we're getting that, where we're getting to. I had the honor also of working in the health department where there were some services there. Granted, it was not specific. They were not directly related to senior services and they were not supported. The only way that we can do anything meaningful is we're going to have to put some money behind it. I would propose that we create some kind of fee structure if we can, or some kind of financing that would be consistent and sustainable that will keep senior services available for all ages, not only mine and those behind me, but for those that are behind them as well. Because it's a travesty that we would have 65,000 senior citizens in Long Beach today who are not receiving any kind of services officially or unofficially. It was also an opportunity for me when I was a trustee along with City College, and we had the unfortunate incident of having to eliminate senior programs along with City College. I would like to see those returned as well. Senior citizens who were enrolled in. Well, it doesn't sound good, but it was a good program basket weaving in in computer, Facebook, how to how to use your computer to have a Facebook page, how to how to grow flowers, a plant and your horticulture. Those programs are gone and we need them back. And I totally support this. This I had them here and we should put some money behind it. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Andrews for bringing this item forward and for the presentation that came out of his office. I think it was excellent and necessary and really thank the coauthors as well for raising this issue to the council level. Council District two, as many of you know, has a large senior population. And as a result, we have a very, very busy senior center on Fourth Street. Our seniors, they range in capabilities from living active, independent lives to requiring 24 hour care in some of our private facilities. However, with a growing senior population, I know my colleagues share my concerns that many older adults may become shut ins with little contact to the larger community. Perhaps they've lost a significant other, or they're living in the same home for decades. That's filled with trip and fall hazards. Or, like many who have parents can attest, they may not be seeing a doctor on a regular basis because it is too much of a fuss or too difficult to get to. I believe an Office of Aging would be beneficial to helping us achieve the goals and the imperatives detailed in the strategic plan. By focusing on the gaps in service that our group of older adults that don't have assisted care or visit our senior centers. I know of Councilmember Gonzalez were here tonight. She would agree with us that this need was never more real than during our recent set of power outages. I think that really highlighted where our vulnerabilities were with our most vulnerable community members. Once we realized that there wasn't going to be a quick fix, the city's attention turned to the most at risk populations, which included our seniors. My first professional role out of undergraduate was working for the City of Los Angeles Department of Aging and learned very quickly how critical that department was and continues to be for its very large senior population. We witnessed story after story during the power outage of infirmed or sudden seniors that couldn't or would not get out of their homes. There's a lot of fear involved. A lot. And whom do you trust when someone comes to your door to help you? We had a list of seniors, senior facilities provided by the health department. But again, how do we connect services and communicate with that growing population of seniors? I think this is a good start. Councilmember Andrews, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. And I want to acknowledge we have some commissioners here from our senior commission. So I want to thank them who are here. Two of them are third district residents. So thank you for being here and for all the work that you do. I think this is a great item and definitely something that we as a city should be tuned into. On our team, we have been working with our Parks Rec and Marine Department to extend senior services and senior citizen activities to other areas in the city. Currently, we do not have a senior center in the third district and we have actually set aside some money in our one time funds with the hope that we might be able to find a proper venue to be able to host some activities for our seniors. Also, one of the issues that comes up a lot in our district and I think it's probably a city wide issue and very relevant to people in my demographic is working with our Development Services Bureau, which we hope to do to review our granny flat ordinance and to think about future housing options for our seniors. I know that I'm one of those people who is in a situation very close relationship with with my mother. And as she continues to get older, we want to have options in terms of her housing and her quality of life as she grows in this city. So we do have an aging population and we need to make sure that we have adequate services and resources to give them all the wonderful benefits of this city and make sure that they feel supported. I know that I've worked with several community members on coming up with programs that might help engage the seniors and give them a meaningful opportunity to have civic engagement, artistic outlets and other opportunities available to them specifically for their target population. So again, I commend you for bringing this forward. Excellent job by John Edman on the presentation tonight and Councilman Andres for leading the charge on this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Orson. Thank you. And I want to thank the council members and especially Councilmember Andrews, our elder statesman here on the city council, for bringing this good idea forward. I was had an opportunity to review this plan, the strategic plan. And I got to say, most of what's here is very, very applicable and relevant today. I mean, change out a few signatures from the mayor and department heads and update the data. But this is a great framework to work from. And to be quite honest with you, I didn't know it was was even done already. So thank you so much for for this bringing this item forward. This this also helps us provide key services and engage a key constituency, meaning our seniors in the eighth district. We are about a year ago put together a senior advisory committee of active and engaged seniors in my district with the idea of actually doing this, accomplishing much of what this strategic plan seeks to do for older adults. And so I'm proud that we're headed in the right direction in that regard. In fact, next week, our seniors will our senior advisory committee will kick off their inaugural event and have free services for four seniors at the Expo Art Center. Two night, two days a week. That's a grassroots effort. It's all volunteer. It doesn't cost our city anything yet, but it is it shows us that that we are growing and poised to grow in terms of engaging. And that, like I said, is very key constituency, particularly on the district level. And so Mr. Andrews and council members, I fully support this and look forward to doing a lot more for our seniors moving forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. What a what a wonderful item to bring before us. Having worked extensively with the area agency on Aging in L.A. County. I know how important it is that housing, transportation, nutrition, our partnerships with our local providers to ensure that our seniors are receiving the fair share of the allocations coming down from the federal government and from the state to make sure that we are meeting the requirements in our deliveries to our seniors and what that means to us as a community. And I think one of the things that Long Beach is excellent at as a whole, but L.A. County has really had some challenges in its transportation and our ability to move seniors around our city. As you look at the demographics or the topography of our city, there's ups and downs. And a lot of the communities were built where you need to have stairs to get into households. And what does that mean for our transportation when we pick up a senior from the household? We can't just do curbside services. We have to do other, more extensive engagements. Additionally, how does that fit into the new health care model of the ACA and what that means in terms of our opportunities when our seniors are released from our hospitals and or rehabilitation centers? What is that follow up and follow through look like and ensuring that we don't have that recidivism back into our health care system. So I look forward to ensuring that the program proposed maintains at least level of funding, if not greater funding if we are to separate from another area agency on aging and hopefully that we can demonstrate through the numbers and partnerships with the providers in place that we would be able to warrant greater funding for the Long Beach community because we really do always perform because we are so innovative. It's a great theme for the night. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So so as the youngest to the most senior member of the council, I want to say great work on leading on this. And and as chair of the Fed large, I think it's great when we can align our efforts and our realignment in the city with some strategic plan. We're more effective when we bring down resources. We're doing the same thing with violence prevention. Great work in our development services department. We're doing the same thing with My Brother's Keeper, with our boys and young men of color. Our health department does this a lot. So I think it's fantastic that now we're we're reaching back to work that already been done in making it current and placing a greater focus. I'd like to just make sure that some real, tangible recommendations make it into the Fed agenda so that when we go to DC and an advocate , we know what the priorities are of the strategic plan. So those are my comments. Thank you. Let me just make a couple closing comments. Open it up for public comment after this. First, I just want to thank the commissioners that are here, because I think you guys are just such great advocates. And it was great to see a couple of you guys a couple of weeks ago at the senior Congress, which was which was wonderful. And I also want to make a request as the council moves forward and to Councilman Andrews and certainly to staff that, I really think that I would like to see our commissioners be kind of like some of the community drivers of this process. And I think as we move forward, I think the commission is really well situated in a place where they can help, really provide some good impact and feedback on on the plan as it moves forward and I think be a great project for them to to be involved with as well as the rest of the community, of course. And so I think that would be great to see. And so I, I think this is a great step for the city and I look forward to seeing it develop. With that, we'll open it up to public comment. Any public comment on the item? Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor. Councilwoman. Were women and councilmen and also seniors. I'm Mary Alice to you. I'm a resident here and I'm also the chairperson for the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission here. Would you mind putting that Mike just a little bit closer to you? Thank you. I was selected chair for the Senior Advisory Commission in May, and from that time we've been working, working very actively to come up with plans and to be able to serve our seniors. And I'm here to respond to a letter that I received from Councilman Andrews asking for us to look at his plan with the feasibility study that he wants from the Department of Health and Human Services in regards to the senior issues and whether we should develop a Department of Aging. I just attended a summit today with the Department of Health, and it was hosted by our councilman Al Houston and the Art Stone Foundation and also a consultant from Cal State, Long Beach . We need to develop a system to be able to reach out to our seniors and to help them with assessments so that we can fulfill their needs. There is a lot of gaps to be filled, and we also need a website to link everything together. We could also develop the senior program on MLB.TV. I watched that senior program on TV all day Sunday to see, but there's absolutely nothing about seniors there. And we could give out a lot of information to our seniors because a lot of them do watch TV. My recommendation is that the Department of Aging is a necessity. It's not a luxury. We have 65,000 seniors. They deserve to be served. They've served our country. Now it's time. It's our time to serve them. And they are the fastest growing population. The issues pertain to housing, transportation, nutrition, medical, health, and also their quality of life. I want to thank you, Councilman de Andrews, for bringing this forth. And I hope that we can work together on it and find a solution for our seniors. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Hello. Good evening. My name is Dr. Jane Galloway. I'm presenting as a resident of the third district, and I'm also very proud to be serving on the commission for senior citizens. I wanted to I'm very supportive of this department. I think what MaryAlice just said was fantastic. So I would just say ditto to that for the rest of my time. I want to plant a new idea because this isn't just about getting older. This is about creating a whole new configuration of our culture. So I'm going to read something from a book called Prime Time. It's not just about getting older, but about adding a whole new category to life. As we've understood it, a revolution has occurred within the last century, a longevity revolution. Studies show that on average, 34 years have been added to human life expectancy, moving it from an average of 46 years to 80. This addition represents an entire second lifetime, adult lifetime. And whether we choose to confront it or not, it changes everything, including what it means to be human. The social anthropologist Mary Katherine Bates and she's Margaret Mead. Started. As a metaphor for living with this longer life span in view, she writes in her recent book, Composing a Further Life The Age of Wisdom. We have not added decades to a life expectancy by simply extending old age. Instead, we've opened up a new space partway through the life course, a second and different kind of adulthood that precedes old age. And as a result, every stage of life is undergoing change. BATES And uses the identifiable metaphor of what happens when a new room is added to your home. It isn't just the new room that is different. Every other part of the house and how it's used is altered a bit by the addition of this room in the house. That is our life. Things such as planning, marriage, love, finances, parenting, travel, education, physical fitness, work, retirement, our very identities, even all take on new meaning now that we can expect to be vital into our eighties and nineties or longer. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker, please. Good evening, city council mayors, city council members and thank you, council member Andrews and thank you council member Durango and all of you for supporting this. My name is Teresa marino. I am retired from the city of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services, and I was the lead staff on the strategic plan for older adults , and we started it in February of 2001. It was brought to the council in June of 2005. We did a redo of it in about 2007, 2008, and it has sat on a shelf since then. So it just gives us great pride and honor to see that it's being brought to light again, that all of the time and energy and partnerships from we used to call it the cast of thousands because there were so many partners, resources, organizations, experts. Just ordinary, extraordinary seniors that helped and contributed to this. Many of them have passed away. We just lost Diane Johnson, who was a prime mover of this document and an author of it. So thank you. You're making dreams come true. I think it's long overdue. An Office on aging. Thank you for putting it in the Department of Health and Human Services, because I think that's a good home. It'll be a good marriage with the partnership with the Parks and Recreation and input from the commissions. There was a summit today put on by the Department of Health and Human Services, and it was like déja vu all over again because so many, so many of some of the original partners and many of the groups that contributed to this first document were there, and they were excited to hear that this was on the agenda tonight. And it's going to be exciting. Many of us pledged that we will be a part of the trying to gather data coming up with new with new ideas and and looking at what has happened in the past ten years where we need to move forward and to see that many of us are now part of that aging population. And and. And this is, you know, self-serving in some. Respects. But again, it's a great thing for our city. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Gary Shelton's my name and I live at 240 Chestnut. That's Plymouth West. It's a building of 200 senior citizens living in affordable housing. We have a residents advocacy network. Betty Chambers, if you could say hi, she's up there. She's the president of the Resident Advocacy Network. And I'm its sort of neighborhood. I'm the guy that brings things in from outside. So that's why we know this is going on. So I appreciate the time. I looked over the 25 to, I guess, 2007 strategic plan and notice that it had five basic categories. They've all been mentioned already. They were safety, transportation, housing, health and quality of life as the key element of interest. And I was thinking, well, what else could there be? Now Councilmember Yarrawonga was kind enough to mention technology should be a highlight. And I want to point out that as as Dr. Lowenthal said, we had issues during the power outage where no amount of technology was helping us, particularly the senior citizens, which were in such we were in such trouble over there. We needed low technology actually. So the the sense that and what by that what I mean but I mean what I mean by that is that if there had been police cars with loudspeakers going through the streets telling us what was going on instead of text messages and Nixon, which weren't working for us, it could have improved our understanding of what was happening. So there's, there's always a couple of sides to each coin. Council Member Price You mentioned entertainment, and I think access to entertainment for senior citizens is always something that needs attention. I know once or twice a year we're invited as guests of the of the theater back here. I guess it's that way. I never know what direction anything is from in this room. And those presentations are wonderful at the at the Beverly O'Neil Theater. Those are terrific presentations every year. Council Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you mentioned mobility is important. And I wanted to stress also that ADA compliant because so many senior citizens end up being disabled. But, you know, there's not such a thing as senior disability. Actually, we need disability accessibility to disabled help. But we unless you become disabled before you're retired, you don't really become disabled. But specifically and realistically, mental health is something that I think needs to be on the list. The whole idea of PTSD for our soldiers who have come back from now from Korea and Vietnam, for folks who are experiencing depression and folks who realistically are entering into years of dementia or perhaps Alzheimer's. And I think that's a category that's going to need special attention. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Dr. Cheryl. Mathew and I have a business in Long Beach. I'm a geriatric care manager for about ten years, a member of the for a resident in the fourth District. And I'm kind of in shock. I'm here because I just heard that this was going to be presented last night. We got an email, uh, through the some way that it found its way to me. And that's sort of like how our senior services have been up until now. It's siloed. There's lots of great people out there doing amazing work, but we don't know each other and we don't know what each other is doing. So what's nice is that this is not reinventing the wheel, just taking what we have and organizing it into a single place that can drive it forward. Um. Yeah, that's that's the bottom line. And I really see it. It's not just about frail, low income seniors. They are very important as well. But as a care manager, I've been into the multimillion dollar homes in Naples, and they have the same issues as the low income seniors and their caregivers have the same stress levels as everybody else. So they all we all need to know that information. We talked today in the summit about. And you touch on it a little bit too, creating intergenerational programs. So we all know about this. There's my eight year old, my eight year old daughter. She's been with me and dementia care community since she was an infant. And I see the difference that children make with the seniors and that we can all have fun together so that it's not just, oh, it's time to be a senior over here. It's it's our it's our whole life span. One of the things I saw on the summit vote today that got the most one of the most votes is creating fund with the seniors, but also the gift of aging. So it's not like, oh, we're going to bring the seniors to the Playhouse tonight or we're going to go sing at the nursing home for Christmas. It we embody this all year long. Justin Rudd does a great job with the Community Action Team in Bel Mature and I see myself as someone whose has wanted to take this to the senior community and older adults. And now at 50 I am one of them. I got my card for it in the mail. So here we go. And it was it was ten years ago that I was here presenting on the Long Beach Strategic Plan. I was here at the end when these amazing people spent two years to get it together. The economy took a tank and the council people weren't old enough yet to get it. So I'm just grateful that we're here. Thank you all for your consideration. And I look forward to playing a part in this and making a difference in our city. And together we are brilliant. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for having a business here in Long Beach as well. Thank you. Excuse me. Good evening. How are you? Laura Clarendon. I'm also a member of the third district or resident of the third district, and I'm also a member of the Senior Citizens Commission. And you have a lovely home. Thank you. And I must say that I'm just very delighted to be here. But I must also point out, and would like to thank Councilman Andrews and Ranga for sponsoring this motion of this. Agenda item so that we can move forward and create a Department of Aging. I think that it's I'm not going to repeat everything that the commissioners have said. I think that is not a luxury, is an absolute necessity that is long overdue. And the previous speaker pointed out some of the issues that we as a commission have also faced this lack of integration or communication between a lot of the city agencies in regards to the needs of senior citizens. So I think this this agency will be wonderful to establish and make sure that there is a follow through and there is a process by which we can unify all those resources. And secondly, I can assure you that the members of the Senior Citizens Commission are committed to making sure that we improve the lifestyles of the senior citizens of this city, as well as all of the citizens in general. So I'm happy to be here, and I just wanted to thank you and support the rest of the commissioners. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Another whenever a great commissioners. I'm Diane McInnis and I'm from the second district and you've got such wonderful faces at 8:00 at night and you're all alive and energetic. So why did I come for just two or three things? As a Long Beach resident, I wish to commend the entire council, the vice. There, and the mayor for. Realizing the importance of older adults. You don't have to necessarily call them senior citizens. We're just a little bit older and I'm going to celebrate my 70th in a few weeks. So I wanted to say that the most important thing is that we are a city of innovative thinkers. We are a city of wonderful, innovative thinkers. And I am confident that you as leaders and we as the community can work together to solve this problem. Go Long Beach. Thank you, Diane. I saw your other half earlier today. Good evening. My name is Maria Bezerra and I'm the senior organizer with Central Asia. I have a we have a group of 25 from Autodesk. I salute you. They are the promoters of aging and well-being. Thank you. Thank you very much for presenting this. Uh, Councilman Austin and also my long term colleague. We will Roberto and I go back from quite the college years, so I wouldn't say that I'm not even a senior. And he's trying to say he's almost there, but he we know better. I was also one of the part of the committee that was part of the part of the Committee for the Strategic Plan way back when I used to be involved a lot with the Health Department, and at that time we were kind of sad because we did all the work and then it kind of it got put on a shelf. So now it's the time when this baby is coming alive. And again, thank you for doing it. One of the things I just want to indicate is that out of those 65,000 seniors that are here in Long Beach, 42% happened to be Latino. And a lot of them are Spanish speaking. And so that's the reason why I decided to come up here to to be their voice and to kind of let you know that whatever services are out there, that we really need to take that into consideration because seniors do face that the need for the need for having company , for having caregiving, for being involved, because isolation is one of the biggest needs that they have with Latinos. It's even bigger even though we have even though they have families, some of them that are that are physically not able to get out. And and many of them are also being they're providing caregiving to their family as well. The families out there keeping to jobs to make make needs met. So, again, I just wanted to let you know to please not forget our Latino seniors and please include us in there as well. And I would like to be part of that agenda item for the group. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you for all the work you do. Great work with the promoters. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Congressman. Council member Andrews. I just promoted you. I worked with Diane Johnson for many years. I'm trying to get in the office of an Aging, and unfortunately, she passed away. She was one of my best friends, and one of her dreams was Office on Aging. Theresa marino. Um. Dr. Cheryl MATTHEWS. Dr. Jean Bader. And Dr.. Barbara White and. California State University, Long Beach. She has worked many years. So I think all total it's been about 30 years that we've been asking please for an office on aging. We truly need it. I work with seniors. I'm retired now, but I work with seniors. I'm on the elder abuse prevention team and older adult transportation team agencies and programs on aging and part of IDA. And the most I hear from our senior population is all the services in Long Beach are fragmented for seniors. There is no one place to go for it. And they search and they get very frustrated. So if you can help bring this. In the forefront. It would help our senior population. At the present and going forward for the city of Long Beach. And by the way, I'm not a Long Beach residents. I'm located in Lakewood, but I support Long Beach. The elder abuse prevention team is Long Beach. I, I really respect the city and I truly do believe it deserves it for its community and senior population. Please don't let it be another 30 years that we wait for it. Thank you. Thank you. I have. Oh. It's only 1/2. Oh, come on for real quick. Just cause I'm going to get. I'm going to get married. So I completely forgot I had a senior moment. No, I just like to let you know that, you know, our friend Lou Wall, who was running the Latino club at the senior center on Fourth Street, also passed away. She was also one of the members of the strategic planning, and they're actually having the city alone, which police department is having a celebration of life for her tomorrow from 1 to 4 and everyone is invited. Thank you. No, thank you very much. Good and good. Important announcement. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. I wanted to follow Councilwoman Price's gratitude, expressed gratitude for all of your service, those of you that serve on our commission. I know Rita is here and has served as the second district representative for a long time. And I want to thank you, Rita Elmer, for doing that and all of you who serve. And you can't keep using the senior moment excuse. That isn't. Some of our councilmembers use it it doesn't work but thank you. And Pat West almost. And. Soon to be. Just plain. We're going to we're going to go we have a motion on the floor. We've done public comment. I just something I was just thinking of, you know, vice mayor and I we like to talk about those good public policy moments. And I think this is a really good public policy moment. And I just want to thank everyone that signed on to do this. Councilman Andrews, vice mayor, councilman, superstar and councilmember your during this is a really, really good thing. I'm really glad you guys do this. And so we have a motion because. I did make the motion. Yes, go ahead, sir. Okay, fine. I would like to move this motion. But before I'd even do that is that I want to thank all the young ladies who came up and spoke on aging. So when you do get to be that age, then you can come back and we will accept it. So now I'm just moving this motion and I like all my colleagues to pass that and thank everyone for that. All right. Thank you very much. There's a motion and. I know that your my young ladies and. I've heard stories about you. Yes. Please cast your ballot. Councilman Andrews. And then they go. Yes. Yeah. He says he's 75. He doesn't have to vote if he doesn't want to get out. You know, he's voting. That motion carries. Great. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. And of course, no big surprise being led by women. Of course. Oh, it's always the women. Always the women. I swear. It's just amazing. Next item is 23.

Discuss the Sunshine Ordinance Requirement in Alameda Municipal Code Section 2-91.13(f) regarding Increasing the Number of Regular Meetings of the City Council. (Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft)

AlamedaCC_04032018_2018-5370

So I'll just be brief on this one. And this may be something that we put off, but I recall that when we had the meeting where we discussed the bond, there was some confusion at the end on what it would mean if we went over 11 three times in a row and whether that meant that we had to add one meeting. Per month, one meeting or some other number of meetings. But I also know that the clerk is working on bringing back an item to discuss the whole issue that our subcommittee council member as the Ashcraft and I worked on. This is why we did this together. So, I mean, it may make sense to bring this back as part of that discussion, given that I don't know if we're under the gun now because we make it done before 11 and then the clock will be again starting at zero. And then it may not be an issue until after we or if we adopt any any changes. So I'm happy to defer this, but I will let my colleague who jointly authored it. Thank you. Member I. Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just chime in that. I mean, it was almost sort of a placeholder, but coming soon. Ms.. Speiser, do we do we know when we're going to? That's okay. I'm not rushing you. Well, I wanted to. I needed to get the comments back to you, Councilmember Ody, and then give you guys a little time to review it. So it won't make me first, but it to be fine for me. I don't think this is one that has us on the edge of our seats, because. I think we could. But what I would say is that it was a joint effort of the the Open Government Committee. Councilmember Odie, myself, the city clerk, was very helpful in city attorney's office also. And I think we've got some pretty good proposals coming to you and this may actually be moot. So I would suggest that we just table this one for now, if that's agreeable with you. Mr.. COUNCILMEMBER. Perfect with that. Okay. Well, I'd like to speak to it, though, in regards to the Open Government Committee. I was able to attend their meeting and they did have a lot of it's, I thought thoughtful actually discussion and then their recommendation. So I think that they're doing a great job and I'm looking forward to having the issues that they raised come back to us. And we we basically took what they did and what we did and we kind of synthesized it together and hopefully. You guys. Will like it. If not, we'll see you all and do what you want. So when it comes back to us, though, will we see separate but open government did by itself and then the council comments. Thank you. Okay. So then that completes the referral part. Council Communications member already.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit); authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to execute an amendment to the “Agreement between the City of Seattle and Sound Transit for Grant of Non-Exclusive Use of a Light Rail Transit Way as related to the Link Light Rail Transit Project” to reflect the approved alignment for the Link Light Rail Transit Project, including addition of the portion of the Lynnwood Link Extension located within The City of Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119151

The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 21 Capsule 119 151 relating to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Committee recommends the bill passed. Cast Member O'Brien. You we're going to hear a number of amendments or piece of legislation regarding sound transit. This is the first of them. This would amend the existing agreement that cities had with sound transit for over a decade. It's the Third Amendment to that agreement, and it would bring in new terms and agreements related to the Lynnwood Link section , which is the light rail extension from Northgate to in with transit center and how the city during construction of that will integrate our work with the sound transit. Very good. Any questions on this agenda item? Councilmember Herbold. I do have an amendment. On number 21. Yes. Okay. I didn't realize that, but that's fine. So I'd like to I think it's Amendment One has been distributed. Yeah, I think it's a different one. I'm so sorry. Last night lost my way. So it's it's not on item 21. It's on item. 25. Five. Okay. Thank you. Notes. I had considerable. Does that consistent now with your notes. Got it now. Okay. So if no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Thank John Gonzalez. Purple. Hi, Johnson. Mr. O'Brien. President Harrell. All right. Seven in favor and unopposed. Bill pass and share assign it, please. Read Agenda item number 22. Agenda item 22 cancel bill 119 145 relating to the state Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and see what replacement program authorizes the mayor or the mayor's designee to execute an agreement with the state of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the state's project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of King Street Station third-floor tenant improvements; authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $2.8 million from the Municipal Arts Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose LTGO Bond Fund for bridge financing for design and construction of improvements.

SeattleCityCouncil_07312017_CB 119035

The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item six Council 1190 35 relating to the Financing King Street Station 30 for tenant improvements authorizing a loan of funds in the amount of 2.8 million from the Municipal Arts Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose Alto Bond Fund for Bridge Financing for Design and Construction of Improvements. Committee recommends the bill pass. We're Herbold. Thank you. Council authorized $1.8 million in bond financing in the 2017 budget, and START has a $1.8 million appropriation authority based on an anticipated $1.8 million bond sale. That bond sale is not happening this year. So the council has requested another method to pay for the $1 million in spending during 2017, along with a proposed reduction of 800,000 in 2017. Appropriation authority included in the second quarter supplemental budget being considered in the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. As a heads up. For. The 2018 budget deliberations, Council should be aware that the Council, the executive, plans to request a significant additional appropriation for for this project, an initial appropriation in 3.4 million. But it's important to note that the bond financing is proposed to be funded through the admissions tax revenue, which beginning in 2018 will be 100% dedicated to arts funding . So the funding increase will be covered by a funding source specifically dedicated to arts in the Seattle Municipal Code. The cash balance of the Municipal Arts Fund is $9.8 million, and so funding is clearly available, but we'll be taking that up in the budget process. Very good. Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Johnson Marez the warrant. Bagshaw. Burgess Hi, Gonzales. Herbold Hi, President. Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passed share with Senate please read agenda item number seven. Agenda Item seven appointment 743 appointment. And Sir Rothman is members Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities four Term two October 31st, 2017. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed soon.

2019 State of the City Address delivered by Mayor Jenny A. Durkan on February 19, 2019.

SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_CF 314415

The report of the City Council Agenda one clerk 5314415 2019 State of the City address delivered by Mayor Jenny Durkan on February 19th, 2019. Just one moment. So this is a just sort of a perfunctory filing of the file, the speech, if you will, and I believe we will vote on it. And we'll place the file on the file before we vote on filing the clerk file. But anyone wish to say any words? No regrets council members want. Thank you, President Hollande. Just wanted to explain to members of the public that the vote the council is about to take will file into the city's records, the mayor's State of the City address. And of course, it should be on record. So I will be voting yes, but my vote will not be a vote on the content of the speech. However, and I wanted to bring to light something that the mayor said that was, in my view, dangerously inaccurate. Three times in his speech, Mayor Durkan said that Seattle has invested over $710 million in affordable housing during her time in office, adding, however, compare that while the claim to what it actually says in her budget, in the mayor's budget, it lists the funds that she has made available to build affordable housing. It is, and this can be verified by council members. It is less than $50 million per year, not 710 million. And as a matter of fact, if the political establishment was actually willing to spend $710 million on building affordable housing instead of under 50 million, then we could actually begin to seriously address the affordable housing crisis. The problem is that when the mayor exaggerates the investment in affordable housing, it sounds like it is not necessary to tax big business to build affordable housing on a scale big enough to have a real impact. But that would be wrong. In reality, the mayor is not investing 710 million. Really. She is investing less than 1% of the city budget in affordable housing. And regular people will need to continue to get organized to build a movement, to build anything close to affordable housing worth $710 million. And let's remember that ordinary people in New York City just won a massive victory against Amazon in its attempt to get a $3 billion corporate handout, including a helipad for Jeff Bezos. It really shows that when people get organized, we can win. This was assumed to be a done deal by everybody, including business owners, who were surprised by the fact that Amazon had to back off. So I will be voting yes on filing this Clark file, but I do not endorse her false claim about investment in affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you for those words, Councilmember. What would anyone else like to say anything before we file the Clark file? And for the viewing public, this is a public document. The facts are, I believe that Councilmember Swan was referring to our Page seven of the published document and I personally wanted to thank the Mayor for giving a speech and creating a vision for what this city could be. Okay, I'll move to file Clark. File 314415. Those in favor of filing the Clark. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries no place. The file is placed on file. So please read the next agenda item into the record. The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item to Council 119 454 Relating to the City of Seattle Smart River Radio Transmitter Facility, the committee recommends Eagle Pass.

Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to report back to the City Council on the next steps and timeline for implementation of the Ethics Commission, including any enacting ordinances or budget appropriations that may be required.

LongBeachCC_02052019_19-0090

Thank you. Ms. Case. Thank you very much. That that concludes public comment. And we're going to go on to the next item, if we can. If we can, please, Madam Kirk. Item 21. Communication from Councilman Austin. Councilmembers Hooper. Now Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to request city manager and city attorney to report back on the next steps and timeline for implementation of the Ethics Commission. Come to Austin. Thank you. So on November six, 2018, Long Beach voters approved Measure C with 61.9 or 61.79% of the vote as part of a series of charter amendments. Measure created the city's Charter and Ethics Commission for the purposes of monitoring, administering and implementing governmental ethics in the city. While the composition of the Commission and Appointment Procedure was contained in the Charter Amendment language, the Charter section entitled Staff Assistance and Budget reads Staffing for Administrative and management functions of the Commission will be addressed in the Municipal Code. The Commission will have a budget as determined by the City Council sufficient to conduct the Commission's mission and business. Therefore, Council, we must take action, further action through an ordinance and budget appropriation before the Ethics Commission can convene. And with this motion, we would request that the city manager and city attorney report back to the City Council within 60 days with possible steps that we need to take and propose timelines so that we may carry out the will of the voters in an expeditious manner as possible. Councilmember a councilmember support. Thank you, Councilman Austin, for bringing this item forward. I think he said it all and I stand in support. Thank you, Councilmember Vice Mayor Rogers. I also echoed that sentiment. And this is a long overdue and I hope I'm hopeful for a path to move forward. And thank you again, councilman. Most infamous. Thank you. And obviously, I'm very supportive of this and very supportive. Of. Councilman Austin's efforts also in ensuring that this got before the voters. Mr.. Mr. WEST. And, Mr. Modica, I know that you will be coming back to do a full presentation on on this process. Is there a update tonight about kind of what what you see as a timeline? And then obviously we can get the full presentation when this item comes back. I know that you've been working on this. Yes. This is something we've been contemplating. Would you want to kind of outline what we expect the process to be for both this and for measure, which is the redistricting? They are linked in that the measure, the people measure outlines that the appointment process is linked to the Ethics Commission. So we plan to have a memo come back to you that will kind of outline this. We'll talk about some of the major tasks that we see the Ethics Commission kind of first dealing with with. We also will outline the process for appointment that's prescribed in the in the initiative and the timeline for that. So we expect within about 30 days, hopefully even a little quicker, we will have a report back to you on those two topics. Let me go let me go to Councilwoman Price and then back to Councilmember Austin. Councilwoman Price. Just briefly, I, too, wanted to thank Councilman Austin. This committee and the need for it were really his brainchild was an effort that he initiated by bringing it to council. And I think it's a great idea. I look forward to learning what the structure, the proposed structure is going to be and talking about how we can make sure that we all have input into what that what that committee looks like and what kinds of things are the subject matter jurisdiction of that particular committee in terms of our work here on council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. So, Mr. City Attorney, just to get some clarification on my motion specifically, I'm asking for to come back not just in a memo form, but in an ordinance, too, to actually create the the the, the, the budget for for this this this in the municipal code to create a budget for the Ethics Commission, because currently that's not in place. And I don't think we've actually had a conversation about that from at this body. That's correct. And from from our standpoint. In drafting the ordinance, I think we would need the memo from the city manager's office to. Tell us what it is exactly they. Want in the budget and how we are creating that. We're happy to work with the city manager and get that to you and then for your consideration. And from that report, we can get some direction from the city council. That is exactly what the city manager is recommending or do you have any changes to it? And then we will draft the ordinance. That that that helps a lot. And in our report will be analyzing what is that budget, what are the current staffing that we have and whether we need any additional staffing. And we'll report that back to you. Thank you, sir. And to add to that, which I think is important, is the most. Most of these commissions and the way they work, you look at other ethics commissions, which we did, the actual a lot of the actual detail of the commission itself will actually be in the municipal code. And that's actually something that the council will have to develop through some kind of deliberative process. And so I think getting the information back from staff is great. And then the council will have to engage on the actual ordinance, as Councilman Austin mentioned, and what actually will then go into the code that will lay out more of the rules of the commission itself. And so I think. Councilman Austin. And for the benefit of Thompson. Mr. City Manager, can you just outline for those who are interested in the process? Because I've been approached by many people in the community who are interested in both the Citizens Redistricting Commission as well as The Advocate. What do you see as the timeline in terms of implementation over the next few months? So I don't have everything in front of me. But Measure Key, which sets up the Ethics Commission, will go first in that we need to see an Ethics Commission. There's very prescribed rules about how that is set up and the appointments that are made by the mayor and I believe by the city auditor as well. So then we'll outline that process and there will be a public call for, you know, how to how to make those applications that the mayor and the auditor would select from. And then the measure outlines how the rest of the remaining members are selected. Then in order to get the redistricting commission, you have to have the members of the Ethics Commission seated and available. And then they would go through a process to appoint, you know, the members of the the redistricting commission. So it's more complicated than that, but we'd be prepared to lay out all of that. So anyone interested will have a clear guide on how to do that, if they're interested. Great. Thank you for clarifying that and fun times ahead. And as a and as a Mr. Murdoch, as a clarification point, the Ethics Commission within D.D. is a screening panel. They don't make the final selections of the of the actual commission members. Correct. They screened and then, I believe the commission members select at. Random through the city clerk's office. Any other council comment on this? Any public comment on this? Please come forward. Any other public comment? Okay, then we'll just have. Please come forward. So we'll have these two and then we'll close the speakers list. Again, Ian Patton with the Long Beach Reform Coalition. I would just like to ask, I voted against this personally because the amendment felt it didn't have teeth, it didn't have investigative power and certain other things that I think belong in an ethics commission. But since you have another bite at the apple here, um, I would personally like to know from the city attorney, if you have the power to add those powers as an ordinance to the commission, give it the power to investigate, to take whistleblower tips, referrals from the council, and actually do investigations issue subpoenas if necessary, other things that would actually give it that sort of a real a real ability to dig into specific potential issues in the city. That's my question. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Courtesy of Long Beach Reform Coalition and people of Long Beach. I also voted against it for I mean, I think it's a it's a it's a very worthwhile commission to pursue. My concerns were the formation of the commission back in August 7th. I when when the vote happened by the unanimous vote by city council to turn the proposals into measures, I submitted some documents that included a discussion back and forth via email with Common Cause in Sacramento, outlining some bullet points that would have made for us the approval of the of the Ethics Commission a given, which would have also helped us to support the redistricting commission. Among those the the the the the items that that concern me and a lot of my fellow citizens are that the redistricting commission has some very strict guidelines as to who can be a member. But the Ethics Commission, who has who plays a part in the selection of those members of the redistricting commission does not. So, for example, the Ethics Commission, one can be a major campaign donor to any of you or any other public official. One can be a former elected or appointed official. One can be a lobbyist or have been a lobbyist. And of course, after serving on the Ethics Commission, once the term is over, one can then become an elected official or become a lobbyist or become a major donor to any one of you. So that part to me is is is a really critical conflict of interest that I would like to see all of you address ideally tonight. But, you know, it's late. But eventually, I would really like that to be addressed by by each of you, because that's that's a really that's been a real sticking point for our support of both for the Lobbyist Reform Coalition and the people of Long Beach to support wholeheartedly this commission. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes comment on this item. A roll call vote, please. Councilmember Pearce Councilwoman Price Councilmember Supernova. High. Voice Mary Andrews. Hi. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code Number of cases: Three (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)

AlamedaCC_12192017_2017-4997

Zoom our closed session. You want to report out for us? Yes. Regarding the. Anticipated litigation. Direction was given to staff. Thank you. I will now adjourn the special closed session. And now we will start our special joint meeting of the City Council and successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission, S.A. CIC. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The United States. Think. It is all very. Roll Call council members. As the you're here. Here. Here Mayor Spencer here present oral communications and on agenda. We have no speakers. Thank you. We have a motion to accept a consent calendar so moved. All those in favor I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. I will now adjourn the special joint meeting of the City Council and successor agency of the Community Improvement Commission.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a contract with RUNBECK Election Services Inc., for mailing services and printing of official ballots, sample ballots, and vote-by-mail materials in an amount not to exceed $620,423, plus a seven percent contingency, in administration of the April 12, 2016 Primary Nominating Election, and the June 7, 2016 General Municipal Election. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1070

Item 14. Report from City Clerk Recommendation to execute a contract with run back election services for mailing and printing of official ballots, sample ballots and vote by mail materials in an amount not to exceed $620,000 in the administration of the 2016 primary nominating and general elections citywide. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Would you like to address the item? Thank you. And Councilman Andrews. Thank you for the motion. And second, is there any public comment on item 14? Seeing none. Members Cast your vote. Councilmember Richardson. Councilman Langa. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 15.

Recommendation to adopt the Mayor's proposed budget recommendations to the FY 19 Proposed Budget. (A-11)

LongBeachCC_09042018_18-0756

Most motion case unanimously. Thank you. 1.11, please. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt the Mayor's proposed budget recommendations for the FY19 proposed budget. So this one would have been as amended, but I would like to amend the amend amended. She's going to change the recommendation. For a change in the BRC recommendations on the mayor's proposal. But I'd like to finally myself, if possible. Yes. Let me find that motion. Just before the presentation. Okay. Motion to support Mayor Garcia's proposed recommendation with the following adjustments, including to bring back any staff recommendations for fee schedule changes to the B or C, including the results of the Parks and Rec and Development Services. Fee studies use 315 of General Fund one time savings from health care cost savings and 315 of the projected f y 18 fiscal year close to fully fund the Mayor's General Fund recommendations proportionately with the other minor amendments as stated by the PSC. And Council Member proportionately. Is that a word that you mean to include in there? That sounds to refer. It seems it. Doesn't. It's not necessary any more. Thank you. Thank you. And for, you know, for clarification sake as well. So essentially that restores the the budget proposal as is. And it's not I know that there's a minute and everyone may not know what the f 18 you know sort of semantics. It's semantics it's it's basically the fully funding it's not split in half or any of that. And so it's it's a recommendation as proposed initially. I do have a couple of speakers. Councilman Pryce, do you want to say anything? No, not on this specific one. But is this the. Okay, so have we did the is it appropriate time to talk about the money for the seniors or. No? Not yet. Okay. All right. Because I'm in Kansas. My first one, I think the Budget Oversight Committee. I know this is not very easy to go through this every year. And I want to thank our city departments for proposing many of these for adding these proposals so the mayor can recommend them fully to the city council. And so I appreciate all of that work here. I first want to and I also think many of the community members, of course, that have been here for so long, I know some of our youth have stayed since 4 p.m. and all of you have been here for so long. So thank you for your patience. In that I will just say I appreciate the justice fund immigrant rights. What I will say about that is, you know, everyone looks at it as a very black and white issue. But I think for many of us in the city who represent these large communities, it's very important. And these dollars will not only be a dollars for an issue, they'll be dollars that will actually be supported by the matched by the very institute. But they also have some transparency elements, matching dollars. That's when before you keep going, I just want to talk tech folks or something going on with your voice that's so out of our tech folk and just take a look at it. As you can tell. You know, hello, hello. Provide matching dollars from private philanthropy. Number two, it will provide in-kind support, program management, tech assistance and training. And number three, which I think is very important, it's research for evaluation. So key performance indicators to ensure that we are on track. And this this fund is transparent and it's actually going to individuals who actually need it. But it also keeps and holds the city of accountable. There's currently 12 cities, 12 cities in eight states that have this justice fund in place, and they call themselves Safe Cities Network. So I just want to make sure that we put that forward. In addition, we know that this will enable people to be more civically engaged, especially as we have this Census 2020 coming up. And we know that many of these populations are afraid to call and ask for city services. So we really appreciate this expungement services. We talked about that in detail that primarily people of color, especially men of color, are being targeted or have low level records that deter them from. Educational opportunities in obtaining a. Job. And the Youth Opportunity Fund, I just want to say this is a great proposal. It's a strategic plan for youth by our youth, especially opportunity youth in all districts. This fund can be leveraged with private dollars as well. An additional grant funding. The youth, from my knowledge, are creating a mission statement and a formal framework to create parameters for the strategy. So it's not just dollars that we don't know what to do with, but parameters for the strategy that will touch all parts of our city. And it's also inclusive of many generations, from seniors to the youth. So we see the. Language access plan in the safe housing plan. So the safe housing plan, I will say I have a question on that and I know I already spoke with development services about this. I know that's not specifically proposed in the mayor's budget. I think the mayor has proposed the city prosecutor element for about $100,000. But I would like to ask our development services a couple of questions. Lynda. How does that work? Maybe this is better. So ads are coming up. And I know we've talked in length and I know currently few things are happening. So relative to the people's budget, the safe housing plan, our Hanson software system is being updated. And we are working as well with tech and innovation to upgrade that system for better results and make sure we have it all set. Do you know at all when we can expect updates to the software, the system? I know it'll probably be a little bit down the road, but do you have any sort of idea on when that? Councilmember Gonzales. Thank you for the question. And I would just like to clarify that we have just started the conversations with the TIDE Director regarding taking a comprehensive look at the program and making sure that it has the capability to meet our needs. And if it does, we would then need to go through a process of reprograming that system to take the data that is going to be able to help us facilitate the inspections and all of our not only in code enforcement, but in the Planning Bureau as well. So if I were to give a rough estimate, I would say between about 3 to 4 months for us to do a full assessment. And after that point, we would start to probably take another 60 days to actually make those changes to the system. Okay, great. And I know in conversations. We've had with the public. There are other systems that may produce additional elements that could maybe be compared to Hanson. So there's SLA. I know that City of L.A. uses SLA and concrete, and those are two that offer additional options for public visibility when it comes to code enforcement cases. So those maybe just things to throw out there to leverage or compare with the current system after we update it. And that is correct. And staff is also generally familiar with both of those systems and actually there are others as well. However, where we're starting from is to make sure that the system that we currently have, because we are under the understanding at this point that that system does have the capability. However, until we can actually do an assessment of that system and the anticipated upgrade of that system, we want to make absolutely sure that before we look at another system, that this system wouldn't be able to handle our needs. If it would not, we would then be open to looking at those other alternative systems. Okay, great. And I understand that we don't exactly know how many code enforcement officers we may need, depending on what happens here tonight and then down the road and even after the system is updated. So I would like to ask if we can receive a two from four to the city council that talks about the updates, provides progress on the updates, and also progress on what we envision the code enforcement additional personnel would look like, whether that's 60 days after, you know, we've had some sort of idea or a down the road, but continual updates in a to form four would be really great as we go through this process certainly. And I know. So the mayor's budget specifically calls out the city prosecutor, city prosecutor funds for high level code and nuisance issues. And I love this. I think it's absolutely needed. What we've talked about and I know I've mentioned this to you as well, Linda, is we currently have a link on the Development Services website that tackles or basically lists property owners who have violations above 120 days. And those may or may not be in sync with the city prosecutor program, but perhaps we can a make the link a little bit more visible and be add these cases additional cases if they are city prosecutor cases that are have hit their limit. And I will say we see that a lot, of course, with people that have major quality of life issues. And then, of course, the historic districts that have had many issues and complaints even over a period of time, they've just never been never been pushed to the city prosecutor's office or right before that. So this program will hopefully help those issues. So I just wanted to throw that out there for you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then lastly, I will say with language access, I know Tommy had mentioned about a structural plan that we would be receiving some information coming back soon. Do you know when we can expect that? The awesome timeline question. So this is for prep? No, I'm sorry. I'm going to language access. Structural point. And. A structural plan for language access. Yes, I believe we asked for that a week or two weeks ago in our last few council meetings, and we had asked to see if we can get some sort of plan back to the city council on how to make this structural. Councilwoman Gonzalez. There was a TFF that was issued on Friday, late Friday, that responded to questions from the August 14th and August 21st. BOSSIE And or hearings. And that doctor. Had. Some questions on the structural funding. And I just look at it for you. If I could find that. Yes. I think the the making the permanent position to full time. Right now it is a part. Time position, a temporary part time not temporary, but. A part time position to make it a full time position. It was around 30,000. Oh, yes, it was around 32,737 would be needed to make the LEAP position full time. Okay, so that's great. All right. I'm done with all my questions. Thank you very much, Grace. I appreciate that. And what I will say is that if we can add that in this year's proposed budget to make this full time, I think that would be really great. I know Council member Wodonga has fought for this for some time, so just throwing that out there. But thank you very much. I'm glad we're moving forward. Thank you so much. Customer Pierce is way better, huh? Hello again. Yes, the mayor's budget item. I want to say that I think I said it last time when we sat down to go over this budget. It really did ring true to me that this was a reflection of an attempt to get at the people's budget. And so knowing that we've done everything from tapping into language access to youth, I know that all of these deserve to have more money. But working within our means and I want to say how much I appreciate the community organizing the efforts that have gone on. I know that while we see you here for a couple of hours, that it's all of your jobs all week long to get this work done, to do the community outreach, to to really invest in that that it's building community and not just coming up here with the piece of paper. And I think that as a council, it is our job to I don't want to say reward, but to work with those that have invested the time to make our city better. And it's not making something better for one resident, for one constituent. But as you guys do this work, we are getting on the map for other nonprofits, for the Ford Foundation, for organizations like that to send money to Long Beach to invest in Long Beach becoming a more equitable city. And so I want to thank you for all those that don't even know that you're doing this work. I know. That. It's a labor of love for you. And so having a budget that reflects that is something that I'm really proud of. I'm really proud of the mayor's recommendations and the work that this council has done to try to get to the heart of what your recommendations and your work has done. So I do I think you guys all know that I fully support the mayor's budget. I want to talk about that. Outside of the people's budget, the slumlords with the prosecutor's office, I think is something that we haven't really talked about before. But I'm really happy to see that and I look forward to hearing a report in the next year about how that went and what that process looks like. I'm not asking for anything additional. I also really want to talk about how important the expungement efforts are and the money that we're using to make sure that we address some of the changes for the African-American communities, communities that have disproportionately been put away for marijuana use, and that now that we have made that change here in the city, I'm really happy to see that that effort is going forward. So with those changes, with the senior changes, adding some dollars that are coming forward, it is a really robust budget and adding more police officers, particularly the officer by the officers that are on bikes in our downtowns and around our beat areas I think is going to be a great change that we should all really talk about . I know for the last five, six years in District two, it's been an issue that's come up a lot and we have been told, well, we don't have the resources. So again, looking at a balanced budget where we're both adding PD, but we're also adding a youth budget, I think is something that we should really celebrate after today. I want to echo the comments of my colleague, Councilmember Gonzalez, in reference to the software. I know that we've had lots of conversations with development services, just trying to get that turned around quickly. I know that it's been a topic that we've talked about for a few years, and so whatever we can do to try to get that to come back to us sooner rather than later. And you had asked for a two from four. What did you ask for? Two from four on on the language access or on the housing? Just the code force. I would. The code enforcement. Okay. I know. I was like I took all my notes. Sorry, guys. We have so many topics we want to talk about. We're so excited. I would ask that it goes beyond a two from four and that we come to council with it. I love all the two from fours, but some Fridays we get like 15 of them and it just, it sometimes they sneak through and I know it's because we asked for them. What I would like for this one not to be a two from four. I would like to have a discussion council led by development services. That way we don't have to re agenda is it is that a big change that too much so the fiscal policies that we just approved a minute ago actually require that when we ask for a report back that the staff have the opportunity to tell you that will take 24 hours of staff work or 13 hours of staff work. And the reason that this policy was also very controversial and took two years to pass is because sometimes, let's say, just in order, Councilmember Gonzalez and I make a proposal about digital inclusion, and we believe it'll take 15 staff hours and we asked for it to come back 120 days. But the next week, councilmember supervisor asks for something else from the time manager and wants it back in 60 days or 30 days. What ends up happening is people's items get bumped and the staff resources are being moved around based on timing, not based on priority levels. And so I'm not putting a time limit on it, I get that. But to ask for anything to come back to the council, I would just say that in light of the policy, the staff should get the opportunity to tell you that's going to take us 20 hours of staff time or 15 hours of staff time or when they can get back to us. And I recognize that there's a lot of two from coming, but my my alternative would be. The community comes to lots of community meetings and ends up waiting till 11:00 to hear the second council item because we're waiting to go through all of our other items. And so I'm just hoping and I know that some of us have talked offline about this, but it's never been agenda is that we kind of each keep an eye on all the things that are coming back to council and how long that list is getting and where are our priorities as a council and making sure that things that we've set as priorities like tonight we made a motion to review the positions that were grant funded. We made that same motion a year ago and they never came back to council. And why is it that certain things make it back and other things don't? It's just if we want to report back, maybe at the end of each council meeting, we take a vote. And if you have five people that want to hear it back or if they want to move it to committee or what you want to do, I would just say that. My community of seniors that comes to council don't often get to stay until the end because they drive a very long distance at night. Well, neither did the youth that were here earlier. I agree. And that's unfortunate, especially it's I mean, we had to drive. People don't care. Let me just make sure. Let me go back. So let me just go back. Councilman Pearce, you have the floor. I think so. Let me go back to Councilman Pierce. You have the floor, so please continue. So my comment my comment is that housing continues to come up. It is a priority for, I believe, this council based on the votes that we have taken in the past. I believe that tonight I could say, hey, I would like to make a budget adjustment and ask for, you know, the 250, $350,000 that the community is asking for. But instead of asking for that $350,000, I'm asking for development services to come back not with a two from four, but to come back to council with a report on the fee schedule and the changes to the technology that we need to be able to do code enforcement the way that that I feel is necessary . That's what I'm asking for. Thank you. Let me just also just just to square Sylvia, we're back to the next item. When we talk broader about the budget and the BFC, I think there's an opportunity to have some more discussions about different parts of the budget. I just want to make sure that we're focused just on the recommendations as presented in the mayor's recommendations. I guess because there's some crossover housing piece, what I. Would have what I would ask is that we pass the mayor's recommendations as is, and we can add in the next item. When we talk broader about the budget, there's going to be some additional changes read into the record by by Councilman Mongo. There's an opportunity to have, I think, some of these. I think I'm getting nervous that we're doing it one by one. So I just want to make sure that by the end there's an opportunity to make sure we address everything that I don't miss because it wasn't included in one section of the other. The the broader budget discussion is the next is the next item. Okay. So on the mayor's budget, I support the mayor's budget and I will save the rest of it for the next question. And I hope that we are all understanding that we weren't supposed to pass this budget tonight. Right. Our deadline isn't supposed to be till next week. So having a full discussion tonight, I hope that I can feel free to do that without, you know, feeling tension about it. So I think absolutely. I mean, every member of this body can say their comments and speak as long as they would like on on each item. And so I want to make sure that everyone feels that way, or maybe not according to some. Okay. But let's let's continue. So, again, the ask is just to keep these recommendations, as is began, some broader discussions. Next, there's a variety of additions that Councilman Mongo is still going to be going to be making. So, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Reserve most of my comments for the next item when we jump in. But one of the recommendations in the mayor's budget is the 200 K for the the youth fund. Now, in the mayor's budget, it says you fund through participatory budgeting. We heard from the public tonight that what the public wants is that funding to be toward a strategic plan, a youth strategic plan, and secondly, for it to be housed within the Health and Human Services Department. So is that reflected in this budget? I mean, is that reflected in this motion that we need to offer friendly. So that that's not what I what I would say is is is this is I'm actually in support. I think the idea of doing a strategic plan is actually great. So I absolutely support that. I think it's the right use of money. I've also said publicly that I have I'm not married to it. Going to any one department or going to any party supported budgeting process. It was just as a starter fund. My recommendation is going to be that our staff is interested in bringing this issue back to the council after kind of talking to some to the community and the council members. So as well as the commissions themselves are interested in giving some suggestions. So what I would say is that we set aside the $200,000. It doesn't have to be just a pre budgeting. It could absolutely be for the strategic plan and have council come back in as when they have the conversations as to how that should be spent in words and where it should go. It does not matter to me. But I also want to make sure that the council has a chance to weigh in in that process. Mr. Mayor, we went to the public and talked about it and the public has given input. So I think I guess. I'm just I what I'm what I'm saying is, is that I'm just I'm just communicating what staff's I interests has been is to do. It that I in asking staff they said they want council direction. So is this the time for me to give council direction? Because I'd like to make that. So if I might. Well, hold on. Actually, Councilman Richardson has a floor, so council has a floor. I mean, we had a youth budgeting meeting first. Let me take a step back. So I worked on nine budgets, and this is the most organized youth effort I've ever seen. And they've been clear. About what they want. And I'm not grandstanding, but I feel like there may be other agendas for this funding that I think we should just be very clear. You know, at the it was actually called out at the the budget reveal that, you know, we want to get input from the groups who proposed this particularly my girls in action was called out. I've gotten emails. I've heard it time and time again at the dais. What I don't support taking it to a process to figure out how to do a strategic plan. What they said was Give it the health department, apply a health lens to it, and go and go about that process of establishing a strategic plan. That's clear to me. What's not clear to me is saying staff go back without giving direction to them and say, come back with a two from four. On what this process might look like. That's more unclear for me. Okay. So let me first got to say, if. We if we want to make if there are concerns and making sure it's inclusive of all youth, I think that stuff's fine. That's more direction. Mr.. Mr.. Parkin, you wanted to comment. Thank you, Mayor. Just from a technical standpoint on addressing the issue of changing the funding, I believe this was originally in the city manager budget and supported by the mayor. I'm looking at it right here. I agree. But means B or C is recommending A changing of the funding on it. So if you are adopting. That's right. No, no, you're right. Item 15, you could change it in a way I want to. So. Well, that and you're actually right. So it's actually part of the city manager's projects. It's it'll be the next item. Next item? Yep. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Honestly, Mitt, I'm confused at this point. I think we all are. I want to support the mayor's recommended budget, I think. I mean, obviously, A, B or C did some some some very I want to say forensic type work. I mean, we went deep did did a deep dove into the budget, into the city manager's recommendation, as well as the mayor's recommendations, and came back with a recommendation in a few hours ago that was, I thought, very prudent and very thoughtful, but a budget that probably is not going to pass muster this evening with the majority of the council. And that's clear. We we listen to the public. And I, again, commend all of those who are present who have advocated very, very vociferously for for a youth fund, something that I support. But I also want to just be very clear that this whole idea of of funding, senior programing, you know, I brought it forward in B or C, I brought it forward to my colleagues . And I think I've talked to too many of you about some of the challenges we have for our seniors in our community. And when we talk about equity, we want to be equitable with with how we how we treat folks who have lived in this community and contributed to the city for many, many years. And so I want to be clear that that I support further funding senior programing because I've seen the benefits and how it builds communities, particularly in my district. I also want to say maybe this is part of the next next item and I'm happy to speak more to it then. But in February we made a commitment to community that we would explore. That is the next item, but we'd explore, you know, establishing an African-American arts and cultural center in the city. I know I've been talking offline with many of my colleagues about doing that. And so in this next item, I hope that we can we look at putting forth some seed money for for outreach and visioning, that visioning process that would include the development of a task force comprised of stakeholders who are very much interested in helping the city establish that. So I just wanted to put my voice to that. And aside from that, I will be supporting the mayor's recommendations. Pick a councilman. I councilman place. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and to my colleagues. So a couple of things that I'm hearing that I want to make sure that we clarify. I'm all in favor of us allocating money to the youth. But I cannot and will not support a program that doesn't have or funding that doesn't have a city wide approach to it. I just want I understand and I appreciate and I respect the outreach that has been done. However, many of us have had community meetings where there has been no presentation on the topic regarding where the money would be spent. It's been presented very much as a broad category of funding to be determined in terms of expenditures with stakeholders, including youth throughout the city. So I am completely in support of supporting youth programing, but it has to be a citywide effort for me to support funding it. It's got to be something that touches every single district. I want every single one of our districts to be involved. I want the youth in every single part of this city to thrive regardless of what. Let's not make assumptions about what people's obstacles in life are. Let's just not make those assumptions. I've learned how to speak English when I was seven, was raised in a single parent family. Let's not make assumptions about what what youth need. Youth all over the city need support. They all need support to thrive. And they might need it in different ways. Some youth in parts of the city might need help with drug addiction issues right now. Huge issue in my district. We want those individuals to thrive. We want them to be involved in programing. So I'm not going to support anything. I will not vote on anything if it's going to go to a specific group with specific programmatic aspects to it right now. And I'm also not going to support anything that's kind of this loosey goosey. Let's just put money out there and come up with a plan. If we're going to come up with a plan, great. We're not going to spend any of it until that plan comes to council. And we talk about where that money is going to be spent. But I cannot at a time where $100,000 or $200,000 might mean additional core services for our residents support, something that I don't completely understand in terms of how the expenditures are going to be made. So I support money going to the youth. Absolutely. I support the mayor's recommendation as it was drafted. I support our commissions being involved in recommendations because they too are major stakeholders in the city. And I support us having a discussion about how we can make sure that general fund dollars impact all aspects of the city. So that's that in terms of the mayor's recommendations. I want to hear my colleague's recommendations on some of the other topics or their thoughts on some of the other topics. I will say, and I've shared this with the community that's come forward on the justice fund. My personal opinion is that tax dollars should not be used to fund individual legal battle battles. That's my personal opinion. I do not believe that we should use general fund dollars to fund individual legal claims, whether they be expungement of a prior arrest record so that people can get jobs, whether it be in the area of immigration , whether it be disputes among neighbors. I do support us seeking grant funding. For us to be able to support our residents. And if that means that we we put forth some money to help that grant funding. That's something I could live with. But I do think it's important for us to recognize that this is the first time that we're funding this. And we need to be mindful that the estimates of how much money might actually be drawn down from it might be less than what we're predicting now. So I'm I'm in favor of putting forth. And look, I'm mindful the vote you know, that vote will probably pass with or without my support. I get it. I've been very honest with the with the community that I that I've met with. And I very much appreciate them meeting with me. I've been very honest with them about it. So there's nothing and there will never be anything to face in any communications I have with them. That's my opinion. But I do think that we should maybe and I know it's something that's going to pass by council, but let me just put it out there. If it's really, truly a grant that we want to get to help fund these efforts, why don't we put forth the money that we think we need to get the grant, and then if we need more, we can reassess it at that point, instead of putting forth a large chunk of money that we may not need in order to meet the needs, we don't even know what the needs are yet. I am aware that other cities have established this fund. I'm also aware that in a lot of those other cities, because of the support of a lot of privately funded legal aid institutions, they have not drawn on general fund or taxpayer dollars to the level that they thought they were going to need to, because they've been able to use a lot of resources that are pro-bono in nature. So I think my preference would be what's what is the minimum that we think we need to do if this is the effort that the council wants to support to get a grant? And if we're able to get that grant, then maybe we reassess at that point. If we get $100,000 grant and we're putting in 250, do we really need 350 to fund this program for the first year? Are we going to get $350,000 in legal fees that we're going to have to pay? Maybe we're only going to get 200,000. I'd rather we we take a look at that and address it later. I think there's a lot of pro-bono services available. I see them every day in the courthouse that I work at. I think that we should be trying to explore those to help our residents. So the other thing that I say to council is, look, I understand the issue. I really. Do. But at what. Point are we going to say now if we have people come and say we would like right now there's a there's a program whereby you can get your arrest records and your criminal conviction records expunged for the purposes of future employment. If someone comes and says, I want the city to help me with getting my ex, my prior conviction expunged so that I can get a job. Where do we say to them, No, we can't do that because we're choosing to support this legal battle as opposed to this other legal battle? Because I'll tell you, for people that want to get a job and they have a misdemeanor or a felony, that they can easily get expunged with very little legal resources and assistance. But they don't know how to do it. They might want the city to help fund that. And at what point do we say immigration's more important to us than you getting a record expunged? Which is a very simple procedure. But if someone doesn't have understanding of the legal system, they won't know what forms to fill out. So I just think it's a slippery slope. When we start using taxpayer dollars to fund individual legal battles, it has nothing to do with the content of the legal battle. Nothing in my opinion. However, it's a slippery slope. Let's say we get a special interest group tomorrow that's organized, that comes to council meetings, that that that perseveres. And they say, we want help expunging our criminal records. What do we say? No, we don't want you to have job opportunities for low level misdemeanors. Are we going to say that? I just think that's an important conversation that we need to have, because if we're willing to do it for one group, we should be willing to do it for another. And my recommendation would be, let's figure out ways as a city to help find these pro bono resources, help educate, help, do outreach, all of that I'm in favor of. I just think when we start funding individual legal battles, it's a huge slippery slope. But maybe we can do outreach. Maybe we can do connect. And services. Maybe we can do other things that connect people to the services that might already be out there, or to that establish a limited fund for us to be able to get matching funds. I just think we can't pick and choose winners in terms of who gets tax dollars to help fund legal battles, because there's a lot of people out there who can't get jobs because they have convictions that an employer won't overlook. And I know that right now they have people people have all manner of convictions, whether it be, you know, a conviction that's currently eligible for diversion that maybe four or five years ago wasn't eligible for diversion. And now in order for them to get it expunge, it literally is an hour of an attorney's work, but that's 1500 dollars for a person. And it's not fair for that person because they don't have 1500 dollars. They could go into a self-help clinic and figure out how to do it, but it's hard for them. So and I get that I'm just I just you know, I respect the opinions of everyone. I just wanted to share mine. And I don't know where that all falls, but I wanted to share my opinion. So thank you for the grace and the courtesy. Thank you, councilwoman. And yeah, and I think it's important to remember that we can all have different opinions and that's okay. And that we're on, we're all getting through the budget and that's fine. And I want to thank everyone for for, you know, having these important conversations. And so I appreciate that. Let me just also, as a reminder, because I know we've had a few folks chime in on this, and it's been I've been reminded by the city attorney again, which I appreciate that the budget on youth the youth budget line item is actually in the city manager's budget. I mention it in my recommendations, but it's actually it will be part of the next discussion. And so I know it's been brought up a few times, so we can have that discussion next. And so I just again, this is just to the items that are funded in the mayor's budget. Councilwoman Mingo. Okay, so I'll reserve my comments on the Youth and Senior Fund for the next item, but I will provide some context and comments to the comments made by my colleagues. Any item that comes before the city council. We often get both pro against and alternatives, and alternatives aren't necessarily pro or against. And I will say that. This year's shortened budget cycle due to elections and committee changes and all those things is particularly frustrating because when the mayor's budget came forward, I was approached by several interest groups that wanted to help. There were. I was actually called by the president of the Long Beach Bar Association, who said we provide free legal services every Tuesday at the courthouse for immigration and expungement. And how is it that there's a community that's unaware of this? What have we done that we could have done better to provide that information? They actually then, through a dialog over several weeks, proposed a couple of different things. The President wasn't able to be here today because he has a case tomorrow in Sacramento. And so he flew out today at 2:00. But he had actually even stated, similar to what Councilwoman Price had said, related to the amount of money sometimes being leveraged from our our most vulnerable constituencies. Those constituencies can often be charged upwards of 1500 or $4,000 for an expungement, an expungement that could be filled out through one single sided, one double sided piece of paper. And so what I also recognize about the process tonight is it's a step. It's setting aside money. There's still a second component of the process. One is that we, in the current effort, 18, the 100,000 of the justice fund that was discussed was actually put into a grant proposal to Vera . Vera has not come back and let us know yet if they will be matching that fund at that time, whether they do or don't. That's when the next dialog starts. And so I hope that the individuals who approached me because I was chair of Budget also take the time to approach other members of the council to put forward their opportunities. Because if we have a group of lawyers who are willing to pro-bono on Saturdays, go to different works or centers or different locations throughout the city on weekends or times that people are actually available to fill out their forms, that's great. It just means that the fund would be utilized less. And in talking with some of the lawyers from the Long Beach Bar Association, they even talked about the number one barrier to getting an expungement. Is that the penal code listed on a ticket and the penal code on the conviction aren't the same. And it's actually a multi-week process for a resident to go get their own records where a lawyer through the Bar Association can just put in a list to the judges and get them all provided, and so that a constituent who needs an expungement could literally get it done in 20 minutes and the paralegals can go and do all the other work for them and save the fund the 1500 dollars, because the Bar Association can do it for about $45 a person. And so there are these other options that need to be explored. But again, as mentioned, I think that it's important to see that the mayor's priorities have funding set aside. It does not necessarily mean that it'll all be used because, again, as Councilman Price said, it's used on an as needed basis as the funds are drawn down and or leveraged through grants or other things that have not yet come to fruition. And so for those reasons, I appreciate and respect the mayor's messaging on the matter and recognize that. Just allocating the money doesn't actually implement the process. And so for the Expungements, that works through Doug Albert's office and then the legal fees are through the Viera program, should we get the grant? And if we don't get the grant, that's another discussion that would have to be had at that time. But just for everyone to know that both sides are being heard. I know that some of the constituency groups that reached out to Councilman Price also reached out to me and that those discussions and dialogs are robust and continuing to be considered. The same will be stated when we get to the next item, specifically for the Youth Fund, because there was a considerable amount of input that came in not just from the people's budget but others that were considered. So thank you for that. Thank you. And then Councilman Rangel, have the final comment. Let me let me just add, I think I think everything that was said is correct. With all programs like this, by the way, we're going to work our butts off to get grant funding, as much grant funding and outside support for these funds as possible. And so absolutely, if we're able to fundraise a significant amount of dollars, which I'm intending to do and hopefully others will as well, that's that's true in all of the types of funds that we set aside that we if we can if we have if there's if there's less need and we're able to get the funding in place, I absolutely we plan on doing that. I know the community has also been bringing grants to our attention in these areas. And so that's our plan. And so we're going to do whatever we can to to do these funding, cut through your income, and then we're moving on to the next item. Thank you, Mayor. And actually, I think this discussion that we've had thus far is a precursor to the next item, because actually this is this item right here is just looking at the mayor's proposed budget. When I went to his first budget meeting, when he introduced his budget, I thought it was a fantastic which I thought was great. A lot of great ideas were put in there. We're hiring people, we're reestablishing some programs and we're adding some new stuff. And I thought that was great. Now we're going to work. Now we're here at the point where we're looking at it with a little finer tooth comb. We're trying to flush out some of the good stuff and flush out some of the bad stuff. But I think that the budget at the Metropolitan is the item right here adopted the next budget. So I'm ready to vote on this and let's move forward to the next item when all this other discussion will take place. Because I have also I want to talk about the the the language access program and we look at actually more money in that, but that's in the title. So I will I will hold that back on that until that comes up. So thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. What are we voting on right now? The mayor's proposed. As amended by the Bossi. Okay. Motion case. Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to make sure post-budget also included the restorations to the fire engine and the new police officers. Just as a note. Okay. The next item we're going to take, I know that I'm talking to the chair. We're going to take a one minute, one minute break and two minute break, and we're going to start with the next part of the budget. It's also really it's also just really important that this is the most important decision that the council does every night. And so I know that it's frustrating. There's a lot of back and forth, but it's okay for us to have dialog and so we have a long night ahead of us. We always do with the budget. I just want to make sure for the council it's like a two minute break. We've got a lot of work to do. This is the biggest decision we do. So let's continue that work. Okay, so we'll take a two minute recess. We'll come back to the next item. The. That's. And. Fits. That was part of. And. And I'll hold on for. But. And. Okay. I'm going to I'm going to ask the the clerk to please go ahead and. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Price Councilmember super not here. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember Miranda. Presented. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Thank you. Can I please have guys. Everyone in the in the chambers, please. Either grab a seat or please take a step outside. I got to have it quiet for the council. So if I can have the council back first, I'd like to ask for a motion to reconsider the last item, which was the mayor's recommendations. So first, if I can get a motion or second to reconsider that. Got it. Kate. Thank you. Point of order, Devon. To the mover in the second half to have voted in the affirmative on the. Affirmative of the reconsideration. Okay. I'm looking at the second question. So hope so. Is there a public comment on the reconsideration motion saying none. Our members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion case. Thank you very much. I'd like to now also ask for a motion. There are some. I want to make sure that people are able to vote for the things they want to vote for. And I think there is some confusion as well as to what the last vote was and maybe wasn't. And so what I'm going to do, because I want to make sure that folks can vote for the things we support in the budget. And so I'm going to ask for the mayors recommendations to be voted on with the exception of the justice fund, which will be voted on in the next motion after this after this vote . So if I can get a motion in a second on that, please. Mr. Mayor, can I just ask for clarification on the mayor's recommendation for the youth fund? Is there any specification on what departments are going to handle that or what's going to be used for? No. Okay, great. Okay. There's a motion and executive mayor. I think to answer the council person's question. I call it out in the mayor's proposal, but it's actually in the city manager. Yes. So it will be discussion that night and the next night. Okay. Okay. There's a there's a motion in a second to pass the mayor's recommendations separate of the justice funds so that folks can can vote on the whole thing. Please cast your votes. Wait. Wait. Oh, yeah. Motion carries. Thank you. And so, just to be clear, everyone voted on those. And now we're going to have a vote on the justice fund. So please cast your votes. Wait. Wait. I want to queue up to comment. Okay. Yes. It's moving very fast. I'm going to be voting no on this. And the reason is because I do not believe public funds should be used to fund personal legal issues regardless of the content of the personal legal battle. Thank you. Thank you. Please cast your votes. I wanted to just to add something on this as well, because I do know that the state legislature passed legislation in the last year to establish legal defense funds statewide. And I was just just curious, wanted to hear from staff whether or not those are those funds are available to us on a local level to perhaps help leverage what we are we are doing here this evening in this this budget. And I can I can add and step one said so I think something I mentioned to one of the councilmembers members. Absolutely. And so I think our goal, as is with any fund that we establish, is we're going to reach out for grants, state funding that is looking like it could be available as part of the state process, as well as nonprofit grants. And we will always use those funds that we can acquire elsewhere first and always use those funds as as best we can. The funds that we establish that if those funds don't become available or if there are their immediate issues, those can be used immediately. But absolutely. Councilman Ashton, we're going to be looking at those at that process as well. And so, Mr. Modica, did you want to add to that or someone from our team? Yeah. Kevin Jackson, our deputy city manager, can talk a little bit about the strategy for securing funding. Thanks for your thanks, Mr. Walker. Yeah, the, um. The intent is to, I mean, at a baseline to apply for the matching funds for. From the very Institute of Justice. So any any funding that the city allocates to this fund, we will apply for the match from the Institute of Justice in a matter of $100,000. And certainly, as we talked about in March, when we talked about the Long Beach Values Act in setting up the fund, the strategy would be to work to identify a philanthropic philanthropic contribution, set up the fund so that we could facilitate the investment of philanthropic contributions, whether it be from the nonprofit sector or individual contributions as well. And I do want to add that while the staff had set aside $100,000 and therefore I 18 in order to apply for those that $100,000 matching fund, then the recommendation you're considering now is another 150. That is all coming back to the council. So even if you vote tonight, there is going to need to be a vote on the actual contract with the IRA to move forward. And so we would be coming back to you with that if you choose to move forward. That's great. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. But, Mr. Austin, that got your question. Thank you. Customer prices. Customer price. Yeah. So I'm wondering if there's any way this was the mayor's recommendation. So obviously it's the intent of the mayor and proposing this. And, of course, the council colleagues who have interpreted the mayor's recommendation. I'm wondering if there's any interest by my council colleagues to add in some further parameters on this that would allow for us to be able to support it. Taking into consideration some of the concerns that some have, such parameters could include such things as we would apply. We would use fundraising dollars and or money that is obtained through grants, through matching grants, through fundraising dollars. First and foremost, that that would be the strategy and that if we did needed to tap into the general fund, that there would be a recommendation to council about what that general fund moneys would be used for. Because I'll tell you in my mind, there's two different things. And I guess for me I'm not quite understanding because I deal. I'm a work in a courthouse all day long, so I'm envisioning that individuals are going to have legal claims and the city is going to be allocating money for individual legal claims. Perhaps that's wrong. Perhaps there is a model where we are allocating funds that may be city dollars, that may be general fund dollars for us to support a program that encompasses legal defense as well as education and outreach, which is something that I would be more inclined to support than a fund that is designed to address individual legal, personal, legal issues. So I think if it were to come back to council and we were able to find a partner. Whereby. It's a broader scope in terms of what the money is used for, I would be more comfortable with it. I'm just putting that out there. If that's something people aren't interested in. I understand we can agree to respectfully disagree, but I firmly do not believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund individual legal expenses. But I am open to the issue coming back to I'm fine setting the money aside and not spending it and spending it only after council has more direction and more clarity on exactly what the money would be used for. And I don't know if staff has a maybe a proposal that encompasses what I might be referencing since you have more expertize on this than I do. But again, the recommendation is a very short recommendation and there's a lot that could be read into it or assumed from it. So what we understand about tonight would be what would to be that is setting aside the funds, it would be showing that there is funding set aside for this. And then we would come back for a separate discussion on the contract with Vera and what that would mean and how that would all be done. That would all be coming back to you for another vote. So by by allocating this money, we don't have a staff mechanism to to put this money out. We would be using a partner and there needs to be a contract with that partner. So that would be coming back. And, and so Mr. Modica and I did read the TFF on this. What kind of services does Vera provide that would be funded through general tax dollars? And are the services that they provide such that they could be that they could be bifurcated so that private funds could be used for individual legal defense and public funds could be used for outreach and education? I asked Mr. Jackson to respond to that. Please. The members of the County Council on Price and members of the Council, the Institute of Justice. They are expertize in facilitating the provision of legal services to undocumented immigrants in need of those who are facing deportation. They in doing that, they serve as a program manager and a program evaluator. And so their motto is to work with a Y, a nonprofit community legal services provider or group of those providers to provide those direct those legal services directly to the community. And so they partner with city organizations to receive grants, and then they in turn match those grants and then hire a nonprofit legal services provider or a group of providers to provide those services to the community. They also provide education and outreach services to support the legal services. Okay. So so we could. Theoretically speaking, we would be able to use privately funded dollars for aspects of the very contract and publicly funded dollars for other aspects. I think theoretically we could we could structure a program in that manner. I think the primary service partnership with Viera would be the community legal services for it, for immigrant defense. But in terms of the agreement that we bring back that Mr. Modica spoke of, we could work to structure the fund in a way that that meets our needs locally. However, I just want to you know, I want to be clear about the the Service that Bureau provides, the primary service that Viera provides is to support the community legal services. And our idea, as well as this idea and working to provide this this service is to leverage the funding as much as we possibly can. So with the primary sources being a city, a city, a city allocation along with the the canvas grant from Viera with any other community funds. So it is it is possible to structure it that way. And certainly when we bring the item back, we could talk about that. But the way that it's actually done typically is the funding is blended and the primary service is community legal services. I mean, that's. And I understand that. So what I'm asking because I would be inclined to support this if staff were to commit that we could at least try to structure something when it comes back so that it does not blend the funds. Because because I think there's a you know, there are some tax dollars that go to fund legal defense, but those involve constitutional rights of individuals who cannot afford their own legal representation and are in a situation where their liberties are at risk, such as in a criminal matter, in a civil matter, we do not have such constitutional rights. And it's it's it's again, as I've indicated, it's a slippery slope in terms of what causes we want to fund with public dollars. So if if staff believes that, should this come back, there might be a way that staff can work with the service provider to structure an agreement that allows us to be able to support the efforts of outreach, education, advisement of rights, direction of resources, translation services, all those things, but not funding an attorney to actually represent an individual in court through public dollars. If we think there might be a way we could structure the funds that way, then I would support it. But if staff is saying we don't know or that's not going to happen because that's not the way they do it, that's I'd like to know that. Okay. Well, Councilwoman Price, members of the council, I mean, I can say confidently that that that does not reflects Vera's model. Their model is to facilitate the provision of community legal services for undocumented immigrants facing deportation. That is that is simply the model. And the idea is to leverage local funding and other community contributions in order to provide that service through a partnership with either one or more nonprofit legal community legal service providers. So that that is the model with the other, you know, with the existing 12 Safe Cities Network participants, you know, including the cities of Oakland and Sacramento and others. Okay. So so what I'm hearing is that if we were to vote for this, what we would be voting for. I understand we're just setting the money aside tonight, but we're not voting for something directly right now. And I get that. But I don't know why we would pass the buck so that we can have it easy night tonight. I'd rather have the realistic discussion tonight. What we're voting on is we would put the money aside. Once there comes a time to use the money. That money would be most likely used in a partnership with Vera, and Vera's model is limited to using local dollars to fund individual lawsuits. And there's really no way for us to structure a different model. And there's no other partner we can work with. Well, there, there there are additional partners and there's no other partner at this point in time. I think the best approach at this point in time, the most efficient, effective way to do it, given various expertize, is to partner with Viera and their model includes working with community based service providers so they don't provide the service directly . They oversee the service to ensure that services provide it correctly and that it's evaluated to determine its effectiveness. And they partner with the participating cities to do that. So the relationship with Viera is to procure the expertize, to identify the the appropriate partner in the community, to provide the service to the intended beneficiaries. Okay. Okay. So simply said we would be using money from Long Beach taxpayers to fund legal expenses of unnamed individuals. Unknown unnamed individuals. That is correct. It would be a combination of city funds, funds provided by Viera and funds provided by citizens of the community, as well as any foundations or other nonprofit organizations that are interested in participating in the fund. Okay. Well, I appreciate that clarification, and I still maintain the same concerns. And I think while we can say we're not really voting on anything tonight other than just to set the money aside, I think that would be disingenuous. I think if we're going to vote in favor of this, it should be and it should be a very strong and powerful were voting in favor of this. And we understand how the money is going to be spent and we're okay with that. Or it should be we're voting to put the money aside and we're not comfortable with how the money is going to be spent. So that's why we're voting against it. At least that's my thought process, because I think the, you know, constituents who are advocating for this need to know honestly where folks stand. And like I'll say it again, and I know people are going to interpret things how they want. It's not the content. I just don't think we should be funding individual legal claims, period, using public funds unless it's for a constitutional right such as a criminal defense. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Brown. Thank you. So my understanding is we're not approving Vera tonight. We're that's what I understood, Mr. Modica, to say that tonight we're voting to set some funding aside. Then city staff will have to come back to us with a proposal from Vera. Yes, that's correct. We have sent up a two from four. We've done our research. We believe this is the way to achieve the goals that the council directed us to do. But you are not approving that tonight. You're going to prove that later in the process. Okay. So the scope of my knowledge of Vera is is a two from four memo from staff to myself. And also whatever research I could do online, my meetings with my constituents, I had to tell them that I had serious doubts about this meeting. The needs are their expectations based on the parameters or encumbrances set forth by Vera. For that reason, I think there's a lot of scrutiny to be done with this with this program. And I'm not saying staff didn't do the very best and come with the best company at all. I'm not saying that. But there may be another company out there who more closely aligns with the needs of our community. So I can support the funding being set aside tonight without locking into a particular vendor. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilman Mongo. Is it my understanding that if he did not receive the grant, you would explore other options of other nonprofits to work directly with? And is it also my understanding that you only explored VOA and did not reach out to Long Beach nonprofit organizations that provide free legal services for immigrants already including but not limited to the Long Beach Bar Association. Councilwoman Mongeau and members of the council. We we did do research on other potential partners for this effort, and it did not include the the Bar Association. The we evaluate it, the L.A. Justice Fund. If you recall, we talked about the gaps in the L.A. Justice funding last March. We also provided some information on the very Institute of Justice, who is pretty much the pioneer in establishing Justice Fund across America. The very Institute of Justice is also a participant in the L.A. Justice Fund. But the L.A., what we found is that the L.A. Justice Fund has particular sort of rules and guidelines that limit our ability to target those funds here locally. So hence the idea of setting up a local locally based fund. So VRA is sort of the leading edge organization in in the Nation, actually, and here in California, facilitating the provision of these services. We did look at you know, we looked at the other community foundations that are participating in the justice fund. We looked at the Long Beach Community Foundation. And we just found in the end that the Vera Institute of Justice, from an expertize standpoint, from an experience standpoint and from a cost standpoint, was the most efficient and effective option in front of us at this time. And, you know, it's obviously a relatively new service. And with Vera being a pioneer, particularly in evaluating the effectiveness of these funds and also being in a position to oversee the program management so that the city does not have to do that. They were they were very unique from any other organization here in the region as well as nationally. So I think the recommendation that we're making is is is is based upon that analysis and and the fact that Vera is sort of the pioneer when it comes to administering these type of programs. So my comments are, I hope, in alignment with some of the things that my colleagues and I have promoted. First and foremost, I know that Councilwoman Gonzalez and I strongly encourage Long Beach local nonprofits and businesses to receive priority. And so if there's any way that Vera would focus on a Long Beach based nonprofit for the support of their funds, we don't know how they would be as well. Vila chooses the nonprofit, and so if there's any way for us to, through our application, encourage them to choose a Long Beach nonprofit that always is, of course , preferred for a couple of reasons. One, they know the Long Beach residents best. They're more local. They're more accessible. They also can create longer term investments in the community. Second, I think it's really important to recognize that the California Police Chiefs Association, our Local Police Officers Association and others have very strong belief systems that are completely counter to the belief systems and the action areas promoted by Viera. And again, like on this dais, we don't all agree on everything, but it's important that when we fund an organization in the six figure category that we take into consideration all the things that the money can be used for. And so what I am always a supporter of is setting aside funds to figure out how to leverage other funds. I do also have some conflicts when we have members of our community who come forward and say, I'm a veteran with a Section eight permit and I was at the Section eight office and I received a parking ticket on Veteran's Day, and I'm looking to get a waiver for my parking ticket. And this is an individual who's low income, all of these things. And they are asking the city for a reprieve from a fee that we give. And we as a city say no to those things, even though in our values we want to appreciate veterans and their service and not take money from low income communities and not take money from individuals who are struggling to find housing. But we as a city have a policy that we don't waive those fees. And so then on a small level, we're saying no to our priorities of of are you going to $55 fee of a veteran in need? And then here as a council, we're talking about setting aside a quarter of $1,000,000 for individuals, which we will have very little context of once the money's given to Vera. And so. Or any other organization. So I. I would love for staff to explore options within our own legal community including but not limited to the currently provided free legal services. The third Tuesday of every month at the courthouse by the Masters Long Beach Bar Association. And looking at those opportunities as well, because there is a chance that Vera won't give us the matching funds and that that would not be the recommendation as you bring it back. Of course, we have hope that we would be able to put up 100 and receive 100. I actually had hoped that we'd put up 60 and receive a hundred like some other cities have. And I know Mr. Jackson and I have discussed that extensively, but that isn't the direction that it is today. And so what I will say is. I'm open to setting aside some funding to show a an understanding of it, a commitment of a possibility of a funding through an outside organization. But I. I have serious concerns about. The totality of what the funds could be used for, because many members of our own community and city staff don't agree with the complete action areas of the Vera Institute. And so if staff are able to bring a report back on alternatives at that time, it would be appreciated. But I recognize that. That's at Steph's discretion. Counts one of the longer members of the council. We can absolutely do that. Thank you, Councilor Pearce. That was a great answer. Done, huh? I'll be showing I. I want to say two things. One is that I think when we first had this conversation, the direction was clear in our goals and what we wanted to to be able to do. I think we each have different reasons for why we support this item. For me, when we talk about using taxpayer money for legal support, both this item and expungement, it's around public safety, right? It's not about giving one community, you know, a handout, giving them some money just because maybe they don't have it. It's about public safety. When we talk about governing for equity and making sure that we're not filling our jails to the absolute capacity when somebody doesn't have their record expunged or they don't know where to go, they likely are going to get back into that system. If they're somebody that is struggling with their immigration status and they have some some past history, they might not trust local PD as much as they would if they actually had a process with an immigration attorney. And so for me, this item is about the whole picture, about public safety. So for the council members that have some challenges with this, I just as we after today when this item comes back, I hope sometime between then and now we can have some one on one conversations around the public safety continuum and how we can have some measurable outcomes about what public safety looks like in Long Beach outside of PD and Fire. So I hope that we can vote and just get this get this pot of money moving forward. And we will have a full discussion when the next report comes back from there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. So I want to spend the next half hour explaining my position. I honestly, I wasn't here for the Values Act debate that took place a few months ago. But I was able to to watch from a hotel room and and my thoughts about this this item I believe in. We are we're experiencing unconventional times as a result of, you know, very draconian policies coming from Washington, D.C. And I think those those policies and these unconventional times call for unconventional policies on an even a local level. And it's it's a fact that many of our residents, our families are are living in fear here in our city , throughout Los Angeles County, throughout the state, throughout the country, for that matter. This council actually approved state legislation for for us to become a sanctuary state. And I think it was it was like, okay, you know what? We support that in Sacramento. We see commitments coming from and in Sacramento actually committed, I'm reading close to $30 million, $30 million to to legal defense for for those particularly Dreamers. The L.A. County has made commitments. I think it's only responsible for us to make a commitment. And what we're talking about doing here is not it's not going to break us. I think it's it's it's unconventional. So definitely unconventional. But it's it's it's a I think it was a social responsibility that we have to have as a city council. We can't pass the buck to other public agencies and say it's okay for Sacramento, it's okay for L.A. County, but not okay for Long Beach. And so I support I'm going to support the justice fund. But however, I'm not married and I've heard some good conversation here this evening. I'm not specifically married to any specific nonprofit or funding or specifics on on how we fund this. If this is any preview of what this this item will be when it comes back, I'm sure it's going to be a robust conversation. But I think we need to move forward this evening and just just just pass the mayor's budget, as has proposed for the justice fund. And and we will deal with the details a little a little bit later on. I think it's just a good use of our time tonight. Let's make it make it happen. They could make a councilman. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I first want to just thank Kevin, who may or not may or may not be here, but I really want to thank. Oh, there you are. You're hiding. I just really want to thank you, because this was a lot of work. Both you and Katie worked very hard with many community members over many months. For the. Last almost year, actually. And there were many community meetings that happened. Both with you and PD in the room as well. And Will, they'll continue to be discussions with PD from these stakeholders as well, from what I understand. So I really appreciate that effort. So this was not like this is just slapped together. This was very thoughtful. You went through many different iterations of what nonprofit partnerships could look like. And I'll explain to you why. Just really quickly to. Clear some things up that have been mentioned, and I appreciate the comments from my. Colleagues, but there was. A lot of of. Thought. That went into this Central CHA Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. They all hold citizenship workshops and the Long Beach Bar Association doesn't necessarily hold workshops either. And much of those are 30 minute consultations. They're not going to pay 4 to 5000 or $7,000 to stop you to get deported. That's just not going to happen. So actually, the Long Beach Bar Association, 30 minute consults two times a month, first come, first served. There's usually a line outside and very few people get seen and they only get 30 minutes. So they get information and they still have to put up 5 to $7000, if not upwards of $10,000, just to stop from getting deported. So I just want to make that clear. The Long Beach Bar Association, when you go on their website, not once does it say that they offer immigration services, family law, LGBTQ law, all these other elements. But not one is really an expert in immigration. So I just want to make sure we set that out there. We also have if we're looking at. Local, we do have the Legal Aid Legal Aid Foundation there on six and Pacific, and that's a great resource as well. A lot of people do go there. But again, we want to make sure. That we're being as understanding of this process as possible. And that we don't discredit the work. That so many community members have done because they've done a lot of work when it comes to this. Cambodian, Latino, Filipino and supporters. So just want to say thank you very much again to Kevin, to Katie, to all of our to the police officers that were there. We did a lot of great work on this. And I look forward to seeing more work and what the institute can do. And I did mention in that maybe it wasn't heard, but there's key performance indicators when we if we were to get this grant. This is there's a lot of transparency that goes on with Visa. And I think that's why a lot of cities utilize them. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll get to Councilman Mongo and then we're going to get to the vote. My only last comment was I know that we often think that the direction is clear and we all comment on what we think we heard at any particular agenda. And Councilman Gonzales and I had a lot of talks about the Long Beach Values Act and going into that night. And one of the things that when I vote, I'm always open to exploring options to get funding. But what I think is a differentiating factor oftentimes is the difference between grant funding, general fund funding. Legal Aid Foundation is funded through government funds. They're funded specifically through a completely different type of funds that come from the state as well. And so just knowing and understanding, typically I'm more likely to vote for general fund money that draws down grants, but not for general fund funding that doesn't yet have that on it. And I think that part of that goes to when when you sit on a committee that gives grant funding, if you have to make choices between where the funding is getting leverage and, you know, when agencies are going to put up the money no matter what, you sometimes don't give them the matching. And so those are the kinds of concerns I have when we try to go into these competitive processes. So I look forward to hearing what drawdowns were eligible for from the 30 million and from other allocations. And I appreciate hearing the discussions of my colleagues and I look forward to the report back and the opportunity to have , again, a robust discussion both with the community and the stakeholders in advance of it returning to council and including my colleagues. Thank you, Councilman. And let me just say and I know we're going to a vote, let me just say first that I think it's important that we all respect each other's perspectives and opinions. And I think it's a complex issue. And so we're all I think everyone is able to voice where they stand on this issue. And I respect everyone's opinions and where they come from. I know I haven't mentioned this. And I you know, I've been compelled with all the conversation tonight just to say this. For me for me, the justice fund is about my personal experience. And when I was a kid growing up, not being a U.S. citizen, having a family there as immigrants, we were cheated multiple times by attorneys, people that were picking on us that set us back. We were Spanish speaking family. And we needed we needed legal assistance, we needed help. And very few people would help us through many horrible experiences that I went that we went through as a family. We finally got help and and we got assistance from from people that were that were doing the right thing and helped us get through that legal process. And so I think that while we may not have been citizens at the time, and I'm honored that, you know, today that our family is we we contributed to our city and to our community, and we're hard workers. And so I really for my where I come from in this support is I know that there are so many people in our community that have incredible language barriers and experiences that need that I believe need our support. And I and I that's why I support this fund. I think it's I do think it's the right thing to do. But I also respect where people are coming from. So thank you. And the motion is there. Please cast your votes. Ocean Case Council member Sabrina. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for month-to-month, non-exclusive licensing agreements with Transportation Network Companies registered with the California Public Utilities Commission to provide transportation services at the Long Beach Airport. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09192017_17-0833

Motion carries. 1727. Report from Long Beach Airport recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute all documents necessary for month to month nonexclusive licensing agreements with transportation network companies registered with the California Public Utilities Commission to provide transportation services at the Long Beach Airport. Citywide Motion in a second. Any public comment seen on Councilman Munger to have anything? No. Councilmember Pearce, you kicked up its price. It says Pierce. It's weird. There's no motion on the second. Oh, there was. It was. Yeah. Yeah. Mango and price is a motion in a second. It was okay. But I'm saying this comes with a pierce of a comment. Because I do I actually had one question and I was just curious on why. It was simply month to month. It was some. And I believe what we're doing here is we've done a six month pilot program and now. We're just coming back to do month to month. That allows us some flexibility if we need to make changes to go forward. And we just. Expect it to roll over and just continue to be month to month. And that's what I. Wanted to hear. Thank you. Got to go. My only comment is that I guess in a recent other item, we may have folded in some things related to transportation at the airport. Where trips to the. Airport that were previously free and provided by local nonprofit groups in hotels and other groups going to and from the airport are now no longer able to be free. And so I'd like someone to bring that back whenever it works into the transportation methodology. Thanks. Okay. Please cast your votes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Section 21.04.440 in connection therewith.

SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119051

Bill passed and chair will sign it. One more read. Agenda item number seven. Agenda item seven Council Bill 1190 51 relating to water services the of public utilities, revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers and amending settings. The Code Section 21.0 40.4 48 in connection there with the committee recommends the bill passed. Council Member Herbold Thank you. Council Bill 11 9051 relates to water services of Seattle Public Utilities, revising rates. No changes to the proposed bill. I do want to take an opportunity to thank Director Mommie Hara and Bob Hennessey in the in the audience. I appreciate their their patience with me through this process. And I know that the length of this process has created some uncertainty and consternation on their part. I was really just trying to create more savings to drive the rates down and just really try to leave no stone left unturned. And I really appreciate the cooperation that they gave me throughout the entire process in allowing me to do that. Thank you. I just wanted to call that. Thank you for being here, Mr. Hennessy. Mr. Chen. Ms.. Hora. We have superstars over there protecting our ratepayers and making sure that we are conserving and doing all the right things. So thank you for your leadership. Are you ready to vote? Yes. Ready and ready to 23. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Herbal. Hi, Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. All right, so what? No, thanks. John Harris. Tally Gonzalez I President Harrell. All right. Eight in favor one opposed. The bill passed show sign it I believe we've come to the end of our agenda. Are there is there any further business to come before the council? If not, we stand adjourned and we will we will reconvene in 5 minutes. 5 minutes for our passport back. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE relating to construction and demolition waste; authorizing the executive to enter into agreements for the disposition of construction and demolition waste generated within the county's jurisdiction; amending Ordinance 8891, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.04.020, Ordinance 10916, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.010, Ordinance 10916, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.020, Ordinance 10916, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.040 and Ordinance 10916, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.050 and prescribing penalties.

KingCountyCC_10062021_2020-0243

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. This takes us to item six, an ordinance that would make changes to the county's construction and demolition, or C and D code, as well as authorize the executive to enter into agreements with C and D receiving facilities using an updated agreement template. As I think she will present the I have asked for some amendments to be drafted. I'm going to strike an amendment as one can be prepared. Ms.. Rose You can do your full briefing and you and I can take team on speaking to the striking amendment as you wrap up or however you want to proceed. Sounds good. I will follow your lead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terra Rose, Council staff. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet, but I'm actually going to start from page then. If you're following along just some brief background. Construction and demolition waste or Sandy waste results from construction, remodeling, repair, or the demolition of buildings, roads or other structures. Examples of Sandy waste include cleaned, painted or treated wood, dimensional lumber, concrete, asphalt, and other aggregates, among other materials. Sandy Waste loads under Kane County Co can be characterized as non-recyclable, recyclable or mixed, which means the load is comprised of kiddy waste containing both recyclable and non-recyclable elements that have not been separated since 1993. The county has banned Sandy Waste at most of its facilities, except for in incidental amounts or in limited circumstances. And those are where the county owned transfer stations comply with the recycling requirements in the Sandy code, or collect and transfer the materials to Sandy receiving facilities that have agreements with the county. I am now moving on to page 12. King County Code outlines requirements for Sandy Waste Processing and disposal states that the purpose of the Sandy Waste chapter is to assure that there will be Sandy disposal facilities to serve King County in accordance with the Comprehensive Salt Waste Management Plan. Sandy is recycled to the maximum extent feasible that the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill may continue to be dedicated to receiving municipal solid waste and that Sandy disposal is subject to King County's environmental controls and quote, So the way the system is set up, you have different responsibilities for different parts of the system. You have the generators, handlers and collectors of the sea and waste. In other words, those either making it or transporting it. And then also the facilities that accept the waste by agreement. So similar to a typical curbside service where garbage goes one place and your recyclable materials go to another. The different types of sandy loads are to go to different types of facilities. And I'll first start with the generators, handlers, collectors. Current King County Code requires all generators, handlers and collectors of mixed and non-recyclable sandy waste generated within the county's jurisdiction to deliver or ensure delivery to a designated Sandy receiving facility. Recycling recyclable sandy materials, on the other hand, may be transported to any sandy recycling facility or to a recycling market in or outside of King County. Next requirements for the Sandy Receiving Facilities Ordinance 18166, which was adopted in 2015, allowed the county to enter into a uniform agreement referred to as the designated facility agreement or DFA with any qualified transfer facility, material recovery facility or Merv. Sorry, there will be a lot of abbreviations today or combination Murphy and Transfer Facility and the DFA between the facilities and the county set forth the terms and conditions under which it may be received, processed, recycled and disposed. And so for if you are interested in more specific information about the terms, some of the terms and the existing DFA that was approved by Ordinance 18166, I will refer you to Attachment six to the staff report, which can be found on page 145. Additionally, I'd note that King County Code requires the Solid Waste Division Director to develop, publish and update on the division's website a list of recyclable sandy materials that are banned from landfill disposal by the Sandy receiving facilities. And that list is found on pages 12 and 13 in your pocket. I'm now going to move on to how enforcement works with the existing system. Enforcement of Sandy rules is handled by a Sandy enforcement lead within the Solid Waste Division, who initiates enforcement activities on both generators, handlers and collectors of Sandy Waste as well as the Sandy receiving facilities that accepted executive staff, indicate that enforcement activities for generators , handlers and collectors include outreach and education in the field, monitoring new construction permits and reaching out to contractors, as well as monitoring shipments of Sandy on the highways or Sandy receiving facilities. The specifics of conducting enforcement depend on the type of facility. In other words, it's slightly different. For a. Murph compared to a transfer facility, but both involve on site inspections. And I'm now moving ahead to page 14 in your pocket. King County code allows for the Salt Waste Division director to determine when a facility is not in compliance and may suspend the owners rate to accept mixed and non-recyclable Sandy waste during the period of noncompliance and executive staff indicate that since 2015. Facilities have had temporary suspensions. Civil penalties may also be involved in the enforcement of safety regulations under King County Code and Title 23. The civil fine for a violator with no previous similar code violations is $100, and for a violator with two or more previous violations of King County Code Title ten, which is a sideways title within the past 12 months, the civil fine is double the rate of the previous penalty. Moving ahead in the staff report, I'll note two other relevant features of the Sante system before moving on to the proposed ordinance. The adopted 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan, or ESCAP, included targets and a series of priority actions related to Sandy Waste Management. And specifically, I'll point you to performance measure GHG 20, which states by 2025 achieve an 8480 5% Sandy materials diversion rate for building development sites across King County, excluding Seattle and Walton County service area, and by 2030 achieve zero waste of sandy materials resources with economic value. And according to the 2020 US cap, the county wide recycling diversion rate of the material in 2017 was 80%. And then the second feature I'll point out is that the county imposes a $4 and 25 cent per ton fee on the disposal of Sandy waste generated in the county's jurisdiction. And that's for the purposes of funding additional costs to manage the Sandy recycling and disposal program. So I'm going to now move ahead to the analysis section on page 15 of those audits, 2020 0243 would primarily make changes that can be categorized in three areas. And the transmittal letter indicates that the Department of Natural Resources and Parks engage with stakeholders in the sandy industry, including contractors, haulers and landfill operators of recycling facilities. An input from all parties was incorporated into the proposed legislation. So I'll start with the first area. The proposed ordinance would add language to the Sandy Code, placing explicit responsibility on the generators, handlers and collectors of sandy waste to send Sandy loads to the proper facilities and including in code conditions upon which generators, handlers and collectors may deliver loans to transportation specifically as well as intermodal facilities and landfills. And the latter two of which I will discuss more in a moment. As noted previously, current code language requires all generators, handlers and collectors of mixed and non-recyclable Sandy waste to be delivered to designated Sandy receiving facilities. However, code does not specify any other obligations of generators, handlers and collectors. Executive staff indicate that mixed sandy waste loads are intended to go to a material recovery facility or murf or a transfer facility with recycling capabilities so that the recyclable materials may be sorted out. And so the proposed ordinance would add language to the Sandy Code that a generator handler or collector of mixed sandy waste generated within the county's jurisdiction may not deliver or cause delivery of a load of mixed sandy waste to a transfer facility unless certain criteria are met. And those criteria are for the generator handler or collector to ensure that the load contains no more than 20% of the readily recyclable Sandy material banned from landfill disposal. Or. Confirms before upon delivery that the transfer facility shall transfer the load to or otherwise manage the materials appropriately belong to the second area of the proposed changes. The proposed ordinance would expand the definition of Sandy receiving facilities to also include intermodal facilities and landfills. And I'd like to clarify a statement made in the staff report. The staff report says that in current code, only Murphy and transferred transfer stations or a combination facility can become a Sandy receiving facility. It would be perhaps more accurate to say that the current definition of Sandy receiving facility and code only specifically calls out Murphy and transfer stations for a combination facility, but that there is some ambiguity on whether other facilities can be designated by the division director. So apologies for that inaccuracy. The proposed ordinance would then explicitly allow intermodal facilities and landfills to receive Sandy waste under certain circumstances. And so under the proposed ordinance, only an eligible Sandy demolition project may use intermodal facilities and landfills for the disposal of non-recyclable Sandy waste and only in accordance with the waste diversion plan approved by the division and the proposed ordinance with limit eligible Sandy demolition projects, projects where buildings and other structures are demolished within a contained contiguous property, or the plan of consolidation and the square footage of building and structure space that will be demolished exceeds 6000 feet. Additionally, executive staff have confirmed that this legislation would not change what is allowed to be delivered to county. Facilities and that the division has no intention of allowing Sandy Waste to be directly disposed half of Israel's landfill and then moving ahead to enforcement of the use of intermodal facilities and landfills. The proposed ordinance would allow the division director and their sole discretion to prohibit any processing violates the requirements for direct, direct delivery of non-recyclable sandy waste to intermodal facilities or landfills from using those facilities for a period not to exceed six months. The staff report identifies two enforcement issues that potentially may occur with the legislation as transmitted. The first concerns potential use of intermodal facilities in landfills by unauthorized or suspended users. The transmitted DFA would not explicitly require an intermodal facility or landfill to check that they were accepting waste from an eligible Sandy demolition project. With an approved waste diversion plan, they would be required to submit to the division a monthly report that provides information about each direct shipment received from demolition projects within the county's jurisdiction. And additionally, the transmitted DFA would require the division to notify the facilities on suspensions of generators, handlers or collectors. And the facilities would then be responsible with comparing their customer lists on a monthly basis and alerting the division if any suspended users are using the facility. So thus, in either case, enforcement against the generator handler or collector could occur only after disposal has already happened. And then the second potential issue concerns the potential disposal of recyclable or mixed Sandy waste. As noted previously, the proposed ordinance would only allow non-recyclable Sandy waste to be delivered directly to an intermodal facility or landfill. However, once waste containers are taken from a job site to the intermodal facility or landfill, the containers are typically not opened until the final disposal destination. Therefore, if a container included recyclables and waste, it was not only limited to non recyclables anyways in the contents it may be difficult to know it was disposed. Executive staff indicate that while they do not have jurisdiction to enter job sites Inc. Cities Site access to view container contents does not been an issue in enforcement efforts to date. Additionally, executive staff note that they expect many of the eligible Sandy demolition projects to be owned by public agencies or public companies, which are typically cooperatives in working with the division to ensure compliance. And then finally, the third area of proposed changes that would be made by the ordinance. The proposed ordinance would authorize the executive to enter into agreements with Sandy receiving facilities substantially in the form of attachment a to this ordinance, which is an updated DFA template containing provisions for intermodal facilities and landfills. And I would again refer you to Attachment six to the staff report, which provides additional details about how the terms of the transmitted GFA differ from the existing GFA terms. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks on the proposed ordinance. Would you like me now to brief the amendments? Yes. And I'm going to be Councilmember Caldwell's will have sympathy for me. I just got a note from a fossilized brain that Windows was going to try to close in 10 minutes. I will address that in a moment myself. So if I'm absent for a moment, my apologies and I'll be right back. And meanwhile, am indeed, as Ms.. Rose is about to discuss, we identified some inconsistencies in both the and the code as well as the transport ordinance. I'm agreement to use the facilities that receive C and D waste. And so I've asked for an amendment as one to address some of those macros. If you would, please address that and I will address my Windows issue. Got it. Understood. Striking amendment S-1, which is included in the packet and can be found beginning on page 76 with me clarifying edits to both the existing C and D code, and the proposed ordinance that were developed in collaboration with executive staff. S-1 would replace the transmitted DFA, which was dated May 22nd, 2020, with an updated GFA date of June 14th, 2021, and that was also developed in conjunction with executive staff. And additionally, as I noted in my earlier remarks, the transmitted DFA did not explicitly require an intermodal facility or landfill to check that they were accepting waste from an eligible Sandy demolition project with an approved waste diversion plan. And so Streicher, as one would add clarifying, would also add clarifying language that intermodal facilities are approved to accept Sandy waste only from eligible Sandy demolition projects. And if that facility has confirmation of an approved waste diversion plan either from the division. Or upon. Receipt of a copy prior to accepting waste. As one would also require the executive to file a report with the Council that describes the C and D enforcement activities undertaken by the division in the first year after the ordinance is effective. And additionally, it would change the effective date of the audience to January 1st, 2022. Attachment six is a summary matrix and compares the existing Sandy system with the changes proposed by proposed ordinance 2020 0243 as well as striking the amendment. S1 And I will note that there's also a title amendment, one that would not conform the title to the changes made by striking amendment. S1 And that concludes my remarks on the amendments. We also have a solid waste division director Pat McLaughlin and environmental programs managing supervisor Jim Neely here from executive staff, in case there are questions . Thank you. Questions. Question. Lambert Council Member. Lambert Thank you, Mr. Chair. So where are the mayors? I know there's one in Woodinville. I think there's one in Bellevue. Where are the other mayors? Customarily referring to the construction and demolition works. Yes. So there was a list on page 12 of your packet that lists all of the client designated facilities for C and D waste . And I would defer to the executive staff if they want to call out specifically which are persons transport facilities, because that's going to be important that we differentiate between the two in the murf and wooden boat, which is the only one that by me. I don't know how Sandy would go through that because the machinery is more for papers and bottles and newspapers and cardboard and glass, not for cement. And in our transfer stations, how much work do we have allocated for this? Because some of them we don't have enough floor space, so that kind of thing. And to come in, they'll have one more question after that. So my name is Pat McLaughlin for the record service. You're always division director. And I want to just thank council. Member and staff. Carol Rose did a tremendous job in terms of both your staff report and identifying some improvements to recommended changes. I'm accompanied by Jim Neely. Jim has been with the division. For over 20 years and for the better architect of this program. I'm somewhat sad to say he's also approaching retirement. I'm happy for him, sad for us. This is a pretty big milestone and we're grateful for his leadership that got us this far. Councilmember Lambert, Jim, could could speak directly to your interests in terms of the nature of the facilities that actually processes waste. It's not the King County facilities that process this waste. It is the private facilities which are more properly designed for a girl like Jim. Expand on that. Sure. Thank you. I'm Jim Neely as commissioners. Me so the facility Councilmember Lambert. That you're speaking of in Woodinville is a MSW that. Collects recyclable materials. From the curbside and processes. Those. It does take seemed, but it only. Transfers it to disposal. So it is not a material recovery facility. However, we have eight. Of those throughout the region. There's three up in Snohomish County nearby. One of them's an unincorporated, well known fact and that. The sole purpose of those facilities is to recycle C and D. They have the sorting lines. They have the people that pick materials off of them, magnets, those sort of things. And that's that's all they do, basically. So as I said. There's three up north there. There's one, two in Seattle, one in Renton, and one down in Tacoma. Two in writing. Excuse me. So. Obviously Sonoma County is out of our county. And I know that they in the past have also been interested in their capacity being able to keep up with their county's needs. And same with the. So it seems like there would be added costs to the Sandy distributions because these are big trucks that need to go far distances which adds to greenhouse gases and hurts the roads. So am interested in that and then your appeal process. Is there an appeal process for somebody being told that they're in noncompliance? Six months is a really long time, and I know many of the job sites have had to do a triple waste facilities outside their construction so that they can sort. And the business have been very careful about making sure which bin is which because they don't want to get in trouble. But is there an appeal process? Should that contractor believe that they actually did try to get them well separated into the various streams of garbage? During the summer. I was just as a council member. So the six months suspension process is just for the contractor to use direct delivery to intermodal facilities and landfills. There's always division, I can confirm, but my understanding is that they would still be permitted to use other facilities, but they would just lose the benefit of the direct delivery during that period, which then adds how many miles to the issue of how far they have to take it. Well, they would still be permitted to use some of the other facilities that are listed on table one within the county and Squamish County. And what motivated this massive change for the necessity for this change for the addition of intermodal facilities and landfills? Yeah. And the total costs incurred because they don't think that same cost is put on non unincorporated area in the projects. Or is it? I know from division staff that this the request to be able to use intermodal facilities and landfills came as a result of the the input from contractors and other entities in the candy sector is not answer your question. I'm not quite following. So the agencies themselves, the private sector is is happy with this or not happy with this. I haven't gotten any calls from any of them telling me they're happy or not happy. I do what I can to stop on their outreach process. Thank you. Cast Member. In developing this legislation, we engage a. Wide variety of stakeholders across the industry. That included contractors, haulers, landfill operators who are also operating the recycling facilities through their work. We were able to influence the direction of this legislation and as Terry mentioned, this specific element of being able to divert right from the job site was a specific interest of both of those stakeholders. So there's been a really being responsive to the interest that has was expressed during her outreach. Thank you. Appreciate all that information. Thank you. I believe that our council member, McDermott, has been kicked off the call. Okay. Well, he asked me to take over if he and Vice Chair Dunn were both unavailable, so I will do so. Are there any other questions on this item? Okay. I'm not hearing any. If we are prepared to move this out today, I understand that it could move out, but it doesn't have to move out. But if we're prepared to move this out, we could entertain a motion. A move adoption. Okay it's bound to do pass recommendation. Moves the striking amendment. S1 has been it has been moved. Are there any questions? Uh, any questions on S1? All those in favor of us. One Please signify by saying i, i. I, i. And any oppose. Please say nay. The striking amendment one carries. There's a title amendment. Councilwoman Nebraska. Sure. Move to one, Madam Chair. Thank you. Two, one is before us. All those in favor of the title amendment. Please signify by saying I. Any opposing nay. Nay. I really mean to say. May I say I. Title amendment carries and I see that Charlie Kaufman is back on. So I'm going to hand the virtual gavel back. Thank you, Councilmember Balducci. But I may need your help because I'm working only from an iPhone screen at the moment. So that said, with the we have the ordinance before us as amended. Is there further discussion? Hearing? None. Madam Kirk, would you please call the Royal? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Carlucci, I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, I. Council Member Dun. I. Council Member Coal Wales Council Member Member I. Councilmember October I. Councilmember one right now. I. Councilmember Zelaya. Order. Mr. Chair. I. Mr. Chair, the vote is 9.0 notes. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to market. Would you please help me out? Ordinance 2021 is 2020 0243. Mr. Chair. Thank you. And we will send it to full council on regular schedule. That takes us to our next item on the agenda, a motion sponsored by Councilmember Caldwell's address in City Hall Park. And given that I don't have my electronic notes before me, I will ask the central staffer who was going to present on it to begin

Recommendation to Review the Ballot Arguments and Address Rebuttals for the Two April 9, 2019 Special Election Measures: 1) a Proposed Initiative Measure to Change the Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District; and 2) the Caring Alameda Act. (City Clerk 2220)

AlamedaCC_01152019_2019-6396

Okay. All right. I'm. Who's presenting this? Is that you, Mr. Roche? Oh, I guess. Oh, you are okay? Yeah, you were right about. So basically, the two subcommittees of the council went ahead and both prepared their argument. The one against the initiative and the one in favor of the Carrying Alameda Act. And so those two are before you. And what you need to do is just review it blessed. And then you can have a brief discussion about how you want to handle signatures and rebuttals. Okay. Thank you. So where do we start, Councilmember Vella. For the valid argument against which I worked on with Mayor Ash Ashcraft, I did want to note there is a link now that we can add in. So in the second line where it says a report was prepared for the city council link, the I would like to replace the bracketed link with the direct link to the report, which is HTP s colon. I've got it. You've got it. Yeah. With. Backslash Alameda S.A. of McKay report. And so for those watching, essentially we've got the direct link to the report so you don't have to go on to our website and look through the past agendas in order to find out it's now directly available there. Mm hmm. And so with that change, I would just say that I think that, you know, our subcommittee worked. Fairly hard getting this done in the in the quick turnaround time. And I you know, I feel comfortable with the the language as written. And I will note that we have speakers. So do we have any council questions before I go to public speakers? Hearing that I'm going to call our public speakers. First, I have Doyle Saylor and then I have Doug Biggs. Mayor Ashcraft and council members and everybody pretty much knows who I am. So we talked about this issue with the McKay Avenue Respite Center. We talked with Doug Biggs quite a bit. So we understand it and renewed hope because is very feels very strongly that this rezoning is not necessary and we were opposed to it. So we just wanted to deliver a message that we're going to oppose the measure and mobilize against it in the coming election. And we're looking to get together with our allies to have a united effort against this. And we just want to let everybody know that we're going to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Doug Biggs. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the City Council. I'd like to thank both committees for the wonderful work you did on on writing the ballot matters. I have just one minor suggestion, and it doesn't have to really do with the major itself, but how we refer to it for the ballot argument against Mackay. That's the zoning change ordinance. It's not an open space initiative because it's not creative open space that should be referred to as the zoning change initiative. I think we do a disservice to the community when we refer to it as. An open space initiative because it doesn't create open space, it just change zoning. And I know the discussion is going to come up around signature gatherers. As you know, over 500 Alameda INS have signed a letter endorsing the project and opposing the initiative. We have a number of folks who are very interested in signing on to to the ballot arguments and also to the rebuttals. I think it would be wonderful if it's each of the two committee members of each of the initiatives signed on, and then there's other members of the public that would be very interested in signing on in the district of those. I just put that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Those are all of our public speakers. So council comments. Who wants to start? Have a question. Councilmember Vela. If this is for our city clerk, the ballot argument against that's just listed here. Is that also printed on the thing on the in the booklet? Yes. The voter information pamphlet basically identifies the that the one is the argument the order of printing is actually the argument in favor, then the rebuttal to the argument in favor. Then the argument against and the rebuttal to the argument against. So that's the way it is identified. And the title at the top is also printed. No, they use the exact wording of the elections code but. Oh that so. That that line isn't going to be. No, no, no. It'll say measure blank, you know, with the number of the letter. But I hear what the speaker said and I note that. Okay, thank you. But but so the I mean, the point you're making is it will not will it reference. It will say argument against measure and then the letter. Right, then not the. Title of any form other than right. It's against or. For. Okay. Measure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Councilmember Okay. So, and then just to clarify what you're going to ask us for direction on actually doing a rebuttal argument. Correct. Okay. I'll have to make that decision time because you do not have another meeting prior to submitting those on the 24th. And our options are. You can maintain the same subcommittees, you could swap subcommittees, you could just figure out. Okay, I'm not a mayor. Council, I'm a vice mayor. Nice way to a quick question. I guess I'm thrown off by that. I know that the way you can format these is very, very limited. I'm thrown off a little bit by the bullet points and then the lack of them in a couple of places. And I and I understand the intent is to bullet point a couple of things that are headers, but I mean, is there a way to indent or something so that when this aligns, you know. Yes. You'd have to give me that formatting by 5 p.m. tomorrow and you know, whatever you decide. But that intention is allowed and it's this is different than candidate statements that are required to be in block format and have no anything. Special arguments have a little more leeway. And so you can do bullets, you can indent, you can. If I could just interject, I would appreciate if we could perhaps have the city attorney's office. Ms.. Chan has been working with us on these, perhaps just also give a look it over and help with whatever reformatting you're suggesting. Yeah. Is that okay? Yeah, that's one for. And what else? So you. I have no personal comments to to Councilmember Ortiz question. I would recommend that we we look to have the authors of each of these sign them and then leave the other spaces open for community members who might be sending. And then to your your question, I would suggest. Oftentimes, it's actually the campaigns that write the ballot. And I think maybe the rebuttal should be written by the by the campaigns rather than the council. I just want to say, if different people write the rebuttal, there's an additional requirement that the authors that do the first one have to release to allow other authors. So there's just an additional form that has to be signed, but it's just something to be aware of and understand. Right? Councilmember Vela So I think that the intentions went away as a formatting switch over to we used to, we hadn't tried in previous one. So I'm happy to reformat that and then also add the link and work on that. I would I actually would like to propose that we take a vote tonight in terms of having the mayor, there was a vast majority of us who signed off on on these on both initiatives. I would like to essentially give the mayor the authority to sign on behalf of the the council, and then that would leave open for spots for community folks to sign on. And my question is for the city clerk. Can we do that? Can it say mayor. Mayor Marylin as he Ashcraft on behalf of. Or is it just her signature statement title? Yeah. I mean, I know she could put her title Mayor City of Alameda City Council. I know she could put like her exact title, but I don't. I on behalf of little. I would be a little wary of doing it that way. Well, what was the question again, that. On behalf of. Half of the city council. Oh. I would say it would tend to sound like there's five and now you're adding additional four. I think. And I think we can do it. Well, I think you are destroying that. One of the things. Okay, let's everybody let's let's see what the acting city attorney, an interim seizure he's got for us. Mr. Jam points out to me, we're looking here at not sure where it's coming from, but it does say print name, title and if applicable, submitted on behalf of. Yes, so so it could be done. So my question. That's the notice that went out. And that notice is just to clarify that if it's not a voter of the city, it has to be on behalf of an organization. Right. So but I'm not sure that that even that in there, when they're representing their organization, I'm not sure they get to put the on behalf of words in. I think they just put their name and their title. I would have to double check with outside counsel. My comment would be, I would well know so-and-so comma, executive director of Sierra Club as opposed to on behalf of and the. The concern I would have is that we will recall we didn't have a unanimous vote of the council to do this. And so to say that it's on behalf of the city council seems a bit misleading and also unfair to our colleague Councilmember de Sykes position. I think when we did a lot of brainstorming in the course of our drafting. And one thing that Councilmember Vela and I thought is that perhaps the mayor and vice mayor could sign in our respective titles and then we would scurry around and get our other three signers. And we did. We started compiling a list. It's just we haven't done the outreach to get them nailed down. But we will. 5 p.m. tomorrow. 5 p.m. tomorrow. Okay. Okay. Councilmember Ody, I mean. I agree with the indentation, so that's fine. And I like the idea of having the mayor and the vice mayor, you know, sign both. You know, I personally would like to sign the Carrying Alameda Act, but, you know, if the council would prefer to do it the other way, I'm fine with that, too. Let's get to that next. Let's let's let's dispose of the first one. Hold that thought. But right now we've got the ballot argument against the Mackay Open Spaces Initiative. That's for identification purposes only. The formatting will be cleaned up, the link will be added. So everybody okay with the wording? Yes. Okay. And by 5 p.m. tomorrow we will have five up to five signatures and maybe we don't have to have a five, but. Okay. And Councilman Brody, sorry. So then on the rebuttal, I mean, isn't it also true that if we if we choose, we get first dibs, right? But then if other people submit, then there has to be like a random drawing or something, right? No. Okay. So that's. That's not for the rebuttal. That's okay. The director. Okay. There is an order in the elections code, and the council is highest in the order. So your arguments will be selected. But if we choose to, like, delegate this out to the quote unquote campaign, then we're kind of losing that or no? Well, no. Once there's two sides that have done the direct arguments, then the rebuttals are done by those same groups. Okay, so. Maybe just another. Okay. So we can't really farm out the. Rebuttal, okay. Yeah. I mean, you could work with somebody else, but technically, I mean. The original. Group has the authority over the. Rebuttal. Okay, so then the committee, the subcommittee would probably be the one that does it. I mean. That was my assumption that the two drafters would handle the rebuttal to the opposition, to the pieces that council member Jody and Vice Mayor Inoculate. Is that. True? Yeah. How do. You mean? Like I said, it was my assignment. We did a good job. If the council has to do it. Yes, that makes sense. Okay. Completely. Okay. So is that so? Okay. So we are we have approved the language of the argument against the Open Space Initiative. And then. Okay. And then we're going to let's take a look at the. Point of order. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, we do. Okay, so let's see. Well, how many votes do you want us to take? Citizens. I think if you want to combine this, like, motion to say you're approving the language with the link in the indent, and then you're authorizing the same subcommittee to work on the rebuttal. And then you're having the mayor and vice mayor sign and figure out the other three signers. That could be the motion. Okay. That's for the first one. Okay, let's break it up that way. I will make that motion. What she said. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Vela. Is there a second then we'll have discussion. I'll second it for discussion, but I'd like to go. So the problem with going one at a time is that Councilmember Ody has indicated interest in signing the other one. So the question for me is, do we want mayor and vice mayor on one and mayor and Odie and the you know, we can have two different signers on each. But. Or do we want to say the mayor? I don't know. Good question. What do we want to do, folks. Before we make a decision here and then we're okay? When a time when it time. Are you done? Okay. Councilmember Vela. I am happy to have and I think it's appropriate to have the mayor and the vice mayor sign both of them. I think in the event that we but I also think that there is a value and intrinsic value to show that there is a coalition of folks that are involved in this. It's not that the rest of the majority of the council wouldn't be involved or actively supporting it or even listed as supporters. But I think just for the purposes of the ballot argument, I think having the mayor and the vice mayor sign is a show of solidarity among the majority of the council and then have these other community groups sign on. That's that's what my vote would be. But if there's a strong feeling from one of my colleagues to sign on in a separate measure, I would consider that separately. As for this measure, I'm fine not signing it. However, if we are unable to get other signatures, I'm more than happy to be called at 450 and come to City Hall to sign it if needed. I have a I have a suggestion. What if. So we've got two valid arguments and then we have rebuttals. What if the vice. The mayor. Vice mayor signed off on the arguments and I from that expression, I'm going together, infer that you're not terribly in this. And then two other council members sign off in the rebuttal with members of the community member Odie. I mean, I'm fine with just having the two, I think, and happy to have my signature in reserve, but we could still sign the paper and then you could just use it. You don't have to rush over here at 445, right? I think you can have it in your hand and if you need it, you could take it. And if you don't need it, then you just picture pages. I don't require it. I'll be on the same page. Okay. So. Okay. So I'm not sure we decided anything, did we? That the mayor and the vice mayor are signing and that if. It signed both. And is a sign of unity and strength. And then, you know, we would offer our signatures as a backup if we couldn't get community members, because I agree that having a show, a strong show of community support is is probably stronger. Minor technical point. I'm going to be in a train at 730 tomorrow morning. You could sign it now. I could sign. A separate piece of paper. Okay. That's my hope. Okay. I mean, we all could. Live tomorrow. So. Yeah. So you can both sign tonight. Okay. On the clerk could choose. If she gets the others, then she's good. If she doesn't, then. Okay. She has some bank. Well, the the subcommittee would have to let me know who the five signers are. Right. Right, right, right. Okay. And I'll be around tomorrow. Great. Okay. And I think you could probably call in Mr. Biggs and others in the community to help you. Vice Mayor. That's why I have just just because I didn't understand the nuance exactly about the rebuttal. If Marilyn and I sign the mayor and I sign this, do we if if the mayor and. Councilmember Vela are doing it. Do I have to sign the release? Yes. There's an. Additional. Signatures after the writing. That's just the signature. It's just to release. If if some anybody any of the five signers of the original argument are different than the rebuttals. All five original signers have to sign a form releasing who? The names of the different signers. And it can be just one different sign or it's still required of. Got a great point of information. Do we need that by tomorrow? No, that's by the 24th. Okay. When the rebuttal. The rebuttal arguments are due January 24th, but these by 5 p.m. But these signatures are required by tomorrow at 5 p.m., correct? Yes. Okay. Okay. So before we do a vote, we should take a look at the valid argument in favor of the Carry Alameda Act because we're going to vote on them altogether, right? Oh, no. Sorry. Sorry. We were. Yep, we were going. We're going. Yeah, we do. We have a motion in a second and. Well, because we won the discussion. Okay, so any further discussion. Okay. So all in favor of proceeding is as we've outlined. I, I. Opposed abstain. Okay. So four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. Okay, now we move on to exhibit two, which is the ballot argument in favor of the Carrying Alameda Act. Any discussion? I would make the same motion we just made last time. Okay. So does any OC do this motion? Sure. I'll move exactly what we did. Yes. What? I said. Yes, I repeat it again. Sure. Okay. It's keeping the same subcommittee to write the approving arguments presented, approving the same subcommittee to write the rebuttal, and having the mayor and vice mayor sign. And then looking the two of them looking for additional signatures by by 5 p.m. on the 24th. And then the direction in this one would include if you released. The rebuttal rebuttal release. Okay. So there's a motion. Do we have a second? I will second it, but then there's. Some discussion, part. Of discussion I would like to suggest. I think that that unity can look and look lots of ways. I heard Councilmember Ortiz say he'd like to sign off on this and I would be very happy to have him sign off on this with the mayor. So the mayor's on both. And this one is Councilmember Odie. I don't think that's a problem. I don't think somehow vice mayor is so exceedingly and I think breadth helps and given his interests, I just wanted to throw that out there. I will support my name being on it, but I definitely doesn't have to be. I want to defer to the. Titles. Um, you know, I think you, I my my sense is that it might seem just a little confusing to voters because it almost suggests that if it's the mayor and vice mayor, those are the two positions of, you know, it's not top position because we're heavy, which is but we are designated. If we saw that another individual, I think it could just call into question, oh, does that mean the vice mayor doesn't support the this? So I mean, but but where you could help us is by helping us round up those signature gatherers cause you are going to write the rebuttal. But what do people think? That's just my my impression, to keep it as simple. Straightforward. I agree. I think the the more, you know, we stick with the same, the better. Um, and then, like I said earlier, it's not that we're not supportive of it. Obviously our votes on the record, it's not that we're not in, you know, voting to endorse the measure or take action on it. We've done that. So I think there's other ways we show our support. And I would also suggest that maybe when it subcommittee is looking for signers, there might be one set of additional signers who are more affiliated with care centers and dealing with the homeless. And there might be another set of signers for the, the, the argument in our position who are, you know, who know parks and Recreation and what it does and doesn't entail. So that might be where you differ, but I think the council members do best to keep that uniform. But I do appreciate your sung strong support. Councilmember Odie. I wanted it to be uniform too, so okay. But I mean, I could say in the rebuttal to I mean it's I can be in reserve. Perfect. I don't have. To be the one on there. Got it. Okay. Any further discussion on this one before we vote? Yeah, we've got a second. Right. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, I, I opposed. Abstain. Motion passes four in favor with one abstention. All right. And with that, we are adjourned once again. But this time for real. Tony Sosa. Oh, I'm sorry. I am rushing this one. Yes. No. Okay. Yes. To be or not to be. No recommendation to consider directing the city attorney to initiate litigation to obtain a judicial declaration. Whether enforcement of the Open Space Initiative will require the City of Alameda to compensate the owner for the value of McKay Avenue Property Event.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the Annual Report for October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017, for the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area, declaring its intention to levy the annual assessment, and setting the date of hearing for Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. (Districts 7,8)

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0869

Motion carries. Item seven. Economic Report from Economic and Property Development Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the annual report for the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area, declaring its intention to levy the annual assessment and setting the date of hearing for Tuesday, October 18, 2016. District seven and eight. Councilman Austin. Move approval and look forward to the hearing on October 18. And Mr. Mayor, staff would like to make a clarification of something that's in the report. Sure. Fisk. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. This item is the annual approval that BHP Knowles Parking Business Improvement Area Assessment and Annual Report. Council Action Tonight will continue the assessment for another year. There are no proposed significant changes to the activities and no changes to the existing boundaries. The revised assessment formula reflects the board approved increase to include a CPI adjustment as well as $20 added to each assessment. Therefore, staff request that Council receive the supporting documentation in the record, approve the resolution and set the hearing date for October 18, 2018. That concludes my report and I'm available for questions. Okay. Any public comment on the item saying that? Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. R-7137 and award contracts to CJ Concrete Construction, Inc., of Santa Fe Springs, CA, Bitech Construction Co., Inc., of Buena Park, CA, and Kalban, Inc., of Santa Clarita, CA, for as-needed concrete repairs and related improvements, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $30,000,000, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into contracts, including any necessary amendments; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE-19-020. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03122019_19-0225

Motion case. Item 17 Report from Public Works Recommendation to award three contracts for as needed concrete repairs and related improvements in an aggregate amount not to exceed 30 million citywide. There's a motion and a second. Councilman Austin. So I'd like to get a quick staff report. Sure. Let's get a staff report, please. Craig Beck? Yes, ma'am. As city council, this continues our contracting work to allow us to deliver ADA projects. If you recall earlier, we actually late in 2018, in December, there was another item that came forward related to city curb ramps. And at the time, staff made a recommendation that we award to two contractors. That was C.J. Construction and Caliban. That contract specifically addresses new ADA ramps that need to be installed throughout the city. This particular item before you this evening is for sidewalk repair. And if if you recall, the city did agree to a settlement with under a class action lawsuit to allow us to prioritize different ADA work across the city. Part of that settlement agreement also included conducting a self-assessment. You may or may not have had an opportunity. We we do have a draft self-assessment out in it. It's starting to articulate in detail where we have deficiencies citywide. So we do have a lot of work before us. I know one issue had come up before about one of the contractors on this list, and that is C.J. Construction and the questions related around local hiring. This particular contract was not bid under any of our play guidelines that we have for many of our projects. But we did connect with all three of the vendors listed here and asked for them to commit to working with our workforce development team for any new hires. So the new hires that they they would bring on board related to these construction projects would come through our workforce development team. And as you know, they're integral in the pre apprentice work that we're doing in our city with our residents who are interested in entering into the building trades. That concludes my report and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I certainly understand the need to turn to work contracts to meet our needs for for sidewalk repairs in response to litigation as well. You know, I don't recall it being as much as $30 million, though. Is that is that new? I think what staff's trying to articulate is it could be upwards of $30 million worth of work. When you look at some of the street projects that we have in a five year term. And this is over a three year period. Three year +21 renewals. Okay. And in in relation to the your comments regarding the the the local hiring and hiring practices of the contractors, it does I am encouraged that that that we're being proactive in moving forth with the workforce in this meant for to to work with these contractors to provide them with a good candidate pool of. Of individuals who they can hire. I just would always emphasize that that that candidate pool be reflective of the diversity of the city. And, you know, I love to. I'm looking forward to getting some data back on on the place that we've also entered into over the last few years, just to see how how those those hiring practices are working out. But those are my comments for now. I salute. Thank you. A vice mayor. Yes. I just like to connect the sentiments that the council asked them speaking about, especially on local hiring. I think that's extremely important, especially in this day and time. And thank you. And I second that motion. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you for the report. I know that there was a two. And thank you for addressing the issue with compliance, because that was going to be my my question. But I do know that there is from the two from four that was sent out a few weeks ago, there was still a pending issue. Do we know if that's been resolved at all? It looked like there were four or five issues outside of the city and four of them had been resolved and one of them had not been resolved. Councilmember Gonzales, the the last issue, from what I understand in our conversations with C.J. Construction last week, is they are close to a settlement, but it is not finalized yet. And is this regarding apprenticeships? Can you explain that a little bit? So we have a full understanding of what this. Yes. So just in general, all of the contracts that we work with on construction projects are required to pay state prevailing wage. And underneath that state prevailing wage guideline, there are opportunities for apprenticeship placements. And so that's really where we see a lot of local hiring happen. So when you're able to get folks who are interested in getting into the building trades, they typically start as apprentices. And so those apprentice opportunities exist on on every job I believe in. I'm trying to remember that this city that they were having some challenges in one of the cities up up the 17 freeway. From what we understand from the data, we were able to collect that they did hire some apprentices, but they they didn't pay them. The right wage passed a certain number of hours. Apparently, if an apprentice works beyond a certain number of hours and I apologize, they don't have those hours in front of me, but then you have to pay them at a different rate. So a journey level rate and the CGA construction did not pay the journey level rates for some of those hours beyond that minimum threshold. Okay. And you had mentioned about this not being included under our play. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Because it's all. But it's 30 million. Correct. So is it can can you explain that? I'm just trying to get that clear in my head as to why this. We are so were these are on call services. And so really what we're asking for is the authority to spend up to $30 million on multiple projects. And typically when a scope of work is developed, it's small segments of sidewalks. So for example, in the first District, I think there's ten or so different sites that are being worked on right now. And the cumulative amount of of that site work is less than the $500,000 threshold that we have for a play contract. So it doesn't meet that minimum threshold for the play agreement. Okay. I kind of have an issue with that just because I think that we are you know, I know that we this the limit is up to the 30 million. We may not get to that 30 million, but I still think that it should be covered overall because it's the same sort of services for the same contract . So I with that, I think I would love to see and I know that we're going to be taking up the project labor agreement 2.0 and do we know when that will be coming back to council? I know it was supposed to come back this month and it's not. We're looking at early to mid April. So with the we have a number of very large items coming your way in December. In March and April. And so April it will be. Okay. I would prefer to have seen this. After that we established all of the new kind of rules or any other discussion we had on the play first before we saw this new contract. Just because I think and I know that it's timely, but we also just approved another 30 million, almost close to 30 million back in October for the same contractor. So I think at this time, I may be voting no. Just wanted to let you know that. But I appreciate the information and I think it'd be good to know this information as to the lawsuits and additional information about contractors that are not playing well, even if it's not in our own city . But thank you. So I do want to clarify that this is $30 million over a potentially five year period of time. So we're we're essentially talking about $6 million annually split, but three between three contractors. So I want to make sure that everyone understands it's not $30 million for one vendor, but it would be split. Between three contractors. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for raising this issue for me. And I have a I guess, a couple of thoughts. One is, yes, that we have a play policy. I know that we're overhauling or not overhauling. That is definitely the wrong choice of words that you guys are bringing back a report on the play and that there are some conversations around how do we make sure that we strengthen that pipeline. And so I know that when those conversations come forward, there will be more conversations about how we work with good contractors. And so I would like what I hate is being up here on the dais and finding out right before we're about to vote that we have a contractor in front of us that doesn't have the best practices and history and that they're in the middle of settlement agreements around labor practices. So I don't want that to continue to happen. So I'm just saying that on record so that we can work on that in the future. I agree that if we're going to spend $30,000, even though it's different 30 million sorry projects, even though it's different projects and three different contractors, that if we as a city are saying that we care about having our residents get into good jobs, that we need to use every opportunity that we can, even if it's not a requirement. So I'll be working with your office and with economic development just to continue that conversation so that we don't find ourselves in that situation again. Is there a timeline crunch on this? Is there a need for you guys to have this vote today? Yes, Councilmember. Currently we don't have a contract in place for any ADA sidewalk work. We don't have a contract place. When would this work begin? With approval tonight. We would move forward, finalizing these contracts and have these in place. I would imagine in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Can we continue it for another week? Mr. Beck, could it be continued for a week? My recommendation is we move this forward. I'm not sure what changes in a week. Well, at least I'll have some time to understand more about this contractor and work with you and your office to see what practices we're putting into place to make sure that we don't have another you know, that they don't have more lawsuits on their hands on one of our projects. So you're up. There is a two from four regarding this contractor specifically that went out about a month ago or maybe two months ago, and that has all that information. So. I don't think there were anything new based on the 2.4 that went out a month ago. And I'm not sure if you haven't had a chance to to read through the two form four memo yet. There were no incidents of any wage issues or labor compliance issues for any of the work that C.J. Construction did in the city of Long Beach. We have a very robust labor compliance group here in Long Beach, and we wouldn't be sitting here in front of you making a recommendation, move forward with this contractor. If we didn't believe that this contractor would meet all of its obligations under under this proposed contract. So, Mr. West, I think I think the you know, what I'm hearing from from a couple of the members is just obviously, it's a large contract amount. This is you know, this is a it's significant. And so you feel confident and the review that you have made that that this one operator or this one contractor, that we should be concerned about the the issues as they relate to labor practices. Absolutely. We've had numerous discussions with this contractor, reviewed their history and we feel very comfortable with them. Councilman Austin. Yes. I think this has been thoughtful. You know, we didn't just just approve this went on without without some thought here on and we still have it. I'm I'm in supportive of moving this forward under with the understanding that that this this contract is awarded and gives some discretion to our city staff to award contracts as needed 2 to 3 different contractors. And so this doesn't necessarily or maybe the question is, does this mean that every contractor is going to get an equal amount of the contract, or will they be contracted as needed as available to to do the work for the city? So we have a lot of work that needs to get done. We fully anticipate working all of these contractors to their available resource limits. We're hopeful that we can catch up with some of the delays that we've had in addressing some of our sidewalk issues. As I mentioned, we haven't had a sidewalk contract in place since November. And what what sort of and if you can answer this is great, but what sort of interaction has already occurred or has any interaction occurred between these contractors and our workforce investment Pacific Gateway to talk about hiring local folks. So there has been a pre-meeting with contractors and an introduction to a liaison through our workforce development team and talking about what the pipeline looks like and where those placements can occur. And Mr. Beck, is it possible and I know this doesn't fall under the play guidelines that we approved, but is it possible to track the data for the local hiring or those within the Long Beach zip code that actually work for these particular contractors or any of the contractors that we we work with? Yes. So one of the requirements when paying prevailing wage is that the contractors must provide something called a certified payroll. And so the certified payroll essentially lists all the members that are on the payroll, on a given job and the rate of pay that that individual received and their address. So through the certified payrolls, we would be able to understand who's working on the job and where they live. I don't think I've ever seen a report like that. Is it possible to produce something like that for the council? Maybe a year out? Yeah. I can show you a copy of a certified payroll. It's not something the city produces. These are things that come from the contractors as part of their prevailing wage requirements. But certainly we receive have the opportunity to review them and we can share those with council if that's council's interest. Well, I think that's that's I as part of my motion to accept this, I would love to just just ask that that that kind of information be disclosed to the to the to the council moving forward so that we can have some accountability on the contractors and contracts and understanding that we send a message loud and clear that we are serious about Long Beach residents, local folks getting jobs, and particularly ensuring that the workforce is diverse. So I move to support this. With that in mind. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Um, yes, I wanted to ask two questions. One is, could we move forward with the first two countries, first to contractors that don't have the labor practice violations while we. No. Okay. That's why I saw you for the record. I just want to point out that we have to abide by state law for contracting. And C.J. is the low bid, so they are the low bidder. And the other two were added on. So that's the reason why we would not be able to do that. Okay. So they are the low bid. Okay. I would like to I know that I just met today with John from Economic Development and his team about the work that they're doing. So I would ask that the work that they're doing inside Pacific Gateway that we just make sure that they're partnering. Echo What Councilmember Austin said, that they're partnering and that we do get a chance to look at those numbers and that if there's I think there's future discussion on a good contractor process that we can move forward on. So. Thank you. I guess maybe to address some of the questions that have come up, I would offer that staff can provide this council and update report at maybe the six month mark to share with you what kind of work has been done and how the contract dollars have been distributed and what the certified payrolls look like. Yeah. Worth mind. I love those are the solutions for. Did you do that item already? Oh, okay. Okay. Got the one with the little hearts or angry eyes. Okay. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. There's a motion. And second, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 95866000LBPD24750, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, for providing law enforcement services, to increase the contract amount by $3,730,814, for a revised contract amount not to exceed $36,953,404, for the term of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2022. (Districts 1,2,6,7,8)

LongBeachCC_01182022_22-0068

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. I think we're on tape now. Report from, please. Recommendation to amend contract with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for providing law enforcement services to increase the contract amount by $3,730,814. Districts one, two, six, seven and eight. We need a motion on the second. Move Austen and Allen during public comment. There is no public comment for this item. All right. Another thing must be to this. Can we roll? I think just that it is a contract to continue safety along our light rail within our city. I did want to ask the city manager. Are there any significant stipulations in this contract that we need to be aware of or the public need to be aware of ? Um. Yes, in this contract. I think we're good to go. I do want to bring something that is new that came up in December 2021. There has been a new board motion by the MTA to require vaccinations for everybody who is working on the airline. So that policy is something that we are actively reviewing and looking at. It's not completely formatted yet, and we will bring that back to you about what any potential implications would be depending on where and, you know, what motions that they have in the city's process of requiring vaccinations. All right. Thank you. And I want to know and I know this is important this is important to Mayor Garcia, and he would be here, but he's at US Conference of Mayors this week. And so I just wanted to lift that up. But Councilwoman Allen, anything. Yes. Just just really briefly, I just want to say that this contract is key to providing rapid responses and safe spaces that I metro trains and platforms that are. And I want to thank Supervisor Janice Hahn for her support of our local law enforcement and providing these services and also to our wonderful Mayor Garcia, for getting this contract set up in the first place. Our continued support as we push to increase the quality of life for homeless outreach that is also provided in this contract. And I can tell you, you know, especially living downtown, I know the difference. I saw the difference immediately. It was very apparent to me when Long Beach PD took over from the sheriff. So I'm just very proud that we can continue this arrangement. Thank you. Let's go to a roll call vote, please. District one. High district to. I. District three. I. District four. Right. District five. Hi. District six. I'm District seven. District eight. By. District nine. Motion is carried.

A RESOLUTION expressing the Seattle City Council’s solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of affected members of Seattle’s South Asian community.

SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_Res 31983

Agenda item nine. Resolution 31983 expressing the Seattle City Council's solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of affected members of Seattle South Asian community. Thank you. I will move to adopt resolution 31983. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Mosquito, you're listed as a prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you very much. Council President colleagues. This is a continuation of this council's commitment to continue to stand with folks who are rising up and expressing our solidarity with those in India , fighting back against changes that continue to come down, especially on some of the most vulnerable residents and workers in India. After hearing with workers and members of the Punjabi community on the Friday introduction and referral calendar, the resolution that is in front of us was published expressing Seattle City Council's solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of the affected members of the city of Seattle's South Asian community. Over the course of the last few weeks in India, over 250,000 farmers, workers and their allies joined in what is typically what is believed to be the largest organized strike in world history. These workers are protesting three devastating deregulation agricultural bills that were passed by the Modi government in September. These laws deregulate the sale of crops, allowing private buyers more power in a marketplace that has long been incorporated and supported by government subsidies. Farmers worry now that these these pieces of legislation could devastate their prices and their livelihood. Farmers have said, including through reports on Democracy Now! And the link that I sent around, as you also saw from CNN and in Time magazine, it's been widely reported that farmers say that these neoliberal policies are a boon to corporations and roll back key labor and crop price protections that could have a deadly impact on the livelihood of farmers. Farming is the leading source of income for the population of India. This will leave farmers at the mercy of big corporations who will, in effect, drive down prices and could result in huge losses for farmers, effectively handing over farms to private corporations. Farmers, farmers, unions and the community who are supporting these farmers have said that these changes made by the bills passed in September will put them at risk for losing their businesses and land to large corporations. 60% of India's populations rely on agriculture as their main source of income, and the plight of farmers in India affects us. Here in the city of Seattle. The city of Seattle, as well as the country and the world, rely on India and their farmers. India is the leading exporter of mighty rice and the world's largest milk producer to the global market. We want to make sure that the production that is happening in states like Punjabi, in places like Haryana and Delhi, where farmers are protesting that their voices are heard and that we stand in solidarity with their efforts across the world. Farmworkers have had a long history of organized protests from the United Farm Workers here in the United States to farmworkers in India. Now, we continue to want to show support for those who are helping to put food on the world's table and who are themselves often struggling to put food on their own table. We also want to show solidarity with what is believed to be the largest demonstration in world history as farmers marched on the country's capital of New Delhi. They were met with by violent response from the Indian government. Water cannons were used in freezing cold temperatures on mostly elderly men in their fifties, sixties and seventies, and they experienced violent response via tear gas again deployed during a global deadly pandemic that affects the respiratory system. The police put up barricades with barbed wire, dug ten by ten trenches in the nations highway to prevent farmers from reaching the nation's capital. Please take a look again at the sources that we sent around over the weekend and much of the local and national news to bring attention to the workers in India and the farm workers who specifically stood up and shown a tremendous amount of courage in the face of opposition and repression from the government. I want to thank specifically Kent Councilmember Winder Carr for bringing this resolution with the Punjabi community to our attention. They in Kent are working to pass a similar resolution and as I noted this morning, the Kent mayor has sent a very strong statement of solidarity as well for the farm workers in India and appreciate the solidarity to our sister city in Kent for their work on this and their upcoming action in January. The South Asian community, specifically the Sikh community, has been in or has been organizing local protests to bring attention to what is going on in India and have been working to pass resolutions in other cities as well. I'm honored that we are able to bring this forward today, that it has been able to grab the attention of all of us in the city of Seattle to continue to show our support with the farmers in India and will continue to support our colleagues across this country to bring greater attention to this issue and stand up against violent repression and support the farm workers appreciate our congressional partners, who we are also calling on to help support farm workers and to oppose the repression that they've experienced. I look forward to working with all of you to continue to call attention to the issues that these farmworkers are demanding justice for. And again, I want to thank Councilmember Stewart as a co-sponsor of this and also for your earlier actions this well this year, starting in February, to bring attention to this issue. And as folks have said, this is the latest iteration of attacks from that government. So we all stand in solidarity and want to make sure folks here in our community, especially South Asian community in Seattle and Sikh community, Punjabi community, know that we see, hear and support the protests of farmworkers in India. Thank you very much. And thanks again for your co-sponsorship. Thank you, Councilmember Muscadet, because we're excellent. I know you have an amendment that you'd like to put before the city council, but before you do that, I wanted to offer you an opportunity to make general comments, if you'd like. As a co-sponsor of the resolution. Yes. I would like to thank you so much, President Gonzalez. Good afternoon to everybody who is watching this. Members of the public. Our community members. And almost a century ago. Greetings and solidarity to the hundreds of South Asian community members who have been in touch with my office over the last week and whom I've spoken to personally in the last weeks with a burning sense of urgency to fight the injustice being faced by the farmers and workers in India. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito, for bringing this forward. I'm honored to co-sponsor this resolution on behalf of my sisters and brothers and siblings in India. India's government, headed by Prime Minister Narendra modi and his reactionary Hindu fundamentalist. Part of the agenda, the party or the BJP, have introduced three new laws in September that will dismantle the bare minimum protections or regulations relied on by millions of small farmers for survival. One of the new laws, for example, would repeal the minimum support price, which is a publicly mandated price floor, a minimum price at which the government promises to buy produce from small farmers as a measure of basic economic protection for them. I also agree with Reynoso Cohn, who said during public comment that the ration card system allows the multitude of poor people and working people to access grain, cooking oil and other basic food needs at affordable prices. I personally have childhood memories of getting rice at the local ration shop in Mumbai. Dismantling the Russian system would be a ticket to mass starvation and increased malnutrition. Yesterday morning, my staff and I joined hundreds of sick students and other young people at a protest action near the Space Needle in solidarity with the farmers in India. As an elected representative of Seattle's working people and as someone who grew up in India and was politicized and radicalized by the understanding of how global capitalism and imperialism have led to continued impoverishment of the Indian masses and the masses in the neocolonial world as a whole. I was proud to join the protest rally yesterday as myself and other speakers at the rally said the new laws are going to directly further enrich the already obscenely wealthy billionaires like Mukesh Ambani, who is India's richest man and is like the Jeff Bezos of India and Gautam Adani, both of whom are among the 40 richest people in the world. Farmers and agricultural workers make up 60% of the country's population. A 2018 study found that more than half of the farmers in India were in debt, and this was before the current pandemic and deep capitalist crisis. More than 20,000 farmers in the country have died by suicide from just from 2018 to 2019. And as the resolution says, over 360,000 since 1995, farmer indebtedness has been a major factor in these suicides. The protests have made world headlines and have led to solidarity actions by South Asian immigrant communities in an especially by the Sikh community globally, including right here in the Seattle region as well as in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. These solidarity protests have even forced establishment politicians to speak publicly in support of the farmers protest, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a member of the Australian Parliament. I really agree with the community members who testified in public comment today who said that the overwhelming majority are facing a race to the bottom globally and unless we fight back, we are at a loss. I agree with those who said in public comment that they fought with us for the $15 minimum wage and we have direct stake in the farmers in India winning their demands. The Indian government has inflicted brutal repression against the farmers and the protesters, with police using batons, water cannons and gas. But as the farmers have said, the police are using tear gas against us. But we were already crying at this point. The protests have sustained for nearly three weeks. This is a remarkable. The protest actions of selected multiple transportation and commuting chokepoints with hundreds of thousands of protesters blocking roads and squatting on railway tracks. The farmer protests are also noteworthy in the level of preparation they carried out before launching the actions. For instance, farmers interviewed at the Delhi action say they are prepared enough to be able to sustain the action for months. The protests also have an impressive degree of coordination between the actions in metros such as Delhi and Mumbai and the actions in rural areas in the individual states. They have organized shifts with some attending the protest actions and others tending the land. Women's committees have helped with providing food or, as are Sikh community members, justified longer every day for the thousands of activists. The protests have not been short of food even for a day. This level of organization and confidence is one of the reasons why the farmers are not intimidated. Despite the brutal tear gas and water cannons used against them by the police, of course, such organizing is not the result of some clever top down management based on ideas of business unionism. Such a level of preparation can only be achieved by first building the political conviction, solidarity and cohesion among hundreds of thousands of oppressed people. The rank and file farmers strengthening the clarity that we have to fight together against the ruling class. That it will be a long and hard fight and will involve significant sacrifice, but that it is worth doing precisely because that is the only way we can successfully push back against the gross injustices faced by the overwhelming majority under this bankrupt system of capitalism. It is this type of solidarity that is enabling the protesters to spend night after night in the cold winter in northern India on the back of trucks and tractors. This is the kind of organizing needed for any serious strike action by the labor movement anywhere, because big corporations and the capitalist state have all the wealth and the resources to wait for protests and strikes to grow exhausted and demoralized. Yesterday, at the request of the South Asian community members, my office initiated a petition to urge President elect Joe Biden and Vice President elect Kamala Harris to make a public statement in solidarity with millions of Indian farmers protesting privatization, poverty and indebtedness. Members of the public can find a link to it on my social media accounts and on our council office blog. Nearly 350 people have now signed the petition just since last night, and as a number of the speakers in public testimony said, my office alongside the South Asian community organizations, the Sikh students organizations and labor unions , is organizing a car caravan rally on January eight in solidarity with the general strike in India, which is going to be extremely important because it is this kind of solidarity among workers and farmers that can really put the Modi Modi regime on the defensive, on the back foot. And we need escalating tactics like this in order to ensure that we don't get complacent and that we win our victories. I'm also proud of the track record of my Socialist Council office in helping to build international working class solidarity, which is crucial for the global fight back against capitalism. As was mentioned before, just in January and February this year. I know it feels like an age ago. I also kept thinking it was last year, but it just this year my office brought forward the resolution against Modi's anti-Muslim and for citizenship laws, which South Asian activists and socialists fought for together. And we saw the Modi pro Modi supporters, the Bucks, the the Sun guys who came here and spoke in such divisive, deeply rightwing language. Last year, we brought forward a proclamation condemning the repression by the Modi regime in Kashmir in August 2014. My office sent a public letter in solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, calling on Obama, then President Obama and the members of both Houses of Congress to condemn the bombardment and violence by the Israeli regime in Gaza. When the City Council passed a resolution from my office in February opposing Modi and the BJP's citizenship laws, we made Seattle the first city to take a position. Since then, five additional cities have done the same, with San Francisco being the sixth city to pass a resolution in July. And my general comments by echoing the slogan and adding another slogan of the movement. The movement has settled on 8000, which means farmers stay united or long live farmer unity. I think as we head into the January 8th action, which is absolutely crucial for hundreds of millions of workers who will be on strike alongside the farmers, along with the student movement, we have to also raise the slogan Kissan Mazdoor Zindabad, which is Long live the unity between farmers and workers. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Salant Okay. We're going to go ahead and consider Amendment one now that we've heard general comments. So before we open it up for any additional comments on the underlying resolution, there is an amendment that was circulated previously today consistent with council rules. So I'm going to go ahead and recognize council members want for that motion of Amendment One. Thank you. I move Amendment one inserting the following sentences. Section three The Seattle City Council stand in solidarity with the farmers organizations, trade union federations and student unions in India. Organizing for a General Strike on January eight, 2021 to unite the movement of oppressed peoples, demanding the restoration of protections for small farmers, increasing the minimum wage, ending privatizations, and defending the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. We heard from a number of ordinary people today in public comments, specifically from the Sikh community and also the broader Asian community. And every single person of those spoke in favor of this amendment was the proposed amendment. The protest movement has already shown enormous strength, as I mentioned before, having lasted nearly three weeks with an impressive degree of organization and political strength. However, it would be fatal if we got complacent. The movement has to escalate in order to force the Modi regime to concede to the movement's demands. The Modi regime will keep trying various divide and conquer tricks to try and break the back of the movement, for example, labeling Sikh farmers as terrorists. They will keep trying these tactics if they don't succeed in their in that horrendous effort. Then the regime, the super wealthy and big business will simply try and wait out the movement, wait for protesters to get exhausted and demoralized. As members of the labor movement like myself know, we we have seen this happen and we know that when we are fighting the bosses, we need to have tactics that will escalate the struggle and put increased pressure on the bosses to force them to concede to workers and unions demands. So it is absolutely crucial that the trade union movement in India has announced the general strike for January eight. The call for the general strike, as I said, is being supported by 100 farmer organizations, ten trade union confederations that represent hundreds of millions of workers, union members and student organizations. The unions are demanding the restoration of protections for small farmers, increasing the minimum wage, establishing pensions and Social Security for workers, ending privatizations and defending the rights of religious and ethnic minority. To understand the potential impact of such an action and why, I am urging Council members to support this amendment. We should know that the Indian trade movement has carried out three general strike actions recently one in January 2019, one in January of this year, and a third one just weeks ago in late November. Each of those general strikes has been the single largest general strike in global labor history. The one in 2019 was the largest in global labor history, and the one in January this year was the largest. And then now the one that happened in November was the largest. The last two general strikes, including the one in November, brought 250 million work union members out, not 250,000 people. And so these are these are absolutely massive. These are earth shattering actions. And I think this is exactly the kind of earth shattering action that we need in order to be able to combat the hundreds of billions and indeed trillions of dollars that are facing the poor farmers and workers at the hands of the billionaire class. I really urge council members to support this amendment. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Council member Solent Councilor Silent has made a motion to put Amendment One before us. Is there a second debate? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment one. Council members want you when you have already made comments about Amendment One. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the floor to see if there are any additional comments on Amendment one. And as usually is, the case councilors want, you will. Have the. Final. Word. On Amendment One. But for now, we're going to go ahead and open up for any additional comments on amendment. Councilmember Strauss, please. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmembers and the state in support for bringing this resolution forward. I will be supporting the base resolution since public comment. Councilmember stop underscore from Kent who brought this resolution to our city council for consideration. Called me to ask what other public commenters were speaking about when discussing Section three, as she had not previously been aware of Section three. She from my communications and my phone call with her just in the last number of hours. It is her preference to retain the focus of this resolution on sections one and two. And for those reasons, I will not be voting for this amendment, although I support this resolution and everything that is brought forward. Thank you, Councilmembers. Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Any additional comments on Amendment one? Hey, hearing no additional comments on Amendment one? Councilmember Swann. Any closing remarks that you'd like to make before we take up the vote on this amendment? Yes. I appreciate Councilmember Strauss. I don't I completely disagree with Councilmember Strauss for not supporting this amendment and also the reasons he stated. I think they're quite stunning. But I do appreciate that Councilmember Strauss was open about why he was going to vote no on the amendment. And I think that's a rare instance of where it is. It can become clear to members of the public why certain things are happening in the halls of government. But unfortunately, nobody else has spoken to, which I'm not sure what to make of it. I do appreciate councilmember horrible seconding of my amendment so that we can at least have a discussion. But I think that it is extremely important to recognize that regardless of what ethnicity elected officials may have at the end of the day, that the test that we have, we as an ordinary people have to put them to is are they standing with the ordinary people of whatever issue is at hand or are they standing with the establishment? And I think it's very telling that, at least according to what Councilman Bustos has said, and I'm and I'm, you know, assuming that other council members or whoever other council members share that position, I would say that it is deeply unfortunate because it is not a question of one elected official, even if they may be from a certain community. Dozens of people from the same ethnic community testified in public comment, saying that they wanted you to support that action and they had their own version. Describe why they think it's important, because they understand that this action is has the potential to greatly escalate the struggle which the farmers and the workers understand the need to do. They understand that they need to build unity, which is why there was a general strike in November by the workers in solidarity with the farmers, because they understand that actually they not only strengthen the farmers movement, they strengthen their own movement, and that the struggles of oppressed peoples are interlinked. And so I just want all the ordinary people, community members sake and social South Asian community members to understand what is going on here. At the end of the day, we have to observe if politicians are doing the bidding of other establishment politicians or are they actually listening to community members who one after one after one came and said that they want the city council to support this amendment. So I will, of course, be voting yes on this amendment, and I still urge council members to vote yes on it. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to close out debate on this particular amendment. So let's go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One. One. Yes. Strauss. Oh. Book? Yes. Whereas now. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Rosetta. No. Peterson. It's just nice to see. Councilmember Peterson had to leave. Unfortunately for Council President Gonzalez, no votes were in favor and four opposed. Okay. The the motion fails for a lack of majority one way or the other. So the amendment is not adopted. We're not going to move to consideration of the resolution, and I think we've had a lot of debate on it. Were there any additional comments on the resolution as proposed? Which data, please? Thank you very much, Madam President. So I want to be really clear as well that the folks that I'm hearing from, including members not only that have been elected, but members who are working directly with the Punjabi community and the community at large who've been asking for this. I think that folks want to send a clear message about what is currently happening in India. A message to the congressional delegation. And for me personally, that does not mean not wanting to support a general strike. I think that there is going to be another meeting and more opportunities for us to continue to show solidarity with the general strike. But I want to make sure that I'm following the lead of the Punjabi community who's been reaching out and asking for the specific language in the resolution today. I will be making sure that we're pushing out information about the general strike. I know that folks don't come to a strike easily. This is often the last line that gets brought. Sorry, the last line of effort to try to make sure that messages are being heard. We know time and time again that these farmers have tried. They have tried to negotiate. They have protested. They have put their lives in harm's way, both because of COVID and because of the ongoing repressive attacks from the police and the governments being exposed to very cold temperatures and water cannons. Their life is on the line. And so we know that they have done everything they can. Personally, I support the general strike. I'll be putting out messages from our office in support to make sure that folks know how to participate in the caravan. Thank you very much. Council member silent. But in following what what the Punjabi community has asked for today, which is a very clear resolution specific to a international I'm sorry, a national message across the globe. I am very excited about this resolution. I think it's an unfortunate sort of conversation about who we're following, but I don't think that those two things have to stand in isolation. We can send forward this clear resolution today and also stand in support of the upcoming general strike, which I plan to do, and I plan to send out messages from our office. So I just want to make sure folks here directly that this is absolutely something that I am interested in doing in support of those who have reached out initially. Very happy to have this resolution passed today. And that says and that said, I'm also going to be supporting the call for the general strike. I know that that is not a decision people come to lightly, often the last line of defense when thinking about the strategies in front of us. And it takes a huge act of courage to do so. So personally, I want to focus now where we were at, but wanted to stand in solidarity and follow. The lead of the Punjabi community has been reaching out to our office and more information forthcoming obviously on that first week of action in January. I think it comes from a mosquito. It was more silent. Thank you. I don't agree as a member of the labor movement myself that it's not easy for workers to go on strike. It is a very difficult decision because it requires a tremendous amount of sacrifice. There's a lot of uncertainty. There are lots of twists and turns because bosses or in this case, the more the regime and the billionaire class were not given easily, in fact, they will, in fact, try to wait out the movement as much as they can. And so during the strike action is requires a lot of resilience, a lot of strategic and tactical political clarity for the workers and continued solidarity for them to not be able to vote for the strike, to not be broken. But I'm not sure what is being achieved by this council not supporting this by not supporting the amendment for the strike action, because they have already declared the strike action. So when we agree that it's not easy for them to do this. So that means that it has been it has been an extremely hard and long and hard road for them. So they have already declared the strike action. I'm not sure how it helps to fight for the general strike by sending a message of, well, this is not what the Punjabi community wants. I also don't agree, unfortunately, with the idea that that not having the clause for the the general strike support is somehow following the lead of the Punjabi community. It's not some homogeneous community. We heard from dozens of Punjabi and Sikh working people today and dozens more and hundreds more have, you know, have spoken in different ways, not just today, that they are supporting this strike action that they wanted the city council to also supported. Absolutely agree that we all should be supporting the January 8th Act. And I appreciate you expressing support for the action that we are organizing. And I wanted to call on everybody, all the ordinary people, members of the public who are watching this. Let's make sure we organize a massive, massive, historic January 8th, 2021, car caravan rally in Seattle at 3 p.m.. I'm not saying the location yet because we are going to decide the location and let everybody know. But my point is that it is a let's make it a massive and successful action and let's stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the masses in India who are struggling for a better world. Thank you. Okay. But that we're going to go ahead and close out debate here since the sponsors have spoken last on this particular resolution. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Want. Yes. Stress? Yes. Verbal? Yes. Whereas. Yes. RUIZ Yes. Morales Yes. Mosquera Yes. Council President Gonzalez. Yes. It in favor of. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the police effects my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any other business to come before the council? Council Member Mosquito. Thank you very much, Madam President. I would like to thank all of you as well. Council Member House President means that. Thanks to everyone this morning to you for stewarding us through a really tough and challenging 2020. And I appreciate the stewardship that you provided. Also want to thank my office and Aretha, who has been working on this resolution that just passed today and her presence at the rally at the Seattle center as well yesterday. And all of the work that our team has been doing between Aretha Friday and a lawyer interim, we got some 20,000 emails just specific to the budget in the last few weeks. And really they're going to continue to come from her office as we endeavor to get responses back out to everybody and look forward to working with all of you on various issues coming up in 2021. And I want to say thanks for all of your hard work this year on the budget. I know that we took a lot of your time and your family's time and your community time to work with the community, with our budget process here and and through the committee deliberations that were very lengthy at times. So thank you very much. Thanks to Essential Staff, our entire team and I look forward to working on more with Andrew on housing coming up and seasonal workers rights and what do you think on health issues and on everything related to community safety? And Lori, who's just been tremendous in our office on how we're responding to constituent inquiries, I just want to say thanks as per usual councilmember, whereas I couldn't get away with not doing it. Madam President, I'd like to also request to be excused on January one. There we go. There's the city council business. All right. There's been a motion for members data to be excused on January 4th. Is there any objection to that? I object. This better. Not cause I don't. Have a lot of paper before I object. Okay. I'm going to take that objection in in the ingest and assume that there is no actual objection number. Ms.. Gay that will be excused for January 4th, 2020. Is there any other business to come before the Council? All right. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. This is our last regularly scheduled Marathon City Council meeting for the year of 2020. Our next regularly scheduled City Council Council meeting is on Monday, January 4th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful evening. We are adjourned. See you all in 2021.

A proclamation congratulating the Denver Outlaws for winning the 2016 Major League Lacrosse (MLL) Championship.

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0805

Excellent. Councilman Herndon, will you please read Proclamation 805? Yes, Mr. President, I am excited to read Proclamation 805 congratulating our Denver Outlaws for winning the 2016 Major League MLB, the cross shaped championship. Whereas The Denver Outlaws kicked off their inaugural season on May 22, 2006, and are an organization committed to not only winning Major League lacrosse championships, but to growing new lacrosse fans and to making a positive impact on Denver communities. And. Whereas, since their inaugural season, no team has appeared in more Major League lacrosse championship games than our Outlaws. And. WHEREAS, on August 21st, 2016, the Denver Outlaws rallied to defeat the Ohio Machine 1918 after trailing by seven goals at halftime to earn the franchise's second Major League lacrosse championship and return the Steinfeld trophy to Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver, Denver native Eric Law was named MVP of the championship game after scoring the game winning goal with just 13 seconds left. And. WHEREAS, Head coach BJ O'Hara acknowledges that fan support has had a meaningful impact on the team, helping carry them through a challenging season and ultimately to the team's second championship in three years. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council congratulates. Mr. Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Outlaws. Head Coach B.J. O'Hara, President Mac Freeman, Director of Sales and Marketing, Ted Sing and the entire Denver Outlaws team and staff for winning the 2016 Major League Lacrosse Championship and bringing the Stanford Cup back to Denver. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver will attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and then a copy be transmitted to the Denver Outlaws franchise. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Your motion to adopt. I move that proclamation 805 be adopted. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council councilman herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And I said this a couple of council meetings ago. Name the last team to win a major championship in Denver and everybody scream Broncos. I was like, You're wrong. And I'm so excited about our Denver Outlaws because if you're familiar with Major League, the Cross, every team, with the exception of our outlaws, are on the East Coast because there is this perception mentality that lacrosse is an East Coast sport. Since 2006, when the Denver Outlaws joined the Major League Lacrosse League. Only one year had we not had the highest attendance for a single season game more championships appearances than any other team. This is a team that is committed to winning. We have a fan base that still supports their teams and is exciting to know that they are back bringing the Steinfeld trophy back to the mountain west to the mountain time zone. And I was we have the photo of their pitcher, which is just remarkable after they won. And so it's great to have our MVP, a Denver native here as well. So kudos to the team. Congratulations, Iowa. We did this two years ago. I got to hold the Steinfeld trophy. It is heavy and I'm excited about taking a photo after this proclamation holding and again can kudos to our team. Kudos to the franchise and really excited and I look forward to doing this proclamation every time. I wish I could give you a parade, but the very least I could bring for the proclamation. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Herndon, I. Oh, sorry, Mr. Herndon. I. Can. I can eat. I knew Ortega Sussman, Black Eye Clark Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting, announce results. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Proclamation 805 has been adopted. Councilman Herndon, is there someone that you would like to call up? Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to invite Ted Singh, director in sales and marketing for the Denver Outlaws, as well as our championship game MVP, Erick La. Thank you guys for having us. Wow. That is a big trophy. Just want to say thank you, Councilman, for all the kind words. It's pretty cool to be a Denver homegrown boy and being able to stand up here and be named Most Valuable Player, the championship game, something that you never would've thought ever happen in your life. And to bring another championship back home to Denver that thrives on championships and winning. And and I think any of this would be done without our owner, Pat Boone, and and all the things that he's done, not only for us as the Denver outlaws, but he was a major contributor and helping Major League lacrosse grow and kind of helping our vision of bringing across the main stage and and like you said, bringing the cross that's been conceived to such an East Coast sport and bring it out west and be one of the local guys that that can say that that we're the champions and we're the best team in the world is nothing but an honor. So thank you all. Thank you. I just wanted to add a few things kind of for those who kind of haven't followed our season this year. This team started like, like every year we, we start with. The aspirations to win a championship. Two years ago, we certainly were excited to win our first championship this year. Started off not so well for us. We. We got off to a two and six start and there were no thoughts of, you know. This trophy coming back to Denver at that point. But it's the. Testament of. The team, the coaches and the players. They believed in. Themselves and they kept. Fighting and they kept winning game after game. After game until it became a reality of us winning eight. Straight. Games and then certainly winning another championship and bringing it back to Denver. So we're extremely excited for. Where we're at with them with another championship and hopefully. More to come and being back here next. Year again for another proclamation. So thank you guys so much for having us. Congratulations. Ten trophies is impressive, I'm telling you. Okay. Last proclamation of the evening council. Martell, will you please read Proclamation 806?

Consider Directing Staff to Create a Proposed Ordinance Relative to a Transitional Retention Period upon Change of Ownership, Control or Operation of Grocery Stores. (Councilmember Oddie)

AlamedaCC_02032015_2015-1295

Council Referrals is considered directing staff to create a proposed ordinance relative to a transitional retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of a grocery. And I'm going to hand this off to member ODIASE. It's his referral. Thank you, Madam Mayor. As the as the referral says, requests of the city council direct the appropriate, I guess it should now say city manager because I wrote this before I was schooled on the proper way to write a referral to return and to draft to return to the City Council proposed ordinance relative to a transitional retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of grocery stores. And I attached as a reference the grocery worker retention ordinance that the City of Los Angeles adopted. So just to kind of go over the highlights of of what the ordinance does, you know, new owners of large grocery stores are required to hire previous employees, excluding managers for at least 90 days after the store re-opens, the previous owner prepares a list of non managerial employees with at least six months employment and the new owner is to hire from that list during the 90 day transition period. The new owners to only discharge the hired employees for cause during the transition period. The new owner is to pay a written evaluation of each employees performance at the end of the transition period, and the new owner is to consider offering continued employment if the employee's performance is satisfactory. This ordinance is to protect the workers that work at grocery stores. As City of Los Angeles passes in 2005, it went through considerable amount of litigation until the California Supreme Court in Cal Owners Association versus City of L.A. 52 Cal fourth 177, now upheld the city's rights to temporarily preserve the status quo during transition of of grocery store ownership. And, you know, here in Alameda, you know, we do have one store, you know, that I think is in imminent risk of of possible closure. And that's the Lucky's over on the West End with the new Safeway now. This bill is being considered. You know, it may be considered at the state level, but, you know, my fear is that, you know, any state legislation would not be implemented in time to protect the workers over at Lucky's. And, you know, we wouldn't be going on a limb doing the only city that does this. San Francisco has this Santa monica gardenia. Other cities have other similar ordinances protecting other classes of workers. San Jose Airport, Oakland hospitality workers, Emeryville Hotel workers, Berkeley Marina workers. And then the state actually has a janitorial worker retention law in the labor code. You know, the mayor today, you know, referred to Cesar Chavez. We heard from the the recycling workers. You know, it's kind of apropos of that. I didn't know they were going to do that presentation. But, you know, that we also, you know, look out in Alameda for, you know, our grocery workers. So I'm hoping this is something we could we could consider. I think there's a first reading and then, you know, if my colleagues like it, then it'll go to a second reading. But I I'll close after after public comment if there's any public comment. You do have one speaker. But before we do, we have clarifying questions as Mr. Otis presented this or we. Then I'm going to go ahead and call our speaker, my Canterbury. And thank you for being so patient. While you were moving at breakneck speed earlier, my Canterbury Alameda resident president of the Planning Board and representative for the Lucky Workers down at Marina Village. I was going through some papers because I was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle about the takeover of Safeway by Cerberus. So I went back and I was looking at my files. And in 2006, when Cerberus bought the old Albertson's from Boise, they bought the stores in Northern California prior to Save Mart, taking those stores over, rebranding them as Lucky's. It closed. They announced the closure of 46 stores in one day. It was not a good day for grocery workers then and things have not gotten much better in the industry since then. There's an awful lot of consolidation. You don't know who's going to be your boss from day to day. It's very unsettling for families. Just like families and recycling, there's real workers and real families behind those jobs. Same thing in the grocery industry. So Councilman Otis referral is a modest proposal. It adopts what L.A. and Santa monica and Gardena already have and retains the jobs in the grocery stores when a new owner comes in for 90 days, doesn't require the employer to keep everybody. It's a very, very modest proposal. As far as the Lucky's is concerned specifically, I would hope that that company would step up their game, remodel that store and compete with Safeway in asking those guys for the last seven years to do that. I haven't done so. I'm not sure they're going to until we really face a crisis with that membership. So your assistance on this would be greatly appreciated and it would really help out Alameda residents and workers. Thank you. Q. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. I thank Councilmember Ody for bringing this before us. What I wrote in my notes is that I certainly don't object to the principle that grocery workers or any workers, for that matter, should not lose jobs, their jobs, when a change in ownership occurs. But rather than just considering adopting Ella's ordinance outside and outside outright, I would I could support asking our city attorney's office to analyze and then advise on the implications for Alameda. And that's the sort of direction I could support, because although it's been described as a modest proposal, I would say that it is pretty detailed and I'm so, I'm sure appropriately so, coming from the city of Los Angeles, having gone all the way up to the state Supreme Court. I know there's a back story to these clauses, and they are perhaps, as Councilmember Ody indicated, based on state law, some provisions already in the Labor code. But I think that I would like to know and again, it to me it reads like a collective bargaining agreement and there is nothing wrong with a collective bargaining agreement. It's just that the collective aspect of it is missing here because we're just handed this document. So I, I, again, I support the principle that workers should not lose their jobs just because a new change of ownership comes in. On the other hand, I would want an analyst to analysis to look at are there other comparable methods that could be used to protect workers rights, severance packages, or some other sort of guarantee? Because the when you get down into the enforcement section one 81.05, this is very detailed about hiring and reinstatement rights and front or back pay for each day during which violations continues before our city enacts. That is an ordinance. I just want to hear from our city attorney's office what the implications are. I think, in fairness, we should probably hear from the business community as well. I would hope that we have good, reputable businesses who also want to see working families be able to support themselves and their family members. So and also, I would just note that I think there is some redundancy. I think a couple of sections got listed twice at the bottom portion of this. This ordinance anyway. Those are. Those are the the concerns that I have. But I'm I'm generally supportive, again, with the principle. Thank you. Thank you. Any member decide. Sir, thank you very much. Madam Mayor, I think this is a very interesting item, which I think I certainly would love to support. It's not the type of thing that we generally deal with on city council, but I think you really have to look at the issue. And then if you if you take the time to realize, to think about it, this is an issue that we actually deal with. It is within the purview of city council, particularly even when we frame it as a grocery store related issue in terms of law and in terms of of court cases. Certainly, there is a special place that grocery stores play have when it comes to the land use, especially, particularly with regard to grocery stores that are that anchor certain shopping centers and that are foot traffic generating. There's a lot of. Law. Built around that and there's a lot of case of court cases built around that. And so this is a right area for cities, for city councils to get engaged in on in terms of going beyond land and grocery stores and land use implications. You know, basically what I'm getting at is, you know, when Walmart opens up, there's a lot of discussion regarding, you know, how it might impact existing grocery stores. And so based upon those discussions, there's a lot of court cases with regard to to how those impacts are treated now. But what Councilmember Odie is bringing up has to do with labor relations. And insofar as the city of Los Angeles, this ordinance has been vetted by court cases up to the Supreme Court, California Supreme Court. I believe that, you know, to the extent that that that it's framed similar to what LA's ordinance is, it seems to be , you know, certainly reasonable that that that city council should should be supportive of something that that seems to be accepted. And when it comes to, you know, helping out working families, we don't normally get engaged in. These operational levels. But I but I don't see why not. I think the earlier discussion that raised by the residents, by the workers at ECI certainly raises issues that maybe this city council we we might contemplate, you know, going outside of our of our of of of our what we usually do. I mean, it shouldn't be just left to the cities of Berkeley or city of Oakland or San Francisco or Santa monica to deal with living, wage type of issues, worker rights or, you know, I think middle of the road, medium sized cities like Alameda have something to say about these kinds of issues. But back on to the point that Councilmember Ody has raised. I look forward to this discussion. I guess I don't want to repeat what people have said. I think it's important for us, particularly because we live in a very expensive part of the country to protect. Workers from bakeries of large corporation. Moves. And I think the grocery businesses we're going to see something firsthand in Alameda, as it was pointed out with the lucky at Marina Village. I'm the only of. Additions that I would have to this referral is to include the city attorney in the in the direction to. Craft the, uh, the draft ordinance for discussion. And I look forward to when we have that discussion. So thank you. And my comments go to I I'd like to know specifically which other cities have what ordinances. If it's Santa monica, Gardena and Los Angeles, which was hear and see the differences between those ordinances, when I looked up the California State Supreme Court, which was California Grocers Grocers Association versus the city of Los Angeles. It's my understanding that that turned on providing safe food to the community and that you had trained employees who were able to do their job. And the concern was that we had to continue to provide safe food. And I appreciate the comments that were here. When you the attachment from Los Angeles, it specifically provides that the city has an interest in ensuring the welfare of the residents of these communities through the maintenance of health and safety standards in grocery establishments that experienced grocery workers with knowledge of proper sanitation procedures, health regulations and understanding of the clientele and communities they serve are instrumental in furthering that interest and that transition and retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of grocery stores ensures the stabilization of the workforce, which results in preservation of health and safety standards. So my understanding of this case was that the intent was truly to protect the health and safety of the community, as we are all dependent upon grocery stores for food and that, and then we are dependent upon that. This court held experienced employees to provide that food to the community. So I personally and I was in some there were some mention of other cities that have other ordinances, and I'm not familiar with those. But so if this is framed as a health and safety issue, then I would think that all of us would be in support of that. Not to speak for anyone else. And that is what different differentiates it from other types of businesses. I would also like to know and agreement with member Ashcraft. I'd like to know now this speaks to 15,000 square feet that it pertains to businesses, grocery stores that are at least 15,000 square feet. And I'm not sure which I'd like to know and the staff report what stores it would actually apply to specifically in Alameda. And in that case, the Los Angeles case, as far as I know, is the one that was tested and went to the California Supreme Court. So I. It's important to me that we try to honor what was already tested so that we don't find ourself in litigation because this was this did go through litigation. So but the other city but Los Angeles did the other cities that were referenced, I don't know if they modeled after Los Angeles, but that and if they are, my guess would be they have not gone up to the Supreme Court. So. But I would like to see the differences in those if it's available. But as it applies to and then I would agree with the speaker. Lucky is in Marina Village. I personally do shop there, as do I think many people in the area. And given now that we have safe way to protect this store, I would agree that lot of lucky could consider remodeling the store, visiting the store to keep the store going. Ideally, I think that the we know we now have two safe ways to add a different store, a large grocery store I would support and I would encourage Lucky to come and visit our store and we'd be happy to walk around and show you our concerns, express your concerns because it is a viable business in our community. And then in regards to staff's time, I think it's fair to say we have given this stuff many new items to be looking at. And what is the priority of this? If there's a way and I and I don't know. You know, I don't know how much time this is going to take, but I know you have a lot on your plate and we have priorities. For instance, the budget development traffic. There's been quite a few referrals lately. I appreciate that. I'll confer with the city attorney, but I believe we can bring this is the first meeting of February. We should be able to bring something back in April for this. And that will be plenty of time for us to do the necessary research and still make the agenda. Appreciate I appreciate the consideration of the council that there are a number of items that are on our plate. And with the the budget beginning to loom large for us on staff and it's a two year budget, so it doesn't happen all the time. It is a limited staff. So I think I think, you know, certainly, April, we can bring this back. And my bet, my recollection is in regards to the budget process, that it will be a lengthy process. So I appreciate staff being agreed agreeable to taking this on. Do we have a motion? I'd like to move. Council member Otis referral. Um, with the specification to direct the city manager and the city attorney to work together to draft this ordinance, including delivering a report that talks about the impacts that specifies the impact of stores in alameda. That would. Fall under such an ordinance that analyzes the differences between ordinances that are out there and Los Angeles being the test case and to be in consideration for what may be specific to Alameda. Second, that motion. And. At this point it was you refer over you like to make any other comments. You know, when I when I was an attorney, you know, and the judge was ruling in your favor, you kind of shut up and didn't say anything. So I think I'm going to heed to that. But I will say in my closing, you know, was that one of the goals it would accomplish was ensure standards of service , compliance with health and safety standards that they remain in place when stores change hands. And, you know, I think important here is this law would apply equally to unionized and non-unionized work workplaces. So if a Trader Joe's closed and they met the threshold of the size, you know, then somebody else who bought that store would also now they wouldn't be forced to collectively bargain. You know, but the employees that work there and I think that was kind of the key on which the the case turned, because I believe that the the Grocers Association was was making the argument that it was force collective bargaining and that was the critical thing that kept the ordinance alive . So I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this. Any other comments? And so just for clarification, and I think we've crafted something that I can support. We are going to have both the city attorney and the city manager do an analysis of this as it would apply to Alameda. I would assume that that happens on all ordinances. No. Oh yeah. Turning. Yeah, it does. Although on as it does I mean different items. But it was classified in the motion. So it's good answers. Yes. Call the question. All those in. Favor. I oppose the abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. And thank you, everybody, for bringing this to us. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our next item is Council Communications. Council members may address any matter not on the agenda, including reporting on conferences, meetings member Ashcroft.

Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-15

DenverCityCouncil_03022015_14-1096

Thank you. Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Deirdre Rose, Community Planning and Development. Before you as an application for a site in northeast Denver at 1770 200 is 36th Avenue. This is a proposed rezoning from sx3, which is suburban context mixed use three storey two smc's five or five story can in the Northeast in Council District 11, this is at the southwest corner of Quebec Street and 36th Avenue, just west of Stapleton, across Quebec. The applicant property owner is Quebec property one and two. Jeff Grassy The applicant is here tonight to answer questions. Current zoning on the site is SRM X three proposed as SRM x five. The subject property is to the north is some x three zoning also the same zoning as well as SCC three x. That is a suburban commercial corridor. Three story zoning to the south is ba3a business district from former Chapter 59 that was never rezone during the 2010 update. It's in a planned building group and then to the West as ESU, RDX or urban edge as a single unit d x, which allows both suburban and urban form homes on the subject site is a vacant parcel, and to the south of that site is a corridor along Quebec. You may remember this corridor is the Stapleton kind of the hotel corridor in the seventies that is transitioned over time. This is one of the redevelopments in that lower picture to the south. Please. And then to the north there is a hotel and a restaurant to the west. This to the west is an alley. And then the rear yards of the neighborhood to the west side and then to the east is Quebec, which is a fairly large arterial split as a not a parkway, but with greenspace going in between the north and south directions. The rezoning application is submitted to various agencies for comment. We've received no substantial comments from any of our review agencies and our survey for the site has been approved. Notice in public review it has been sent out from informational notice sent on October 24th, Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 8 to 0. There were three letters of opposition from neighbors, not necessarily adjacent neighbors, but no one actually came to the hearing to speak against the item. Neighborhood and Planning Committee meeting was held in January 7th and notice was sent for city council. The Register neighborhood organizations included here included greater Greater Park Hill Community and Stapleton United Neighbors. We haven't received an official response from these Arnaud's. The review criteria for rezoning include consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. We also look at justifying circumstances for the rezoning and then consistency with the neighborhood context, the zone district purpose and the intent. So within our adopted plans, we have comprehensive plan 2000. We have Blueprint Denver, our land use and transportation plan, and then a fairly older plan of Park Hill neighborhood plan. I'll go over a brief highlights. These are also in your staff report in greater detail within comprehensive plan. 2000 highlighted our policies regarding legacies and land use to encourage quality infill development, encouraging redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land, identifying areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Certainly vacant parcels along corridors that are redeveloping to fit that description and conserving land throughout the city by promoting infill where services and infrastructure are already in place. And in this case, by virtue of the fact that it is adjacent to Quebec and to 36th, an existing infrastructure, that that situation does exist within Blueprint Denver, the site is actually identified as single family residential. This is one of those sites within the city that taken out a 30,000 foot view blueprint. Denver didn't look at every parcel in great detail and certainly parcels along the Quebec corridor, which has historically been commercial, would be fit into one of those parcels that deserve further analysis. Within Blueprint Denver, there is a concept called Reinvestment Area, and even in an area of stability, you do have areas that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill or redevelopment or major projects in a smaller area. In this particular vacant site that is to the east of a stable residential neighborhood. Fitz fits that description. Staff believes, and it is a reinvestment area for targeted growth. Quebec is identified as a commercial arterial, which is one of the very most widespread commercial street types. It's historically auto oriented. Over time, we have seen, especially with our mixed use districts in the new code street and sidewalk improvements with new development that provide a better pedestrian friendly access to these sites. Because Stapleton's to the east and Stapleton has been an area of change and has generated a lot of commercial activity. There is actually quite a bit of pedestrian activity that comes from the west across Quebec. So the connection to the area of change generating a lot of the improvements is important in this case and the site is pivotal to that. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies that there's a need to develop vacant land with compatible context sensitive uses. Quebec is designated in that plan as a Quebec street corridor, where it's encouraged to maintain the viability of the corridor. And that also means looking at transitions in land use over time. Certainly when the hotels in Stapleton left, there were definitely opportunities for that transition to occur. Also to create sensitive transitions between commercial industrial uses and residential areas, improving corridors and other shopping nodes for residents in adjacent neighborhoods, and then voluntary urban design guidelines were sort of established in that plan to encourage pedestrian oriented ground floor redevelopment. So some of the tenants in the plan would a would exist at least as plan guidance upon redevelopment of the site. The MAP Amendment does result in regulations that are uniform across the district. This means that the Smc's five or propose zone district for mixed use is already a mixed use district or simply asking for an increase in height that would result in the same application of that district at this site as it would anywhere else in the city where it's owned some x five. There are no waivers or conditions or special changes to this district on the site. The proposal furthers the public health, safety and welfare, provides for a modest reinvestment of major projects in a small area along the evolving Quebec corridor and development of vacant underutilized land promotes eyes in the street and improves the neighborhood edge. Within justifying circumstances pursuant to Arizona Code Section 1214 eight, the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area. Again, it's west of Stapleton, along a commercial arterial that has historically been developed as a nonresidential land use. Now this is continuing to evolve it so that there is even a better transition to the residential to the West. The same X5 district suburban context which is characterized by multiple uses, typically less vertical and mixed use that can be vertical mixed use. You do see some commercial strips in office parks. Reinvestment would allow for a variety of building forms to occur here for a modest increase in height at this location, sensitive transitions to the residential block to the west would would be afforded within this district. The intent of the some x five is to apply it to areas served by collectors or arterial streets where building heights of 1 to 5 stories are desired. Here's a little comparison for us. Some X three and some x five. So the district that it currently is zoned as some x three has a current height limitation of 45 feet. The request essentially asks for a height increase of 1515 feet to 70 feet, sorry, 25 feet and then storeys. There are three stories allowed. You would allow five storeys, so five storeys and 70 feet. The location for an some x three typically is on a slightly less busy streets, a local or collector streets. Here the S-Max five is appropriate for collectors or arterials. Upper story setbacks are also important at this location because it is to the west is the residential neighborhood in the SM x three where a building goes up to 27 feet high. There would be a 15 foot setback in into the site to provide for a height transition adjacent to residential in the SM x five. There's an additional 15 foot setback when you get the building at 51 feet. So there's a total of 35 feet setback if you have a building that's taller than 51 feet and that's not set back from the ground. It's an upper story setback, essentially. So with that and that comparison, CPD recommends approval of this zone district finding that all criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ross. We have one speaker this evening and Mr. Jeff Crosby. Yes, Mr. President. And City Council. My name is Jeff Grassi. I live in Denver at 463 Locust Street. I'm here to answer any questions that city council may have. All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Grandy. That concludes our speakers. Now, moving to questions, are there any questions of members of council? Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. Garza, can you just give us some idea of what you plan to put there? At this point, we would love to see something like a retirement home retirement center with retail space on the ground floor. Beauty shop, convenience store, that type of thing. We don't have any plans on the drawing boards. We're in the process of negotiating with another with a developer, actually, who's worked on some other projects with us and see what we can do with it. But as far as anything concrete, no, there's nothing really on the drawing board at this point. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions on accountability in 96? All right. Seen none. The public hearing on 1096 is closed on and we'll move to comments. And as this is in Council District 11, I will speak I something I drive by nearly every day an opportunity for something better than just this empty lot I am certainly excited about, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support this. I just do find it interesting that just east of the site is one of our infamous red light cameras at 36 in Quebec. So just thought I'd just throw that out just for a good laugh. All right. Any other comments from members of the Council on 1096? Scene and we are ready for roll call. Secretary Roll Call. BROOKS Hi. Brown Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. I. Monteiro. Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 1096 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and AEG Presents--Rocky Mountains, LLC to promote and book live concerts and events. Approves a commission contract with AEG Presents -- Rocky Mountains, LLC for $8,550,000 and through 12-31-22 to promote and book live concerts and events at Denver Arts & Venues facilities, including Denver Coliseum and Red Rocks Amphitheatre (THTRS-201952921-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-20-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-18-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03312020_20-0224

No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. All right. I'm secretary. If you please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Gilmore. Please put Council Resolution 2 to 4 on the floor. I move that council resolution 0224 be adopted. It hasn't been moved. Can I get a second from somebody who has a screen? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Council member CdeBaca. I think before we vote. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. For the next three contracts, I'm specifically calling them out because I believe that at a time like this, we need to be recalibrating and digging deep into our budget to reallocate dollars, more appropriately to meet the needs of this crisis. And I do not believe that these entertainment promoter contracts are relevant at this point and should absolutely be something that we're considering after we've had an opportunity to recalibrate. It's also important to note that these two companies, one in this contract and one in the next, are the competitors on the National Western Triangle projects and are also slated to receive a $5 million stipend just to compete for that project. And so I think these are dollars that we should be holding on to for now until we figure out how to absorb this crisis. So I just wanted to make sure to go on record as a no for this contract tonight. Thank you. Council member council member Kasich. Thank you so much. I appreciate my colleague pulling this out. I think that we do have a limited pool of ticket promoters in the city, and we had a pretty long explanation from our department about that. You know, these two individual companies have got a corner on the market, so to speak, and are very difficult to work with. But we also have major entertainment venues in the city like Red Rocks, which we hope will be up and running again. I just want to clarify, though, this $8.5 million contract, the source of the funds, I do not believe it is general fund dollars. So it is not something that we could repurpose for the virus. So can the administration just speak to these are revenue contracts? I believe so. In terms of these these are not dollars we can free up. I certainly share some concerns about these companies. But I just want to make clear on what where the source of the funding is. Sure. Sky sought mayor's office. Thanks for the question. Arts and Venues operates as a special revenue fund, so the dollars come out of that special revenue fund. These are also commission contracts, so they only pay out in the case that the promoter actually books the show and the city receives revenue from that show. The intent of these commission contracts is actually to increase city revenues with concessions and ticket sales associated with these large events that get booked in those facilities. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to share in the spirit of Councilmember City Barker's comments and that pretty much all the comments that we've received from our constituents have been frustrated with both vendors and their customer service or lack thereof. Unfortunately, it does sound like these are the only vendors that have the the kind of infrastructure and size to to support a an operation as big as the city county Denver bite. But I would love to take this opportunity to say for both of these vendors, we would love for you to to improve your customer service so that you can service everyone in the city and all of your, you know, all of your customers. But particularly we're frustrated as as a as a district office, as a council district office, with the with all the comments of lack of customer service by both of these vendors. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandbach you back up? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. It would be helpful if you could come back up, Skye. I do have a question about how contracts that were booked or performers that were booked, how we're handling that. A lot of artists that I know are recognizing that their contracts didn't allow them to get out of scheduled performances without a cost to them. And so I'm wondering how these concert bookings that we've had through these companies are being dealt with when they're canceled. Sure. Again, Skye Stewart, mayor's office. We did not have subject matter experts here tonight. We were asked to keep attendance low and didn't and weren't prepared to have questions asked of us. We were just told this was called out for a vote. So I'm sorry, I cannot answer that question. I can certainly have arts and arts and venues follow up with you to provide some information, but I don't know that off the top of my head. Is do you know what other things special revenue funds for arts and venues are spent on? So arts and venues itself is a special revenue fund. Their entire budget is encompassed in a special revenue fund, so that's all available in the budget book and again, can have them follow up with you if you'd like some more detail. So so that means that all the dollars there can be spent on. Any of the components of their operations as needed, correct? Their their entire budget is a special revenue fund or actually multiple special revenue funds. So yes, that goes to all of their operations and they are divided up in different buckets associated with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Clint Skye, stay there for a second. Thank you. Just to clarify, so that I'm that I'm certain about this, this is not an expenditure contract. This is a contract that pays a commission to these two, in this case, AEG. And then in the next resolution, live nation from the from the amounts of revenue that they derive from staging the event, this pays them a commission on that. So it's not funds that are coming out of a city fund as such. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call. I don't. See tobacco. No black flame. I Gillmor. Herndon Times. High. Cashman by Kenny Ortega Sandoval Torres Council President. I am secretary. With our convoluted voting process here, give you a second to get them all registered. Please close the voting. Announce the results.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Youth Commission; amending Sections 3.67.020, 3.67.030, 3.67.050, and 3.67.060 and repealing Section 3.67.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_CB 118661

Agenda item for Constable 118661. Relating to the Seattle Youth Commissioner. Many sections 3.60 7.0 20.0 or 30.0 50.0 60. And repealing section 33.60 7.07. Ms. because the committee recommends the bill pass. Council Member Burgess. Thank you. In just a moment, we're going to consider 13 appointments to the Seattle Youth Commission. And this particular ordinance changes the nature of the commission a little bit. It reduces the membership from 25 to 15. It shifts the representation to the seven council districts to make sure that each council district has at least one member on the commission. It changes the term of service for the youth commissioner from one year to two years, and it syncs that appointment period up with the academic school year. It amends language around the annual youth town hall, which is required by the current current ordinance and broadens that so that the Youth Commission can sponsor events including a town hall if they wish, throughout the year and not just one year. It has more general language that allows the appointment of two co-chairs instead of just one chair, and it shifts responsibility for the commission from the Mayor's office to the Department of Neighborhoods. And then it gives authority to the Commission to write their own bylaws and to establish rules for how they will govern the Commission. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues? I do want to say thank you for making these changes. My son was once a commissioner on this youth council. And I'll tell you, they are really dynamic. They are the issues and the maturity that these young folks show us is incredible. And they are really into inclusiveness, making inclusiveness, making sure that underrepresented groups are heard, all schools are heard. So I think this is a commission that really, really carries a huge weight and allows us to hear from the voice of our youth. So thank you very much for this changes hearing no other comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Bagshaw Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold. Johnson Juarez. I O'Brien High St i. President Harrell, I. 9 a.m. favored unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item items five through 17 into the record.

Recommendation to receive and file the recommendations of the Economic Development Commission and the report from the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation titled "Considering Minimum Wage Policy in the City of long Beach: Theory, Practice and Potential Implications;" or Direct City Manager to provide additional information relative to the implementation of a minimum wage policy in the City of Long Beach; or Direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the implementation of a minimum wage policy in the City of Long Beach to be returned to the City Council for its first reading. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01192016_16-0043

Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Superman. Councilwoman. Mango. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Thank you. So I need everyone to please, please sit down and quiet down, please, so we can get this started. Thank you very much, madam. Kirk, if you can please read the item, it's up, please. Communication from Economic and Property Development and Financial Management. Recommendation to receive and file the recommendations of the Economic Development Commission. And the report from the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. Or direct the City Manager to provide additional information relative to the implementation of a minimum wage policy or direct the city attorney to prepare an ordinance for the implementation of a minimum wage policy citywide. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over, obviously, to staff. I know they have an extensive presentation. I also believe as part of that presentation, we're going to have the EDC present, the report that this council commissioned as part of the study. And then we'll go into obviously council comments, public comment, deliberation, that whole part of it. I do want to just one note. Unless there's any objection from the Council just for purposes of making this efficient and because you're going to get a presentation at this hearing. If we don't mind, once EDC does their report, I'm going to I'm going to open it up for the council to ask all their questions of ADC as well as staff. And we get all those questions out of the way before we get into public comment. So unless there's any objection from that, that's a that's a direction we're going. It sounds like everyone's fine with that. Okay. So let me turn this over to the city manager. Mr. West Mayor, council members. Back in August, the city council asked us to look into the possibility of putting forth a minimum wage policy. Since that time, we've engaged the L.A. EDC, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. You're going to hear that report tonight. So this is going to be primarily from our director of Economic and Property Development, Mike Conway. Bureau Manager Juan Lopez Rios. And then we also have Christine Cooper of the L.A. DC, who will participate as well. So I'll turn this over to Juan Lopez Rios. Good evening. Garcia members of the City Council on behalf of the Economic Development Commission, the Department of Economic and Property Development is pleased to bring forth the Commission's recommendations for consideration by the City Council for the implementation of a minimum wage policy for the City of Long Beach. As part of our presentation, Ms.. Christine Cooper, senior vice president with the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, will provide an overview of the report commissioned by the Council titled Considering Minimum Wage Policy in the City of Long Beach. On August 11th, 2015, the City Council directed the city manager to request a report from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, L.A., EDC, regarding the implementation of a minimum wage policy in the city of Long Beach. On September 15th, 2015, the City Council authorized the execution of an agreement with the L.A. EDC for a report which would review similar studies and other literature regarding a minimum wage policy review. The best practices of other municipalities relative to their minimum wage policies. Review the economic environment and socio economic conditions of Long Beach. Review the potential movement of jobs and workers across municipal boundaries and survey a random sample of 600 businesses to understand business response to a minimum wage policy. The scope of the report also included a public outreach and participation model in the form of six public meetings held throughout the city for the receipt of public comment on the issues and concerns regarding the implementation of a minimum wage policy. Three of the public meetings were held on September 29th, October 5th and October 29th, 2015. Prior to the release of the report and were hosted by the Economic Development Commission, the Office of the Mayor and the Economic Development and Finance Committee. The report was released to the public on November 13th, 2015. Following the release of the report, the remaining three public meetings hosted by the same entities were held on November 17th, 20th and 24th 2015. The EDC was in attendance at all six public meetings. Ms. Cooper will discuss the comments and concerns raised in public testimony as part of her presentation. In addition to its regularly scheduled meetings on September 29th and November 24th, the Economic Development Commission scheduled two additional special meetings for December 14th, 2015 and January 6th, 2016. These special meetings allowed for the continued discussion of the benefits, detriments and unintended unintended consequences of increasing the minimum wage and provided for two additional opportunities for the continued receipt of public testimony. The Economic Development Commission also received two formal presentations the first from the Economic Roundtable regarding their October 2015 report titled Long Beach Raising a City That Works Forever, and the second from the Long Beach Council of Business Associations. Regarding their December 2015 report titled Survey on Organizational Impacts of a Minimum Wage Increase in Long Beach. Supplemental information was also provided to the Economic Development Commission for their consideration, which included a memo providing the business survey results from the L.A. EDC report in a weighted format by size the firm and a memo from the city's Department of Financial Management presenting possible fiscal impacts to the city as a result of the implementation of a minimum wage policy. At this time. It is my pleasure to introduce Ms.. Christine Cooper from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Thank you so much. Garcia Council Member Dr. Cooper? Dr. Cooper. Yes, thank you, Christine. It's my pleasure. Here to talk about the study that we performed for the city of Long Beach in its review of consideration of minimum wage policy. There was scope, as you saw, we did review the literature related to minimum wage policy in municipalities at the state level and both theoretical, academic and empirical evidence as to the effects. We did look at other policies that have been implemented in other municipalities and where they were going. We estimated the impact in Long Beach on both employees and employers and we conducted a survey of Long Beach businesses. And as one said, we did attend every open forum meeting to hear the comments that were provided by both the residents, workers and the business owners. So just to start talking about Long Beach residents and the characteristics, just a few data points that the report does have quite a lot of data, but rather than than spend a lot of time on that, I just wanted to share some of them with you. The age distribution is kind of an interesting data point that we like to look at because it gives you an indication of whether the city is growing within or not. If you have a large, younger population, these are going to age into it working adults. And so we see that 70% of the residents here in Long Beach are working age. 15 to 64. Actually, the age distribution in Long Beach is not much different than L.A. County. The reason we compared this to L.A. County is because in many of our meetings, we heard that the characteristics of the City of Long Beach was different than elsewhere. And actually, we found that it's not that much different from the L.A. County average. In fact, you're a little bit younger. Yeah. Household by size. This is another indication potentially of the standard of living. There's 162,000 households in Long Beach. The, you know, a larger number of households, a percentage of households with many residents might indicate a lower the standard of living. Again, here we find that Long Beach, the average household size, is 2.87 residents, which is less than the L.A. County average of three. Households by income. The median household income in Long Beach is $54,511 compared to the Los Angeles County average, our median of 55,746. So it's a little bit lower, but not so significantly lower budget expenditures. We like to look at this because, again, we hear everywhere in the Southland that housing consumes a large portion of people's household budgets . And this is quite true. In Long Beach, the average household expenditures are just less than $70,000 compared to the L.A. larger L.A. Orange County region of about 79,000. Almost 38% is consumed in housing, almost 14% in transportation costs, and 12% in food. Now there are many employed residents. And what do they do? We separate these out into three different categories of occupations white collar, blue collar and services. So white collar is really sales, office management and professional type of work. Blue collar is construction, production and transportation and services is repair and maintenance. Food prep and serving. Community Services. Office and administrative. And architects, actually. So this distribution of occupation, occupational type of employment for the residents of Long Beach is also very similar to the larger Los Angeles County average. We look at poverty levels as well, the individual poverty level here. This is a ratio of income to poverty level. Individuals who live in a household household income determines a poverty rate. So any individual in a household is in poverty. Is is in poverty. The individual poverty rate in Long Beach is 21.1%, which is higher than Los Angeles County. Approximately 17.7% of households in Long Beach live below the poverty level. And I think you will hear that the poverty level is is quite low and very difficult to live on. So that's the residential characteristics. But we also like to see what kind of jobs here are provided by businesses. So this is showing firms and employment by size of of of employer, by size of company. So we have very small firms, 1 to 4 or 5 to 9, 10 to 19. And the blue bars are showing how many firms there are in these business sizes. And the the the beige bars are showing what percentage of jobs are in those companies. So, for example, very small firms, 1 to 4 employees account for 54% of all firms in language, but only 7.6% of employment. And that makes sense if there is a small firm doesn't have as many employees for the aggregate, IT firms with between one and 19 employees account for 84% of firms and 26% of employees. So this is important when you think about considering what a small businesses and how how many employees the policy might impact. The employment by industry. This is also quite typical of a municipality. The largest industry sector is education and health. This is mostly social assistance, mostly health, but most of that is social assistance. Professional and business services includes a wide range of different jobs and businesses. The government sector is fairly large here in Long Beach. Leisure and hospitality is also quite significant. That, of course, is mostly restaurants. Food, food, food prep and serving retail trade typically takes up approximately 10% of employment. So they're not. All jobs in Long Beach are held by Long Beach residents. So this shows us where the workers who work in Long Beach actually live. So of all the people who work in Long Beach, 25.8% live in Long Beach. 11% live in the city of L.A.. Another 31% live in other parts of L.A. County and so on. That the number of of actual workers in Long Beach who live in Long Beach is about 42,700. So this is 165,000 jobs. Approximately 74% are held by outsiders. We can look at the flip side of that, where we see where long people who live in Long Beach, where do they work? And there's about approximately 186,000 people who live in Long Beach and work somewhere and 77% of them commute elsewhere. So these are kind of important considerations as you think about what kind of a policy you're going to implement. We did estimate the potential impact of a minimum wage increase at the time when we did the study. There wasn't a policy that was actually developed or proposed, so we assumed that a policy similar to that recently adopted by L.A. City and L.A. County would be the one that you would be considering. And that one, you know, did go from ten, 1050 in July of this year to $15 in 2020. So, of course, in order to do that, we have to assume a certain number of wage growth over time and job growth over time. And we also assume that when you raise the minimum wage to whatever level it is, $12, say the people who had been earning $12 already, would also receive some increase. As as as you move up the scale so that there was a wage compression effect. So this were these were our estimates for the cumulative impacts of the minimum wage increase that we saw at $12, which would have been implemented in 2017. The number of job holders impacted in Long Beach would be approximately 33,000. That would represent approximately 18.5% of all job holders in the city. An average annual increase in earnings of each individual would be on average, $940 a year. And the aggregate increase in the wage bill for all those workers, including those subject to wage compression, was $30.9 million that we did also estimate for 2020. And those numbers are, of course, higher. So in the best case and I'll talk about that in just a moment. If all existing earners or workers who were minimum wage received this increase in earnings. 33,000 workers would earn an average of $940 more more per year at $12 an hour. And 45,700 workers would earn an average of approximately 5000 per year, which is a significant increase. So well the impact on workers, then we would assume and can expect that some will earn more and will spend more. They may work harder because they're earning more and they will probably be happier. More people may join the local the local labor market because they would be induced to join the market at a higher wage rate. And perhaps it's it would offset additional costs for transportation. But some may be pushed out of the out of work in the formal market or may have to work informally if they have to compete with better workers at those rates. So we also know that an increase in labor costs is going to be an increase in business costs. So the aggregate wage bill for $12 per hour at a minimum would be approximately 30.9 million in Long Beach. That's going to be have to be borne by businesses. And again, more at $15. This does not include other wage related costs, such as workers comp or payroll taxes, which could probably add another 10 to 15%. Well, employers, you adjust. If. They are faced with an increase in costs. There are just a number of channels they can choose. They can pass cost increases through to their customers through increased prices. They can choose to increase the productivity of their workers. And there's a couple of ways they can do that. They could hire better skilled employees or they could assist their current employees with better machinery, replace them with some machines to some extent. So those are ideas of how businesses might improve the productivity of their labor at a higher cost. They could reduce costs. But as many businesses have probably said, if there were costs that they could reduce, they would have done so already. So when they're thinking about reducing costs from an increase in labor costs, they'll likely try to offset that with a reduction in other labor costs, such as benefits or overtime, and they can absorb costs through reduced profits. If they can't find an adjustment mechanism and their costs are increasing, they're just going to take a hit. So if we think about that, the worst case. 14,000 workers are directly at risk of losing hours or jobs or being substituted if that if the minimum wage was $12. These are directly affected workers. These aren't the ones that are or that would be impacted through wage compression. And 20,700 workers would be at risk of losing hours or jobs or being substituted at $15. And we really don't know how much that would what the balance would be here. So Long Beach businesses did reply to our survey. It was the goal was really to to learn what their perspective reactions would be. It was a telephone survey. 600 completed surveys were received. The survey was segmented by firm size because their responses might have been different for smaller companies and larger companies. We also segmented by geographic region because we did hear that the South Long Beach businesses were different than the North Long Beach businesses. I will say that a lot of the responses were in undecided. They really didn't understand, didn't have an idea for sure of how they would respond. The results were a 95% confidence interval with a sampling error of plus or -4.1%, which is a little bit larger of a sampling error for the subsegments when we when we break it down. So what did the businesses believe that they will do with their workforce, or how many will this one here? How many actually have minimum wage workers? 40% of respondents have minimum wage workers. This is kind of interesting. 60% of respondents did not have minimum wage workers. The current minimum wage, which at that time was $9, but another 27%, did have workers between nine and 1325, which is the next step. So we were asked to provide results. Weighted by firm size. So these I'm showing these results as well. They did not significantly change. We could have weighted it as well by respondents that actually had minimum wage workers, or we could have weighted it by the geographic location of the firms. But we we reported all the results. Most minimum wage workers in Long Beach are full time and most of them are permanent. How would businesses? Would they reduce employment? 67% of respondents said they would not reduce their number of minimum wage workers. 30%, although, were undecided. 76% of respondents said they would not reduce the hours of their minimum wage workers, and the remaining were undecided. And 78% of respondents said they would not invest in automation. And 20% of those were also undecided. How about relocation or closure? We often hear that businesses will move to another location to avoid the minimum wage policy. 80% of respondents said they would not relocate their business. The remainder were undecided. 100% of respondents, reflecting the perennial optimism of business owners, said they will not close their business. There were no undecideds in this category. 89% of respondents do not expect their profits to increase. Would they increase their prices? 70% of respondents said they would increase their prices. 78% believe the minimum wage workers will be happier and more productive, and 49% will add duties to their current workers. So in the aggregate, we know that some workers will be paid more. Some businesses will face higher costs. But there really is no definitive evidence supporting the balance of effects so that we can find out at what level everyone is made better off. So I'd just like to leave you with a couple of thoughts. One is the idea that hiring better skilled workers over the lesser skilled workers is probably going to impact those with the least skills the most. And those are the ones that we'd like to help the best. There has been there will continue to be a long term trend towards automation and efficiency. As we have seen through the 20th century and the 21st century, we're just becoming so much more automated. And additionally, marginal firms facing increased business costs will close and those remaining will be more efficient. And you do have to think about the regional dynamics as there are other constituents, other municipalities in your region that will impact the results in your city. So not all firms can raise their prices if they have competition right across the border. And you will be competing for labor, you will be able to choose more labor, but you will have to compete for the best. So just a few notes about the open forums and I attended every one of them. The first three forums before the release of the study, there were approximately 50 speakers, half in favor of or speaking on behalf of workers and half speaking on behalf of business. There were three more after the release and approximately 80 speakers. There were the ratio of workers interest versus business interests was about 2 to 1. Several individuals spoke at multiple forums, and the general themes were very consistent. The employees and workers, if you have been at them, you will have heard many personal stories of hardship, difficulty of making ends meet, working long hours, how more income would impact their lives and their families. You would have heard many discussion of misclassification and wage theft issues, which are clearly illegal. You would have heard that raising wages would impact local spending. You would have heard students and nonprofit organizations. Speak out against exemptions. And by the the last few meetings, you would have heard consistently about the Long Beach way, which was a coalescing around four major themes $15 wage paid sick days, no exemptions and city led enforcement. Similarly, had you attended them and heard all of the speakers, you would have heard the small businesses feel. Small business owners often feel as if they are at one with their employees. They have very thin profit margins and would find it difficult to absorb higher costs. Nonprofits express a great deal of concern about their reimbursements, which may be fixed so they wouldn't be able to raise their costs and their service levels may be impacted. Price increases and reduced employment. These were common responses that businesses faced and expressed. Restaurant owners spoke out frequently about their tipped employees and not having full compensation considered as a minimum wage and leveling the playing field. Excuse me was also heard quite frequently too. To make this a statewide issue. Rather than a competition between jurisdictions. So I think that's broadly the study. Thank you, Christine. Thank you. I know we're going to have questions from the council on the study. And as soon as we finish up this part of the city presentation, we're gonna go back to you, doctor. Then we'll go. Will continue. So back to see stuff. Go ahead. Yeah. Oh, Christine has it. On January six, 2016, the Economic Development Commission met to consider all relevant data and testimony and deliberate over benefits, deficits and unintended consequences of a minimum wage policy by a unanimous vote. The Economic Development Commission moved to forward the following recommendations to the City Council for its consideration of a minimum minimum wage policy in the city of Long Beach beginning January 1st, 2017. The minimum wage shall be 1050 per hour beginning January 1st, 2018. The minimum wage shall be $12 per hour beginning January 1st, 2019. The minimum wage shall be $13 per hour. Small businesses and nonprofit corporations shall receive a one year delay in implementation. And small businesses are defined as 25 or less employees. In addition, the Economic Development Commission requests the City Council's consideration of the following items in its discussion that the City Council will take a leadership role in seeking to change state legislation regarding tipped employees and evaluate whether this can be controlled at the local level. Consideration for sick days and wage theft enforcement. Consider requesting a report to be presented to City Council in 2021, evaluating the impacts of a minimum wage policy following full implementation to consider and explore actions that would help mitigate negative effects on businesses and training programs resulting from a higher minimum wage. The Department of Financial Management analyze the potential risks and fiscal impact to the city of a minimum wage ordinance, as there is no concurrent ordinance. In effect, major assumptions were made due to limitations of available data in order to estimate the fiscal impact. The analysis assumes the adoption of an ordinance mirroring that of the city of Los Angeles for areas where analyzes staff costs, contract costs, enforcement costs and small business incentive costs. At a $15 per hour minimum wage. The structural increase from fiscal year 17 to fiscal year 21 for staff costs is estimated at 1.5 million and all funds 1.4 million of which is in the general fund. These are costs due to increasing city employee salaries to minimum wage. Contract cost impact is potentially between 1.8 and 3.2 million in all funds approximately 339000 to 531000 of which is in the general fund. These are costs from city contractors potentially passing on their increased costs for staffing. Enforcement options fall into three categories. Option one is state enforcement providing minimal fiscal impacts to the city. Option two is a combination of state enforcement, augmented with city efforts and communication, outreach and support. Option to fiscal impacts are estimated between 431,000 and 725,000. Option three contemplates a support and enforcement model based on the county's model. Option three fiscal impacts are estimated at 1.3 million. Incentive programs fall into two categories. Incentives to only new small businesses provide for a fiscal impact estimated at 444,000. Incentives to all small businesses provide for a fiscal impact estimated at 4.1 million. Tonight's recommendation proposes a minimum wage of up to $13 per hour by 2019. By 2012, for small businesses and non-profits, the total structural increases from fiscal year 17 to fiscal year 21 of a 13 per hour minimum wage are as follows. Staff costs are estimated at 850,303. In all funds, 798000 to 54, of which is in the general fund. Contractor costs are estimated between 558,001.2 million. In all funds, approximately 115 to 202000, of which is in the general fund. There is no change to previous estimates for enforcement or incentive programs, depending on the actual provisions of any proposed minimum wage policy. City staff will review and revise the fiscal impacts accordingly. This concludes our report for this evening. I would like to thank Chair Colonna and the members of the Economic Development Commission, the staffs of Long Beach City College, the Expo Art Center, Admiral Kidd Park, the Bay Shore Neighborhood Library, the Department of Technology and Innovation. The Office of the City Clerk and the members of the Long Beach community for their participation in this endeavor. At this time, Christine Cooper from the Landsea, Leah Ericson from the Department of Financial Management and I are available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Let me let me just start, obviously, by thanking city staff. I want to thank particularly the L.A. EDC for the incredible work you guys did and a lot of work. And we appreciate that. And of course, everyone that was involved in the process. All of the the the advocates, the workers, the businesses, the students, everyone that came to a hearing, whether it was a roundtable or a larger discussion. I want to thank you all as we as we begin this discussion tonight, what I'd like to do right now is I have a someone that's cued up the vice president who actually introduced the original motion. And vice mayor, if there's no objection, I'd like to see first if the council has questions of the L.A., EDC or staff on the report so we can kind of get through all of those questions first and then before we move on to you and to the public. Are you okay with that? Okay. So let me begin. I'm just going to read as you've queued up here, if there are questions or you can stay in the queue for for the future. But I'll just go through these. So let me start let me start here. Councilman Richardson, you have any questions at this point for L.A. EDC? I'm okay with your direction. Okay. So, Councilman Mongeau. I guess I would need some direction on if this is for L.A. EDC or if it's for our own city attorney. I received several emails to my office and interacted with many members of the community, even at some of the forums, requesting a discussion regarding the concept of total earnings as an exemption. Are there any court cases on the concept for or against total earnings? And could you advise us a little bit about what that means? I think that's a question for Mr. City Attorney. Mayor and members of the council. The the short answer is no. There are no cases on point that would say that you could do a total earnings exemption. On the other hand, there's no cases on point that say you can't do it. The the the most recent version of the total there was a total earnings exemption and a lot of cases. Not a lot, but several of the cases talk about a tip credit and whether a credit is is legal. And there's various opinions on that one. The Legislative Council opinion, which was asked when City of Sacramento was considering something similar, said that they thought that that would be preempted under the law. They did also say in their opinion, though, that there are no specific cases on point, but that was the opinion of the Legislative Council. The most recent proposal varies a little bit. It talks about a total earnings exemption. Our officers met only once. We just recently received this proposal on January, I believe it was seventh. We had one meeting with the attorney who was suggesting that this is a possible alternative. But even he admits there are no cases that support that. This is his opinion. It does take into account total wages as it's as he was proposing it. The minimum wage standard established under a total earnings exemption would apply to any employee whose total earnings for the pay period, or at least the amount specified in the local minimum wage. And then when you apply that, if it doesn't equal that during the pay period, then the employer would have to make up the difference. And total earnings would include tips and wages if that person that under this scenario would be a waiter or a working at a restaurant that was tipped employee, maybe a different type of tipped employee. It would also include other types and classifications of employees. So for the enforcement, setting aside the enforcement issues, which could be significant if you're looking at this every pay period and then maybe two weeks, they don't meet the minimum wage and they have to be made up in the next two weeks. They do. If you do it during the month, over a month, then you average it. There's some issues there. But but bottom line, no other city has adopted this type of an exemption in California that we could find. And there is no case law that says you absolutely could do it. So it would be subject to a challenge, I believe. And and I don't know what the courts would rule on. You mentioned that it would apply to many different types of employees. I imagine things like delivery services, those are very popular in the new economy services such as nails and hair and all of those. I do see it being a broad group of employees, probably a large number that lie in the 1 to 4 employee range. As mentioned in the latest report, I have only heard about this directly from people who came to the forums. I did not meet with any Fed attorney and I would since you did. What would be the qualifications of said attorney and why would they be any different from our own attorneys? Do they have a background in labor law or. I don't really know. I mean, I received a letter from several different attorneys offices. That's absolutely correct. The there are many opinions out there on both sides of this issue that have been presented to our office. This attorney presented his opinion. He portrays himself as an expert in the labor and wage law area. I have no reason to doubt that. But it is a different proposal than what other cities have looked at. This is new, as I said. And so it is his concept that we were looking at. We were just asked to look at various proposals. So one of the things that I think I've mentioned before, but it's a new year, so a new time to mention it is that I was very active in my employment through the VOA program, formerly known as the We Are program. And there have always been some disadvantages in California in terms of that federal allocation of funding for youth employment programs is based on ours at the federal minimum wage. And so California employers and California youth specifically are disadvantaged because we are not apportioned a greater amount of funding in. Proportion to what the variance in our minimum wage. So I know that I brought that up at Federal Legislative Committee. I hope that we will pursue that in our upcoming federal legislative trip so that entities that choose to make these steps towards pulling people out of poverty are rewarded, not disadvantaged, when getting federal allocations. That being said, until we pass said opportunities or get the federal discretionary funds or distribution of funds related to that changed, what are we able to do in terms of a youth wage in Long Beach, where I know there are some differences in the federal opinion? I know sometimes it goes up to age 24, sometimes it only goes to age 21 based on if there are foster youth and sometimes only 18 if they're not disadvantaged at all. What would be the thoughts on a youth wage in Long Beach? Either studying it at the state minimum wage or at 85% of whatever we do end up passing so that our our youth are not as disadvantaged and our federal funding can stretch as far as possible. I know we've worked so hard to gain the doubling of these internships, paid internships, many of them. And I would be remiss to think that those youth would not be given those opportunities should the wage go up. There are other California cities who do have a youth wage exemption or a, as you said, a percentage for a certain number of hours worked. Or there are different options that are a policy decision for the council to adopt, which we believe would be allowed. I hope that we can talk about that more as the discussion goes on tonight. I know that specifically when we were doing allocation of funds by nonprofit organization that would help place these youth. One of the challenges we always had was that we would have to disperse that funding in allocation allotments that aligned with a certain number of hours that the Rio aboard the Wheat Board chose to be. Impactful in the youth's lives. You could cut the hours back to 5 hours a week for 11 weeks, but that's not the same experience that these youth could enjoy. Should we be able to give them the 25 hours a week that we felt was a more robust plan in the Summer Youth Employment Program? And I know not only here in Long Beach and our strong Web board, but the L.A. County Web board, the South Bay switchboard, the the Lakewood and cities adjacent to us and the L.A. City Web Board. I know that we've all struggled with this. So I hope that members who have spoken to me about this from each of those boards have a proposal in mind, because I'd really like to find a way where our youth are brought into the workplace and then quickly escalate it up to the minimum wage . But again, one of the important parts of this is those that are supporting families need to make a bit more. But if it's too high, then those entry level jobs aren't really available for people to step into those higher wages. So. Lastly, I think that I hope to hear from people today. I know L.A. EDC made a recommendation related to identifying how businesses can be helped with incentives. I've sat in on many meetings of other bodies who have passed the minimum wage ordinance related to what those incentives could be. And I'm still forming some opinions on that, and I'd love to hear some creative ideas. And we've already offered people who start new businesses or grow their business in Long Beach waiving their business license fee for one year. But I think that we need something even more robust if you're going to continue to grow your business and meet the $15 an hour minimum wage or you currently have no employees at minimum wage, you're already paying above and beyond. What can we do to reward those businesses so those that step out in front of those things and are really moving forward, bravo to them. And I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the public. Thank you. Thank you. Customer to Productivity Questions for Staff for the L.A. EDC. Yes. Right off the bat. I'd just like to say that I've had a lot of questions about, well, why don't we wait to have something happen at the state level so we don't single out? I know we have a Sacramento lobbyist. I know we have intelligence there. Is there anyone on staff who can tell me what is on the horizon for the November ballot, possibly out of Sacramento? Mr. City Manager. And if not, I can chime in from. So the issue of state minimum wage has been raised for several issues. It constantly comes up to this point. There has not been enough votes in the state legislature to put that on the ballot or to not even the ballot to pass it as a as a state law. There is always the opportunity to put it on a ballot. I don't personally have any knowledge of whether that's being circulated right now, but that's certainly something we can check into. Well, just to answer that, not to say anything that isn't already in the press. So feel free to look it up. So there's two two things that are happening in the state legislature right now. There will be a reintroduction of a statewide bill to go to $13 in the assembly. That was actually a bill that was floating around last year. I'm sorry. I started on the Senate side, which is a mark Leno bill to go to $30 statewide that is being reintroduced in this session. And so that, I think is a dollar a dollar a year until you get to $13. I'm pretty sure that's that's the details of it. But it it's it's a mark Leno originated bill that's happening in the legislature on the state referendum ballot side right now. There are two groups that are publicly are planning on filing measures, both of which go to $15. One is a $15 at 2020 and the other is a $15 at 2021. There are some differences when it comes to sick days on those two measures. There are there are currently both competing measures and, of course, are going through the secretary of state requirement on signatures and so forth. But if those qualify and what is most likely but most of the commentators say is that the the two groups are will likely, if they work things out, combine and actually propose one ballot. And so having the two competing measures, but it is highly likely that you'll have one or two measures on the November 2016 ballot, at least that's what's been reported in, you know, in any of the press. And so that's the I think the status of the the assembly, the legislature and the state referendums. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Mr.. And as Chair of the State Legislation Committee, I want to just point out that we do support the city of Long Beach is on record of supporting a minimum wage increase statewide. And back to Councilmember Super now. Okay. Thank you. I have another question that I get asked a lot is what is the impact to our general fund in terms of the city's own employees? Calcium Councilman Supernova. The cost to the general fund is 1.4 million for the city's employees, and that would be a result of the employees currently below $15 going to $13. However, the cost is only. But 800,000. Okay. Thank you. And then just one final point, and I don't want to be nit picking, but it just struck me when Dr. Cooper framed the aggregate issue of the 30.9 million impact borne by employers. Because I'm a private sector business consultant, most people think of me talking about businesses, but this one jumps out at me that , you know, if we're talking about home health care for fixed income seniors, if we're talking about daycare for working parents, if we're talking about home health care for disabled fixed income individuals, we're really talking about a wage increase that is borne by customers, individuals, not necessarily business. So I guess that's more of a comment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Any questions for. Yes, just a couple of questions. I want to first thank our city staff and L.A. EDC for this great report. I think the devil really is in the details. It's important that we really look at this information. It's very impactful. And so a couple questions for our city staff first. So what types of business incentives would be? Offered if we were to go through with a minimum wage incentive program. But it doesn't state exactly. I mean, is there any thought to what we'd be offering our business? Councilmember Gonzales. Some of the one of the things that we asked the EDC was to take a look at what other cities have looked at in the Lacey, L.A., EDC to come up with some recommendations. What they kind of found in their survey is there's a couple of common denominators that cities use in terms of financial incentives . They didn't find that any city really offered any financial incentives, any of the other cities that we looked at through a telephone survey. But what they did look at are things like a shop local campaign or a business to business campaign, getting businesses to buy from other businesses in Long Beach so that we all those those dollars stay here. They also looked at expanding the preference program. Long Beach has a local preference program, but also expanding that to include hiring, educate educational institutions and seeing if they would participate as well. And then also to do some online tools and make it easier for businesses to interact with the city. And that's something that we're actually very interested in and are working with our I-Team and our innovation team on. We've also provided some information for you in the packet to answer the questions about if the city were to provide a fiscal assistance, what would that cost are roughly, our business license is roughly about $400 for the average business, but we get about 11,000 businesses a year. So if we were to do a and a rebate, I believe it's about four and a half. $4.1 million if we were to do if we were do the majority of businesses in Long Beach, ultimately, if we were to do a smaller incentive, for example, one like a one year deferral for businesses, that could be for new businesses that could be around $450,000 a year. Okay. Great. And state enforcement. You know who would be our liaison here on the city side as far as which? I mean, with whatever option we were to go with, there would be have to be someone on our side to be able to to work with the state in that. So who would that be? So we looked at three different models for enforcement. One is very similar to Measure N, where it would essentially be really not much of a city role. The second would be creating a liaison type office. It would be in financial management where we would have roughly two people and some education and outreach staff and materials and assistance . And then a third model would be actually having a full enforcement. So we we're recommending the middle model. Given just the state of the budget and that it's and we would have two employees that would be able to answer calls and help be that ombudsman. If somebody called and said, how do I have a problem? What do I do about it? We would be able to connect them with the Department of Industrial Relations, who would be who would do the enforcement and handle that as part of their workload? Okay, great. And then I have just one question for the L.A. EDC. I had been, of course, doing research and looking at the Congressional Budget Office information. They had pretty detailed information. I'm wondering if it's possible to project a lot of great information, but how many low wage employees would be would potentially be pulled out of poverty and go above the threshold if we were to increase the minimum wage? Do we have that number? I don't have that number specifically for Long Beach residents. Yeah. 1/2. I just want to make sure vast majority of everyone's being great. But please, there's no talking from the audience or. We are working people. We don't have to. Okay. Ma'am, I understand that. And fortunately, this is the public process. And so but I can't what I can't have is I can't have outburst during the hearing. And so please, ma'am, we just got to go through the hearing. Time for the council so that the people can. Ma'am, that we. Can get up to. Though. Ma'am. Ma'am, that's. Well, unfortunately, ma'am, we have to be respectful of the process. Okay? We which is the public, the form. Okay. We actually need to continue the meeting. And so we cannot continue those outbursts. I'm serious. For now. That that's the council will take its deliberative time and this public comment coming up. But I want to thank everyone else for being very respectful of the process so. Far to the public. Okay. Thank you. So Council, ma'am, if you're not going to remain here, if you continue the outburst, we have to be respectful of process. So, Councilman Gonzales. Yes, it's my last question. How many low wage employees would potentially be moved and go above the threshold if we have that information here, of course, in Long Beach. So we did not estimate that specifically. As we noted, a lot of Long Beach workers who would be impacted are not Long Beach residents. Okay. So it's a little bit of a difficult thing to estimate. Okay. And I would also say that many people in poverty don't work and so would not be impacted by a minimum wage policy. Okay. Well, thank you for the information. Thank you. Next up, I have council member Austin. Thank you. And I'll be brief. I'll do my best. There were there were a couple of points that jumped out at me. And Dr. Cooper of the you mentioned a survey of 600 businesses, and there was a significant number of undecided. I don't know if you gave us a percentage of undecided. Each question actually had five choices. Very likely. Somewhat likely. Undecided or no answer? Not likely or not at all likely. So it was a five point scale. Each answer had a number of different undecided. And so, you know, when you look at the survey results, we not all respondents actually had minimum wage employees. So many of them may not be impacted by the policy. So I think a lot of those answers fell into the undecided column. Okay. Thank you. And I think the next question is for for Steph, there was a visual regarding staff costs for implementation of the minimum wage. And I'm curious to know exactly what those costs would be and how you came to that, those figures. Councilman Austin. What we did was we estimated the number of employees who are currently below $15 and also $13. And then we looked at what the cost would be if they were placed within the minimum wage each respective year. And so the incremental cost. Starts out at just roughly $5,000 for. Next year of Y 17. And it grows each year to it gets to the 1.4 million in the general fund by a by 21 for $15 an hour and then. 800,000 for the $13 an hour. And that would be. By FY 19. Okay. And I guess that the the my, my, my final question would be how would the wages of workers who are engaged in collective bargaining be impacted by such a minimum wage policy? Well, I don't believe that's part of your policy. So they would be not I mean, they would they would be affected, as is any other employee, as far as I know. I mean, I don't know what you've been. Um. So, so. Considering. If someone belongs to an organization and they are covered under a collective bargaining agreement and those wages are negotiated in agree and such an agreement, does the minimum wage policy here supersede that? Unless you exempt them. Okay. Thank you. And I don't believe that's been suggested. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilwoman Price. So just a couple quick questions for staff. Can you go over for us the recommendations that were presented to the Economic Development Commission from COBA? Councilwoman Price, we don't have that report with us at this time. I have a copy of it. Well, I just wanted to make sure that that the copy that I have includes their full recommendations, because I'm not sure that that was included. I know that the ATC actually considered those recommendations in reaching their own recommendations. Is that right? Yes. Okay. So I think it's important to kind of talk about it because that formed the basis of some of the discussion. So my understanding is that their recommendation was 1250 an hour over the course of five years. This wage includes medical benefits, paid sick days and paid time off. A one year delay for small businesses with under 25 employees. A two year delay for nonprofits. And then a youth training for 21 year old and younger workers to be paid at the state of California minimum wage rate. Was there anything else that they included that that that I may have missed? If you know or if anyone knows. Kels. Councilmember Price. Not to my recollection. Okay. The other question I had was I know we talked about. Organizations that have a set reimbursement rate, like a federal reimbursement rate. And we those were categorized under kind of a non profit category. Is there any category for businesses that provide a service that gets reimbursed by the federal government at a set rate, for example, health care industry? Did we give any consideration at all to mitigating the impacts of a minimum wage increase on those businesses? I think your current policy suggestion is for all nonprofits, so not a separate category for specific in-home services, I think is what you're. Yeah. They wouldn't qualify as a nonprofit. They may not. Mm hmm. So in those situations. I think that's. A question for staff. As well. Did the EDC consider those businesses at all? Because as we just saw from the report, the largest employment sector in our city is health and education. So a lot of those businesses and service providers rely on federal reimbursements at a set rate. Councilmember Price I think a number of comments were made when Coba made their presentation to the EDC and also from a number of the forums that were presented and comments from the audience that indicated that there is concern among some of the state mandated firms that they would not be able to recover some of the cost because they were contracted for a period of time. And that information was communicated to the EDC. And those deliberations occurred over two rather extensive community meetings that occurred. So that was part of the deliberations. But I don't believe that it survived into the recommendations to city council. Okay. And then to the city attorney, this discussion that we're having about tipped employees and wage calculations for tipped employees. In light of the research, the legal research that you and your staff have done, could you take us down a realistic path? What would be a foreseeable path for us if, in fact, we were we were to adopt a policy in that regard that no other city has adopted? What what could we as a council and the citizens of the city expect to see in terms of our future, 6 to 12 months? Well. If the decision of the council would be to include some sort of a tip credit, I believe for the foreseeable future we would be in litigation. The the issue is whether it violates Labor Code 351 and there are opinions on both sides and I will readily admit that there are some legal firms out there that believe that it would be a legal path that the city could take. The more recent opinions that we've seen and it's our opinion that it it raises an issue of preemption with Labor Code 351 that the courts have not ruled on, that we would have to seek and defend it in the courts and probably through appeal in order to get a decision from the courts. The city of Long Beach could do that. The other option, of course, would be some sort of legislation to clarify the field. But there is not there isn't that benefit right now. So it's an unknown. And so a tip credit. I think there's more opinions out there now that believe it would be preempted. Mm hmm. The other issue, and I think some of the more recent opinions are not recognizing that, but but are going in a little bit a different direction, that that kind of moves away from the actual wording of tip credit or applying directly to just, you know, say, restaurant employees. But it's more tipped employees, not just restaurants, but for a total earnings exemption, which wants to look at the taxable earnings of that person and divide those earnings by the hours they worked and compare that to what it is that the minimum wage is in the local jurisdiction. That's also kind of a variation of it, but it is different. And there's also no legislation or case law that that identifies that and says that that's allowed by cities. Now, in terms of the research that you've done, have you found that this this argument or this proposal has been made at other cities and rejected? Or is this a situation of first impression for the city of long, which I imagine not. But what could you share with us? I think the answer is both. The tipped credit has been discussed specifically in the city of Sacramento. It was presented to the legislative. There was an opinion out of the legislative office that admits that there are no case law on it. But what felt that it would be preempted? I'm not sure exactly why the city of Sacramento decided not to adopt it, but they did not include it in their adoption of a local minimum wage. The total earnings exemption. To my knowledge, has not been considered by other cities. I believe it was presented to the city of Pasadena, but I don't think that they've acted yet, and that's the only information of this particular one of the cities, that of local cities in California that have adopted a local minimum wage. No city has adopted either a tip credit or this total exemption earnings exemption. And that includes Santa monica with their recent vote. Yes, that is correct. They did not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Customer. I think I would want to. You don't have any questions at this rate. Okay. Are there any other questions from councilmembers for the EDC or staff at this time? Okay. Perfect. And of course, this will be claim up to four more questions later on if we have if those come up. So let me turn this now over to. Thank you very much. And we'll continue the hearings. Let me now turn this over to the maker of the original motion on the issue, which was Vice Marie Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank everyone for being here today and for your patience, as well as Dr. Cooper for her presentation and our own staff, for their diligence and presentation of the hard work that they've done for these several months since we've made this motion. As the mayor said, I had brought this motion forward a few months ago, and it is something that really is, in my opinion, the next installation or the next chapter of what our city has been doing for quite some time. When I brought this motion forward back in August, we had great deliberation at that time, and the Council took action and instructed, instructed our staff to work with the L.A. EDC to conduct the study that they did. I want to first thank the council members who coauthored this item with me. I want to thank Councilwoman Lina Gonzalez, Councilman de Andrews and Councilman Rex Richardson. It was wonderful to be able to come forward to our council with strong support of authorship, and I know that there were others that would have authored it as well. The original motion set a process and asked the L.A. EDC for Research and Business Survey. This evening we heard Dr. Cooper report back on the highlights of that study and that process, and I'd like to thank the L.A. EDC for their work and study and and truly their deliberation on looking at this from a Long Beach perspective . And while the comparisons are useful and helpful to our surrounding cities, it has been very helpful to be able to see ourselves as ourselves and how we live, how we work, how we spend our money, where the greatest impacts will be when we take one action or another, and where the greatest impacts will be if we take no action. And that's been important to hear. I authored the original item because The Gap. The gap continues to grow between the wealthy and the poor, and we continue to deal with the impacts of a growing class of residents living in poverty. I know that that is not something that's new to any of us. It's something that we've all paid attention to. We recognize it is at times easy to look away. But I do know that we are represented by a council that finds it very difficult to look away when the disparity can be so vulgar. What we did was we encouraged a very methodical and logical approach to the issue that included the impact on small businesses and nonprofits. And I believe that's what's actually exactly transpired in these last five months through our public roundtable discussions, staff reports and commission meetings. And I wanted to really emphasize we've heard this from other speakers, but that the community process truly worked. And the process that the staff engaged in together with the Economic Development Commission truly worked. The Economic Development Commission, I have to say at this point, I want to emphasize how hard they worked and the hundreds of workers as well, the small business owners and stakeholders that spoke in front of the commission over two hearings and two policy meetings. These were all individuals in their own right, have very, very, very busy lives. But they had committed and continue to commit to this public policy debate because they know they know that it will impact the entire city of Long Beach and more than the city of Long Beach. We have workers here that don't live here that sustain families elsewhere. And so that commitment does not. It is not overlooked. It's something that doesn't go unnoticed. While we've all signed up here behind the dias for another full time job, none of you as individuals do. And when you do, when you do stand up and contribute to the public process, it's something that I, I deeply value and I'm very grateful for. So I'd like to thank all of you, especially the Economic Development Commission, for the work and all of the members of the community that participated in it. I want to go back a little bit to the disparity that was highlighted by Dr. Cooper in her report of the study. And as I had said before, it isn't anything that is new to any of us. But sometimes when we hear things just very specifically to Long Beach, I think it strikes us differently. We do feel very personally about where we live and and the city we live in. When Mayor Foster first ran, I think many of us remember he talked about Long Beach being a tale of two cities. And at that time, he asked us to consider, collectively consider. The income and wealth disparity in Long Beach. And that was ten years ago. And I'll submit to you today that it wasn't only Mayor Foster's concern, nor was it just the council's concern. The residents of Long Beach shared that concern, too, and since 2006, we have seen great struggles throughout the world and really our nation. But if I just look at Long Beach, we have we have experienced great struggles as a city and as individuals. We saw the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, and it struck everyone. It didn't strike us all equally, but it did strike everyone. In Long Beach isn't unique to the disparities that Dr. Cooper highlights from the L.A. Economic Development Study. Global inequality is growing. Should that matter to us for this conversation tonight? Absolutely. It is all relative and it's related. And we learned yesterday with a new study that was out that half of the world's wealth now is in the hands of just 1% of the population. And that's significant. Thankfully, that's not the case in Long Beach. But when we look at our local example and we look at how desperately some of our families live, we have to be concerned whether it is as drastic a figure as the global inequity is or it is not. And the level of income concentration, the disparity has fluctuated throughout history. That, too, is not new. But what's new is we have an opportunity. We have a collective conscience and an opportunity to correct some things that need to be corrected. And so when we look at this opportunity to do this and we think about the Long Beach way, and some of us have come into this conversation only on this issue, but many of you have been in a larger conversation in the city of Long Beach that I say goes back a decade. And what that conversation is, is raising the quality of life in the city of Long Beach. And I'm going to look right at Councilmember Tonya Reyes Turanga, who was here on that council at the time. And she can attest that this is not a new conversation for any of us. We have incrementally brought forward policy changes and supported initiatives and advocated on behalf of raising the quality of life in Long Beach, not just for the residents of Long Beach, but for the good men and women who help us live our lives the way we do, the way we would like to do. And so one major example of that, and there are so many other examples that attest to that is Measure N, which was the living wage ordinance that we passed, that the voters passed. Council put it on the ballot and the voters passed that. And that was to raise the income, the wage for hotel workers in the city of Long Beach. And that was significant. And at that time, we had heard that there were fears by business owners that we may end up shuttering hotel rooms, we may end up seeing great losses to our hotel industry. And that actually was not true. In fact, they actually they ended up posting greater earnings since that time. And so what that tells us is when workers do well, the city does well. And when we ensure that our workers do well and that they are able to support their families and be able to engage in the activities that that kind of liberty affords us, we know that our entire city does well. These minor changes and major changes end up impacting our entire economy. And I'm confident about that. And that's something that gives me great comfort when I look at policy measures that will have a great financial impact on businesses. But as Dr. Cooper had alluded to, and I think Mayor Garcia had alluded to, these businesses are comprised of workers and these businesses operate on the patronage of customers. And we are all the same. We are workers in one place and we are customers in other place. And it is an ecosystem type of an economy that is really dependent on one another. And so. What I'd like to do, Mayor Garcia, is ask. The city attorney will ask you actually and then the city attorney. If I could make two motions and perhaps he would consider allowing it to be two motions. Did you. You had mentioned to me that you wanted to go to the public first. I did. And then want to come back to that. After I do. Okay. So. So let me let me do that and let me open this up for public comment and please line up. Yep. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's okay. I know, I know. Everyone's been waiting. That's okay. So just as a just as a a reminder, 3 minutes timer is up and. Absolutely. So what we're going to do is we guys should please couple of things. Number one, some just ground rules here. If you need translation, you'll obviously get double time. Okay? So don't worry about that. And I'm going to also allow the the young woman who's in the front here to go first so we can just let this lady go first. You're in the front and then we'll go from there. When I started, McNamara wrote The Ramones before us until joining us again last rather Long Beach Swing Madras Ultra, the cuatro e who also resident there. Colombia's Trabajadores El Pollo Loco. Hi. My name is Rosa Ramos. I've been living in Long Beach for 28 years and I've been a resident of this country for 28 years. I work at a local. All yesterday against the thought of that billion dollar, let alone mental salario meaning walk ins a all this purchase or you know, trabajadores trabajo will duro. But I also think that I mean, of course I'll say I am a killer, though, because along the borders of Pakistan, I'll send up Osaka. Maybe I'll go mystic running up and thinking about what I've been doing over the course of my solo musical spectacle Mozart, Miranda Tanto, Problema and La Familia, you know, collective musical story and not so friendly. Miranda Polo on the guitar. Mala This is the only set on the border, so. So I've been working in Long Beach for 28 years. Would you mind putting that mike up here? Yeah. Thank you. I've been working in Long Beach for 28 years, and at. At one time I was not working because I was married. But because I was a victim of domestic violence. I needed to get a divorce and work on my own. I never realized how hard it was to work for minimum wage. And that's why I'm here today to petition the council to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, because it's so important for people who work this hard to be able to live and. Give their children. A space to live in. That is hospitable and also. YouTube guitar, macabre musical. Your soul is in trouble. No, no, no, stop! Arapaja told the Mirror into Ibarapa local as well as command, operational control, economical. Start the nicotine also under the trouble it is supposed to work at and around the research protocol for current until those gospels get any RSS are the only sequel. No, not. I mean, yes. Capella and Tanto compromise are potatoes. Well, bipolar Lucas. That outlaws mistrust of you. I don't work very hard. And when I got my first. Minimum wage job, I realized I needed to get a second job and a third job. Thank God that my children did not demand much. Just a few. Shoes and the occasional expenditure that I couldn't afford but I had to do. And thank God that they were not as demanding as they could have been. Outlets like ours and El Pollo Loco Caffé Trabalhando Eva's Melon Quatro. Another month it dollar via veces cuando trabalho cuatro minuto. No, Malagasy not taekwondo. Yeah, my, my. They sent me a lot of it was a econo trabajo say societa ora la mer the ora cameron Allison Madison. Buy a bunch, said Prabhakar, Pakistan. You know the trouble I want to improve ACKERMAN. So I work at Oil Local. And sometimes when they give me 4 hours, they only give me 4 hours and they don't give me my ten minute break or they tell me to clock out and leave before I need my ten minute break. And then when I get 6 hours, they give me my half an hour break, but they don't. Give me my ten, my ten minute break. And in addition to that, I also experience wage theft as a result of that because of the 10 minutes that I don't get. Is in benefits is pork out it out as a commentary someone on me said on Wednesday Rukia to a gecko little medical burger you're not running on benefits your bananas are calories. And once I had medical problems. I had to get medical because I have no benefits, even though I've been working. There for over 20 years. You're not so you're not familiar. Regular common while one of the feathers myriad yoke of stress through horse and a lot of people joining us good thing what give me the name guy is highly local and mythical where you go is it good? Are you planning on cynical musical polka palooza? Glorious Gargano goes on along many more than normal cancer. So for 28 years I haven't been. Able to live as a normal family. Because I've never been able to take my children on a vacation. Like many of you, I'm sure take for granted. For 28 years, I haven't been able to have a normal family life. Oh that's the end of your salary or month and. BERGMAN And that DENIRO Nelson Mandela. KINSELLA And after trying to dole out a load of almost all of them unless you love the long spaghetti we won't keep bugging Miranda. I keep our bolo huggy comb like a compromise. Camelot told the American I'm not a killer paragliding the Long Beach Pirates impresarios Donald General other wacky. I got me. So I'm asking you to raise the minimum wage to $15 because I spend all my money here in Long Beach. I pay my rent. I eat in Long Beach, I do everything here. And $15 isn't enough. But that's all we're asking for now so that I can just survive it. I'm being your portal is that simple. Crystal Trabalhando Musical Finance. Tallahassee Tonya Temple follows Paris, the incredible epitome of what makes it don't last through here. Get us a list Gustav alias presto zero here came up with a miracle Amanda cuando savalas quella cuando yaga yogi sirup But I want less I'll spare this I don't know those stories, madame. I'm not going for anything kinesthetic, is there nothing? I don't know. Still Olivia Gomez that gave it to me though. It's the only rhythm. So the only reason I'm happy that I had to have this surgery. Is because normally I cannot see my kids because of my three jobs. And now I get to see my children in the morning and in the afternoon because I had this surgery. And I ask you, which one of. You would want a life like this making minimum. Wage. Do it for a day. Of those people get used to this thing on consideration, that is the polka sycamore that trust the music more, just better. So it must be the mental eagle. I know this does not represent the owner. Familia is a Cadillac plan and beside me as a travel. Hello, it is. And I think the more you're in it in them and that is so is it dumb associate mentors on mutual lows that's not a parliamentarian poquito economists when they got those. Thank you you can translate that because. I ask you to raise the minimum wage because this life is a hard life for me and I need a raise in the minimum wage so that I can live a life that's a little easier and please. And and so that I can actually spend more money in Long Beach. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My God. God. Ma'am. Guys, please. We have to be respectful of the speakers that are speaking in front. Please. Yes, sir. Mayor, council members. My name is Richard Roberts. I reside in the second district. I'm a program coordinator for Central China. Central China supports the raise the minimum wage in the state of Bellamy. We believe this would allow citizens in our city a living wage and bring economic growth to our city. Since our offers job training programs for youth aged 16 to 24 years old, at the end of the trainings, youth are offered pay, work experience. These pay work experience offer young people valuable skills which make them employable. We are requesting that the City Council would consider providing workforce agencies and limits with an exemption from raising the wage . If our work experience rates were increase, it will it will limit and minimize amount of you will receive pay, work experience opportunities. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mayor. Council members. Good evening. My name is Ivan Juarez. I reside in the sixth district at 2046 seventh Avenue. I was released from prison on June 13th after serving three and a half years. In August, I enrolled in Central Charge Youth Diversion Program. I have since received certifications and forklift hours. So has proper confined space, CPR, also 30 and Construction, Safety and Health. These certifications have allowed me the opportunity to gain paid work experience. I learned communication skills, how to operate machinery and how to be safe in any type of work environment. Before I went to prison, I never had any. I never had a job or held any responsibilities. At the time I was incarcerated, I had a five month old daughter. Today, I have full custody through the Paid Work Experience program. I learned skills that have helped me gain permanent employment with Central Time. I am a community outreach specialist. I go into the community and provide other young people with information about how centralized programs can help and provide new directions in their lives. Through job training opportunities and paid work experience. Paid work experience allows young people like me the opportunity for employment when most employers are not willing to take that chance on this. The Paid Work Experience program allowed me to demonstrate to the employer my newly developed work ethic how I am a hard worker. I am responsible and a good man. Today I have a new outlook on life. I stand here a new and changed man. I am proud to be employed by Central China. Proud of my achievements, but most importantly, proud at the ability to financially support my four year old daughter. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. My name is Mike Pimentel Jr. I'm local president of the United Steelworkers Local 2801 representing health care workers at Lumberton Moore Medical Center. We represent 1600 members, approximately which 300 of them are Eve's workers. And for the nutrition workers that don't make $15 an hour that are starting wages, only 1019 for this company, Sodexo , who Lunch Memorial. Subcontracted out the. Work with, which is Sodexo, who made $1.9 billion in profits last year. And we can't even get $15 at the table right now. We're in the labor dispute with Tedesco at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and we are going back to the table on February 4th and fifth in regards to wages. So we urge matter of fact, our members demand that the council vote yes on the $15 an hour along like L.A. We're no different from Los Angeles, and that's why we're I'm here to represent the working people. I also want to give an experience to my mother, who's also a housekeeper at the hospital where 28 years for this company and doesn't even make $15 an hour. That's why we urge we are demanding the $15 an. Hour for all workers in Long Beach and so we. Can spend our money here and give it back to the restaurants. Owners that are are not and that are not in support of this so that we can spend our money back in restaurants. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Garcia and City Council. My name is Darryl Alvarez. I've been living here in Long Beach for about five years with my wife and my three year old son. I support raising the minimum wage, the Long Beach Way, which is $15 per hour city rule. So city led wage enforcement. More paid sick days and no exception. I support this because I experience working in reporting care and didn't receive an accurate paycheck. I worked at a body care bonding care 7 to 8 years ago. And and time has passed. Basically, I was on the clock 24 hours a day. I should have been paid at least $15 an hour. And a boring care paid at $8 an hour. But I also didn't receive the full amount of the $8 an hour. I had to live with a £200 elder up to his full wheelchair because he had fallen at a late night. Yes, it was difficult and I should have filed a complaint at that time, but I didn't really realize in how much I should have gotten paid because I didn't have a family and have a bigger responsibility. I personally was a victim of a wage theft or a low wage. It's actually embarrassing to share this publicly. I'm sharing this information so that other people will know I will not be experiencing any more wage theft. Raising, raising, raising past the minimum wage up to $15 an hour would definitely be helpful for families, friends and our community. This project would also provide benefits and responsibilities. Because inflation's an extra. Expenses are rising. Income earners aren't able to save and get out of debt as soon as possible. We all know it is very important to be financially protected because emergency and other sudden expenses is devastating. We are very excited for our community with an increasing income earning and avoiding wage theft in the city of Long Beach, California . Where there's where there should be the land of the free. We respectfully fight this right with our hearts and minds in our focus on city council leaders to act and pass this law. Thank you for listening again. Mayor Garcia and City Council. God bless you all. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council. Council and mayor. My name is. Cynthia Silver on this. I am not a resident of Long Beach, but I consider this my second home. I graduated from Cal State, Long Beach, and I have been a student intern for Central Asia, and I give a lot of my success thus far to this nonprofit organization and to the opportunities that they provide the city of Long Beach. They help the youth. Becomes something when they think they're nothing or they see there's no outcome of their community. They give them the resources. They give them the education. And they give training. I am one of the participants of Central Cha as well, and they helped me accomplish my biggest goal, which was becoming an aunt. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Congratulations. That's wonderful. They open. The door through this organization so I can in turn be able to get my bachelor's degree. When other people, even in my community. They were for they weren't. Taking in students. And I'm very. Grateful to them. That's why I have returned. To help them in any way possible. And just to. Know that our community starts from the bottom. The investment should be in the youth, which is going to ultimately give back to the community. And in order to help other people accomplish their goals and just live day to day, we need this. We need this improvement in the community as well as the whole nation. But, you know, Long Beach is a huge city. And like Dr. Cooper, we're just like L.A.. L.A. is a huge county, huge city. So with the help of you guys and this little step, which is a huge step to many of the communities, we can move forward and help other youth and community members accomplish their goals and become successful. And thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Julio Perez. I currently present the ninth district. I a I'm a career high school graduate. Afterwards, I went on to Cal State. Fullerton, received my bachelor's. Degree in political science and Chicano studies. I currently work. For. Central Asia and I'm here to support the minimum wage increase. I would also like to echo what my colleagues said and and just. Be mindful and conscious for us as a nonprofit organization to hopefully be exempt from. From that wage increase to. Pay these youth. I myself receive paid work experience after I graduated from Cal State Fullerton. Afterwards, I transitioned. And worked as a. Paralegal. And I recently came back to work for Central Asia as a case manager. And also a. Program coordinator for our Immigration Department. I've also seen this firsthand working with youth and seen that the paid work experience is. Is truly invaluable. So that's just just a few of my thoughts. Briefly. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Chris Marker. I work as a registered nurse at Long Beach Area Hospital. When one becomes ill, they should not have to worry about starting or continuing on a disciplinary track, being fired or being financially unable to provide for their family. It is unconscionable that today, with all we know about preventative health care and how diseases spread, that workers are expected to make a choice when they're sick, potentially going to work sick and spread the disease among their coworkers, potentially contribute to the length of time of that illness for themselves, or potentially face repercussions for having too many absences. As a health care expert is very concerning that a worker with a serious health threat like cancer might go undiagnosed because of their inability to take off work to be seen. It's important to note that each of us has daily contact with each other and with the workers that paid sick sick leave would benefit. These workers are our baristas, our cashiers. They prepare and deliver our food. They care for our children. They clean our offices and buildings. They provide immeasurable every day valuable services. And they need your help now. On the other hand, employers will find that providing sick, paid sick leave will benefit them in the long run. When workers are encouraged to take care of themselves and not report to work ill, negating the spread of germs to coworkers and their families and enhancing productivity. I think the vice mayor pointed out that there was increased productivity and profits among the hotels when they raised the minimum wage for those workers. We need to eliminate the stigma experienced by female workers who are generally the ones earning less than end up staying home with the sick child. Paid sick leave would be an equalizer, allowing for parents to share the responsibility. Low wage earners could benefit from the many changes addressed here this evening. A higher minimum wage, better access to health care, stable schedules, etc. but that at the top of that list is paid sick leave. We ask that you support the $15 minimum wage and paid sick leave. Excuse me. Sick leave. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mayor. City Council. Council members. My name is James Ford. I'm a resident of the second district. I'm actually. Yes, the second district. I am. I'm representing the. Reverend Metro Ray Ray Raheem, who was called away by a pastoral emergency. She's the minister of the. Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach here. And our congregation in. Long Beach is a member of the Faith Coalition that has been supporting this. $15 an hour minimum wage proposal. We see this as a moral issue. You have heard the numbers. You've crunched the numbers. You know that there are pluses and minuses involved here. We are enthusiastic supporters of the. Businesses of our community. It is time to be equally. Enthusiastic for the workers. $15 an hour simply means dignity. We've heard so many stories of wage theft. We've heard stories where the legal wage is so low, it might as well be wage theft. What we need at this point is leadership. You are our leaders. We look forward to your leading us into that Long Beach dream. That Long Beach way, dear ones, do it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I appreciate all the hard work you've done on this and it does not go unnoticed by me. My name is Ron Caulkins. I have worked in Long Beach for 52 years. I own and operate West Coast vital services for the last 35 years, and I probably believe I'm in the minority here . But let me tell you, I did not know how this minimum wage issue came before the city council, but I do now. But I ask that the council vote no on this proposal. I understand the need and the passion of those people that support it. But in my opinion. A mandated wage and benefit package can not only be harmful to the businesses, they can create a loss of business in the loss of the jobs of that business. All of my employees received more than minimum wage. But not when I first heard him in. I have nobody comes into my shop. It has applications that qualify for what I do. I bring them in, I train them. I give them $0.25, $0.50 or a dollar an hour or more. All my employees get holidays, they get vacations, they get medical, they get dental care. And I match their Roth IRA. No. Ten years ago. Japan had a loss of value in their currency, which they never recovered from. Now China is having a loss in their currency when their currency loses values. Ours goes up. But they can no longer afford to buy American made products. That could result in layoffs across the nation because we need to create a job market that is competitive worldwide. We need to make the Long Beach market alternative and more attractive to outside manufacturers. We need to create a job market to feed, clothe and house the undereducated. We need to help the small business to be and to grow. In Long Beach after World War Two. Our servicemen came home to pursue the American Dream. They built homes, highways and bridges. But they also started small businesses. They worked in their kitchens, their garages, their barns, in their backyards. Oftentimes, they were self-taught, but they had a love of creation. They made many sacrifices, but they created jobs. Some of them failed, of course, but many thrived. Probably none of us will be a Walter or not. Or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Hold on a sec. Let me, sir, finish up. Ma'am, we have to let every speaker has a right to their 3 minutes, please. Okay. Go ahead, sir. Our responsibility is to help the youth of this city. We have to educate them. We have to give vocational training. We have to create them and give them the skills and build to enter the job market. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. You're. You can go next. Jeremy, let the let the lady behind you go next. Absolutely. Go ahead. Good evening. Dr. Lowenthal, I've lived in your district for eight years. I've lived in Long Beach since the shipyard left. Shame on you. Most of the people ahead of me have said what's on my heart? What's in my soul? What pains me? What gives me a headache? I've been a community activist in this community specific. Lee, the East District. For the time that I've lived here and in Bixby Knolls. Shame on you all that look. That are brown. That look like me? Shame on you all. We voted you all into office and you have not done the work that you were hired to do. And don't get it twisted. You work for the citizens of the city of Long Beach, and you work for the citizens of the city of Long Beach. Into the mike. Please don't man me. What do you want me to call you? Give me my time and don't speak. We listen to you for an hour and 15 minutes. Let me speak without interruption. Go ahead, ma'am. Okay. Don't do it again. Thank you. Thank you. And that's exactly what this is, is blatant hypocrisy and disrespect. You are both and fire. And I understand you're leaving and you're not running for reelection. It's time for you to do bigger things because you are a warrior. And all of you. And with all of that had his back and you that we are your cell phone. You know, this whole entire council needs to be fired. You all brought. And I've been here through Beverly's administration and Bob's administration and now Robert's administration. Hypocrisy. Okay. 22 seconds left. You all brought? A slave plantation that makes trillion dollars a conglomerate around the world. Wal-Mart. So this community. I help build in Wal-Mart when it got here. And that. And I've worked for numerous conglomerates, and that is the biggest plantation slave plantation in 2016. That exists in this United States and around the world. Shame on. You. Time is up. Thank you. You need to be fired. You don't dare tell me time is up. I less than half hour about bullshit. All right, that's enough. And actually. That's 15 minutes of the same set. So we're taking a everyone that's in line right now. He's wanting to. Stay in line. Can stay in line. We're taking this part as a reset. Sack, Robert. Okay. Thank you. The fact. Me. You know what, Rick? How has that? Okay. I want to thank everybody else for for being respectful. Please come forward next speaker. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. City Council Staff. My name's Jeremy Harris, senior vice president, orbital area Chamber of Commerce. And tonight I'm here on behalf of the Chamber leadership. Long Beach businesses. And then also, most importantly, the Long Beach Council Business Associations, also known as COBA. I want to thank you. I want to say special thanks to Councilmember Price for reiterating Cobra's proposal. I'll get into that as well. And then also Mr. Conway for his due diligence and on our proposal as well. But I'll jump into that. So tonight, we welcome the opportunity to give comments on the proposed EDC recommendation. That's before you. But let's talk about Cobra's process and our proposal on the minimum wage policy. This included an extended business outreach done in concert with the Mayor's initiated public outreach program in my city by the City Council Approved Report and study as prepared by EDC. It was critical for COBRA to do its due diligence for its members and nonmembers, the business community that oftentimes is underrepresented in a process such as these. We understand there's a momentum for increasing the minimum wage around the region and in parts of the country. However, momentum alone should not be the reason to enact an ordinance. It should be data driven and testimony from those who bear. The burden of such an ordinance should be accounted for. While no process is perfect, it's important to take into account the process of trying to provide an economical answer to an otherwise very political and at times emotional issue. We understand there are a number of factors to consider after completing our outreach of targeting business owners and nonprofit leadership. We'd like to enter into the record and respectfully recommend the following key points for your consideration. Tonight we have four concise key recommendations as supported by our outreach efforts. These are one a $12.50 hour wage to be implemented over the course of five years, which includes compensation such as medical benefits, paid sick leave and time off to a one year delayed implementation for small businesses defined as 25 and under three. A two year delayed implementation for nonprofits 501c threes. And number four, a youth implemented wage for individuals 21 years and younger to be paid at the state of California's one a minimum wage rate. To get there, COBRA met with businesses and nonprofits, as I'd previously stated through focus groups and study and surveying. In short, our report was based on the data collected at these meetings, along with that survey. After issuing our findings in a report released in late November, COBRA. Solidified these recommendations with. Our stakeholders. This included the Chamber, Downtown, Long Beach Associates, L.A. Biz Fed and numerous, numerous business improvement district organizations in the corridors here in the city. We believe this is the direction Lombard needs to go if we indeed choose to join other cities with an increased minimum wage policy. We believe this is the Long Beach way, as Long Beach as unique to other cities. We are not the same as those others. I thank you for the time tonight under these comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council, my name is Jimmy, resides with Georgia's Great Cafe. You know, I've been through this process a few times with with the mayor, and I've been to more meetings than I care to talk about. I mean, throw some glasses on here. Yes. I say it is the first thing to go. I just want to start off on a personal to let people know, you know, my background and little understanding of what we business owners go through and then some some fine points of what I think with this should go and should lead. You know, I'm I'm an immigrant here. I came here in 1980 as a 15 year. 15 and a half year old boy. I got my first job in McDonald's as a dishwasher. Never went to college. My family lived under the poverty line until we opened up our restaurants. When I say that, I mean five years into our business, I never felt like I was mistreated or. Badly in any way. My my family struggled through those things. We struggled together. We made it work. And that's just the personal story behind what you know, what my story is for. And I can see this country be the greatest country in the world, because where else could a young man born in Africa come in and do as well as I've done in this business with my family and create the wealth we have for our family? And not just my family, but we've employed over 220 people. We started as a operator who employed two people, and in 16 years, we're proud to say we employ 220 people. I sympathize with the people that are living under the poverty line and not getting the money they think they deserve or the people that are being held hostage under wage theft. That shouldn't happen in this country. We shouldn't have people living under poverty anyway. There were so many points I wanted to get through. But the most important point I want to get to, I'm sure some of the people they will talk about carving, I mean, leveling the playing field, entry level jobs and things like that. But if we're going to do this a long beach way, let's just not say the words. Just do it the Long Beach way. You know, if if Mr. Parkin says that the carving on tipped employees hasn't been done or we don't know, this can be challenged. Not more than likely not. Let's just draw the line between and do it. If you're asking us to risk and to sacrifice. I'm asking you to risk a sacrifice with us. You know, there's been many, many conversations about carving out tipped employees. My my tipped employees make anywhere from 20 to $50 an hour or more above their minimum wage. I don't think minimum wage was designed for people like that. So I urge you to strongly consider doing it the Long Beach way and going after the opportunity to carve out tipped employees or. I guess. Tipton, please. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jimmy. Next. Nice restaurant. Next speaker, please. I'm Mike. Hungry for some euro or something? Okay. Next speaker. Okay. You start. Okay. Well, good evening. My name is Sandy Garcia. I'm a junior Renaissance High School for the Arts, and I'm an interim with Californians for Justice. And we're a grassroots organization that works with youth to win campaigns for justice in our schools. And we believe that young people are the leaders we need to create the healthy, just and thriving schools all of our communities need. My name is. My name is Jordan. I'm a sophomore of Renaissance High School for the Arts, and I'm also an intern with California for Justice. With prices increasing all the time, people are having difficulty making ends meet, especially when earning a minimum wage that keeps them in poverty. Having less income means that families and individuals are struggling to pay the bills and necessities they need. So how can we choose to go against what's best for small businesses and the economy? Raising the minimum wage would benefit the economy as people would have more money to spend. And if we wait? If we raise the minimum wage to $15, people would earn more money and be able to spend their money here in small businesses in Long Beach. Also, many people would have had to resort to stealing and thus the crime rates would decrease. Because if more people. Are earning more money and they'll be able to afford whatever they need. But if not. A lot of people that I personally know would resort resorts to stealing. And thus. Instead like having like a little job, they would earn the money to actually need for. Necessities like myself. I don't have a well, I do have a job, but I also sell candy bars on the side to, like, pay for my necessities, like food. I'm going into college soon, so I need to pay for that. And, you know, it's a dollar, so. Start right here, right now. Okay. The question we want to ask is why should age separate us? Why should people under should people under the age of 25 shouldn't? They should also get the new $15 minimum wage. Because the youth are a major. Consumer group for local businesses. We we go to the movies. We, you know, we go shopping. We visit trendy restaurants, coffee shops, etc.. We contribute a large part to Long Beach economy. $15 for all. Thank you. With the help. Thank you. Next speaker for. Good evening. My name is Veronica Rodriguez. Quincy. I like your Colombian pen. Thank you. And I'm here to represent and read a letter on behalf of the Human Relations Commission. Dear, honorable mayor and members of the City Council, the Human Relations Commission's purpose and function is to promote goodwill in order to maintain civic pride and tranquility and enhance and improve mutual understanding and respect for all citizens in the community . It is in this context that the Human Relations Commission submits to the Long Beach City Council the following recommendation to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the implementation of a minimum wage policy for the entire city of Long Beach. That includes a pathway to $15 an hour, cost of living, annual increases to be reviewed after the first five years and comprehensive wage enforcement. The Human Relations Commission over the last several months has discussed the impending City Council vote to raise the minimum wage. Members have attended public forums, heard public comments and reviewed findings from the Economic Roundtable and Economic Development Commission's recommendations to Council. There is no denying that poverty is inextricably linked to the health and well-being of residents and the city overall. Poverty does discriminate. While poverty affects people of all race, class and genders, its largest impacts are on people of color. According to the U.S. Census, 24.3% of Latinos and over 20% of African-Americans in Long Beach struggle to make ends meet. All across America, cities are taking bold steps to ensure people can live a life of dignity with the ability to provide food and shelter for their families. In 2012, over 64% of Long Beach voters gave hotel workers a raise to $13 per hour. Paid sick days and tip protection. That same year, San Jose voted for a raise for their entire city. It became clear that there was strong support throughout California and nationwide to close the income gap. As Mayor Garcia asserted at this year's State of the City, no one should have to work two jobs to put food on the table. Long Beach was a leader in 2012. And this movement to to close the income gap. Today, cities across America are increasing their minimum wage. Regionally, the city and county of L.A. and Santa monica have all passed a pathway to a $15 per hour minimum wage. The wage level was not random. Several studies have shown that $15 per hour is the least amount a single family needs to afford the basic necessities to live in L.A. County. Cities such as Seattle have demonstrated that higher wages are better for the entire community, and as a modern city, we must continue to embrace progress, just justice and human dignity, and not shy away from it. The Commission urges City Council to adopt a minimum wage policy that truly affirms human dignity and equity. Thank you. Time. Time is all up. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. My name is Cody Schiller. I'm a sophomore from McBride High School and a student leader with California for Justice. I'm here to speak on behalf of the youth of Long Beach in support of raising the minimum wage. During these couple of months of public hearings. There's been mounting pressure to exempt specific groups of people from getting the $15 minimum wage by 2020. These are tipped employees, people working nonprofits and everyone, 25. Now, imagine this city. The city ordinance gets passed. Now you have a youth employee and an employee that's over 25 working in the same facility. Same facility, doing the same thing. Wait. They're doing the same thing and one gets paid more than the other. Don't you think this would create tension in the workplace? The youth would be discouraged to do that. To do the youth will be discouraged. To not do their job and to not work as hard at it because who want to work their job if they aren't getting paid as much as the next person. Let's say this not. This scenario of. Raising the wage to $15 an hour for people 25 and over can also play out in another way in which companies are actually hiring more people under 25. Under 25. That's great, right? Hiring more, you know. Companies can very easily choose to hire more employees under 25 in order to save money by paying them $10 an hour instead of the $15 an hour that everyone should be getting paid. You know what this sounds like? Legal exploitation. Am I right? Look at this. This way. I'm just working as hard as the other guy. I'm not getting paid the same. Come on. Let's make this a minimum wage raise for everyone. Why do I think anyone under the age of 25 should get a raise in the minimum wage? It's funny you ask. In my situation, I'm planning to be more of an independent person in a sense that I want to see how it's like to be an adult and paying for my own things and how to manage money. By 2020, I'll be in college. I'll be a college student working a minimum wage job, trying to pay my books and tuition. Working for $10 an hour won't do. Lucky for me, I have supportive parents, but others don't have that and they actually need the raise in the wage. This can help students support their family that have fallen into hard times. But they'll having to. Take up more than one job because, as we know, two jobs are stressful as it is and then through school and endless hours of homework you have into the mix. This can be too much for a person to take resulting. In this drop out of us, drop out of a student. Therefore, the minimum wage should be for everyone and shouldn't exempt youth. Let's raise the wage. The line between. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you for having us. Like many here, I've been here about four and a half hours. My cell phone battery has died. I myself don't have family waiting for me, but I know that many people here do. And so I appreciate, just as we listened to you all debate how to vote on a study or even offer an award named after Martin Luther King to an oil company, we're grateful that you are giving us your undivided attention on this important issue. My name is Trevor Griffey. I'm a lecturer in U.S. history at Cal State Long Beach. I live in Belmont Heights. I gave testimony in support of a minimum wage increase last year, which is strange the way it sounds at a neighborhood forum in Belmont Shore at that event and a news coverage and op eds I've read in the city council talk about the city council's deliberations about increasing the minimum wage. I've been disappointed by the role of speculation in the way it seems to be crowding out informed debate. I've heard critics of a minimum wage increase say that it will increase unemployment for low skill or young workers, that it will accelerate automation of low wage jobs, that it will have a negative overall impact on retail and restaurant industries, that it will undermine nonprofit and social service sectors, or even that it will hurt the whole economy. But what I often don't hear in all of this criticism, which I've heard from newspaper columnists, from a few city council members, from business groups, and by wealthy conservatives who live in my neighborhood where the average housing prices over $1,000,000. I haven't heard evidence. I haven't heard the actual studies of actual experience where they've raised the minimum wage, where they said in this place, this terrible thing that I'm telling you would happen in Long Beach happened. I haven't heard it even in the Le D.C. report. If you take a close look, they give a whole host of speculative possibilities about what could go wrong, but they don't go so far as to say that they will go wrong. And that's because, one, the economics is contested. But two, in many ways, we don't actually have a precedent for increasing the minimum wage one third and knowing exactly how it will play out. So as a result, I think the city council is wise to phase in a minimum wage increase. And I think you've been sound and you're thinking in that regard. But at the same time I'm concerned about the choice to not go all the way to 15 and some of the discussions of exemptions, exemptions to minimum wage laws. And I saw this because my hometown is Seattle. I moved here only a year ago. Create confusion about wage rates that make it difficult for the law to be enforced because workers often don't know what exactly the minimum wage is. If they don't know, they don't know when their boss is cheating them and their boss might not actually tell them in what category they fall. The second point is that I'm concerned that failing to get to 15 is a failure of nerve, a capitulation to business community fear mongering without evidence more than rational policymaking to serve the interests of Long Beach residents and workers. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Diana Cruz. I'm a 10th grade student, McBride High School. I'm in the ninth district, and I'm a soon leader with Californians for Justice. A higher minimum wage is extremely important to everyone. Long Beach. However, when we say everyone, we mean everyone. In my opinion, it's kind of ridiculous to not apply this great new policy to workers under 25. I strongly believe that if we are to raise the minimum wage that it should be. Applied to everyone. I don't understand why people younger than 25 year olds wouldn't get that higher wage, especially because they're college graduates who are forced to get minimum wage when, while they're struggling to combat student loans, this huge portion contains so many different groups of people who have taken up a job for a reason. These are high school students who have to take a job to help support their families or young parents who are just trying to. Find a way to make ends meet. To take a livable wage away from them is unfair. I understand that this is supposed to decrease the amount of competition youth. Face against the adults in getting a job. But there will always be that competition. They used to work should not be devalued. Our city can. Not be in favor of exploiting youth by paying. Them less for the same work that adults do. This has caused much more hardship for students in general. In just two years, I'm going to be headed to college and to pay tuition, textbooks, board and health, housing. It's going to be expensive, and I know I'll. Probably have to take a job in addition to schooling, but I have to divert energy from studies. I want to be able to support myself with it. The same dilemma is occurring for so many college students and making high schoolers question if college is even worth it at this point? Higher education should be the end goal for all of our students. But why are we making it so unattainable with a higher wage? It becomes something more tangible, a goal that's more realistic. By supporting a 15 wage for all, we are supporting the. People most impacted. This especially means our students. As college tuition becomes greater and greater, we must consider the students attending them. So no, they shouldn't be exempt because they still have those. Pay, even if they are young. A youth work. Is worth just as much as adults. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Joseph Dove, and I'm here representing Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice. I've been working in the food service industry for over a decade. First as a dishwasher, then as a prep cook, and then as a chef. And up until last year, I worked two full time. Jobs just to pay the bills. I live in the fifth District in Long Beach. It's not the most expensive district in Long Beach, but at just above minimum wage, like I've heard, a lot of employers say that they pay their employees. It still doesn't cut it. So the excuse that the pay more than minimum wage doesn't exempt them from having to acknowledge the fact that their employees still live in poverty. And one thing that hasn't really come up much is paid sick days. In the foodservice industry, it's a very unregulated market, despite what a lot of cities try to do. What that means is that a lot of employees who would prefer to call in sick because they don't want to spread germs everywhere usually don't call in sick one because they can't afford to because they don't get paid sick days. And two, because a lot of employers will legally fire them for not coming to work, even though they shouldn't be there because of health reasons. So paid sick days is another thing that the council should definitely consider when raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. I've heard a lot of business owners say that they're afraid that businesses are going to close, that jobs are going to be lost, revenues are going to go out of the city and the economy is going to collapse. As the professor who spoke just before me mentioned, none of that is has been substantiated by facts. However, the OECD report by Dr. Cooper showed that most businesses say that they are not going to cut employees, they're not going to cut employee hours, they're not going to move towards automation, and they don't think that they're going to be closing their doors. I believe those 100% of businesses say that they're not going to be closing their doors. So we need to go on the facts, not just stipulations and fear mongering. An independent review by the Department of Labor of over 64 studies showed that there is no real negative impact for raising the minimum wage. Somebody asked. I can't remember. Who was it? Asked. I think it was Councilmember Gonzalez. How many Long Beach residents would be impacted by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour? And nobody knew the answer. 15,000 Long Beach residents. So this is something that the council needs to consider $15 an hour because 13 is not enough. 1250 is not enough. 1250 and five years certainly is not enough. We need paid sick days. We need citywide enforcement of these changes. And we need no exemptions for anybody. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. My name is Alejandro Gonzalez alone. I'm the lead organizer with Californians for Justice. We're here as an organization to support raising the minimum wage to $15. Given that in our city, a lot of working families really depend on their wages and making sure that we change the conditions of poverty to eliminate that. That should be the Long Beach way in reference to the youth working with the high school students. A lot of them, I think even hearing from some folks in the audience or even in previous hearings, there's this an assumption that youth don't work. There's an assumption that youth, you know, like they don't really need to earn that much money. But the reality with the students is that many of them see the struggle in their family. Some of them may be the only person who can legally work in this country, and their parents are actually dependent on their labor. A lot of students that we work with actually share that. They're in the process of looking for work now as they're in high school. So the reality is, is not at an age when at a certain age, when people need to work or an age above 25, it starts at a young age since even their junior high or high school. Another thing, we also work with youth that are foster youth. For a lot of folks that are foster youth. And the conditions. May not be the best in the families that they get to be in. We have one youth who actually chose to be emancipated just because of the conditions were very unbearable. He's not 25, he's still a high school student. And for those students that have to now depend on themselves and work with this decision of exempting the youth, you're also hurting those students to have a better quality of life and to be able to sustain themselves. So as you make your decision, you need to see the students holistically and the diversity of our youth that they are the folks that could bring the money that they need for their family or for themselves in four years. The youth that I'm working with right now are going to be in college. And the reality is that college students have to work because we don't have the loans or the scholarships or the grants that are needed so that we could just. Focus on school. And so by you deciding to exempt students or. A youth under 25. You're hurting a very important population and you're limiting their ability to even sustain themselves. So I urge you, no exemptions for nobody. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Creditjason Pharmacist District. I want to apologize on behalf of the woman who was very, very blunt, you know, because some of us African-American women don't act that way. And it's kind of hard for us to get jobs because the statistics say that we are hostile women, that we act certain ways. We can't get a job. Now, I need your support. Thank you. And so with that said, I have a 13 year old daughter, and I would love for her to work for the city of Long Beach after my first job here in Long Beach. I love the city of Long Beach. I been for 32 years. I look up to all of you guys as leaders because we vote each other in and I know for ya to understand that coming from a poor family or a high rich family, you see any growing up, you see, and you have cousins and uncles and family members who couldn't make a living. And so what your cousins do, they go out and sell drugs they've gotten so their body, we don't want our youth doing that to their selves. We want our youth to make is living so they can help their family. You know, I'm saying for part, helping her family, making money, managing Sean, our young youth, they can provide for themself and stop worrying about stressing out mother and father. Oh, I need this. I need that. Or why you can't get this. Why do so-and-so have those type of shoes and I can't get it? We shouldn't stress as parents. So we're about providing for our kids. We should worry about paying our bills, make sure our life insurance are pay. Make sure our kids college tuition is paid. Also, oh, $2,000 on my student loans. I want my daughter growing up paying off to not have the idea to all student loans right now if you are do you should know how it is so why not start our children now profiting from them struggling have the pace too long. When they get a good job, they should be able to worry about, focus on making it better for themselves, for their family and a future. So that's all I got to say is please raise $15 for our children. They need it. They need it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. When I noticed that months ago, I had a misnomer, this one. Okay. So I want to let the gentleman who is at the mic have his 3 minutes like everyone else. So, senor, please go ahead. Yeah. Sir. Number one, Solano. Okay, hold on 1/2. Hold on 1/2. Okay, everyone that's at the mike deserves your 3 minutes uninterrupted, so let's respect everyone at the microphone. Okay, senor. Sir, please continue. You know, when? I'm not sure. I mean, none of us want to know that I was going to commit a rapida. Ms.. Bhosale even with a cane, along with things, as they say in Tanya's main container, Tehran. Me, Peralta or Mi Familia? Good evening. My name is Juan Solano. My wife and I have lived in I've lived in Long Beach for a long time. I would love to retire. And spend time with my family. It was intentional at the end that the procurement and maintenance at the end of the order. They don't allow mental. I've been working 20 years in KFC and there's never been a change in the minimum wage compared to how I have to live. I will. I will look to see where. You'll be able concise personas in the parliamentary cameras. I do what I can in order to survive. I live with six people in a two bedroom apartment. Where I know nothing will happen. A compendium of taboos. Every day I go to work. In on the bus. I can't afford to get a car amendment. Let me remain solidly in. Sync with the. No. For me to ask those. In 2015. I couldn't afford most of my expenses. You cannot do this. This is the authoritarianism. Kinship. Kinship. Aurora. I would ask. That you, as our representatives, demand $15 an hour. For workers. Colonial. Colonial level. A similar thing of. I intend to show in person. So the intent of the witness provided the. We make this. Area below a third of a silver. Every year we do New Year's resolutions. And they're usually vain and for individuals. But this year, I would like you to give me a resolution. Iraq policy. That. Same as attractive to Trabajadores Como para la salud de la Ciudad a long beach. To do something for the people of Long Beach. To make Long Beach better for the working people in Long Beach. Once the Valley of the Kings is always poorer. She was lucky to heat up with in a complimentary salario integrale. There's an fir made up across. A salary of $15 an hour for workers and paid sick days. In place as common ground. Popular can talk Taco Bell as in millions and millions. But back on the Long Beach. These fast food companies get millions of dollars of profits. But we are the ones who bring the money back to Long Beach. The animals get up and their assistants are pulling up. But I, we read it. We have to we have to rely. On public assistance in. Order to just survive. It this animal will look total shedding. So you do not know this is the type of career that any minimum wage worker has to deal with. It's not a solution as compatibly as your personal case and negotiable. We're going to stop right there. You cannot do that, man, what you just did. So we're going to take a recess and everyone that's in line. Stay right where you are in line. The rest of us council is going to take aa1 minute recess. Okay. Thank you. I just want to speed up. Okay. So I said okay. So. Okay. Listen. Okay. Thank you all very much. We're going to pick back up. And. Go into a roll call here. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Superman. Here. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here. Thank you, sir. I'm gonna let you start from the beginning. Then I wanna make sure you get your full time. So if we can just. Then I'm going to start it, clock over and just right from the top. And I want to thank everybody else for their patience, sir. You know, minimal when I think I'm totally in denial. Like Ian for the longest time was lucky. And always, I'll give you the Bahamas. The money that we make here. In Long Beach. We spend here. We live here in Long Beach. Can't afford to go anywhere else. The dynasty was penniless upstairs. Go see that massacre of 1513. And I will do my palaver. It is a boiling. You know, there's. I would ask. You gentlemen and ladies to please you guys have the last word and to please. Yes, you can raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Gary Hetrick. I'm professor of sociology at Cal State University Long Beach. And I live in the fourth District and I'm here to register my support for the Long Beach Way policy 15 by two, 20 paid sick days, comprehensive city led enforcement and zero exemptions. And my support is based on extensive research that shows these policies work. Since the first policy of this kind was passed in 1988, dozens of studies have analyzed the effects on employers and on employees. Despite variance in practice, increasing the minimum wage tends to produce similar outcomes. Public Policy Institute of California study shows that increasing wages reduces poverty and generates more full time positions. There's also little evidence that these policies are disincentives for businesses, and research by the Brookings Institution shows that higher minimum wages generate lower employee turnover and higher worker morale. This, in turn, leads to productivity improvements, which helps explain why increased wages only produce modest increases in prices roughly around 5%. So what does that mean for Long Beach? The Los Angeles Economic Roundtable estimates that by 2020, the city raising the city minimum wage to $15 an hour will, among other things, lift thousands of workers out of poverty, create over a thousand new jobs, generate almost $70 million, and increase public revenue by increase sales and employment, reduce public assistance expenditures by $78 million. These potential results strike at the very heart of the challenges created by the structural changes we have faced in Long Beach over the last 20 years. We need to stop the race to the bottom. Therefore, we should act now to implement a $15 minimum wage with comprehensive enforcement and enforcement and no exemptions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. So, everyone, my name is Josephs and I'm a senior at Cal State Long Beach living in the second district. I'm also a member of Unagi and Long Beach and a volunteer with a Filipino youth high school program on the West Side in the seventh District at Cabrillo High School. A lot of times they can't go because they're working and they're not working for spare change or spending money. They're helping their families with rent, food, medical bills. Some of them have started families of their own. The members of CAFTA that spoke a few minutes ago are exactly right. If job discrimination for gender or race and age are legal, why would wage discrimination against age be okay? I also have grandparents that have been working as caregivers and care homes for over ten years. They're almost in their seventies. So when you worry about senior citizens losing out by this and like having not having enough money for for health care, please do not forget about my grandparents, because they're senior citizens, too, who are forced to come here due to no jobs in the Philippines. Please do not further marginalize already marginalized communities by allowing exemptions on the new minimum wage. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, mayor garcia, vice mayor lowenthal and members of the council. My name is james stephenson and I'm the managing partner at BOVO at 144 Pine Avenue. We're a member of the Kone family of restaurants, which operates about 26 locations, mostly in Southern. California, along with three in Maui. As we continue to expand our company and look for opportunities throughout Southern. California, including here in Long Beach, we are certainly concerned with increasing costs of labor. Perhaps more importantly, though, we are concerned with the inequities of increasing minimum wage without taking into account total earnings of our team members. Generally, the only team members at our restaurants that we pay the current $10 an hour minimum wage. Our servers, bartenders and other employees who also receive tips. Servers at Bobo Kitchen and bartenders often make upwards of 15 to $18 an hour on top of the $10 an hour that we pay them. As for the cooks and dishwashers in our kitchen, we generally receive little money, if any money in tips due to certain legal restrictions . We pay them above the minimum wage in the range of 11 to $14 per hour. Therefore, when the California state minimum wage recently increased to 9 to $10, the only employees. At our restaurants are. Required to get a raise where servers, bartenders and other tipped employees who have been. Making as much as 25 to $28 per hour. When you include their tips, the cooks and dishwashers were already above the minimum wage and generally. Did not receive a raise. The obvious response to this may be we'll give the cooks and dishwashers a raise. However, as you may know, the restaurant business is one of very low. Margins and very, very high failure rate without raising prices to a point of scaring away our guests who are not able to increase the the hourly wage of our kitchen staff. For these reasons, I'm here in support of including the total. Earnings as a part of your proposal for an increase. In the Long Beach minimum wage. I truly believe this is a fair proposal and one that will allow us to compensate all of our team members in an equitable manner. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next week. Good evening. Mayor Robert Garcia and City Council members. My name is Kevin Garcia. I'm here on behalf of Project Alpha as a member. I'm sorry, as a supporting member of the organization. I was asked to speak on behalf of the wage to $15 an hour. Also, I know a lot of you guys are already bored, so I'm going to keep this light and area like a fart, so I'll get to move in. As a local worker of the city of Long Beach, I believe increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour opposed to 15 I'm sorry, $13 an hour would be very beneficial not only to those individuals, but also to the city of Long Beach. I used to work for a franchise for which I worked for three years, minimum, which was a fast food restaurant. As a young Hispanic male at the age of 18, like I mentioned, I was there for three years. I strive for success and in the end I did achieve. Unfortunately, it was a fast food restaurant. I could barely make ends meet. It didn't pay much of the bills, but at times I did have some money left over. And when I did have the money left over, I came to our beautiful city of Long Beach, which I'm here 24 six, because the other day I'm in San Pedro and in here I definitely invested my money in our local restaurants or shopping outlets and theaters giving back to the community. Recently, I've been given the opportunity to lead and train a team of 75 individuals who took on the Obama challenge to get those citizens of Long Beach who do not have health insurance, to get them covered on a daily basis. We are reminded how blessed we are to work along with Molina Healthcare and to be getting paid $15 an hour. So my employees are well aware of that and they're looking forward to this new lobbying process, having them for exactly two weeks at them. This campaign, I can truly see that these interviews. The Jazz are extremely gracious of the amount of money that they're getting each day, you see. You can see in their eyes that they're hungry to work. They want to continue to work for that $15 an hour. In fact, they're so hungry that they even asked to work ten, 12, 15 hours. But we're on a budget that we try to keep it below 10 hours. Like like I was mentioning, $15 an hour, I believe will truly motivate the citizens of Long Beach to go out and look for employment and give back to the community . I've seen how this $15 an hour have changed the lives of 75 individuals, and I hope to see it change the lives of half a million people. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Greening a major Garcia and city council members. My name is Daniel Norris and I'm a truck driver here in Los Angeles and Long Beach Port. I'd, I, I'd been working for Pacific and Transportation for the last eight years. During the whole time I have been misclassified as independent contractor. I have work for days, Keith, sometimes working for 14 hours per day so that I can afford all the expenses that they force show me. Many times these charges are more than what I make during the trips, which means that I take home a negative check. In other words, that means they're out of the company for working for them. I have fought for. Years to change these, but I can do it alone. Fortunately, me and my coworkers Pacific and I had filed claims with the California Department of Labor. After about a year, they have judge that their company has illegally deduct these charges from my wages in the amount of over $180,000. Overall, the company owes $7 million to other drivers like myself that have filed claims. The company has retaliated against us, but not by not giving us work, forcing us more and more into debt, more and more into poverty. Today is an important day for the city of Long Beach and the thousands of workers that work day in and day out. All workers of Long Beach deserve a voice of $15 because that is the right thing to do. Do you have the opportunity to leave thousands of workers out of poverty and help to eliminate waste theft due to do the right thing? Raised the wage the wage to $15 with no exemptions, enforce the wage and provide workers with paid sick days. Only through these we can make sure that working families have the opportunity to truly fight for. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Good evening, council members. My name is Tiny Little Nelson Niue and I am the founder of Project Alpha. Again, we are a Long Beach nonprofit providing reentry services for formerly incarcerated Pacific Islanders, Asians and the LGBTQ community. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of our Pacific Islanders, as well as our nonprofit. We are in support of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. And for all of us, not for some of us, but for all of us. I have been a part of this coalition to be a voice for my communities, especially those formerly incarcerated, that have difficulty attaining employment. In August of 2015, Long Beach City Council approved research and explored raising their wage with the LAPD and its report with its recommendations. And tonight, I ask that you honor what we initially fought for, and that was to improve the quality of life for all Long Beach residents through the raising of the minimum wage. We, as a nonprofit, have committed to paying our staff a livable wage of $15 an hour. And while the L.A. EDC report stated otherwise, there are nonprofits in support of $15 living wage, and we have been one of them. Project The Lopez Board of Directors and Management agree we will ensure that all of our staff is paid a livable wage, even if it means not having a merit increase. I am confident that other leadership from other nonprofit profit sectors excuse me. I'm confident that other leadership from other nonprofit sectors will not allow our services to suffer because of the increase in a livable wage. I am confident that we all have an accountable plan, which means an effective review of disbursement. This month we have been fortunate enough to see and accept the Obama challenge with Covered California and to see 75 employees being paid a livable wage of $15 an hour. And to see the desire, the willingness to show up, to work and to see the transformation that is happening truly is remarkable. Although temporary, $15 an hour has created an impact not only in their lives but in our community. I ask that you take a look not only at $13 an hour. Take a look at the plan that has been presented before you. Let us do it. Long Beach his way. Each and every one of us. We have never been exclusive, but inclusive. No exemptions. $15 an hour. A comprehensive wage enforcement plan and paid sick days. Please raise the wage to 15. Thank you. Next speaker, please. When does notice me? Number two, Snyder Torres saying miembro the rock eat restaurant. Hi. Good evening. My name is Senators and I'm a member Iraq and I also work in a restaurant. So my dress altera ee Consuelo Gonzalez Aluminum Gonzalo Minimo Nomi complete opera sobre TV entonces piva ula. I also am a single mother with a I make the minimum wage when the minimum wage I cannot have ends. Me and I have the need to ask for public assistance. With most. When when ill Pensacola kills cancer. Less than an hour on we stand to look at an incumbent that being sick as a boy. They are, said Padilla said sobre todos los personas. The news the negocios copyright Duncan Comércio Gallery. Laura Noyce, mutual lista, mutual castano, Nintendo and Princess Sono Cellulari are this organism poquito masa and nobody will stand prescient others look on. I salute them, but who knows? We have a very low wage and with the cooperation of restaurants and small businesses to give us this little break, because literally it's not a it's not a lot what we're asking for. And this will give us a break into living, having a substantial living. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Well, I don't just mean on breast cancer. You know, your stories represent and the heroes who need us and control their lives. Hi, my name is Roselle. And, you know, and I am here to represent the campaign of women united against the abuse. Of power, the uproar over unallocated incremental. Salary and many more. In Long Beach. Your minimal the cancer dollars or. Comp protection is the other forum. Without exception. I am here in favor to prevent increase in the minimum wage and Long Beach minimum wage to $15 with protections paid sick days and no exceptions elementary salary or. Minimal salaries for beneficiary AKC this year the million resident this the Long. Beach getaway in Las Vegas. You that. Accommodates a small kid interested in Long Beach saga those will maintain. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will affect almost 17,000 residents that work and live in Long Beach. And this will help 6000 and 6500 workers in Long Beach that to come out of poverty by the year 2020. Los Ingresos on. Autos in Long Beach, Sacramento, running in the cuatro siento cinco me Jonas. He Cassie Siento trained on me Jonas one year after avocado toast get I'm being. Beaten in Long Beach. The annual income of these workers in Long Beach will increase around $405 million, and almost 130 million are going to go to workers that also live in Long Beach A330. Another language for this uses, I use common casino. I've been working at the Hilton Hotel in Long Beach for six years as a cook. You you know, that was meals. That the calories the hotel because I mean if Sharon approves. Any and all those meal those incremental. Cost a lot of the lobster avocado. To the terrace like in Long Beach, I am one of the thousands of workers, hotel workers that benefit from the approval of the proposition. And in 2012, that increased the salary of the work of the hotel workers here in Long Beach. Gracias, Alameda Diner, la familia. Como la mise en scene, a composer wannabe long before. Perino's la familia. Thanks for this measure. Worker families like mine have been able to have a dignity and have a better life with their families. See an. Embargo. See an embargo? Either muchos problemas Cubans or Fidel. There's l'approbation. Dinner for Carlos hotels and lobbies. And retailers over the. Bazaar lately. However, there's been a lot of problems since this proposition came up because hotel owners in Long Beach have been trying to avoid this law on a. Number of hotels, hotels and lobbies. Also within a number of hotels. Are these mean? Although even though the revenue of hotels and their earnings have been increasing, long beach, the number of worker the hotel workers have been reduced. As significa. Gan incremental Los Gatos. Trabuco hotels and Long Beach this mean that are the over the hotel workers in Long Beach have been open work. At Amazon Los Gatos, Trabuco Posadas Las Mujeres extravagant in la induce wrote a letter saying for internal. Conditions in seguros the trabajo also. Sexual can move boka protection. I said of the overwork and the heavy day of work we were in. The work in the hotel industry face very unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment and very few protections. Entonces si i commentators highlighted that the Los trabajadores the Long Beach betterthan being okay. But not the hero on como your he told those mes companeros get the trabajo cameras and maestro of this Gonzo's. He conditional. Said the trouble. So then there is a need to us for to return the minimum wage to workers in Long Beach because. But also we need to protect workers like me and all of my coworkers. They deserve meal breaks, respect and safe conditions on the job. Baltimore. I'm being the famous operative here. Al Pacino as dispose of. No, no. There's your love. L.A., the Mondo. And we also have to protect the person that gave us the chance to be in this world. Maria Callas mother is the owner of the Nosotros. And I say and I mean the mother of it's and every one of us. We were lost. We went through a horrendous bereavement. Maharis. Gracias. We were looking. That's a real it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am the next speaker for the third time. Thank you. My name is Monrovia, Nova, and I am lead organizer with the Restaurant Opportunity Center. The importance of a living wage here in Long Beach will give dignity to the hands that feed you. Those hands have a lot of stories and a lot of faces. A lot of these people that feed you in those restaurants here in Long Beach live below the poverty line. A lot of these workers have to do two jobs in order to have and me and they live in very poor conditions outside of having a very low wage. These workers face wage theft that every now and then every day raises. There's no there won't be no improvement of the increase of the minimum wage if we don't not enforce and stop these employers from stealing from their workers. TIP Credit. Total compensation are tricky ways to keep stealing from the workers. And also it's also illegal. Also young workers are not only as live in stereotype as has been managed have have to work just for fun or having to work just to write comic books. They support families. They they go through college. Exceptions will only bring bring us discrimination and more wage theft. College students under 25, they have to pay these unpayable loans for years. And if you crave them out of this minimum wage proposal, and it's going to be almost impossible for them to have to have to pay these loans and to have to go through high school. These workers need to have a high standard of why their work life is not a low entry job. These these kids are going to learn skills and they have to learn that in any entry that they can have dignity and respect. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, Ripley. Hello, everyone. My name is for a few minutes and I'm here representing the Brooke, which is the restaurant operating center and. I would say. Santa monica already raised them. The way it's been is a tougher city than Long Beach and they're either planning to do 15 to 18. So it's a big difference. I don't think we're so different from the Dr.. Cooper was saying about L.A. County, how is going to change our lives? This $15 an hour is going to at least not going to change the whole thing, but it's going to really going to help. And I was I was hearing her making numbers and statistics. And I was going to say, I just finished high school. And you just have a brainstorm in my head. And I said, okay, so let's talk about numbers. Okay. So if you make, what, $10 an hour, 40 hours? But that's the thing, though, because I represent restaurants, I'm more know about people that works for the restaurant. So they don't wanna give you 40 hours anymore because they try to keep you below 3 hours because they don't want to give you any benefits. All right. So okay, so say you're going to make $300 a week and then you month you're going to total $100. So what are you going to do with 1200 dollars? The average of rent in Long Beach is, what, four? 1450 hundred? So for in my case, I had a my family, we have four members of the family. So I had to work two jobs. You know, I had to find a way. So what what what is it that I'm doing? I'm surviving. I'm not living. I hear a lot of stories about saying, when was the last time I went to vacation? I don't remember. And what is all of these people easy to say to come and say, oh, yeah, $12 is, you know, there's enough. $13 enough. What? When was the last time I went shopping for me? You. You know, it's not your business, but I don't remember either. You know, kids are growing. My I have two kids. One four year old, two year old. They don't ask for anything yet. There are growing. Lenders are asking, So what am I gonna do? Babysitting is high price. So what are the little things that you have to put attention to? The average people like us? You know, like so many over here, they already have the money in their pockets. You know, they're, you know, how do we worry about being fired, you know, or. Anything like. That? But what I'm trying to say that we have to support the $15 an hour because going to be a big help, you know, and let's keep supporting all the like you guys said, if you really care about the citizen loan, which is the time to now to do something for them. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Members of the council and Mayor Garcia. My name is Johnny Rodriguez. I'm a resident of the First District. I'm also a youth organizer with an organization called Carmichaels in Action. We use we work with young Cambodian youth in Cambodia town, central, Long Beach, the Eastside. And so one of the reasons I'm really passionate about this work is that I believe that our youth have the capacity to be the leaders we need them to be. And I often believe that someday I'll return to this room and some of my students will be sitting in your seats. That's what I hope for. But under the current wave, things are going now. Families are able to support their families here in Long Beach. And over the last couple of years, excuse me, I've noticed a change of families having to leave. Not just Long Beach, California. So I've had students leave to Georgia, leave to Texas. And those are like our future city council persons, our future mayors, our future our future leaders of Long Beach. And so I really, really passionate about raising the wage to $15 an hour so that I'm not losing the leaders that I'm investing in . And I want to also say, I'm very proud I am of the youth leaders that we heard tonight that were able to speak and share how they feel about the minimum wage being the possibility of a minimum wage increase. So again, I just really want you to take that into consideration. Long Beach has a thriving Cambodian community. We have designation of Cambodia town in the long, rich history of Cambodian folks here in the city. And if we don't do something soon, that might change the the you know, we talk a lot about gentrification and that's actually what's happening. Our folks are are living in Long Beach and going to other states, leaving California. So please support a $15 minimum wage. Wage protections and no exemptions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everybody. Honorable Mayor Garcia City Council. My name is Alex Montana. Says I live in the First District and I work for the Filipino Migrants Center. I support raising the minimum wage, the Long Beach Way, which is $15 an hour. City led wage enforcement, more paid sick days and no exemptions. I support this not just for me, but for the hundreds of Westside Long Beach residents that my organization and our volunteers have talked to in the last six months. We've been asking community residents what they think about raising and enforcing the minimum wage, and an overwhelming majority are saying the same thing. We need $15 an hour now and we need city led wage enforcement now. In November, the Filipino migrant center surveyed 110 West Side Long Beach residents in the seventh District about this. Many of them were Filipino, Latino and other folks of color. 98% of the folks who answered the survey said they support raising the wage to $15 an hour. 62% said they have experienced wage theft personally. 41% say that they know somebody who has experienced wage theft. And 100% of them said they want a Long Beach law that really protects workers from wage theft. And the truth is, wage theft is rampant here in Long Beach. It's not just with these big corporations. We're seeing it a lot also even in small businesses. We have at the Filipino Migrant Center, we've received dozens of Filipino workers and a lot of them work in Long Beach. A lot of them have experienced wage theft at small resident care, small caregiving industries and also small restaurants. So it's not just big companies, but small companies as well. And when it comes to wage theft, we don't need just one one person in the city Long Beach office. We need a real office that is really enforcing wage enforcement here in Long Beach. We need strong wage enforcement here. And of course, we can't have these exemptions. That just leaves room that just makes it harder to enforce and also leaves loopholes. And so that's why we really need to stay strong on $15 an hour. We need to stay strong on city led wage enforcement. We need to stay strong on more paid sick days. And we need to stay strong. In saying that we will. Not exempt. We need $15 now. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, mayor. City council members. All of you know me. My name was Mike Murchison. And for the record, I'm born and raised in the third district and I happily say that I live in the third district. I'm here on behalf of 18 restaurants that I represent. A long time ago, we discussed this issue and I think we all agreed that it was important to increase the minimum wage. We didn't know what that would be, but we saw through all the discussions and all the conversations. We reached kind of a level that we would support $13 an hour by 2019 with the caveat of two things We want a youth wage in there, and we wanted the concept of total earnings. You heard that discussed tonight. It's not a tip. Credit has nothing to do with tip credit. It's total earnings is the amount of money that any employee, not just restaurants employees but any employee makes in a pay period. So what I'm asking for you tonight to consider as a friendly amendment to any motion that's made tonight. Is a youth. Wage up to 21. And for you to ask the city attorney to come back prior to the first reading and whenever that's in mid-February or late February, to have him come back and say, here is my legal opinion on total earnings. Give him time to come back with that, because I think you're going to find that the Long Beach Way includes restaurants that were built and raised here in Long Beach. I'm not talking national chains like KFC or El Pollo Loco or Subway or McDonald's. I'm talking on the backs of people who started their restaurants here in Long Beach. They raise their kids in Long Beach. They helped out the. Nonprofits in Long Beach by supporting them. I'm talking about restaurants like Georges and Trainee's in the eighth. I'm talking like La Luna and the Six. I'm talking like E.J. Malloy's in the fourth and other parts in other council districts. I'm talking boathouse. I'm talking talent. Sooner or later st on second. I'm talking about people that you all know and love and spend a lot of time with. When you have the ability to go out there and have dinner on the weekends, you frequent their restaurants. They're asking for you to support them with a concept of total earnings and a youth wage. It's not for those that work at KFC and make a minimum wage of $10 an hour and no other earnings. We all get that. We all understand that. But we're asking for you do is to consider the full service restaurants that start here in Long Beach and continue to thrive here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Dan Fleming. I'm president of the Economic Roundtable. We prepared this report. Long Beach Rising, a city that works for everyone. To analyze the effects of a $15 an hour minimum wage. Our bottom line assessment is that. That the minimum wage will not harm employment in Long Beach and that it will meet urgent needs of workers who are employed here. Most employers would like to do right by their workers so that they can afford to pay for basic necessities, a higher minimum wage. Enables all employers to solve this problem together, rather than leaving it to individual employers to risks to take the risks of solving it alone. Long Beach's economy is resilient and the sectors that have high concentrations of low wage workers, including restaurants and retail. And the port of the Port of Long Beach is an important source of economic strength and depth for the city's economy. The wage increase will create a stimulus that will offset any effects as service industries adjust to putting more money into payroll and paying higher wages. In response to your question, Councilwoman Gonzalez, our report analyzes the flow of workers at different wage levels across the city line. And we estimate that 16,769 residents of Long Beach will benefit from a $15 an hour minimum wage. One third of the wage and total wage increase will go to residents of Long Beach. Businesses will grow and new businesses will start up in underinvested neighborhoods of the city that need these services. We estimate that the stimulus effect will create over 3000 jobs with a thousand of them in Long Beach. And probably most importantly, we estimate that. Nearly 15,000 people, including nearly 6000 children, will be lifted out of poverty by a $15 an hour minimum wage and that the poverty rate among workers will be cut close to in half. So in summary, we believe that the evidence enables the city to go into a wage increase with its eyes open and with tools for watching effects over the five years that an increase in falls to the benefit of folks who work here in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor. Councilman. My name is Craig Hoffman. And I own five restaurants in four districts in the city of Long Beach. My family's been in the restaurant business in Long Beach for over 60 years. As Mike Burchett said presented earlier, I think that having some sort of earnings exemption would be very important to full service restaurants if we don't do something like that. I'm very concerned about the over 500 people I employ in the city that could be affected. Unfortunately, Long Beach is not just an island. We have cities surrounding us like Signal Hill and Cerritos and Lakewood and Los Alamitos, which are going to have these same provisions of minimum wage, and we're going to have higher prices on our menus. And and I see I see customers going to the neighboring cities. And I think it's going to affect our sales and it's going to affect our employment. And I think we need to to start slowly. $13 with the earnings exemption is something reasonable and not something that's really going to hurt the restaurant so badly. I mean, I have one restaurant that's closed because of a fire and I'm working diligently to rebuild it. But there's some question in my mind whether I should reopen it. And it's going to depend a lot on what the council does. We have to have reasonable wages and we have to have an ability to have full service restaurants in Long Beach and not just focus the minimum wage on the fast food industry. So that's my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Renata Yanna, and I'm a lead researcher at the UCLA Labor Center Study, where we surveyed over 550 young workers in the retail and restaurant industries in Los Angeles County, including young people from here in Long Beach. We know that many of these young workers. There's. Let me start over. Sorry. There's a myth that young people work for pocket change and have used that as an excuse to provide low wages. Yet our study finds that 48% of the young workers actually gave to their families. In fact, less than 1% spend their earnings solely on recreation or leisure activities. Thus, we know that young workers need it. In fact, almost three quarters said that they would like to work more hours. Almost half of those that work within the retail and restaurant industries are young people. These industries already pay low wages. However, they also provide young workers with much needed income that supports families and educational careers. Policymakers and elected officials muster away from initiatives that would create a distinct wage status for younger workers. Research in history shows that such wage divisions are economically foolish, political unsound, legally unquestionable and socially unjust. Therefore, our research suggests that the City of Long Beach should not pass an exemption for workers under 21. No worker, younger or older, should be exempt for a minimum wage increase. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Garcia. And Councilman, my name is Hillary Habib and I'm a Labor and employment attorney with the law firm of Sheppard and Bowen. And tonight I'm here on behalf of the Coalition of Full Service Restaurants located in Long Beach. And I'd like to discuss the total earnings exemption approach, which many people have discussed this evening. If the city is inclined to adopt a local minimum wage, it should also adopt the total earnings exemption. Under this approach, the new minimum wage would apply to all people who are not exempt. Now it's common for labor laws to have these sort of exemptions, including state overtime, meal period, rest period and paid sick leave laws. And it makes sense for exempt employees who already receive taxable earnings at or above a minimum level to for this to apply to in fact, the IRS and Franchise Tax Board treat these sums as taxable earnings from a job and insist that they be recognized as part of the gross income. Also, the common sense supports this approach. For example, if an employee earns 1250 an hour from his or her work, it does not matter where those taxable earnings are derived from. I'll be at peace rate, earnings, tip salary or other taxable amounts, the earnings of the employees to save or spend as the employee chooses. Now we've heard a lot about the potential limitations on this exemption, but as the city attorney said, there is no binding or persuasive authority on point saying that this exemption is impermissible for a city councilman impossible to enact. And now critics of the exemption mistakenly rely on inapplicable case law. Regarding tip credits. As Mike Richardson said, this is not a tip credit, this is an exemption. It's completely different. And and so that is completely debunked. Further, the city attorney mentioned the Legislative Council Bureau's opinion letter, and again, that is completely inapplicable because that only applies to tip credits. It did not address a proposal for a specific carve out or exemption for any employee of any employer, not just tipped employees employed by restaurants whose taxable earnings exceed a specified amount. And the letter, in fact, conceded that there is an uncertainty and an absence of directly controlling law on this issue. And finally, the attorney who proposed this total earnings exemption is a partner of my law firm, and he's written one of the most widely used wage and hour books in the country. His book has been used by officials in the labor commission in the U.S. Department of Labor, and he was appointed by the Industrial Welfare Committee as a member of several minimum wage boards. And so he's obviously qualified to give an opinion on this exemption. And so we urge you to insert a total innings exemption, earnings exemption as part of any minimum wage ordinance. It's the single most important issue, as you've heard tonight, for the restaurants of Long Beach. And we further asked the city attorney to to review the legality of this prior to a first reading. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Saba Waheed, and I am the research director at the UCLA Labor Center. I have conducted extensive research or extensive research on young people in the county. Our research shows that young people are a core part of the economy, making up one quarter of the workforce. But the soaring cost of living affects young people just as much as they do other workers. Young people face higher education costs than any generation before them, and they're also earning a lot less. With almost one in three young workers as a head of household and 18% to our parents. We want to caution against framing a person's early job as some kind of hobby or rite of passage. Young people should not be seen as cheap and temporary labor. In fact, scholars have found that these early jobs have life have lasting effects on their lifetime earnings and social well-being. We cannot afford to fall into the clichéd trap that young workers should work for less to gain experience. Let's show the young workers of Long Beach that their work matters, that their work is real work, and that they will be fairly compensated. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Pete. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is John Kabateck, and I am here tonight representing the California Restaurant Association and an industry comprised of more than 1000 restaurants and food service operators here in Long Beach. Kyra has proudly worked with the Coalition of Business Associations on this local minimum wage issue these past several months. We appreciate the hard work of the commission these past year and also your efforts on the council to determine a reasonable minimum wage policy. That will be a sterling example, we think, for cities across the Golden State, but also across the nation. As the commission's study itself shows, a higher minimum wage in Long Beach on its own would absolutely result in negative impacts on our small businesses and jobs. However, by including the right mitigating provisions, along with a higher minimum wage, you have a golden opportunity here to ensure that such an increase is targeted to those who will benefit from it the most, while allowing small businesses an opportunity to stay in business and keep creating jobs. To that end, Kerry is willing to consider a minimum wage increase in Long Beach to $12.50 an hour, phased in gradually over five years, provided it is coupled with the following provisions to support and protect our local businesses and jobs . An additional one year extension for businesses with 25 or fewer employees, which will allow the smallest of small businesses to adequately adjust and prepare a youth wage of $10 an hour for employees under 21 years old. Giving more small businesses the opportunity to hire more young people and give them the promise of a rewarding career right here in Long Beach, and allow these people to continue to live and work and enjoy being here in Long Beach. And finally, as you've heard before, the inclusion of total earnings, the ability for employers to consider exempting from the increase those employees earning more than the new minimum wage in wages, tips, commissions. This makes sure that employees in the heart of the house, which we've talked a little bit about, prep cooks and others, will actually get a fair increase and get one sooner on their job horizon. We do support and we appreciate the work the city attorney has been doing. We do support the city attorney continuing to review total earnings prior to your return for the first hearing. We're very proud of this proposal and we strongly encourage your support. It is sound. It's a fair, reasonable policy that will make sure employees and small business owners here in Long Beach can continue to grow and thrive and that this world class city can continue to be competitive for generations to come. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is. Taylor Monteiro, and I work at Carl's Junior. Where I make minimum wage. Thank you for letting me speak here today. Even though I'm only 18, I am not a typical teenager who makes money to buy personal needs. Few of the teenagers who do work in fast food do it just for just extra cash. Like most people I know, I took out Carls Junior because. I needed to support myself. My mom and I both work and we are still. Falling behind on our mortgage payments. This is my childhood home that my mom inherited from her grandmother, and this is her pride. We've been living over here for over 20 years. My mom has asked me to contribute more than 300. A month for to help her for the payments. It may not seem like that much, but this is over half my pay. We have to run out. To two rooms for extra income. I'm going to school next semester. Which I'm going to be starting in a couple of weeks, and I'm very excited, shall I say. But this will be not enough for me to just pay half rent and for me to be paying for my textbooks and for my personal hobbies and for my personal needs. You know, I just turned 18 and I'm barely finding out how much responsibility it is to really be here in the real world and having to actually take care of yourself. And I personally believe $10 is not enough. I heard a lot of people in suits. Talk about how 50 would be bad for business, but I did not hear one. Businessmen talk about how they're going to make sure their employees don't have to struggle like this. I did not hear one of them talk about what it is like to. Make nine or $10 an hour. $15 an hour is not that much money. If the minimum, it is the minimum you need to live decently in this country. I hope the council listens. To what the people in the city need, not what the corporations need, and raise the minimum wage to. $15 an hour. I am Taylor. Montero and thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I was like, Wait, no. Good evening. Good morning. Good evening, everyone. Mayor and City Council. My name is James Watson. I'm a third district resident, but I'm also a nonprofit employee. So usually we're here advocating for a policy for the community members. But it's nice to be here for a change to represent and speak on behalf of the nonprofit community. So there you go. So on behalf of our nonprofit organization that I work for, Building of the Community's Long Beach, located here in District one, we are speaking tonight and strong support for raising the wage to 15 an hour soon as possible. And as we take a stand and pass a policy, the Long Beach Way where we asked for 15 and our strong enforcement, no exemptions and we're not leaving our hardworking employees of both small businesses and nonprofits or young workers. Let's create an equitable policy that fits lifts all of Long Beach up building healthy communities. Long Beach, as you may have heard, conducted a survey of nonprofit leaders and community members asking the specific question Do you support an increase of the minimum wage? And a supermajority? Of those, 80 respondents were in favor of raising the minimum wage without exceptions, with no exceptions. And that included 75% of respondents who are on building of the community's Long Beach organizational partners. Several nonprofit leaders have also participated in the mayor's roundtable discussions and spoken out about the importance of their work that their employees perform, as well as the impact the increase will have on those that we serve in the nonprofit community, often in our low income and underserved communities. In Long Beach, these findings of the survey and the supportive comments are also in line with a survey that was conducted by the California Association of Nonprofits, where the results show that 60% of nonprofits statewide in California would be unaffected by an increase, and 77% of the nonprofits are supportive of increasing the minimum wage. So please, this is my plea to all of you as tonight as we look at creating equitable policy that benefits all of Long Beach, please do not use us in the nonprofit community as a barrier to a fair and just minimum wage for our friends and neighbors who work tirelessly for nonprofit organizations. We urge you to pass a policy for 15 an hour with no exemptions, paid sick days and strong enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council, Lady Gonzales, all the others. I come to speak to you on this issue because I do support the $15 with no exemptions. And I think there should be health care time for so people can get off and stay well and come back and not infect other people. And I was really struck tonight by the fact that you had these are awards around Martin Luther King, because when I was 21 years old, I did personal security for him when he came to our campus and he was under death threats. And that does that this issue because eight years later, he was killed in Memphis when he was there fighting for workers to try and get decent wages and have dignity in their lives and have a way to live. And that's what your job is now, is to do that to the people of Long Beach. And $15 an hour is not an unfair high amount of money. It's not even as much as Social Security payments are from four workers who worked most of their life. So we're not talking about people getting rich, you know, offer largess provided by their employers. No, we're talking about they create that wealth that the employer has through their work. The employer doesn't do it. The employees create the wealth and they deserve to have enough to live with dignity. And that's why I'm here to speak for this as an as a person from the first District. So thank you very much. Just do the right thing tonight. Move forward and ahead. Look, it is as Martin Luther King would do. Let's have some justice here and let's have some dignity for the working people of Long Beach. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. All right. Well, I didn't know how difficult it was to be in your positions that I was as being a commissioner of economic development. But I'm not here as that. I'm here as a entrepreneur, as a business person, and as a resident of Long Beach. And I try to figure out what I was going to say. So I was at the end of line because of trying to figure out what can I say if you haven't heard already a thousand times? I think I can actually can come up with something. So a little bit about myself. I'm an entrepreneur. I've been an entrepreneur. Since. 1993 when I quit my perfectly good job at Johnson and Johnson. And I remember being so poor after two and a half years that I had a three day notice and quit on my door. And then, of course, I asked my father for money, which is the lowest common denominator. I know what you say in the first place. And he told me, Son, get a real job. So that's what entrepreneurship really is. To many people, it's a risk. To entrepreneurs is something that you strive to do, is something you think about maybe all your life and oftentimes you find out the challenges of being an entrepreneur are so you're so naive going into the process. 85% of businesses and entrepreneurs fail in the first year, and these are probably statistics you already heard, but they don't believe that they're going to fail. They believe that they can succeed. They sign their first lease, oftentimes putting them in $150,000 in debt. They've maxed out every single credit card that they possibly could have. And usually the average entrepreneur, a business owner, is making about $67,000 a year. That's what they make. Plus they don't get vacations. I had frankly, I haven't had a vacation in four years. And I've been in business for almost 20 years. I myself haven't had a vacation. I don't have, you know, worker's comp. I don't qualify for that. I don't have disability. I don't get paid time off. And I work probably 80 hours a week, which my wife oftentimes complains about because she she I actually work for her. So I'm here really to talk about someone who's not here. And those individuals are unemployed. I my company has probably hired over the last eight years over 100 individuals who are unemployed, using programs and money available from the Workforce Investment Board, now known as we owe it. It's subsidized employment. These are individuals who are unemployed, who had absolutely no skills. Homeless, vets, welfare to work. Individuals that have been employed. Some unemployed for sometimes four years. And what I'm here to ask you to do is consider not an exemption, but a business incentive for businesses that are willing to hire the demographics that we owe covers. And it's a pretty wide reach. So if that's something that the council would be interested in doing, I think that would be an incentive for businesses to bring the most challenged, hire individuals into our workforce. And I hope that's something that you will look at and consider reasonably. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next week, Ripley. Hey. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name's due to walk Joe into. I'm a. Resident of. Long Beach. I come tonight on behalf of the L.A. County Democratic Party to share the message that this past November, we. Passed a resolution endorsing. Raising the minimum wage indexed to the cost of living, including earned paid sick days. Comprehensive wage enforcement with no exemptions. Long Beach is a majority Democratic city. The party stands with you and making the move toward 15. Briefly, each of you should have already received a copy of the resolution in your offices, but to read it into the record. Whereas a large percentage of Long Beach workers are in poverty level wages, living in overcrowded housing, pay over half of their income for rent and qualify for food stamps. These conditions exist because employers do not comply with labor and tax laws and pay workers under the table. Workers in these kinds of informal economy positions are highly. Vulnerable to wage. Theft and lack any earned paid sick leave. And. Whereas, research shows that a single wage earner in Long Beach needs more than $15 per hour to meet basic needs. This wage would improve the. Lives of workers and their families. And the increasing spending would stimulate the city's economy and provide employer employers with more stable and productive workforce. And. WHEREAS, in the 2014 platform, the California Democratic Party supports increasing the minimum wage indexed to inflation, and including a living wage in areas with high cost of living. And it advocates for earned paid sick days for all workers therefore be resolved. Los Angeles County Democratic Party supports raising the minimum wage in Long Beach to at least $15 an hour, indexed to the cost of living, including guaranteed, earned, paid sick days and comprehensive enforcement mechanism to end wage theft while protecting workers from retaliation. I know personally I have worked more of my life and a minimum wage job than I have. In my profession. And many of those. Years I spent in retail and working in the. Hospitality industry here in. Downtown Long Beach. I'm a former. Worker at BBC Five Steak House, the fish house. And I can tell you I did not ever have $100,000 a year or a $50. An hour night. With tips. And many times, the only time my pay went up was because minimum wage went up. I think at that time it was 525 an hour. And so. When we talk about. Policies that are impact the majority of Long Beach residents. A policy that's going to lift people out of poverty. A policy that's going to help our 70% of our children in public schools live in poverty. This is that type of policy. This is the time to take action. I know that members of the Democratic. Party of the residents lobby. Stand with you and we'll stand. Beside you as you take this vote to move forward towards $15 an hour. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Alfredo Carlos. I'm a faculty member at Cal State Long Beach and also the founder of the founder and executive director of the Foundation for Economic Democracy, a new nonprofit that's going to be based in Long Beach, that is going to be working on building worker owned businesses to show that we can do the Long Beach way. And specifically, what I want to kind of talk about a little bit today is I hope Suzy Price is doing okay. She's my council member. Earlier, she said that data is always good. The COBR representative from the COBR representative also said that we should do a policy that's data driven. And I think it's important as a researcher to understand the difference between good data and bad data. And that report that influenced the recommendation by the Economic Development Commission is actually built on really bad data in the sense that there was a response rate. There's 10,000 businesses in Long Beach, a response rate of 3.5%, and also with self-selection data in the sense that it was basically people self-selecting, wanting to like respond to that. That's essentially cherry picking data. So I urge you, if you have questions actually look at the Economic Roundtable report, which is actually based on census data. And as we know, the census data is very thorough and it answers a lot of the questions that you all might have in a actually systematized methodological research way. I also want to note a couple of other things specifically. I think one of the things that happens when we have these conversations that we think really short term what are going to be the business costs up front, but we don't think about the long term economic effects. And specifically what I'm talking about is the stimulus that the economic roundtable person, Dan, he was referring to in the sense that the way the economy functions is that the the jobs while businesses provide the jobs, they're not the ones that create the jobs or create the jobs as demand. And if people have money in their pockets, if people are getting paid a living wage, if people are getting paid $15, that means that they're going to be spending their money in Long Beach. That means that they're going to be able to go out to the movie theater more often. That means that they're going to be able to go to restaurants more often, and that is what creates jobs. And so I urge the council to adopt the $15 minimum wage with no exemptions. I think it's. Really problematic that in an age when we're talking about pay equity for women, that we're talking about equal pay for equal work for women, that we're also at the same time talking about not equal pay for equal work for young people. I think that's really problematic. And I think, Councilmember Lowenthal, for bringing this issue up around this time. And for the gentleman who was talking about Dr. King, if we want to honor Dr. King's legacy, he was in Memphis organizing workers at his as he said, he was fighting for economic justice. And if we really care about that issue, I think we will adopt a policy that actually is working out for workers and not a back door policy that basically basically makes exemptions that benefit businesses only. And so that's why I support the Long Beach Way, because I support economic democracy the way that the Dr. King would have . Thank you very much. Thank you. Next next speaker, please. Hi there. My name is Lisa Camillo. I'm a 46 year resident of Long Beach and I've had a business for 20 years. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo, for bringing up the total earnings possibility. I think the gentleman representing Bobo said it best that it forces us to raise our front of house employees that are already doing quite well and it makes it very difficult to raise up the kitchen staff instead of seeing what might happen or not happen. For sure I'm raising prices. I already did it on Sunday for sure. I am cutting ships for sure. I'm cutting hours for sure. I have to cut out a lot of my young people and it pains me when I hear people say that we're discriminating against them. It's the young people. Part of my business is my favorite part is mentoring them and watching them grow up. I also have to say I resent this, the Long Beach way I've been here 46 years. My first job was at what is goodies? I sold cocoa butter and hamburgers for dollars 65 an hour and I worked for Mr. Hoffman. And to me, the Long Beach Way, as you start off young and build skills and then hopefully the Long Beach promised you go to school and then you start a business and raise your children in Long Beach just like I did. So I hope you'll consider the total earnings package to help out the small business owners, because I know we really care about our people have 24 employees. Only one does not live in Long Beach. And I care greatly about their well-being. They're really important to me. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Oh, good evening. My name is Grace Lorenson and I'm a member of the seventh District and also a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church. My minister had to leave early because of congregational issue, and I have well read a little bit of her statement. In June this year, my congregation reached the $15 an hour minimum wage for all of our employees. We used incremental steps to get there, and we did it because we believe it as a comment on who we are as a church community. And we will. I believe that raising the minimum wage in Long Beach is a comment on who we are as the community of Long Beach, which is a loving and caring community. Just like any small business, the church is constantly negotiating the bottom line. We too have financial concerns, budget shortfalls and worries. And yet we know that the healthiest organization is one that invests in its people. And so it is true for our city. And so I ask you that you not waver from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. And I first first of all, want to. Thank the mayor and the city council for this inclusive process that led to an open dialog. I also want to extend our appreciation to the Economic Development Commission. For the extraordinary work that. They have conducted and presented for your consideration. Debate does support the COBR proposal as presented, and I want to thank those members of COBR for its diligence to prioritize this matter. And and conduct the outreach to interface with many of the small businesses throughout all parts of this city. As reluctant as some of those businesses were that. Their voices were not going to be heard or apprehensive, that there would be retribution if they spoke publicly opposing any increase, saying no was an easy avenue to take. As as they've taken this avenue in the past, they decided this time to be part of an open process and have a. Dialog that was very. Consensus building. And it drove. The results in the COBRA report. The business community worked together in an unprecedented fashion to build that consensus that COBRA has presented for consideration. I want to thank all those businesses who participated, took time from their establishments and gave the process a chance and therefore. Support the COBRA proposal and look forward to. Remain a true civic partner in this community. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. Next person. Hi, I'm Mike Rhodes. I own Dominica's Restaurant and Belmont Shore, where the oldest restaurant in Long Beach. And I think I'm kind of a. Quintessential small business in Long Beach. It's independently owned. Yet for some reason I'm not. Defined as a small business because I have more than 25 employees. I'm not sure how that works, but I've been to many of these meetings, been at the two mayors roundtables. A lot of people came up and gave some heartfelt speeches, which is great, but I haven't heard anybody that was a tipped employee come up to the microphone and raise the $15 minimum wage issue. And the reason for that is full service restaurants are a different animal than other restaurant and than other businesses. All of my employees make much more than minimum wage. Now, a lot of them I pay minimum wage, but they're making much more in tips than they are in their actual wages. And so I think it's really important. Common sense would dictate that we really have to consider that. I know as an employer I pay taxes on those earnings and the employee pays taxes on them. So they really are earnings. And I think the total earnings model that's been talked about tonight is really a key component to make this a common sense. Vote tonight. We all talk about the Long Beach way. I think this would really be true Long Beach leadership to take that total earnings concept into effect as restaurants like myself and businesses like myself that really are institutions in town. We want to survive. I want to stay too long. The oldest restaurant in Long Beach. But, you know, minimum wage has gone up $2 in the last 18 months and every dollar represents $1,000 a week and added overhead to my restaurant. I can't raise prices that fast. I wish I could. I would have done it a long time ago. But you you can't I mean, I a lot of my employees are older senior citizens. We've been in business for 62 years. I made the joke in one of the meetings that we have two different types of customers to come in and Domenico so we have old people and their parents and that's true. They have fixed incomes they want. I did a. Survey in the restaurant. I asked I said. If we have to raise prices. 20%, which is where I think I'll need to be, will you still come in? And all of them said, absolutely, we'll still come in. And then they follow with not as often. So there has to be other ways to raise revenues and they total earnings concept works. I think if you don't, you're going to have restaurants like mine that will end up doing service charges instead of tips, which is happening all over the country now because we have to survive. And I think that's something that really needs to be discussed. And I hope you will do that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Guys. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councilman. My name is Anthony Weiner, CEO. I'm an actual worker at Cal Cartage. I've been there for about two years now. As you can tell, it's a personal issue. I know you guys have a big decision in front of you guys. Not only that, I support the 15 five for 15, but as well, no exemptions, pilot strong policy against, you know, wage theft but as well as not only that. We can we can move for a better, you know, better life for everybody. You know, it's a struggle with this. And it's like always an obstacle. Everybody's like, he just said, we can fight, we can struggle, but we're going to we're going to get through it. We can go and get through it. Not only that, the exemptions is the strong thing in my company and my and my employer's situation because a lot of them are straight out of high school supporting their families. They have kids already. I understand there's a couple there's people that are coming out of college, you know, going to school and working full time. And it's a struggle for everybody, not only for just me, but everybody. And like you guys said, you guys want to live in poverty. I think this is one way to live. Poverty is living the minimum wage to 15. Not only 13 at 12, but 15. It's not right now. It's going to go gradually. But like like he said or like I say, we'll we'll get through it. You know, it's it's not to me, it's not that complicated. I understand it. And like I said, it's obstacle, obstacle where we just got to work around it and try to better our lives. Like I said, not only that, I'm I'm kind of upset and frustrated of seeing how how everybody is struggling right now, especially in this time. I know a lot of people are saying and you hear from everybody story it's it's time for a change. It's time to make something better. Like you say, if you want a better Long Beach, I think this is the right way to do it. This is the only way to do it, is lifting their wages and helping them to increase and grow. So I mean, I hopefully you guys make the right decision and open your hearts to everybody. I understand it's a it's a struggle. It's a it's a personal and it's a it's a big decision that you guys have in front of you guys. But I hope you guys make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. I'm also I see there's four people left on the speakers list. If there's if there's anyone else. And I'd be a good time to ask them. And I probably cut it off pretty soon here. So. Mr.. Good to you. Very good to clear as the address. Before I give you my view of what needs to be done, let me tell you, let me run down my work history, my life's experiences, and those that I've run into that helped shape the opinion that I will in about 2 minutes, in part. I started selling Wallace Brown gift cards, Christmas cards and greeting cards door to door when I was in middle school. Then went and migrated into selling and cutting lawns. Then I got a paper out working for the paper that was part of the chain that was originally the owner of the Press Telegram. Then I started caddying and I did that on, on weekends and in summers, and that's what I got introduced into politics. I used to caddie for Ray Place, who was chair of the Republican National Committee for 20 years. In during summer college times, I worked in resort hotels up in New England. That's where I met William Casey and was kind of the areas for him for a couple of years. During or during the summer. While in college. I work I think I references a couple of weeks ago for School for Food Corporation, one of their restaurants. I'd get up at 5:00 in the morning, take the elevator down out of the dorm, often writing at the same time that he that's for four years there and ten years in Boston to find the six man defense . When I got out of college, Stover's made me a job or a job offer, which I took because Roy Ash and Tex Thornton and purchased them and I knew I could migrate into other areas. And one of the things that I've learned, first of all, I have a very high respect for anybody that works in a restaurant , and that's not because I work there. All right. Is a given job pays only X amount of dollars, period. If you're not making enough money in the vocation you're in. Go out and get retrained. Don't wait for somebody else to come around and get a movement going because that movement will not sustain you. Just like in this case, I don't think people have mentioned the fact that within the next year, these people up here are going to be hitting the owners and everybody here with ballot measures for tax increases, period, to build a new to try to build and a new city hall period. So what you've got to do is go out and figure what you want to do and improve your skill levels. Sufficient enough to make the type of purchases you want to do. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Okay. So hello. My name is Rochat and I am a resident of the seventh district. Although I'm right across the street from the first district. Is that really interesting cusp? So what brings us here today is a very important and momentous day. I think so myself and I wasn't going to say anything. I think you've heard plenty, but I think that it begs a few minutes to hear a couple of insights that I got as an organizer, as an immigrant, as a resident of this city, and then also just as a human being. So this a missed opportunity on January 19th, right? A day after we celebrate the life, the legacy, the work of Dr. Martin Luther King. We are gathered here today for actually exactly the same thing that he died for in Memphis with sanitation workers asking to raise the minimum wage. And so what you saw earlier here today was, I would say about 100 workers being able to tell their stories to come to you and let you know why it is precisely that they need to raise this wage. So as an organizer, I was extremely, extremely happy, proud and quite humbly honored to hear every single one of their stories of struggle, of toil. For them to be here today, they're not here right now because they're probably going home to sleep. As a resident. I'm also extremely happy because hundreds of workers have continued this fight and have continued to come out day in and day out on all the different hearings that we have had to let, you know their very impressive perspective of what it means to be a day to day worker and why it is important for them to get a raise. Now as an immigrant. As an immigrant to this great nation, I would say. Into the city. I have also seen how cities have been able to contribute and help workers and help students and help people really become better. But I don't believe in the bootstrap mentality. Because I have heard a couple of different immigrant stories. I want to tell you a little bit about how that doesn't work for a lot of the folks who have actually been here. Many of the folks who have been here don't have the same opportunities or access to the same opportunities that some of the folks here have had in the past. So that immigrant that one dynamic immigrant experience doesn't happen because it didn't happen to me. That didn't happen to me. And so as an immigrant to this country and to this city, we see that every individual has a different perspective. So do the workers. So today you heard countless stories about why it's imperative to raise the wage to 15, because that is what they deserve. And they deserve wage enforcement because they live through wage theft every single day. So they need that to survive and they need those sick pay days also to survive. So thank you and make the right choice. You know what to do. Thank you. Next week. Good evening. My name is Vince BASTIANICH. My family's been operating businesses on the west side for nearly 70 years. With all due respect, Councilwoman Lowenthal, I think your cause is noble, but I think it's misguided and misinformed. The minimum. The minimum wage is never eliminated. Poverty. It won't close the wage gap and never has. It would be really a terrible thing for the city. You know, the one of the first minimum wage laws was the 1939 Bacon Davis Act. And the purpose of that law was to. Protect. The jobs of white union workers in New York from black Southern workers. Continue, sir. These these wage increases will will do nothing for these workers, because what will happen is prices will go up. Across the board and these same workers who are making minimum now, they just will not get ahead. They'll be in the same position they are now. Five years from now. Ten years from now. I've been in this business a long time and I've seen it. You know, my minimum wage workers and I do have some they can never get ahead unless they increase their skills. Unless they. You know, try to find another job that's better suited to them. They can't get ahead. Parts of Long Beach now, I've been told, have unemployment rate as high as 19%. And I believe it's only going to get worse if we try raising the minimum wage. I think the better route is to help businesses create more jobs with more jobs, more businesses competing for labor. Wages will go up organically and those those workers will get ahead that way. I think that's a better option. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Next, me complete. Hi. My name's Murray de Soto. I've stood in front of you many times before representing the union and are what we do. I'm a hotel worker, and I actually wasn't going to speak today, but I heard one of the gentleman here that is a business owner of Long Beach said that he hasn't heard a tipped worker speak . So I will speak on behalf of all of the tipped workers in Long Beach and all of my friends and family members that are tipped employees in Long Beach. I happen to work for a union hotel and I happened to make $15 an hour and I happened to be tipped. My hotel doesn't seem to be going down any time soon. It has taken me out of poverty. The gentleman before me said $15 an hour will not take anybody out of poverty. Yes, it will. Well, I'm 23 years old and I am a homeowner in the ninth District and I am proud. 23. Being 23, if I was working minimum wage, that means I wouldn't be making what my husband is making because he's 28. How is that fair? How is it fair that because I am not 25, I'm not making that. What if I was a mother? What if I was a single mother? I am standing behalf of all those tipped workers, including my tip into my pay is wage theft. That is wage theft. The tip that I get from doing a service is that it's from the guest that was happy with my service. Sometimes you could give the best service possible and people won't tip you. Do you get stiffed all the time and we still have to pay taxes on that? I've seen my coworkers have negative checks because people don't tip them or because of the taxes that they get on top of their pay. It's not fair. And again, I stand for all of the tipped workers here in Long Beach, $15 an hour, no exemptions, $15 an hour, no exemptions for the youth, because that is age discrimination. If we don't discriminate for the old, we don't discriminate for the youth. Why are we discriminating? It's just like racial discrimination. It is another form of discrimination. It is not okay. And I am a tipped employee and I stand for all of the tipped employees again. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, sir. Okay. Hey, hold on a second, guys. But we know we serve 1/2 word. Well, I'm asking everyone to have it get the same amount of respect when they speak. So please. Thank you, sir. Somebody liked my short. I'm a small business owner in Long Beach. My name is George Subang. I have a restaurant, have 18 employees. And I'm wondering how many of you. People think that a 60% wage increase will enable any business in Long Beach or anywhere in the world to survive? This is what you're talking about, a few dollars an hour. This is a 60% wage increase over what it was when it was $9 an hour. If the minimum wage goes up a dollar in my restaurant, it costs me $500 a week in payroll. The minimum wage has gone up $2. So it's cost me now $1,000 a week in payroll. If it. Goes to $15. An hour, my current payroll is $250,000 a year. If it goes to $15 an hour, my payroll will be $400,000 a year. That's $150,000 increase. I don't make that kind of money in the restaurant. We're lucky to make 10%. Yet all of you people think it's really easy. To do a 60% wage increase. It's ludicrous. So what am I doing? Well, I've got a $500 wage increase last year. I raised my prices to get $500 more at a $500 wage increase this year. I raised my prices again. I will raise my prices every time the minimum wage goes up. And by the time it gets to $15, you people that still have jobs will be paying $16 for a hamburger. You need to realize this is pure inflation. Nobody is going to gain from this minimum wage increase. It's ludicrous to think that any small. Business can sustain. A 60% wage increase when we fight to make 10% gross margin. It's ludicrous. I don't I don't know what else to say. I'm I just can't believe that. Anybody in this room thinks that any business can sustain that kind of a wage increase. And if you guys vote for this $15 an hour wage increase. You will, in fact, be hurting the people that you think you're helping because of the people that are still have. Jobs will be paying $16 for a hamburger. They will not have gained a nickel. Let me give you one more fact. In 1950, the minimum wage was $0.75 an hour. In today's dollars, that was $7.01 in buying power. The federal minimum wage today is seven and a quarter an hour. That means in 65. Years, the buying power of the minimum wage has increased. Workers pay by $0.24. You guys need to. Realize that the minimum wage. Is pure inflation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. That that closes down our our speakers list. So a few things and we're going to take this back to the council for for deliberation. I want to obviously just start by thanking everyone that came in and spoke tonight. A an amendment from this over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal, who's the author of the original motion. But I wanted to. Without obviously repeating a lot of what I've been saying over the last few weeks, I want to just say a few. Thank you. I want to start off by obviously thanking all of the workers that have come out and advocated for their families and themselves, the business owners. And I want to also just say that there's been sometimes you hear things about business owners, and I know a lot of these guys out here, whether it's Lisa or Jimmy or Mike and you guys are good guys. I get that. Thank you for for having great businesses in the city and for your investments. And so I know that most of you guys aren't coming to this thing because you don't care about your employees, because I know you guys care about them very much. And I want to I want to thank the the the the Fed and the Raise the Wage Coalition, who have been very active in leading this effort on on the worker side as well as the Council of Business Association groups. And the deal Bay, the Basement Sales Improvement Association, the Anaheim Business Group, all the different groups and business groups that were a part of that, including the chamber. Thank you, guys, for for your advocacy. I want to thank mostly one of the staff because I know that for a lot of us, a lot of us have been to these hearings. I've been to many some people up here, including Councilman Mango and Councilmember Turanga or members of the Council Committee. So they've been to a few and additional to everybody else up here. But the staff has been, I think, a complete kind of all star team since day one on the city side. And I know you guys don't see a lot of their work, but they've been working very hard to answer questions from the council, to answer questions from the community, from business owners, from from workers. And so I just want to thank the staff for all your hard work in this process. It's been it's been tough. I also want to particularly thank the Economic Development Commission and their their work. Again, I was counting I think they did. They hosted two hearings and two separate meetings just on this issue. And so if you guys thought tonight was a lot, which it was, I think they had four of those. And so that was that's a lot of work and a lot of input. And obviously they they forwarded on some recommendations tonight. And so I just want to thank them. And so I think all that's important to to be said as we move forward in this in this conversation, I'm going to on to this over to to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I know I have a long speakers list, folks with different ideas, I'm sure, and input, which is great. So let's be respectful to the process, please, and let's hear what people what people have to say. Everyone's had a chance to weigh in at this point, with the exception of the nine members of the council. So let's let's give them their shot now. So let's turn this over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Actually, if you can just give me a minute. I'm just pulling up something. Perhaps if someone has a question, I would appreciate that. Yeah. What I'm going to do is turn this over to Councilman Mongo, just to do an announcement from Councilwoman Price. Councilman Price had to leave suddenly when notified that fire personnel were with her children as her husband was rushed to the hospital. Mark is currently in stable condition in the E.R., and she does not know if she'll be able to return. But she's 5 minutes away. Should he get to a point where she can return so she apologizes. He is in our thoughts. Yeah, absolutely. I think our whole family's is. In our thoughts. So. Great advice for a long time. I'm glad you made that announcement. I know several of you were concerned. And if you can just keep her and her family in our thoughts. I would appreciate it. So I want to thank everyone for the robust conversation. And I lost count how many speakers came forward. But certainly everyone that came forward has a valid and and very important. Message to share with us. And it's they're more than just opinions. And this council has listened and does listen and is very grateful for all of your input and and you're very passionate about it. And we heard different levels of passion. I do want to take us back to the first speaker, not because she was the most impactful or powerful, but something about her testimony. It reminded me quite a bit of the early work I did in domestic violence and how economic independence can be so liberating. And we often think of liberty as sometimes just an option to have something more. Greater wealth, perhaps. But I worked in a field and industry where liberty meant really liberty from. From tyranny in your own household. Liberty from the oppressiveness that that being trapped because of economic reasons can provide. And so she she reminds me that liberty, dignity and opportunity, that a living wage or raising the minimum wage can provide is something that cannot be overlooked there. And it isn't just my personal, philosophical orientation to the issue. It is backed by numerous studies. And so I think when when we hear those of us who talk about the fundamental human reasons why we should do something, there's there's sometimes an assumption that it's not backed by data. And if there's ever a doubt that anything that I have worked on on this council in the last decade has not been backed by data. I implore you to reconsider that thought and do your research, because that has never been the case. I may come to the dias and speak in a very impassioned way and perhaps leave out some of the very academic research that our staff has done or that I have done. But let there never be a doubt that these thoughts and proposals are not well researched. We talk about how much work and workers do, and we know that worker productivity has gone up much more than wages. That, too, is backed by data. I think our last speaker, who is a highly reputable restaurant owner in our community and has done quite a bit in employing people in our city, addressed that minimum wage was just mere inflation and and. It's an opinion and it's a point of view, and I respect that. But I will share with you, backed by research and data, that worker productivity has gone up much faster than wages. Workers are already much more productive. And what we have is the Center for Economic Policy and Research in a 2012 issue brief that reported, if you use the 1968 minimum wage as a benchmark federal. Minimum wage as a benchmark. And I'm only citing this because it's sort of that primacy and recency theory. You remember the first thing you heard and you remember the last thing you heard in the last. The last speaker was quite compelling in his point of view that minimum wage was just an inflation. So I'll point to a study that states that if you look at the 1968 federal minimum wage as a benchmark, if minimum wage grew at the same rate as worker productivity, it would have reached $21.72 per hour by 2012. So I think it's a little bit more than a gift. It's a lot more than a gift. It's it is paying someone the worth of the work that they do. And also when everything else goes up in price, but the minimum wage does not. And we know that everything else has gone up in price when the minimum wage has not. Then we have to ask ourselves the question what type of city and what type of living environment do we expect our residents and our workers to live in? So when we take it back to what the L.A. EDC report showed us, we know that in Long Beach, 46.4% of our households have $50,000 or less in household income. And that's not to speak to the number of individuals that live in that household. But just if we look at that, we know that 21.1% of individuals live below the federal poverty level. And I'm not sure if we're all familiar with the federal what the federal poverty level is. Our presenter mentioned that it was low and she said it was very low and emphasized it a couple of times. It is very low. The 2015 poverty level for a household of one person is $11,770. Tuition to a good school costs more than that. And we talk about a society of opportunities for two people. It's $15,930. For three, it's $20,090. And you add about 4 to $5000 per person that you add to our household. It is extremely low. So when we say that someone is 150% above poverty level or 200% above poverty level, those are not huge amounts. So you add in Long Beach, those of us who are up to 150% poverty level and those of us who are up to 200% still very low. That brings us to 42.9% of our city. Almost 50% of our city live in conditions on incomes that I don't think a lot of us think about. It is quite an out of sight, out of mind situation. It's an incredible figure. But people make do and they figure it out at such low income levels. Most of the earnings we know we also saw this in the study. It goes to housing, it goes to food, it goes to transportation. There are very basic things. There are no luxuries involved at such low levels. And by luxuries, I'm they're not luxuries. I just mean just any form of recreation which we all know contributes to well-being. We heard people talk about not knowing when the last time they took a holiday. I don't think they mean a holiday overseas. I just think they mean a day off from work. That's a holiday. And that's that's important for us to keep in mind. It's not my frame of reference necessarily, but it is someone else's experience and what it means to be in that person's shoes. And we know that that's not one person. That's nearly half of our city. That's a lot of people. We heard from our teenagers in the audience and young adults about the opportunity to study. And to improve their opportunities to study. That is what this nation was built on. It was built on opportunities. And we have seen our society lose touch with with the with really what this country was founded on. And that really is an opportunity to improve ourselves. How does a child do that when she has to help support her household, when she is contributing to supporting a household? We've always talked about kids only job being a student. Be a student, do your studies. That is what a child's profession is. We've heard from many children tonight that and I, I know you're young adults, but you are children. We have heard from many children that they contribute to their household income. So how do you study and improve yourself when that is part of what your obligation is? And I know you do it willingly and gladly because that's what we do. We support our families. But even as parents, that must be crushing for your parents to know that they need your help to support the family. So raising wages, when combined with the opportunity to save, can comprise a family's total opportunity. That's what this conversations about. It's not about a dollar more an hour or $2 more an hour. It is. What does that mean to a family? A family's total opportunity. And there is some significance to that when we consider that to secure a standard of living that is dignified. And we heard a lot about living with dignity. But what do we mean by that when you're not able to secure a standard of living that's dignified? We don't have our entire population participating in what we all call as a quality of life. That is what all of us here are elected to do is to improve our residents quality of life. So doing. So raising wages combined with the opportunity to save. It contributes to both short and long term financial security. And I take us back to our first speaker. It is because of the inability to have financial security that she and others, many, many others find themselves in very dangerous situations. When we do so, when we raise wages combined with the opportunity to save, we can contribute to the overall well-being that affords people a feeling of agency. And by agency I mean the ability to act. We don't have the ability to act or act or on our own will or volition when we don't have that many choices , when we don't have that many economic choices. And so it does afford people that feeling of agency. And it's more than a feeling. It is a reality that is the society we live in. You talked about Mayor Foster talking about a tale of two cities that contributes to that divide. Those of us who can act and those of us who cannot act really is is that division is created by that income and wealth inequity. And the accumulation of wealth while we're talking about income right now. But over time, if we are able to have people on the path where they can participate in that, it grants us more options and it really eliminates the restrictions on how one can live one's life. So the notion that raising the minimum wage would not lift people out of poverty. It is not my opinion that it is not true. It is a fact that that is not true. In fact, one way to look at it, if you don't act, if we as a council don't act on some reasonable policy. One way to look at it is that low minimum wage laws are a form of government subsidies to low wage businesses. That's exactly what it is. Someone is subsidizing it. And so by not acting, that's what we're doing. What do working people do if they don't have enough to eat or if they need to go to hospital or if they need housing, that's better than where they are. What do they do? They turn to the government for public benefits. That is that cycle that we contribute to when we don't act and do the right thing. And so that subsidy is something that we need to actually reverse and turn into an empowerment. Subsidies don't feel like an empowerment. How does one gain an agency to act when you are on subsidy? But if you are earning your wage and you are earning a living wage and an improved minimum wage, that's that's an opportunity that subsidies can never provide psychologically. You can never provide physically in our households stability. And so those are some of the fundamental reasons that bring me here. After ten years of having worked on public policy in this city and after having incrementally with our council, laid down policies that lead us down this path. This is not something that is completely new for this city or the city council. It is really a next step in what we have been working toward all along to improve the quality of life for people in Long Beach. So when we. Take the testimony that we've heard today and we have heard many times about the Long Beach way. And I know there are different opinions about what the Long Beach way is, but something that I will always hold very near and dear to me through my experience here is when Long Beach does do something. We would say Mayor Garcia and I would say as goes Long Beach, so does the state of California. We have seen many, many ways that the state has followed Long Beach's path because it has been the right path not only for our city but for the entire state. And I don't doubt that this will be another example of that, because we it is well thought out. It has been well researched, and we have done our academic literature review as well as our practical data review and. But when you pair that up with a compelling calling to do the right thing, then it is the right thing. It isn't just a point of view. So what I'd like to do at this time, Mr. Mayor. Is I would like to make possibly two, three motions. And I would. Seek the city attorney's counsel on if they are if they merit splitting them up. Two or three motions. Two. Sorry, I meant to. What you think those are two or three relevant. You met. Two? I meant to. Pick. One or two. If the city attorney says it should be combined, then it would be one. Okay. May remember city council. It is possible to divide the question here. If the if the motion is. There's three different items here on the council, and I'm not sure where the council vice mayor is going. But if there's direction to prepare an ordinance and you have certain items that you would like to be voted on second or , you know, separately to add to that ordinance, you could divide the question the motion of divide. The question requires a second. It is not debatable if there is no objection to dividing the question. Then you could move forward with two separate motions or multiple motions to divide the question. If there is objection, then there would be a vote on dividing the question. Basically it sounds like you can you can divide the question due to motions. If one of the motions is in the spirit of one of the three that's been put forward within the agenda, and with that, if there is no objection to that, then you can move forward. If there is objection without actually voting divided the question. Is that right? That's correct. The the first motion would be the subject of motion. And then the additional if there's additional motions on dividing the question, then they would need to stand alone. So if you had a motion, for example, that would propose a minimum wage and then that would pass, the second motion of the question that's divided would be with the council like to add a particular something to that, an exemption or something else that would be substantive that they could you could move forward with that or not. Okay. I believe. I understand. So do your colleagues. I would like to make a motion. To approve the recommendations of the Economic Development Commission with a wage schedule of. January 1st, 2017. The wage to $10.50. On January 1st, 2018, an increase to $12. On January 1st, 2019, an increase to $13. That's exactly as the commission has recommended. Small businesses and nonprofits with 25 or fewer employees have an additional year to implement the schedule, and first increase for them would be in January one, 2018 to $10.50 an hour. This new policy would also include city departments on the same schedule. A strong wage enforcement that is managed by the city and includes private right of action for workers. Mandatory posting. Anti retaliation clause. Revocation power for the city and a fine program for the city. In early 2019, launch a second study with the L.A. Economic Development. Corporation to study the minimum wage impacts on employment, sales tax and overall impact on economy that will be presented to the Long Beach City Council at a special hearing. And colleagues, I'd like to note that this comes from all of the testimony we have heard about the concerns about what the impact would be. I think this would be a reasonable way for us to study what the impacts are. Learn what the impacts are and take further action at that time. That is the substantive portion of my motion. The secondary portion is a pathway to $15 per hour. If after the study, the said study, we see no major negative impacts to jobs and the local economy. We continue on a pathway to $15 an hour whereby one on January one, 2020, we would increase the wage to $15 an hour and to on January one, 2021, we would increase the wage to $15 an hour. Small businesses and nonprofits with 25 or fewer employees would get an additional year to implement this schedule. And in 2023, the minimum wage will be set. We'll set the consumer price index for the L.A. metropolitan area. That's the that's the motion on the floor. Councilman Richardson, you're the second on that. Okay. So let me let me go to a thank you, Vice. See, and I've got a Councilman Richardson and then I have a long speakers. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And I've taken my time to listen to all the testimony tonight and my council colleagues. And I got to tell you, what I prepared tonight has has dramatically changed from all the different comments and hearing sort of the different issues that want to be discussed. I want to thank all the people who it's past 11:00 and my wife is still struggling to get the baby down, but she's watching at home. And just you know, it's amazing that this issue is so so many people are passionate about this issue. I want to acknowledge the commission, the Economic Development Commission, the Human Relations Commission, city staff, everyone who's done work on this. You all have gone through this. And this is the first time the city council gets to evaluate what that commission has been evaluating for a while. So that should be noted. This is not a new issue. It's been studied and studied. We have to two studies here in Long Beach. There have been studies over the ages about this. And there are great points and there are not so great points and there are positive and negative points out there. So so for me, it's it's it comes down to what is the intent and what are your what are your values as an organization in terms of what you hope to achieve as a minimum with a minimum wage? If I think about a minimum wage, I'm thinking, what does this. What what is the purpose? And in my opinion, it's to make sure people aren't taken advantage of. And if you work a day's wage, you should get a fair, fair day's work. So the question is, what is fair? If you believe in a minimum wage, you should believe that folks should be should get a fair wage. So let's tackle that question. Well, the study presents a number of different findings. I noticed that there was a a survey of businesses so, so quickly in this survey, how city manager how many of the what was the percentage of businesses that said they would close should we move forward with an action tonight? As I recall, it was 0% and. I wanted to make sure we highlight that because I've gotten a lot of veiled threats about, hey, this is going to make force all these businesses to close. But an unbiased survey of how many? 600. 600 businesses? 0% indicated that. And during the process of this survey that we survey, the working poor low wage workers or receive their input through a process of a survey as well about how they would spend any additional revenue should that be created. So the survey instrument actually was specific to businesses. We did hear a lot of that through the public comment, but the actual survey instrument was four 600 randomly sampled businesses. So it would be tough to. So I saw a a a slide and I heard a lot of comment about how people would spend this wage. How did we come to that, come to those assumptions if we didn't provide a survey to impacted low wage workers? I think we'd have to ask the ADC to talk about that, their methodology, if you'd like an answer to that question. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal brought up the issue of what what the poverty line is in Long Beach. And I want in. And so I understand that everyone across the nation uses the same federal poverty poverty line. But is there some sort of a local poverty line that for, say, a family of four? So while the poverty line is the 24000 to 54 family for the federal level that the vice mayor mentioned, we do look at a number of other indicators, including something called area median income and area median income, which what the state is kind of considering moderate to and meets the definition of moderate for an affordable housing perspective is about $75,000 within the city of Long Beach. So for so, a more reasonable poverty line would be $75,000 annually for a family of four, and that's with two workers in the household. Have we calculated what the annual wage would be should someone receive a $13 an hour or $15 an hour minimum wage? And how that compares to the income poverty line for a family for. I think part of that was part of the lead study, if we can ask Christine to answer that question. Okay. So I want to applaud the Economic Development Commission for the framework. I want to applaud COBR and everyone else who provided the recommendation. Did any other commission provide a recommendation on the minimum wage? Yes. We for city commissions, we had the Human Relations Commission did provide support letter and you have that in your packet today. They made that action on Thursday and that was provided today to the city council. And what was the recommendation to support? I believe up to a $15, $15 an hour wage. Is there a reason why that wasn't set next to the IDC's recommendation or the COBR recommendation? Because that came that recommendation was done on Thursday, and the staff report's been out for a much longer than that. That makes sense. Was the COBR, the council request, the COBR recommendation, or did we request the Economic Development Commission recommendation? Now, the only study that was actually commissioned by the study was the L.A. EDC study and then the Economic Development Commission, which is the city commission. COBR and the Economic Roundtable were separate efforts that were not related to the city, but we definitely heard their input at the Economic Development Commission, and that helped to inform the Economic Development Commission's recommendations. Okay. I just want to make sure that what's presented to the public, because I did. You're right. I did receive the recommendation from the other commission and I wouldn't want to discount any commissioners service on this on this critical issue. Councilman, just to clarify, I think the probably the difference is that both commissioners did a recommendation, but one, there was only one commission that was asked to make a recommendation from the council. And so I think that's what staff did. I think the HRC weighed in on their own, but that's I think, probably the difference. And I get that, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate that. I was just concerned because I saw the COBR recommendation in the official presentation when I know that we didn't commission that. And it's great that COBR stepped up to provide that. But I want to make sure all the perspectives were represented in this discussion. A few more a few more questions. So if the if we said so, if we said that it's $75,000 is the poverty line for a family of four. By my calculations, if you raise the wage at $13 an hour, that's roughly $27,000 a year or $15 an hour. That's roughly $31,000 a year. So that doesn't quite get you to, you know, out of poverty. But while it doesn't get you there, if you have two, two workers in one household, if they work hard and never miss a day of work, but if they work, never miss a day of work beyond what's mandated by the state for sick days, they would make $62,000 a year at $15 an hour. So that's still that's still below $75,000 a year. So if someone works at 15, $15 an hour. It's it doesn't get you out of poverty. This is by no means a living wage, but it does help put you on the path to get out of poverty. So that makes me think of. So when when I was when I was a kid. So I was raised by a single mom who worked as a nurse's aide and worked part time at Jack in the Box. And when myself and my sister were in high school and we have a little brother, we both worked part time, we both worked part time jobs . I worked at Jack in the Box and my sister worked a part time job in town and we didn't make very much money, but we did pick up a bill. I had the light bill. She had, I think the phone bill. We didn't have cell phones at the time. They weren't really big. They were really expensive at the time. So so certainly I do, you know, support the concept of youth jobs. They teach valuable lessons. But wouldn't it be great if if Mom just made a few dollars more so that that, you know, high school Kid X maybe has to make a choice about whether he wants to work and doesn't have to pick up that extra bill might have been a hundred bucks a month, but that was my commitment. There's an interesting slide. The one that stood out to me most here was that average household expenditures in Long Beach, $69,484, I believe it. You know, I mentioned I have a I have a one year old and we just got a quote for childcare. And I'm looking at what childcare costs annually. And it is more than, you know, childcare annually is actually could potentially be higher than the poverty level for an individual in our federal poverty level. So it's. It seems like sort of it seems pretty blatant to me that we have to make something, make something happen here. So I think that the main motion, the motion here that takes us to 13 and puts us on a path to 15 with the studies and all that, but puts us on a path. I think that that takes the pressure off this concept of working poor. I think that's important. I think the other element, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, that you mentioned on strong local wage and for enforcement, I think that's important. So I'm certainly in support of that. And so I would say that the only I heard a lot of comment about sort of youth workers. So I would say my thought there is that as I think back to my time as a as a youth worker, you know, I you know, I started off I think I was I was, you know, I worked for a nickel sort of a nickel arcade and were a little wore a little funny vest. I was a guy who stood on the corner with a desk man holding up a sign. And I had a you know, it was kind of embarrassing, but I did it because, you know, I needed I needed a job. So my my circumstance was is I would think, uniquely different because I was a student, I was a high school student working on a permit. Councilman Holt. I would think. Okay. Ma'am. You did. I hope it's not impacting. No, it actually is impacting the audience. And so you cannot do that. So one more time and you just did something that you did last time, which we had to stop the meeting for. Do not do that again, please, ma'am. We're trying to be respectful, okay? Okay. So if you do that again, I'm going to take another recess. I go to the prosecutor ask you, don't do it again. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So entire. I just want to get through again. Through this. Go ahead. Can I can I can press through. So so the point I'm making is I think there's you know, I, I certainly see the value in giving a shot in the arm to the working poor addressing this issue of poverty. I think when I've heard a lot of recommendations about youth workers and I was a youth worker, I certainly understand I would want to sort of ask that. I remember when I was work, youth work, I had to have a work permit that ensured that, you know, I met academic requirements. You know, I didn't drop below a certain GPA. All of that was managed through most through the school district. And I want to make sure that if we if we do anything around youth today, that we understand the distinct difference between a person that's working at Jack in the Box like myself and going to school, or the person who's head of Household under 18 emancipated serve, you know, working just like an adult. I think those are two distinctly different circumstances. I would hate to say if something happens, if there's any exception here, that it would impact unfairly someone who's essentially no different than a 19 year old who's working or a 22 who's working in one of these low wage jobs. So I'm going to pose that as a question to to the city manager. Are you familiar with this, with the whole work permit process? So, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we are by no means experts in that type of situation. But from what we understand, there is a requirement under state law to get a work permit if you are under 18 and that is normally issued by the school district. And then there are certain exemptions for certain classifications of of of minors. For example, some minors that have a GED can be less than 18 and not have to get a permit. But if you're under 18, you need a permit. So that's certainly something that we can research more and find out from our school district what those different exceptions are. Also, I do want to make a quick clarification. We talked about the $75,000 number. You know, poverty level really is the 24000 to 50. That is a definition in federal law of poverty level. The 75,000 is trying to give an example of in Long Beach and in L.A. County, more of what the area median income is and what the state considers more of a, you know, needing assistance for housing, for moderate income. Certainly. And I get it. Thank you so much. So I would just ask that, you know, whatever happens tonight, we make sure that we. Is it true that that whole work permit process is handled by the school district? We have no. Correct. It's not a city function, but handled through the school district, under the under the direction of the Department of Industrial Relations. So I think we should certainly engage them in a discussion about, you know, how do the I mean, I want a better understanding of how they handle emancipated workers disconnected, disconnected students who are people who are no longer in school and have no connection to the school district. Like, I would be curious about how we handle that because the last thing I would do want to do is create an exception system, exemption system that is easy to game and somehow does the opposite of what we would like to do, which is help to assist people out of poverty through through this, this action. So that said, I'm supportive of the motion both elements. And and thank you for the motion, vice mayor. Councilman Mongo. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. I think that this was a very good discussion. I know that many of you have come out three and four times as we've held the E.D. and F committee meetings all over the city. And I appreciate the dedication it takes to come each and every time and hear from others. So. With that in mind, I do also want to thank Lady Coba and the others who worked really hard to provide us with options. I think that in kind of pairing on what Lisa Ranallo said. I grew up in a family that had a deadbeat dad who didn't pay child support and a mom who didn't go to college because she got married and wanted to help run a family business. And when you get divorced, you then can't work for that family business anymore. And you not only have two kids to support, but you have no income. And so I started working at age 15 and a half. I got my youth permit, my work permit, and I worked starting at 15 and a half. And I believe in building those skills because at 15 and a half and sometimes 16, and some kids that I've had as interns, even 17 and 18, the the change in in them during that time is remarkable. And it's so much easier to hire a 20 year old or a 21 year old or a 23 year old , quite honestly. I would like to also build on the comments of what I will call Commissioner Larkin today, but as I knew him originally, he was a white board member working really hard for the untrained, long term employed workers to help them out of poverty before this discussion ever started. So, I mean, honoring that, I'd like to propose a friendly amendment. I'd like to let's see. I've prepared a few notes. So bear with me as we walk through this in consideration of the many federally funded youth employment programs which I've talked about since well before this dialog started, since the day I was elected, I've really championed what Commissioner Larkin and I talked about, oh, so long ago. But these federal youth employment programs and to support the mayor in his continued efforts to expand on the paid internships available in Long Beach, let's incentivize businesses to hire interns and through the VOA program. So to do that and to hire our long term unemployed, our foster youth, our reentry, our CalWORKs and our homeless vets so that they can get the job experience that they need to build their skills. I proposed a business incentive to utilize the state wage for youth through age 21, and the dole defined youth including but not limited to homeless vets in reentry as defined by we a title one B title we owe we owe a title one B title we owe a title two we owe a title three and we owe a Title four as defined in the state plan to pull our most vulnerable and unemployable out of poverty. And I think that their research is just as admirable as the research that we've done here today on a statewide level. This is the commitment that all workforce investments have united behind, and I think it's really imperative that we do that here. So I hope that you'll consider that friendly amendment both very. Mayor. Members of the council. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm trying to make sure I understand the amendment as you've proposed, Councilwoman. Is it a youth exemption? And you mentioned veterans also reserves. So in the VOA language, it specifically outlines who qualifies to be paid by the federal government for these job programs. So I'm saying youth up to age 21 and those defined in the program. And and what were you proposing? That they be paid? The state wage. State minimum. Wage. Correct. So may I ask for clarification as well? When you say youth up to the age of 21. Do you mean youth that qualify for those programs and are also being incentivized through those programs or all youth. So to ensure that so so our internship program doesn't only target we awa our internship program targets all youth in Long Beach. And when we when we stepped forward as a city to say we have some of the lowest rates of internship for the number of jobs in the city, we wanted to double and triple that and we don't specifically target we also I feel that it's kind of a two parter. One is youth up to age 21 and then any we owe a definition because within the VOA program, there are certain youth categories specifically in reentry and foster emancipation and our veterans that go up to age 22 or some specific definitions. So the WIA draft was provided to our offices in a correspondence. So I tried to call out we had Title one B and I don't know if legally I have to say we owe a title in front of all of them, but we owe a title one, B, two, three and four. And I think that that really aligns with the state's goal of hiring the long term unemployed. And the long term unemployed in Long Beach actually are concentrated in our sixth district. And the mayor kind of highlighted that in the state of the city over a year ago. And for us to really get those individuals back to work, if we do not consider this business incentive, then there would be less potential hours available for them to build those skills. And the federal government kind of came up with what that model looks like in a number of hours. And so we we can't really change the hours as much as we can. The only option if we don't put in this business incentive would be to reduce the number of individuals who have access to the programs. So that would be my hope is that this council would be able to afford those long term unemployed, those opportunities . I think going down a path to support business incentives is one that I certainly would support. And it. What you propose is is intriguing and interesting. And if you'll let me just digest it while others are talking so I can take a little bit of time and sit with it for a minute, I'd appreciate that. But it is interesting and I do think we're on the right path. Wonderful. And then just for a point of clarification, that's not against your first motion. That's when you have to motions. So I don't know if I have to speak on one motion or the other or. So I have actually right now just one motion that no one has called to separate. Oh. So got it. Is that correct? Mr.. I believe that you had identified you wanted two separate motions. Were you identified? Yes. You've laid out kind of the entire range. I'm sorry. I do want two separate motions, I. I said both components at once. Yes. Okay, great. Yes, you're right. I hope it would carry on to the second, but I think it's important against the first. Okay. And then I have one other friendly amendment. In consideration of our desire to focus our efforts on bringing people out of poverty. I would like to ask that we request the City Attorney's Office to follow the state movement on the total compensation model and provide written correspondence to the Council, including a legal opinion onto total earnings at his earliest convenience. But I recognize that that might take. A bit because it's still developing, but I'd hope it would be back in 45 days or I know we have this coming back, so I don't know the timeline, but as soon as reasonable. So we're asking just for information when you ask for that friendly. Yes. And this is information that the city attorney would gather on total compensation. And I tried to use it. I think we would all call it a two from four, but I think the public would recognize it as a written correspondence. I think as long as we're just asking the city attorney to research and provide information, that would be. I can accept that at this time. Thank you. You're welcome. Kate thinks Councilmember Supernova. You know. I think my comments have to come at a later point to where we are in this. So I'd like to. Sure thing. Hold on for just a second. No problem. We have plenty more people. So many chance to come back. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank everybody for hanging with us this evening. And I know this is a very important issue to a lot of people. I think this is a historic day for our city. And I feel for, one, very fortunate to be here in service at this time in our city's history. I want to especially thank those who helped us get here to this point, especially our Economic Development Commission, who I applaud because I had an opportunity to sit and I wasn't here. But I streamed the meeting last week. It was much like this one this evening, and I know there were many others leading up to that point. And so these commissioners have certainly risen to the level of service of the city, to the city. And I wanted to express my appreciation to them. They fought for a commission that was just created a few months ago. You know, we may think about compensating them in the future because there was a lot of hard work. So thank you very much to the commissioners who served on that commission. I think that commission was was diverse and I come in it as well, that I was actually pleasantly surprised that they reached the conclusion that they did reach because their recommendations actually move the ball forward. It's it's it's progress. And I know it was a lot of tough wrangling for for those those on that commission to to get to where they did in the decision before us today. So I also want to thank the many activists from the Raise the Wage campaign, L.A. County Fed for continuing to push the organizing the community . The many contacts that I've had via email, Twitter, one on one conversations have been very fruitful, and I appreciate it. And our business leaders who have come forward and given us perspectives to think about as a as a council, as policymakers, you know, please understand, you're not victims here. You know, I think we all will win at the end of the day. And Long Beach will be a better city for the decision that we make this evening. I have no doubt that we are going to raise the wage this evening. And I want to thank the the the the the LED, EDC and COBRA, the chamber. I mean, this was a full it was this was an open, transparent process. Everybody had a seat at the table. Everybody had an opportunity to to to share their viewpoints. And this was this was the Long Beach way. If anything, I think it was open. And and and and the decision we make this evening, I think we'll feel good about it from the standpoint that we know that we had full input from everybody. From my perspective, I think things are really looking up for Long Beach. I want to be very clear. I came out and I endorsed a statewide minimum wage. Months ago. I think that's the way for the state to go in. And we are going to to set, set, set a standard and we're going to lead the way helped lead the way to getting the state of California there. And the decision before us is a major decision that will change our city and change lives in our city for the better. I think we have an opportunity. We heard a lot about addressing poverty this evening and quality of life for those who are willing to work and make an honest living. And in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, we celebrated his his birthday just yesterday. All labor has dignity, but it's especially has dignity. If you can, you know, have a quality of living. And you can you can you can live on what you earn. I, too, got a work permit at 15 and a half. I took opinions and surveys in the mall, got the opportunity to deal with difficult personalities and learn how to how to deal with rejection. Help me with my dating game many years later. But. That that valuable experience helped shape my my career. It helped shape my who I am today because I had an opportunity to work as a young person. I'm passionate about getting people out of poverty, but I'm also passionate about young people and getting our young people prepared and building our workforce for the future. And so, you know, I'm interested in in doing more. I don't think we we necessarily have to get it all right this evening, you know, because the last time I checked, this will be an audience on any given Tuesday. We can change an audience. We can we can tweak an ordinance. We can fix an ordinance. We can we can improve our policies. And so I think this is a great first step for the city of Long Beach to to to to move and show commitment to the workers throughout our city. I think raising the wage here will act dignity and increase economic opportunity for thousands of workers in our city. We have an opportunity to do that this evening. And those workers have many faces and backgrounds. They are youth, they're seniors, they're students. They're our neighbors. And they are every ethnicity they are. The people who provide service and work in our retail and fast food establishments. And so the minimum wage will work well. We will, I think, make a great first step this evening and an understanding, listening to to some of our businesses. I think there are there's some sticker shock here because, you know, the rally cry is for 15 and we are going to create a pathway to 15. But this is going to be a phased in approach. And when I look at the the history of the minimum wage in California, it has gone up incrementally. It's gone up year by. When it has gone up, it has gone up 8%. 10%, and I think we are being consistent with that in this regard and understanding that there were many years where the minimum wage did not move. And this is why we have this great movement to try to raise wages. I've said from the very beginning, a rising tide will lift all boats. And so there's not this comparison issue. If the minimum wage is is $15 in 2021, whatever, if you're making $20 today, I think you'll be making more. Quite, quite frankly, in 2021, when when the minimum wage is $15. The rising tide will lift all boats. And I think doing nothing will change nothing. And so we have a unique opportunity in front of us to make change. I did want to offer a friendly amendment as well, because with that commitment and passion to getting interns involved in our city and getting our young people important training and opportunities in the workforce, I think it's important that we build in that an understanding that we want to incentivize our businesses to hire young people as well. So given how important it is to provide training and learning opportunities, especially for members of underrepresented in high poverty communities, I think it's and since it's essential to create incentives for employers to hire and train interns and first time workers. Therefore, I'd like to propose the following friendly amendment to the current motion, and I'm not sure if this is the first or second, but we'll just get it in there. Hopefully you'll accept it. Vice Mayor Create a new working intern amendment that would allow employers to pay 85% of the minimum wage for 480 hours or six months , whichever is sooner for employees in any job or activity in which they have no previous or similar rate related experience. And I think that'll go a long way toward getting young people the opportunity to to work. And I express my concern when this first came before us that, you know, I thought our young workers would have a hard time competing to have a first job. And I think this might address some of the concerns raised by by Commissioner Larkin, as well as my colleague, Councilmember Mungo. So that's my friendly voice. Mary Ford Just real quick, just to clarify one thing before Vice-Chair. So I know that I think the city of Santa monica, I think passed something similar, similar to that recently and just that I feel that I understand as well. I think the intention of that is to allow first time workers that are going into a job that's for a set period of time. So an internship or a seasonal job or their first time job. So it's something that certainly either lasts. I think your numbers were there six months or 480 hours, whichever comes first of those two. And so I know that was what the Santa monica, something similar had passed in Santa monica. And I think the state labor code is very clear on what an intern is and what would a learn worker is. I mean, I think, you know, they don't necessarily this is not a way to to undercut labor costs necessarily. These are these are workers who will be trained and have training opportunities with an employer in a paid internship. And I can tell you, I have offered opportunities, and I know there are a lot of internships out there that are unpaid. Right. And so this this would actually create a pathway for paid interns throughout our city. And I know that's been a big, big priority of yours, Mr. Mayor. Absolutely. And I and I do like what obviously what Santa monica did in that direction. So. Vice Mayor. Thank you. And. I think that captures the spirit of what we had heard about people's interest in incentivizing. Trainees and and new workers to an industry. I just have one question. So in that 85% calculation. Is that would that ever take it lower than the state minimum wage? So if the state minimum wage is $10 an hour. So for instance, the first step of our minimum wage is $10.50. So that would not be applicable at that time. Correct. I believe it would. I think so. I think this might be a step. Yeah. Mr. Modica might know. Yes. So it's our understanding that there currently is a provision in state law for learners that is 85% of workers. So in that case, they wouldn't be any different any any different than what state law already allows. We'd have to verify that. But that language that Santa monica uses sounds very similar to what is currently in state law, but will verify. So as long as we're aligning to what is allowable under state law, I think that's your intent. Councilmember Austin Then I would accept that friendly amendment. And just to be clear, though, it is the Santa monica law that passed is not the same thing as a state law. And so I think the Santa monica law applies especially to this idea of it's not so much focus on on youth as it is this idea of like interns and seasonal employees or. And what Councilmember Austin's proposing is interns. Seasonal. And seasonal employees, not just. Youth. Yeah, it's less about age and more about that. Right. And I think we would struggle with that age distinction. But it's the trainee concept, correct? It's a training concept. And I think it it meets the spirit of what the what Councilmember Mango was actually trying to put forth in her friendly as well. Doing it. Okay. Vice Mayor. I. And I heard what Councilmember Mungo had asked for. And I think in in hearing your request, your proposal and Councilmember Austin's proposal, I, I, I do lean toward what I'm hearing from his proposal because a couple of reasons. One, it is it's a little bit more clear from from an understanding. For our to prioritize the trainee piece, which I think was key for you as well. The new worker piece. I like the cap of 460 Hours, is that correct? 80 hours. This addresses the issue that Councilman Richardson raised and others raised about not taking advantage of people, keeping them locked into certain wage categories. And so it really does. It's credible as a trainee incentive, the new employee incentive. So I will accept that. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you. Vice Mayor. I don't think I'm going to sit here and wait. All you guys have to listen to all of this because the fact I have a pretty good idea of my opinions and how I feel. About a lot of this. Because first and foremost, I want to thank the, you know, the City Economic Commission for their recommendation and the students who came here tonight. I know it's been a long, you know, time, but when this item first came to the city council, you know, I was coauthor, you know, with our vice mayor, Lowenthal, and there were more people earning minimum wage in my district and any other district in the city of Long Beach. Which came. Out early. To create a pathway to. Support the $15 an hour. A pathway to the $15 an hour. And I don't like it, so I don't see where any of this will bring anybody out of poverty. But there is a pathway. You know, like I said, we talked it back in days. You know, we talked about. The minimum wage in the other wages. Like I said, when we talk about minimum wage, you know, it doesn't fit the criteria where we you because we talk about today in the economy the way it is, it would never, ever come to, you know, to equal each other. So I've heard that the pros and cons of, you know, why we should it should not increase the wages. But I really think that we. Speaking of that, Dr. King, you know, we really need to move forward in that. You know, I think we need to move forward tonight. And I've been waiting, you know, you know, in hopes for a long time. And I think it's really time for us to act, you know, really seriously. I heard the rising tide, but I think the rising tide with this will be with the votes. And I think it's time for us to move on with this. Instead of taking all these people's time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember your income. Sorry. I mean, I'm sorry about that, Councilwoman Gonzales. Okay. Thank you. So a great discussion tonight. I want to thank everybody for being here again. The business community, our nonprofits, our L.A. County Fed, our workforce here in and all over the city. I want to thank everybody for their hard work. And I know it was a lot to come to this night and to really talk about all of the possibilities and possible solutions. So I'm happy that we've now been able to discuss this in a way that looks like we're moving towards a minimum wage here. And so what I will say, you know, just to give us a larger context, and I think we do have a larger context in this. We've talked about poverty levels, unemployment rates. You know, I happen to represent an area I know I sound like a broken record, but at one point was 19%. It's actually lowered. You know how I'm happy about that to 16 point about 5% homelessness. We have about 2300 adults that are homeless here in the city of Long Beach. And over 75% percent of them are of working age. 255 are children and 20%. We know our city citywide are living in poverty. Median income, 15,000, $50,000 in in the downtown area, which is great. And the reason I say that is because I have to care about these statistics, because, of course, I represent them, but also because particularly in the downtown area, you know, when major retailers come to us and they've come to the Dolby or they've come to the city to look at it areas, you know, we've often struggled with our income rates. We've often struggled with retailers telling us that we don't have the income. And so I think now looking at this minimum wage and seeing what this could possibly have the opportunity for us to do is to potentially raise our income levels in a way that would also hopefully raise education levels as well. For instance, I know Trader Joe's particularly one has talked about not coming to Long Beach because we don't have the education. And so there's other retailers, of course, like I said, that won't come to Long Beach maybe because we don't have the particular income levels. And so we see a benefit in that sense that will help other businesses as well. In addition to that, I think a second point, as I mentioned, is just the the the varying levels that we have of various poverty levels. Even median home values are about $400,000. Average studio one bedroom is about $1,000, upwards of 2600 if you're needing a three or four bedroom. So it's pretty significant. Another point, I think that a lot of the business community brought forward, but many others have brought forward many times is wage theft. And I think I want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for including that in talking about retaliation, talking about wage stuff like it needs to be talked about because I think that there is a really important fact here. It is very similar to what we're discussing, but also very distinct. And I think having that discussion in a study when we do see it back in a way that's comprehensive but really tackles the issue as best, especially with specific industries, which is very important. But overall, an increase in the minimum wage is more than fair, in my opinion. It acknowledges our city's demographic demographic make up of individuals who, yes, they cook our food, entertain our tourists, take care of our children. Ten tables we meet at, they fix our sandwiches, you know, everything. And we've often supported many businesses with various business license fees, maybe waiving those. We have grants for for businesses. We have workforce development opportunities for businesses. And I think at this point, it's really an opportunity for us as a city to really look at individuals more than just a dollar amount, but really value them for the work that they do. So I think looking at the vice mayor's plan so far in the Economic Development Commission's plan and again, I want to thank our business community, I want to thank everyone that was involved. I think it is unprecedented that we've come to this point and that everyone has been involved. And I want to also commend our council for having a great discussion and really looking at a pathway to 15. And so I will be on board with support on the vice mayor's motions. Thank you. Thank you. Next step is actually Mr. City attorney. Did you want to jump. Just. Real quick? Excuse me, Councilman, your clarification on the vice mayor's motion. I was looking at my notes here. On the second part, you said nonprofits and those companies of 25, unless the nonprofit is not, is there a employee number for the nonprofits? Is it all nonprofits and small companies of 25? They're they're both 25 or fewer employees. So nonprofits that have 25 or fewer employees. For small businesses and nonprofits with 25 or fewer employees. There would be no distinction or necessary to say if you're just seeing companies with 25 or less. We can say that. I think I raised the distinction because there was a distinction made in public comment. But if you felt that it would be captured just by saying businesses. I want to be sure that we're not providing that exemption. I just want to be clear that the way I read the CDC report, it appeared to say all nonprofits and small companies of 25 or less. And what I now understand, it's only nonprofits of 25 or less or small. Companies, correct? Yeah. Contrary, Ringo. Thank you. Now, I'm not going to belabor this point. I think that we are on the right path. I think that we have basically discussed this item to its dénouement, as far as I can tell. We're going we're going in the direction that's going to take us to a path for $15 an hour. And I really appreciate all of councilmember for bringing that that opportunity here. It's it's serves the best of all worlds in respect to the commission's recommendations. And I want to thank everybody, everybody who was involved in this and those of you who are out there right now. Good morning. Because you've been here a long time. It's been a long day. And I'm sure that you're very tired and you want to see a vote being taken. So I'm not going to take a lot more of that. But I think that when it comes down to the opportunity, what we're looking here at the table, the motions that are on the table, there's something that they are. They are motions that I can agree with, because it does take us to that path where we need to. I could talk about my my early work experience selling maps to the stars and how much I made. And I was doing that. I know how many of you have gone to Hollywood and bought a map? You know, when I was doing that, it was great by center with $0.50 on the dollar and didn't make much. I didn't need a permit because in those days they were looking at that, you know, more like childcare laws didn't fit in. And I could also talk about me being a portfolio transfer engineer back when they had those, you know, fulfilling filling your car with with gas washing, which you average and kicking the wheels to put air . So, I mean, I could talk about all of that, but I'm not going to think I just did. But bottom line is that we definitely need an increase in and a low in wages. It's long, very long overdue. And I think that, you know, when we did the comments that were made earlier about measure in, you know, the sky did not fall. In fact, we rebounded and we're doing even better now than we did in the past. So I'm ready to vote on this and I support it. Thank you. Thank you. Going back to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Yes, actually, Charlie, just the city attorney just reminded me, you know, in looking through the commission's recommendation, you're absolutely right. And my intent was to stay with the commission's recommendation. It is very late. I don't know how many of you think clearly at 12:15 a.m., but so thank you for that reminder. My intent is to stay with the commission recommendation, which is small businesses and all nonprofits. As for both for both pieces. The piece about the one year. DeLay. Thank you. And the second piece. Right. That's it for both pieces. I mean. Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate Councilmember Austin's. Friendly with the state recommended training program. It doesn't fulfill my complete intent because where I think the disadvantage will come is that there's, again, a serious maturity variance between a 16 year old and an 18 year old. And I'll I'll be supportive of that as a part of this motion, even though I'm very disappointed that the full. Acknowledgment of individuals up to age 21 at the state wage is only still pending at this time, but I hope it will be considered. I do want to speak one more time on the. We owe it, though, because I think that that we owe a component is critical to our ability to lobby this in DC. I think it's critical to our ability to lobby this in Sacramento, and I think it's critical in the future of the way we our was written in that from here forth we are going to be allocated funds based on performance. And so our ability to have the number of youth go through the program will be less because of this and therefore could long term reduce the num the total amount of allocation of funds. So this is like a compounded issue. If we don't accept, we owe it. I'm open to modifying the language to just say that any business. Implementing the willow. A program must. Utilize the state minimum wage for participants while in the program, which again has some of the restrictions, as Councilmember Alston said, with the 480 hours of certain groups, but within certain groups, for instance. Veterans. Unemployable veterans. There are certain changes in the timeline of when you can place them. And specifically within L.A. County, we set aside $1,000,000 a few years ago to put these in the number of individuals that were requested by the federal government into work. And with the big push that we're doing to reduce veteran homelessness, we did not meet those goals. And part of that was not being able to meet those goals within the state minimum wage. Within this under that under that time when we asked for that $1 million to be set aside, and we were very grateful for it . We did not meet those goals. We went back to the federal government and asked for an extension to meet those goals in an additional 12 month period. And we eventually met it in a longer timeline through matching grants of nonprofits. But it it definitely put us in a very tough position because once you lose that funding, regaining it is very difficult because then you're taking it from another WIA that received it. So while I appreciate Councilmember Austin's expertize on the state definition of A in turn, I hope that the background and experience of Commissioner Larkin's and myself actually many know that I have spoken at we have conferences at the state level and this is critical to our state's ability to maintain this funding long term. So I hope that the VOA amendment, a friendly amendment, will be accepted. It's, I think, critical. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And quickly, I wanted to make sure that I know that we had time to actually look at the the EDC recommendation. I know that there were there are two additional steps that the vice mayor's motion suggests. What was the final date of the to arrive at $15? Vice Mayor The final date to arrive at 15. It goes into effect January one, 2021. And I want to just quickly before we take a vote, just take a moment to talk about regionalism and talk about enforcement. I think at some point we're going to have to if we do, you know, if the sky doesn't fall and we go through the process you've outlined, we should if we arrive at 15, be at the same state, same places, the region for synergy in terms of enforcement and ensuring that, you know, our residents aren't sort of sort of behind. So I would like to see and I want to see if you're open to this if that final date, we can move it up six months to, say, July of 2020 so that we you know, should the study go well and everything is is cruisin when we arrive there, we arrive there with the region. What do you think? I see the value in. In staying aligned with the region. But here's here's where our challenges we started six months later from everybody else. And. I don't think we need to be shy about this. Our effort here is different from other communities. I work in Santa monica, so I follow that closely as what's different from Santa monica. It's different from Los Angeles. And I think because we started later, it is reasonable to. To have our timeline comport. Give folks enough time. So. If I may. I'd like to stay with our timeline. I don't I don't have a challenge with that. Like I said, you know, any given Tuesday, these things can these things can change is our first crack at this. Not everybody's going to get everything they want. But I do feel that we should make sure that we're at you know, we're playing our part in the region. But I'm okay with the motion as it is. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Actually, I'm next on the list. Just just to two quick things really quick. Some of this was discussed earlier. I just want to reiterate something before we just passed over the during earlier earlier today, the L.A. EDC, when they presented they made a series of recommendations as business incentives, I guess. And so I just want to make sure that we and I don't know if this needs to be part of the motion or not, but I just want to ask staff to at least those I think need to come back to the council, or there needs to be some kind of discussion about those incentives. And they included everything from expanding the local preference program to our enterprise funds. I actually really like that. I know we don't do that now, but I think a lot of the recommendations that they made, I think the idea of expanding local preference to, you know, to the port and to the water department and to all the enterprise funds, I think would actually be a big benefit to local workers and so and small businesses. So I just want to make sure that that's something that is looked at encouraging that for the community college district in Cal State, Long Beach was mentioned. I want to make sure that we're doing that as well. And the other two items and vice mayor, if you would consider also they're not exactly germane to to the motion schedule that you set, but I think they still they still have an impact. One thing that was discussed, I've heard it at some of the hearings is this idea of creating some kind of business incentive to either whether it's a a a, a business license fee, tax holiday or whether it's a business license fee opportunity so that businesses that are going to be you know, obviously there will be impact, but there's also some kind of incentive on the city side. And so I don't know, vice mayor, if we could add, if staff could bring back some type of license fee tax holiday, I know that. I think Councilwoman Mango and Councilwoman Price and Councilmember Brenda, I think it was had have proposed initiated a small business rebate program and which I think is great. I think we all supported great program. But I think that this could be something that whether it's a part of it or on top of that to create some kind of some kind of license fee benefit for businesses as an incentive, I'd like to look at that so that something we could bring back and I think you mentioned, Mr. Mauka in your presentation that there was you already had a kind of cost to what that could look like. And so I'd like to actually have that come back to the Council for discussion. Can we could we do that? Yes. So we can certainly take a look at the recommendations in the L.A. EDC. And one thing I did want to add is one of the recommendations was to ask our local educational institutions to also do a local preference program. Would that be part of the motion as well? It would. And then we can we've got some of the costs already for the business license holiday, if you will, that's in the in your motion to air in the materials today. We can also cost out expanding our current small business rebate program and bringing that up to potentially 20 employees or 25 employees. It's currently set at ten employees. So we can bring back some additional information on that program. We were just discussing that actually with and actually that would be great. And if I think you could, particularly if we're classifying businesses as 25 small businesses as 25 and under, I think to take that program and expand that for not just those that are under ten, but those that are at the 25 level, I think provides more, you know, tax incentives and, you know, reduction of fees for businesses at that level. And so if we could get those get kind of a listing of business incentives and what the kind of responses from city and vice mayor, if you would be willing just to as a side add, that I would. Thank you. Okay, great. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you. I first like to get a point of clarification from the city attorney on the total earnings piece coming back. If you could just kind of recap what you're doing. And I'd also like to ask that that piece come back prior to the final reading, if it's going to be in an analysis that that you are providing. I think council needs some time to analyze what you're analyzing. Yes. Councilmember Supernova. Yes. It's my intention to take a look at this and put an opinion together for the review by the Council prior to the first reading of what does come back on is should this motion be successful and we're directed to prepare an ordinance. So yes, I mean, we would take a look at that total earnings. We'll give you our best analysis. I think the people that spoke about it, you know, it's going to be there's no definitive answer out there that they can someone can point to. But we will take a look at it and give you our best estimate on on that particular model. Okay. Thank you. And I assume that's okay with the maker of the motion that it comes back prior to the first reading? Yes. Okay. I guess what we have here is my fear is is just basically unintended consequences. And with all the speakers here tonight, no one gave me an answer as to what do I tell my fixed income constituents who have home health care? They're going to lose hours, which is unacceptable. And I guess in hearing several folks say talk about the high price, I need more money because of the high price of child care. Where do they think the price of childcare is going to go? It's just that vicious cycle is what I have the biggest problem with. The other item that I'm kind of confused by and in the hours late. So I'm kind of ready for confusion here. But the whole wage theft issue, to me, this is a state issue. It's the California Department of Industrial Relations. We had a new bill there in 2011. I think the governor just signed a new measure in October 2015. I'm confused as to what we're going to do on a city level other than refer people to to get relief at the state area. I don't know if anyone has an explanation for that tonight, but I'm just saying that that's something I don't understand. I think the state put $1,000,000,000 into enforcement plan in October. So, again, I'm unclear there with that. All that being said, I'd just like to thank everyone for your time tonight, the business owners. Thank you. And to Mr. Hoffman, I hope you do reinvest in Long Beach. And I think it's incumbent on us as we move forward is to create some of those business incentives. We need to do everything we can do to help the business community. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So now we go back to the motion and just I want to just try to repeat the motions or both. The vice Mayor There's two separate motions, so I'm going to let her repeat her two motions and make sure that we're on the same page before we go to the final vote. So. Vice-Chair Lowenthal. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. I just want to know if I could make a comment. Actually, sir, I can't. I there's a hearing process I have to follow. As far as, bear. In mind, 60%. Of the labor in Long Beach. So I can't outside along the. I understand that, sir. I can't. He doesn't. So he doesn't. I can't to follow. Thank you. By Summer, Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the first motion. Yeah. Keep laughing. So, guys, listen. The Vice-Chair Now has the floor, so. Vice-Chair Lowenthal. Thank you. I have a very, very low voice, so. Okay. So I'm. It's my turn. Hey, guys. Ma'am. Please. We have to continue. Vice Mayor has the floor. Thank you. Okay. I thank you. I told the gentleman he couldn't continue, so we're fine. Thank you, Vice Mayor. What they're saying behind me. Right. So motion one is to approve recommendations of the Economic Development Commission with a wage schedule of $10.50 effective January one, 2017. On January one, 2018, it moves to $12 January one, 2019 to $13 an hour. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees and nonprofits have an additional year to implement the schedule. And the first increase would be would go into effect January one, 2018 to $10.50. This new policy would also include city departments on the same schedule. It would require strong wage enforcement that is managed by the city and includes the private right of action for workers. Mandatory posting anti retaliation claims clause I'm sorry, revocation power for the city and a fine program for the city. The second motion in early 2019 I'm sorry, part of the first motion in early 2019 launch a second study with the L.A. EDC to study minimum wage impacts on employment, sales tax and overall impact on economy that will be presented to the Lombard City Council at a special hearing. The second motion is the pathway to $15 per hour proposal. If after the study we see no major negative impacts to jobs and the local economy, we continue on a pathway to $15 an hour. One. On January one, 2020, the wage moves to $14 an hour. Secondly, on January one, 2021 to $15 an hour. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees get an additional year to implement the schedule, as well as nonprofit small businesses with 25 or fewer employees and all nonprofits get an additional year to implement the schedule. In 2023, the minimum wage will set the Consumer Price Index for the L.A. metropolitan area. Vice mayor. And also there would be the amendment as proposed by CD eight on the intern program for 404 up to 480 hours or six months. And that would be to create a working and intern. Amendment correct that would allow employers to pay 85%. Yes. Of the minimum wage for 480 hours. For six months. And. Or six months, whichever comes first. That is correct. And then also the direct city attorney to prepare the opinion to come back prior to first reading. Correct. And then also, I think, ask the city attorney to bring back the business incentives for approval or review of the council. And also council member. Mungo's first second request for the city attorney to come. Back with information on following what's going on with total compensation. Got it. That's it. I believe those are all the friendlies that were accepted, including the mayor's business. Okay. So program. Before we vote on the issue and just real quick to clarify how the vote I'm assuming, Mr. Attorney, we vote on motion one and motion two, right? Is that. That is correct. If motion one fails in the motion to vote on location. Got it. So I have another speaker, Councilman Mongo, that will go to the vote. I just wanted to be sure that the motion for protecting our federal funds by providing a business incentive to businesses who employ under the VOA standards was not accepted. Correct. It was not. Okay, I'd like to make a substitute motion of exactly everything that Mayor Vice Mayor Lowenthal, said with the addition of the exemption, not the exemption, I'm sorry, the business incentive for Whyalla. And if I could clarify on the, on the exemption, those are people that are in the program not exceeding 480 hours, not qualified for the program, but they have to be in the program and only for 408 up to. The state it's usually 480. There's I think one exception for reentry I think is the exception. But I know that the Rio DOL guidelines are very. Clear and it's a limited. Correct exemption. Okay. Just to be I'm on the way the subsidy works so that the subsidy goes on top of the two split questions, right? So you vote on the substitute and then if that fails, then you go to the split questions. Correct. The substitute would need a second if it has. No, it. Has a second. Question that would be voted on first. And then you would go back to the vice mayor's original one. I just want to make sure we're doing the process correct. So okay, perfect. So we have a substitute motion, which is essentially everything that was from the motion, but adding Councilman Mungo's additional part of the motion right now. Second, about Councilmember Supernormal. Let's go to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate Councilwoman Mungo's passion for the issue. I do think given all of the discussion and the movement on the original motion, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion and let us return back to the original motion. And Councilor Richard Brown. Oh, well, I had a substitute. Substitute? Oh, my. Okay. And that would be. I have to add, when this comes back for review, let's take that study out a bit. Not necessarily go with L.A. EDC. Okay. Do you want to see if that will be accepted by the maker of the original motion? You know what? I don't know exactly how this works. Okay. Well. I think that might be something that the original maker of the motion might might accept. Can you repeat that, please? His his substitute substitute was when we do the second study to take that step just automatically going to Lady C, putting that study out out to bid and then. Okay. Of course. Okay. Absolutely. That's very reasonable. Okay, great. So we have a substitute motion by councilman mongo first. So please, members, cast your vote on that motion. The motion fails. Okay, now we have motion one of two. Motion one of two is essentially the recommendations by the Economic Development Commission, as read by Vice Marie Lowenthal. So, Mr. Mayor, a point of order should should that be a friendly now? Well, Councilmember, super nice recommendations. Yeah. I think she accepted. Okay. Yes, but it was okay. So I think she's accepting them right now. Yeah, you're right. Okay. So now is the Economic Development Commission's recommendations, which is on the floor, including Councilman Supernovas. Last addition he just made. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes on part one of the motion. Ocean carries. Okay. Thank you. And now we're moving on to the second motion, which is the sorry. The first motion was the Economic Diplomate commission's recommendations. The second motion is. The. The pathway to 15, as recommended by Vice Chair Lowenthal. That is the second motion of the item members. Please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. What's the vote? Thank you. Okay, so big swing vote. I think that was the same boat as the first. As the first one. Okay. Thank you. Okay. That was a long process. But I want to thank you all for for getting through it. I'm going to take we still have, believe it or not, more of an agenda. So, I mean, I'm I'm going to take a one minute recess and then we'll we'll get started back on. Oh. I'm going to talk to. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. Instead of an agenda here. So if I can have everyone, please, that's going to stay around, take their seats. We can take a roll call, please. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Super Now. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution making findings for energy services contracting and authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a Solar Energy Power Purchase Agreement and Easement Agreement, and any necessary documents and amendments, with PFMG Solar Long Beach, LLC, for the purchase of energy produced from solar photovoltaic installations at 11 potential municipal sites within the City of Long Beach, for a period of 25 years, with the option to renew for three additional five-year periods. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06062017_17-0424

Congratulations and excellent. We're going to go back to the regular agenda now and we have a hearing. So, Madam Court, if we can please read not hearing item number one. Report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Adopt a resolution making findings for energy services, contracting and authorizing city manager to execute a solar energy power purchase agreement and easement agreement with FMG Solar Long Beach for the purchase of energy produced from solar. Photo of electric. Installations at 11 potential municipal sites for a period of 25 years. Citywide. Okay, we have a presentation by staff. Want to turn this over to our assistant city manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report on this will be given by Craig Beck, our director of Public Works. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm pleased to be for you to be before you here this evening to talk about sustainability and the city's efforts to continue moving forward with its Climate Action Plan and sustainability goals decided before you is something that will have a positive impact reducing the city's carbon footprint and focusing on city parking lots and city parking garages, which will also result in a reduction in the heat island effect that we see in these large surfaced areas. What we have before you here this evening is an item that essentially moves forward a an agreement that the city tried to do in 2014 and 2014. This council took action to enter into an agreement with a company named SunEdison to identify sites and bring solar to the city of Long Beach. Unfortunately, SunEdison was not able to finalize any of those agreements and ultimately declared bankruptcy. We are confident that we are here this evening on the forefront of working with a new company, FMG Solar, and they have the wherewithal and financial backing to be successful in this endeavor. PFG has successfully implemented a roughly 236 sites for 29 different Southern California public agencies in a similar solar PPA agreement. What you have before you here is something that's a little unique and staff is here to provide a little bit of clarity to how this process will move forward. And we're also asking council to consider a slight modification to the recommendation that's before you this evening. So, for example, you have an attachment in the council item that that lists 11 potential sites. We believe these are good sites and sites that provide opportunity to add solar. However, we think that there may be additional sites to consider as well. And I wanted to clarify this evening that we are looking at not just the 11 sites listed, but other potential locations. For example, the Broadway parking garage that many visitors in this chamber here this evening parked in and that city staff park in. We believe that that provides an opportunity to consider for solar, as well as the public safety building. That may be another site to consider. So one change that we would like to make to the recommended action is to provide is to have council, provide staff with the flexibility to negotiate different sites and actually negotiate potentially different terms . I know the recommended action lists a 25 year term, but depending on the site and the site conditions, it may warrant different term a period of time, and that time may be 20 years as an example. We're just worried that we don't want to be locked in to a specific number of years and a specific number of sites this evening. So we're we are asking that this be changed to say up to 25 years and for more than 11 sites. That concludes a staff report. And we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. So at this point, that concludes staff comments. Is there any public comment? Please come forward and state your name. Good evening, Vice Mayor and fellow Council members and city staff. My name is Tommy five. I represent IBEW Electrical Workers, Local 11, and I'm here to fully support solar infrastructure on city owned facilities. It's definitely in line with the city's Sustainable City Action Plan. We feel that the city staff has done a great job of moving this item, this solar agenda item forward. And we look to we look forward to more public and private facilities getting on board to help. Reduce the cost of electricity, greenhouse gas emissions. We urge the city council. To move forward with the recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. And further public comment. I see one. Very good. You look as the address, I'd suggest, as I've often done before, considering using also the roof of the Pete Archer Rowing Center. It's certainly not as large as a parking lot, but I think we get there's certainly the twice the square footage of a normal house and we see houses that have it. I think we could get to 120 feet by 120 feet and put the numbers to it and see if the foundation is is all brick. So I think that the excellent stability there, in fact, it could even come out even further across the eastern side. Thanks. As well as as well as the waterfront site. Thank you. Thank you. See no further from the comment. Public comment is closed before we take it back behind the real Mr. City attorney, you have a comment. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just as a clarification for the additional flexibility requested by staff, the motion would include that you could have a pension potentially up to or not to exceed 15 additional sites instead of the 11 listed. If there are more additional sites to come to through the process, we could certainly come back with a contract amendment and that the terms would be given the flexibility to city staff to up to 25 years. Yes, as staff indicated, if it was less than that, we could certainly negotiate that. We wouldn't go beyond 25 years unless we came back to council. Thanks for the clarification. Taking it back behind the rail, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. You must have read my mind. City Attorney I was just going to ask that question, so I appreciate the clarification on that. I'm completely good with that, and I think this is wonderful that we're doing this. So I want to thank PFM as well as IBEW Local 11 for being here. I think any time we can add additional solar and sustainability measures is a great thing in the city and it's definitely what we've been heading in the right direction and what we've been about. So thank you both for being here. And I look forward to working with public works and hearing more about the additional sites. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I also want to thank staff for all their hard work on this and definitely support expanding the number of sites and looking at, you know, any parks and rec sites that we have, senior center sites, animal shelter, any opportunities like that. I did want to ask I know that there's some fluttering of conversation around community choice aggregation with these solar panels. Be able to be a part of that portfolio should the city eventually decide to go that route. Councilmember Pearce. I guess my response to that question is it depends on how the city moves forward with a key agreement under what's contemplated before you this evening, the city would essentially be purchasing power from PFG. PFG would own the assets, the solar assets, but we would be purchasing the power. So in a sense, the city would be using green power for its facilities. I think that falls in line with the discussion that at least come forward to date regarding community aggregation program for Long Beach. Okay. Thank you. Great work, guys. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And before we vote, if I could just get staff to give us an indication on what how many jobs and what type of jobs will be created through this action. Councilmember Austin apologize. I don't have those numbers before me this evening, but we'll reach out and put that together and get back to you. Okay. Well, will they be good jobs? I think, by the fact that the IBEW is here this evening. Yes, they will be good jobs. Thank you. So seeing no further public comment now, I would say if all that needs to happen is IBEW, show up to make it a good job. Tommy, you should come to every one of our council meetings. Thanks a lot, everybody. Please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. So at this point, we're going to move to public comment and non agenda items. And public comments on their. Way. Okay. We're going to move forward with public comment on non-urgent items. Will the speakers please come forward? Each speaker has up to 3 minutes on the list. Thank you. So we have rich gardener, Larry Goodhue, Morgan Caswell, Kirsten Burge and William J.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to provide a review of the City of Costa Mesa "Civic Openness in Negotiations" ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the Long Beach City Council.

LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0087

Item 11 is communication with the office Councilwoman Jeri Ships and council member Gary DeLong with a request that the city attorney provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic, civic openness in negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted in the city by the Long Beach City Council. Councilmember Lipski I think, Mr. Garcia, this actually is a report from the Civil Service and Personnel Committee that has taken up this item over a period of years, and we wanted to report it out to the full council. Over this time, we have taken a look with the city attorney's assistance, potential measures that would afford the people of Long Beach with more information concerning the collective bargaining process. I want to stress that we talked in this council before about the possibility of adopting the government code that is utilized for school districts that require some training , among other things, proposed bargaining items being offered and ask, as well as tentative agreements before ratification by the legislative body. Until recently. Well, what happened when we had this discussion at council originally, and how did it the Civil Service and Personnel Committee was that cities had not adopted anything similar and the city attorney's staff brought to us a committee that recently the city of Costa mesa had enacted the Civic Openness and Negotiations Ordinance, actually with the support and help of the City Employees Association and among other things. What this requires is the city must hire an independent negotiator before contract talks with an employee association. Begin an independent economic analysis must be done on the fiscal impacts of each contract term, and the results of that analysis must be made public 30 days prior to negotiations. Often this council doesn't even get that each council member must disclose if he or she has had any communications about the negotiations with the representative of the employee association. As negotiations begin, the City Council must report publicly after closed sessions, any prior offers and counteroffers and their fiscal impact to the taxpayer. And they meet and confer related bargaining positions received and or made by either side that are no longer being considered must also be disclosed and before the City Council can vote on an employee contract. It must be discussed at least two council meetings and the proposal posted on the city website at least seven days prior to the first meeting. The Civil Service and Personnel Committee brings us to the full council with a request that the city attorney take a look at this ordinance and advise the city council whether or not that is something that the City Council could adopt. Please don't shoot the messenger. This this is something that we want it to finish up in civil service and personnel committee. I know it is controversial, particularly among labor unions. I will give you my credits out here first that I've been a longtime labor attorney and I understand both sides in terms of their position. But I also do understand that we need more transparency and openness in this process. And I want to thank Mr. DeLong for co-sponsoring this. And with that, I would make a motion that we request the city attorney to provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic openness and negotiations ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the Long Beach City Council. Second. There's been a motion, and a second, any public comment on the item? I'd like to make a substitute move to receive and file. There's been a motion in a second to receive and file any public comment on the item. See none. No other council comment. Councilor DeLong. So I'm sorry, Jerry, could you elaborate on exactly what was your motion here? My motion was to request that the city attorney would because we don't have this in the agenda item that he review the ordinance that has been in use in the city of Costa mesa and report back to the city of Long Beach as to whether or not such a ordinance is feasible. We have the report in committee, but we didn't get a follow up. Thank you. It my intention here. Thank you. Okay. Well, I guess what I'd like to do as a substitute substitute now I what I'd like to add to that that now I request the city attorney to look at it from a legal perspective, but to ask the city manager to respond to the council as well as to how and what the identified potential pros and cons are from a city staff and human resources perspective in moving this direction. You know, while I would certainly like to see what they both have to say, I would tell you for me, anything that improves the transparency of what we do, I think is a good thing. I know that some of the most difficult questions that I get from the community is after we have voted and, you know, a very large contract such as this is, you know, how did we get to where we got to? What can I say? What can I not say? You know, a great deal of it occurred in closed session. So I really can't provide that much information from a legal perspective, the community and I think this would go a long way towards not only providing the community additional information, but also making it clear to what we can talk about, what we can't talk about, because it will be a published document or at least the appropriate portions of it will be published. So that's my motion. But there's been a motion and a second concern. Boston. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sikorski and a longer list for bringing forward this this issue for discussion. I have no issue with transparency either. I think as public officials, we should all be laying it out there for our public to see. And as far as I'm concerned, our labor negotiations, the contracts are online and available for any resident to see at any time. The contract negotiations obviously is done between city staff and labor negotiators representing various unions. I don't think any of us are in those rooms or in those proceedings are or or privileged any of the the information in those proceedings other than giving direction to the staff. As far as the transparency component, I've worked through the Mayor's Millions Brown Back Act that actually governs collective bargaining, the state law that governs collective bargaining for local government and for the city of Long Beach. There's nothing in here that that that that refers to that. I've actually read the deals act where there is some sort of a little bit more transparency with state employees as far as disclosing the terms of the contracts upfront. And so in that regard, I think you may be on the right track, but what I'm also concerned about is the additional and unnecessary cost that could be associated with some of the the proposals here specifically related to hiring outside counsel to negotiate contracts. I mean, if we don't have qualified employees here to do that in H.R., we need to get them because that is a perpetual interest that the city has. I mean, contract negotiations don't end at the end of contract negotiations. Meeting confirms happen throughout the year. And I think what's missing here is probably from the public as well is that negotiations are ongoing. You know, they never stop. On wages, conditions, benefits, particularly in terms and conditions of employment. When policy changes are made, their meaning confers. And that's that bargaining. That's collective bargaining. So I'm really concerned about the additional cost that that could be associated with this. I will agree that during this last round of negotiations, there were some areas where I had some concerns about, concerns about I'm not sure they're fully addressed here. And because of that, I think I'm in support of Councilmember O'Donnell's motion to receive and file. Okay. We're going to move on. Before we go on, conservatorships, we can get a clarification. I thought I'd heard a second on counterpart to Long's motion. Was there a second? No second concern for Lowenthal, Second City Councilmember Shipka. Mr. Ashton, I appreciate your comments. Although you did talk to me about perhaps having an outside negotiator for the management portion of the contract. So you're right, I did. I think that is that's prudent. And it eliminates any sort of conflict if that is the case. But this doesn't say that. Well, if I can, I will I will add that I know the Miller is Myers Brown at backwards and forwards, having represented numerous city employee groups. And I will tell you, nothing in that act prohibits us from doing this whatsoever. This in no way impacts the rights of the two parties to negotiate. It is not bringing the public in to the bargaining room. It is simply getting information out to the public in a timely manner. And perhaps maybe with the substitute that I think Mr. DeLong did, the city attorney can come back. And that's what my request was. And in fact, if there would be any difficulties in terms of the contracts online, there is no cost associated on those contracts. There is no financial analysis published either for the council or the public about each contract term and the cost. That is much different than just posting a contract online so that this goes beyond that. And then I would be very interested from the city manager's point of view what the added cost would be for us to be transparent. I think, you know, the fiscal impact, as I put in the motion, is to be determined by the city manager and we don't know. So perhaps a separate from hiring a independent negotiator for the management team, I would be very interested to see what the costs would be involved for the other issues here, too. And I think maybe in Mr. Lang's motion that could be covered when we get the report back. Mr. O'Dowd. I can't remember long ago. I just wanted to confirm that we're looking for information on this issue. I don't think we're changing anything. I'm not averse to receiving a report from the city attorney or staff on on any aspect of this. And then we can take up any recommendation that any council member may bring forward. But there's no recommendation here, and it's asking for a report. And that's where my support is coming from. Mr. Dillon. Thank you. You know, Councilmember, often I share your concern about adding any cost to the government process. But like Councilmember Lowenthal, I guess what I thought we were doing was asking for some additional information here. I'm certainly not wedded to it has to be done this way. But, you know, maybe a maybe a third. It's this good, maybe a half, maybe 80%. I don't know. I think I'll have a a better feel for that up to the city attorney and the city manager come back with some kind of report for us to to review and discuss. But certainly, I would share your concern that, you know, does it really make sense to hire an outside firm to do all this? Perhaps not. Maybe it does for management, but it doesn't for the other labor groups. And I would certainly be, you know, very open and interested in that kind of a discussion. But at least I to have the information come back so we could have that kind of discussion. So that's why I support the the motion that's on the table. Let's get along just for you. Just repeat what the motion is. Basically, yes, the motion is to request the city attorney to provide a review of the city of Costa mesa Civic over openness, negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the lobby, city council. And for the city manager to provide, you know, perhaps a memo that determines the feasibility from a staff and human resources perspective, what the pros and cons might be of this approach. So you're not adopting it. You're just just asking for information. All right, Mr. Ralston. And thanks. Thanks a lot. I do appreciate, like I said, that discussion. My my my real concern here is that we the collective bargaining process is difficult and complicated enough, as is with the dynamics that exist by further complicating this and politicizing it. I think it will it will dilute and pollute the process even further. And so I think and I don't mean any disrespect to to to the authors of this agenda item. I just think we need to move forward very carefully using Costa mesa as an example. Costa mesa has not been the the the example city that we want to follow in terms of our labor management relationship. And so I would I will just rest on that. Mr. Mayor, can a comment. Yeah, go ahead. Well, you know, I had the same response when I saw the draft of the of the item. And Councilwoman Chavkin explained it to me when I brought that to her attention when she said that the ordinance was actually developed cooperatively between management and labor. But I guess. I beg your pardon. Were. Well, but I guess it wasn't shoved down anybody's throat. So it was it was done in a harmonious way. And if we move forward with some aspect of this, I would hope it would be done in a harmonious, harmonious way in Long Beach as well. And also, so have. We consulted with any of our employee groups about this? Well, I know that that's the motion is in fact, I won't get that kind of information, Mr. Austin. But nobody nobody is agreeing to go any way in the direction of goes to Mesa or not in the direction of Costa mesa. And I think what everybody's trying to do, or at least with the motions trying to do, is to see what the pros and cons of that approach are. And quite frankly, you know, I mean, people say if it's not broke, don't fix it. But that doesn't mean if it's not broke, don't improve it. And you at least should have some information out there as to what some alternatives are. I know there's a lot of nervousness. I don't know which election period and all that stuff. But you know what? Just getting information doesn't appear to me to be harmful. I'll just state that. Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I'm going to first, I think listen, open and transparency, I think is great. I'll be brief. I am familiar with the Costa mesa model. I personally have information about I don't think it's a model we want to replicate here in Long Beach. So I'll be voting no on the motion. Okay. All right. Any further comments? If not, we have a motion as described by Mr. DeLong, the city attorney, city manager, to come forward with information about my words, pluses and minuses of the the outlines of the Costa mesa at all procedure on collective bargaining members. Castro. Well, Mr.. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yeah. If if Vice Mayor Garcia has a concern, they want to look at one model that that he doesn't think was the most optimal. I mean, I'm not going to do this. I'm certainly open looking. If there's any specific cities that you're aware of, do you think goes well? Or if you want us to give staff a more general direction to take a look at other cities in addition to Costa mesa? I'm certainly receptive to that. Would that be helpful? All right, let let. Let's go forward. Okay. All right. On. On Mr. Dillon's motion. Members casting votes. Motion fails for four votes. Four votes? No. Okay. So we would go revert to Mr. Donnelly's motion, is that correct? Right. Which is to receive and file that. Correct. All right. Members on Mr. O'Donnell's motion to receive and file reset the board. I'm Mr. Downs motion. Motion carries five votes. Three votes. All right. Thank you and good discussion. Thanks very much. That was item 11, was it not? Correct. Item 12.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the City’s municipal utility needs; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to grant a permanent, non-exclusive water utility easement, and restrictive well covenants, to the Sallal Water Association, a non-profit Washington corporation, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a water system; and over, upon, across, and under a portion of The City of Seattle’s Cedar River Watershed property in Section 34, Township 23 North, Range 8 East, W.M., in King County, Washington.

SeattleCityCouncil_01022018_CB 119165

Agenda Item eight Council. Bill 119165. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the city's municipal utility needs. The committee recommends the bill pass. Consumer Herbold. Thank you. The Slough Water Association is a nonprofit co-op utility in North Bend. Slough Water Association would like to increase the reliability of associated with wall production and increase the size of the well protected area. There is no corresponding increase in water rights associated with this legislation. The city will receive $97,000 in compensation for the easement as well as staff time. I recuse myself from this vote during committee and I intend to do so at full council today. My husband is a member of the Slough Water Association and as I mentioned before, it is a nonprofit co-op utility. So in essence, he is one of many owners in the area. Very good. Any comments or questions? Okay. So we will put on this one. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez i Johnson Suarez as well. Sarah O'Brien so on what i do. President Herrell high eight in favor. None oppose. The bill passes and the chair of the senate. Please read agenda item number nine.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption a Resolution Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA. (Community Development 227)

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1553

think that historic is actually a huge part of the attraction of Webster Street. And I'm concerned that that focus seems to have been dropped. So I would like I would like some consideration of focusing on the historic significance and of Webster Street. Yes. Fair to make a motion. I move that council, adopt a resolution confirming the Webster Street Bar Report for fiscal year 20 1516 in levying an annual assessment on the Webster Street BIA. Second. Second. All of us in favor of motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Six G. Oh. Yes. You may continue. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And city council members. I'll keep this presentation very brief. Tonight, the city council is holding a public hearing to levy an assessment for the Park Street Business Improvement Area. The same procedures that I previously outlined for the Webster Street BIA also applies to the Park Street Pier. I would also like to know today the city has received no protests for the Park Street Pier. Staff recommends that the city council hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution confirming the Park Street by report, and levy an annual assessment on the Park Street BIA for the fiscal year. 20 1516. That concludes my presentation. Available to answer any questions. And we have representatives from the Park Street Business Association which manages the park. There are also here available to answer any questions. Speakers from Rado also. Rob Rado. Thank you. We're going to assess you for that shade you broke earlier. All right. All right. Rob Reiner, executive I'm still the executive director of the Park City Business Association, soon to be Darva. I've only got 20 or 30 minutes to talk to. No, I'm only up here if anybody has a question. I'm shocked and amazed that we don't have any buddy saying they don't want to be part of the bill. And God bless them all. Questions. Going once. Going twice. Does anybody know if the Warriors won tonight? Oh, good bye. That was up to you to provide us that information. We're not checking our phone. Well, all right. Do we have a motion? Oh, I'm not. A moved. Back in. Any comments? All those in favor of my motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next six H. Essays A recommendation to select two City Council members to serve on the Joint Subcommittee with the East Bay Regional Park District. And I see that our representative on that board has stayed this late in the evening. So thank you, Doug. Basically and this is the follow up to the council referral that first came forward from Vice Mayor Matarese and then was brought back when a resolution was adopted by the Council to talk about the specific McKay property. And then the East Bay Regional Park District Board went ahead and voted that they would approve the having members on the subcommittee as well. So this is back before you tonight to approve your selection.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to terminate Management Agreement No. 3557, effective June 1, 2021, with Conservation Corps of Long Beach, for the management and operation of 340 Nieto Avenue, and execute all documents necessary to enter into a Master Lease with the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, for the operation and maintenance of (1) Willow Springs Park Urban Wood Recovery and Utilization Program at 2750 Orange Avenue; (2) the building at 340 Nieto Avenue; and, (3) DeForest Park Environmental Stewardship Center at 6255 DeForest Avenue, from June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2041, with one five-year option to renew, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Districts 3,7,9)

LongBeachCC_05042021_21-0383

Okay. Then let's read the item that was bought, please, which was 19. Item 19 Recommendation to Terminate Management Agreement with Conservation Corps of Long Beach for the management and operation of 34090 Avenue and enter into a master lease for the operation and maintenance of Willow Springs Park Urban Wood Recovery and Utilization Program at 2750 Orange Avenue and Forest Park Environmental Stewardship Center at 6255 Forest Avenue Districts three, seven and nine. Councilmember Aranda. Thank you, Mayor, for allowing me to speak on this item here as. It. Is already done. As many people know, the Conservation Corps has been with the city now since 1987 and has been doing a wonderful job in keeping our city clean and giving jobs to young people who are in need of some additional guidance. And the Conservation Corps provides. I think that this master lease is going to be a wonderful thing for the city. It keeps the Conservation Corps with us for many years to come. In addition to providing them with a new headquarters and other facilities that they will be able to use and maintain. So I want to just give a shout out to the Conservation Corps for the excellent work that they've been doing over the years with us. And I hope to strengthen and enforce and of course, reinforce the relationship that we have with them. So with that Mayor, I'd like to make the motion to accept the master lease. I have a second by Vice Mayor Richardson with no public comment. Let's go and do a roll call. District one. I district to. District two. She's District three. I. District four. Ney. District five. Hi. District six. District seven. Keep pushing. I thank you. District eight. By. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. With that, we will go ahead. And do we have a request to move, I believe 21, 25, 25 as. Go ahead. 25 and then I'll pass it over to Councilmember Saro.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency, through the California Climate Investment Urban Greening Program, for the completion of the 14th Street Park project; accept such grant funding, in an amount up to $3,125,000; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the project. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_06132017_17-0459

Motion carries. Thank you, Adam. 13 police. And in 13 is report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to Adobe resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency for the completion of the 14th Street Park Project and accept such grant funding in a in an amount up to 3.1 million District one. Thank you. Let's go. Let's start with city staff, then Councilmember Gonzalez. A quick report by our second Marine director, Murray Knight, and we also have Meredith Reynolds. Good evening, vice mayor. Members of the Council. On March 2017, the state of California, California Natural Resources Agency began soliciting grant applications for their urban greening grant. There is a total of $76 million available for an urban greening project statewide, and that's funded by the California Climate Investments. And this is a competitive grant program, and only one find funding cycle is anticipated. Eligible projects needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grant funds can be used to acquire, create, enhance or expand community parks and green space. As a first step in a two phased grant application process, the grant agency accepted one page concept proposals, which were reviewed in advance of the full application, and projects that were clearly meeting the grant objectives and were the most competitive were identified. City of Long Beach submitted multiple concept proposals for the park projects, and the grant agency provided feedback that the 14th Street Park Project concept was the most competitive and met multiple grant objectives. As a result of that feedback provided during the concept phase, we submitted an application for the second phase for the completion of the 14th Street Park Project. Park Project Scope includes community outreach and completion of the 14th Street Masterplan, as well as design and construction of grant eligible park improvements that could include bike and pedestrian improvements connecting currently separated blocks to adjacent traffic, upgrading irrigation and onsite stormwater capture reforesting park segments, upgrading park amenities to meet ADA and safety standards, etc. We are requesting to apply and accept an amount of up to 3.1 to $5 million for this 14th Street Park project. There is no matching funds required in this grant, and there's no minimum or maximum funding request for this grant program. That concludes my report. Thank you, Councilwoman, because I. Guess this makes me incredibly happy because as city manager Pat West knows and I thank you, Mary and Meredith, for your hard work. This has been a neighborhood that I'm really, really passionate about personally, but that I know a lot of our city staff has spent a lot of time in that neighborhood mentoring students at Washington Middle School. I myself going out there, I think, every week with my staff just to ensure that the kids know that their support not only at the school but offsite. And so I thank you all for really just committing to investment there in the Washington neighborhood. Thanks so much. Congratulations and good luck with this as any public comment on this item. Sing. No members, please cast your vote.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA concerning a marketing air service development incentive at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA for a marketing Air Service Development Incentive in the amount of $570,000 and through 4-8-20 for its air service to Paris, France from Denver International Airport (201738752). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-25-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-30-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0611

Per person on the plane. Okay. And then the companion resolution 611 is a marketing agreement. And that is also a standard action that the airport takes for any airline to conduct, say, service to a new market. And that is a straight reimbursement over their promotional materials. Yes. Okay. And the only thing the only other question I had, Mr. President, is they're conducting this service with the Boeing. 787, the Dreamliner. Race. Great. And okay. Because the $4 million seemed a little high based on the capacity for two flights a week over two years. But it works out to about 320 passengers per flight. Right. Okay. And that's 787. Does that? Yes. Great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Brett. That's the only questions I had. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Angela. Looks like this concludes. Unless you want to say yes, to say, okay, this concludes all of our. I have a summons up and I'm up. Oh, and you missed me, too. Did we miss you? Disappeared. Okay, Angela will do. Dr. Sussman, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. I also thank you for bringing this up. Councilman Flynn, I also wanted to clarify, because I received an email about this of a concern of spending taxpayer dollars on these kind of incentives. But I want to make it very clear that these are not taxpayer funds paying into the incentive fund or the reimbursement for marketing, which I could be correct. Yes. These are Denver airport funds that are not tax supported. Thank you. All right, Councilman Cashman. Yeah, Angela, I was just wondering, is this with every new nonstop or some or how is this applying? The these are for new airlines, new international service and new domestic service. Okay. Do you know the last time we used this, by any chance? We have used this for the Lufthansa to Munich. We've also used it for Air Canada to Montreal. We have some new ones coming online. We have Edelweiss to Zurich. And so this is. A common. Practice, not only with Denver International Airport, with most. Airports. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr.. Prime. Councilman Andre, I missed you earlier because you plugged in. Do you want to go in? It's on a different bill, so I can wait. Oh, okay. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. I just would like to request, if possible, that the airport provide sort of offline, sort of accounting for the last five years for this type of incentive. Because to to my colleague's point, this is airport money. But there are other things, other issues that are labor related and stuff like that, where we're also talking about simply airport money and yet we don't have money for those things, but we do have money for incentives like this. So I'd like to really understand the sort of magnitude of what we've been giving to the airlines. I mean, I just want to make note that this is this particular flight is something that we've been working on for the last decade. And these are really. Economic. Generators for not only for our city, but for Paris. And so they generate hundreds of millions of dollars of tourist income and that sort of thing. So it's we definitely get a return on investment on these. Yeah. And so when we have, if we ever have that important that, that, that, that employment argument, I would fully expect the, the airport to be to be able to articulate why it's more important to have airlines than than than than, you know, increased compensation for people that work for those airlines. Okay. Thanks. All right. I think we're done here. Councilwoman Ortega, did you have another? But I just wanted to make a comment on Council Bill 587 on page eight.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report on street sweeping outreach program to impacted neighborhoods and impacts on first day of enforcement efforts; and direct City Manager on additional potential programs to waive, dismiss, or lower street sweeping citations during COVID-19 emergency as needed.

LongBeachCC_05192020_20-0462

Thank you very much. Thanks again for the budget presentation. So let's go on to the rest of the regular agenda. We're going to do item 25. Communication for Mayor Garcia. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilmember Pierce. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember Urunga. Recommendation to request city manager to report on street sweeping outreach program to impacted neighborhoods and impacts on first day of enforcement efforts. Thank you, Madam Court. I'm just going to be brief. I mention this over to Mr. Murdoch in just a minute. Obviously, strict street sweeping enforcement resumed yesterday. And I think there was broad consensus with the council of why street sweeping is important for public health and safety, especially as it relates to clean water and clean, clean gutters and neighborhoods and neighborhood safety. So we I think everyone is in agreement. We also know, obviously, that there's huge financial hardship. It's happening across the city and there's a really strong communication communications program that was put in place to address these upcoming weeks where it's back in place. And so this is really a two part recommendation tonight. But the first I hope we get turn over to Mr. Modica would give us an update on how our enforcement efforts, what our communication strategy was like the last few weeks, and maybe an update on how Monday and yesterday's enforcement went. And then I'm going to have some suggestions about how we move forward. So, Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We'll have Craig Beck and Nico Marconi in. Give that update. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Members of the council. We did put together a brief little outline just to share with you on some of the efforts made relative to street sweeping and keeping our city clean. Dico has that and he's going to go through the information for this evening. A. Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the council. We did resume issuing citations for street sweeping as of yesterday, Monday, May 18th. And just to give you some background, the city originally suspended, issuing street sweeping citations on March 17th. The city did encourage residents to move their vehicles, despite the fact that there were no citations. But as time went on, fewer vehicles were being moved and sweeping in. Many areas of the city had become ineffective as debris continued to accumulate. As a result, this city council agreed and directed staff on, I believe it was April 21st to resume issuing citations on May 18th and to provide two weeks of noticing prior to that by putting fliers on cars that would otherwise have been cited for a street sweeping violation. So beginning of May 4th, we began putting fliers on vehicles, warning them that beginning May 18th, we would be we would be issuing citations. Yesterday, about 925 sites were issued on Monday. Our average Monday is typically around 450 citations that are issued. So we issued about twice as many as we typically do. But if we go back to May 4th, where we we first started putting fliers out on May 4th, Monday, we fired 6000 vehicles and probably just a little bit over 6000 vehicles. And if you take a look at the 6000 vehicles reducing to 925 vehicles, two weeks later, it's about an 85% reduction in the number of vehicles that were on routes compared to May 4th. So with that and our other public education outreach efforts, which I will review in just a moment, I think the message did get out to the majority of the public. Any time we attempt we temporarily suspend citations for street sweeping. We typically see a spike when we first initially resume citations, despite how much outreach we do do. We also typically see a small bump during light rain days like we had yesterday, because some people assume that we are not going to sweep it. We only suspend sweeping if the rain makes the operation problematic. Yesterday we did have one route where we stopped sweeping partway through the time zone. It was the 10 to 12 a.m. total from 10 a.m. to 12 noon time zone. But by 1230, when we began the next time zone, that was dry enough to continue sweeping. To get an idea of the tonnage being collected, our inability to sweep properly during the suspended time period brought us to a low of 0.3 tons of debris collected on April 27th. Compared to when we did start sweeping the citations again yesterday, it jumped to 2.54 tons. So it was more than eight fold increase in the amount of debris that was collected. This compares to about one and a half to one and three quarter tons in a typical sweeping pre-COVID. So it still was a spike from what we would regularly get. And that's a reflection on the increased debris that was accumulating along the routes. It's important to note, too, that Monday is our fewest routes, fewest residential routes, so other days have much more significant tonnage that come with it. We did receive approximately 150 calls on Monday regarding street sweeping. Virtually all of those calls were questions, not complaints. We have about ten complaints on Monday about why are we issuing citations. The rest of the calls, about 50%. We're asking if we indeed were initiating the resumption of issuing sites and 50% were questions regarding are we still sleeping because of the rain? We did receive about seven or eight more complaints today and the city has provided a free parking program to help assist people that may be impacted for parking as a result of being home . We have 20 lots citywide that are available with over 4300 parking spaces. For those spaces, 1357 permits have been issued, leaving nearly 3000 permits still available to utilize those off street parking lots. I'd like to talk a little bit about our outreach efforts. We issued six press releases through our Joint Information Command Center, specifically about the street sweeping program. We have included information in six different editions of the Golden Beach newsletter. We have in five locations and our on our websites on the city's COVID page, the public works page, the city's press release page, among other pages, where we have identified the street sweeping, resuming service and parking enforcement resuming service with regard to street swimming, we ran paid advertisements online ads in the post, the grunion an opinion on starting May 15th to Saturday, May 23rd excuse me, our social media, Long Beach City social media. We had over 50 posts with 500 over 500,000 views between March 16th and May 17th regarding street sweeping public works, social media 21 posts with over 122,000 views. And Long Beach Recycles also had 13 posts with nearly 10,000 views. An interesting note to make is that the recent overall increase of posts tend to be supporting resuming street sweeping operation and with the information center has not seen a general increase of complaints leading up to enforcement. And that's that's a that's actually a. An example of how our our residents and businesses have, I believe, embraced and appreciated the efforts that we've made to provide some relief and are now helping us in providing the proper street sweeping service. All these are these efforts don't even include the council offices and the mayor's office for messaging your constituents. And we appreciate the support you provide in doing that. Also, as I said, we worked for two weeks distributing fliers on vehicles rather than issuing citations that would have been in violation of the street sweeping restrictions. We issued we issued over 80,000 fliers during that two week period. I'd like to also just add in before I conclude this, that the city does have some existing payment relief assistance programs. There is an indigent payment plan which was mandated by the state a while back, and that can be utilized for people who are of low income and need assistance. There's a non indigent payment plan that's available to anyone who requests that the city decided to implement themselves without being forced, without being required to do so by the by the state. And there's a one time towing and parking citation waiver for homelessness. If people can provide evidence of experiencing homelessness where they can have a one time waiver. That's my presentation. I'm here to answer some questions. Thank you very much. Appreciate that update. There are public works team. And I just want to just, you know, again, just say that I want to thank the entire public works team. I think you really heard the council. You went out and did an enormous amount of outreach. Obviously, the wiring work, the social media work. I know that we've been in touch consistently on on this work. And so I just want to thank all of you. We think you've done a good job. But so why are we here? And, Mr. Modica, I know you and I are having some discussions and you can maybe answer some of these questions that were kind of lead me to where I'd like us to go. And we're certainly I know some of the council members also would like us to end up. So. Mr. Modica, just to be clear, so be we. The amount of citations given out yesterday were double what we normally would on a monday, correct? That's correct. Okay. And I think what that reflects is two things, I think. One is I think I, along with many others, were worried that that would act, that that number would be a lot higher. Right. We didn't know how many folks, because here's the reality is we fired for two weeks. And still there are a lot of folks who still did not know about the change. Not everybody is on social media. Not everybody has access to these communication networks. And so a lot of people still didn't know about the change. And more importantly, there's a lot of folks that are greatly burdened by their financial hardship who a a ticket of this type would be very damaging to their own survival and their own ability to pay. There are other other fees. And so I'm in no way I think we need to st we we all understand that support that. But how do we provide some additional relief as we're easing into bringing back this enforcement? And that's really what this conversation is about. And so what where I'd like to see us have I know that currently. Mr. MODICA you've mentioned to me that the city does not have much flexibility when it comes to waiving parking citations. And I think many of us know that when when folks reach out and try to get citations waived or protested, it's a very small fraction of. Folks that are. Able to do that in the code. Is that right, Mr. Monica? Yes, that's correct. And so and it doesn't provide you with much flexibility in emergencies or times of kind of crisis. To make those adjustments. Is that right? So we do have some ability to do that. But what we are always very cognizant of is treating everybody fairly. So it is really something that we want to have kind of direction on if we're going to do that. How do we define who would would be eligible? So we really wouldn't want that to be on an individual basis. It's more of a programmatic. So that I think is the discussion tonight. Right. And so from a programmatic perspective, I think what we would like to see is to provide the city manager with the ability to waive for that for the next two weeks, the ability for the city manager to waive parking I'm sorry, street sweeping citations as it relate to anyone that would come forward with any sort of COVID 19 related financial hardship. And so it's for the next two weeks, as we're easing into it, tickets will continue to be given out. But if someone reaches out to the city to protest or because they didn't or because any of these relate to COVID 19, they didn't get the flier that didn't hear the information. We waive that first citation and the city manager would have the ability to waive those automatically. We obviously know a lot of folks will pay their citations and that's fine, but some won't be able to and some will reach out for help. And this is a way to assist them as we transition, and that will expire after next week. And so for this week and for the following week, we'll be able to waive that's that citation almost as an additional warning. So that would be the main the motion and I know I see councilman's in Dallas as I made that motion. If I can get a second on that motion and we'll go through the. The motions here. Can you see a second on the motion? So that's the motion as it stands. And then I'll have some additional comments once we get through the Council as well about some suggestions, effort from public works as well. So that's a motion on the floor. Matron, it's over to Councilman's and Dallas. There has been a representative of the First District that is a hugely impacted district when it comes to parking and also hugely impacted where with the inability to get direct communication or from city and from staff, I think that this is the only the fairest thing that we can do. I think that a lot of the residents in my district are going through very, very hard financial setbacks, as is everyone. Right. But like you said earlier, a ticket like this of this magnitude can really, really set them back. So having this this program in place, I think, will be very, very helpful not only to the residents in my district, but to the residents in the whole city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, I have the second, which is Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman. Thank you, mayor. And thank you for your bringing forward. I know the last time we had this discussion, it was robust. Obviously, the second district is highly parking impacted. Also, we have a lot of residents in the second district that are the ones that are struggling with unemployment. And so I support the motion on the floor. I did just want to clarify because I've had lots of people ask and I asked Tom this question earlier. People have asked about reducing the parking fees. I think the parking fees like $70, if we reduce it by 50%, the council would have to vote again to increase it . Is that correct? We couldn't say for the next two weeks, reduce the parking fee and then automatically it would go back up to the normal rate. Is that correct? That's correct. You would have to actually have a hearing. We'd have to agenda is it for a specific hearing and actually reset the fee? Okay. I appreciate the the direction of this motion. And I think as the COVID situation continues, we have to continually reevaluate, you know, what's appropriate. I know the last time we talked about this, we talked a lot about the parking lots. I know that staff is extremely busy with a lot of priorities. Has there been any movement on reaching some of those parking lots and being able to say, let's take one of our parking stands, like one of the ones we removed off Fourth Street, give it to them so that they can charge parking in their parking lots , like the parking lot that we talked about. So Councilmember, I think to address the question, what you're asking about is a privately owned lot and the placement of a parking meter where that private entity could then charge parking rates. We do have the ability to move forward with that. However, what we're struggling with is having the privately owned property owners wanting the city to cover liability for public parking on their lots. And I understand that that's continue to be the conversation, I guess, and I don't want to spend too much time on it, but it is. What? And when you drive to downtown L.A. and all of those private lots are opened up for private companies to take people's money to park there. Who's paying the insurance there? They are because they're making money off of it. So we would do that in a heartbeat. You know, if they wanted to charge for the funding and cover their liability costs, that would be fine by us. Yes, that's what I'm what assuming the whole time is that we would assume that they would be making money, therefore they would pay for their liability. Not that it's just opening the door for anybody to come, but that if we found that ability to put in one of those parking meters, like what we have at fourth and cherry, that that might be a good solution because I appreciate that we have parking that's available, but I know some other council members and, you know, the the north side or other side of my district doesn't have those lots close to them. So I just don't. Any time we talk about parking, I'm going to bring up the private lots and say that my staff is here to help do outreach. If there's another way that we can have the conversation, I'd appreciate it. But and Craig, I think you and I have a briefing next week. We can talk a little bit more about it. I support the motion on the floor. I really appreciate the mayor for bringing this forward, and I look forward to seeing how the process goes. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Superman. Thank you. I spoke quite a bit on this on the 21st, and I have some unique conditions in the fourth District, so I apologize for being repetitive, but this is certainly not a one size fits all. As I mentioned in the previous meeting, zip code and I have no way to go for. It was dense zip code in the city and that's the western half of the forties. I'd like to commend Public Works for doing a great job of outreach. That's not the problem. The problem is there's no place for folks to move their cars to within a reasonable distance. I did point out also that of the the 2500 spaces found in Lodz, only six were located in the fourth District and that's at the Pruitt library. And those will go away when the libraries reopen. I'm. If it doesn't look like I'm going to have support on a on a on emotion. So I would like to bring out one. When someone doesn't pay a parking ticket in Long Beach and you can confirm this. Mr. MODICA After 76 days that gets turned over to the DMV. And then when that individual goes to register. The. Oh, those park. You take it so they can't register their car. Are you aware of that policy? So John GROSS will talk to us a little bit about that policy. You broke up a little bit. Council member but in in general, we have a timeframe. I'm not sure whether it's 76 days, it may be, but at some point we do turn it over to the DMV. We have, um, temporarily and DeKoe is, is sitting there. I believe we have temporarily suspended that process. We will. And we've done a number of things to help in the COVID crisis. We don't apply penalties on parking tickets in general, and we have backed off of the DMV process also. So we have done. And that has made a difference to our community, I think. Okay. So just a couple of points. And if I break up, please tell me. But on April 21st when we move this forward. I for one, but I think other council members were anticipated we'd be in a different place on May 15. A speculation that the safer at home order might be lifted that point since it hasn't. We have the same conditions that we did back then when we instituted the suspension. So it doesn't work. I guess what I would offer if we can officially suspend the policy of sending these citations to the DMV, because I think that's particularly onerous for a period of one year. I could support that. Now, is that is that made as a friendly amendment? Councilmember. I know that Customs and data says that as the motion. I have no issues with suspending. Would you be amenable to suspending them until the safer at home order is lifted? Well, the problem with that proposal is that would accumulate. And if someone gets, you know, behind in parking tickets, then they might have a 300 or $400 bill filled up. And then suddenly they can't register a car which might be subject to towing if that car is parked in a public public street at some point. I don't have I don't have an issue with that. I'm okay with that. I just I don't know the implications of what that means. The staff want to comment on that. Yes they can. In the short term. In responding to what we think City Council wanted, we have effectively suspended that operation. We have not determine when to turn it back on and that was something we would be coming to council with. But it no longer is in practical enforcement at the moment and and the financial implications to do it after the safer at home order is lifted or people get back more financially would probably be quite significant. My guess is it would probably be over a million, maybe more than $2 million a year in terms of that suspension . So it would be quite a significant impact that would have to be offset. So yes, it can be done. An alternative solution might be simply to ask the staff to come back to council when when they are thinking it is appropriate to begin that enforcement. Okay. Okay. So let me do this and I want to go to the other members and I actually like a lot of what Councilmember Sepinwall said. So let me see if I can incorporate some of that into the final motion, because I do have some some small edits to it. And Council Councilmember let me know at that time if that's something that's. Amenable to you. Okay. Vice managers. Yeah. First of all, we thank you for your leadership on this. And I think at this time, any relief we can come up with, as you know, is greatly appreciate. And so I'm happy to be on it. Okay. So why have you this councilmember pierces at you a second time or no? No. Okay. So let me go back to the motion. So let me this. What we have in front of us is and then I wanted to add add something to it. So what we have in front of us is essentially until June 1st, the city manager will have the ability to to waive the entire citations. That would be the entire citation would be waived for anyone that received a citation, that first kind of citation as just a warning opportunity. And then that way that there is flexibility. But any anyone that's coming forward with a COVID related hardship or financial hardship or just that didn't get the communication would have that in place. So that would be the motion in addition to that. So this was going to be part of the the original motion is I'd like this issue to be agenda ized again on the June 2nd agenda by staff, because I think that we need to at that point, review two weeks of data and see how we're doing. I know it's it's onerous, but I think this is a really, really big issue for for working families right now. And we're getting a lot of folks that are struggling on this issue and they're really having a hard time with the parking issue. And so I'd like this to be a generalized as it is the councilmember supervisor friendly. I want to you know, I understand there's some concern from staff there, but can can we at least for now, because we could suspend those can we suspend what the council member was referring to as far as sending those tickets to the DMV, at least through the safe at home? And then when we come back on June the second agenda, you can give us a broader report on that piece of this initiative. And maybe we at that point can have a discussion about extension or what the implications are, because I want to learn a little bit more. So at least at least we'll extend it through safer at home and then we can can revisit that in two weeks to see if there's additional extensions we want to make or adjustments. Mr. MODICA First, is that does that seem okay, manageable for staff? Yes, we'd like to request that. We either come back on the ninth or the 16th, the way the agenda process works to come back on the second. We need to have our report to you by Friday. So I think you're going to want us to make the regular agenda. So I think you're going to want us to look at what happens between now and the two weeks that you gave us to waive some fees. We then could come back with a report and put that on the agenda for either the ninth or the 16th. And we'd certainly not change anything related to DMV between now and that time and be able to report back on on what that process looks like. I appreciate that. I'm going to actually ask for the report to come back on the second. Mr. MODICA And only because this two week process that we're waiting to see actually ends on June 1st. And so I think it's important for us to kind of take a side like at least whatever we can put together, even if it's on the supplemental, whatever information we can by the second. I'd like to discuss it then and then Councilmember Super, if that sounds amenable to you, well, we'll move forward on, on your really good suggestion on waiving those making that a policy. And then we can talk on the second about maybe extending that. Yeah, that sounds great. I really like. But it's. Back to council. And quite frankly, I did not know it had been suspended by the command staff doing that. Absolutely. And Mayor, we want to just for clarity, we're talking about street sweeping citations, right. To this point, we have not talked about anything else. Is that confirmed at street sweeping tickets? Let's confirm because the rest of our continuing goings with street sweeping citations. Good. Thank you. Thank you. And that sounds good to me. This is Mary. Thank you. Counts. The woman with that will take the roll call the. District one. I. District two, i. District three. I district for. I. District five. District five. Can you hear me? I. I. I. Thank you. I. District six. District seven. II. District eight. II. District nine, Ocean Carries. Thank you. City Council. I think that's going to be a great relief for a lot of folks. Appreciate that. Let's move on to the rest of the agenda. Let's see. Next up is item 16, which is. Stars.

Recommendation to determine the application serves the public convenience and necessity, and receive and file the application of Walmart Stores, Incorporated dba Walmart Supercenter 2609, for a premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 3705 East South Street. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_06232015_15-0578

Report from please? Recommendation to determine the application serves the public convenience and necessity and receive and file the application of Wal-Mart Supercenter for a premise to premise transfer of an ABC license at 3705e South Street District nine. Can I get the motion in a second? Councilmember Richardson just wanted to take a moment and just acknowledge staff on this item. You know, this has been a very sensitive issue in my district for the last year, the discussion on the Wal Mart on Downey. This was one of the cases where we found that a liquor license required no cup and we fixed it moving forward. But city staff was creative enough to figure out how to give us the tools we needed to limit the sale of ammunition and guns in North Long Beach and a number of other uses that were community concerns. So I'm particularly proud that city staff found the solution for me. So I want to say thank you to Amy Bodak and City Manager Pat West for sir for finding the means for us to make this happen today. Thank you. Public comment staying on. Please cast your vote. Motion carries seven zero. Next item, please.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 5-31 to Establish Procedures for Expediting Permit Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481003)

AlamedaCC_02182020_2020-7629

Ordinance, amending the meaning of the code by adding Section five Dash 31 to establish procedures for expediting permit processing for electric vehicle charging. Stations. I'll make this quick. This is a simple code amendment. It's all about climate action and trying to help with the our ability to get money to help us put in chargers. Greg and the building department have had streamlined over the counter electronic plan permits for EV chargers for several years. What we've never did is do these code amendments which are required, which will if we want to apply for money in the future. So we're really trying to just do this to put the city of Alameda in a good position to be able to access money for EV chargers in the future. If you if anybody needs an easy charger, that's pretty straightforward. Just come on down to the permit center or submit your plan check. You can do it today. You don't need to wait for this ordinance, but we hope to be putting in more EV chargers around the city in the future with some financial help from outside agencies . Yeah. Move approval. So any public speakers on this one? Okay. Any council questions? We have a motion from Casa Rodeo. We have a second from Councilmember Vela. Any discussion? Hearing? None. All in favor. I oppose. Abstained. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. See, council, we can do this. Item six. E public hearing to consider. Introduction of. Ordinance amending the Alameda Missile Code by amending Article one Uniform Codes relating to Building Housing and Technical Codes of Chapter 13 Building and Housing. To top the 2019 edition of the California Building Code, the 2019 edition of the California Residential Code. The 2019 edition of the California Historical Building Code. The 2918 edition of the California Electrical Code. The 2019 edition of the Code. The 2019 edition of the California Mechanical Code. The 2019 edition of the California Energy Code. The 2019 edition of the California Green Building Code and amending Section 15 Dash one of Chapter 15 Fire Prevention to top the 2019 edition of the California Fire Code with Alameda Local Amendments.

Presentations from Avery & Associates and Bob Murray & Associates to Discuss Their Qualifications and Process for the Recruitment of a City Manager for the City of Alameda. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC_04292015_2015-1631

I would hope I mean, obviously this last election with a total change of slate of the people that we could change as far as in our city government. I think it clearly send a message that we don't want business as usual that has happened in the past and other words, last minute pushing things, items through. So I would hope that that's a clear message. And if it won't, if it wasn't a clear message, it will become a clear message in next a period of time in two years. But hopefully you understand the importance of making sure people have adequate time and you give plenty of notice as far as it. And maybe take the Sunshine Ordinance a step further to show your good faith on that issue. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other speaker slips on either of those. So at this point, is there a presentation here? Good evening. Mayor and council members, we're here today to speak to two very. Very qualified. Executive recruitment firms. We are Bob Murray and Paul Chmura. Paul Chmura is from Avery and Associates and he will make a presentation to you lasting approximately 25 minutes or less. He will start out probably giving his presentation and then there will be time for questions. During that time, Bob Murray will be waiting outside and when Paul, Mr. Chmura has finished. His presentation, I will take him out and. Bring Mr. Murray in to speak to you. And so we can just start up. Thank you very much. Q Thank you very much. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Mr. Vice Mayor and fellow Council members for the opportunity to meet with you and present our credentials near need for a new city manager. I know that as a relatively new City Council decision like this of is of critical importance to you to help you provide the stewardship to guide the city forward. And I can appreciate that you would have many questions and wonder how a process works and how you would have a good level of involvement and opportunity to ensure that the people brought forward and the person that you select is best for your city. So I would like to to keep the majority of my presentation very brief and try and respond any questions you might have. But in the way of introduction, Avery Associates, we're based in Los Gatos. So of the major recruitment firms in California, we're the only one that's Bay Area based. I think that's very advantageous for Bay Area communities because it does allow us insights and knowledge of many of the dynamics that go on here in the Bay Area. And we know there are some very special considerations in trying to come into this particular area. We have an extensive track record for city manager as well as other public sector assignments. As a matter of fact, currently we're winding down or getting close to winding down the search for the city of Emeryville, City Manager. And we recently completed the city administrator search for the city of Oakland. So we've been up here in your backyard talking to your neighbors. And over the past 12 months, we've finished assignments for the cities of San Mateo, Sunnyvale, Sal, San Francisco, Pacifica. So we have a real recent experience here in the Bay Area, specifically the peninsula in the South Bay areas. So we certainly have a very active and robust database, I think you'll find with all of the major search firms. We we all have a very strong database and have relationships with people who would be candidates for a position like this. There are a number of challenges that you're going to face in a search. You all have heard about the demographics for public sector servants and the fact that we're losing so many to retirement. That's really proving to be a challenge for many agencies. I think one of the advantages that a community like Alameda has is that you're very well-regarded, a very positive reputation, and I think could be very attractive. The fact that your community is so engaged and involved, I think many would see that as a positive in the fact that several of you as a matter of fact, the entire council is relatively new to your assignments. I think many would see that as a wonderful opportunity to try and connect and move forward with with you as a council. So I'd like to just close by by sharing with you, I think there are a number of differentiators that our firm provides that would be of interest and perhaps great value to you. One is again the local connection that we have. The second is the manner in which we vet and evaluate our candidates. Your speaker earlier talked about the importance of really doing thorough background research. We use a methodology called behavioral interviewing and in addition, the work product that we provide to you includes a pretty thorough assessment of that interview, as well as to initial reference interviews that we've conducted and have documented and would present to you during our overall candidate presentation. I think the other highlight of our offering is that we don't limit the amount of interaction that we would have with you as a council or trips to the city. That's one of the advantages of being here in the Bay Area, notwithstanding the traffic. But we would be here as often as is required throughout the process to ensure that we bring your search to a successful close. So if I may, I know you have a number of questions, so I'll just end the presentation there. Thank you. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Camera. And thank you for the materials you presented. I found them very informative. And I'm just going to ask you some questions from the that pamphlet that you have or the booklet that you shared with us that I know was also provided to the public as one of the attachments to this meeting . So on the first page of your cover letter, you mention, actually my question was how many other searches do you anticipate conducting if you are engaged to conduct the search for Almeida's new city manager? Hmm. Generally, at any given time, we would have between 15 and 20 active searches. Bill Avery, my partner and I, I run lead on all of those searches, although we don't do it together. So at any given time, we would have different assignments. Our recruitment team includes research outreach specialists. We have folks that help us with our background. We have administrative support that help us out with a lot of the clerical duties. I think the the important part we have found with recruitment is because there are different times and places where the activity level is much greater. The real important aspect is to kind of stage and make sure that your recruitments are properly structured and organized to ensure that you get the kind of attention that you would require. And then also on page one of your cover letter, you mentioned that you've had extensive interaction with city council, city managers and assistant city managers. Based on our labor relations practice, can you explain to us what that means? Sure. The. Prior to the last two years, Bill Avery's major focus was labor relations. As a matter of fact, we had two practice areas. One was the labor relations activity which he headed, and then the second was search, which I headed more recently as that level of activity has tended to wind down, he's started to engage more frequently on the search side. So what was the labor relations practice? He would work with various client cities, city councils, managers in handling contract negotiations and grievances or for his clients. I'd say thank you. And then the you mentioned in the now I'm looking at the proposal page one, and you mentioned that Mr. Avery had served in the past as a city manager. When where was that? Bill was the city manager for the town of Los Gatos. Okay. Many, many years ago, as a matter of fact, he was at that time, I believe, the youngest town, a town manager at the ripe age of 26. Wow. But shortly after, chose to go into the consulting business, which he started in 83. And that's the organization that remains today. And in that same paragraph, you talk about you had 19 years of high technology experience, which provides the basis for many of the recruitment strategies and tactics utilized by the firm. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Sure. In the older days of public sector recruitment, it tended to be a very passive activity where you would post job announcements or advertisements and wait for candidates to come in. I came out of high tech where it was a very competitive, probably the most competitive recruitment market in the private sector. And so I just introduced a number of different approaches where we developed and established databases. We did a lot of proactive outreach and approached potential candidates that might not be looking for another position. I think over time that's now become more commonplace. I like to think that we pioneered a lot of that, and over the years I think all the firms have gotten much better in doing that. And. And then. And I want to leave room for my colleagues to ask the questions, too. But just a couple more on page two of your recruitment proposal. You talk about the recruitment strategy and services provided. And this is the the process of possibly involving the community and the city manager search. And so there were three options. One is the creation of an online survey accessible to the public through the city's website. Two is convening a community meeting to solicit input on the ideal qualifications and attributes for the city manager. And three is the Council identifies representatives from the community who would then be contacted and interviewed by the consulting firm. And my question is simply, do you ever use a hybrid of, you know, one or two or more of those? Well, it's a hybrid, if it was to, I guess. Do you have a combined those methods? Yes, we have. In the past will develop a an online survey, utilize SurveyMonkey as the portal and handle the community input thusly. We've also conducted community meetings, community discussions to identify the ideal attributes that they would envision in their perfect candidate. And so we've done that as well. There have been some communities that have asked us to do both. Some communities tend to prefer the electronic methodology. In either case, we would be open to doing two of those activities, especially recognizing that many communities here locally tend to look to their community for input. Thank you. And then my last question is on page four of this proposal. You note that upon request, your firm will also arrange for summary background evaluations on the city's final one or two candidates, and that the costs of these investigations are considered independent of the recruitment expenses I listed below will be invoiced separately. Do you have a ballpark range for us of what those investigations tend to run? Right. They will run around anywhere from 400 up to $800. And it's really depends on how many different communities that the candidate would have lived, how many different states, because it would have to be a county by county record search for their criminal records, their civil activities and those sorts of background checks. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam. If. Vice mayor. Mr. Kimura, thanks for the presentation. I had a question. On the past 18 months. You list a number of cities. Where you've been successful at hiring city managers or searching for city managers that I assume have been hired. What was the average time from start to finish and the longest and the shortest of those? That's the first question. And then the second question is what happened with Emeryville? Because they were. You got a candidate that got hired and now you're looking for them. Yes. Emeryville has been now a client for three times. Um, we have been successful in finding them a good city manager. And, actually, I apologize. This is our. This is our third time. The current city manager chose to accept a position with the city of Oakland. And as a result, we were asked to come and conduct a search to replace her. And then the shortest, the longest and the average time to get a city manager. Well, as far as the timeline, it will range anywhere from, I would say, minimum from five months. To what what did it range for these if you. Oh, okay. Generally, we're looking at anywhere from 5 to 7 months. In some cases, it's gone out to nine and ten months for a number of different reasons. Um, the reason the city manager oftentimes will take a little bit longer is if there are a current sitting manager, they'll have a contract that would provide for definitive terms of how soon they can leave their current role. So even though you may have made the appointment or made the selection, it may be anywhere from 30 to 90 days for that tender. This the list of of can of completions, it was minimum, say, five months, maximum of nine. Yes. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Any other council questions? Comments. Remember Day Shop? Oh, sure. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking the time to come out this afternoon. Really appreciate it. I guess the question I have is you mentioned the possibility of working with the community to ascertain attributes and other things that residents and business owners might be interested in and the profile of a city manager, whomever she or he may be. Do you profile cities in in advance and say, well, on the one hand, we'll certainly get input from residents the council so chooses to go that direction. On the other hand, based upon my knowledge and working experience and who I know that I have a sense as to, you know, what kind of attributes work so that you go into it not not in a vacuum, but have a sense as to what might work. I mean, because you come from a. Small town, Los Gatos, which is a nice town, obviously. Bedroom community. And like Alameda. But. Silicon Valley a lot smaller. A lot more zeros. Yeah. But, um. So. So do you come into it with a sense as to the profile that you think might fit so that, um. I don't know how many people on your database. So of the 50 know you in advance have a sense that maybe 25 work. Mm hmm. The we typically would not come in with a preconceived notion. There are several different elements of starting a search. And this is really comes from my private sector experience. In order to fill the need, you really have to understand what the expectations of the desires are. And that's what makes the discussions with all of you on an individual basis so important, because that provides really the foundation for what it is we think we're going to be looking for. I think we have a general sense, given the community profile of things that will be important. But until we hear that from you, until we hear that from your community, we're not going to really solidify our profile. And that's the basis of that we use for the various job announcements that we've put together like this were their marketing pieces, but they really incorporate the common interests, the common themes that we're hearing from all of you. You're not going to agree on every little detail. And that's why we try not to get into that level of detail, but really some of the bigger, broader picture issues that are going to be important in your consideration. Thank you. I appreciate that very help. And I appreciate it because in a way it gets. Incorporated into your your handout like a glass to me. Good in Matt if you. And. And it gives kind of a sense as to the prospects what kind of town we are. So I think that's a great approach. Thank you. Absolutely. And it's interesting, if I may add on to that councilmember. Oftentimes in our discussions, you hear a lot of the same words, the same terminology. And yet it's really important for us to try and connect with what it is you're conveying and what you're saying and how that relates to this particular community. Because everyone always wants leadership, but how does that translate into what's going on here locally? And those are the kinds of things, the subtle things, I think, that are really important for a recruiter to pick up the nuance that they need to pick up in working with all of you. Thank you. Remember. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for taking time out of your schedule and making the presentation and sharing your background with us. Councilmember De Sorkin kind of touched on one of the issues I was concerned about, and I appreciate you. You going into, you know, how you would evaluate the culture of Alameda. I mean, a lot of towns, a lot of cities think they're special and unique and no offense to them, but we are. So there's Culture Point number one. I am also interested in, you know, the the whip the methodology of use to go about it involved the community and, you know, understanding the culture. But you have or have you in the past I say this because we did this last time, you know, involved the community and, you know, the interviewing or the narrowing of of the candidates. And then the second part of that question is, you know, how many candidates do you anticipate based on your history and our size, that you would present to us as finalists. When we would come back to you? Generally, we would recommend and have detailed presentations on maybe six or seven candidates. We'll also have materials on additional people we've looked at so that during the course of that discussion, you may hear or see something that you really like or perhaps you like better in the back of candidates. So that's where we can finalize your candidate selection. Are we come to you only with recommendations? You make the final choice as far as process put in this business. We've seen it done every single way. I professionally I feel that it's most effective for the council to start with a long list of candidates and maybe narrow it down to a shorter list. And then at that point, engage your community panels or perhaps your department head panel and other iterations of that evaluation process, and then ask them to provide inputs and insights to you, not decisions or not go or no go, but inputs in terms of what they see, what they feel the candidate offers , and where they may have concern areas so that as you further meet with the candidates, you can determine if in fact those concerns are valid or if you feel comfortable with what the candidate provides as a as a just kind of a style. Then one last question. Thank you for that answer. In the pool. Maybe this is something you base on, you know, the culture and the interviews you have with the council in the community. But are we going to be able to see, you know, maybe. A diversity of candidates as far as their experience. You know, some candidates that might be not city managers yet, but, you know, city manager material, some that may be looking better in a smaller city looking to move up, some that may want to do laterals, some that may be at the tail end of their career and, you know, wanting a smaller city. I mean, are we going to get some diversity in that or do you kind of focus in on, you know, one particular type of candidate? No, I think that, first of all, a lot of that's going to be dictated and determined by all of you as the council in terms of what would be ideal. I would anticipate that because of the size of your operation, the magnitude and scope of this particular city and the job I would be it would take an unusual talent, unusually talented individual, to come in as a first time city manager. This the city is could be perhaps far too complex for a first time city manager. Now, could a city manager from a smaller organization come in? Absolutely. One from a bigger organization could come in, be successful as well. You know, Los Gatos was brought up as an example. And there are very, very in many respects a similar town to Alameda. But the the type of person that would work there is going to be very polished, professional, very strong with community relations and is going to be very capable. Someone like that could be an outstanding candidate for you. So I don't know that there is a kind of a formula or a recipe. I do know that there are several environments that probably are not going to work for a place like Alameda. And, you know, we would discuss that again as we profile together with you. Thank you again for your time. So it's my understanding where you have a tight schedule. Mary Jo, I appreciate your time also and your answers thus far. I have a question in regards to being green, and I think our community is green. How significant do you think having the hard copy of brochures is as opposed to doing it all online? Have you ever done it all online? We have on several occasions done it online. One of the. One of the values of doing hard copy. And I appreciate issues of sustainability that we're all so sensitive to right now. But one of the values of doing hard copy is we want as much visibility to your position as we can possibly get, and we don't have hard data on it. But we hear so often that a good candidate learned of this position because they saw the brochure on a friend's desk, or it was shared with them by a peer at an association meeting. So there is, I think, a level of value. And again, it's all antidote, all. But we think there there can be value. Now, at the same time, we can minimize the numbers of printings. We can minimize the numbers of mailings that we would do. And frankly, if it really became a significant issue for the council, we'd find a way to do it without. So let me ask you, I want to follow up on this. Who do you mail to? You have how many of these brochures do you mail? We would mail anywhere from 150 to 350. And you have a list that we. Have city managers throughout the state, and there are some larger organizations that maybe an assistant city manager, county managers, some people outside the state. Okay. And then how many do you pass out then that you have at this table? So you think people see them. For a city manager, a brochure? We wouldn't hand this many out because unless we were at the League of Cities and it just coincided with that meeting or the city managers meeting in January, we might have a supply of 25 that we might hand out. And on on your letter, you'd note that there's internet posting on sites such as the Icmje. Is that for city managers, then? That's correct. So city managers can be looking on that site? Yes. If they're interested in a job. Yes. So you think that when you've hired these city managers for other cities, that they did not look at the website that they found out about it really? From a hard brochure? No, I think well, I think there are a number of ways they evaluate and find it. One certainly is online. That's probably one of the more common mechanisms now. Another is through referral, where they may have been told or informed of the position by others in the industry and in some cases through outreach, direct outreach that we've done. All right. Thank you. And members member Ashcraft, just. A follow up to the mayor's question. Is it possible to use recycled paper for your printing? Yes. Thank you. Number one real quick logistical question. I anticipate that there is no reason why a good candidate can't come from Southern California. Do you make the arrangements for staying overnight? Is that included in the budget? Would that be included in. The cost of the interview is not. We will coordinate and work with the city to ensure that the process is is set up and structured to ensure the candidates are here. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your coming out here this evening. And now we're going to proceed with the next interview. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate the consideration. The next will be Bob Brown Associates. Good evening. Good evening. Thanks for inviting me this evening. My name is Bob Murray. I founded Bob Marine Associates in 2000. I bring over 30 years executive recruiting experience in the public sector. I've probably done during that time 125 city manager searches throughout California and the West Bank. Alameda presents a unique opportunity. It's one of California's jewels. I, I think back about the searches that I've done. And oftentimes it's difficult to compare cities. The search that I've done that best compares, I think, is for Coronado, California. They don't you know, they have a strong military presence in San Diego. Coronado actually has some of the presence there, but almost an island community. Very narrow isthmus connects it to the southern part of the San Diego area. So I bring a lot of experience. I've done a number of searches for city managers in the local area Walnut Creek, Concord, Martinez, Mountain View, Menlo Park. So I'm familiar with the dynamics of executive search, certainly in the Bay Area and some of the issues you are likely to face as you go about recruiting a city manager . I think our approach to executive search is different than most. And the fundamental approach that Bob Marine Associates takes to search is to try and make sure that that what we do is driven by your needs as the representatives of the residents of Alameda. So everything is focused on learning from you both individually and as a group, what it is you're looking for in a new city manager, the background, the skills, the experience, knowledge of the field. And it really starts by gaining that fundamental and just standing by meeting with you each individually, to solicit from you your perception of the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the community not only at the moment, but in particular as you look to the future. What are the issues you'll be addressing? You'll ask the city manager and his or her staff to assist you. So based on that, we undertake a very aggressive recruitment effort on your behalf. There's no need to hire a recruiting firm if you simply think that running ads get you the job done. It really requires a firm with the experience to research quality candidates, to use a network they've established. We've established over the years to reach out to folks and ask them to apply for the position. Executive search is all about soliciting the interest of people who may not be looking for a new job. I think importantly, you're facing one of the tighter markets in city management for candidates in several years. I used to be we get 80 to 100 candidates every time we did a city manager search. Now, that number varies between 25 and 45, maybe 50. You're also doing a search in a far different environment now and was the case in the past. I think you are now working in an environment that demands transparency and community engagement, even in the search for your chief executive. I think it's very important we've taken that approach with a number of communities, most recently in Redondo Beach and in Tucson, Arizona, where we helped the council design processes by which the community was engaged both at the beginning of the search and at the conclusion when candidates were selected. I think you need to approach that diligently and carefully to ensure that you get quality candidates. But we're here to assist you with that. We offer the, you know, industry guarantee. But I think we're one of the leading firms, not just in the West, but in the United States. We've done searches all over the country, probably notable. We've been hired to do searches in three of the largest cities in the last two years that have become available. And you don't get those assignments unless you're tops in the field. Those include Phenix, Dallas, Tucson. We were recently hired by the city of San Jose. I've got good news and bad news today. The good news is they're going to promote someone from inside. The bad news is they don't need me anymore. I got fired before I started. Never happened before? No. That's for so. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here. I know you've got a packed house, a lot of stuff on your agenda, so I'd be happy to entertain your questions. Thank you. Council Members. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murray, for your presentation. So how much of your work recruitment work is done in percentage wise? How much of your recruitment work is done in California versus other states? I think the firm right now, probably 80 to 90% is in California. The remaining part of it is in Arizona, Washington, Oregon. We've done a lot of work in the Midwest and in Florida in particular, but at present we're undergoing a transition and we backed away from some of that that's now handled by a former colleague. But I trained to be a recruiter and she's decided to be a recruiter on her own. I see. And if Alameda were to decide to engage your firm, how much of your time would we would we expect. As much as you'd like and pay for. It as much as you like and pay for these? I have a very. Lois, I'm being. I have this warped sense of humor, so. You know me. I have about four active recruitments right now. Most typically people are doing eight and ten in the industry. So I have quite a bit of time and it would be a priority because of the quality of the community. You know, if we do well here, are successful here. You're a great reference. I would certainly spend more than enough time. And then finally in in the last say. Five years. What percentage of your recruitment work has focused on finding city managers versus all the other ones? I can tell you in the last four years we've done 40 city manager searches and I personally handle probably 35 of those. And were there other positions that you filled more of? I mean, just you listed a number of different. Yeah. Well, I think city manager positions are are not filled as frequently as others. So we do a lot of police chief work. A lot of fire chief. I think I remember a finance director for the city of Alameda. So we work in a variety of areas. I'm doing a CFO search for Las Vegas Valley Water District right now. So we handle a variety of positions across industries. You know, I think one of the things that's unique, certainly about Alameda, among others, that you have your own power company. I've done searches for general managers, for power companies as well. So I bring an understanding of this community having done work here before, of what you're about, and certainly have done searches across the board in the public sector. Thank you. Thank you. I swear. I'm. If you could. Explain to us, Mr. Murray, your most recent city manager placement experience in the Bay Area. How long did it take and what would you say the biggest challenge was in getting that fit? Martinez was the most recent search. I finished that early this year. The search took in total about 90 days from the day I started until the council was interviewing candidates, and then it took another three and a half weeks or so for them to close the deal. I think the challenge there in the council would agree was the circumstances under which the previous manager left. It was very unfortunate. Manager had anger issues exploded publicly. So the city has over time had a reputation for being difficult for managers. We got an experienced city manager for him who was was very good. His name's Gentleman's name is Rob Bolick. And I would welcome your colleague Rob Schroder, the mayor. There is no me four years and I think would speak well of the work we've done. Thank you. Remember. De Saag. Thank you very much for coming out here. And I note your comment regarding engaging the community early on. I think that's absolutely important and I look forward to understanding, you know, what, what might be your particular model in engaging the community. But my question also has to do with in addition to engaging the community, to find out attributes or whatever that that they think are important is your firm, you know, because you've got at any point in time, you know, access to a wide range of city prospective city managers. Does your firm do you have a presumptive idea as to what might fit in certain towns like Alameda and and if you have that kind of approach. Oh. How do you arrive at it? Or maybe you don't. Sure. I'm not. I don't know if you'd like me to go into detail about some of the thoughts and how we've helped communities engage their residents and then remind me of the second part. But the second part is. Well, when I get out of your word, because, you know, it gets murky. After a while. So several we've seen we've taken a couple of approaches depending on our client. Oftentimes, we're asked to meet with community leaders one on one, you know, at a conference room and learn from them. It might be a business community group. It might be, you know, Part Street versus Webster, just a different business interests in town, the residents, you know, Alameda Point. All of those things are people that you may wish us to have us meet with them. Oftentimes. So I say to city councils, that's a great idea. But for every person you ask me to meet with, there'll be three or four who say, Why didn't they ask me? So I think even more important news for you to host a meeting, a public meeting and call it a town hall meeting or whatever. Invite anyone in the community to participate and solicit their comments, as you said, regarding the attributes of the ideal candidate and their notions about issues. All of that can be in advance of us beginning our work to actually solicit the interest of people. In fact, I think it should be because if we're out there recruiting before you've heard that and before we've heard that kind of well, it doesn't make sense. And we're happy to facilitate those sessions. And I've done that a number of times. In Tucson recently, we had 100 people. Make comments regarding the city manager in Redondo Beach during a very controversial time. Ten people. So, you know, you never know. In terms of quality candidates. And would we have a notion? Sure, I wouldn't be a good recruiter if I didn't. But that has to be driven by my understanding and learning from you. What's important in Alameda? So what might be someone who might be a great candidate in Redondo Beach or Concord or Martinez may not it now. I mean, your your issues are different. And so I want to gain a great understanding that and then look at our contacts, look at who's out there, do the research and encourage people to apply who could do an outstanding job on your behalf. Thank you. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Murray, for taking time out of your schedule to come to us today. I really appreciate that. And I also appreciate Councilman Murdoch's question about community input and your answer, because that's what I was going to ask, but I don't have to. So we have more time. So the one question I will ask you, though, is. You know, the talent pool that you're going to draw from for recommendation for our city manager? I mean, do you envision it including or not including, you know, non city managers that are ready to move up, lateral city managers that are just looking for something, a change, but, you know, are doing equivalent work in equivalent sized cities, you know, or even larger city, many city managers from larger city managers that may be willing to and then maybe at the end of the career and want a slower pace than, say, an Oakland or a San Jose or one of those larger cities. And, you know, how how will you go about, you know, deciding what the mix of the finalists and how many finalists do you envision providing to us? So let me. Start with the mix in the positions candidates may have held. First of a lot of it depends, again on our discussions. No. Are you looking for an experienced city manager? Is that the only kind of candidate? My comment to you would be, if that's the case, you're probably going to not do as well. As you might do if you were considered willing to consider people at the second level, assistant city managers, possibly even some department heads from larger communities, you know, city 250, 300,000. There's some real talent in those areas. So first again, I'm going to beat this dead horse until it's bloody, I guess. So much of it depends on your expectations. I'm really here as a resource. I mean, I think your group should include people who have served as city managers, assistant city managers, possibly department heads. I think then it gives you a good mix from which to choose. And typically, you know, it used to be I'd struggle to get to eight people to to recommend. Now it's more like five or six. It's just not that deep pool. What's occurred with the transition of baby boomers is folks that have been city managers for years are retiring and a lot of the talent in the public sector is retiring. The shadow of the baby boom represents about a 25% reduction in talent. McKinsey did a study in 98, said the war for talent is coming, and they were absolutely right. And so the other thing is you see people with less experience in candidate pools of 40 somethings, you know, and you look out to current managers and a lot of them look like me from the back of a room, you know, gray hair. Hopefully they can still stand up. You know, all of those things. So it's a tight market. The good news is Alameda has a great reputation, a lot of cachet. I remember one my my folks looked at buying a home here. It's a great community. Thank you. And as a recovering attorney who lived by the billable hours, I appreciated your work sense of humor. Thank. Good evening, Mr. Murray. I have a question in regards to technology, how to utilize technology in your searches. Well. I like Al Gore. Invented the Internet. No. But we are kind of a leader in the use of technology in the public sector for executive search. I think it's been ten years now that we developed. A lot of people call it different things. It's it's really a database that contains the names that present of over 23,000 people. And so if a candidate is interested in a search we're doing, they apply online. We don't. We get very few paper resumes. We get very few resumes via email, although of course, we'll accept them. But almost everything we do is online. Our system resides in a server farm in the cloud that lives in Arizona. And so everyone applies through that system and becomes part of our database. And one of the things that it's allowed us to do on the back end is keep our costs down, remain competitive, because a lot of the information candidates provide becomes part of our reports to you. So it serves a dual purpose. It's an easy way for people to learn about the position to access it. We know historically we get somewhere between 20 and 25,000 hits a month on the system. So it's very well received in the community. So we're we have a we're on Twitter, we're on LinkedIn, we're on Facebook. We make all of our positions known on social media. I stopped counting my contacts on LinkedIn when it got to 3200. But but there's a reason people follow you on LinkedIn when you're recruiters, because they know they're going to hear about the positions and they want to have direct access to you. So I think, you know, we're not the bleeding edge of technology, but certainly we make effective use of it, particularly social media and automated application tracking, all of those things. What about hardcopy brochures? Do you still use those? Absolutely. HardCopy and PDF. How do you use the hard copies? We send them to people in the mail. How many do you mail? How many do you think you'd be mailing? We print usually between 103 hundred, depending on on the audience that a client and we agree should be approached. Okay. So in your case, a broader group you're talking about, it might be a greater number. We use a database, not only ours, but a database we also subscribe to. It gives us the names and addresses and email contacts. So we do it both hardcopy through the mail and by email. And you folks participate in the structure and the you know, nothing we put in that brochure. Will. Be there without your review. So some of the people that you recruit don't find out about it online then that you think they actually need a hard brochure. You know, if it can get past our secretary. We've won the battle. You know, if you think about it for a moment, I know some of our brochures never cross a manager's desk because someone on his or her staff doesn't want them to leave. So, you know, it's got to be the brochure. It's got to be electronic media and it's got to be personal phone calls. We'll make 70 or 80 calls on a recruitment, and that's all the stuff we do that's fundamental to executive search is to reach out to people and call them. And in regards to your community meetings, do do anything online for your community members. We have we've worked with cities to come up with SurveyMonkey exercises that have received some response. We've done that in a number of communities. We recently did it in Redondo Beach, where community engagement was very, very important. Goleta, California, Tucson did that as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other council questions? All right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. This is the end of this concludes our interview process. Okay. Well, thank you very much. It's my pleasure. I wish you luck with the search, and I'd be delighted to have the opportunity to help you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Chief. Thank you. Well, just corruption. There's a powder keg like. Amanda. The forerunner of the parking lot. Thank you. All right. Our next agenda item is three A and we have one presentation from staff three. We're going to go forward because we have or amuse, but we have one staff presentation. So I have staff's presentation and then we'll have speakers on all four of them or use at once. And then we will have our council discussion on all four of them. I use that once and then we will vote individually on each MRU. Yeah. Thank you. If you have if you plan to comment on three A, three, B, three, C or three D, you could turn in your slips. And then we're going to receive a staff presentation. I'm schedule a little early. Little 557. Should we take a. If you want to. We need. No. Just open. Okay. We're going to we're 3 minutes ahead, right? Yeah. Okay. So we're going to take a three minute recess because we had scheduled this item for 6:00. Thank you. Okay. All right. All right. Um, we want to. Tonight. And try again. Thank you, everybody. We appreciate you coming out this evening. We are ready to resume. Hello. Americans, please take their seats. We are ready to resume. Thank you. All right. We're going to start with you. See if you can find a seat. I'd appreciate it if you would take a seat, because that's what our fire department likes. Thank you. And we're going to start with Steph's presentation, and that goes for all four of the employees. And then we're going to have public comment on all of the employees at the same time. So that's item three, A, three, B, three C and three D, and then we will have our comments and we will vote individually

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Walnut Street. Rezones property at 3201 Walnut Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5, UO-2 in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-9-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 8-16-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0549

If you are here to answer any questions only when your name is called, come to the podium and state your name and one of the council members and let them know that you're available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes to speak unless in other speakers, his or her time, which will result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments to the members of Council. Please refrain from profanity or obscene obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 549 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I, I move the council bills. 549 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. I need a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 549 is open. May we have work? Good evening, Council President, Members of City Council Brian Winterberg of Community Planning and Development here to present rezoning 2016 i00046 at 3201 Walnut Street from I am three you are to to see annex five you go to the subject site is located in council district seven. Zooming in it is in the five point statistical neighborhood. And here we see our specific location. Our site is one half of a block that is along Walnut Street, down by 32nd Avenue and 33rd Street. And it is located one half mile from the 30th. And Blake Station is an area that will seem very familiar to you. Now. Did you say councilors six, seven or nine. Tells us this is nine. Oak? Yes, please. Clear. Point of order, Mr. President, if we can. We've been trying to spread the word to staff. We are no longer following along with you. So can you please tell us when you're changing sides? And don't assume we can't see a cursor or anything, so just let us know when you're. Changing, please. Okay. So are you viewing the current slide that I'm seeing now which says request in the upper right hand corner? Okay. There we go. We're on it now. Okay. The property is 1.15 acres. It is comprised of one ownership parcel and features, one structure ranging in height from 1 to 2 stories. And it currently includes an industrial user. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to facilitate redevelopment of the site consistent with the proposed zone district. So the request before you is to rezone from I am 302 to see Annex five or to maintaining the billboard use overlay and no billboards exist on the subject site. Just a reminder that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development proposal. So I'll move on to the next one. So the request is to see Annex five, which is in the urban center, a neighborhood context, a mixed use zoned district, allowing buildings of a maximum height of five storeys with the billboard use overlay and onto existing context, zoning, land use and building from scale onto existing context zoning so we can see our subject site is called out in imx302. We can see some IMX 302 located just to the south and the west. But we do see a consistent corridor of see Amex five and see Amex five. You are to applied along the Walnut Street corridor to the north and to the south. Important to note that the IMX three zone district currently allows both the general and industrial building forms moving on to existing land use. You can see that our subjects that is called out as industrial, the purple color, and we can see a pretty consistent corridor of industrial uses along the Walnut Street corridor, but generally trending towards multifamily and commercial, moving to the north towards Blake Street and of course acknowledging that the entirety of the 30 and Blake Station area is generally trending away from heavy industrial to a mix of uses and moving on to building form and scale. You can see that our subject site is called out in the upper left hand corner existing industrial user. We can see a lack of curb and gutter at the subject site. And then looking to the surrounding environs, we see a number of industrial users as well as adaptive reuse of existing structures. Moving on to process the following. Eight registered neighborhood organizations were notified throughout the process, and the application has received one letter of support from the Reno Neighborhood Association, as well as one letter of support from a neighboring property owner. No other R.A. Communications have been received. Moving on to process. In terms of the public hearings, we did send notice of receipt of application to Arnault's and City Council on May 1st. On July 20th, the Planning Board recommended approval to City Council 8 to 0, and on August 16, the Lands Transportation and Infrastructure Committee moved the bill forward to City Council. And we sent notice of today's City Council public hearing to Arnault's and City Council as well as signage was properly posted on the property on September 2nd. Now on to the review criteria. Of course, you're familiar now with the five, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. We have two citywide plans as well as one small area plan here that will seem very familiar to this body after last week's hearing to adopt Hite amendments to the 38th and Blake Station area. So the first adopted plan is comprehensive plan 2000. And we find that the rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 as seen here and articulated in your staff report. Moving on to Blueprint Denver, the city's land use and transportation plan, you can see that our subject site is called out as a mixed use concept land use as well as within an area of change. We can also see that Walnut Street is called out as a residential collector, and these are streets that primarily balance mobility and land access, generally shaped by the mix of uses along the corridor. So we do find that it is consistent. Theresa on the subject site to see x five both implementing these land use recommendations, area of change as well as mobility recommendations in a pedestrian friendly building form. Now on to the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. So, again, an area very familiar to you now. We can see that our subject site is called out in the ballpark, small area with urban design recommendations as seen here. So sighting buildings for a consistent street edge with parking in the rear, linking buildings to the streets through grounds to reactive uses, transparency and entrance requirements, all recommendations that are not currently implemented by the general and industrial building forms in the I am x three zone district. You can see their subject site is also called out with a mixed use industrial land use category, that kind of mustard yellow color. So recognizing that a mix of light industrial uses are appropriate to be mixed with more urban residential uses, where pedestrian access, of course, is still important. Now in terms of building heights, we can see that our subject site is called out in the pink category, which is a five storey recommended maximum building height, and again, a building height that has been reconfirmed through the recently adopted 38th and Blake Station area plan amendments. So a very consistent process moving forward. Based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Next, moving on to uniformity of district regulations, we find that the rezoning to see Annex five or two will result in a uniform application of some district standards, as well as further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. Moving on to justifying circumstances, we can see, as stated in your application, that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that warrants the rezoning. We can see a number of change conditions, first in our adopted plans recommending a redevelopment of the area and recognizing an evolving character which we again see realized today as redevelopment in the area is actually signaling an evolution in the environs, as well as the anticipated redevelopment of the National Western Stock Show. Again, as an influence on the subject site, along with the introduction of commuter rail transitioning to a more transit oriented development context. Now in terms of consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent, we find that the rezoning meets the intent of the urban center neighborhood. Context Description The purpose statement for the c m zone districts and the specific content statement for C max five. So based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets L five and do recommend approval and happy to answer any questions as well as the applicant is here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. We have one speaker. Bill Park you. Hi. My name is Bill Parkhill. I'm at 631 high in Denver and I'm the applicant and the owner of this property, and I'm here for questions. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions? By members of council. Councilman. Espinosa Yeah. Ryan Did you say that this is consistent with the adopted stationary plan or and the new incentive zoning? Is it does it fall in that area that we just passed? Great question. So while you're very familiar with this this general area of the city, our subject site was not within the plan Height Amendment area because the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan already recommends a five storey maximum building height for the subject site. The process reconfirmed that recommended building height. So essentially there was nothing to amend the Heights recommendations in northeast. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Councilman Flynn. Oh, that's great. Okay. Any other questions by members of council? You know, I'm going to bring up Bill Park. You'll. Again. And just you said this in committee, but for the edification of folks who were not at committee. What are you planning to do in this? First of all, let me say go bust. We about four of us. Appreciate that. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. So our current plan is for an adaptive reuse. Of the building to maintain the character of the building. However, part of that building requires lifting of the roof to above the 45 foot height limit. We are currently negotiating with a climbing gym, so we would you know. Our intention is a rock climbing gym. Which requires this high portion of the roof. So we're hopeful that with this height amendment, we're going to be. Able to integrate kind of. A higher portion of the roof. With this. Lower house and kind of keep that rhino type of character. Yeah. You don't any retail at all. I'm sorry. Are you doing any retail at all? There will be a kind of kind of a retail frontage. The C-Max Zone requires obviously some transparency and some windows along that frontage. And the existing warehouse. Doors will be converted to glass openings. And we'll have some retail there. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other you can have a seat. Any other comments from members of council? This concludes a public hearing for council. 549 is now closed. Comments by members of council. I call on myself. I represent this district. Mr. Park, you and I have talked a lot, especially dealing with the station area 30th and Blake Station area high amendments. And this change allows us to really create this area of living, working and playing. There's a lot of job opportunities here. There's a lot of new apartments and hopefully condos that will be gone up in the area. But this allows for the neighborhood to have a place to to play and enjoy. And so there's nothing like this idea that we've seen thus far. And I am it's consistent with all the other plans, and I am supportive of this seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Rocha. Black, i Clark, i. Espinosa, i. Flynn, I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman, I can eat. Lopez, Ortega, Sussman, I. Mr. President. I. Please cause voting announce results. 12 Ice. 12 Ice. One Abstention. Oh 12 Eyes Council Bill 549 has passed. Thank you. Congratulations. Councilman Sussman, we please put Council Bill 551 on the floor.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to provide a response to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Request for Proposals Solicitation No. PS24750 for Transit Law Enforcement Services; and obtain authority for the Long Beach Police Department to submit a responsive proposal to furnish labor, materials, and other related items for the performance of a contract. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0385

Motion carries. Item 24 Report from Police Recommendation to provide a response to L.A. Metro four RFP Solicitation for transit law enforcement services citywide. Councilman. Councilwoman Gonzales. I'm just thankful for this information. I know it's been a long. Discussion and having PD possibly enforce our metro stations. And I'm glad to see that we're moving in that direction. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Your Honor. It makes sense. Let's go for it. Mr. City Managers or staff report. By senior council members. We don't have a lot of information to share yet tonight, but what we're basically asking tonight is just for permission to respond to the RFP. Commander Rich Conant is here and he'll be in charge of that. Commander Conant has any brief remarks. Good evening, Madam Vice Mayor and City Council. Item 24 is for an RFP for transit law enforcement services for the Metro Blue Line. The police department is currently completing our staffing model and we will be prepared to present the staffing model on May 28th per the schedule for Metro Metro's RFP. We're looking at policing ten stops in the city and it's a great opportunity for the police department to improve the quality of life for our Long Beach residents with our services on the blue line. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Commander. I appreciate that. I wanted to congratulate city management and the police department for continuing to pursue this. This has been a long running discussion, as Councilwoman Gonzales points out, probably the entire time that we have had the blue line in the city and. Definitely not in. In any criticism of the county's efforts, but really acknowledging that it is too much to do. The system is very big and it is a lot of work. And for us to be able to have the opportunity to. Patrol and protect the stations that are in Long Beach would be tremendous. And I have to imagine that it can only have a positive impact on our public safety efforts. So thank you for keeping with the goal and I wish us luck. The deadline is May 28th, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. And do you know when they will let us know? I do not at this point. Okay. That's fine. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on 24? I don't think I can ask questions, but right now the county has the exclusive contract to patrol metro lines and bus metro bus service. And there had been some problems right here in Long Beach that lasted for years with an errant deputy. His name was Deputy X. I can't really tell you his real name because probably I could get sued. But he did racial profiling. And I just wanted to know if the sheriff was still going to be involved in this or was Long Beach going to be pretty much taking over unless it was a back up type of issue because there were some really serious problems that that defied solution for over two years. Okay. So thank you for that. I can answer that briefly and just wanted to share that. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the funding agency for the Law Enforcement Services, and so they provided the exclusive contract to the county. It seems that as of February 2016, they made. They established an opportunity for local law enforcement agencies to provide transit law enforcement services to support bus and rail operations in the entirety of the L.A. Metro Service area. Sorry, that is a mouthful. And so we have the opportunity to bid for that. And so my understanding is that they are interested if local agencies are interested. Is that correct? Commander. Yes, ma'am, it is. Okay. Thank you. Would that members cast your vote? Motion carries.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate a private parking area on East Howe Street, east of Fairview Avenue East; as proposed by BSOP 1, LLC, as part of developing a public plaza in unopened right-of-way in the Eastlake neighborhood.

SeattleCityCouncil_03082021_Res 31988

Gentile under 21 Resolution 3198, granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain and operate a private parking area on East Howe Street, east of Fairview Avenue East as proposed by VSO, P one LLC, as part of developing a public plaza in an open right of way in the Eastlake neighborhood, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much. I'm going to hand this back over to Councilmember Peterson to provide the committee's report. Council president. Resolution 31988 grants conceptual approval to create a small public park and plaza. And this partnership among the neighborhood, local business and the city government better identifies a handful of parking spaces in that section of the Eastlake neighborhood of District four, which I represent. I visited the site recently and we had a thorough presentation in our committee. The project is something the neighborhood has been working on with the Department of Neighborhoods and start for several years and I'm glad to see it finally moving forward. This legislation was recommended unanimously by the committee. You. Are there any additional comments on a resolution? Harry. Now, will the court please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? SUAREZ Hi. LEWIS Hi. Morales Hi. Macheda I. Peterson Hi. So what. Strauss. Yes. President Gonzalez. I. Eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving out of Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, will the clerk please read item 22 325 into the. Every part of the sustainability and interest rates committee agenda items 22 325 appointments 1814 through 1817 Re Appointments of Diana Braccio and Regina Owens as Members Settlement Tours Commission for Term two February 20, 2023 Re Appointments of Calvin R Jones and Mack Scotty Rae MacGregor as members Seattle Renters Right and Renters Commission for term December 20, 2022

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget; and Adoption of Resolution Approving Workforce Changes to the FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Budget Update in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department, Finance Department and Public Works Department; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Combination Building Inspector I, Retitling the Combination Building Inspector Classification to Combination Building Inspector II, and Providing for Equity Adjustments to Increase the Base Pay of the Classifications of Senior Combination Building Inspector, Senior Building Code Compliance Officer, Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer, Combination Building Inspector II, and Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer Effective March 31, 2019. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6636

It has adopted a resolution amending the fiscal year 2018 19 budget and adoption of resolution. Doing workforce changes. And then an adoption of a resolution amending the Alameda City Employees Association salary schedule. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Sorry. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. I'm Eleanor Dyer, finance director. And tonight we are going to discuss mid-year budget update for current fiscal year 1819. I'm going to be trying to be fairly brief, but I am going to ask to possibly hold your questions in at the end of which section we'll be able to have. We will do that. Questions and answers. Well, okay, quickly, what we're trying to accomplish today. One, provide you with an update of a general fund financial projections through the end of this fiscal year, review, pension and OPEB funding status, as well as discussed mid-year budget amendments, requests from not just general fund programs but other programs outside of the general fund action . In the end we would like to take is, as you know, there are three resolutions that we would like to ask you to approve if you agree and moving on with some of the highlights. So definitely we will start with General Fund and give you a little more details on some revenues. The revenues are still coming in fairly strong and again, part of it is our property tax are doing well, but our transfer tax is doing just as well, not as good as last year. It's actually reduced a little bit. But for this year's budget, it's actually 13% of our total budget for general fund. Last year it was only 10%. So a word of caution. It's fairly volatile revenue, more of a one time type of revenue. So when we consider how we plan on budgeting for it going forward, we just need to be cautious. Mid-Year operating expenditures request. As I mentioned, it's for general fund and other programs as well, including capital. And we'll look at CalPERS and OPEB assumptions on the revenue side. Overall, our current year revenue are projected to be at about $96 million. That includes the increase for this midyear update of about $5 million. As I mentioned before, the big part. Almost half of this $5 million is actually coming from transfer tax. And again, those were two particular parcels or two transactions that happened that amounted for those two as just kind of an update I looked at at the time , we even still currently we only have revenues for transfer tax received from the county through January. And if we compare same time period of this fiscal year, July through January versus last fiscal year, July through January of transfer tax, generally it declined in the transactions that happened more frequently, which is under $20,000. So we did have these two transactions at the higher value and we're increasing the budget for it, but they are slowing down a little. The other revenues that are presented here, a third of our budget is property taxes and anything related to property taxes, which are motor vehicle license fees as well, is a pass through tax increment from redevelopment agency. Sales tax is budgeted. AD Exactly same flat amount. You will see, however, that we do an increase on a different type of sales tax that's been recently approved as a transaction and use tax in everything else generally stayed the same. To focus a little bit on the property tax. Annual citywide growth for 1819 was 8% in prior years. Traditionally it's been in the past four years before then. It's about 6% growth. Now, this is a reminder. This is city wide. This is not general fund. General fund specific. The increase was about 7% in RDA or successor agency related areas were actually up 11%. The property tax, as I mentioned earlier, includes three different components. Our regular property tax that we collect the residual tax increment that comes in from redevelopment and then VLF. So the increase for 1819 budget is really a component of those three and the total of those is $1.1 million that we're projecting to increase the budget for the revenue compared to the mid-cycle update when it happened in June 2018 and the council back then approved at. As I mentioned, sales tax we're projecting to be flat for this year at $10.4 million. We're not projecting to make any changes at midyear for that revenue source. This particular slide is not the sales tax that we normally talk about, which is 1%. Brad Burns This is a transaction and use tax that was approved by the voters in November of 2018 and it will be effective April one. It's a little bit challenging to estimate what the revenue would be from this particular tax. Reason is it's applied differently than a sales tax, even though it's collected. At the same time, the application is a little different. For example, 1% Bradley Burns is based on the origin of the transaction, where transaction and use tax is based on where the goods are received. A good example would be cars. You will go and buy the car in a different city, for example, and you will pay the transaction and use tax that is applicable to Alameda and the city will receive that particular tax will receive it. For example, if someone comes in from out of town and decides to buy some groceries at the store, they will regardless where they live, they will pay it here. Bradley Burns as well as transaction and use tax. We decided to be a little bit more conservative in increasing the budget for 1819 for the transaction use tax and only estimating $100,000 for the period from April to June, particularly because we expect some of the vendors are going to be taking a little bit of time to figure out that they still have to collect it, even though the state will reach out and make sure provide them with the letter saying this is the new tax. Traditionally, it's been a little bit, at least from the surveys that we've heard. Other organizations, it will take time to adjust. On top of that, we don't know because we have such a large base for business to business transactions, including our consultants. We could not necessarily precisely estimate if the transaction, the use tax will be collected on those transactions again, because it's applied a little bit different and we don't necessarily know for our sales tax producers business to business if that is going to be an origin or is an actual destination here in Alameda. On a transfer tax. We kind of talked about it a little bit already. Again, we're increasing it for the two transactions that happened. And you will see that originally mid-cycle year, a little under a year ago, we've adopted it at $10.3 million. We're projecting currently 12 and a half million dollars. It's still, as I mentioned before, generates significant revenue. 13% of our budget is transfer tax. However, again, word of caution, it is a volatile revenue and more of a one time type of revenue. Program revenue adjustments. These are more specific to each individual departments that are being collected through fees or specific activities that are done by the departments. There's a few. Fire department, mutual aid. Mutual aid is your car fires where we actually send out our staff to go and assist. We are expecting a department is expecting a little over half a million dollars in reimbursements. That includes staffing, services and supplies as well as usage of some of the vehicles that they had to take out of that amount. You will also see that it's actually is offset by the overtime that they had to use in order to perform that work. Additional revenue is ambulance related fees. We're seeing that the trend, how much we've been receiving is a little higher as well as ground emergency medical transportation that's going up. Total for those to 295,000. And the other net that's listed in the attachment that actually provides a detail, but it's really is reduction in the false alarm fees for fire, $85,000, an increase of approximately $85,000 for the fire prevention revenues. So the net effect is zero, but one is up and one is down on a police. Same thing. Mutual aid. We had to send the staff over to, I believe it was Sonoma where they assisted. I believe it was also on the news. Same thing. We're increasing the revenue the department already received full amount and we do know that dollar amount, which is $85,000. One of the bigger items that we're reducing is the animal license fees. Since fees primarily we've budgeted a full amount of 150. We're not expecting to collect really anything in 1819, partially due to the staffing issues that we've had to try and get somebody on board to actually start up the program. We are expecting at this point the department has hired somebody and the person has been working on this program for quite a while and expecting to send out to Billings and actually realize the revenues for next year. There were some other miscellaneous revenue changes in the fire and police department related to overtime reimbursements and some fingerprinting fees that for net in total were about $8,000 in departmental revenues between city clerk and finance are up about 18,000. This is just a quick summary. What we budgeted in June of 18 is $5.9 million with the current revenues updates for program revenue. Specifically, we're expecting about 6.7 million. This provides you this slide, provide your full recap of just the revenues. Again, property taxes going up, transfer tax transaction, use tax franchise fees. I did not have a separate slide on it, but really reality of that is our cable is trending down mainly. You probably know that a lot of people switching from, let's say, watching cable to Hulu and things like that, and therefore we're not getting as much in terms of franchise fees. It also includes a small portion for the PGE and the bankruptcy. We receive couple of sources of revenues from PGE in one as utility user tax, which is a true pass through. So we do not expect any changes in that because all they do is they collect and disburse it to us with a franchise fees. That's one of the sources that is potential that in a bankruptcy would be a claim and therefore we may not receive it. So we're reducing it just as an estimate of $50,000 for that transfer in. You're all aware we've built our EOC in the fire station three. We had an open house for those. The construction is complete and what we are seeing is that general fund put up some money to build those particular projects and we believe we're going to be about $241,000 that we've contributed more than needed, and therefore, it's going to be returned back to the general fund purposes. So that's revenue. So before going into the expenditures, are there any questions related to the revenues? I had a question and the question. I forgot. It. So sorry. Okay. Let's see here. We can all hold that. That's fine. We'll come back to it if necessary. For the time being, I'm just going to move on. On to the expenditures. Oops. Oh, yes. The question was, you had three components to the property taxes. You had the one called the ordinary. Then you had the. And VLF. The that the VLF the VLF is is that the trade that for the VLF that we gave up, we were getting property taxes back. So that's correct. So sometime ago and I want to say in early 2000, the state took away motor vehicle fees from the cities, but instead they put them in as a property tax. So that now grows with the property tax. That increases and we collect that. Okay. So it's not VLF property tax per se. It's it's property tax actual. Yes. But VLF is kind of the place we use to explain it. Okay, great. Thank you. Any expenditures? As you will see, the biggest components is going to be public safety, police and fire. But what you also see in here was showing a trend of four years, 15, 16, 16, 17 is fairly flat. Reality is, 16, 17 actually had about $3 million in vacancy savings or labor savings. So if we were to put it in a budgetary terms, that number would have been higher. But in the actual terms, it ended up being somewhat flat compared to 15, 16, 17, 18 has a huge jump. Part of the jump is actually something I want to focus on since we put in quite a bit of money for one time type of expenditures which were capital, were put in money for jeans, 20 park license plate readers. Our ERP project, which is the financial system, so was money a one time money using a one time sources that we've invested in our infrastructure and other capital items? The big component you will see is also pension and OPEB reserve. What we call it overall from general fund would put up $16 million in 1718 and there was an accumulation of several years of money. With the Council's policy that was adopted, we'll put in 16 million in total between direct down payment with CalPERS, as well as putting some money into our OPEB and Pension 115 trust, which is in the revocable trust for those specific purposes. I can tell you that with direct paydown with CalPERS, it saved us in this current year, 18, 19, a little over $1,000,000 in our PERS payments. So thanks to the policy that Council adopted and putting up and making an effort to actually pay down those liabilities, we are realizing the savings already. Okay. So a little bit of an update on the CalPERS pension and funding status. You may have seen this last year somewhat similar. I actually included three years worth or ten years of CalPERS to show where the funding levels were and where we are now and shows both the safety plan as well as your miscellaneous plans. The safety plan is obviously the biggest issue for us for General Fund. It's all funded by General Fund. And as you can see, in 2007, we actually had in that particular plan 91% of assets to fund the full liability. In a five year period, it dropped to 73%. And then currently, this is the most current valuation we have from CalPERS, where at 59%, the state average is actually 65%, actually 69%. So we're 10% below what the overall state average for just the safety plans is. One of the reasons why is in our safety plans, we actually have more retirees than we actually have active participants. So that is driving our unfunded liability much lower compared to other agencies in California. Kate, miscellaneous plan, as you will see, ten years ago was actually overfunded. We were at 105% and then it dropped down to 89 and then 73. The average for miscellaneous plan across the entire state is 72%. So we actually within that area combined safety miscellaneous over just a five year period for unfunded liability, it actually has gone up $142 million. So if you compare the liability of 2012 versus 20 1417, it went up $142 million. I'll have a question on that, but it's fine. The general fund component and you will see on the slide we've presented is unfunded liability is 201 million. It's 100% on the safety and it's only a third of the miscellaneous. We have other programs that are outside of general fund, which also include sewer and AMP that contribute and pay for their employees. So what you see here outside of General Fund Box is city wide. General Fund specifically relates to just the general fund component. One of the things I just want to mention is and we've said that before, we did not makes any changes necessarily to our process. Part of the reason why we seen this unfunded liability is because CalPERS is changing their policies and changing their assumptions. We've always paid the bills that we paid. The CalPERS presented to us. They all been paid. But because of those changes, that's what's going on with our unfunded liabilities. And this is really for the services of employees that already happened in the past. Just as a reminder on pension and funding policy. So the policy is we have a couple of close plans. So anything unused, we froze it at 1516 balances. And anything that we do not actually spend on those pensioners goes into payment of pension. The other big component is the general fund. So 50% of available balance from a prior year. We always look at it in hindsight in a way in arrears above the 25% set reserve and was set by council. We actually committed to pension and OPEB. As you can see in prior years. We put in quite a lot of money in June of 2018. We've estimated what we thought we will be putting in for 1819 year, which was six point close to $8 million. Today we're actually presenting it to you and we're saying the actual number based on 1718 actuals is $7.9 billion. So we've done better. Partially, again, because we had either unspent services and supplies or vacancies savings that now drop to the bottom line and create a difference. In one of the attachments we presented, we are projecting our 1819 fund balance and based on that front balance, we believe it will be about three and a half million dollars that we may be able to contribute towards pension and OPEB in the 1920 year, but we won't actually appropriate those funds until the audit is completed for 1819 and then we will bring it back to council likely at mid-year again. Councilmember member previously have asked a number of times to include the account balances in both the pension and OPEB. And so this slide is actually presenting what has happened. It does not include current year appropriate current appropriation that we're asking you to approve. So as I've mentioned, direct pay down to CalPERS last year was $10.7 million. We've also contributed money into Pars, which is the one six and 115 trust. It has more money in total. The balance in that account, which includes employee contributions, is $15.6 million as of January 31st. That's the most current information we had available at the time of publishing. We have received some in the February statements and now at $16 million. Big drop was actually in October, November timeframe when the market went down. But that's the balances as of right now. And the total that the city contributed outside of the requirements by the mill use was $17 million, over $17 million. Thank you. Okay. So this is a quick recap of general fund expenditures and what we're asking council to approve. I do see that there's an error on this slide for a grand total amount. So it's $5.5 million. It's actually $10 million. That's over ten you got. So economic development, we are requesting $88,000. This amount was actually a blue approved last year in March of 2018 to allocate for homeless type of programs. The staff finally got all the programs going and now ready for payment and contracts to encumber the funds. And so we have to reappropriate those monies. Fire department net total for all the expenditures, $476,000. Again, this includes the overtime of about $318,000 for all the mutual aid. And then there's also an additional money for services and supplies that they are experiencing increases in, which includes utilities for the city clerk. That's one big amount. We have an April 9th special election. The dollar amount from the county actually ranged all the way to $740,000 and the low part was 580. What kind of went with a mid level? So we'll see what the actual number is going to come in. You'll also see that we are putting in some capital projects contributions, about $1,000,000 for that and there are several projects there we are asking to fund there. Again, one time type of money and a large component is the pension OPEB reserve contribution of $7.9 million out of the general fund. With that, I am going to take questions on expenditures and pension OPEB. As I know, Councilmember Vella had one to ask something. It's going back to page 12 of the slide on the CalPERS pension funding status. Lina, I mean, obviously you made the comment about the safety split in terms of the retirees versus the actives. What's the impact of the pepper new hires on that? Actually, as of right now in terms of safety overall. So and that includes police and fire together. We only have 25 participants that are pepper employees, so we only have 25 and we have 150 actives. So our active is 175, but we have 260 retirees. Can you give those numbers again? You said we have 25 peprah. Yes. That's the new tier. Yes. For safety, 150 classic. One for the classic. Okay. And 260 retirees. So the 175 are supporting the 260? That's correct. And how many vacancies do we have? Well, not really supporting. I am actually not aware to say how many we have specifically in each department. So I, I do not know that information right off the top of my head. We do have some department heads here that maybe will be able to assist us with that and perhaps our H.R. director. But I'm not sure if we were per se prepared for that. Thank you. Our customers is currently in fire. We have 11 sworn vacancies and one civilian vacancy. And it can fluctuate from day to day. But I think employees were at about ten vacancies. Thank you. One of the things I do want to mention, though, with the unfunded liability component for prior service, not the normal cost, which is for the current employees that are currently here working, but for the ones that are already retired. CalPERS got pretty smart over the years and so instead of actually charging it as a percentage of payroll that used to happen, they now provide a flat dollar amount. So it doesn't really matter now how many active positions we have filled. They just provide us with a dollar amount and say you need to pay it regardless. How many people are actually filling current positions? But we also only have 150 classic employees remaining in that in that division. Correct out of 175. Councilmember Desai. Councilmember Vela, are you finished? Oh, I'm sorry, I. I didn't mean to cut you off where you. So, I mean. I was just saying that we only have 150 classics kind of remaining. It's not out of 175 would be out of out of whatever plus the vacancies. Well, no, the CalPERS actually looks at it as. Only as. It would have been two years ago, because the valuation is of 2017. CalPERS is always behind. Mm hmm. So they're actually looking from two years ago, and I'm not sure what the vacancy rate would have been back then. Okay. Yeah. So then Councilmember Desai. So two points on this chart. I think the thing that really concerns me is and I heard your explanation as to what's driving the miscellaneous the increase in the read portion of the of the bar chart there, particularly for miscellaneous 2017. So I heard your explanation. I think it's it is still concerning because, you know, when you look at the miscellaneous retirement formula, I mean, is it still 2.0 at 55 or. Something for the classic? Yeah. Okay. And then and with the pepper, I believe it's 2% and 62. Yeah. So the retirement formula, I mean, from if you're, you know, penny pinching type of person, you like that retirement formula. So to see such a favorable retirement formula still resulting in an increase in the and the read portion of that bar chart, that's concerning. I mean, on the flip side, that's why I understand why, you know, the read portion on the public safety, you know, in my opinion, the retirement formula is a challenge. So that that certainly explains, you know, 50, 73% number of 59% number that you're seeing. But but it is concerning to see the red increasing edging up there on the miscellaneous. I hear that it's you know, we're at the we're at the state average or slightly above the state average of 72. It's still is because the underlying formula is from a penny pinchers perspective, the underlying retirement formula is favorable. The second point that I want to raise is, you know. Seems as though we now have a policy where some portion of the of the reserve above 25% is dedicated to OPEB and and retirement. I certainly want to find out a little bit more about that, because if I'm doing my math, you know, part of what's driving the reserve conceivably could be holding down expenses on on the vacancy side. Right. So to the extent that you have revenues coming in, but you're holding down expenses on the expenditure shy because you're not filling vacancies, well then that's going to. Wouldn't that drive up the reserves mathematically so. It would I wouldn't consider them as as holding. To be perfectly honest, I think every single department is trying to hire aggressively. Yeah. But but to the extent that they're not hiring. The reality is there is there is not actual dollars being expended. So that mathematically means that the reserve the revenue side is going to be more than the than the expenditure side. And so it's a one time, one time revenue, if you choose, because it may not repeat itself again in the next year. Year by year in, year out, certain departments I think have had unfilled positions and so, so on the expenditure. So I think you get where I'm getting at. And so if the formula then for what to do with what's, what is so-called excess reserve is then being. So there's a certain concerns there that I think we should probably talk about and certainly revisit the the math formula that results in how we divvy up the excess reserve beyond 25%. That's that's my sense, just so. Thanks. Q I'm Counselor Vice Mayor Knox White. Sorry, I honestly didn't follow. I understand that you're. You have I. Understand the math you're doing. I'm not understanding why it's an issue. It's an issue because you have revenues coming in and oh. I didn't know whether this was the time to ask questions of you, but you're asking of councilmember. From what I from what I'm looking at. You have revenues coming in, which is all good. And you also have on the expenditure side, you have staff people for whom you are, you have expenses right in their actual expenses because we're cutting people checks and they're, you know, and which is good, obviously. And we also have other expenses, not non staff related expenses. But by the same token, on the expense side, we also have all these unfilled positions. So to the extent that you have unfilled positions, you're not expending as much as perhaps you should because because the fire department is down ten, police department is down ten. So the revenue side is here and the and the and the expenditure side is here and that results in a surplus. So then the formula of the surplus then is to say some portion of that surplus then goes circles back into as into the OPEB trust. But that surplus that some portion of that surplus would not be there had we been filling the positions. So that's, that's what I'm getting at. So it might be a readjustment to the formula. That's all I'm getting at. So I'm going to chime in because I was one of the people that brought this suggestion to the council and they adopted it. And it came from attending a League of California Cities meeting that was focused on helping cities pay down their open and CalPERS liabilities. And one of the things we looked at and again, everything's relative. We've been in some strong years and so we looked at our budget and we had a lot of surplus. And I want to say it was my colleague Frank Materazzi who said, Why are we just sitting on all this surplus? But of course you want you want a safety net and you have to have your rainy day fund. But we established that 25% was a pretty good reserve. And then anything above that and sometimes it's that one time windfall from a, you know, a large property transaction. I get what you're saying, Councilmember Desai, that some of it's there because we didn't spend all the money allocated. But the point being we never can afford to lose track of the fact that we've got this growing, looming CalPERS and OPEB liability that we I, you know, feel we have a moral obligation to pay our retirees. As you know, we've contracted with them. But more seriously, when we come to the lean years and I just think we have to expect that we will hit a recession at some point there. So right now, as Ms.. Adair pointed out, we are saving on by paying down in advance our CalPERS balance. We have saved up to $1,000,000 a year. And I forget when you look over the seven. Over time. It's pretty impressive what we've saved. So that's good. But also the trust fund is important because the CalPERS money we pay directly to CalPERS, the trust fund we put in into that lockbox, but it's there when we might come to that time when our city can't afford to pay the bill that comes due for CalPERS. So we've got that rainy day fund. So I just think I think we sock it away. Well, first of all, it's a council policy because we voted on it. But I think we just keep socking away that percentage as much as we can. And and then, you know, we're prepared better prepared for that rainy day at the same time. And I've used this analogy, you can't dig out of a hole with a shovel, you know, on the one side while you're shoveling the dirt back in on the other, which just means we have to be extremely careful about whenever we're adding to that OPEB liability. But that was they just didn't see that. I'm just having money sitting in a reserve, about 25% made sense. So let me try to frame this. Why I think it's important as fast as possible to on the expenditure side, to have the right expenditures, because if you don't have the right expenditures reflecting the amount of staffing that you need, what you're saying, what you're doing is you're shortchanging the current residents from the amount of services that they need. With regard to the staffing, in an effort to put the revenues of the reserves that's generated by by the two in an effort to put the reserves towards, you know, post-employment things which you understand, understandably you have to do, but we can't systematically keep under under serving the residents. So it's getting late right now. And I think we're just rate I'm just raising concepts and I think we will flush it. Out again, immature in the form of it and miss it as well in just a minute. But I just want to say, I, I, I'm, I'm taken aback by the characterization of shortchanging our residents. Neither the police chief nor the fire chief is saying, I'm not going to hire this many more firefighters because I want a budget savings. And and we know that will go to pay down CalPERS debt year after year. They try to fill their open positions. And what happens I know, you know, talking to the police chief and fire that they've got folks coming through the academy, folks training, that's good. They come on board. But then there's these retirees that, you know, keep keep going out the door. So, Miss Vella, were you going to speak to that? I would. So my questions were really just to understand, because she had said that we have more retirees than we do actives. And to just understand that breakdown, it wasn't to suggest that essentially we're keeping our expenditures artificially low by holding open vacancies. I don't think that that's happening at all. And I think when you look at the number of vacancies that we're talking about, it's a very small percentage and they're in two departments that have a very hard time recruiting because they also have to put people through academy and they have to do background checks. It's it's it's very involved process. So it's not like you can just hire somebody off the street tomorrow and say, okay, you're a police officer or firefighter now. But, but I did you know, I do kind of want to go back to the the chart that we talked about that's on the screen. Essentially, what you're saying is that the big spikes have come from the new discount rates that CalPERS have put out because they've gotten smart about how they're billing us, essentially. And they're they're billing us. It's that flat rate that they're giving us. And it has nothing to do with the vacancies or the number of held over positions or anything. No. And partially because of they've changed their assumptions, as I mentioned, which includes discount rate. It includes how long people live. It includes all the losses that they, you know. Yes. Passing. Now, that happened in the last recession. With that, they now figure it out. Well, maybe they shouldn't invest in certain type of, you know, investments that they make. So as part of all of those changes and also over the time period that they end up amortizing their losses, their assumption changes in terms of demographics and things like that. They've shortened them partially because they're trying to be fiduciary responsible and saying in order for us to pay all of these retirees that are here, we really need to get that money, which makes an impact on all the cities or agencies that are participating with CalPERS. And in two, part of the change was because they weren't recovering as much as they were actuarially planning through percentage of payroll. They instead went in and said, okay, we know we need this number. For this year. Pay it. And that's a flat amount from starting about two years ago. And so the city has to pay a flat amount regardless how many employees you have. And unfortunately, that amount is going to continue to grow for us. Councilmember de Sok was not here last year when we did have a presentation of a bell curve when it goes to 2031, I believe, and it continues to rise. And at that point in time, we said even in a five year period between what we have paid, if we froze what we said we were going to pay CalPERS for general fund alone, an additional amount over a five year period was $35 million just within five years. So for us, that is the full wall of debt that we are trying to deal with and the cash flow that we have to assume and cover in. However, whether it's five years or 20 years in this case, in pay for those obligations and still maintain the ability for us to provide services. And so with the prepayment, we're trying to shave off that top of that bell curve so that we don't have to cut it as much in as many services. It may be possible, I don't know. I cannot tell you going 15, ten years from now what it's going to happen. But our goal is to not have that occurred. So we do have a budget and a part of it is to drive those pension costs down. And I'm just going to make a little this is a commercial to my colleagues that I and this is something I've also gotten from League of California Cities. It's important for us as council members to monitor what CalPERS is doing. They have monthly board meetings in Sacramento and where, for instance, they will decide things like what mix of types of investments are in the CalPERS portfolio. They've traditionally been very conservative and maybe they need to move away a little from that. Obviously, none of us are CalPERS board members, but, you know, people can show up, they can speak. And then last year I attended this is the first time CalPERS did a session for elected officials at its annual conference. And I was down in the desert somewhere for that. But this year the conference is in Oakland. So when we find out when I'll find out what the date is, and I would just encourage folks to show up for the the session for elected officials, because we need a better understanding of all the different ways that other cities. We're doing a lot of good things, but you can always learn what other cities are doing too. So other questions, concerns, discussion. Councilmember Day So I just want. To quickly say I didn't mean to say that the department heads are holding it down. I mean, that that's I mean, I don't know how to elegantly say it at this hour. So I just want to make sure to say that I'm not saying that. But what I am saying, though, the effect of that, though, is something to, you know, for us to really think about. It's not done on purpose. But but the effect of it is, is we have to review that. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. I'll just add my $0.02 because I was here when we adopted that policy. And I think the mayor's recollection is pretty accurate. I mean, we do get I think what Ms.. Bello was trying to mention is that, you know, as we go forward, we're going to have more employees on Peprah than we are on classics. So just by the nature of that and the lower benefits that and over time we are going to see that bell curve eventually drop. And I thought we were pretty prudent when we decided if we had an excessive amount of we use that word, excessive amount of reserves that rather than just sit there, we would actually put it to work. And by putting it to work, we've saved the million dollars a year in purrs. And we've also, you know, put it aside that when we do have a shortfall or we have an economic downturn, you know, we're able to say we can pull from this to pay some of our liability instead of cutting officers on the street or closing a fire station or any of those those options, which just are not very palatable to us. And, you know, one thing I have noticed, and I think this is the fifth year, you know, our revenues always seem to be underestimated and our expenses seem to be overestimated. So that's just a comment. Well, it's called being conservative, which is the way I would want it. But I prefer to be accurate. I mean, because I mean, I just prefer to be more accurate if we can get that way. You know what? You raise Mary Knox ways. No, no, no, no. I have no more comments on the here. 50% of 24 over 25% reserve fire operations. The mutual aid. For some reason, I thought when we go and do work for the state that is reimbursed. Sorry. This is just new guy on the council. So this $318,000 of mutual aid overtime incurred during the car and campfires, isn't that something we get reimbursed for? These are changing that because we won't get reimbursed until next fiscal year or. We are getting reimbursed hands were recognizing the revenue from mutual aid for fire. And if you look on the revenue side, we're bringing in over half a million dollars for fire specifically and $85,000 for PD in those reimbursements from the state. But not all of those reimbursements are all overtime. It includes other components to it, which includes the equipment that they take with them. Correct. So part of that 550 figure is including the overtime of the personnel that we do send. It includes vehicle charges on the vehicles, our own city vehicles that we send, and also our city's overhead rate, which is on top of that. Some reason I'm having a hard time finding the 550 in the staff report. Sorry. Okay. 12:30 a.m.. Okay. The first exhibit, if you want to just look at the numbers, the very first exhibit for the fire department. Under program revenues, you will see 550,000 and corresponding expense increase of 318. 318 is your overtime side of it. It's just i think it's prudent to actually give the department their share of overtime that they've incurred. Otherwise it will put them over budget, which is not fair because they actually are bringing in the revenue. That makes complete sense. Thank you. Just as a quick comment on CalPERS, I do want to mention that in 1718 there were 195 agencies. Obviously, Alameda was one of them that made additional contributions to CalPERS above and beyond. What were the normal required contributions for the year? And the total of those amounts across the entire state were $538 million that was contributed just to pay down those liabilities. This is a problem, obviously, across the state. It's not just Alameda, but those are the numbers that are coming out directly from CalPERS. Um, I, I think I've said I need to say about CalPERS, just that I really do want to urge colleagues to, you know, let's look at our budget through very fiscally conservative eyes, because I just feel that we're going to run into a recession not that far away and we've already got liability. That's that's unfunded. But I want to hearken back to something we talked about earlier. It was probably yesterday now, but on the the climate emergency. And so one of the things that this came up this Saturday, last Saturday, when we did our council priority setting workshop, is that I really want to see every vehicle that the city looks at purchasing for our fleet. I know there's a policy, but I want to see every decision looked at that, you know, should this be an EV. And I, I think that we just make assumptions that we have to replace, like with like but for instance, at the last council meeting, we approved a new position for fire and we approved $75,000 for a vehicle. For a. Deputy fire or the fire marshal or a deputy division chief who's going to have the fire marshal. So that's not a fire truck. It's a vehicle that this inspector or the head of this division will get around in. I don't see any reason that that couldn't be an EV because we can't declare climate emergencies on the one hand and then keep buying fossil fuel vehicles without even considering alternatives. Something for council to consider. Other comments? Questions. Otherwise. Do we want to entertain some resolutions? I'm sorry. Were you finished? Not yet. I was going. To say, you just stopped. You stopped to take our questions. Yeah, yeah, yeah. On that section. So this is a quick recap of the general fund. What you see in front of you in terms of adopted budget, and this is for people that prefer numbers over graphs. The graph is going to come next. We have an adopted budget adopted in June of 2018 and the operations were about $8,000. Pretty much breakeven for the year. We did make some adjustment during the year. So between July and now, council made approvals for several items, which is about $2.9 million. And then you see the mid-year column, which is what we're asking you to approve today. With all of those together, mid-year projection is what we are actually expecting through the end of the fiscal year. One of the things we try to do is pull out the one time unusual events. One of them is obviously the transfer tax from the just the two properties that were mentioned as well as pension and OPEB reserve. Those are using existing money from prior year. In this particular case, $7.9 million. And I really didn't want to show it as net impact for the year with just that amount because it's really it's not a true operations for the general fund. And so with the two operations right now, excluding that particular one time, we are under by $174,000. However, we have tried to look at to add vacancies for general fund departments, and we believe that by the end of the year we will have sufficient vacancies and maybe even more to even cover that particular deficit at this point. That's a good thing, right? Councilmember Desai So just to go back, the $7.9 million is a one time amount of that results via the the formula that was agreed upon. That's correct. Okay. All right. Each. So here's a graphic presentation of exactly what you just seen on prior slide. It shows your revenues, including one time revenues and outside of one time revenues. Same thing with expenditures. And what we're seeing is obviously we're breaking at 174, 174,000. Again, we expect to make up that number by the end of the year with the vacancy savings. That's why I say that. It's a graph that uses colors I can't see. Oh, it's fine. I can interpret it, but. Huh. For. For future graphs. The more you can use primary colors, the better. They're ugly. And. But red and green are primary colors. Okay, but are they? I think I guess it depends on the red in the green, but the yellow, blue, red. Okay. Okay, we'll look into that. Yeah. Okay. Are there any questions on the general fund projection for the year? No hearing, then move on. Okay. So at this point, we're going to talk about other programs. So outside of the general fund and they're more concise and to go over those rent stabilization well familiar program. Originally, when we put together a budget for it, as you know, we do a two year budget. The expectation was that we would be collecting $120 fee as we did in year one. However, the council adopted in the year or two, which is 1819, to collect it at $106, the revenue was never adjusted and we're just adjusting it now, but it lowers it by over half a million dollars. And the question was but was wasn't that based on a year's worth of data that. That. School showed because we needed to make the the fee commensurate with the cost of administering the program? That's correct. But our budgeted revenues were still showing higher than we would have brought in fiscal lease revenues. Originally, department did not expect or did not expect any lease revenues. This is the area of Alameda landing. And the expectation was that we were going to turn all of the buildings that are out there and warehouses over to a developer. That did not happen. We're close to that, but we're still receiving some of the lease revenues. And so the department is showing a budget that that's coming in on. Transportation Services received the grant. So they are budgeting for the grand community development. This is your building planning permits. They're experiencing higher revenue so far and so they're increasing those revenues. And then we have several other funds where we actually asking for expenditures for the Tidelands, for internal boat launch. There are some portions of that. Projects are within Tidelands areas and therefore some of the improvements that are making, we're asking Tidelands to pay for it. Park Street Corridor had that particular project had a little bit of a shortfall. And so we asking general fund sorry, not general fund gas tax to contribute to to cover that shortfall. We're showing the closed pension funds. We originally projected a certain amount and budgeted that will be left over. We actually experiencing a little bit more money because we unfortunately have some pensioners that are passing away. And so we appropriating those funds and again those are going towards pensions. We have a few internal service fund programs that we are asking for, changes in expenditures in equipment replacement, fire battalion chief vehicle that was unfortunately in the accident and we have to replace that. The second item for police taser maintenance contract in fiscal year 15, we actually moved the money to pay for it, but we omitted the appropriation for that particular contract. And so we're just correcting an error with the employment insurance where unemployment insurance we're seeing a rise in the claim payments and with h.r. Departments request because of those claims going up, we asking to increase the budget for that cable franchise equipment replacement. Again, we're dropping franchise revenue and this is specific to the 2006. It's called abbreviated as difficult act where we receive a portion of franchise fee specifically for an equipment. And as I mentioned earlier, the cable franchise revenues dropping on the general fund side. It's also dropping on the franchise side here for that particular replacement. And then we need to appropriate additional moneys for chamber timing system installation, which you all use here fairly regularly on a general liability. The Department of Risk Management is experiencing or been told that they will not receive an equity distribution for the general liability component of 60,000. Can you explain what that means? The way it was explained to me actually was during the time of the recession, the risk pool that the city's participating in for general liability. What they did is when we had to pay for our participation in their and what they did is they if they had a lot of equity, they distributed it to the cities to kind of assist with the payments to to pay for the insurance. This is the first year that they are looking at their own reserves and saying that they would like to rebuild some of their reserve, some of their equity, and therefore they are not doing that distribution. They use. Microphones. The city manager, an actuary to assist them in all of these insurance pools. Okay. Thank you. The next part is pension stabilization fund. This is where we actually make the disbursement to either CalPERS or pay the one through the 115 trust, which is with pass total would be $7.7 million. So all the reason why it's different is in here, it's actually combines everything together, general fund as well as are closed pension funds. And we're setting aside for OPEB payment half a million dollars. We have several projects. As I mentioned earlier, you've seen the some of the funds that are contributing towards projects. General Fund. Tidelands. Gas tax. So this particular slide actually shows where the monies will be spend in the internal boat launch facility specifically. We actually received a grant of almost $1.5 million. And so we're recognizing the grant as well as appropriating the money. Same thing for the climate change. It's a grant from Caltrans where recognizing the grant and also establishing the expenditures for that. And then we have two projects that are being funded by the general fund money, Shoreline Park, pathway, lighting replacement. Those are the projects that are ready to go. But we're short on funding and this is a funding that might be available at one time, money for one time type of expense. Same thing with the Alameda Point Gym for the modular restrooms. Quick question on the might of the restroom. At the gym, it sounds like a great idea is just the well, it's a capital fund. So is that just for supplying the facility? Because who takes care of the maintenance and repair and that sort of thing is that. Captain? I see Ms. Wooldridge coming up. To help people. That's just the capital cost and all maintenance would continue to be would be under recreation and parks department. Okay. So they because they've been maintaining the restrooms in the gym up until now, but they're not going to be used because they're not ADA accessible. And all that. These are in addition to. These are because to supplement their they're there to supplement. We have tournaments at the gym that are sometimes upwards of a thousand people a day. And the groups have to rent portable, portable toilets. So you have a thousand people using a whole bank of portable toilets almost every weekend during the busy season, throughout the the the fall through spring for the most part. So this has been an ongoing need and this was a a solution rather than taking on the expense of trying to renovate within the building and everything that that opens up. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Good explanation. Thank you. Are we still talking about expenditures? Whatever you like. Councilmember Odie. Okay. Sorry. I mean, there's one thing that's come up recently that we don't have a line item for. And I mean, it'd be great if we can do it tonight. If we had to do it at another meeting, that would be great. And that's making sure that the support that our public works and our safety people provide at parades and festivals. So I know there was a meeting yesterday with the police chief, among others, and I think that was one of his suggestions. So I'd like to see if there's a way we can do that. Vice spirit knocks. Knox. I guess it's a question here is I know the recommendation is to approve these changes if we have other things we'd like to talk about. And I'm thinking we have an item after this that's talking about installing something in the city that the city probably should. Is there a place? What is the process for somebody who's never come through this for me to. Or for somebody here to say, hey, you know what? Breast breastfeeding stations are $10,000 a pop. We have none anywhere in the city, but we have probably at least five or six buildings that need them, fire stations, etc.. Well, usually you would as a group make those suggestions. And if we need to incorporate them, for example, into our budget because we're so close to the two year budget at this point, we can do that. You can also request the staff to bring it as a separate item sooner, and that would be part of analysis in preparing a staff report. And if it's an adjustment that's needed for the budget. It's going to be a just a resolution that's going to be part of that particular report. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Are there any other questions before we move on? Not right now. Okay. So the next slide is actually going to. Be I'm sorry, I can't remember, Bill. Sorry. I do hope to notes. Okay. I do have one question, which is the pool which we had talked about at previous meetings and gave directions on specifically for, um, just to cover whatever maintenance we need before May 31st. Is that noted in here or is that going to be a separate change that we do later on in the next budget? This has not been included in the mid-year budget at this point or by the time we have this report completed. There was no specific dollar amount and no specifics to that particular item. So it wasn't included. It would be depends on what the wish, I guess, of council and what the available information is either would be brought in as a separate item or will be included likely because it has to happen before June 30th would be a separate item that would be brought up. I would defer to the Parks director to let me know if that's true. Okay. Yeah. The cost is so unknown at this point that that that was the primary driver of we did why we didn't include it. And so that would come back as its own separate item for an allocation. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I was married, actually. Oh, no, you were just me. Okay. Replacement. This actually concludes the a non general fund programs information. And I'm going to ask our retired director to come in and actually talk about workforce changes. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Mayor. City council members Nancy Brownstein or H.R. director? I'm going to. Very briefly. Talk about some of the workforce changes that are being recommended as part of this mid-year update. We are requesting two new positions, a requesting to add a permit. Technician three Right now at the permit counter, there's such a high volume that we're pulling planners to provide that support, and we'd like to hire somebody on a limited, short term basis and be able to put the planners back to planning. And then we've also asking to add a senior management analyst in finance. This position would be a non accounting analytical position that would do budgeting, budget monitoring, cost allocation policies and special projects that need to get done in that department. Question Ms.. Oh, I'm sorry. QUESTION For you, Mr. Bernstein or maybe for Mr. Thomas. Why is the permit technician position just a two year term? You can answer it. Permits are up. Yeah. So we're very busy the counter. But since we're completely fee based, you know, we were just as you were saying earlier, a little bit worried about a possible recession coming along. So that's why we were thinking, let's just do it as a two year term. See where we're at. If if permit fees are still way up. We'll keep going. If. Yeah. And, you know, it's just we didn't want to get. That's that's the reason. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Question is there. And also for this position, Andrew, we you know, one of the things that we've been talking about has been the amount of design review and kind of plan checking and plan review that goes on there. This position is is specifically to staff the counter. But are we doing an accounting of how much time we're kind of spending on on the other stuff? And do we know? Yeah, let me explain this. I think we're on the same page. We are actually. Although permit fees are up and permanent activity is up, the number of design reviews, which is our sort of bread and butter, the number is actually going down. Two years ago, three years ago, we would average about 250 design reviews a year. But we've been instituting streamlining procedures, design review exemptions so that we don't have as many of those where we can just basically check at the counter. Okay, you're exempt. Go get a building permit. You don't have to go to design review. So that's that's good. But you would what it has done is increase the workload at the counter. So those people are checking and instead of putting in a pile saying a planner will get to it in a couple of weeks, they're just doing the time right there to check to see if they qualify for that exemption. So it's less work, less money for the applicants, a little bit more work for counter staff. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We're also recommending two position upgrades an engineering office assistant in Public Works Executive Assistant. We had a study done and the work needed and the work being performed is that of an executive assistant. And then also to upgrade a transportation engineer position to supervising civil engineer due to the complexity of the transportation projects. And then we had some equity adjustments. We are having difficulty recruiting in our code enforcement building inspection areas. So we've done a salary survey. One of the things we'd like to do is add a new classification of combination building. Inspector one Retitle Our Current Combination Building Inspector Combination Building Inspector two. Gives us a. Little bit a couple of different ways to recruit for that position. And then we wanted to do equity for the other classifications within those positions. And if there are any questions otherwise, I'll turn it back over to Alina, dear. Yes. Questions, I guess, Mary. Not quite. First. This is probably a question for Liam on the public works. Transportation Engineer. Two Supervising civil engineer. Is that going to change the focus of what that person does and who gets hired in that position? Because we already have lots of conversations around, you know, just kind of. Modern transportation engineering practice. I'm just very sorry. It's getting really late. My words are escaping me worse than ever. Yeah, right. Yeah. Are we concerned that that's going to change the focus of this position at a time when we have more transportation jobs going forward? Well, only that it will improve our ability to deliver in the transportation arena. So the supervising civil position will be a licensed transportation engineer. What it is, is a higher level position who can manage more complex projects and people in a way that benefits element as transportation system. Thank you. No other questions. I'll turn it back over to Alina. This were one of the last slides that we had. And so as a wrap up for us, one, do you have any questions now that what you've heard everything? And then with that, we're going to ask we ask you to take the actions. As we've mentioned before, there are three resolutions in front of you budget resolution, workforce changes, as well as adjustment to the salary schedule. Okay, Counsel. Councilman Brody. Okay, I'll go first. I'll try to be quick, though. Thank you for all of all of your hard work. You and all of the department heads in putting this together. I know you guys are very prudent with your ask, so that's much appreciated. Just a couple of quick points. I mean, I am concerned and I think there's a difference between accuracy and conservative projection. I am concerned that, you know, for five years now, our revenues have come in significantly higher than estimated and our expenses have come in lower. And, you know, I somehow get the feeling there's like a forced. The word escapes me. Austerity. Thank you. That I mean, there are some positives to that. But, you know, I think it causes undue stress in the departments and undue stress in the community. One thing I did want to point out, I saw that the slide where we talked about the assessed value and I know you can attribute some of the increase in the assessed value to the market, but I think a lot of it can be attributed to the hard work of the people here in Alameda. And I'm thinking, you know, among others, even our police or fire, our public works in maintaining our core services and making Alameda an attractive place to live and making sure that people are willing to pay them the property values and the cost that it is to live here. So as we move forward, I want to make sure that, you know, we don't cut off our nose to spite our faces and, you know. Trying to cut those core services in a way that actually hurts us because it ends up decreasing our property values. So I hopefully, as we do future budgets, will keep that in mind because I think it's it's hypercritical to maintain our quality of life and our total assessed value to to maintain those services. I am prepared to move forward with all of these items. I would like to see something for this year for the the parade and the festivals. And I would like to see that sooner rather than later, one for this year and also to be considered in the next budget. And I would defer to the appropriate department heads, whether it's whether it's the police chief or public works or Sara Henry to figure out what the appropriate amount is. But I think that is something that I think our community needs to know is going to be taken care of and that our long term that our department heads , such as police or public works, know that they're not going to have to find ways to raise that or take that money in the future out of existing budgets. So that's my comment. I can just briefly address that. As I've been looking at the budget for the July 4th parade, we've identified available funds in the Non-Departmental contingency fund for this year's parade. So we don't need it as an additional ask on the budget. And we've already put in the request for as part of the overall request for the next two year budget cycle. And so we are looking towards both of those. Thank you very much. The comments. I'm okay, Mossville. I know one of the things that we do that we kind of do differently and I have noticed this the past couple of years is that the mid-year budget not to put more work on Melina's plate or to push it up earlier, but the mid-year budget comes several months into the year. And I think, you know, it's a little bit confusing. I mean, obviously, we need the time to to work back and everything. But I think one of the things that we as a council and that, you know, I love feedback from staff on moving forward is, you know, is it possible to me to get this report kind of done a little bit soon, you know, earlier in the year somewhere January, February, something like that, with still giving time to to give to give feedback and everything. Because I think I feel like we end up doing the mid-year budget and then like a couple of months later we're, we're back in the, in the budget cycle and I feel like it just ends up getting really compacted. So that's again, this is more just I would like to have that conversation about, you know, what that would look like and how that might impact things relative to, you know, hearing from department heads on that. And I'm ready to support the budget requests as as they've been listed. I do think that we need to kind of. Figure out the pool costs just to keep the hood open and functioning. I know that that's something that Amy is going to be diligently working on, as well as a number of other issues. But that will be coming up in in future budgets. And I think that there's you know, I think our policy that we put in place regarding the spend down or the pay down, I should say, of PERS and OPEB has been serving us well. I think there's many things that are outside of our control, but that's not one of them. And I think that we continue to to do, you know, to to help our future by continuing to do that. I would I would like to know kind of where we've we have overestimated in terms or underestimated our revenues. Um, if that's, you know, what kind of, what the trend has been where we have had those. Because I feel like every time we come here we hear that it's a, it's a one time savings, not so much on the staff vacancy side, but on maybe on the on the T on the transfer taxes and some of these other things where we've we've seen kind of a continued under projection of that. I'm not saying that we're purposefully doing that, but I would like to understand kind of where we're where we're missing the mark on those a little more. For the comments. Yeah. Councilmember Jason. I'm going to support any resolutions with regard to workforce changes. I'm going to abstain on the amendments to the budgets. For the reasons that we discussed, but also for two other reasons. One is, you know, it's just it's difficult for me to vote for a budget that's coming in negative. I recognize that what's driving the negative is that one time I recognize that. But I'm also going to abstain because, frankly, this is a two year, 24 month budget. And really I'm having only involved in the final two months. So for me it's like, well, well, it wasn't my budget, so I'm going to abstain on the budget and look forward, you know, when we start the next two year budget cycle. A couple thoughts. I, I actually appreciate the conservative projections that we've seen, both in revenue and expenditure. Ms.. Adair came to us from the city of Stockton. And, well, you know, all of us have been on the council. It's been in good times and in revenues have been coming in strong. But really, if you look back a decade, Mr. Thomas certainly remembers cutting the planning staff in half. And so none of us has a crystal ball. And we one of the things we just shouldn't, in my opinion, be so anxious to do is spend, you know, whatever excess revenues we have. I would rather have conservative estimates. I think we're just better served as a city. And again, the vacancies in public safety are not because the city council has said we're not going to fund those positions. I'm saying what belabor that. So one thing that strikes me every time I'm in the clerk's office, I think the city clerk's office is to be commended for the passport services they're doing. We have such happy customers. I run into them in the halls and these adorable families and things to me. But oh my goodness, the the environment in which you have to, you know, do the photos and everything. I have no idea what it would take to make that space better. But if there is anything I mean, and again, this is increasing revenue for our city and it's a nice service to to the public. So I would just encourage the clerk's office to think about what what might be needed, might be possible to make that space better. Ms.. Weisinger We've annexed the chambers as our second area office and conduct many of the best works in here. Long as there is no other business going. On, engage them. Okay, well, maybe, you know, in the future downstream, because I do appreciate. That that works. So. Okay, are we ready to. Vice Mayor, do you have a comment? Motion. Whatever. I'm just I'm just going to say that next time you'll know if you're going to ask for stuff in the budget, we're going to put you after an appeal. You know. Thank you. Along those lines, I really want to apologize to staff, but I just didn't see how I could make 60 members of the public wait. In all seriousness, I want to say thank you for it, for your hard work. And I'm sorry that you're also here at 110 in the morning. I am. We signed up for this a little bit more than made. And with that, I with I would like to I would like to move approval of actually if I don't know if we can do this. But of all three recommended recommended actions, second is. Well, because Councilmember Desai. That's all right. It's okay. It's okay. Okay. Can we do that? Is okay, especially at this hour. Let's do anything I can. Okay. We had a motion. We had a second. All in favor. We are approving the three resolutions. Three rate I. And opposed abstain. Okay. So we have four affirmative and one abstention. The motion, the resolutions passed. Thank you all. Go home. Drive safely. All right. But we're not done. Council, don't go anywhere. We are moving. On to seven. Oh, okay. I believe, right? Yeah, you are. Right. Thank you. Okay. City Manager Communications for me. That says it all. To the. Mayor. Members of council. I just want to take my 30 seconds and thank each of you and the previous council and really all of the employees for their kind reception, their work, their work with me to help you solve the problems in this interim period of time.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments, with the United States Veterans Initiative, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, in the amount of $113,036 to operate the Interim Shelter Program from April 13, 2020 through June 28, 2020, at 1718-1722 Hayes Avenue; and Authorize City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Lease 35431 to extend the term until July 28, 2020. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03172020_20-0238

District six. I strict seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go out in 24. Madam Clerk. Report from Health and Human Services Revised Recommendation to adopt resolution re declaring a shelter crisis suspending applicable provisions of local law, including those contained in the city's zoning ordinances. Of the Long Beach Municipal Code and Regulations. And authorizing the operation of an interim shelter for the period of April one, 2020 through September 30, 2020. Inclusive and authorize the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to lease 35431 to extend the term until October 30th, 2020. District one. Thank you. We're going to go without objection, we're going to go ahead and go to a vote saying that there is a no public comment. And, Mr. Mayor, we do have an. Amendment that. We would like to read into the record, please. Sure. Mr. Modica. So this is Charlie Parker? Yes. The the item. I think we've gotten some recent information from the county. This is all good news. And and Theresa Chandler is here to go into details on it, that we are going to adopt a resolution declaring this shelter crisis, suspending the applicable provisions of the local law, including including those contained in the city zoning ordinance of the city of the Long Beach Municipal Code and Regulations, and authorize the operation of the interim shelter for a period of April 1st, 2020 through September 30th, 2020. Inclusive. And the good news on this, I believe, is the city was ready to do this and ready to pay for it. And the county over the weekend has stepped up. And I'll let Teresa kind of give the details. Well, originally, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, also known as Lahsa, was only planning to fund the county run Winter Shelter Program to March 31st, 2020. Lahsa holds the contract with the provider of the shelter, which is used for this Winter Shelter program in order to continue the interim shelter program through the opening of the long before granting farm spreads housing community, which has a coming up year round shelter council approved additional funding to ensure we have shelter beds available on Long Beach while the ABC community undergoes construction. But the gap between winter shelter closing in March and the opening of the Addison community. In June, the city of Long Beach made arrangements to contract directly with the operator US vets that would extend the interim shelter through June 28th, 2020, yesterday and late afternoon last but confirm they will be extending all winter shelter sites throughout the county to September 30th, 2020. Therefore, the city no longer needs to contract directly with us that or pay for shelter services because last year will absorb the costs for the extension. So this is why we're making the recommendation to extend the lease. Thank you for the current program. There's no there's no public comment. I'm going to go to a roll call vote without objection. District one. I district to district three i. District four. I. District five. A six by seven. I hate. I a.

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred Nine Dollars ($34,309.00) in the form of a grant, for the Federal FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement formula allocation, awarded by the United States Department of Justice, passed through Massachusetts State Police/Crime Laboratory, to be administered by the Police Department. The grant will fund training and continuing education for forensic examiners, criminalists and laboratory personnel.

BostonCC_06082022_2022-0709

Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Docket 0708 will be assigned to the Committee on Housing and Community Development. Mr. Clarke, can you please retarget. 0709.0709 message in order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $34,309 in the form of a grant for the Federal Fiscal Year 21. All Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Formula Allocation awarded by the United States Department of Justice. Please pass through Massachusetts State Police and crime lab battery to be administered by the police department. The grant will fund training and continuing education for forensic examiners, criminalist and laboratory personnel. Thank you. The chair recognizes Counsel Flaherty, chair of the Committee on Public Safety, Criminal Justice Counsel. Flaherty. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Somewhat of a minus grant for the forensics division and looking forward to suspension and passage to get these very necessary funds over to the lab. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel. Clarity. Counsel, clarity. Seek suspension of the rules and passage of docket 0709. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposing. The ayes have it. The docket has passed. Mr. Carr, can you please read docket 0710 and 0711 together, please?

Recommendation to adopt resolution requesting the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to call, provide and give notice of a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held in the City of Long Beach on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 and include the proposed Charter amendment to a vote of the qualified electors of the City to align the City’s primary election date with the State’s primary and general election dates held in even-numbered years; directing City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Charter amendment; and providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments and setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding a proposed Charter amendment to be submitted at said election. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0936

Thank you to the second consolidation item, which is US State and city. Madam Clerk, I need a motion in a second, please. Item 18 is a report from City Attorney Recommendation to Adobe resolution requesting the L.A. County to give notice of general municipal for election to be consolidated with the statewide general elections to be held in the city of Long Beach on Tuesday, November eight, and include the proposed charter amendment to a vote to align city's primary election date with the state's primary and general election date held in even number of years. Directing the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and providing for the filing of the primary and rebuttal arguments, and setting setting the rules for the filing of written arguments citywide. Thank you. There's a motion and a second is your public comment, please. If there any members of the public that would like to speak on item 18 in-person, please sign up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature. So, you know, and that concludes public comment. Thank you. Please do the roll call vote. Councilwoman Cindy has. All right. Because women. Allen, I. Councilwoman Pryce, I. Councilman. So. But now. I. Can tell women. Mongo. I came to him in sorrow. I can't remember anger. I can summon Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. Next is 29, which is kind of a companion to those items, which is the official request for the county to the county for the consolidations that we are discussing. Item 29 is a report from the City Attorney recommendation to adopt resolutions of the City Council requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County to authorize and order the consolidation of a statewide general municipal election for four charter charter amendments with the statewide general elections to be held on November eight citywide.

Adoption of Resolution Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of A Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8500, Alameda Marina As A Condition to Final Map Approval. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8436

Adoption of resolution approving a final map and authorizing execution of a subdivision improvement agreement for tract 8500 aluminum arena as a condition to final map approval. All right. And Councilmember decided you want to hear a report on this? No, not really. Madam Mayor, if it's okay. In the past, I hadn't been supportive of this, so I thought I'd be consistent by voting no on it. Or it's okay to change your mind. That's true. Okay. Just so you know that. All right. I'll keep that in mind. All right. Well, then I don't think we need to do a staff report. I think I'll just ask for a motion. So this is adoption of resolution, approving a final map and authorizing execution. Subdivision improvement is what the city clerk already read that a motion from you council wrote. I just have a question. I mean, according to the the staff report, it's ministerial in nature and we can either approve it or remand it. I mean, what if, for instance, hypothetically, we chose to reject this and not remand it? I mean, what would be the. What would be the consequence of that? I mean, if three of us agree with that, that position, that we should just vote no on it without giving direction back to staff. I mean, what's the consequence? And like magic, here is our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom. Good evening, Mr. Wickstrom. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Or members of the City Council? Yes, sir. The council member, Otis Point. This is a. Typically final maps are ministerial actions. Essentially, the discretionary action that council takes is in approval of either the master plan, in this case the subsequent tentative map application and then the associated conditions of approval that come with that tentative map. And in in our process, the final map basically completed our review of the approval plans and from our opinion, basically made sure that all of the. Pertinent conditions of approval search with the tender map have been approved. So if council really doesn't have an. Option to reject the map per se, but what they can do is basically ask questions or dig into details about whether or not the developer has complied with all of the conditions of the approval to the city's satisfaction. So thank you, Mr. Cantor. Everybody, back to you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, so what are the legal consequences if we just decided we were going to not approve this? I might ask our. City attorney to. Yeah, it was to start with him, actually, Mr. Chan. Yeah. So, Councilmember. So it's hard to speculate, because one of the things you're doing is to essentially review the staff's work to see whether or not the final map does conform. And if for some reason you disagree with the city engineer, as he indicated, you could certainly send it back to. Him for further review. Obviously, in the hypothetical sense that if the city engineer did everything right and nonetheless council voted no. On a final map, it. Is possible that a court, by order of the Council to order the city to change its mind. But with every item that comes in front of the Council, the Council. Retains discretion to review the staff work and make a decision on whether or not you agree with the final analysis. And that's why it's in front of you. Okay. Because a lot of times we have these ministerial acts and, you know, some people choose to vote against them without really understanding what the legal consequences are. And really what we're being asked to do today is either remand it back to staff with suggestions for changes, or say that staff complied with what our legal agreements ask them to do. So it's it's often really strange to have these type of discussions on ministerial acts, you know, whether it's moving money from one budget line item to another or approving a tentative map. I mean, the horse is out of the barn on this. This is something that's approved. And we're just trying to say, you know, Scott, Mr. Nixon, did you and your team do your job? And, you know, I'm perfectly happy saying that you did and I'm happy to move approval of this item. Thank you. Accept the motion. Do we have a second split second by the vice mayor? Move by accounts over 30 seconds by Vice Mayor Knox. Why do we have a roll call vote with Councilmember Desai? No. Odie. Yes. Oh, Knox, wait. Sorry, I. Vella Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft I that carries by five for one with disagree now. Thank you. All right we have completed the consent calendar and we're going to move to our regular agenda items. First Episode six ave and of group. Recommendation authorizing the mayor to sign a letter of support for the Oakland Alameda Access Project. And we have quite a few people coming into the meeting on this item, and we also have a presentation. Right. So we'll give given is it looking like two minute time for speakers because of the number? Yes, you are correct on that. Well, wait, one, two, three. But we have six so far, so we need one more if it goes. Yes. Now we have seven. Eight. All right. So we have a number of of very capable, knowledgeable folks with us. And, man, have there been a lot of conversations lately, but we're going to have a few more. So in addition to our stellar city staff planning building transportation director Andrew Thomas, Rochelle Wheeler, who's a project manager on our estuary bridge project.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloans Block 9 Project. Approves an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloans Block 9 Project to authorize the use of property tax increment financing (“TIF”) to provide funding for development to include approximately 176 units of income restricted permanently affordable senior and disabled housing, up to 20,000 square feet of ground floor medical office and clinic space, 6,500 square feet of senior activity center, a publicly accessible 5,000 square foot amenity deck and 125 parking spaces in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-24-17.

DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0057

13 Ice 13 Ice Council 56 has now been approved. All right, Madam Secretary, we've got onto Council 1257. Yes. All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Councilor 57 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 57 be placed upon final consideration and do passed. It has been moved in second. It published here for council 57 is open. May we have the staff report? The circuits. You made. Hello again. Tracy Huggins, the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And Mr. President and members of council, this is a new and separate public hearing on another project, but it is all related to the same urban redevelopment area that I just described, complete with its history. So with your permission, may I go past those slides as opposed to having to repeat them again? You have all of my permission. Thank you. So with your permission, let's. Fast forward to. Slide. Four. And again, I'm now going to ask that you you don't you don't have the same this presentation. It's a continuation of the one that you had previously. So we'll work as long as you put it up on the screen. The and forgive me for being presumptuous because I have now added to the list of previously approved projects. BLOCK three. Mm hmm. And now the project that we are bringing forward, is that on block nine? Yes. With again, within the same urban redevelopment area. And this project area is the the portion of block nine. Again, BLOCK three was the entire block. This is just a portion of block nine, generally fronting West Colfax Avenue between Quitman and Perry streets. This Sloan's BLOCK nine project site has had several previous uses, including a used car lot, a cell phone store in the Yeshivah School dormitory. This is a picture of the former used car lot, the cell phone store and the dormitory. I do, just as I said in council committee, want to be fair to the owners of those properties. They did not look just like that before they were closed and and boarded up. But you can see just how quickly properties, once those uses have been taken away, can begin to change on the site. And this is all. And those those private previous uses have since been demolished to allow for the development of the BLOCK nine project. And the BLOCK nine project is also known as Vida at Sloan's Lake, and it will include a new 217,000 square foot building consisting of a seven story tower with 112 units of senior rental housing at 60%, ami a five story tower with 64 units of senior rental housing with affordability at the 30, 40, 50 and 60% AMI levels. A 20,000 square foot community health clinic on the main level and a senior activity center and rooftop community amenity space. There will be 125 parking spaces. 109 of those will be below grade with 16 spaces above grade and on the surface. This is a very busy slide and but it is intended to show the unit count the levels of affordability. If you can see this slide, you'll see on there that there is a section that says V to 9%. A section that says V to 4%. And then the total. The reason for that is this project was successful in applying both for 4% and 9% credits from again, from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Lot of information on here. And there are representatives from D who are here who will be able to speak to this. But the long and the short of it is that there are 175 tenant units. All of these are one bedroom units. There is one unit that is a two bedroom, and that will be for the the project or the site manager. And again, you can see that the rents here are for those persons at between 30 and 60%. Am I included in here is a footnote that says although the AMI thresholds show a mix of up to 60% AMI, in reality the household served by senior and disabled subsidy are at or below 30% AMI. So this is intended to be a project that is a very deep level of affordability. As I mentioned previously, this project was successful in procuring low income housing tax credits from from Chiapas. They are also bringing other forms of assistance to this. Even with that, they still have been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Urban Redevelopment Authority or the Urban Renewal Authority that there is a $5.5 million financing gap that is expected to be addressed through property tax increment generated by that broader seven block property tax increment area as the project is to be undertaken, owned and operated by the Denver Housing Authority. The property will be largely tax exempt. Therefore, we are not requesting council to approve a property tax increment area for this project. Instead, the property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of blocks one, two and four a gain of approximately $850,000 per year will be used to reimburse VHA for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. Again as council found the urban redevelopment plan to be in conformance with comp plan and its applicable supplements. We are also needing to make sure that any project continues to meet those objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Again. I would prefer not to have to walk through all of those components which this project is in clear conformance with the Urban Redevelopment Plan objectives. So instead of going through each of those, what I would call out is that there is a different finding here as opposed to the project, the BLOCK three project, which is the encouraging of high and moderate density development where appropriate, including structured parking. As you can see, this is a fairly dense development on this site. I will, however, go through each of these legislative findings because I do think that is a key component in making sure that we have met the requirements under state statute. So we are asking that council find that the Black Nine Project is located within the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment area and that it will promote the objectives set forth in the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan. Again, need to find that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. At this point, there are no residences or businesses on the site. Therefore, there are no requirements for and for us to undertake relocation. Written notice of this public hearing was made to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the entire Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area on January 13th of 2017, which again is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. Statute requires that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the Plan Amendment. And tonight is that first public hearing. Statute also requires that two years must elapse before council consider can consider an amendment to the plan. If you previously failed to approve the Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project, same as with the BLOCK three project. This is the first consideration by Council of an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. Finding that the project is in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. We also took this plan amendment to Planning Board on January 18th, 2017, with the same result where Planning Board voted unanimously with one abstention, to find that the proposed amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. And a letter to that effect has again been submitted to you as part of this hearing. The Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the proposed amendment, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the same art scene at the new Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise. Again, the Denver Housing Authority will be the developer of the BLOCK Nine Project, and their mission includes the provision of affordable housing for special populations, including the elderly and the disabled. We must find that 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 the development within the Sloan's BLOCK nine project area for the period during which incremental taxes are paid to the authority. And again, the plan allows for such cooperative agreements to be put in place between the city and Duryea to address those additional infrastructure and services needs should they arise. And the Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other. Taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the plan and has in an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. So very similar to what we had discussed previously. There are as a result of bringing forward this amendment after the applicability of House Bill 1348, we now are required to enter into agreements with those three taxing entities. Those, again, are Denver Public Schools, urban drainage and flood control. And this out of South Sloan's Lake metropolitan districts. Again, we we have already negotiated an agreement with DPS, the school funding agreement, where we will be paying DPS in total $2.5 million over ten years from the property tax increment generated from blocks one, two and four. And again, they're scheduled. Annual payment will be made in priority above any repayment to block three or block nine. This is probably a good time to say that the remaining amount of the property tax increment coming from blocks one, two and four after we've made that annual schedule payment to DPS, is expected to be generally applied 5050 between BLOCK three and BLOCK nine. Our goal is to try to repay those obligations at or about the same time. Since there is no additional student impact contemplated from the BLOCK nine project, DPS was willing to accept the previously negotiated agreement as full satisfaction of the redevelopment impact from the St Anthony's Urban Redevelopment area, including that of BLOCK BLOCK nine. Similarly, we noticed urban drainage and flood control of the of the BLOCK nine project. And again they concluded that the BLOCK Nine Project would have minimal impact on their services and have determined that there should be no change in the way that the property tax increment from blocks one through seven would be addressed, even as we are using a portion of that for BLOCK Nine and similarly for the South Sloan's Metropolitan District, same agreement is in place that we have already agreed that any amount of incremental property taxes attributable to the R.M. Levy will be paid over to them upon receipt by URA. We are so pleased to work with the city and DHL on this on this exciting project. It isn't very often that we have a public public, public partnership in in the works here. That is exactly what we have with DHS being the developer, bringing forward the much needed affordable housing for this special population in this area, as well as being successful in bringing back a medical presence on this site following the departure of the of the the hospital. So, again, happy to answer any questions. I realized I went through that fairly quickly, but so much of it would have been a repeat of what I said previously. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you for the condensed report. Government can get something done. That's awesome. All right. We have two individuals this evening speaking, Cameron Bertrand and Ryan Tobin. Cameron, you're up first. Mr. Bertrand Excuse me. Hello again, everybody. Cameron Bertrand 1145. Gillard Street, Denver. Also here again, as the property owner, I would just echo what I said previously about everyone's help and seeing this come about. It's particularly nice in this instance where we're using tax increment to bring forward this level of affordability but also bring health care back to the state. I just echo what Tracy said. This is something that was set forward as a goal by Denver many, many years ago. And being here tonight is a is a nice feeling. I would I would add two things to this. One is I would think, Darrell, one more time for the Main Street coalition, which was an EPA grant that they got in Denver got and those funds were really instrumental in bringing about this project. On the early days, when it wasn't sure would happen. I think they have been unfailing partners in a complex, long conversation. And finally, something that you may not know, but the dormitory that was on this site previously was housed, the kids from the Yeshivah Haim Torah Jewish Boys School, and they've been in the neighborhood for 50 years this year. And this project enabled them to use the proceeds from the acquisition of that building to build a new dorm and recommit and stay in the neighborhood for another 50 years. So oftentimes projects like this can have a disrupting effect on the historic members of a community. And in this case were not only able to add almost 200 units of new affordable housing, but we were able to keep the folks who've been there recommitted to the neighborhood. So I think that's a nice add to this one. Thanks. And again, to the question. Yeah, thank you. Mr.. Ryan Tobin. Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan Tobin. 2515 Lawrence Street, Denver, Colorado. Here on behalf of Denver Housing Authority, as you heard, where the developer of this fun project. But as everybody has mentioned, these projects don't happen overnight. So we're very excited about narrowing in on actually closing and breaking ground on this, which will happen sometime in July. So we still have our work ahead of us, but this is the first big step for us to make our advancements forward in this program. And so we're happy to be here. Excited about the project and delivering that in the Sloan's development, because it's an amazing area for us to be a part of. We always look at having affordable housing solutions within the context of larger developments that are happening so that we do have that affordability that happens within these neighborhoods. And this is a special one where we're able to boast almost 20% of the total units that we'll be meeting that 60% and below EMI with our participation in this project. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Tobler. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? All right, Councilman Espinosa. I do have a question just because, Cameron, you touched on it, but it's probably it's really a question for all of you. And I don't know. I mean, I don't expect you to answer. You have the solution now, but there is a historic Orthodox Jewish family tradition. Do or or, you know, tradition of resonance in this area. And one concern with all of this new development in the size of the units to what Councilman Lopez was saying before, is that our new housing isn't doesn't captured the size of households that those Orthodox Jewish families are. And my concern is there is a 50 year history of the yeshiva there. Do you guys, through developers, do DHEA have the tools to do housing preservation for those sorts of family units and family sizes? You know, if you don't have the answer here today, I'm challenging you guys to be willing to sort of come back to my office with those ideas, because that's a conversation I've had with the Orthodox Jewish families in the community, along with the sort of historic Catholic families, the larger Catholic families in that community. And so as development is pushing for, you know, putting greater and greater pressure in there, it's it's not promoting those sort of households. And it becomes a real difficult equation for the development and subsidy teams. But I do I don't have those answers. And so I'm throwing it out there for you guys to consider, because I do want to see the issue there in 50 years to be thriving as well as it has for the last 50 things. Sorry, it's not really a question. Rhetorical. I guess the public here for Council Bill 57 is close, comes by the council because when as often as we can I'm so sorry I asked that question, but I didn't want to put it in my comments. But once again. Yes. This this was a I'm not going to deny this is a step above and beyond what I think. You know, ESG and company came in here a bit off, you know, bit off, you know, for this redevelopment to figure out how to capture additional development outside of your seven blocks and to then bring both health care, deep affordability for seniors, which there is a large senior population in this area. So once again, this is using all those resources that we have as a city, using the the skill set the master developer has to to sort of bring entities together and actually get the outcomes that really sort of, you know, help create can maintain the diversity of this neighborhood. So I, I just want once again, I want to commend you all for what you've done and the outreach that you've you've had and throughout this process. And so, again, Cameron, Ryan and Tracy, thank you, guys. Happy to say thank you because when. Espinosa Councilman Creech. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add my thank you to this team. This was a very long conversation. And I guess there's two milestones that I want to just note, which is one. Urban renewal projects in Denver had long included some affordable housing through the advocacy. A lot of this council, not by policy but by advocacy, including from Councilwoman Ortega and her first terms in council before these terms that she's serving now as well as other champions. But it was a newer tool to actually use it to finance entirely affordable projects in this way. And Mary Crest is an example of one of those up and also in Council District one. And I think this is another great example where there used to be this feeling there's just not enough increment created to fund an affordable housing piece. But you know, both with a little bit of flexibility in the in the state law and with these larger sites being able to bring an entire affordable housing project to bear as part of a mixed income community rather than just a few units as part of a building is a really long trajectory. And in a just, you know, for those who may be newer in council, I just want to note that this is a more recent phenomenon and it's a big deal because it brings you a much larger quantity of units. And that's what this that's what this vote tonight represents, is, is, is 176 units. You know, it's not 17 or, or a handful that we got in the inclusionary approach. So so I just wanted to note that and thanked her for the work that they've had to do to kind of get to this different model rather than , than thinking about these as how much increment is generated right here on this parcel. Right? So, so it took some creativity and flexibility and then to the development team, you know, Cameron this we talk about block nine as if it was a neat block just waiting to be purchased. Right. And that's of course not what occurred here. There were many parcels owned by different owners. And for some of us, we felt really strongly that this site would not be complete without more than what was on the seven blocks that you had. And we pushed you and we we we asked you to do more. And you did. You went out and and you saw the opportunity. And I think that I hope and I believe that you saw that we that this complemented the entire site. And so it wasn't just because council was asking and because the community was asking, but there was a value to having that Colfax piece completed and and bringing together the entire Colfax frontage. So so I think there is a win here for this entire community in terms of the wholeness that it has with this. There's certainly a win for the seniors and the disabled folks who will be seated here. And you once asked me, do you realize how much work this is? And let me just publicly say I acknowledge how very difficult this was to get to this day. And I appreciate the effort as I know the community does, because much of this, you know, is coming from the residents of the community who were seeing change. They were seeing gentrification, they were seeing displacement. And they wanted to see a significant outcome here. And this is one piece of that. We know that some of these residents will come from the north side and west side, you know, where there may be other redevelopment activities. So it will be a chance to keep some folks in a nearby community. And that is I just want it for our residents and our public who say, how are we doing things to help displacement. New housing can be a tool to fight displacement if you have a place to bring folks who may be getting redeveloped into a nearby neighborhood. And so that's that's what this project represents as well. So why don't you make sure that was on the record for our residents who are always asking that question and just to say thank you to the entire team as well as DHS and OED. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman do. Congratulations, community? This project is going to be great and special. We couldn't do without the partners, you know, with our door and the Denver Housing Authority. It is just unbelievable what our partners do for our city, you know, and especially Dura Joshi, you and your staff bring in that expertize and the support. I don't know how we would do without you. It's just fantastic. And the whole role that the Denver Housing Authority plays for our whole city, it's just, just very, very rewarding. And we appreciate everything that you're doing. Congratulations on this project. I'm looking forward to see all the affordable housing like councilwoman initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to seriously add my profound thanks to be able to sit through two public hearings without having to beg, connive, encourage. An affordable housing component is really a wonderful experience. I know it was difficult to put all the pieces together, but certainly addresses maybe the most profound crisis our city faces. I would echo what Councilman Espinosa and Lopez were talking about in the need for larger units. And I would encourage can I beg plead that you do what you can in that direction because it is important to preserve these communities. But for what you've done here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I think that begging, conniving and pleading happened to three years ago. Thank you, guys for how hard you guys have worked on this. It's exciting to see this project come to fruition and with that kind of secretary. Raquel Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. All right. New Ortega Sussman. Black Clark. Mr. President. I please close to voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council 57 has passed. Congratulations. All right. On Monday, March. Oh, yeah, that's right. We got a we got to do 58. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put the companion Bill 58 on the floor?

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Revising the City’s Sewer Service Charges. (Public Works 602)

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1613

66. E public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance revising the city's sewer service charge. Okay. Six E. Yo. And this is the staff's report. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Honorable Vice Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Aaron Smith from the Public Works Department. Tonight is a public hearing for a proposed sewer service charge increase of 3% annually for the next five years. I'd like to start with a little bit of history before getting into the specifics of tonight's hearing. Back in February of this year, Council adopted a resolution stating city's intent to revise the sewer service charge based on a report conducted by Bartle and Wells Associates. That rate study is an exhibit to the agenda item tonight. Please note that since February the report has been updated based on council feedback. The figure for which compares sewer service charges across the East Bay collection system agencies was updated to now more appropriately compare the proposed Alameda rates to the current city of Piedmont rate for parcel sized 5000 square feet or less. Otherwise, no other changes have been made to the report since February. Thank you. The sewer rate study was tasked with evaluating the sewer program's funding needs and revenue sources in light of the federal consent decree that we will operate under for the next 22 years. Based on the evaluation, the report recommends a drawing down the sewer fund reserves, which are currently higher than recommended levels and a phasing in of a 3% annual increase over over the next five years. This approach allows the city to maintain the recommended reserve levels, meet expenditure needs and avoid any steep rate increases for the duration of the consent decree. Procedures for amending the sewer service charged are contained in specific provisions of the California Constitution, more commonly spoke of as Proposition 218. So following Council's resolution in February, city staff mailed out a notice to property owners informing them of the proposed rate increase tonight's public hearing and protest procedures. That notice is also an exhibit to your agenda item this evening. 9 million protests have been received by the city clerk in advance of the hearing tonight. No written protests have been received this evening. State law requires council to hear and consider all public comments received this evening, but that only written protests are considered in determining a majority protest. Without a majority protest, a majority vote by council tonight can approve the proposed rate increases. The staff report before you tonight contains a typographical errors, saying that a 4/5 vote by council is required. That's not the case. Following tonight's. Speakers visit. Simple majority. A simple majority. Thank you. Yes. Following tonight's speakers, I will return to the podium to state on record whether the majority protest was received, thereby closing the public hearing. I am available for questions now and following any of our speakers this evening. Thank you. We have one. Speaker. Ra Alvarado. I lied. Ami the highlight of our meeting. We thought we'd let you go home earlier. God bless you. You don't know how happy I was when Mr. Otis suggested the move of the agenda item. Rob Righto. Park Street Business Association. You probably didn't think I was going to show up on this one tonight. And this is not so. Much a protest to the rate increase outlined in this. Publication sent out. What I'm here this evening is to convey a concern of many of my members and many property owners in the downtown area. And that concern is. The flow rates that are being provided to the city of Alameda by East Bay mud. Many of my members believe. That the data. That the city of Alameda is receiving is inaccurate. I have one member's for four years of. Property taxes here. It's a business who the owner believes that. Their water usage has been. Fairly consistent. Over those four. Years and their sewer service was 3120. 840 770 300. More than double in four years. And this business. Owner assures me that their water flow has not doubled in those four years. And they're very concerned about that. As I said, I'm not here. To protest. The rate increases. But what I am here this evening to do is to ask the council. To instruct your overworked staff. I'm sorry. To check into the. Methodology of how this water flow from East Bay mud is being conveyed to the city of Alameda. It's a very it's obviously a big concern. And as you can well imagine, when you're a business or property owner paying, you know, these kind of fees when they just there just doesn't seem to be. Any rhyme or reason. And the property owners and business owners would like some sort of documentation because they're not receiving any now of how the flow rates are being assessed. And is the methodology and is the way that they're determined, you know, in incorrect. One other item they wanted me to point out this evening, rightly so. Again, back to this publication. The property owners and business owners that I represent would have appreciated a chart that showed what the commercial rates. In various city. What was ah, excuse me. What they are. As opposed to. Just the residential rates. It's a minor point, but. Frankly we had the same problem with the garbage rates. Also, there was an emphasis on residential and not on commercial. Thank you. Thank you. He was our final speaker on that item first. So in conclusion, nine written protests have been received. Therefore, a majority protest has not been received. So again, I'm available for questions. If not, we can. Move over Ashcroft. Thank you, Mary Spencer. So, Miss Smith, nice job on your report and presentation, as always. Can you tell us. Is. I think when we talked about comparing commercial rates across other cities, the response was that that's difficult to do because the types of businesses vary so much. Is that do you know if that's all businesses? I don't know if it's necessarily types of businesses. We do volumetric is volumetric rates for our commercial accounts. Explain what that is for. So our residential rates are based. It's essentially a flat rate that's based upon an assumed water use. Residential is tend to be more homogenous in terms of their water use. So to avoid the administrative burden of monthly water usage rate and assessment of sewer fees, it's a very common practice among municipalities to do a flat rate for residential that's on an assumed amount of water usage. Commercial, on the other hand, is volumetric. So there's a flat charge for having the sewer service charge. And then for each 730 cubic feet above and beyond that, there's an additional charge. So we could compare. Land use type two, land use type to get a sense it would be very average, certainly not impossible to do. Thank you. I. And I was just going to add that. Yeah. Wrong one. Sorry. And the reason and just so the public I know we've all read our materials, which is the public understands why is it that our rates are going up? What are we what are we going to do with those increased rates? Sure. So we entered into a federal consent decree this September 2014 that codifies the requirements for our sewer program. Some of those are operational in nature, so we will be cleaning our sewers more routinely condition assessing our our sewers more routinely doing what we would call spot repairs, emergency type service requests more routinely. We also are prescribed an annual replacement rate of our sewers. We have aged lots of clay sewers that require renewal. Will we be doing about three miles per year of replacement? That's a defined cost. We also have 34 pump stations that are on the island, including the base, which is a different funding source that need to be updated and renovated to current standards. Thank you. Thank you. And a question to comment. We have a motion. To move introduction of the ordinance, revising the sewer service charges outlined in the report. Second, we'll let Mr. Desai. And Ken Staff follow up on the Speaker's comments. Well, thank you. All those in favor of. High. Emotion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now around 6060. Recommendation toward a contract in the amount of 7.9 million, including contingencies to Alton construction for construction of the Emergency Operation Center and Fire Station three and appropriate anticipated loan proceeds from II bank an appropriate 23 A and B tax allocation unspent bond proceeds.

Recommendation to adopt Resolution of Intention to amend the City’s contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to include a mandatory employee contribution of 3 percent of compensation earnable toward the City's required employer contribution to CalPERS (in addition to the 9 percent statutory employee contribution) pursuant to Government Code Section 20516(a), applicable to Long Beach Police Officers Association Classic Public Safety CalPERS Members; and

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1197

Item 51 is remaining. 5151 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt a resolution of intention to amend the city's contract with CalPERS to include a mandatory employee contribution of 3% of compensation earner bill towards the city's required employer. Contribution to CalPERS applicable to Long Beach Police Officers Association, Classic Public Safety CalPERS members and declare an ordinance to amend the city's contract with CalPERS. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading Citywide. And in motion. In a second, please. I don't have any public comment because the motion by Councilmember Austin and in a second, please. Send the. Second my customer. Your anger broke over. District one I, District two. I. District three i. District four. I. District five. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Sections 23.44.011, 23.44.014, 23.44.017, 23.44.020, 23.44.041, 23.45.545, 23.84A.002, 23.84A.032, 23.84A.038, and 23.86.007 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove barriers to the creation of attached and detached accessory dwelling units and add a floor area ratio requirement in certain single-family zones.

SeattleCityCouncil_07012019_CB 119544

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Three point The Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item three Constable 119 544 Relating to land use and zoning in many sections 23.40 4.0, 11.0, 14.0, 17.0. 20.0 41. 23.40 5.5 4520 3.80 48.002.0 32.0 38 and 23.80 6.007. CNN Ms.. Barcode to remove barriers to the creation of attached and detached accessory dwelling units and to add a floor area ratio requirement in certain single family zones. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you. And I know that there are amendments on this item. So if you want to make introductory comments and then take the amendments, great. Thank you. Helms President Yeah. So I'll make a few opening comments about this and then we can walk through maybe the amendments in order. First, I want to just give some highlights of what this legislation does do. The intent here is to make it easier for folks to build accessory dwelling units, whether those are attached or detached . The legislation is based on well over four years of work now and receiving community feedback on what people in our communities would like to see and what kind of flexibility they would like to have or what kind of barriers they see today. The main changes are going to happen. One is that currently the restrictions are that you can only build an 800 square foot backyard cottage. This would allow them to be 1000 square feet. We allow them to be 1 to 2 feet taller because we heard from a lot of folks that that second floor of living space is very difficult to make it a habitable space, but 1 to 2 extra feet of height would make a big difference. We'd eliminate the parking requirement. We hear that the expense and the necessity of building an off street parking spot for these units is a barrier, and it goes against some of our climate values also. Currently, there's a limit. You can either build a backyard cottage or an accessory an in-law unit. This legislation would allow you to build both. And finally, the current requirement there is an owner occupancy requirement, meaning the owner has to live on site, will be heard from community members was often that they plan to live on site but making the investment necessary to add an accessory unit. And then the fear that that something might happened in their life, whether they get transferred for a job or have to move out of town to take care of a family member, they'd be required to either leave their main house vacant or kick their tenant out and lose that rent. That uncertainty that made it really challenging for them to make the type of investment they were hoping to make. Those are the main changes and obviously some other ones there. In addition, we heard today in comment that it would place a far limit of floor area ratio, limit of 0.5 square feet per square foot, a lot with an absolute minimum minimum of 2500, whichever is greater between that and lot size. Couple of things this doesn't do. I just want to clarify because we heard in public comment, current city law in the single family zone, you're only allowed to cover 35% of the lot. The other 65% of the lot needs to be open. This does not change that at all. So if someone commented that we could cover 65% of the law, that's not accurate. 65% of what has to be open. There's no change to what's currently allowed in the single family zone. Similarly, this doesn't loosen three regulations. It adds a modest regulation about adding an additional three in certain cases, but it largely leaves the existing three regulations in place, recognizing, at least for me, that I think we need to do some work to have a better tree code, but to not address it specifically exclusively in this backyard cottage legislation, to rather address that comprehensively. And as we heard in public comment, there's a request in energy to hopefully get something done this year, which I would fully support. With that colleagues, I'll save other comments and others questions and walk through the amendments if it's okay with you. Council President Starting with the proposed amendment number one on the agenda. Would you like to move the amendment? Yeah. So why don't I. I'll go ahead and move amendment number one, which is a technical amendment and just a substitute for the legislation to clean up a lot of the language, but doesn't change any of the policy issues. Okay. Do you speak to it? Do you know it? Just to clean things up, fixes typos and other drafting errors identified by central staff. So I'd move to substitute version D six for D five, which is amendment number one. And I think you've. Got to got a second already. Any comments on the amendment? Those in favor of amendment number one. Please vote and raise your hand. I had. Those opposed. Vote no. Raise your hands. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. The Second Amendment is being proposed by Councilman Pacheco. So I defer to him to speak to this and make a. Motion. To reject. I am proposing this amendment to recognize that as we add more households and greater density to our single family neighborhoods, we should also be expanding opportunities for folks to get around by bike or other future mobility options in those areas. This amendment would incentivize building bike parking in dads by exempting up to 35 square feet of bike parking area from the maximum size of a dad to you. It would also request that start looking to opportunities for expanding bike public bike parking in single family zones, which I believe should be a priority as we add more density and as bike and scooter programs expand in our city. I hope I can count on your support for this amendment. We need a second for volume. It's been moved and seconded and introduced by Councilmember Pacheco. Any other comments? I'll just say, Councilman Pacheco, I really appreciate your work on this. To find a creative way to make this happen and your commitment to to not penalizing folks that are creating that extra space for alternative transportation modes. Thank you for your leadership on that. Any other comments? Those in favor of amendment number two, please vote and raise your hands. All right. Those opposed would know the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Number three, Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you are moving this. I am moving this. We've had a lot of discussion throughout this process, including a committee about the impact that short term rentals may have on on the use of accessory dwelling units in backyard cottages. We did a pretty extensive body of work around short term rentals about a year and a half ago when we put those regulations in place. Just to be clear, what those regulations allow is that individuals in the city of Seattle may use their primary residence as a short term rental. So if that's a single family home, they can either rent out a guest room in that single family home, or they can rent out the entire home while they're away on vacation or traveling or whatever that might be. And they could have a second unit to use an accessory as a sorry, as a short term rental. So that would allow someone, in addition to their primary home, to own a second unit. It could be a single family home. It could be a townhouse. It could be a condo. It could be an accessory unit. But they could just have their primary. Plus one other unit is what the limits are. I think that there is a possibility as we look forward and if we think short term rentals is more broadly is a challenge to our our housing needs. I would certainly be open to considering changing that, but at the moment, I don't think it's fair to limit what people can do in an accessory unit beyond what's already defined versus what people could do by owning single family homes, townhomes, row houses, the like. But I do think it's important to watch what happens. And we have language in the bill already that directs the Office of the Finance Administrative Services, which authorized short term rental use to monitor the license. And we also request sale department of construction inspections to work with that fact, identify other recommendations as appropriate to modify the legislation with this thing. With this amendment would do with ADD the language that basically sets the council's intent and says if this report would reveal that a significant number of accessory dwelling units are being used solely as short term rentals, the City Council intends to impose additional restrictions or a prohibition on short term rental use and accessory dwelling units. So I would go ahead and move amendment number three. Second. It's been moved and seconded and described by Councilmember O'Brien. Any other comments on this amendment that the members get it? Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Councilmember O'Brien for your leadership on this effort overall and especially for this amendment. I think that many of us share the desire that you've just articulated and one that we've heard from council are in these council chambers before, which is to make sure that we are meeting our goals of creating greater long term rental housing options in Seattle. And what is clear from the data is that speculation has not materialized. In fact, we've seen in other similar cities like Portland that the units that are being created as backyard cottages are detached dwelling units, accessory dwelling units are in fact predominantly being used for long term housing rentals and not short term housing rentals or or vacation rentals. So the first line from the Seattle Times editorial board said data and research ought to guide the city council as they consider policies that would would address housing. In fact, we are exactly doing that. We're using data to drive the policy solutions. The data shows from the report that was presented in your committee just a few weeks ago shows that overwhelmingly, two thirds of those who currently have a backyard cottage in Portland, for example, have lived in their homes in the primary residence or own their home as the primary residence for longer than five years. And if you count those who own or are live in the primary residence for greater than one years, 95% of people actually have that owner occupancy self-imposed because they've owned it for a longer than one year. And when you ask the question, how are these rental units being used? Who is occupying them? 74%. So three quarters of the individuals that are renting these units that have been created because of the allowance of backyard cottages are long term rentals and also to friends and family. The vast majority are being used for long term rentals and for friends and family. This is exactly what we want to do. We're using data driven solutions to get to our our desire to create greater stability for rental units and for greater affordability. So I'm very excited that you've put forward this legislation. I think that it's rooted in what we've heard from community over the last few years, frankly, about how we can create access and fewer restrictions to these rental units. And community partners believe that the language that you've already worked on from my conversations with folks is going to help us get there. Looking forward to looking at the data that comes in from our own city. But I think it's important that we underscore we are absolutely using data driven solutions here, and the data has shown that the speculation has not occurred. Thank you for putting forward this amendment. Those in favor of amendment number three. Please vote I and raise your hands. I. There are no opposed. So the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any other amendments? God forbid? Horrible. Thank you. So I move to amend Council Bill 11 9544 by amending Section five as shown in Amendment four. And I will pass this out. This was distributed via email, but it is not attached to both agendas. It was distributed this morning before noon per our council rules. 1159 I think that might be right. This is the same amendment that was discussed in the committee. I think I'll wait for hopefully I might get a second. Sustainability Transportation Committee. I do not support the amendment, but I'll give you a courtesy. Secondly, appreciate the courtesy. Second, thank. You. Yes. So this was this amendment was discussed in the Sustainability and Transportation Committee and it we had a vote on it. It was voted on 2 to 2, not passing. I had two amendments in that particular meeting. The First Amendment was to focus on my desire for us to really make sure that this strategy of accessory dwelling units is really being focused on rental housing. And so it was the intention of the amendment was to as as we voted on it was to really drastically limit the conversion of these units to short term rentals. The I'm not bringing that amendment forward again because I've taken a look at sort of what the numbers are as relates to the residential housing market. And the Puget Sound Stage 2016 report indicated that at that time in the city of Seattle, there are about 2800 short term rental whole units of about 357,000 residential housing units in the city. So that works out to be less than 1% and 7/10 of a percent. So if you take a look at what's anticipated under the EGIS for ADU development over the next ten years, the the estimate is about 4400 units per year. I'm sorry, over ten years or 440 units per year. That works out to be about 35 of the units becoming short term rentals. So I have been I've been reassured that my concerns about that, I think it's good to put them on hold until we have more information. So I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's amendment to study this issue. I am still concerned about the speculative market shifting to take advantage of these new regulations. And so the Second Amendment is one that is focused on trying to address a speculative market that will flip these units and in such a way that will have a displacement impact on on renters. So just for clarifications sake, this amendment would require one year ownership before permitting the second ADU. It is not a owner an owner occupancy requirement. It's not about whether or not renters make good, good neighbors at all. And it is not an additional year. So folks who who own a house and have done so for a year or more, which is the vast majority of homeowners in the city, could build to 80 use immediately. But what this this does is the study area showed that 80% of the study area for the new legislation was currently owner occupied and 20% of that study area was renter occupied. So it also fine found the EIA has found that there is a chance of of. Basically the properties being flipped and and that also aligned with the 20% number. So 20% of the use being built being built under these, again, speculative market conditions. And it's true that we don't know for sure about what's going to happen in this market, but we do know what's been happening in other cities. And there's no reason to believe that this isn't already happening here. We just haven't done an analysis of how has happened here. So Fortune magazine says single family home rentals have long been dominated by local entrepreneurs, mom and pop investors. And historically, when bigger fish such as head, foot, hedge funds and real estate investment trusts invested in real estate, historically, they focused on apartment buildings. But the historic housing crash of the 2000s changed the math. And over the past seven years, those investors have amassed a substantial portfolio, some 300,000 houses. And all these players include Imitation Home, a Reef that is the product of a merger of rental divisions of several investment firms, including Blackstone, Starwood Capital and Colony Capital, American Homes for Rent in Amherst. All of these landlords use automated house hunting to fuel their growth. The Wall Street Journal says big private equity firms, real estate speculators and others that buy properties can prize more than 11% of all home purchases in 2018. These investor purchases are the highest on record and nearly twice the levels before the 2008 housing crash. The New York Times writes Trends are being spurred by a fast growing industry that promotes an investment in single family homes, lenders who provide the capital, brokers who handle transactions, wholesalers who buy homes by the dozens and sell them before they even take possession. Finally, The Guardian writes that the UN's housing adviser has accused private equity firms and one of the world's largest corporate residential landlords, Blackstone Group, of exploiting tenants, wreaking havoc in communities and helping to fuel a new global housing crisis. Blackstone's business practices include massively inflating rents and imposing array of heavy fees and charges for ordinary repairs. So when you take this this 20% number, 20% of the the units that are currently renter occupied and you look at this that says that those are properties that that could be flipped and the renters displaced. I asked myself, how many families does that represent in a year? And again, using the the numbers in the egis of 440 new adus a year that could displace 80 families a year in our city. And so this amendment, again, we don't know what's necessarily going to happen in this housing market, and we can't prohibit speculative development . But the amendment would create a speed bump as a disincentive for speculative development, creating a more cautious approach in case, you know, the assumptions that we have about development are wrong. This would provide a small disincentive. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate the concern and the intent of this, although my concern and the reason I oppose this is what I see is actually happening with backyard cottages and accessory units, is that it is typically who are the folks we heard from today are our neighbors who want to build this. And if someone is to buy a, you know, a new house or if they if someone buys a house in a neighborhood and they're moving in and they're doing a remodel at that point before they move in and they want to add two units at that point, because that would be the logical time when they're under construction to do it. I think that is a good thing. And I want to be clear that the I'm not sheepish about folks having two accessory units on a lot. The point of this legislation is I hope that we see two accessory units on a lot of single family lots because I think that's going to be good for our neighborhoods, but allowed new opportunities for people who can't afford to live in some of these neighborhoods, to live in those neighborhoods. And it might help the homeowner, too. And I think the logic of doing that all at once, as opposed to saying, I'm going to come in and remodel the house or whatever and that accessory. And then I have to pause for a year until I can add the second one will significantly add costs and disruption. And I think that that is the reason not to do this, to allow it to move forward. May I ask a clarifying question? The scenario that you're describing, though, that is not the that is a scenario for somebody newly by buying a property, correct? Not for people who currently own their homes and want to. As a member. Any other council members want to speak? That's why Pacheco. So I voted against this amendment in committee and will be voting no again today. We are voting on this legislation because we need more to use in Seattle to provide more people with housing options. And I'm concerned that this amendment would make it more difficult and costly to build a second adu. I do share Councilmember Herbals of concern about speculation, but between the rise and trends in other cities have not found compelling evidence that any reform will cause speculation without data supporting that concern. I don't think now is the time to restrict any development. That said, this legislation does include regular reports of the Council on Area Development Trends. So I am voting no today if a future council wishes to address any potential challenges. They can do so at that time. I wanted to add a couple of comments to this before earning it. De Guzman memorable to close it out because it's our amendment. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbals efforts on making sure that we really speak up against speculation against corporate developers. I am really strongly supportive of all of those points, but I also would echo the point that Councilmember O'Brien made. And in addition to that, I will be voting no as well on this amendment. But in addition to that, also say that absolutely we have to be pushing back against the for profit market. But again, as other council members have said, the data is not only showing that speculation is much more is very rampant in the building of towers of luxury units and row houses. I have not seen any speculative edu bubble anywhere. And so I think that what we should be doing instead is passing this bill through and then also fighting for rent control and a massive expansion of social housing, which is high quality, publicly owned housing. Duncan Burble. Sure. Yeah. The only closing remarks I have is again, the this showed that at at most with an amendment like this, perhaps 80 units a year might not get built. We also know that 20% of the study area represents rent for households, 80 units approximately. So again, this is about preserving the housing for 88 families a year who rely on that rental housing and trying to make sure that those properties aren't flipped over to a speculative market. Think you guys were bold? Those in favor of amendment number four. Please vote and raise your hands. I. Those opposed. Please vote no and raise your hands. No, no. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any other? So I think we're done with the amendments, as far as I understand such comments. Yes. Yes, I was about to say that. Yes, please. Do you want to just close it out? Sure. I like I love to say a few words and let my colleagues make some comments and then if I can wrap up, if that's okay, I want to I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank folks here today. I know that we heard mixed comments today, as we have throughout the 3 to 4 year process. We've been working on this. And I know some people will feel like this is a win. Some will feel like it's a loss, some feel like it's mixed. But I think it's often asked. I often get asked, why did it take so many years to pass a piece of legislation that we're talking about, 4400 units, actually, like about 2400 units, additional units being built in the next ten years. And I think it's a fair question because there's a lot of work that people have done for a relatively modest shift in what we predict will happen in our neighborhoods. But I also think the reason folks have engaged at such a deep level is because there's a fundamental question about what are we going to do in our single family zones and what's appropriate. And I do think that that's why this has taken so long. That's why so many folks have been engaged. And I think it's been a really robust conversation and important conversation. It's an important conversation for Seattle to have. And frankly, it's a conversation that's happening in high cost communities around the country right now. And I believe that in a city where our single family zoning represents about three quarters of the residential zoning in the city of Seattle. And in a city that's been growing as fast as Seattle has, we've seen the population in our single family zones decline over years because there's really not capacity to add additional housing in the single family zones and because household sizes are continuing to shrink in our country and in our city. As a result, this big chunk of land that set aside for single family zoning is housing fewer and fewer people. And I think this is an opportunity to to to stem that trend, to allow additional units to allow smaller units that will be more affordable, as we've seen the evidence from other cities. And my colleague, Councilman ROSQUETA, pointed to so eloquently, these are often rented at or below market rate, often to friends, families and neighbors. And well, it is relatively modest. Modest both in terms that I don't think this is going to solve solve our housing crisis, nor do I think it's going to radically transform our neighborhoods. I do think it asks a big question of what are we going to do with our single family zones going forward and who gets access to those and who is locked out because of the pricing? There's a lot of comments we made. We don't know exactly how that's going to play out. We have a lot of evidence from what's happened in similar cities, and so I believe that that's probably what will happen here. But we will clearly be watching this closely as it moves forward. And I believe this is going to be an opportunity to invite so many more people into some of our most exclusive neighborhoods in a way that will really strengthen those neighborhoods, still make them more diverse from an economic, more diverse, racially, more richer, also not rich. And in terms of financial wealth rich, but in a rich of like richness of humanity. And those additional people will be supporting the businesses and make those businesses stronger. That means transit ridership will have be able to be served better by transit. And I think it will make our schools more mixed parks that are used. And I think it overall, it's a really beneficial thing for our community. I know that some folks are disappointed, some folks are thrilled by what I think will happen in a few minutes. But I really appreciate everyone's engagement on this and look forward for the conversation about our single family zone. So continue. I'd like to reserve a just a minute at the end, but I will step back and let my colleagues make some comments. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you so much for your words and your leadership on this. And I want to acknowledge the division that this particular legislation has had. The whole ADU complication and the discussions we have had over the last decade has been amazing to me, whether it's the owner occupancy rule or parking, whether or not we should deal with size of lots. And even among some of my favorite architects and designers, I have heard and received dozens of emails even this weekend and as early as 630 this morning, I'm still having debates with people about whether or not the legislation goes too far or doesn't go far enough. So I do recognize that there is a division and there is a concern about this. But frankly, I am a big fan of these ideas and to use in residential zones. I lived in a single family home for 20 years in Lake Forest Park. My husband and I now live in a condo downtown. But one of the things that was terrific about our place downtown is that we were able to move my father into a unit that was right next door to us. Now, had we had the single family home, we had looked at having a detached dwelling unit for him in Lake Forest Park. I think one of the most important things about expanding this legislation is that we can focus on the all ages and abilities part, and that's something I've been advocating for for years, making sure that seniors , if they chose, could stay in their house, have a place they could rent out, or the reverse, which is something that we're hearing, particularly in some of the larger homes. Our seniors would like to stay in their neighborhood. They have their community, they want to stay there. But it's easier for them to have a nice, detached auxiliary accessory dwelling unit or even one that is attached where their family can move into the home. We've seen that happen in some of the other cities such as Portland, Los Angeles, Austin, that are daddy friendly. We're going to be taking another step forward. And once again, people will be looking at how is this impacting us? How does it impact our neighborhoods? And I really respect the Third Amendment, Councilmember O'Brien, where we're going to be looking at what actually happens, allowing space and some grace that if we need to change this again next year, that we can. I'm also believe a real believer that allowing for flexibility in what these designs look like so that somebody who has a disability can build something that is going to accommodate him or herself. And I believe this is going to be a real opportunity for us. And with regard to the no onsite parking requirements, I'll tell you, that's one that I scratched my head over and struggled with, talked to a lot of people about, ultimately believe that not everybody in the city does have a car, wants to drive a car, and where these neighborhoods are going to accommodate it, there is transit, there's Lyft. There's other opportunities for people to get around. As one young woman said earlier that she uses her feet to get around. That's a good thing for all of us. So I concluded that I can live with this no parking requirement for now. Again, I'd like to see what kind of an impact that has on the neighborhoods and if it has a negative impact. I'd like to look at our opportunities once again and see what we we can do or should be doing with those. So just in short, I'm an advocate for the cottages, for the in-law suites. I want to acknowledge what Rex Holbein has done with the BLOCK Project. Someone brought this up earlier. I want to say thank you to the air. Those of you that have contacted me over the years and it hasn't just been for the last year, we all went to Portland in 2011. It was the first time I had seen what could be accomplished for a relatively, I think, financially frugal amount of money in people's backyards. I also want to acknowledge the fact that what we're trying to do here is not discriminate against renters. Everybody who spoke today acknowledged that as well. But the next step, I think, is financial innovation. What we can do, what options are available to encourage emergence, emerging loan projects, or more available financing options around capital for construction. And we will just see what we can do, I think, in the city. I'd love to see if we couldn't be a leader in that front. So just in sum, I believe that this is a change that is important, as Councilmember Moscovici said. Thank you. It is data driven. I was quite surprised when I read the editorial from The Seattle Times suggesting that we weren't thinking about that. But I'm really glad that we are embracing and welcoming people who want to live in our beautiful neighborhoods. And I'm glad that we can help move this forward. So I'll be voting. Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? I'll go next. If I may. Please do. Okay. Thank you. So this legislation obviously has been a long time in the making. I want to give a special thanks to Councilmember Mike O'Brien for all of the years of work that you have been doing on this particular piece of legislation. Thank you so much for your steadfast commitment and dedication to making sure that we have a path forward for additional housing choice. And I just want to acknowledge and recognize all of the countless number of hours and days and weeks you have spent on really championing this. So thank you so much for all of that. So I really you know, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that what we're doing here today is is really, at its core, a modest change to existing law and the code as it exists. It is not a massive zoning change, despite what you may be reading in some of the print media. And frankly, I think that that recycled and reused rhetoric, rhetoric does not make it true just because you keep saying it. So currently, we already allow single family homes, three units on each lot. This legislation will address barriers to construction for many homeowners who want to see natural density in their neighborhood and welcome more neighbors in the course of doing so. Some of the same rhetoric out there that have led many to believe that Adu and Adus and Triplexes are the same thing as Oh Adu and Daddy you construction will lead to a three story structure next door to a single family home is simply just not true, nor is it the reality. Well, they can have the same number of units to use in in dad, who's by definition are auxiliary to the single family home already on the lot as basement apartments or backyard cat cottages. And I don't believe there is such a thing as too much housing in a city that is growing as quickly as the city of Seattle. And this bill will help to bring more housing to every single neighborhood. My support for this legislation is about creating more housing choice for everyone. We have a lot of work to do to build the amount of housing Seattle in this region needs now and in the future. We need more permanent supportive housing. We need more deeply affordable housing. And we also need this kind of housing. ADU And to use our housing options that can be affordable as well, as well as fill some of that need for the missile missing middle housing more than any of these options. What I've heard from more than any of these options, what I've heard from constituents about it, using the Ada's as that, is that this will be their plan to be able to age in place and still stay in the city or how their kids, now or soon to be young adults can find an affordable place to stay in an increasingly expensive, competitive housing market. Adu and ADAS can mean multigenerational housing for families to stay close but still have space and independence. And I had an opportunity to attend some of the charrette in community that were led by the Department of Neighborhoods and heard this theme over and over again from people who were interested, not speculators, not developers, ordinary single family home owners who are looking for that tool that way to continue to be able to stay in their house while also welcoming more people into the neighborhood. And I think that that is the intent that is driving my vote in favor of this legislation. We have a housing shortage. This is felt by many residents of Seattle, particularly for renters and for households who have zero or limited options when it comes to housing. Just last week, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies joined the chorus of research and data. I said, research and data with their 2019 National State of Housing report adding to what we know about the state of housing in the Seattle area. One stark statistics show that the cost of land in King County has changed 86.4%, and housing construction overall has not kept pace with household growth in the last eight years. With expensive land costs, adding more ADAS and ADAS is one strategy to minimize land cost while building more housing on the footprint that currently exists. That same report showed that since 2011 there has been a 54% decline in housing units that are considered affordable units in this region. More and more households are becoming increasingly, increasingly cost burden, paying more of their income towards rent. We need more housing and we need more housing choice. For me, as a policymaker, I will not leave any policy tool off the table that will help bring more housing units to our growing city. This also means I will work with my current and future colleagues to identify ways to make this. A reality and accessible for every homeowner and neighborhood. In Seattle, for example, as Councilmember Bagshaw already referenced, there's exciting work being done in place in other places to help us in this space. In Portland, Oregon, for example, there are non-bank community lenders like Craft three that help homeowners finance ADU Construction. Our Office of Housing has an attitude Adu financing pilot for low income homeowners as well. So I would like to continue to develop those those creative financing options and also work with our state legislators, along with my colleagues on council, to have more of these tools available for Seattle homeowners to be able to access a financing, to be able to bring their Adu and Dadu plans to a reality. I also wanted to take an opportunity to to share a constituent perspective that I received over the many several last weeks that we've all been getting inundated with emails. And and I think this is important because there have been some comments during public testimony that somehow, as nine elected officials up on this dias who represent the city, that we have our heads stuck in the sand or that we don't quite get what's happening in the city. I, I take great pride in reading the emails that I received from constituents, and I also take great pride in just having conversations with my neighbors and moving about the city like an ordinary person would do, and engaging with folks about about their stories. And there's one constituent who shared a personal story with me in response to a newsletter that I recently sent out on this particular issue. And she shared with me that she had been a resident since 1959. And she has also seen how Seattle has changed over the decades to become an increasingly complex urban environment. But she also is the owner of a mother in law apartment in her home, as well as the owner of a short term rental. She tells of told me that without the income from these two units that she rents below market rate, but she's chosen to rent below market rate. She wouldn't be able to keep her home and she would no longer live in the city of Seattle. She shared with me that she feels a sense of security from having people come and go living their lives and looking out for each other along the way. Having an edu and short term rental to her humanizes the city. The diversity this has brought into her neighborhood and life is good for anyone. That is her belief. And she encouraged me today to take a bold step and vote in favor of this legislation, and I couldn't agree more with her sentiment. So today I will be voting in support of this legislation. And I want to again thank Councilmember O'Brien for years of dedication and seeing this code change through. Your leadership on this issue will help to eliminate some of these barriers to bring more ideas and ideas to every Seattle neighborhood. Thank you. So it doesn't almost get him. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I'm really excited about today. I'm really excited to applaud Councilmember O'Brien and your entire staff. I see current and former staff back there. I know you've been working on this for a number of years. My staff has helped us get over the final finish line with your office, and I just can't thank you enough for your leadership on this effort. So thank you for shepherding this forward. Over the last four years, this is a really exciting day for us to put forward a piece of legislation and I think vote on it that includes the right balance to make sure that there is access to more housing options around the city and to make sure that we're mitigating against the speculation in the market that we've heard so much about and that we're concerned about, but doesn't seem to be playing out in other cities. We're also figuring out how to set the foundation for future rezoning to correct past historic wrongs. And this is one important key piece of the puzzle as we try to address the housing crisis across the city. And there's a few issues that have come up. And I want to thank the folks from the air who were here, the architects who have also raised some of the issues that we've heard from some of the people who are concerned about this legislation not going far enough regarding permitting. And we did see some of that as well in the Seattle Times editorial piece, and I'm going to address that. I think that we do have a lot to do to help improve permitting. That is something that we can do and also pass this legislation today. We are also concerned about some of the fees that we've heard about that our friends at the King County Council are also trying to address. Some folks have talked about a $10,000 hook up fee for sewer that could be too costly for many people. And we're working in partnership. And I just got great news that the King County Council is taking this issue up in the third quarter of 2019. These real issues that she brought to us are things that we've heard and we can address by working together. But we have got to pass this legislation today. So I'm going to commit to you to continue to work on this because I'm not lame and I'm really excited about action and I'm really excited about the foundation. I'm going to use that pun intended that is being set here in this legislation for future rezoning. Until 65 days ago, I was a renter and have been a renter my entire time in Seattle. I in that time that I was a renter and for example, in Queen Anne, when I lived at 10th and Olympic, had the chance to hold the door open for my neighbor who was leaving that day to go get married . I had the chance to go visit my other neighbor who was in the hospital because he's a World War Two vet and was in home care and had just had surgery. I had the chance to hear from my husband about how he literally carried home our elderly neighbor, because she fell while walking her dog and carried her home to her house. We've walked our our neighbors dogs. We've been there to take care of our friends as as if they were family. Renters are good. And not only are they good, Seattle is already a rental city because 52% of our residents who make up Seattle, they are residents, they are renters, and they absolutely need more options around the city. So I'm excited about putting forward with you our leadership, the opportunity for more people to be able to afford to live in this city. Accessing the limited rental units that we have has continued to shrink over and over the years as we've seen a 20% increase in the population size in just the last 6 to 8 years. And as that population has increased, we have not been able to address the housing crisis that's in front of us, mostly because of litigation and delays. And today we're responding to that need that we see in our community for more affordable rental units, to address the increase in population and to address the fact that we need more folks to be able to afford to live in the city. And hopefully creating an accessory dwelling unit, a detached dwelling unit in their backyard helps more people also stay in place, agent place, and not be pushed out of the city. I think that this bill that you have in front of us helps to address the acute housing shortage that, frankly, has been exacerbated by an influx of the increased population. But the reason that it's exacerbated is we already had an insufficient housing supply that was rooted in exclusionary housing and zoning issues, that was rooted in redlining and racist policies of the past. And as we take bit by bit to address the policy changes that are needed. Again, we know that there's no one single policy solution, but we have got to have the political courage to pass the public policy to undo past wrongs and past public policy that left so many out of our city . I'm really excited also that this legislation helps us create the ability for to get away from the owner occupancy requirements. I'm going to also flag that one day. I think we should change the size requirement so that maybe more people can afford to own that parcel and we can have smaller lot requirements so that more people could potentially have the ability for first time homebuyer options like I just had. I want to just the second thing that has come up, I think repeatedly over the last few weeks, you know, many of us sat up here just last week and we all signed a commitment to address the climate. Crisis. We all signed a commitment to address the Green New Deal, and as we put forward our solutions around it, we have got to recognize that the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions and pollutions is car emissions, and we are now the third largest mega commuter city in the entire country. Part of the reason that people are having to commute for such long distances is because we haven't created that affordable housing. So this is exactly how we live our values as a green city. This is exactly what we should be doing to address the impacts of environmental encroachment that is created by sprawl when we are not creating the ability for folks to build in our city. This is how we move forward with our commitment to, in part, address the Green New Deal that's so needed. So I'm really excited because the housing that we're now permitting will allow people to live near their schools, live closer to grocery stores, live closer to health centers. And this, coupled with additional housing and zoning changes and our commitments to bike lanes and scooters, legalizing scooters and more busses and more dedicated bike dedicated bus lanes, I think, helps to address the public health crisis that's been created by not having sufficient housing in our city. Again, this is an intersection of climate, public health and affordability goals. And I'm really excited because we know that also when we when we create smaller dwelling units, we can reduce our carbon footprint because they're more efficient and they consume half as much energy as these larger units. And I'll just wrap up by saying, you know, the other environmental component of this is we're protecting the land that is potentially getting encroached upon by sprawl like forests and parks and farms and wildlife habitat. That's the land we should be protecting, not past policies that have excluded folks from living in the city. And I do think that we have an opportunity in combination with the language that you have helped to champion with mandatory housing affordability that allowed for greener setbacks and tree protections and make this language that we've put in front of us today. Thank you for including my amendment a few weeks ago that allowed for rooftops to be created so people can have gardens and rooftop spaces as we think about denser living situations. I know that having access to a rooftop and allowing people to get some sunlight is really important. Allowing them to build or to grow in their own garden and things like that will be really beneficial. Add to the city. And thank you for helping to address the FAA requirements needed so that more people could have rooftops. I want to thank my friend Sam, who let me come over to his dad, who recently had a two bedroom tattoo in District five. And we had the chance to see how that the mother of the family that lived there was able to live near her kiddos, care for her grandkids, and to not have to commute 2 hours to come see them in there helping to care for the family. This is about intergenerational commitments to create additional affordable housing throughout the city, helping more people stay in the city. And my hope is that we do more to address the the need for us to build on this. The headline from Sightline a few weeks ago said, A duplex, a triplex and a four plex can cut a single block's carbon emission by 20%. So today is a good first start. Really excited to work with you on the next efforts as this full council continues to address the housing crisis throughout this year. Let's hope. Councilmember Herbold was next and then Councilmember Pacheco. Okay. Good. Thank you. So, as I mentioned before, I definitely support the ability of existing owners to build two new units on their lot. But the EIA shows that it's more profitable under this ordinance to sell one's property than to build. And so a new owner, whether or not it's an investor or a resident who buys with the intention of immediately purchasing a property and immediately building to add to use as soon as they do so, as soon as they buy, the primary unit is likely to do so and displace that existing right to a family. I'm a little bit at a loss. Why we would not discourage this from occurring, all for the sake of maintaining the profit motive for a new owner to purchase property, displace a rental tenant. I just think that the amendment I offered earlier is a really useful safeguard. But nevertheless, I do strongly support this legislation and I just want to say a few words to the folks who too I hear with concerns that I mean, the rhetoric is that ideas are going to destroy their neighborhoods. And, you know, we've we've thrown around this 4400 over ten years number a bit. That works out to be 440 units a year over the study area, which is 35,000 acres. And if you convert that to that, that is one Adu. A year over 80 acres, which works out to be about one A.U. for every 30 to 50 square blocks in the city. So I just think it's really out of out of perspective to suggest that this legislation is going to destroy single family neighborhoods. And, you know, I support the. Overall goals. Of the legislation to increase opportunities and flexibility for both renters and existing homeowners. And I'm excited about being able to do more so that these units that are being built are actually affordable, both by reducing the permitting costs, the design costs, the construction costs, as well as further development of the Office of Housing's pilot program to support the development of affordable rental. So for those reasons, I will be voting in favor of the legislation. Thank you. PACHECO So in September 2014, Councilmember O'Brien and the City Council adopted Resolution 31547. That's almost five years ago. And as my mother would always tell me, keep trying for five years on anything. She had a word for me, which was terrible. So thank you for just your willingness and your your willingness and your desire to keep going on this legislation over those five years because we are finally at a vote today. So when I first moved to Seattle a decade ago to attend grad school, you know, I first I found my first place to call home in a backyard cottage in Wedgewood, and I literally lived in another Adu in Wallingford. Without these ideas, I don't know if I would have been found an affordable place to live and if I would be calling Seattle home today. I'm excited that we have the opportunity to make sure that more people have the housing options that allowed me to make Seattle home. As someone who has watched my own parents struggle to stay in their own home, I also see this legislation as a valuable tool for homeowners who are struggling to hang on or who want to age in place, or who are watching their family and community members be pushed out of the city. The amendments that were offered in committee, well, allow us allow us to really continue to make this legislation better by having unpermitted ADAS come into compliance with reports back to the Council on the ADU Loan Pilot and reports back on demographics and rents charge for its use. Lastly, this conversation surrounding density. As this conversation surrounding density continues, I encourage folks not to demonize one another. I've heard today and during my office hours within the district that renters don't care about their neighborhoods. Surrender myself. I show up every day to work with a desire to make my community better. Let me be clear. We're all neighbors, and it's time that we show each other the respect that we each deserve. As our city grows, we should grow together and grow equitably. This legislation help us, just helps us do just that. And I'm proud to vote in support of this. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot to mention Ali Pantucci. Thank you. Thank you so much for all your good work on that. Suzie and Lakisha as well. Really appreciate all of the work that you have done. And when the question about the trees came up, I forgot to mention that the Urban Forestry Commission and I are working with the mayor's office to look for a work plan that we can lay out and make really clear what we're doing, how we're preserving and protecting the trees. And once again, Ali, potentially you'll be helping us work on that. So many thanks. Sure. I wanted to make a few comments myself, and then I handed over to Councilmember O'Brien to close it out before we take the vote. I am strongly in favor of this legislation and I will be voting yes. And I thank all the activists and community organizations that have advocated for this, not just this year, but for several years. And I do agree with many who have said that they should. This was a long time coming and it should have been done a long time ago, especially given the acute housing crisis that we're facing. I also think it is really bad for anybody to make any any create any context where there is negative rhetoric against renters. Renters are not only about half of our city. Renters are now more and more of the residents of metropolitan areas. Most working class and middle class people don't of cannot afford to buy homes and they are forced to rent. And there is nothing wrong with renting. It is, you know, regardless of whether you have ownership of your property or not, you are residents of the neighborhood. In fact, I would extend that even further and say that even if you are homeless, you are community members and it doesn't matter. And you not only have every right to your community and to your neighborhood and to your city, but nobody should question your commitment to society. In fact, if anybody's commitment should be questioned, it should be the for profit corporate developers and the property management corporations who are enriching themselves beyond belief at the expense of the renters in our city. I also wanted to add that, you know, again, I appreciate it. Councilmember O'Brien's sort of putting it in perspective and also Councilmember Herbold. I think this bill has been greatly exaggerated by its detractors right now, as the Urbanists article from October last year mentions, only 1% of single family lots in Seattle have an idea or did you? So I don't think this is in any way going to. To paraphrase what councilmember horrible said, destroy single family neighborhoods. I also think it is important to note, as Councilmember O'Brien did, and I appreciate that, that the bill's promoters have also greatly exaggerated the bill in terms of the effect it will have for affordable housing. I absolutely support it will have some positive effect, there is no question about it. And I support every single affordable home that we can generate through a, you know, series of comprehensive policies. But we should also have it in perspective that it is not going to address the housing crisis in the way that we want to address the housing crisis. And so we do need to get to work on far bigger public policies than than this one, although I strongly support this one and we need to go forward on this one. I also wanted to thank the working class and middle class homeowners like Ruby Holland, who is an African-American homeowner in District three, who have advocated for this bill as well, making the important point that for the homeowners who are able to build and a backyard cottage, it could potentially be a very urgently needed source of income, especially people who are hit with large health care costs and also the higher property taxes, because this the city does not have does not really have any progressive taxes. So I really appreciate the homeowners who have joined the renters in advocating for this bill. And it's a really good, positive example where homeowners and renters can come together and fight together for some of our affordable housing policies. I also wanted to reiterate a point that we've made repeatedly in Councilmember O'Brien's committee, which is that the the data also shows that the homeowners who can afford to build backyard cottages are the more well-off homeowners and the homeowners who need to build, you know, in order to get a source of income and rented out as affordable housing often cannot afford to build it. And so I do want to keep alive the question of how we will provide public sources of funds for the homeowners who want to build a backyard cottage but cannot afford to raise the capital expenses that they will need to in order to make that happen. I also wanted to add one other thing that again, from the Urbanist article in October of last year, where they report that in contrast to what we have in Seattle, in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has been a pioneer in ideal land use code liberalization, roughly 35% of single family, lots of ideas which they referred to as laneway housing, resulting in about 25,380 use and 1050 do use across the city. I think Vancouver, B.C., has led on this, and I think it should be our goal to really move forward in a big way in Seattle as well, because we have, you know, they are their sister cities in many different ways in terms of what the problems, the density and all of that. So I think that does provide a good guidance for us. Last but not least, I will say I hope all the activists and the community organizations who have been fighting for this correctly, but also join us in the struggle for much more far reaching public policies and not only join us in Seattle, but join the movement in New York, which are just one major historic victories. By forcing the New York state legislature to pass not only a closing of the loopholes on the rent control, existing rent control legislation in the city, in New York City, but also enabling a whole host of tenants rights to be passed and also enabling other municipalities in the state, in New York state to pass rent control. Because we have seen that when rent control does not have corporate loopholes, it has provided a lifeline to many people. In fact, I just met a constituent recently who said that her son and his wife used to live in the Bay Area. They lived in a rent controlled home as particularly at a time when they were young, when they had a young family and they needed rent control. And rent control enabled them to actually save up even on their middle class salaries, and they were able to come and buy a house here. So, you know, in reality, homeowners and renters have a joint incentive to fight for rent control together. And I really urge everybody who's watching this to join us at the rent control rally on July 20th, at 6 p.m. at the All Pilgrims Christian Church on Broadway. And I will now hand it over to Councilmember O'Brien. And I just wanted to point out, actually, that. The the petition for rent control with both my staff and many, many volunteers who are now volunteering with us, have gone throughout the city in different farmer's market, including Lake City Farmers Market and soldiers at the are all the three days of pride and we have collected 7500 signatures, which is a huge amount, especially given all the negative mythology about rent control. So I really urge everybody who's not joined the struggle yet to please join it with us. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, thank you so much again for your work on this. I appreciate the kind words you shared with me personally. You know better than anyone else that the work I do is a mere fraction of the actual work that's done, and I get a lot of credit for that. But we bounce around from from topic to topic and the staff behind us that support us make this possible. So I want to say thank some of those folks. I want to start with a couple of volunteers that are here. I know Laura and Matt, for example, who have been dedicating a lot of your unpaid time to making this work. So thank you. You know, you're your advocates and your voice matters, but you've been really good at helping me connect with community members and really understand what the need is in community. And I'm grateful for that. Allie, I want to thank you so much for your years of work on this, not just in the typical role as a central staff member, but spending multiple hours on the stand during the hearing examiner examination and all sorts of other roles. You're an amazing resource for the city. You've been an amazing resource for me on this particular piece of legislation. I'm very grateful to that. I want to thank Nick and the mayor, as you've worked for your work, has been your work has been amazing. And I'm really grateful to this mayor and past mayors who've allowed the city council to have access to your expertize and your team's expertize. Going back to the very first kind of community meetings when I first met you doing this over three years ago. You're just thoughtful. Approach has been really, really helpful to the guiding US policy along the way, and I really applaud your work for that, and we can all applaud Nick. As has been mentioned, this process has taken quite some time, both the long process during which babies have been born, including a baby that's in the back today . So I want to thank my staff member, Susie, who has been working on this tirelessly for years. She's currently on parental leave. But Ezra's at, I believe, his first city council meeting today. So we gave we've got time for her to be here. And then in the very near term, we've taken enough time today, council colleagues, and we have managed to put Ezra to sleep. So that's also one of our strength up here. So way to go. But Susie, thanks for your work on that and and Susie's absence. Alisha, in my office has been the lead picking up this work. We've gone long enough that Alicia probably had to go to the meeting that I was supposed to be at 20 minutes ago. But I'm really grateful for her. HAYLEY So there you are. You're back. Thank you so much for you. My whole team has been a part of all this police. I really appreciate your leadership on this. That is all I have to say, colleagues. There's so many amazing folks throughout the community that have worked on this in other departments elsewhere. But it's a team effort here. And, you know, I look forward to this vote. We'll see how it goes. Thank you. Got some heavy rain. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended. Make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold I was just getting high. O'Brien Hi. Pacheco Hi, President Swan. I didn't favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I. I know I've overlooked a few folks, but I'm looking at Sherry right now and I apologize. I didn't mention to you with the likes of Matt Lauer, have you been an amazing point person to work with? So thank you for all that. Thank you, everyone. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.

A proclamation honoring Antonio (Tony) Lopez for his service to the Denver Police Department and contributions in District 6.

DenverCityCouncil_08082016_16-0590

to solve a problem. I know we've been at many, many community meetings. I can remember one Saturday morning we were at a Wieden seed meeting in the Baker neighborhood. The city was successful in securing a HUD building. It was a home on on the block that we had one of the key gang members that lived on. And we were having a meeting, a weeding seed meeting in this house and down the street where this gang member lived. We heard these gunshots and the officers ran down the street. They ran out, told everybody to duck and cover. And I don't even remember if you guys caught the bad guys. But, you know, these are the kinds of responses and incidents that I think all of our officers deal with on a day in and day out basis. And yes, we have been challenged with police community relations. But I got to tell you that we didn't see a program. Made all the difference in the world, in our police community relations. And I think these are the kinds of programs that, you know, if we could get back to having some resources to be able to to have the kind of programs that allow us to have that direct interface very similar to what the Weed and Seed program did. That was the first steps of community policing in the city of Denver under the leadership of Jerry Whitman. And Jerry did that program so well with all of the officers who who worked with a number of neighborhoods across the city where we had some serious gang warfare in the in the early nineties, so much so that they called it the summer of violence. It's when we created the. The curfew program that still exists today to make sure that young people, when they're out past curfew, there's a place for them to go to make sure that they're safe and that we don't have, you know, the kind of activity that occurred back then. And these are all programs that Commander Lopez has been involved in, in one way or another. And I just I just can't thank you enough for the work you have done. And I just have to say to Commander Sutter, you have some big shoes to fill. I know you have been around the city a long time and you have done an outstanding job as well. But everybody in this district knew Commander Lopez, and I know that you will get to know them as well. I know we have a meeting in downtown in a couple of weeks with some of the neighborhood groups concerned about some of the violence on the 16th Street Mall. But I know you two have been friends for a long time and Tony's probably filled you in and all the details of what's going on. But I wish you luck in your new position. And Tony, same with you as you go out to dinner. Thank you for your service. And I want to thank your family for the sacrifices that you all have made for him to be able to serve our community as well as he has done. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. Commander Lopez, we have a good history together. And you have served this district very well, but. You've served this city very well. You know, you've. And this time we see you as a commander. For the longest time, I've always known you as Lieutenant Lopez. Right. And out in District one. And the first time. So for those of you who don't know, I well, I talk about this all the time of being a native . But I grew up I was born and raised in Denver, born and raised in the West Side. I was born in a in an era where you couldn't wear a color like this tie or a shirt like this blue. And if you did, you you'd nearly get killed. You had threats on you just for doing it. I couldn't even wear a Broncos shirt walking around Westwood because it was blue and you couldn't be walking around Westwood wearing blue. I learned my lesson the hard way on that one. I got beat up pretty badly and there was that. That was pretty rampant in the early nineties. There was a lot of fear. So the Weed and Seed program was a very effective program. It was one of those programs that you really invested in to really try to figure out how we would be able to create this this community right where where there's less violence affecting our young people. But the one thing it relied heavily on was police involvement and a trust between community and police. And during that time that was pretty rough as well to. And I've made it well-known that I was growing up as a kid. I didn't trust anybody in a uniform, especially a police uniform, for a lot of different reasons. There was a lot of discourtesy back in the day. There was, you know, you just growing up in the West Side, you didn't have that good relationship. Right. But then along comes a person like Tony Lopez and Commander Quinonez. Who get it. And. I first met Commander Lopez when I was organizing with the Janitors Union. And we would go and shut down a street. You know, get arrested. And, you know, first thing I thought there, all these guys are going to drag us. They're going to, you know. No, no, no, no. I'm just going to give you an order, plain and simple. And there it was. But he we always were in communication. Any time we had a protest or an action. And some of you in this room remember this. You know, we the first person to say, hey, we just want to make sure everything goes well. I want to make sure that the folks are peaceful and I make sure you guys don't get hit by cars. We'll help you. Really? Yeah. But what if it's. Critical of you all? We'll still help you. Right. It's your freedom of expression. It's your free speech. And we're here to protect those rights. Right. And in 2006, I had the task of organizing, along with a couple of other people, the largest march in this state's history. 100,000 people we had. The first one was about 75,000. The second one was about 100,000 and 2006. And my first. And that was a huge amount of people that we could not really fathom or to think about. I mean, how do we keep a violent act from happening? How do we protect the protesters? Are not protesters, but the folks that were rallying for immigration reform. How do we do this in a safe way in the first two people to come to the table? Or Lieutenant Lopez and Commander Quinonez. And they say we will do everything possible to make sure that this goes peacefully to help you, help you know, help you get your point across in a peaceful way and without having to because we had threats of the Minuteman coming and, you know, they antagonized people. They spat at people they, you know, did all kinds of stuff to really antagonize and really try to. Not one incident took place that whole day. And you know what? In a community, when there was an issue, you would call your district one officer, your commander, your lieutenant. And there is front and center was Commander Lopez. That's community policing. Always treated. You and always treats you. With a level of courtesy. It's really high disrespect and dignity, no matter if you're a council person or if you're a person on the street or somebody in the back of a squad car. Always treated you with respect. And he emulates a lot of what our officers are today. And that's the exact training they go through and to have that kind of a leader to look up to. That's your standard is a is a is a Tony Lopez. That's a heck of a standard. That's a very high bar to strive to be. And I could say that, you know, you know, having developed into those days from a young man to doing the activist stuff that even now, nine years into it as a city councilman, working with you, working with the department has has been a great pleasure. And I, I know this is not you. This is not a bye bye. You're just continuing to a different assignment. And here's the thing. You have the respect of the city and the community behind you and so many. This man is in District six, I think Robert Chief Robert White gave you a very good assignment, a very tough one, one of the hardest ones in the city. And you've done it well. But may I say this in Spanish, we have a saying not quite as bad or not, but a sad look and not quite as bad. You can't be, which you can't see. And just a moment ago, my nine year old daughter was here. She has this cute little name badge that you made for her as a last name on it. Her name is Lopez. My name's Lopez, right? She walks up to Commander Lopez and went right for his name badge. Your name's Lopez, too. And the look on his face. Yeah. My name's Lopez, too. Well, there's a lot of little Lopez's out there. Not mine, but just one that I. That Tony's other Lopez. But there's a lot of them. And you know what they see? They see you. And they see what they can be. Right. And that is super important. And now I'm proud, too. I'm proud of our department because they have a Lieutenant Lopez, they have a Chief Quinonez, and they have Chief Robert White, who's the first African-American chief of this department. And if there is no other time where you can't be what you can't see, this is it. These kids, these young people, this community can now see you in a lot of salutations around the world. It's not just hello or hi. It's. I see you. And they see you. So thank you for being something that they can see. I appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Very brief your remarks. Thank you for your service. Congratulations. Wish you good luck. But I also want to thank all the officers who are here. Thank you for your service. And thank all of you who spent ten days attending neighborhood picnics all around the city. All of us went to a lot of picnics and many of you were there. And the people and the community appreciated it so, so much as did all of us. So thank you for coming, and thank you for your service. Thank you, Councilwoman Gummer. Thank you, President. Commander Lopez. I have not had the pleasure of working with you very closely, but I look forward to that changing with your new assignment at Denver International Airport. But I have to convey a much thanks to you. You know, your house, your name is spoken with reverence in my house. If there is a phone call or something happening downtown and Commander Lopez was on the phone. Somebody was going out the front door to have a conversation that I knew was very serious. And so, you know, you're very respected as far as your work. And I just look forward to building a relationship with you and a DIA before you go and play on your retirement. So thank you for your service. Thank you, President. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hurd. Thank you, Mr. President. Commander, I just want to say, you know, the adage rings true. Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care. And there's never been a question how much you have cared for the community that you serve and the officers that have served with you and that has served you well over your illustrious career. The airport is in good hands, well done. And as someone that has worn a uniform, I know it is not just the individual that wears the uniform the family does as well. And so that's figuratively and actually literally in your case, too, with your son. And so to the family, I want to say thank you, because he could not be the successful man that he is without your support. So thank you as well for for being a part of this journey with him, because he would not be the excellent man that he is without you as well. So thank you. And congratulations to you, too. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Good. I'm glad Chief White is here. Did you hear that whole track record? Why you're not allowed to make this decision? Come on. I'm just. Just. I wanted to take my opportunity from the constituents of District one to thank you for your years of service and commitment to this community. I really appreciate it. And I'm glad we get to continue seeing you out there at the airport. Thanks. Thanks, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I can't say it any better than my colleagues have, but I just wanted to make sure to add my thank you for your service and your sacrifice to you and to your family for everything that you've done for our great city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call. Mr. President. I. Black I. Clerk i. Espinosa, i. Flynn, i. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman I. Can. Lopez I. Ortega. Absolutely. Assessment I. Police Kosovo to announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes. Proclamation 590 has been adopted. All right. I'd like to invite Chief White to dance now in. Just over. I want to see that, please. And then Commander Lopez, please come. First, let me say this. Let's keep that dance little thing between you and I. And congratulations, Mr. President. And I'm so glad to see you. And I know that you have a good appreciation about the miracle of prayer. Yeah. Thanks, Tony. And I, too, will be brief, because I know it's important to get about the business of the council I have made. I first want to acknowledge what the president I'm sorry, former President Herndon has stated. None of this would be possible for Tony. And I don't think I have to speak for him, but I'm going to if it hadn't been for the support of his family. So I would ask that all the members of the Lopez family please stand so we can acknowledge you. And I'm going to actually pass to Mike to Tony. But I will say this. I mean, obviously, I think everyone knows that doing my short time here, I've made a lot of changes. Some of them are certainly been questionable in the minds of some. Some have been really good, some of it very good, and very few have been great. And one of the few great changes that I did not make was retaining Tony Lopez and keeping him in District six. Tony, on behalf of all the members who wear this uniform and maybe more importantly, the members of this community, I cannot thank you enough for the dedication and the tireless effort that you have made in the six years that you've been the commander of District six. And Tony is not retiring yet, but Tony is close to retirement, and it was critical that we transition someone in to replace him. I'm going to be honest with you, that was not an easy task, but I think we found the right man in Ron Sonya. So Tony's going to spend his last. According to Tony, he's counting his last one year, 11 month and three. Days at the airport. But doing I think Maggie's wife is probably counting more than Tony, but during that time, he's going to continue to transition. I'll command you, Sonya, to make sure he can pick up the ball or where Tony left off. So with that, I give you Tony Lopez. Well, I don't know where to begin. I just want to thank the council for recognize me. This is an amazing honor. When I began my career in 1983, I would never have realized or imagined that 33 years later, I'd be standing in front of city council and I'd be getting recognized for being allowed to wear this uniform , being allowed to wear this badge and to serve the city and county of Denver, because that's actually what it boils down to. I came to this country as a political refugee from the island of Cuba, received my citizenship in 1977, a product of Denver public schools. And I gave I had the opportunity to give back to the community and to serve the community that I grew up in. I can't tell you what an honor it is. My son has followed in my footsteps and I can't tell you how proud I am. My chest swells when I talk and I think about Tony. And as you all know, we had a we had a bump in the road in December. But he's strong, he's good, and he's looking forward to coming back and serving our community. I celebrated my 59th birthday on Saturday and I think I got my birthday present back in December when the good Lord gave us our son back. So on behalf of my family, my wife and and my good friends and my my good friends, Chief Quinonez, and everything that he's done to support me through the years, through thick and thin, we've been together and and I think we've done an amazing job together in in the community in northwest Denver, working side by side. And my mom is working directly for for the chief. I've got a wear I've got a very special place in my heart for him are almost like brothers. It was a tough transition, but mom and I talked and in the last couple years, I've got to start slowing down just a little bit or or I won't get a chance to enjoy my retirement. But I'm just honored. I'm just absolutely honored. So on behalf of my family and myself, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm very humbled. Thank you, Commander Lopez. All right. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, we read the resolutions. From business development 530 resolution approving a post contract city and county of Denver in Swanton and Boulders concerning construction services at Denver International Airport 531 A resolution approving a post contract between City and county of Denver, Hazleton Construction, LLC, concerning on call construction services at Denver International Airport 532 a resolution approving of his contract between city and town. Denver Hensel Phelps Construction Company concerning Uncle Construction Services at Denver International Airport 533 A resolution of a new post contract between City, County and Emery MCI Constructors Inc. Concerned Uncle Construction Services at Denver International Airport. 534 A resolution approving post agreement between city and county different Ludwick Electric Company Concerned Uncle Miscellaneous VHS Mill Write Services for Denver International Air Services 535 A resolution approving post agreement between City Encounter and Precision Industrial Contractors, Inc. concerning alcohol Miscellaneous B B Millwright Services for Denver International Airport 536 A Resolution for Universal Agreement three In City and Town Different Western Industrial Contractors, Inc. Concerning Alcohol VHS Miscellaneous Mill Rite Services for Denver International Airport 537 E Resolution Improvement was agreed to in city in Town Denver in Cactus Communications Inc. Concert Communications for Denver International Airport from Governance and Charter Review Fy23e resolution approving the mayor's reappointment, says Stapleton Development Corporation Board of Directors by 26, a resolution approving the mayor's appointment to the Denver American Indian Commission. Infrastructure and Culture FY 20 Resolution Revenue based Contract 2018 City and County Denver and Goodland Construction, Inc. for workplace culvert rehabilitation at Third and Hooker. If I do anyone a resolution I step in improving the platters tables and filing number 49 Fy22 resolution establishing improving the platters tables and filing number 51 FY 29 A resolution is improving the planning of Denver Connection West filing number one safety will be to 60 resolution proven Evos lease in agreement between City County Denver Waste Waste Management, Colorado and Asphalt Specialties Company, Inc. for operation of a concrete asphalt recycling facility and batch plant at the Denver Rapid Disposal site. 441 A resolution approving a proposed agreement between city and town Denver and work options for women to provide cafeteria and catering services for 90 and 490. A resolution approving a proposed agreement between City County Denver and Arche Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Independent Sales Inc. are to provided community correction services. Thank you, Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction. For Finance and Services by 24 April for an audience of any serious plan for the creation of Midtown Metropolitan District by 25, a bill for an ordinance approve any service plan for the creation of the first Greek Village Metropolitan District 527 Bill for an ordinance to appropriate funds from the Reno General Improvement District for the streetscape enhancements along Brighton Boulevard by 28 before an audience to appropriate funds from the amended funding agreement for the Levitt Pavilion Amphitheater 542 A bill for an ordinance to provide funds to the revenue base, Winter Park, Parks and Recreation, Capital Fund, Governance and Charter Review VI 67 and bill for an ordinance many to a vote of qualified register electors of the city and county of Denver, and a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the State General Election. November eight, 2016. A proposed amendment to the Charter, the City and County of Denver concerning Office of the Independent Monitor 569 A bill for an ordinance many Section 2-3 of Chapter two of the Denver Business Code regarding electronic signatures. Infrastructure and culture. And I know a bill for Norton speaking a portion of right away bounded by Julien Street was 25th Avenue, Irving Street and West 26th Avenue without reservations. Five of four bill for an audience for any of those intergovernmental agreement your hills village in County of Rapa regarding Coasteering on the High Line Canal Underpasses Project at Hampton Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, FY17 bill for an ordinance relinquishing five easements established by the board, one filing number four subdivision plat recorder with the Denver Clerk and recorder of reception number 201515370 to locate along the rear line lot lines of lot 15 through 20 block one and bounded by South Quebec Street, East Archer Drive and Oneida Court 518 A bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easements the easement established by the easement for right away record with Denver click and recorder at reception number 2011051715 and located at 155 Steele Street 519 A bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easement assessed by the permanent nonexclusive easement record with a Denver click and recorder at reception. Number 2012129620, located at 27 nine Uinta Street, 530 before an ordinance featuring a portion of the alley bounded by Steel Street, Second Avenue and St Paul Street without reservations and 503 bill for an ordinance approving and providing execution prose intergovernmental agreement between City and County. Denver, Colorado Department of Transportation concerning the Highline Canal, Hampton and Colorado Project and the funding there for OC Councilmembers. This is your last chance to call out an item. So I'll give you a little bit time to do that. Look down the road, make sure everybody is good. So we'll start with resolutions. See here for resolutions. ORTEGA All right. We have 530, 531, 32 and 33. ORTEGA Is that correct? Correct. Come from. Okay. For Bill for introductions we had of Ortega for 542. We have Lopez for 567. We have Ortega for 569. And we have Espinosa for 908. So. All right, everybody. Okay. We'll look on our bills for final consideration. We have no bills called out for pending. We have no bills caught out. So, Madam Secretary, will you pull up? Council Bill 530. And first, let me ask Councilman Ortega, these three these three bills, would you like to deal with all of them? Surely there should be four. And yes, we can deal with all of them. Okay, let's deal. And what would you like to do with these bills? I'd like to call them up for a vote. Okay. Councilman Flynn, will you make the calls tonight? Yes, Mr. President, I will. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, can we put these? Yes. On a block. On a block. Thank you. All right. And we have a move in a second when you do comments here, uh. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've been raising questions about our use of on call contracts. And tonight we have four bills. These are all for Delia that equal $100 million. And, you know, I know we need to get work done in the city, but I think uncalled contracts have been used as a way of just. I don't know. Trying trying to move things forward. But in in each of these are $25 million. And I think all of these move forward on a consent calendar. But my concern is that we don't know the details of the work that will be done on any of these. And typically for a contract the size of each of these, we receive pretty, pretty grave detail about what the project might be. And I know in in the case of each of these there to have these contracts available to do work as may be needed at DIA. But I think for $100 million in contracts, it should require them to come back and tell us exactly what we're being asked to approve in each of them. They're basically for. You know what? What it says is they're for a wide range of construction projects from general remodel and exterior construction to both airside and landside. That's pretty broad. And I know the administration has has talked about kind of, you know, giving us an update of of how they're going to continue using on call contracts. But in some cases, it's a backdoor way of circumventing compliance with our minority in business minority and women business contracting to ensure that goals are being met and that we are not left out of the process. Normally it's a half a million dollars that this body has to approve contracts for and to do each one for 25 million. I'm just not comfortable with allowing them to go forward without knowing the detail of what we're being asked to approve. So I'm going to be voting no tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Hernan, do you mind? We have not put this on the floor. Oh. I was actually gonna say, Mr. President, and then I was going to make the comment. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I know. It's a rookie mistake. Okay. Councilman Flynn, please put this the four resolutions on the floor to be adopted in a block. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. 535, 31, 532 and 533. All series of 2016. All right. Spin moves in a second. It kills my. Hernia. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to give someone from the airport. I see. Aaron, if he wanted to come up to the podium. And as you are coming up, Aaron, if you could just briefly talk about any calls. We've we've done this before. This is certainly not new. Our mayor represented the airport and to, uh, to imply that he doesn't care about AC, DC and MWD eagles, I think that that's something he does. So I want to give you the opportunity to come up and just talk about this is something I do support, but I just wanted to give the airport the opportunity to come and speak to it. If you if you so chose. And also to it's up to is no guarantee that you spend the 25 million to I think that's important to note as well. That's correct, Aaron. But as a Denver International Airport, so I actually have one of my colleagues here. He's the senior vice president of Airport Infrastructure Management, and he can speak to those to that in detail. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. President, and council members. It's an honor and a privilege to stand in chamber and defend the work that we do at airport on behalf of the city and county of Denver. We like to think that we're good stewards of the resources you provide us, and we welcome the opportunity to explain kind of what we use those resources for and how they're accounted for on the contracts. To Councilman Herndon's point, this is a cap. This provides us coverage against for contractors that allow us to resource them as a service at the airport when we experience a mechanical or construction type of breakdowns or failures that require immediate access, where a 24 seven 365 operation, we are Denver's gateway to the world. We are the access point through which international and national travel occurs in and through our region. And so we take great pride in being able to respond when incidents occur and be able to reach out to these contractors to provide that service by seeking to put four contracts in place. It gives us the opportunity to kind of spread the wealth among a variety of local construction companies who have greater resources and greater reach into the than maybe we be the ability there's 30%, I think, on this contract that we cover through minority and small business operations to ensure we can provide that service and opportunity out at the airport. And none of these actions whenever something occurs and I'll give you an example this past winter season, when we experienced the blizzard that kind of shut the airport down for a couple of hours, we had catastrophic failure of the canopies, the ability to kind of call out resources to respond to that , to clear that, to keep commerce moving and the traveling public safe is a valuable resource to us. So I give you assurances that we think long and hard when we exercise these contracts that we have for to kind of spread the wealth. And we watch very closely to ensure that they're executed in the best interests of the city. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Why don't you guys stay on this? Councilman Flynn, did you have any questions? Do you want to make comments? Okay. Councilman thing. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I didn't catch your name. Could you give us your name? I'm sorry. I'm Mark Baker and currently the acting senior vice president at the airport for airport infrastructure management. And I do understand and sympathize with Councilwoman Ortega's position, because we don't normally send $100 million out the door over the next three years and not know what we're getting for it. But I understand also the need for long haul contracting for the type of services that you're that you just described. Is there a way to report back and maybe this is better for Aaron? Is there a way to report back to us? Maybe through the the the business committee that oversees airport. Yes. When maybe on a quarterly basis, when you do issue contracts under this long call? Yes. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to do that. Mr. President, could I suggest that that. You know. Warm allies that. I am going to invite Councilwoman Gilmore, who the chair of the committee, in on this conversation. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. That is a wonderful suggestion, Councilman Flynn, and I think Councilman Herndon as well for his questions. You know, over my year in office, I have to say, you know, the folks at DIA, they are top notch and they are not doing anything that is going to impede or affect the effectiveness of Denver International Airport. It brings in $27 billion to the region and that is going to keep moving. And it is a three 6524 hour operation. And so I'm fully in support of this. And your suggestion, Councilman Flynn, is very well taken and we can go ahead and do a quarterly update at committee. Thank you, Mr. President. Craig Councilwoman. Yep. Thank you. Just one more. Just a second. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question or comment? Just a quick comment. Okay, you guys get set. Did you were you going to ask a question? No, go ahead. Okay, sir. I just want to say I appreciate the conversation and the commitment to do quarterly updates. I know we've been waiting. I've been asking for an update on the final closeout on the hotel and transit center, and I haven't seen that that's been scheduled yet. So I think it's important that this body that has to approve the contracts is better informed on the big projects that are happening out at DIA. I mean, we know you guys are going to be bringing forward a $300 million contract eventually on the build out of the Great Hall. At some point I've been told that it's imminent that we're going to be moving forward with runway number seven. You know, so when we start talking about the fiscal health of DIA, I think we need to understand the big picture and not just the piecemeal projects that keep being brought before us that don't give us the opportunity to understand the impact to the fiscal health of our airport. So anyway, I thought it was important to make that statement. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all. You guys can have a seat if there are no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel. ORTEGA. No. Sussman. Black eye. Clark. I. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Espinosa. Hi. Mr. President. I closed voting as the results. 11 eyes, one knee. 11 eyes, one day, one day. Council Bill five 3531, 532 and 533 pass. Councilman Lopez on a bill for introduction. You have called out council bill 567 regarding the Office of the Independent Monitor. What would you like for us to do with that? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on Monday, August 15th. That's next Monday. Great. Would you like to make? That is thank you for for making that comment and we'll make sure that we put that in the record so that we have a when our public here. Would you like to make any comment? No. This is just the the. I proposed about an amendment that I am moving forward concerning the Office of Independent Monitor. This would move a couple of provisions which would, you know, make more permanent the Office of the Independent monitor itself and the Citizen Oversight Board. This doesn't, you know, expand his powers. Or the powers of the board. This just simply would like to ask the voters. Well, hopefully more voters in November the whether they would like to see whether we would like to see. This office and this board be more permanent. In the charter rather than just in code. All right. I just want to remind everyone that this is on first reading and we will have a courtesy public hearing August 15th. Thank you. Thank you. I almost got you, Commander. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Four bills for introduction. We have Ortega with 542. COUNSEL Marcelo, what would you like to do with this? I just have a question. Actually, it's not a question. It's a comment. Okay, so this is approving half a million dollars from winter park funds. It's to go into the Confluence Park Project, which I support. I think it's really important that that work take place. I am on the Winter Park Advisory Board and this project should have gone before the advisory board before this body takes formal final action. And it's just to raise question about procedure in terms of making sure that, you know, we don't always do things after the fact. I know that it's it's something that will be coming up. And Laura, I don't know if you want to come forward and just clarify that. I mean, to a expressed a concern about the procedure when this came to committee. But the advisory board looks at the. Recommendations on expenditure of the dollars that come out of the Winter Park Fund for capital projects as the recommended to the manager of Parks and Recreation. And again, I support the need for this. It's work that has to happen. But I'm just raising a procedural question. Sure. Good evening, Councilor Perry. Capital program manager in the Budget Management Office. So the advisory board that council and. Ortega is referring. To is the Winter Park Board of Trust Trustees, and they are. Tasked with three, three, three things. Annually, essentially to verify that the dollars are received from Winter Park to support. The capital program. Two To confirm that the projects recommended via the annual budget process do meet the ordinance. Requirements set. Forth for use of winter park funds, which are the. Rehabilitation and rehab of existing parks. Capital assets. They do meet once meet once a year during. The annual budget process, and we doing so within. The next month. The third item that they verify is the maintenance of effort calculation for Parks to ensure that Parks is receiving a base amount of capital funding annually to maintain their assets. The Winter Park Board of Trustees has previously reviewed the Confluence Park project. There are several preparations that have been made over the last couple of years out of Winter Park for this project and have verified. That this project does meet all the. Requirements. The Board of Trustees currently does not review any contingency requests, which is this. Bill in front of you today. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilwoman Caswell, we have 569 called out as well. I do. Would you like to do with that? This one? I just wanted to ask that. I'm not sure who the appropriate person would be, but I would like to learn a little bit more about what the security measures are that ensure that as we move to electronic signatures, that the various city agencies have the protections in place to ensure that there is no abuse of this. This new policy that we're moving to. So I'm not sure I'm looking to Gabby. Who? Gabby, do we have a representative in here for? Uh, 569. Gabby Carrick The mayor's office, as I understand this, is a council initiated bill. Regarding. Compliance with the upcoming. Granicus transition. Oh, but it is not for all the city agencies as well. Can you clarify that for me, please? David Brower, city assistant city attorney. And I'll come in as D.A. coming to the mic. A number of years ago, we adopted a provision in the Denver Revised Missile Code authorizing the use of electronic signatures. Shortly after the state law was changed to recognize the legality of electronic signatures, we adopted an ordinance for modifying it slightly in this bill to recognize the fact that the alleged star system is coming online, which will allow for electronic signatures to be affixed to bills for ordinances and resolutions, so as to tweak the longstanding language a little bit to make sure that we reflect legal authority and our own ordinance similar to the state authority. Now, whether a particular software system or a particular computer system has adequate security measures built into it relates to that system. And I and Diana, I ask you to come in as well. This was brought forward to help implement the legislature proposal, which is coming forward to help further automate the processing of bills and ordinances. And I don't believe we have anybody from tech services here. Right. Pardon? Would you like to comment? In addition to what I said. Absolutely. Diane Durfee, City Attorney's Office. As David Broadwell. Already. Explained, we. Already had. This particular ordinance on. The books here for the city of Denver. What this. Does as a. Result of the implementation of the Granicus. System. Is it also. Adds a piece of the electronic seal. So as it is right. Now, although electronic signatures have been allowed and we've been doing electronic signatures for quite some time, this allows also. For the court clerk recorder to affix her seal to all of the city documents electronically so that we don't. Have to hand stamp those. Great. Very helpful. Okay. Thank you. Is that okay? Yes. Great. Councilman Espinosa, you called out Bill 908. What would you like to do with that? I'd like to call out the bill and order it published. Okay. Call it out for a vote. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 908 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 908 series of 2015 be ordered published. Correct. It's been moved. And second. Councilman Espinoza. Yeah, I. I sort of apologize to everybody. I thought this was this I mean, this was normally going to be this is on first reading, and I was waiting for it to come up on second before I commented on it. But I realized that I'm going to be gone next week for my last youngest cousin's wedding in California. So I'm sort of advancing this. And it just this is an early vacation that that I commented on in mayor council. This is an early vacation in my district. And when the city previously granted a vacation request, half of an existing alley serving the bordering property was lost. And so within the last couple of years, the vacation requester built a fence on part of that well on that property that encroaches into an access easement intended to allow cars to access that garage, the existing garage. And while the requester has resisted, I mean, refused him to remove the fence, that property owner took the time to ask the city to grant him additional land through vacation free of charge. So while the city may not need to retain this land at this time, I'm not comfortable vacating this land when such an egregious concern remains unresolved. So by voting this down, and I hope my colleagues will vote against this vacation, the alley configuration will just remain as it always has, and allows the vacation request for an indefinite amount of time to either fulfill obligations or otherwise address this community concern in good faith. Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Like Councilman Espinosa, my. My information on this particular vacation is that by vacating the the right of way that that is in this council bill, we will actually be making it that much more difficult for the adjoining property owner to access his garage. And until unless and until that dispute is is recognized, I don't believe that we should pass this. I believe that we should wait until there's a resolution. And I would ask other members to consider doing the same. So I will be voting no also. Thank you. It's a good question. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just first wanted to thank Public Works and Angela and everybody who worked on this. You know, I think that this is a great example of there is a formula of how we work through these processes. And I just want to start by saying that I think the public works did a great job of working through the process and the steps to get it here to council. I don't think that because every one of these comes before council means that we have to approve them. We reflect and look at this each one. But I didn't want to get lost in the mix that I think the public works did a great job getting this to us and going through this. So with that being said, I you know, I am always hesitant when we relinquish land, whether it's selling it or vacating it, and especially land that is serving the public. And part of that consideration for me is looking at will disposing of the land, vacating the land, can, you know, will it adversely affect our citizens? And it's serving a public function. I do think that at this time this land is continuing to serve a public function. I think that there are issues there are issues with getting in and out and access for a citizen. I'm not convinced that that problem was created by this vacation request, if not by a previous one. And I don't think anything was necessarily done process wise wrong there either. But it has led to an interesting predicament where I believe that this vacation, as brought forward, will create significant negative consequences for this owner. And so for that reason, I think that right now I do think we should retain this property for the public good until we can resolve those issues further. Or if we can't, then, you know, that's the the, I guess the point of having public lands so that they can serve all of these needs. So I also will be voting no today based on that. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Ms.. Clarke. Councilwoman Ortega. I'd like to ask David Broadwell a question. David, can you clarify if our process and if you're not the right person, then I'm not sure who else should answer that. But my recollection is that when we vacate, only half goes to the property owner on one side and the other half goes to the property owner and the other side. And understanding what Councilman Espinoza said, that a particular property owner went and put their fence in part of the alley. And I don't know if this is in North Denver where we have these strange carriage lots, but that I'm not sure if they're claiming they had adverse possession of the the the alleyway. But can you just clarify if that's the process that. Again, David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I'll come in. Generally, I'm not really the best versed on this particular request and I would refer many more specific questions to public works. But in general, we follow state law with right of way vacation, whether it's an alley or a street. If the entirety of the width of the right of way is being vacated, advanced 50, 50 and the adjacent owners. But there are situations where when less than being the entirety of the right of way is being vacated, it will vest in the property to which it's the closest. Right. So the answer to your question is it depends if the whole thing's being vacated is 5050, but you do get into these other scenarios and that's all per state law, per case law, which we adopt and follow in terms of our procedures. But any more specific questions about this one? I think public works would be better able to answer. Thank you, Mr. Bravo. Can I make one more comment? But fortunately, people cannot adversely possess against the city if if every single fence built out and our right of way was adverse possession, we'd be in trouble. Right. So. So there's very strong. That's a good clarifying point. Yeah, I think you have to. Absolutely. I know that was part of the point of your question, but someone just building out into our right of way doesn't create squatter's rights. It's the public's property, and we can require encroachments to be removed. Okay. Thank you. In this case, the fence. This was built on their property. Okay. That's just a clarification. Okay. Councilwoman Ortega, do you want to further. Have anything further to add to what David just shared with us, Angela? Just that this was the case for this particular Ali vacation. The Valley vacation that we're talking about is the one that was that happened in 2008 when they vacated that alley in question 50%. Half of it went to 25, 24. Julian The other the other piece went to 25, 26. Julian Then an easement, a permanent easement. Was filed. With with the city in order for them to have access to their garage. 2524 Julian They have an easement there, a 12 foot alley way to access their garage. Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilman Espinosa, I see you've already talked and Herndon's in the mix. I want to pop over to him. Councilman Herndon thing is the president and and and you just kind of get into it. But I wanted to afford you the opportunity to speak to why public works feels that this is a valid. And so I think. That. All we want to say is we. Just want this. Alley, this particular application to have its process. We've been holding it for about ten months now with no real technical issues associated with it, with the application. And so what Councilman Espinosa is is talking about is an issue between two private property holders, which public works cannot speak to, that it has to be worked out between the two private property owners. If their if someone is, in fact, encroaching on a permanent easement in the alley, that's between the property owners and public works. Can't can't address that with this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, Councilwoman. Thank you. I am having a very difficult time following because we had some debate at mayor council about this, and we had an email exchange where public works said there is no letter of protest from any neighbor. And Councilman Espinosa disagreed. So can you first clarify, do we have a letter of protest from an actual. There is. So there is no letter of protest that has technical merit. So what that means is once you put that letter up against our criteria, if there's nothing that public works can do to address that, that protest within our rules and within any sort of ordinance or anything, it doesn't it doesn't have to be technically addressed by us. Okay. So I just that's a very lawyerly answer. So, you know, there is a person who is unhappy. Yes. Okay. So what we do. Within public works purview, what we did is we. Required. The applicant to provide a 12 foot or a. Permanent easement. On this on. This particular alleyway. So they would have they currently have access to a 12 foot alley to access their garage. That's a permanent easement. That can't be revoked. Me May I, may I, I guess I have this is very difficult without a picture or a map. First of all, because I can't follow these 12 foot descriptions that you're describing without a visual. Second of all, sent. Out visuals to all of the. Council members. Is that in our entire system here? Um. Let's pull it up. All right, so that'll help me if we. I don't know if we can walk through the visual on the screen up there. But the other question I have is, is it your opinion that we have to folks who are unhappy with each other and the one party is trying to use this vacation to get leverage over a dispute over private property? Is the dispute on private property and they're just protesting the vacation because they want leverage in this dispute over private property, it seems it appears that way. So there is no dispute over the land in question in this precise vacation? No. Okay. That's a really important distinction. And so I'm going to look some more. I still Councilman Flynn has this visual that I'm trying to get there. Yes. Councilman, can can that can you keep looking for that? I'm going to go to Espinosa and I see a couple other folks who have, um, have the diagram pulled up as well. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa Yeah. Said to help you a councilwoman can each if you go to 11 page 11. I mean ten of 11 on the signed packet. That's the area of the of the easement on a few pages prior though on page five of 11. Is the is the requested vacation. So you'll notice that the two actually only touch corners. But what's key on this is the area that says Ali vacated by ordinance in 286 and Series 2008. So the you see the big 2524. That parcel has a garage across the entirety of the back of that of that property that faced the former Ali. And when the vacation request was originally made in 2008, we probably should have I don't know if this is a question for public works. If if if a concern had been raised, would that have been would that have met technically? Would that have been would that still would we still have would that I don't know if that seems weird that we would have granted that vacation back then. Basically allocating half of that, Ali, to another property owner that might have had technical merit back in 2008. I don't know if it does. Well, I can't speak. Basically, what I know is that there was a gentleman's agreement between two property owners when this when they vacated the Ali and they did not put the permanent even in place at that time. So what happened is so half of that 12 foot Ali went to 25, 24. The other half went to 25, 26. But in the in a split. So a six foot section and a six foot section. So now that that that property owner then only had six feet of alleyway to access his garage without going over the adjacent property owner. And unfortunately, the property 2524 changed hands and the adjacent property owner then built a fence partly on that. I mean, to shorten that, to truncate that 12 foot access with Ali with. And so there isn't a there is an easement. And so we are borderline into private party. I mean, if we were to sort of try and compel them to to move that fence as a city, we would certainly be entering the private party agreement. All I'm saying is there was massive opposition. There was I think we had eight letters that don't meet technical merit. But the original request was actually for part of both the North and the South. Ali's on that each lot. The applicant did revise his request to just that southern portion and did truncate chamfer the edge but still maintains the fence inside of the inside of the property that was formally granted. And so that's been going on as stated for ten months. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to go back to Councilman Kennedy and see if you got the information that you're looking for. Okay. That face did it. So let me let me ask a couple questions here, because it looks like some folks have kind of made up their mind that they're against this to me. Let me ask you a question. Have we ever entered into I know that we deal with this time and time again on other issues, whether it be zoning, but have we entered into some kind of, you know, negotiation or a mediation that we go into with with neighbors on an issue like this? Do you guys ever move forward on that or is this ever been done? My understanding is that if public works has any purview over offering some sort of solution, we will negotiate that. We cannot negotiate to private property owners issues. Okay. So that's I mean. And I deal with this all the time in District nine, and that's where we come in because we represent the folks, both of those neighbors. And so we typically bring in a mediator on a situation like that. And so I understand public works viewpoint, but this is coming before the council. And so, you know, if there is an issue, we would love to kind of talk it out. So you have not done it before. Let me just speak. To speak one point. We spoke with Councilman Espinoza today and we did agree to hear Brant izing did agree to speak to the attorney of the private property owner who the applicant in. Order to help kind of. Get that conversation started. Okay. Let me we have some more people in the queue here. Let me. Councilman Ortega, did you already chime in? I have another question. Yeah. Let me two others. First, let me get out of this real quick. Let me get Councilman Cashman and then Blake Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Angela, is there any problem that would be created for the Department of Public Works if we were to vote this down and give the property owners time to resolve this? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, great. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Angela, what is the purpose of the proposed vacation? Why does the applicant want it? I do not know that answer. I mean, basically the any property owner can request a vacation for any reason. We don't know of any development or anything happening on that property right now. Let me let me just chime in here real quick. Is the is the representative or the property owner in the room right now? We did request that the property owner come this evening here. My understanding is that he is a monolingual Spanish speaker. He chose not to attend. Okay. All right. Council. Council. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilwoman Black. I had one more question. So if this doesn't pass, will the applicant have an opportunity to come back and re apply for it? You know, I don't I don't really know the answer to that question. I could use some. Help on that one. The roll. There is no black out. There's no no nothing to restrict or reapplication when something like this is voted down, which I don't recall occurring in the past. But. But Council has the prerogative to vote no. But nothing would stop the applicant from coming back. Okay. You know, typically, if it's a rezoning, they can't apply for a year or something like that. Is there some sort of time? Right. That's my point, is that some laws do have a blackout period following a denial, like a rezoning denial. But there's nothing like that related to a request for a street vacation. Great. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. If we were to vote this down, would we be inadvertently giving an advantage to one of the two parties in a negotiation that is a completely private negotiation. I couldn't answer that. I'm not. I don't think so. But I'm not really sure I'd have to talk to either the surveyor or our technical team about that. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. The real the original reason I chimed in second is Councilman Clark reminded me and I'm sorry. I did want to thank public works for the work and for caring and holding on to this for as long as they did. Trying to hopefully, you know, see that these two parties made it out. And and so I'm I'm glad actually that we actually are at this point and hopefully we do vote it down, because I do think that it will actually help address this issue. I think we you know, by granting half of this, Ali, previously in 2008, we sort of created this situation. And and so I think I think the time to properly addressed it was back then. But now I think we I don't think we should. I think I think well, I just really wanted to just think I'm rambling and I just really wanted to think public works because this is not this is a difficult situation. And I did want to acknowledge that, yes, the the property owner does speak Spanish and they're actually two property owners. And and the wife has sort of not been a participant, but that's just getting really, really muddy. I think they they do, in fact, need time. I think everything's there with the city attorney being willing to convey what his reading of the situation to proper counsel is appropriate. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. I think. Councilman. Espinosa just made part of my statement that we created the situation by approving this, knowing that, well, maybe not knowing at the time that we were creating some access issues for some of these folks to be able to get into their garage. And I think, you know, this will make a bad situation worse. So I'm going to be voting no tonight. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing as we have no other members city council with a comment, we are going to vote on this. So, Madam Secretary. Rocco Espinosa No. Flynn Much as I hate to vote against a vacation, I vote no. Gilmore No. Herndon, no. Cashman no. Kennedy. Lopez No. New Ortega. No. Susman No. Black No. Clark. No, Mr. President. No. Councilman Clark. Oh, nice. Okay. All right, Madam Secretary, please. ANNOUNCER Results. Zero 12 Nays. 12 Nays Council Bill 98 fails. All right, Councilman Flynn, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption? We are ready for the block votes. Yes. Yes, Mr. President. Okay. Once they are. Yes, we are putting them on right now. And I want to include I want to also say all other bills for introductions are ordered, publish. And and now we're going to give our secretary a little bit time to put all the block votes. There you go. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. All series of 2016. 534, five, 35, five, 36, 537, 523, five, 26, five, 25, 21 522 520 9268 441 and 490. Great. It has been moved in second to it. Madam Secretary. Raquel Herndon. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi. Mr. President. I close the and announce results. 12 ice. 12 eyes resolutions have been adopted. Councilman Flynn, will you please put the bill and final considerations. The bills for front of consideration on the floor for final passage. Yes, Mr. President, I will. I move that council bill 511 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass without a block. That's right. The bill. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Sussman Black. I. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Hi. Ortega. Mr. President. I. Close vote announced the results. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 511 has passed and final consideration pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 415, changing the zoning classification from 16161 East 40th Avenue and require public hearing on four for two. Changing the zoning classification for 351535253535 and 3545. South Tamarack Drive. Anyone wishing to speak to either of these must see the council secretary and receive a speaker cart to fill out and return during the council. If there are no other objections, we'll probably take 10 minutes. Good luck. 10 minutes. Members. City Council, please be back by 715. Coverage of this week's council meeting will continue once the public signs up to speak on scheduled agenda items. We'll take this time to look at what's still ahead, as well as preview additional meetings for the week and share some other items of interest. We'll be back with more meeting coverage in a few moments. There are two public hearings on this agenda. Council Bill 415 free zones property at 16,000, 161 East 40th Avenue and Council bill for 42 reasons. Property on South Tamarack Drive. Action on this agenda is just ahead. In the meantime, let's take a look at items in other meetings. Denver will also cover this week. Every Tuesday morning, the mayor presents agency proposals and invites council to discuss policy. Join Denver eight as we bring you this meeting live at 9:30 a.m.. The schedule replays that evening at nine. And again Friday at 8 a.m.. Tuesday morning's coverage continues with the 10:30 a.m. meeting of the Finance and Services Committee. Watch live at that time or catch replays Tuesday evening at 8:30 p.m. or Friday at 9 a.m. and Sunday afternoon at 1230. Wednesday morning begins with a session of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee at 10:30 a.m. This meeting will play again Wednesday evening at 630, then Friday afternoon at 130 and once more on Sunday afternoon at 3:30 p.m.. Wednesday afternoon brings a special session of city council members meeting as the Sidewalk Working Group, where they'll discuss Denver's sidewalk challenges . This meeting is at 130 watch or replays Friday at 10:30 a.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m. each week. Watch for replays of the legislative session of Denver City Council each Monday at 830, following the live coverage or Thursday afternoons at 1230 and Saturday also at 12:30 p.m.. You may view the City Council agenda meeting minutes and committee summaries at Denver gov dawgs city council council committee meetings may be canceled or agenda items added or dropped to confirm a meeting time. Call the council office at 720337 2000. Now stay tuned for the rest of tonight's Denver City Council. Get outside with a thrilling bike ride you and your calves won't forget for a long time. The 64 mile ride weaves through Colorado's front range, including Morrison, Red Rocks, Park and Dinosaur Ridge. All proceeds from the race go to the Tennyson Center for Children so you can test your biking mettle under the warm glow of philanthropy as well as some serious climbs. Learn a traditional method of plant dyeing that, unlike onion skins or so many other naturalist methods, results in a rich and satisfying shade that even writ day would be proud of. In this, for our class, you'll learn harvesting and preparation techniques of locally grown indigo, and you'll go home with dyed samples and a detailed road map for your future color journeys. Join the Denver Astronomical Society for this week's biggest show. The Pleiades meteor shower. The Space Society's open house this month happens to coincide with the annual light show. Peak nights are predicted to have up to 200 meteors an hour, and there's no better company for astronomical events than a group of people who have their own telescopes for best viewing. Face northeast look about halfway up the sky and wait for shooting stars to streak by. Warm cookies of the revolution continue their neighborhood tours with this Saturday's Choose Your Own Adventure in Whittier and five points select from themed quest rapids scavenger hunts seeking stories more than any objects or a walkabout tour to learn the backstory of these historic neighborhoods. Like any warm cookies event, there are bound to be lots of good times. Community and of course, cookies. A magical musical mashup of alternative country and nostalgic strings. Don't miss Brandi Carlile with Old Crow Medicine Show in the perfect venue for their brand of collaborative Americana. In addition to separate sets, Carlile's achingly sweet melodies will intertwine with the six piece band as they perform together. Hit up your wagon wheels and head down to Red Rocks to keep the eye on this pairing. And in the spirit of Imagine 2020, that's a quick look at some of the events in Denver this week. Next time on downtown, an insider's guide to DIA will show you free public events at the new plaza. Great ways to shop, dine and relax selfie stations. And we'll take you on an awesome behind the scenes tour of operations and the airfield, the ramp tower and those secret tunnels downtown only on Denver TV. This week on our season will feature youth. One book one Denver found art with Mark Friday Women of Abstract Expressionism, My Performance, Poetry, and much more. By Fifth. To stop. This. I think. Scientific studies prove that binge watching TV can result in spontaneous, eye curdling, restless couch syndrome and phantom remote hand. To protect your health, take a break from a binge, but watch a rama. Put loads of on all your favorite Denver shows. All your favorite episodes all month long. Reduce your risk for channel surfing along with Denver rates. Watch a rama palooza for four out of five announcers agree it's better for you then the binge democrats watch a rama palooza fun. Ground rules. Each speaker will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which results a total of 6 minutes on the presentation. Monitor on the wall. When the yellow light comes on. We don't have Councilman Flynn here either. Okay. Uh, Councilman Herndon, please make the calls. Okay. Speakers must stay on the topic of hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Speakers should refrain from using any profanity and making any personal attacks during their comments. Councilman Flynn, how are you? Will you please put Council Bill 415 on the floor? Yes, I will. Mr. President, thank you. I move that council bill 415 be placed on the floor and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. And second to it, the public hearing. Council Bill 415 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, council president. Welcome back. Members of the city council ryan winterberg with community planning and development here to present a rezoning at 16161 East 40th Avenue from Gateway with waivers and conditions to S-Max eight, we can see that our subject site is in Council District 11. Zooming in a bit. It is in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch statistical neighborhood near the interchange of I-70 and Pioneer Boulevard. And zooming in a little bit further, we can see that it's near the intersection of East 40th Avenue and North Kittredge Street. We can see Adams County located just to the south, and our site is about 1000 feet. That's walking distance from the Gateway Park Station on the East Quarter. Now the A-line. The request. We are looking at one parcel today. It's about four acres. It is a vacant site. However, it has been permitted for the construction of a hotel. That site development plan was approved in 2009, a six story hotel. And the rezoning request before you is rather unique. So the property owner and that's WP Hospitality LLC is requesting a rezoning to bring the approved site development plan into conformance with Denver's zoning code zoning standards. You will notice today as we'll go on that the site development plan that was approved in 2009, unfortunately, does not conform with the existing gateway with waivers and condition zoning. And as you'll see, the waivers and conditions are highly customized. So in districts that have unfortunately led to unintentional errors in development review and permitting, and these zoning issues were actually discovered in context of the site next door. So which will look very familiar to you? The site located just to the west that you see called out as SCC five X and the site. The zoning issues at this particular site were identified in a comprehensive analysis of the entire area to identify additional zoning errors and bring them into compliance. So you see that the request before you is to rezone from Gateway with views and conditions to Smc's eight. So we're looking at any suburban neighborhood context, any mixed use zoned district permitting buildings of eight storeys and height. It's about 110 feet. And the proposed X eight zone district acknowledges both the existing entitlement as well as the hotel that has been permitted through that approved site development plan. And it will fully conform with the zoning standards proposed in Smc's eight. And now on to existing context, we can see that our site is currently zoned gateway with waivers and conditions, which is a former Chapter 59 zone district that was applied to areas generally in Denver's Gateway. And the subject site was rezone to the zoned district in 1999 as part of a 96 acre rezoning. So that broader area that you see on the map and the gateway with waivers and conditions there, it includes use areas so we can see that our subject site is called out in the mixed use to AMU to use area which is a general mixed mixed use general purpose zone district. And that zone district includes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6 with bonuses up to 1.2. And the maximum height is 75 feet in height. And interestingly, that is not measured in stories. That is just a maximum building height. And you can see as articulated in your staff report that maximum heights in this gateway with waivers and conditions area generally increase in height and intensity moving to the east towards Pennant Boulevard. So I want to dove into just the issues with the current zoning a bit. There are more details in your staff report. But there are three major issues that we are attempting to solve for today by the proposed rezoning. The first is that our subject site called Out in Red, has approved a site development plan for the construction of a hotel, unfortunately, where hotels are not permitted in the waivers and condition zoning. So the hatched area that we can see is that area where hotels and restaurants were not permitted by the waivers and conditions which generally aligned with the anticipated future construction of a road. So that's that blue dashed line that you see. But the road in its actual construction and existing context today was shifted up where that solid line is. So for essentially 76 feet of the northern portion of our subject site, hotels and restaurants are not permitted. The hotel that has been permitted by the site development plan also does not comply with certain setbacks as well as site orientation standards, including the location of surface parking. And these are the very same issues that occurred to the site that we see to the West that was resolved by this body in May of this year. So we can see to existing contact zoning in the surrounding area that gateway with waivers and conditions that was applied as part of the same ordinance in 1999 exists in a much broader area. We can see the SCC five X approved by City Council just to the West Adams County located to the south. And interestingly, only about 5% of the original gateway zoning that was applied in the 90 still exist today. The majority has been resound into the Denver zoning code or also other former Chapter 59 zone districts. Our subject site is also located within a general development plan, the Gateway Park for West Kittredge East. GDP again applied to that same 96 acre site as our rezoning for 1999. And it includes topics that you're fairly familiar with now in general development plans, including use areas, vehicular access, pedestrian circulation, location of roads and residential densities. But it's important to note that the majority of the infrastructure that was contemplated by this general development plan, including the alignment of roads as well as water detention, has already been constructed in conformance with the GDP. So it no longer serves a planning or development purpose for our subject site. So should the B rezoning be approved tonight? The subject site will be pulled out of the general development plans applicability and be allowed to proceed with construction within the Denver zone no longer within this GDP boundary. Looking to existing land use to consider see subject site is vacant and in area we have a large office structures located to the north as well as a mixture of commercial development and looking to the surrounding context. We can see that the site that was rezoning by this body in May of this year in the upper right hand corner. Our subject site in the middle that is currently vacant and the photo to at the bottom is is just to the south and Adams County pretty typical of some of the mixed use and commercial development that we've seen occur within the gateway. In terms of process, we did notify the following of five registered neighborhood organizations throughout the rezoning, and we have not received any public comment or any letters of support from registered neighborhood organizations. We did notify registered neighborhood organizations and City Council of Receipt of application on March 17th. I notice that the Planning Board public hearing was sent for the May 3rd public hearing excuse me, the May 18th public hearing and the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee move the bill forward on June 22nd. And of course, here we are tonight at the city council public hearing on August 8th. In terms of the review criteria. The following five will be discussed tonight, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. We have three adopted plans that apply to our subject site. The first of which is comprehensive plan 2000. And we did find that the rezoning was consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 looking to strategies as seen here, and specifically a comprehensive plan 2000 calls out the gateway as an opportunity for mixed use infill development. Now moving on to Blueprint Denver, we can see that our subject site is called out in that purple category indicating that is intended for mixed use. So areas that include a sizable employment base as well as housing land uses that are mixed in buildings, areas as well as blocks. And our site is also called out within an area of change. So areas that blueprint, Denver recommends channeling the most growth where it will be beneficial to the city as a whole. And we do find that the requested x eight zone district is consistent with these land use category land use concept categories. Now in terms of street classifications. North Kittredge Street is called out as a residential collectors. That's the north south street that we see just to the west of our subject site. And East 40th Avenue is actually called out as an undesignated local. Given that it is the boundary with Adams County, it was likely excluded from a street classification, but in its built condition it is a four lane divided arterial, according to the public works classification. So these are higher intensity roads that balance a mix of both mobility and access. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the same x eight zone district given this higher intensity street in its built condition. Next, moving on to the Gateway Concept Plan. It was adopted in 1990 and applies to our subject site. And the Gateway Concept Plan calls out the need for highly flexible planning areas needed to adapt to changing market conditions. Given that the planning horizon for the gateway areas 40 to 50 years, so a much longer horizon than we're typically used to in our small area plans. However, the existing waivers and conditions zoning that applies to the subject site does not implement the need for highly flexible and adaptable market conditions, knowing that these waivers and conditions have become outdated. Unfortunately, very quickly and we're tied to a very specific development concept. The Gateway Concept Plan also recommends the creation of activity centers with large scale hotel and office clustered at major, major interchanges like the interchange of I-70, as well as Peyton Boulevard, where a subject site is located, excuse me. And in 1999, the rezoning to gateway with waivers and conditions muta updated the land use and Building Heights map that was originally included in the plan. So you'll see that in your staff report recommending maximum building heights of 75 feet as well, a mix of uses. But again, seeing that building heights increase as we move farther to the east to the Pinion Boulevard corridor, and we do find that it is appropriate to apply the same x eight zone district at our subject site, recognizing that increase and tearing of heights, getting in intensity and height towards major, intense roads. So based upon our review of the three adopted plans, we do find the rezoning is consistent. Now looking to uniformity of district regulations, we find that the application of Max eight will result in the uniform application of zone district standards, as well as bring the approved site development plan into consistency with the Denver zoning code and allow it to proceed with construction. We also find that the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. Now moving to justifying circumstances that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing. We can see an evolution in this gateway area consistent with adopted plans, both recognizing the mixed use development that is intended to occur and one that we have indeed seen to occur at this major interchange. So we've seen a mixed use node that has evolved over time. And additionally, the Denver zoning code has introduced new tools to us to implement the recommendations of our adopted plan, specifically looking to the Gateway concept plan that is recommending a flexible and adaptable zone districts over time to implement these plans. Moving on to consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. We find that it is appropriate to apply zoning within the suburban neighborhood context, both in terms of recommendations from adopted plans as well as existing context. And we find that the rezoning is consistent with the intent statement for the zone district and specifically for the specific intent statement for the eight zone district, recommending the application of zoning districts served by primarily arterial streets where a building height of 1 to 8 storeys is recommended. Based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets all five and therefore recommend approval of the rezoning and are happy to answer any questions you may have as well as the applicant's representative is here this evening. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have one individual signed up to speak here, so I'm going to call them up right now. Will Rogers. You have 3 minutes. My name is Will. Rogers and I'm the architect for the project. And we have offices in. Post Office Box 332034. Denver, Colorado. 80233. Great. I'm here to answer any questions. You might have. Great. Thank you. Appreciate you can. You can have a seat. And if if any members of council have questions, they'll call you up. All right. This concludes our speakers. Questions for members of council. Wow. We have no questions for members of council. So this concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 415 Comments by members of Council. I knew you couldn't resist, Councilman Espinosa. I just. I didn't say it earlier, but I just really am grateful. And thank you and welcome back. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. You know, this Councilman Espinosa had leaned over and said, didn't we talk about this one? And so, you know, I said it's right next to it. So this is really just a clean up in the zoning code to allow these folks to do what they need to do on this property. And so I just appreciate, Mr. Rogers, your patience working through the city with with this process, because I know it's taken a little bit just to get this corrected. But I will be supporting this tonight. And thank you, President Brooks. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. All right, Madam Secretary, Rocco Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. Ortega I. SUSSMAN Black Eye. Clark by Espinosa, I. Flynn Hi. Mr. President. I please close the vote and announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Council Bill 415 passes. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill four 4442 on the floor? Yes, Mr. Risen. Thank you. I move the council bill for 22 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass for 42. So I say for 22. I did. I meant for 42. Thank you for the record. All right. It's first and second in. Great. Public here in four, four, four, two, two is open. May we have staff report? Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Curt Upton with Community Planning and Development. Tonight we have a rezoning case in Council District four in southeast Denver, in the Hampton South neighborhood, right on the border between Hampton and the Hampton South neighborhoods. It's located at the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Tamarack Drive, adjacent to the Tiffany Plaza Shopping Center. So the request is about 1.72 acres. The property is requesting to rezone out of the former Chapter 59 zoning code into the new Denver Zoning Code to facilitate redevelopment. The proposed zone district is like the previous case that was just presented in the suburban context of mixed use and up to three stories in height. The current zoning is a mix of, again, former Chapter 59, District B one and B three, only a small portion. And as you can see in this map, in the northwest corner is B three, both commercial zoned districts, b one as a as a lower intensity category of commercial zoning than B three. And it's surrounded generally by suburban context of mixed use, multi-unit and single unit. So the current land use on the property is, is office building directly to the west and to the northwest are retail centers. There's multifamily to the northeast and directly across Hampton Avenue is also an office building. And as you can see to the east is single family residential gives you an idea of the existing character and context and the scale. The top left corner is the subject site. As you can see, it's a separate suburban office building today across the street. And the top right is the single family residential neighborhood. And as you can see, the character of the street going north and south is suburban, low scale in character. So the process we followed, our standard process, the planning board recommended approval. We have received no public comments on this case. So with that, I will get into our review criteria. There are two adopted plans for this site Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver. We do find that it meets a variety of recommendations in the comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver This is an area of change town center. The description of a town center. According to Blueprint, Denver is a a destination for multiple surrounding neighborhoods that has pedestrian friendly design features. And as you all know, an area of change is where we are encouraging redevelopment and growth. The Future Street Classifications in Blueprint Denver of Hampton Avenue is a commercial arterial. Tamarack Drive is a residential collector. Commercial arterials and Blueprint Denver are pretty self-explanatory. The recommendations for commercial development on a heavily trafficked street resident residential collector is a little lower traffic street and primarily a residential in nature. Significant for this location is both streets in this area are identified as enhanced transit corridors. So we do find that the proposed mixed use zoning of up to three stories is consistent with a blueprint. Denver's recommendations for a town center and for their street classifications of commercial and residential collector and commercial arterial and residential collector. Rather, because the yes and three zone district encourages mixed use development at a moderate scale of three stories with pedestrian friendly design features, we also find that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Through the implementation of adopted plans, it meets our justifying circumstances. Criteria the surrounding environment have in the surrounding environs have changed. Several adjacent properties have recently redeveloped in the past 5 to 10 years. There are two light rail stations in proximity to this location that provide connections again on the enhanced transit corridors to those stations. And the availability of a new zoning code is a changing circumstance. And as stated previously, the property owner would like to take advantage of the new zoning code. It also meets our consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The surrounding character for this location is suburban in context, and the proposed zone district is in the suburban context and is the mixed use designation also meets the district purpose and intent. So with that, we do recommend approval and be happy to take any questions on this case. Thank you. Thank you, Curt. All right. We have three individuals all in favor signed up, and I'm going to ask them to start making their way. AJ barbaro, Carolyn White and John Haber. AJ Is AJ his first? You have. You have 3 minutes. You guys can have a seat right there. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. President. We just checked that. I'm going to have you introduce yourself, A.J. Barbato. Live at 3162 Vallejo. Street and the developer of the property. Great. And we're just here to answer any questions. Thank you. Carolyn White. Mr. President, members of Council, Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant and I too am available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. John Hubbard. Mr. President. Council, thanks for having us. I'm John Hamburger. I'm with Kimberly Horner Associates, the engineer on the project available to answer any questions. Great. This concludes our speakers. You guys can stay in the front row and the members of council will have any questions. They're direct. You. Questions for members of council. It's not letting me click on it. Okay. Councilman Ortega. I just have a quick question and I'm not sure maybe, Adam, if you can answer this, hadn't noticed until tonight that on the zoning applications that the boundary of the map goes to the center line of the street. It's very evident in this in these drawings. But I hadn't noticed that on some of the others. Is that typical? Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Nate Russo, Assistant City Attorney. Good afternoon, members of Council. It is typical that we re zoned to the center line of adjacent right of way. And so you will see that on many rezonings that come through. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa. And just a couple of questions. It is existing B-3 adjacent to that. And why is that? Why didn't it get rezone? So the adjacent zoning is a different property, a different a different commerce. That's a retail center. And this is an office an office building. Right. But is there a reason why we didn't move from 59 to 1 of the current zoning districts in this on both of these all these B parcels down here? So the if I'm following the proposal on this map is just the B one and then just a small segment of the B three, just because it's following the property boundary. Curve, I think I think he's talking about when we rezoning to ten this blueprint down here both under the legislative under blueprint Denver how come this was not zoned into. Oh gosh, you guys are. Still in chapter 59. Right? So when the when the when the city was resolved in 2010, this was left out because it was a there's a plan building group on this site and on the adjacent site. And so for those reasons, it was retained in form chapter 39. And then thanks for that clarification. Actually, now recognizing who the applicant is, I understand why I see me. That smacks three. Do we have any sort of plan, support for greater densities here or then mix three or. I mean, we probably just went this way because that was the applicant's request. But is there is this really what was the desired density for this area? I mean, there is some you can see on this map, there is some higher density zone districts to the north. The current site, the office buildings on site are about our three stories today. There is a there's a single storey building and three, three storey building. So it's consistent with the existing context and it is a suburban location. And so for those reasons, we do think that it's appropriate. It's an appropriate district. Yeah, I know. Just so you know. Yeah, I it's an appropriate district. And just given the sort of heights that were there and some of the other structures historically in this area, there's some of these things already exceed mx3. And so I was just curious philosophically as other other parcels in this PBGC sort of get investigated. I mean, what are what is our vision for the the entirety of the corner, but. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. The public hearing and council Bill 442 is close comments for members of Council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Espinosa, we don't have a vision for Hampton. Remember, you went on the tour. That's right. Anyway, thank you. Wow. This is, like, the best zoning night we've ever had. I have met with these nice people. They met with me when I was just elected about a year ago. The property they're rezoning is a commercial corner. It has a Whole Foods in a Petco. And Kevin Flynn's favorite restaurant, the fast first company, Chipotle. Hey. Hmm. Asia. Yes. And some office buildings. It's a very appropriate corner for this kind of development. But the thing that I'm really happy about is when they met with me, we talked about the fact that the Goldsmith Gulch trail mysteriously ends right behind these properties. And I asked them if they would be willing to build a path that would continue the trail to Hampton. And not only did they agree to that, but they agreed to put in some sort of bike facility with a bench and water and air or something. So we really appreciate that. And with that, I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right. So, you know, for the comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon Cashin. I can eat Lopez. Hi. Ortega. Sussman. Mr. President. Ortega. Sorry. For some reason. My screen is okay. Mr. President. I closed voting as a result. 12 eyes. 12 Eyes. Counsel will for 42 has passed on Monday, August 15, 2016, there will be a required public hearing for Council Bill 524 approving a service plan for the creation of the Midtown Metropolitan District and a commission and the required public hearing for Council Bill 525 approving a service plan for the creation of the First Creek Village Metropolitan District. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, sir. You know, the lunchroom. And this was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because back in those days, that's the way the train traveled. Both going and coming was a grand experience, and people today would have a hard time believing that people actually used to go to Union Station for the sole purpose of having dinner or having cocktails. It was a lively place. Despite growing competition from commercial airlines and busses, the railroads maintained their reputation as the most glamorous way.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 901 North Kearney Street in Montclair. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allow for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 901 North Kearney Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02072022_21-1437

So we can see council members. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. Speakers must stay on the topic at 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 Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1437 on the floor for final passage? And will that council vote 21 1437 be placed upon final consideration and do pass? Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 1437 is open and I see we have Libbey here with us for the staff report. Thank you. Okay. Can you see that? Yes, I say so. Thank you. Council members. My name is Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 901 North Carney Street. This is located in Council District five in the Montclair neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to rezone from urban edge single unit D X to Urban Edge Single Unit d1x to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. As stated previously, this property is zoned ESU d x, which allows the urban and suburban house forms on a minimum zone. Lot size of 6000 square feet. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home. There's mostly other single unit uses in this area with more commercial multi-unit directly west of the site. Then this slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. A postcard notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on September 21st. And then this went to planning board in early December, where they unanimously recommended approval. And to date, we have not received any any public comments regarding this rezoning. So the Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for zoning to be approved. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three plans that are applicable to the site. This rezoning will further the strategies in the comprehensive plan by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. And then in Blueprint Denver, the future neighborhood context is urban edge. These predominantly residential areas are a mix of suburban and urban with regular block patterns. And then Blue Print identifies this property as a low residential place type where it says ads are appropriate. And then both Kearny and Ninth Avenue are local streets consistent with residential uses, the growth area strategy and blueprint, Denver and all all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. And then Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. So in land use and built form housing policy for strategy states that individual rezonings to allow ads are appropriate and should be small. An area which is what's proposed today. So then moving to the East Area plan, so similar to Blueprint, the East Area plan designates the future neighborhood context as urban edge, and the place type is low residential. But the area plan also further describes this low residential area as specifically single unit where 80 use are appropriate. And then the maximum height in the east area plan is two and a half storeys, consistent with the maximum height permitted in the proposed district. And then the area plan also includes specific guidance to integrate ADAS and missing middle housing in the in the Montclair neighborhood. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with both citywide and neighborhood plans. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare by allowing gentle density in the Montclair neighborhood. And then staff finds there's a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the newly adopted East Area Plan and blueprint Denver guidance to allow to use in the Montclair neighborhood. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context, the residential districts purpose and the specific intent of the ESU, D1 zoned district. So based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. And that concludes my presentation. All right. Thank you for the presentation. Libby and counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. And we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Jeff Baker. Jeff, you're going to have to unmute yourself and you can go ahead, please. I'm just here for questions. If you guys have questions. Would you introduce yourself for the public? This is Jeff Baker, and I'm working with the clients at 901 Kearney along with Bruce O'Donnell. And we are the design build firm working with them. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker this evening is Bruce O'Donnell. Hello, Madam President. A member of the council. Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street, Denver. And I want to agree with the staff report and the consistency with plans and especially the appropriateness cited in the neighborhood plan for integrating the use into this part of Denver. And I ask that council approve this this evening, and I'm available to answer your questions. You have. And thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, Bruce. Our next speaker this evening is Patrick Walsh. And I believe we have Pat Walsh and the attendees. Go ahead, Pat, please. And you're going to have to unmute yourself. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Good evening, council members. My name is Patrick Welch. My wife and I purchased this home at 901 North Kearny Street back in 2003. About 18 and a half years ago. My wife's mother's just turned 79 years old and lives by herself. My father lives in Littleton and is 81 years old. And given the extremely high cost of assisted living facilities in and around Denver over the years, my wife and I have been thinking about better cost alternatives potentially for them. And building an ADU on our property, we felt, is the best way to go. Not only that, and as my wife and I age, we would probably be looking into moving that Ada Adu ourselves and at some point in the future as well, a bit easier on our legs from having to do stairs, etc.. I request that council vote to approve build 21 Dash 1437 Rezoning 901 North Kearny Street. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris. And I'm. Not. Seeing Jesse in the queue in attendees. So I'll let our producers look one more time. Oh, there we go. We had him moving over. Go ahead, please, Jesse. But even then, the city council might be hurt. Yes. Yes. My name is just past the member present for Blackstone at the moment for self-defense, powers of execution, for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and Frontline Black Knows. And I'll be the next mayor in 2023. Remember, this is on its mind, as you already know. And if you didn't know, I supported any deals when I ran for city council at large in 2019 and I will continue to support them in 2023. So I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I had a few questions, but to answer some, so I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. All right. Not seeing any. I'll give it one more time. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. Council Member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I agree that this is consistent with all adopted plans and given the amount of time and discussion we put into the Syria plan. I think the residents surrounding the area are also supportive or at the very least comfortable with the the plan as it stands right now. So I'm in support and I hope my council members will agree with me that this is consistent with all of the criteria. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and I agree as well that has met all of the criteria. And so we'll be happy to support this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21. Gosh, 1437, please. Sawyer, I. Torres. I black. I see tobacco. Clark. I. Herndon. I haven't. I. Cashmere high. Can each I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.

A RESOLUTION relating to the Office of Sustainability and Environment; affirming The City of Seattle’s commitment to meet or exceed goals established in the Paris Agreement.

SeattleCityCouncil_06122017_Res 31757

Thank you much the bill passed and there was signage we may there are some interest, I've been told, of taking the climate change resolution out of order. Councilmember O'Brien, would you like to address that? Yes, I'd move to adopt resolution 31757 as the first item under committee reports today. So I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. I didn't share that with you. So we're just making a motion to change the order. Just to be clear, this is not the subject of vote, and it's been moved in second. And so it's removed in second to move to place that agenda item. To agenda item number one. All those and any comments. All those in favor of that change. Vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So let's start with that particular agenda item. And Madam Clerk, can you read that went into the record. Resolution 317 57 relating to the Office Sustainability Environment, affirming the City of Seattle's commitment to meet or exceed goals established in the Paris Agreement. Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So I'll go ahead and start by moving 31757. Thank you. I want to thank all the folks that come out today and have come out over the years in favor of Seattle taking bold action on climate change. It's it's the folks in this room and thousands of others throughout the city like you that have consistently elected elected officials in this city, those of us here and our predecessors that are committed to making taking bold action on climate change. Sometimes you make it easy, but it's a lot of hard work to do. And I really appreciate that. We know in this room the threats that climate change posed to our society, not just in our city, but around the world, and that we're already seeing some of those threats being realized, whether we're talking about ocean acidification, reduced snowpack, less clean drinking water, rising sea levels, increased storm activity. We know, in fact, here in the city of Seattle, we're already slated to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate those impacts. And that's in a city like Seattle. They can afford to do that. We know as cities around the country and around the world, especially in communities who had nothing to do with pumping the carbon into the atmosphere, are suffering the most and have no resources to mitigate it. We have an obligation and a responsibility to take that action. Now, a little over a week ago, Donald Trump took some unilateral action to remove the United States from the Paris climate accord, putting the United States in with Syria and Nigeria as the only two. Sorry. Nicaragua and Syria as the only two. The only three countries that are not part of the Paris climate accord. What you've seen since then is cities like Seattle, states like Washington move swiftly to collaborate with other jurisdictions around the country. And what's coming forward is a movement that I believe will demonstrate to the rest of the world that despite our elected president, Donald Trump, abdicating, abdicating the leadership role, the United States should be playing as the country that is most responsible for the cumulative emissions of carbon in the atmosphere over history. Stepping back from that leadership role that cities and states will step forward to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States will, in fact, live up to the Paris climate agreements through our own local and subregional actions. Now, the Paris Climate Accord calls for actions to maintain climate, a climate no more than 1.5 degrees above historical levels. And there's some question whether even that is enough. We also have questions about whether the actions outlined in the Paris climate accord are going to even get us to that 1.5. We know that we have to move aggressively and swiftly. Seattle has a very bold climate action plan that was adopted a few years ago in this resolution. Commits us to that. But that plan assumes actions at the federal level like increased fuel standards and automobiles. Some of those assumptions may no longer be true under this administration. What this resolution does is it asks our Office of Sustainability and Environment to go back and reevaluate that climate action plan, making new assumptions based on this administration's abdication of leadership on climate and figuring out what additional actions we have to take locally. And in addition, work with other cities and states to show leadership, as we've heard from others today. When you're in a hole, the first thing you want to do is stop digging. We have to stop the programs that are already causing damage at the top of that list, as you heard today. Public comment is the coal powered electricity that's generated in Montana but shipped into Washington state over wires. Now, in the city of Seattle, we don't use any of that coal generate electricity. But many of us are customers of Puget Sound energy for their natural gas. And the customers throughout the region use Puget Sound energy for their electricity. We want to see Puget Sound Energy shut down the Colstrip Power plant as soon as possible so that Washington state can be coal free electricity throughout the whole state. We also need to prevent new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure from being built. And if we are truly going to be a leader as governor, Inslee joined wanted to join with Governor Cuomo from New York and Governor Brown from California in stating that we will not we will not be in making these investments and instead will live up to this Paris climate accord. It's critically important that these new infrastructure projects not be built. We call upon the state to not allow the Vancouver oil export terminal to be built. The Colombo methanol export facility cannot be built. We also look around the region to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion up in British Columbia and ask that that expansion not take place either. And then we need to do more investments right here locally. We need to increase the adoption of solar, especially as the price and efficiency comes up. In this climate, we can have we can figure out how to generate so much more electricity. If those empty roof tops were covered with solar panels, we need to continue to invest in walkable, bikeable, transit friendly neighborhoods so that folks have alternatives to burning fossil fuels. We need to draft rapid adoption of electric vehicle infrastructure, not just in the wealthier neighborhoods, but throughout the city of Seattle. Electric vehicles are moments away from being the most cost effective vehicle that anyone can own. And we need to make sure our city is ready to embrace that when our consumers, our residents are ready to buy and use those electric vehicles. We need to make sure that we continue to build the most efficient, build energy efficient buildings in the world. And we need to take actions like labeling gas pumps. Thank you for coming out and testifying for your ongoing work on that and to the young folks in the audience. Thank you for your activism. You're absolutely right. When you look at us and say that our generation has not done enough well, will we hang on here for a few more years? We're going to do as much as we can, and we know that we're going to still leave a lot of work to you and your colleagues . And we hope we can at least keep this ship turned in the right direction so that you have less work to do. Colleagues, I really appreciate working with a bunch of folks who care passionately about the climate. I'm lucky to spend a lot of time working on this, but it's it's so much easier to do. And it's a council who firmly believes in this. So thank you for your support. It's time. That's very strong. I want to say thank you, Councilmember O'Brien, for your leadership on this and for all of you who've come out today. This is critically important, and I am just delighted to be a co-sponsor of this legislation without going back in and repeating everything that Councilmember O'Brien just said. I just want to add my voice to the fact that it's absolutely shocking and inexcusable that our president of this United States has withdrawn us from the Paris Accord. And as Mike mentioned, the idea that we are in the company of Nicaragua and Syria as being the only two in the world that are not signing up on this is just embarrassing to me. But it gives us the opportunity to lead as a city. And we're joining wonderful cities across the United States who have already stepped up. I appreciate what Mayor de Blasio said in New York. It's a sad state of affairs when localities have to do what the federal government should be doing. But we know the cavalry's not coming from the other Washington right now. So stepping up just as Pittsburgh and parents did. Again, our president tried to divide Pittsburgh and Paris, and instead the two mayors came together and said, we're going to put aside parochial politics and embrace the global challenge of fighting climate, climate change. So, you know, God bless the people that are working so hard, coming together and saying we're not going to be cowed by this president . And I just really want to recognize the fact that Portland and Vancouver, B.C., and our friends in California are doing a lot of work. We want to be joining them. So again, thanks to the young people who came out and to all of you, because you're the ones that are helping us make a difference. Councilmember Swann. Thank you, President Harrell. I want to thank all the activists to Seattle and Councilmember O'Brien for bringing this resolution. Donald Trump and the billionaire class are dangerously out of touch with the urgent need for dramatic action on climate change. And they are out of touch with the majority of humanity, which is now very clear. This is not 30 years ago when there was an actual debate about climate change. Most of humanity is very clear about the dangers of climate change. Trump's rejection of the Paris climate agreement, unfortunately, as weak and inadequate as the agreement is, is a really important example of how out of touch he is. The Paris Climate Agreement only had voluntary targets and at the time it was passed. You will all remember fellow activists that we were worldwide. Activists were outraged by how ineffectual it turned out to be. But Trump's rejection of even this ineffectual agreement means that he has no intention of having even limited goals. And it's also a reminder of how intense is the nexus between his billionaire dominated administration and the oil lobby executives. And consistent with all this. Just today, Trump bragged on social media about having opened a new coal mine. So these resolutions such as these are extremely important, but more and more important is the activism that goes behind it. I really appreciate that the resolution goes farther than the Paris Climate Agreement, and it pushes for the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board to divest from fossil fuels like Trump's new coal mine. And everyone here should support the fossil fuel divestment campaign by 350 and indigenous activists in our city to truly invest the resources of the world in transforming production and transportation towards clean energy. Resources, in my view, will require a socialist economy where resources are democratically owned by working people and resource use is democratically decided and dictated by human and environmental need, not by the greed of an elite. The Top End is dictated by the creation of living wage jobs in the renewable energy sector. However, until we go to such an economy, campaigns like the divestment campaign can have a huge impact. And that is exactly what our movement needs. And I'll vote yes on this resolution. Thank you. Any further comments before I call for the vote? Outstanding comments. I simply say that when Azura turns 44, he and I will continue to fight on climate change. Where the rest of you will be too old to do it. I'll see you there. And with that, I move to adopt resolution 31757. Second, it's been moved. And second, that the resolution be adopted. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted chair will sign it. I'm probably not on here. I want to make. Just a little clarification about Nicaragua and Syria. Nicaragua did not approve join because they didn't think it was strong enough. Syria, of course, is being shredded by lust for fossil fuels and that's why they didn't join. Thanks for the clarification. Like anyone else like. I'm just saying, we have to go back. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Please read. We've held agenda item number one. So please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12-Month Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. (Community Development 29061822)

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1098

Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a Second Amendment to police of small size. Dig Mine Inc a California corporation substantially in the form of Exhibit four to extend the term for one year with 112 month extension option for Building 35 located at 2450 PanAm Way in the Main Street neighborhood in Alameda Point. Thank you. All right. Is that back to you, Miss Curtis? That's very nice. Okay, please. So, as Ms.. Larger said, this is a lease renewal for Building 35, which is located at 2450 PanAm Way. It is a 12 month extension term with 112 month extension option. Small size. Big mine is a child care and preschool provider in Alameda. They've been here since 2006 and expanded over to the West End in 2018. Not only do they help meet the growing demand for preschool and child care services in Alameda, but we've gotten substantial feedback that the imaginative and inviting playspace they've created at Alameda Point is somewhere that adults and children alike would love to play. So I hope that you're. One of them. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for that. I don't know if I've never had a chance to. I should call them and invite myself over. I haven't had a chance to tour the facility, but if you peek over the fence, it's like Miss Curtis said. The play yard just would inspire imaginations. You just want to get in there. Hands on. Can we have. Oh, I'm sorry. I should ask, do we have public speakers on this? We do not. All right. In closing, public comment on this item. Councilor Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move this item. And I do want to comment that I think they provide a very critical need of daycare on the West. And and I, I supported their expansion back in 2018. And I think that they've done an amazing job. And so I think and again, I want to thank staff for your efforts of bringing this back and recognizing the timeline. So this is one year, 112 month extension, balancing everything that you all have in front of you. But I am very happy to support this and appreciate your work to get us to 12 months. Get get the parents and the children. The 12. Months. Thank you. Do I have a second? Councilmember Marks 5 seconds. Any further discussion seeing then maybe have a roll call vote please. Remember I Herrera Spencer. I knocked right. By. Vela high. Mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries I. Write perfect. Thank you so much, staff. You. Don't think you're on our next run, but thank you so much. I appreciate your efforts and good. Work. And great votes. Right. All right. Item six G and a bet. We're going to be joined by public works director or we are. Okay. You want me to read the title? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we keep things moving? Yeah, please. Recommendation Implement water conservation measures in response to drought and provide direction on further city of Alameda water reduction efforts. And the rec and park director will also be coming up. Oh, very nice. All right. So I see. Before I start, she is Public Works director Aaron Smith is back and we are also joined by recreation parks director Amy Wooldridge. Greetings and Dylan Hammond. Refresh my recollection.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $20,000, offset by community sponsorships for the Uptown Jazz Fest in the amount $15,000 from Bridge Development Partners, LLC, and $5,000 from the Port of Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0945

Thank you. Item 33. Communication from Councilmember Richardson recommendation to increase appropriations in the special advertising and promotion fund group and the City Manager Department by 20,000 for the Uptown Jazz Fest. So I'll move, Richard. Thank you. Any public comment on this side of second round is. There's no public comment on this item. But can we please have a vote on this? District one. I. District two. I. District three. District four. By. District five. District six. Right. District seven, District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries 505 district. Okay. Motion carries.

Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via Teleconference. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC_11162021_2021-1449

Thank you. Okay let's do five. I as quickly as possible Councilmember Harry Spencer, you pulled it. Anything you want to say? Thank you. Yes. So this is in regards to continuing to have virtual meetings for the council as well as all of our commissions. And I did want to ask the city attorney in regards to what are the requirements that we have to find in order to do that? Because there was common in regards to just doing it forever. If I understand correctly. Mr. Shin as a council member under AB 361, we have essentially, I believe, and the SINCKLER can help me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we have until we could do this for as long as January 20, 24 or 23, for some period of time, we're able to do this certainly through the share and the findings that the city has to make is contained in the staff report, which is that they're still in a state of emergency as declared by the state of California, by the governor. That remains true. And then the second finding is a local finding, which is that local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distance distancing or and that as a finding you're essentially making tonight in approving this item. Thank you. And I wanted to share. So I've been trying to well, I've actually had some people that have a different opinion of we should be meeting in person. And City of Hayward started doing a hybrid with where they have some members or my understanding as members of the council or the commission. But they also allow Zoom. And so it's a hybrid. And I would like to add my understanding on that one is that they do require a proof of vaccination to be in the bill in the chambers. And then my understanding is that Vallejo staff resume in-person November 16th and that they require everyone to wear masks inside. And I think I've heard from other constituents that they think that in-person meetings are, in fact, preferred than the zoom. And so I would like us to look at doing a hybrid and what the requirements of that would be as we know that other cities are starting to do that. And for the members of the public that are listening and also many of us are actually here in city hall right now, I am member de SOG is the mayor, is our city manager. I believe you're here and our assistant city manager. You're here. I believe I think I think that's is as you know and I and I'm not quite sure about our attorney, but many of us are here. We are in different rooms. And I think that and I would like to know from our attorney, looking forward, if we have council members that or commissioners that I don't want to say something, that they have to give out their home address of wherever they're going to be. If we stop this, could they then use a room in the city hall as we're using right now, if they have concerns of being around others, what that would look like to try to figure out a way to offer more more of a hybrid, a hybrid model and so on. So I will not I would be voting no this time, but when this comes back, I would like to have more information about what other cities are doing for their for their council meetings and other public meetings like this as and then, you know, what could we do to facilitate that? I have had some people don't feel comfortable or in fact don't have the means to be online like this. And they have either poor Internet or they don't have Internet. So they are actually denied the opportunity to participate in these meetings. Now, they may have a phone, they have the phone, but some people sadly do not feel comfortable calling in like that. And so they would prefer coming in and being able to have the ability to participate in these meetings as they used to. And so I do think it's important to include all of our members of the public and not just those that happen to have reliable Internet service or the ability to use the phone to call in so that we are, in fact, trying our hardest to include all members of our public. So I wanted to share that information I look forward to, because this item comes back every month. So I look forward to getting more information from staff what we could do to accommodate all members of our public. Thank you. Your music. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer. Any further comments saying then may we have a roll call vote on item five? Please. We need a motion for. A motion and. I'm going to move approval with with with the direction that we continue to put this consent and just move forward for the rest of the year. All right. We had a motion and we have a second. Vice Mayor Vella has got her hand up to second. Okay. Maybe we have a roll call vote now, please. Oh. Come in. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor. It's a comment. Quick comment. I'm going to support the the matter that's before us. But I think the point that council member Harris Spencer is right on. I think we should start moving towards a hybrid model to the extent that it's safe and we can meet and as a council and public and for those who can, me I'm sure if other cities are figuring out ways to have a hybrid model, we can figure that out, too. Thank you. So I'll just throw in my comment that just what I'm hearing from public health officials is that this may not be the time to rush in to more indoor gatherings. We are seeing some surges and we're about to go into both the Thanksgiving and the December holidays. So I we will keep an eye on things. We'll keep an eye on our numbers of the cities that you mentioned that have gone back to hybrid or all in-person models. Our COVID vaccination rates and COVID cases are much better. And I mean, there's a lot of factors that go into it, but public health and safety comes first. But we, you know, will weigh all those things. I'm just not sure that as we go into the winter months is exactly the time to to loosen up. I know some of the boards and commissions I sit on are waiting out, you know, getting to the end of this year and going to reconsider in January. But. Okay. Any further comments? Vice mayor. You know, one of the things that California Department of Public Health that a mayor continues to raise is the fact that, you know, our our COVID surge last year really started with Halloween and continued and really started to spike drastically around Thanksgiving and was uniquely and distinctly American. And our surges were different from that of the rest of the world. And it really coincided with those holidays in particular. So I think, you know, now is not the time to say the pandemic is over. And we do know that the rates, to your point, are increasing. And we also know that the governor earlier this week, I think yesterday issued some more emergency declarations and in fact, is asking for out of state health, health, official health, state for health workers. So, you know, I don't think we're quite through this, but I certainly think and take into account the comments about how we function and how government functions in a post-COVID world. So I'm going to continue to support this at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. I want to underscore that at no time did I say the pandemic is over. I absolutely do not believe that. And I think it's unfortunate to hear such comments. I do think, though, that many of us do not stay in our homes 24 seven and that at some point we do, in fact, need to figure out a way to support open government and a hybrid model. I think that's a good compromise that other cities are doing. But I but I absolutely agree the pandemic is not over. And I think at some point, if anyone tried to fight it, that's what I said. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Desai. Just quickly, two points. One is I got to hope that the vaccine counts for something so that 2021 and going forward after October is different from Halloween 2020. So I'm putting face faith in science. I hope it works. And the second point is, you know, I see how regularly, at least in Washington, D.C., Congress seems to be holding committee meetings. And granted, you know, in those rooms there is a lot of space. But I think if they can do it, figure it out in Washington, DC or Vallejo, which kind of figure it try to figure it out in it are not going to be tomorrow or the next month, but maybe sometime soon. I think residents kind of want to see a path forward in terms of getting back. But if it's a hybrid model, great. Great. Let's take a vote. Calls for an X, Y. And Z, because I know that we've been talking and actually there was a polling for a free workshop, a council workshop. And I think it's be a great conversation for an in-person council workshop when, when and if that is held. Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. I think that there are some things we can do spread out and yes, that's one of the best is not before a threat assessment. Let's vote. Madam Clark. Quick. Quick. Before I. Ever censor. No, not quite. Hi. Fella. I there is the Ashcroft high that carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you. Okay, so then we have dispensed with our consent calendar. Correct? Correct. So we are moving on. We have nothing under item six this time. So we are moving on to item seven A and I'm hoping that we've got all of our staff is ready to come in so we can keep moving. The staff in and I can read the title while we're doing it. That's a great. Recommendation. Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement and the amount not to exceed $2,536,047, with the Bay Area Community Services for Emergency Homeless Housing Services for up to two years. A recommendation authorize the city manager to negotiate Mexican agreement with Alameda County in an amount ranging from 30000 to 45000 in homeless emergency aid program. Interest funds to assist with the remodeling repair of city owned housing is emergency homeless and adoption related resolution. Thank you. And so I think we have as is Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Maxwell are you the team is going to present.

Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. (Finance 2450)

AlamedaCC_06112015_2015-1674

Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license, taxes and delinquent integrated waste management accounts via the property tax bills. Do we have a presentation by staff? Yes, they do. Hello? Elena Dias, finance director. Um. I really don't have a actual presentation, so we're just going to go over real quickly on the staff report. So there are a couple of. Feels that the city were actually presenting today to levy with the county against the property. Properties within Alameda. So those are the business license tax. As you you're aware, any time a business owner does business in the city, according to the ordinance, they are supposed to pay a business license tax. In some cases, some of the business owners are delinquent in paying the business license tax. We do provide ample time to actually make the payment. Original notice of the renewals goes out to those business owners around May one for fiscal year 1415 went out in May of 2014. And the customers, our customers who are the business owners get a chance to actually make the payment and be on time by the end of July. So they have about three months to pay for the business license. Unfortunately, some of them do not and then those that are delinquent. We sent out three notices this year. We send them out one in March, one in April and one in May, letting them know that they are being delinquent and on top of that, informing them that there is going to be a public hearing last time we've had it set for today. And so today is the public hearing to clean those particular properties. The City Clerk may have already distributed you the updated updated listing for business license delinquent customers. And I do want to let you know that this is current as of today. All of the business owners that are on that list do have an opportunity to still pay the business license by the end of June, June 30th, specifically in order not to have a lean on their properties. The second one you will see is a. Waste management fees that. Actually is done through ac i ac i bills the customers within city of alameda and. They provide actually quite of an extended period of time to collect the fees, the fees that you actually see on the list right now. Those were sent to the city by ACI. And generally they are never less than 360 days being delinquent. So they are at least a year past being paid. That said, again, you have received an updated list of all of those delinquencies and those customers do get as well notices. Quite a few of them, actually. I believe it's for where they're being notified about delinquent outstanding counts and we request for them to clear their bill before it's actually been levied with their account, with their properties. That said, tonight we are asking you to approve the current list unless of course, somebody makes the payment and those will be removed from the list and approved. Correct. One is for the monarch clarified. Were speaking about two lists. Yes, there are two lists. One is for business license and one is for the Integrated Waste Management. Hmm. All right. Do we have any clarifying questions? We do have speakers. Member, Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple quick questions. So the people on this list, did they get an actual notice saying today, June 11th, that 7:00 is the hearing? Yes, they do. Okay. And then is it been the past history of this council if someone does pay their delinquent business license that the late fees are waived? Well, this is a per ordinance. And per our masterpiece schedule, we are supposed to levy any penalties or interest. Now, this is not up to a department, I guess, to waive fees. I cannot tell you if previously these particular fees have been waived or not, but it would be up to council to actually if you do decide to do that, you can do that. I couldn't actually speak to that. If it's a first offense, we have waived the fees in the past, but if it's recurring, then we don't. The list does not delineate between any recurring and first offense. Far as I know. No, I was going to ask that question. I think that's just something that we do administratively. Mean. So do we know any of these that are on here? I guess those whether they're another recurring. I don't know. I don't know. Do you know? I can tell you that there are a few on the business license side that have been generally late in paying. I'm not sure if they were specifically delinquent. Okay. Thank you. Member de SAC. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can, can you just give us some background on the leg that matter of legacy. Programs. Public information. Yes. Yes, yes. The matter. Thank you. The matter of legacy partners. I mean, there is a substantial amount there. I mean, what's this? What's the story there? Well, they have rental properties and they have been previously late in making payments. Cannot tell you actually if they have been delinquent previously or not. But they have rental properties for which at this point in time, after last contacting them, they have not made the payments yet for their rental properties. I see. So on the very same topic, when it comes to the late charge, it seems as though the late charge on it seems to be if the amount due is 4000 and then there's a late charge of 3200 or a total outstanding fee of 7200, and then there's some processing charges, etc.. So the 3200 late charge tacked on top of the $4,000 amount. It just seemed a little excessive. Now, let me just say, before anything, I have not been lobbied by anybody indirectly or directly about this. But just looking at this. My inclination is I want to hear more. Thank you. Okay. Clarify, in regards to legacy partners, is that a first offense or a recurring? I can find out that information if need be, but I don't have that in front of me right now. All right. Remember Ashcroft? And then I was just going to ask Mr. and by the way, thank you for your email. I didn't have a chance to get back to you and say thank you for your email earlier today, answering some questions that I had. But so how is the the late fee determined? Is that is that something that every city does a little differently? I know you've worked in some other cities or is there some formula. And can you clarify that in regards to the business license list or the way I'd like to actually treat these issues? Well, one is waste management, and that probably determines differently. You know, the only one I'm seeing with a late fee is the business license tax, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also exist for waste management. So if you could ask in regards to each list. Okay. This you're speaking to. So on a business license, that particular fee is actually in our master free schedule. And the way it's being calculated, it's 20% per month and up to 100%. So technically, if a business is delinquent anywhere from August, you're pretty much January and not paying it. You're out of 100% of the fee, the late charge. Imminently or per year, or. It cannot exceed 200% in a year. And a year. So per annum. But 20, 20% per month? Yes. Okay. So mathematically then Legacy Partners is ten months behind? No. Hundred is 80% of. Oh. Technically 20, 20 times. Yes. So it's 20% for each month starting August. Okay. And, um. And we do have two speakers. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And of course. Dennis Wong. And then to Peter Todd Whitman. Good evening. My name is Dennis Hwang and my family. Most of my family still resides here over 50 years. And they earn income property here in Alameda. And my parents have lived in the same address for over 50 years. I retired to Utah about ten years ago. And I don't know what that lady was speaking about, but all I know is my personal experience. I receive the notice on one of our properties for delinquent business license fees on the letters dated March the 31st. I live in Utah, so I probably received that about seven days later. And I quote. That if payment is not received on or before April 16th. Of 2015, the amount due plus additional late charges and collection fees. Will be sent to the. City Council for their review and approval for attachment of the amount due on the property. Tax. So I receive and again we've been paying diligently on a four plex way on business taxes for. 30 some odd years. Never received notice on this duplex. I did not know that duplexes within the purview of the business license. So I called the city clerk, the finance department and the legal department, and wrote letters. And some were helpful. Some were not. But I spent about two weeks of my life researching it. Came and spent it. Great afternoon with this listener and this smaller but I can't pronounce your name but Carol the delightful people explaining it. Researched back. On the legislation. Which was first wrote. I think section 834. Uh. July the 20th, in 1943. And at that time Council saw fit to levy business licenses. And the, the intent was to generate income. And at that time it defines business as is in calling or any any enterprise carried on for profit dispenser. At the last meeting we were discussing AT&T and astoundingly and I tried to answer, but I was stopped. You wanted to know whether or not that tower, AT&T, it were subject to business license. And I was going to give. You the answer. What astounds me was you had three counsel here. You had three attorneys sitting here. I talked to two of them. They didn't know the answer. And if you look subsequently over the years, they've added fortune tellers on telecom bowling alley. You're to have pure, clean legislation. Anything any enterprise carried on for profit. Why do you need to add all these subcategories? You don't need to do that. And I don't know if it's because you feel like you need to generate more legislation so that you're doing your job, but you have clean legislation. Leave it as it is. And quite frankly, I find it rather offensive that. You may continue like that. You're trying to scratch out $20 a unit, which I'm perfectly happy to pay. I just wasn't aware of a subject to it. And you don't know or we're not levying business taxes for AT&T and the Verizon's of the world. So you asked about the penalty. It's still $20 a unit. And that's been since 1986. In my my junior high school principal actually enacted that offensive $20 unit. I mean, I think if you went to people and actually told them $20 unit and they knew that it existed, they'd be happy to pay it. I'd be more than happy to pay it. It's the penalty that seems like you give me seven days to pay and then also you're asking for 100 800% penalty. So I'd like to ask you a clarifying, crushing real quick. When I look up, are you on here long? I'm on the list. I'm looking at it. Shows amount due just the late the the late charge of $160 and amount due zero. So did you pay? Right. So I researched I researched it. And again, you they what they did was they added they had this general language about anything carried out for profit. And then over the years they started added these specific businesses. To understand the Maersk question you were asking, did you pay off the late. Or the principal? Because on this chart. Did you pay the back? He's the only one that has a zero under the amount to call columns for. This a dare. Well, I can I can answer. So I came and I researched it and sure enough, it was it was an 86 that they added specific language on duplexes and they still exclude single family dwellings and I don't know why. Right. So I said, oh yeah, we the duplexes subject to the business license. And so I told Carol, I said, Hey, I want to pay this, but what do you suggest? You know, I'm going to ask counsel to weigh the fee. Now, first of all, I haven't had no problems with the thing. And ironically enough, I got my annual notice for Meals on Wheels. I'd be happy to pay the penalty to Meals on Wheels. It's it's the principle. And if you look at the history, we have it increase that business license since 1986. But the penalties over the years have been increasing. And I don't I can give you the detail the year in the legislation, but the penalty is now 100%. And what it seems like is from a layperson who has no notices that, hey, you know what we get, we want to penalize you. You probably was afraid of the microphone, say, oh. We want to penalize you. We don't want the $20. We want the penalty fees. Do you. See? Right. So man, clarify I at this point that let him finish if you could wind up and we can have so. In any of it you know I have some suggestions suggestions. Okay if you say, hey, the $20 it goes to, you know, here's your annual business license notice again, which I did not receive until the date that I indicated it. Here's this business license. And by the way, what's really helpful, this is new federal legislation on landlord tenant issues. This is new, particularly the local ones like I look every year, you know, you change the fire notices. You know, you have to put the notice. I'm happy to meet with you. Oh, you remember how it went? So, you know, something like that, so. Oh, wow. You know, I talked to all my my friends, you know, my high school buddies about this, and it's kind of it's kind of bang for the bang for the buck. And I don't I don't really none of my friends, we have nothing against the 20 hours. We actually think it should be increased. It's it's the penalty and the lack of notice. That's right. Did you have any other points you want to raise? So that's that's that's about it. Okay. I had one question, Mr. Wong. One question. So thank you, Madam Mayor. So I didn't quite follow your presentation, but are you asking us that we, we waive the late charge and not send that for for you you because you paid and not send that through the property tax attachment. Well yeah, I'm I'm. Glad to see you decision. You know, I came here today and I just right earlier this afternoon thought I was going to make the appeal, mostly to give notice and give you some feedback on what I think long time aluminum and some of us, you know, small dwelling unit landlords, are. They yes or no? I mean, are you asking that? Yeah. Yeah, I think that there's not. There was some sympathy on my part to do that. Okay. Yeah. 10 minutes ago. So that and then but I think more importantly, maybe some suggestions on how to take a look at this legislation. Also look at the policy. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have another speaker. I think I'd like to hear the clarification on this point while we're still on it, though, from this one, madame. So the point is that several years ago, under the previous finance director, Fred Marsh, there was a change in the fee because we were continually getting people not paying on time. And so the idea was to actually create a penalty for people not paying on time. I think the staff, the finance staff does a admirable job trying to reach out based on the the address that we have, based on the business license that people have submitted. So we try and we do our best to try and reach out to these individuals so that they can pay on time. But sometimes we don't have the correct address. Right. But I actually think that's more appropriate after we hear from our speakers. I'd like to continue with our speakers. Thank you, Mr. Raymond. Yes. Good evening. My name is Todd Wyman. I have been a resident here for about 15 years as a homeowner. And I'm also here to speak against, I guess, the penalties and back business fees for for a number of the reasons that have actually been cited by Mr. Fong. I, I received the notice on, I guess it was probably around the March 31st notice. That was actually the first notice I received full stop that a business license was required for the In Law Unit that I have behind my house. I received no there was no effort by the city to actually let me know that. As you know, as you need a business license for this, I did receive three letters threatening me with the problem with the additional fees and penalties, which again I had no knowledge of to begin with. I didn't know that to rent a piece of property behind my house. And incidentally, my house is two houses on one lot. Which is kind of to be honest, to send the penalty is kind of a cynical way to treat residents of Alameda to assume that we were I was or residents as a whole are trying to evade a fairly nominal tax or fee, if you will. I'm sorry. I had similar difficulty understanding the penalties. I actually had someone in the department explain it to me. I am still baffled by how it all. After that discussion, I was still baffled at how they arrived at the penalties. And I have a graduate degree in business that I mean, that's that's horrible. From what I can tell the city to simply a search of county records and blindly sent out notices to anyone that had anything other than a single family residence. This was a fishing expedition. I was actually one of the honest ones that said, Huh, I didn't know about this. I actually came down. I paid for the business license for this year. I even paid. The late fee for. This year. I simply refused to pay the back penalties or back fees because it doesn't make sense to. Me at all. Can you speak to the numbers when I'm looking at this with your name? It has amount due principal $14 and it has $64. Late charge adding all the way up to 156. Yeah. Again, the total amount due at this point. Is that. Correct? The total amount that I received on the most recent letter, which was dated May 28th, was 154. And it goes through a bunch of different charges that don't up that add up to that. And the principal initially was $14. I was $14 then. You know, more than I do. All right. No one's explained that to someone on staff explaining that. Yes. The 14. Staff confirm. Are we starting with that? That's what it says on here. Amount due $14, but the total amount due now with the county fee, which I believe is after assessing late charges, is now $156. But initially, if this gentleman had paid $14 within the correct time, was that all that would have been? Do I miss him? So, Miss Adair, could you please. Give us some. I was going to ask Mr. Women, do you have those letters you're referring to in your file? And if so. Two of the three? I don't have the initial one. Can we look at them? Sure. You get to the car, give them to the clerk, and then she'll pass them. Thank you so much. Ms.. Adair. Okay. So for Mr. Women specifically, so the amount due was $14. With the late charges of 64 making total being 78, there's a additional $1 fee, which is a state fee. It's a state required fee added on to a business license. Our master office schedule also does have a fee for business license processing fee. It's an annual fee and it's flat amount, $25. And that's for the city. For the city. And that's. As I mentioned, it's part of the masterpiece schedule already. There's also it's not really $14. And if he'd paid on time, what would he have had to pay? 14 plus 25? Correct. I'm still confused. I think that doesn't get to the point of the mayor's question, the $14 or how is that composed? Because I heard this gentleman say he paid his his his bill. I would I don't have to back up for this particular business with me, so I would need to go and take a look. Okay. I apologize for that, but I can get you that information. I'm saying remember de sa. Thank you. Is it there for for your assistance? Much appreciate it. The question that I have is so this in this particular case, we're talking about a granny unit, as they call it. It's I believe it's a separate from the main house. Is that correct? It's on the same parcel, separate from the main house. But the parcel is owned, I suspect, by the resident who lives in the main house. That correct? Absolutely. And so the unit in the back is rented out. Now it has its separate completely right? Like it has its own kitchen and has its own bath and everything. So. So the rule regarding renting out single family homes doesn't apply. In this case. Is isn't that. A single. Family house? I mean, it's certainly not a duplex in the sense that like when you go down, I forgot that avenue. Yeah, there's all these duplexes that are attached to the same wall. So how does. The way what I can tell you is the way as part of the collection effort of the business license, because the Revenue Division, it's not just, you know, sending out a bill, but it's also making sure we do do a collection effort as well and making sure that the businesses comply with our current ordinances. So, in essence, compliance. So one of the ways we research or identify which businesses need to pay and if they are paying, is going through county records. So on a county record, on a parcel, they will identify, for example, that it's a owner, but it has two units on it. So and then once we'll look into that and identify that there's one owner, two units and send out letters. And I'm sure Mr.. When women can speak to that, but we identify that there's a unit that's been rented out as part of the I guess. I ask actually a question of how. They come in, use the microphone, because then we'll get it in the record. QUESTION Now, how is it. Determined that that unit is rented out? It's an in-law unit. It's been used as a guesthouse. It's been used as an office. There's an assumption that's made here that it's being rented out because it's two properties on one lot or two houses on one lot. And that was a question I had. Didn't we hear earlier that there's a license required for renting a duplex, but not a single family residence? And if I can help a little bit, I'm looking at the ordinance and it first, let's say we admit it's confusing. And I think it's also staff. Would. Would tell you that this ordinance, as has been pointed out, has been on the books for a long time and has been modified and revised many times over the years. And frankly. Could use. A nice dusting off and making it. Even more clear. However, on in in the definitions of hotel rooming house dwelling unit, there is. An exception. Where if you have a single family residence that you are renting. So the entire single family residence. You don't live. In, you live. Someplace else. It's a single family residence that is accepted. But everything else where there is any other unit. That you rent, rent. Lease or higher, you pay a. License fee of $5 for each room that's in. The building. And so what would happen in. A case like the mother in law type unit. Assuming it is rented, that the single family house. Would not qualify, but that is. Another. Unit on. That lot. And that one would qualify. To to. Be required to have a business license. That's what happens with duplexes. It's the two units. They both would be subject to a business license. Yeah. And the reason. The reason why I'm even pursuing this is because it is my feeling, hey, you know, I rent out two rooms at my place. You know, there's a downstairs, and it's like, well, I'm just one guy, so my hotel just. It'd be empty. So. And I asked, do I have to pay a business license? And they asked, was it a single family house? Yes. Do you live in it? Yes. Well, then it no, you don't have to. So it's just kind of quirky that I don't have to pay a a business license of $20, but someone who , for all intents and purposes, kind of meets the same attributes of the same owning the parcel, owning at least one unit and having a net. But having another unit, I don't know. If I had a C or I differ with Mr. Wong as if I had to alter it, I would say that I should pay a $20 fee. I think all the people who are in some who are advertising on Craigslist, for example, should pay a $20 fee. But I think what we're hearing from Mr. Wong and from Mr. Wayman isn't so much the dollar amount, but just clarify what the rule is. And, and so that, you know, we get. Yeah, actually I do want to I do want to clarify. I mean, the dollar amount on an annualized basis, I mean, 20, 25 bucks. I mean, I've already I've already got my renewal notice, which I actually would like to pay before the July 31st deadline online because it's actually cheaper. You get a break if you do that. I'm not being allowed to right now because there is a balance. Do I don't have an issue paying 25 bucks a year if I'm renting it out, honestly, that's not a big deal. The issue that I have is I was not aware of it and the first notice I got of it tacked on a whole bunch of penalties that I didn't even I'm very willing to. Do the right thing and act in accordance with the with the requirement. But the first letter I receive is basically a stick. Saying You've screwed up. That's. That's it doesn't feel right. Thank you. May I ask you, Mr. Women? So how long? How long have you lived at that Central Avenue address? Since 2006. And then you've rented the back bungalow. It's been rented. It's been rented on and off. I was told, actually when I came here that I was actually being charged for fees due back to 2011. Which to me seems strange. It seems very arbitrary and capricious, to be honest. So this is in the past, you've paid these fees? No, no. I have never been aware of it. Under this this current billing cycle, you're being told that you're being paid. You're paying back to 2011. Yes. I have never. I have never received any notice that I was required to have any type of business license at all. So when we talked earlier about sort of first time offender, if you call me an offender, I guess that's that's perhaps what I am. But I had. No, it's offensive. I mean, I find that yeah, I find that maybe offensive. What I would ask. I think the city I think the city can do a better job letting folks know that this is required. And, you know, there are a number of different ways to do it. You can when multi-unit properties are sold, you can send a notice out to those folks. You can have it as a disclosure with real estate agents. If anyone who buys those properties, you can have an amp, put it a notice in once a year if you rent out a property, anyone who's got a property that has two different, you know, accounts on it, ahem, send that notice out. You can even. And this takes the carrot approach. You can run an ad in the journal and say you have to have one. And if you do, you have. A business license, you can go shop at Jetro on High Street because you have a business license. I would. I know a lot of people would love to be able to do that. So it's not all bad. It's just the. City I don't think has done enough to let folks know they need to do this. Thank you. And Vice Mayor. I have three points here in this. Gentlemen, you could have a seat at this point. Thank you for bringing this story. I'm in. Both of our speakers can sit right here. No, no. No. I want. To speak to. Him. Oh, Mr. Raymond. Yeah. Yes, it went well at my turn. Okay. So at this point, you could. Did you want to speak to the speaker? Is that what you're doing? All right. All right. All right. So you can have a seat until we call you back. Thank you. I have two points. One is here in these two gentlemen, I'm inclined to ask that we waive their late fees. They've made due diligence efforts on very small amounts. I am not inclined to ask to waive the late fees on legacy partners. These are big companies. They know that they have to have a business license. This is not. Oh, we weren't aware. They owe us a lot of money. They have to do it. And the third point is we've got a Byzantine code there that really needs to be revamped. And I'd like to ask this council to direct staff. Start that process and give us a time on how long it's going to take to get there. I think the other point that goes along with that is the notification process and to come up, rather than us trying to cobble something together to ask staff to put together along with that revamping a notification process or disclosure process that lets people know who have to have business licenses that they need. But and the dates are right on their on. Once you have the business license, you know, when it's payable, due and payable. So Matthew. I may just quickly and I just want just for clarification and information, understand what vice mayor matter as he has has said. This is a tax, however. So while staff certainly can go through and try to update. This ordinance, which. Frankly probably would be very. Helpful, it will take a vote of the of the the voters of Alameda. It'll take a vote to change the business. When you bring back the weekend. I mean, it's just going to take a lot longer. I just heard that you've got. A problem in in the meantime, you know, you're winning. Think the public speaking part has ended, but the mayor can speak to that. But what I was going to say was I. Think I was just. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry you were. And then I'd like to come back. So, yes, I've already been. Cut off. Once. I'm so patient. Yeah. All right, Vice, see where you stand. All right. Member. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually had a couple questions for Mr. Wayman, so I'm still confused. What? You know what this $14 is for? No. 14. The first time I heard about this, $14 was when the mayor said it. So. And you've paid something? I came in and I paid a sum, I think a check for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to $60 to get my license and the late fee as before, before the notice given on the first letter, which I don't I don't have. So then my understanding from staff is that they cannot tell us at this point what that $14 represents, what year or anything. Is that is that correct? I mean, this gentleman says he's paid. Well, first of all, you said that you don't rent that place. So, no, it's not that I said I didn't rent it like I do it. I'm that's I'm saying it hasn't necessarily been rented like full time. I was originally told these were fees going back to 2011 and it hasn't been rented the whole time. I guess that that's that's a little bit what concerns me is I don't know this $14. You know what what it I don't either and I would think and no disrespect to staff but I think if you're going to come and ask us to put something on somebody, you know, property tax assessment that, you know, if they come and appeal, that we would be able to have that information in front of us. So we know what you know, what we're actually doing. I mean, for what time periods. And, you know, we'd have the file and we could ask questions for future, you know, I I'd like to see that. So. Mr.. MCDANIEL Can you can you ask can you restate what you're asking this counsel to do related to your account? Yes, I'm asking I'm asking to to waive all of the penalties for whatever goes back to 2011. I've got my business license. Ah, the I've paid the business license fee I'm current for this year. I will renew in subsequent years when, when I've got the place rented and we'll continue to do that. I would just like to wipe out all the back stuff as a, as basically a first time offense since I was unaware . And just to be clear, does your request include that $14 that's alleged is the amount? I suppose so, because I have no idea what that's for. I know I've paid my business license. I actually have the renewal form here, so I'm up to date on that already. No idea what that 14. I appreciate I appreciate that request. It shows that you owe $156.62. And that's my understanding. You're asking that that be waived. Let's make sure that he gets his letters back. I we were circling them around. Okay. Thank you. Is it time for talking or are we still doing your questions? Because I kind of wanted to follow up. May I. Clarify something, council members, just to let you know that what happens is the ordinance allows us to go back no more than three years, I believe, to collect any business license fees that haven't been paid. So what Mr. Women seen is that the if the business license hasn't been paid, then we can only go back three years and collect those. So should he. You know, as you mentioned here, has had it for several years. We cannot go back that far. We can only do so many years. And that's authorized by the ordinance. But all right. With the assumption that it was, in fact, rented during that period of time, well, we don't know because we don't know. So it could be. It could not be. I mean, that that's that was part of my point. I would like to know that information before we put a property tax assessment on your property taxes. I spoke to Mr. Raymond and. I'm actually retired. You're winning, so you might want to sit down. No, no, no. And that's just it. I think you're. Concerned that I'm trying to over argue the case. And I spoke to Mr. Raymond. I am a retired attorney. I have written California legislation. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Raymond is very wise and we both are volunteering our services to help. We appreciate that. Okay. Thank you very. Much that we can with the. Client. Let us have our conversation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Member Ashcraft. Yeah. So thank you, everyone, for your comments. I am troubled by a number of things. I, I do understand the concept of a penalty and a penalty in creasing as time goes by because it gives you an incentive to pay on time and and correct any arrearages. Quickly, I read two of those three letters that were sent, and I'm an attorney too, and I'm all for plain English and saying what needs to be said. And I, I think the letters could, could be more informative and not just the letters that are sent out. I think we I'm I'm a little unclear as to the whole process of how we put these lists together. But in this day and age, there should be a wide variety of ways that we reach out to our community and let them know if there is a fee or a, you know, a license or a tax or something they should be paying. And it's both print media, but it should be electronic media, too. We have a website and maybe it's on there, I'm not sure. But it should be easier for the the average citizen to and I think we have some above average citizens here. But be that as it may, anybody should be able to understand clearly and simply what is expected of them. And once that, you know, we have that process and that clarity in place, then I feel comfortable going forward and imposing penalties. But I do think this is something that we need to spend a little more time on. Because I just think that we're not we're not doing ourselves or our residents any favors when we're as unclear as this appears to be. And this is on the business license part. So there were no questions or comments in regards to the waste management lines. Is there any interest in having a motion to approve that and discuss it separately that way? That's what I would prefer. I'll make that motion move the approval of the lens on the Integrated Waste Management lens. Do we have a second? A second that any discussion? Well, and I'll also note that just in the time that our packet came out online and today, this afternoon, the original amount owed on the Integrated Waste Management fees was 13,167. It's down to 9800. So, you know, hopefully it keeps going down. But anyway. The variety and. Just one quick point. I mean, we've we've given notice to individuals on the waste management list, giving them notice at this hearing. And as far as I know, no one has come to appeal or dispute or try to clarify anything and with proper notice. So I'll be supportive of this motion. Can staff confirm member Otis comments in regards to We did not receive any challenges on this. We didn't. Thank you. All right, all those in favor. Why? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now to the 2015 delinquent business license tax issue. And I'm here. A member already. Thank you, Madam Chair. So. I kind of want to echo what I think I've heard from my colleagues over on the other side of the the dais here. We had a list here of 17 different delinquent business license tax. 15 of them were given notice of this hearing, and 15 of them did not come and appeal or otherwise dispute. So I would be in favor of moving forward with those 15 and the two individuals that came. Mr. Wong apparently has paid and I would be in favor of waiving the late charge on that. And then on Mr. Women's matter, I do not believe I have enough information to. Assess him on this. And I would also move to grant his request for a waiver of his complete $156.62 as well. I'll second that motion member Ashcroft. And just a clarification point. It is in actually 17 individuals because the legacy partners has for 17 parcels. Parcels. Okay. All right. So concerns. That sounds reasonable. So I would prefer not including item parcels one through six. I'm concerned that the late charges greatly exceed it's actually more than 100%. You have an initial fee of $120, for instance, on number on parcel number one. And the total amount due today is 321. That is more than a 100% increase. So I have concerns about these additional late charges. So I would not support pursuing item the first six passes. I'm I agree with vice mayor in regards to legacy partners that we know that they no, I actually do not know that these one these other ones know the fact that these two came today, whereas in questions of notice, in fact, suggests that without confirmation that these other individuals are aware of this and having what appears to be sometimes as great as a 300% increase, I think that's very significant and I would not be able to support that. However, in regards to our source, what appears to be more of a business where we were confident that they would know what's going on as opposed to someone that appears to be an individual. So I as I understand it, the 100% cap is on the late charge. By the time you add processing and county fees, it may get up higher than that. But I. This is what the the fears that was set by ordinance. And so I don't think we're here properly to dispute that. And also, I would caution a little about assuming that Legacy Partners got noticed and others didn't. So that's so I'm saying I do not accept this as is I do not know that these people received these notices. And as far as I know, these are individuals within our community. When the bill starts at 120 and today we're asking for 321 or. And there's many examples of similar numbers on here. Without knowing that these individuals receive this. That's my concern is I do not know and I don't have that documented. But of course, you understand the legal definition of a notice being there. I actually don't appreciate your comment at this point. I understand you don't appear to be listening to what I'm saying, so I am not willing to support these. But I would consider egregious taxes on entities, on individuals that we cannot confirm that they actually received notice. And we have had that issue raised this evening that there may very well be issues in regards to receipt, unless it's in fact where we know, for instance, legacy partners, I'm confident that they received notice and understand what's occurring here. But I think that the amounts, the total is so egregious without any confirmation. And this ledger, I think, is insufficient. That's my position. Member de SAC. Thank you very much. You know, what I want to address my comments to is just kind of like this. And if curious way that we go about applying the business license tax fee on residential properties. I think during the housing discussions that we had earlier this spring, which will hopefully come back to us sooner rather than later . One of the things I mentioned was this whole issue where I don't have to pay a business license fee and maybe there's state laws as to why we don't allow single family units to pay business license fee. But it seems to me that. Whatever argument there is for a gent. The gentlemen such as Mr. Wayman, you pay a business license fee for a granny flat should hold. While it might not be the same, I think the thrust should still hold. Or those who own a single family unit and live in it. And rent it out. So for example. In Alameda, there are 15,800 rental units and 15,800 of the 15,800. There are roughly 4100. Single family units. Now some of those 4100 are paying a business license fee because as the owner doesn't live in it, though. But a good number of them aren't. I would be the example. And. And so. You know, it's very difficult to estimate how much you can generate by the $20 a year. But, you know, if you kind of ballpark it low to high, I mean, you've got enough collection possibly there to run the whatever affordable housing program or whatever program we want to do to to help. The Rent Review Advisory Board, you've got enough revenue being generated there. So. So I like, uh, council member Vice Mayor Matt Orestes point about looking at this because I think this was really an opportunity. I don't want to say this is going to solve all the rent review advisory board type of issues. But, you know, there might be some money there to to help them expand in doing their task. So I also agree with that. Is there any other council members you want to weigh in on that? The suggestion. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and the second. All those. May I make just a comment? Two things. I would just respectfully ask not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we had to verify every time somebody got a receipt, we'd have to do return receipt. There's no way we could do that. We cannot verify to make sure that everybody received these notices. We have 4000 businesses in this community with three notices that would be impossible to do. So we do make our best effort. I understand from time to time we probably don't get it right. And I think it's perfectly appropriate for people who come tonight to ask for a waiver for you to provide that. But I respectfully request that you don't do that as a policy. I think that just would be very detrimental. Thank you. So I'll respond then that my position continues to be that when the penalties are so egregious that we have a serious issue and we did have that issue raised. And so we have a motion. And what was the motion? I wasn't. Clear. The motion was to attach the 15. 15 of the 17. Yes. And waive Mr. Wong's one and. Mr. Wei. Mr. Wong and Mr. Waymon per their request. With the understanding that this was a publicly noticed hearing. And it was seconded, right? Yes. Yes. And I will not be supporting this. Not because I agree. I agree. You should not have to pay us. But I have concerns in regards to these other individuals also. All those in favor. Hi. May I just clarify for Mr. Wayman? Are you waiving everything or just delay charges and fees? I think it was. The motion included everything. I believe that I can tell you the amount of get one giving 62. Yeah. Given all the confusion. Not being able to go. Back to 2011. I have clarity on what that $14 represented as far as a year. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Six C. A recommendation to provide input to Adrian Associates on the qualifications of a city manager, the recruitment brochure and the selection process. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Stephanie Geller, Brant Serra. I am your administrative services director. And first of all, would you like an update on the score? Yeah, it's 98 to 79 with 3 minutes left to play.

Recommendation to request City Manager to review issues associated with parking impacts to neighborhoods adjoining the Deukmejian Courthouse, including but not limited to the areas bordered by Broadway to the South, 4th Street to the North, Cedar Avenue to the East and Golden Avenue to the West. Solution to consider include preferential parking districts, additional street parking meters, off-site parking options and additional enforcement. Return to Council with a report within 60 days.

LongBeachCC_07122016_16-0620

Excuse me, sir, you know, you've already been to the diocese. You can't come back and so on. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. So. All right. So, city manager, we've already voted on this. Okay, fine. So we'll go to the next item. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. We appreciate your. Passionate consideration. Thank you again. 13 1337. Next item, please. Item seven. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request the city manager to review issues associated with parking impacts to neighborhoods adjoining the Deukmejian courthouse and returned to council with a report within 60 days. Any public comment on the item? Mr. Shelton. Right down. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Pro tem. I don't know. Are you vice mayor yet? And rest of the city council and staff. My name is Gary Shelton. I live a couple of blocks a year. Chestnut and third in this proposed district. I hope I'm talking on item seven anyway. Last couple of times I've talked on other items and what I meant to you know, what I'm what I'm really hoping is that this is such a unique neighborhood where this parking preferred parking district is is proposed a study for it that I hope we don't have anything of of a boulder type that would maybe apply to other parts of town that don't have high rises with two or 300 people in a quarter of a block that don't have schools with with very little or no parking, that don't have huge public facilities, that employ thousands of people, that and draw other thousands of people on a daily basis into the neighborhood who are unused to it. Folks who are coming to court, having to be there at 830 in the morning. They don't even know that. We have one way streets downtown. They're driving around looking for parking. And it's not necessarily that they don't find parking right now. I'm not sure if we're short parking or if it's just hard to get to or if it's underused or just what it is. But I'm hoping that we have an actual study of the conditions that are on the ground here in this area brought back to you folks. So you have an opportunity to look at what are your options are in fact, parking meters an option? I'm not sure they are because people come to court, for example, and they're going to be there for more than 2 hours, either from 830 in the morning till 1130. And then they don't know what's going to happen the rest of the day. And smart meters, I believe you can't feed and we'll probably have smart meters. I wanted to also mention that there are you know, when it comes to housing and it comes to parking, they're clutch together. They always have been. We always look at the amount of parking versus the amount of housing that we have and there's a need and a demand there. And part of housing includes special needs families. And if you've ever studied or ever read the city's housing element, you'll understand that we pay special attention to the special needs families , which include families which are made up of seniors, large families, female heads of household, disabled members of families and others. These folks all will have special needs. And in this parking impacted neighborhood of mainly lower income and very low income and extremely low income people, you will find those families in abundance. They need to be looked at. And finally, I would I would wonder if the county can't be inclined to come up and step up to its responsibility to provide the parking that its own courthouse is creating a need for. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shelton. I see item eight and nine has been withdrawn. Oh, I would like to speak, if I may. Thank you, Gary, for being here. I know you've been very patient with us. And so the reason for me bringing this item forward was merely because, of course, so many downtown residents have been impacted by parking. And so I wanted to make sure that we were super focused on a specific area that I get many calls about, which is the area around the courthouse, the Westgate Gateway neighborhood, as Gary has mentioned. And it also this item also will bring context to the courthouse and what exactly it means, because the courthouse in, you know , when in its inception is supposed to bring over 55,000 individuals to the area, every day I pass by there, there is an influx of people just looking for parking. You can even sometimes get a Starbucks because there's, you know, everybody's parking parked up and there's nowhere to park. And I feel for these residents in there and the impact that they're feeling every single day. I lived there myself for a few years as well, but hopefully I know I've talked to Craig Beck many times and I know he's truly invested in parking. He's worked on parking before, and I know that will come up with some good solutions, whether those are smart meters in some cases, whether they are opportunities for parking district, if that's an opportunity. And also looking at ways to alleviate some some impact for residents, of course, that's the whole motive for this item. So I want to thank the residents, want to thank I see Craig Cogen as well, who I know is invested in this issue. Also, I've talked to him many times about this, so thank you very much for being here as well, Craig. And then also to the other Craig Public Works. I don't know if you wanted to share any information as of now. Craig back. If not, we. I know we have 60 days to do that. Yeah, Councilman, I just. I would. Echo your. Comments, and we support your effort here. We'll go through and do our analysis and provide a report on some options. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Thank you. Comfortable in price. I have no comments. Thank you. No. Councilwoman Munger. Just as a comment to Gary, the courthouse was transferred to the state and so it would be more of. A state discussion now than a county discussion. But if you want to. Link up with our state representatives, many of us do capital on a corner where those state representatives are present and available. Thank you. Please cast your vote. I mean. Yes. Motion carries by 1989 has been withdrawn, will go to item 11.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 5.46.060, relating to the public posting prohibited, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0547

It's a recommendation to amend the municipal code relating to the distribution of handbills or other printed materials or written matters of merchandise. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Mr. City Attorney, do you want to kind of brief the council briefing on that? Certainly. Thank you. May remember as the city council, this this is strictly a cleanup item based upon recent case law decision. It has caused us to reexamine this particular section of the municipal code. And we have changed that to. Be in compliance with the recent case law. So we're eliminate a challenge. Excellent. I see no public comment on the item. Oh, there. Is. Please come forward. Just when you least expect it. Hi again, council members and Mr. Mayor, Gary Shelton once more. I appreciate all the work to our wonderful new city attorney does to keep us out of trouble on things like this. On this particular item, in looking at the discussion on your on your agenda packet, the front page of that, it mentions exactly what is being gutted out of this ordinance, which is, you know, the distributing or handing out a printed merchandise, advertising, so on and so forth. That's leaving the ordinance. And the ordinance is basically I'm I guess I'm stumbling because I'm having trouble understanding what it is prohibiting now. Whether it's requiring a permit to do all it says is that it's you need a permit to post a permit to post notices on public property. So the order and it's talked about things that were pretty obvious and but those won't hold over the people will look at this in the future to figure out what can I do. Won't won't quite. Understand. Whether it means putting a yard sale sign on a tree or whether it means like across the street, Bono's putting a a sandwich board out on the sidewalk or in a Victory Park public property, of course, or perhaps driving. I mean, strange things. Driving a bus down a city street with a sign on the side of it. These are notices and they're posted according to the there's no definitions. And so my initial thought was. The ordinance needs some. Explanation as to what posting and what notices would be defined as, but maybe even better is that you simply gut the whole thing and replace it with nothing and repeal it. I don't see how what we're left with is going to be enforceable. Thank you. Thank you. And the other public comment on the item. Casey None believe there's a motion on the floor. Mr. Clarke. Yes. And so please cast your vote. Motion carries eight votes. Okay, next item. Everyone needs a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the dress code relating to real estate purchase contracts read and adopted as read.

Petition of North Block Spring Street Development LLC, for the vacation of the alley in Block 52, A.A. Denny’s Extension to Terry’s 1st Addition.

SeattleCityCouncil_03262018_CF 314364

Show assignment. Please read agenda item number 17. Agenda Item 17 Count Clerk File 314364. Petition of North BLOCK Spring Street Development, LLC for the vacation of the Alley and BLOCK 52 Eya Dennis extension to Terry's First Extension. First Edition The committee recommends the petition be granted as conditioned. Because member Brian. Thank you. So this alley vacation is on the block. We talked about this a little bit, but the block where town hall is on first hill, the project would vacate the alley to allow for construction of a single underground parking structure that will serve two new towers that are going in on the I guess that would be the southeastern half of the block. And then the alley will be restored. It will no longer be public right away, but there will be passage through there. The public benefit includes a number of benefits, the most prominent of which is public plaza, which will be on the immediately to the southwest of town hall. And I've been a skeptic in the past of public causes as public benefit for street only vacations. But I really want to applaud the applicants on this for what I consider to be really excellent work with the community, including with Town Hall as an entity to design a public plaza that really enhances the public benefits for accessing the town hall. And even for folks that aren't using town halls, it fronts on two adjacent streets. I think this is a good example of a strong set of public benefits worthy of our support for this alley vacation. Thank you very much. Any further comments, Councilman Johnson? Just briefly want to reserve the same thing that I said in the first discussion on this one councilmember run. I agree with you about the public benefit here, but I, I strongly encourage our friends at town hall to consider limiting access. You know, we've set up this wonderful public plaza that's going to be separated from an access point to the town hall, which which will have some bollards to keep folks from the plaza walking into what is going to be a very lightly used space for kind of pick up and drop off. And I would love for us to think about what some street treatments would look like to allow for that to be more of a public space during the times when people won't be at events, the town hall and more of a drop off from times when there are events. I know that's not something we can really condition, but I'm hopeful that our friends at Town Hall and the friends of Lennar will consider that as an alternative so that we can keep more of the space for people more times of the day. Thanks. Very good. Okay, this is a clerk file. So those in favor of granting the petition petition as conditions, please vote. I i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition and the chair was signed the conditions of the City Council please read items 18 and 19.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3141 Raleigh Street in West Highland. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3141 Raleigh Street from U-SU-A to U-SU-A1 (allowing an accessory dwelling unit), in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10072019_19-0817

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 817 on the floor? Yes, President Clarke, I move that council bill 19 dash 0817 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilwoman. My screen has gone dark. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 817 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at 3141 Raleigh Street. The proposal is to rezone from urban single unit to urban single unit, allowing an accessory dwelling unit. So the application is located in City Council District one in the West Highland neighborhood. It is within an urban context, and that contest text is intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods, does allow an urban house and accessory dwelling unit with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet on a 3000 square foot zone lot minimum zoned lot. So existing zoning is useful on all four sides and the property itself, existing land use in the area, a few multi units, some two units and a lot of single unit residential. This these pictures give you an idea of the surrounding properties, most of them 1 to 2 stories and height. Top Left is a condo project across the alley from the subject site where there are five units. Otherwise, there are all single unit homes. So the process this started in May of 2019 when we noticed a complete application and we were at planning board in July. They recommended unanimously that we approve this and we were at Moody in August, and here we are for the public hearing that has been properly noticed. There are no letters from our registered neighborhood organizations and there are no other comment letters received on this application. So you know, the criteria, the plans that apply are plan 2040. Blueprint Denver 2019 and Housing and Inclusive Denver. Current plan 2000 2040 several. Several recommendations that are detailed in your staff report supporting this application. Blueprint Denver This is an urban context and blueprint Denver one and two unit residential with embedded small unit and commercial in the residential areas and a regular grid pattern of streets. Future place is low residential, which is single and two unit residential, up to two and a half storeys in height. Street types are. Raleigh is an undesignated local street. 32nd Avenue is a residential collector. Growth area strategy is all other areas of the city, which is anticipated to see 20% of all the new housing growth and 10% of new employment by 2040. And then housing an inclusive Denver speaks to including in our regulations and in through blueprint, in including expanding our housing choices to allow accessory dwelling units and promoting, in fact , accessory dwelling units. So staff believes that this application is consistent with the adopted plans. By using a standard zoned district, we are furthering the uniform application of. Arizona districts by implementing our plans. And we're. That with development that's consistent with our the character of our neighborhoods that we're implementing, the public health, safety and welfare and justifying circumstances is the change. The change has been the adoption of New Blueprint that supports the development of accessory dwelling units citywide. We did talk a little bit about the urban context, and staff believes this is consistent with that context and with the purpose and intent statements of promoting and protecting our residential neighborhoods. So staff believes this is consistent with all of our criteria and recommends approval. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Richard Kerr. Hello. I'm Richard Kerr. I'm the homeowner at 3141 North Raleigh. If you have any questions and I'd like to answer them. Thank you very much. We will save questions for a different part, but thank you very much. Okay. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Even now. Members of council, it's good to see you again. I just came from vacation. I was there. So I'm just. It was shot in Paris. I'm represented for Denver Homicide. Low black star action moment for self-defense. Positive action. Come in for social change. And you YPO, which is African. People's Organization. We just started a chapter about three months ago, so I am also an At-Large candidate for 2019. Election was on top of the ballot. The almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I will be running again in 2023. So where I stand on this is what is the AMA level going to be for this proposed rezoning in the Highlands, in the north side that has been rapidly gentrified? And who is going to occupy this space? Because, like I just alluded, it has become white affluence right before our very eyes. I used to live in a in a diverse city where you could see multiple colors of people living in a neighborhood. That is not happening. Or my people were being displaced, gentrified, moved out. Ethnic cleansing out of our communities. And we're not going to stand for this any longer. So it will continue to put candidates run candidates for office so that that can be ushered in. So someone could please answer my questions are greatly appreciated. And thank you all for coming out tonight. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Okay, guys, start. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And. My name is Chairman Sekou. Unbound, an organizer of the Black Star Action Movement. And. Press release came out today. I'm a 2020 candidate for the United States Senate. Yeah. It was very important that I come to know because you guys won't see me as much. Mr. Speaker, if you could stay to the agenda item, please. I'm getting there. I'm getting. I'm just trying to catch my breath. I'll just go to the hospital. So here we go. This has already been said. I know it. You know it. I wouldn't be surprised. On the 13th, the vote, at worst, maybe one. Or as Tekken Princess. And if we stand on principle. We've always had this conversation before. And so I support it because it's a done deal. And this dog and pony show needs to stop because the decision already was made in subcommittee. Yeah. And you know what? I know it. And this is too little, too late because there's nothing. Nobody's going to say. It's going to change your mind. You're already committed. And so for the people that are watching Martin Luther King in 1957 doing the bus boycott in Montgomery, that was consistent with 373 days that stop that segregation of the bus to put us on the back seat with Rosa Park. He said, look, you show me a man and woman who's not committed. Do anything. That they're willing to die for. They are not fit to live. Martin Luther King, 1957, inscribed a city park at his memorial. Yeah. Well, that one live by that one. So what are you willing to die for? For poor people. What? Nothing. Because you committed to your lifestyle and you're stuck on stupid, just capitalism. You couldn't quit if you had to. You're like a bunch of crackheads who come here and. You could please stay to the agenda item. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there questions for members of council? Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just a little bit curious, maybe for the homeowner about what sort of community outreach you did. It's pretty rare that we don't get any sort of comments or from any registered neighborhood organizations or neighbors at all. So I'm just curious. I went I went and met with all my neighbors. No one objected. So and I, I had a signed petition, but I didn't bring it. I also joined the neighborhood organization. Then they did not respond, I guess. But they did. They they did resist or one person on that on the neighborhood organization opposed. But it wasn't representative of the neighborhood. So that's why you have no letter from the neighborhood organization. But I did. I was actively involved. My neighbors, I consulted the R.A. and and it's been a long process. I know I submitted the application in May, but it was a year before I was reaching out to people in my neighborhood. Thank you very much. No, no more questions. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Hey, Mr. President. Mr. Kerr, could you tell me you are seeking this change so you can add an accessory dwelling unit? And is this a garage conversion? There's a garage on the back of the property. Currently, there's a one car garage built in 1925. It does it right. Modern car. Right. And so will this be in place of the garage or are you keeping the garage and putting the adu elsewhere on the. On the lot? It will replace the garage. Okay. Okay. Thank you, class Teresa. Question. This lot is 6350 square feet. What are the what are the coverage and what limitations on one footprint on. On a lot of that size. How large would need to you could be. Built or maybe Kyle do you know that I thought it was 600 square feet. But don't don't quote me on that. But I believe it's 600 square feet. 600? Mm hmm. Okay. Mr. Kirk, could you come to my. Minus my understanding from my architect. The footprint can be 864 square feet. Okay. That's after. Because the garage will be the. Garage and the garage footprint will be 864 and the upstairs will be 75% of that. I see. Okay. I get it. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. It's. I needed. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. For the homeowner, if I might. Thank you. And I apologize. I didn't get your name. Rick or. Richard. You've said it, but I. Anyway, I'm not good at retaining it anyway. So you started this process over a year ago, is it? And you'd submitted the application in May. Right. What might you do if if this wasn't approved? Would you I mean, are there other options that you would consider? Would you consider scrapping or would you? I mean, this is just a no. I'm just when I bought the property in 97. It was zoned out too. And I thought of it when at that time we had one child, brand new child, and I thought, that's great. There's a future here beyond our raising our family. And then it was resolved where that evaporated and became a single family again. And I was too busy to protest at the time because I had two young children. But now we're at a different my children are gone and we're at a different place. And so I'm here to get back to where I was. And I have a vision for this property. And what would I do if denied? Nothing tomorrow. Nothing, not nothing rash. But ultimately, we would probably sell. And what is your how much time do you think you've invested? And maybe if you're willing to disclose how much has been your financial commitment for this rezoning process? Plenty of time. But in plenty of pacing back and forth and wringing my hands. But money. It was $1,000 for the application. I have $1,000. 1500 dollars in to my architect. That's. You know, I had to print signs or twice. That's $300. 150 each. Yeah. That's okay. Thank you. It was it's been a substantial investment. It's been a and a lot of hand wringing. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask Teresa a question, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the microphone. I just want you to clarify whether or not any of the short term rentals are allowed in an accessory dwelling unit. They are if it's licensed and if the applicant lives or if the property owner lives on the property. So living on the property and living in the property are two different things. And so it was my understanding that the, the language in the short term rental ordinance was that you had to reside part time within the property that within the the unit that is being rented out. Can you clarify that? That's not the language that I'm familiar with. The language I'm familiar with is you live on the property and you can rent out whatever unit you've got. Okay. So let me just ask the applicant if that is one of the proposed uses that you're expecting to have in this particular property if they're successful. I plan on renting it out to a tenant. Okay. And I have the other vision I have is I have two young adult children now. Both of them are away. In the event they would come back. They could they could rent it. Okay. But other than that, I have no short term rental visit. In my understanding of the short term rental thing is you have to live on the property. It is now part time. Yes. You have to reside within the property. I thought it was 50% of the time. I could be wrong about that. But so thank you. I just want to share that. I think as we were saying. QUESTION You sounded like you were maybe getting ready for comment. Oh, wait for that. All right. Almost. Let me bang the gavel and we'll be there. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing four counts. Bill 817 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Sandoval. Sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. President. So thank you for bringing this request forward. I remember meeting you as a council aide talking about this this property, and for clarity. Councilman Sawyer, this is one of the answers that doesn't have a very active land use committee. And I have been pushing for five years to get this specific or no more active when it comes to land use so that they can offer an opinion. When we're sitting up here behind the dais, I think it's important. So thank you for taking the time to go to those meetings. I think I've seen you at every single one over the last year, and I know every time I ask for them to have a land use meeting. I know you're also there backing me up. So I appreciate that. As these accessory dwelling units come forward since the passing of Blueprint Denver, I think you're going to probably see a lot more in northwest Denver where people the the cost of living has is exorbitant and people need another way to offset some of their income and or they have an aging in place. They want someone to age in place or they have young children who are going to go off to college and come back. So I think there's very many variables and thank you for doing the outreach that you have because no one's called my office. I haven't heard much about that. And that's what I prefer to see behind this dais. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I think as. We continue to move forward in trying to address the housing needs of the city, creating the opportunities where ideas can be constructed, where they fit onto a lot. I think that makes sense. I am concerned and I will be asking the city attorney to help me draft language to ensure that this is not a loophole where a tight attached dwelling units would be used as short term rentals. That that is not the reason why as a city, I think we've moved to try to expand that. It's it's really to ensure that people who are struggling, trying to find affordable housing and people who are looking for the opportunity to augment their income and be able to stay in the city where that makes sense. But I think if they become nothing more than short term rentals for out-of-town people and folks who are living here that are struggling, trying to find housing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. So I'll be supporting this tonight. But I think this is something that I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to discuss and and really be thoughtful about that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo Councilman Ortega's comment. I also want to say I'm really excited that we have increased use of an opportunity of this opportunity to allow seniors to have a way to offset some of their property taxes after they've retired and they don't have, you know, steady income. Certainly, our property taxes continue to go up. And and allowing people to age in place, I think is important. And I think this gives people another tool in the tool belt. Also, parents who want to give their kids a little more privacy as as the applicant has mentioned, you know, if his kids want to come back, I think that's a great use as well. And and the flipside is also true. We've heard over time that, you know, the secret's out. People are moving to Colorado and they want to bring their parents with them, too, but but not in the same house. And so this gives, you know, an opportunity for people to have their their parents come and have their parents have a little bit of privacy and the kids to have a little bit of privacy, too. I'd be interested in, you know, that blueprint has has established that areas should be considered city wide. I'd like to look at that. So I'll be supporting this as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. So you know their comments. I'll just add a thank you to staff for putting this all together and the great staff report. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning. And I will be supporting this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. CdeBaca I. Flynn. I. Gillmor, i. Herndon. Hines I. Castro. I can teach. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in US results.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City streets; changing the name of the portion of Aurora Avenue North between Denny Way and Harrison Street to 7th Avenue North, and changing the name of the portion of Aurora Avenue between Battery Street and Denny Way to Borealis Avenue; and superseding prior ordinances to the extent inconsistent.

SeattleCityCouncil_02042019_CB 119455

That's all. If you're watching that closes for you two, particularly for you, please read the next agenda item into the record. The report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda in three Accountable 119 455 leading to city streets, changing the name of the portion of or avenue north between Denny Way and Harrison Street to Seventh Avenue North, and changing the name of the portions of or avenue between Battery Street and Denny Way to Borealis Avenue and superseding prior ordinances. To the extent inconsistent the committee recommends it'll pass. Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien. So this is an exciting step for folks in the community around the the new tunnel opening. Probably more exciting than the tunnel. And thanks to the fact that we get to rename these three, four blocks, pretty exciting. So between there's three blocks between Harrison and Denny that are currently Aurora Avenue. This is as you're as you're heading southbound in Aurora. It's the three blocks as you're exiting around the Battery Street tunnel, which is to be decommissioned, that would be renamed as Seventh Avenue, which they then continue on a diagonal once it crosses Denny and has kind of between where some of Amazon's construction is going. There's another block of Aurora Avenue that extends on the south side of Denny, and that's the block that kind of goes between two kind of triangle parcels where the pink elephant car wash is, and there's a major bus stop there. If we were to rename that also Seventh Avenue, that would provide some confusion because we've been to Seventh Avenue's next to each other. And so this proposal would name that borealis. And we heard a lot of support from community members who've been working on this for years. Adjacent property owners are supportive, also desire to do this in advance of what is expected to be some redevelopment happening in the neighbors neighborhood so that folks move in will inherit the new address as opposed to go through an address, change. Or customer inspection. Quick thanks. Mike McQuade. Thank you to you in the South like Union Community Council, everybody who's been working on this for years. I know it's a small thing, but the name borealis is first of all, I love it. But secondly, just clarifying for people where where they're going after the tunnel opens. Really appreciate your help. Very good. Any further questions that please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Johnson Juarez. Musgrave I. O'Brien. I so want. I. Back shot I. Gonzalez I. And President Harrell high eight in favor and in a post. Bill Parsons show. So please read the next item.

Recommendation to Accept the Police Department’s Draft Policy for the Taser AXON Flex Body Cameras Prior to Deployment by the Police Department. (Police 3121)

AlamedaCC_07162015_2015-1803

We have Chief O'Leary here. Madam Mayor, council members. Paul Larry, chief of police. I brought up with me my escort for the evening as make sure he's the vice president of sales at Taser International. And I brought him because the last time I was before you, when we talked about the purchase of the cameras, some of you had some technical questions about the data security and storage. And I thought just in the event that there were any unanswered questions, it would be nice to have a representative from Taser here. You all saw the staff report that that I wrote. It was very brief and intentionally so. It was really just to introduce the policy, because we had discussed many of the issues with the cameras relative to the purchase of the cameras. As I mentioned in the staff report, we did do some research before drafting our policy. We looked at the ACP, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They had a model policy that they put out. The Police Executive Research Forum had also set forth some recommendations that we took a look at. And then from our own area, we looked at the Fremont and the San Leandro Police Department policies, and the combination of all of those things led us to the draft that I put before you tonight. And I'm here to answer any questions or just any concerns you might have. So before we do that, can staff clarify what our role is in regards to this policy? I can try to do that. So the policy, the internal operational policies of the police department are the jurisdiction of the chief of police. The City Council. Has the ability to provide comments to the Chief of Police. He's asked. And solicited those. Comments, but it is really. The chief of. Police. Who has to. Adopt the. Policy. So he is here before you to get your input. So we will not be voting, accept or approve. We just get feedback. So I wanted to clarify that so that the public understands what our role is. Ultimately, what this policy is is up to the police department. All right, Councilor comments. And a mayor. Vice Mayor. I appreciate, chief, for Larry's answering questions, particularly on the access. The public access to is the record, the electronic record that is gathered by the body cam. And my understanding in the responses and I like the city attorney also to affirm this, is that the access to that by the public will comply with all state and federal laws that are in place just as it does for any other. Records request, the Alameda Police Department, is that correct? Yes. That is correct. Vice Mayor Matter. SC And it goes through the same channels as any other records requests to the police department? Yes. And then the second is more of a comment that I'd like you to consider is in the section on request for deletion for accidental recording. In. In certain. And certain regulations that deal with electronic records. Particularly in the Code of federal relations. At the federal level, there is a and a an assumption that you use a validated system, and that validated system does not preclude deletions. You can have deletions there mistakes. I mean, you can have mistakes, but they're preserved. And you do preserve the record as it's gathered and you delete it when the regular regulatory requirement says that you can dispense with with the document. My preference is that. Whether it's an accidental recording or not, it stays there until the document is deleted by its natural expert, its mandated expiration date by law, so that we don't get into an issue of someone accident deleting something that should not have been deleted. By a second mistake. Okay. You know, I just I struggle with that one a little bit. I on one level, I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting and keeping it until it hits its natural donation point. On the other hand, and I know this from. Talking to some other police officers and other agencies that literally sometimes is they've actually accidentally recorded a conversation that's prohibited in another section of the policy. I might have a conversation with one of you in the hallway and have my camera on. And if I if I accidentally record that, I would like to be able to say, you know, that was a mistake and delete it. As opposed to having that be out there for 90 days or six months or three years. And then I've also had officers tell me I left it and I was in the restroom, I was in the locker room changing. And I don't think we want that footage out there any longer than it needs to be. So that's that's kind of what I struggle with when I'm processing that. And I hope you understand. I do, yeah. And England, too. Just to follow up on the vice mayor's comments is I understand. The deletion. Can you remind me what section it is zero 57 for? Okay. It's for five over 7.4. Right. Okay. It's not. So the employee still doesn't get to make the decision of whether or not the accidental recording is deleted. That goes to this services division commander who reviews the file and either approves or denies the request. So. Is. I mean, does that not at least begin to address the. It could be accidentally deleted twice or. Well, to me, it's not an independent party or a disinterested party looking at it. Basically what we're looking at is two layers of review. If if if we leave the policy the way that it's written right now, the officer would request in writing that the recording be deleted and list the reason why the division commander would take a look at that. And if they approved it, it would go up to my second in command, a captain who would make the ultimate decision as to whether or not that that footage should be deleted. And I'm guess I'm looking at this just like I'm looking at all of the records. Do you ever destroy records that were mistakes? Probably not. Do you ever destroy? I guess the voice recording would probably be the nearest comparable to this. But if you made a mistake on a on a paper record or there was a mistake, an entry in a report that was written either on the computer or by hand, you don't destroy that original, you know? So what would happen if a mistake was made in a report and it was during the review process? The report's not final, so it's just like a draft. So a supervisor can return the report now electronically back. Back in the old days, when we when we handwrote them, you'd return it to the officer and say, you know, for a punctuation error or a grammar error or a factual error, you know, somebody you got a name wrong or location wrong. You need to you need to change that. Once the report becomes final and it's over at our shop, we call it frozen. That's it, then. Now, now you can only clean up a mistake by a supplemental report. So that can that same rule be? I guess you could say this applies. That's it. It won't be final until there's a review of it saying that it's this is the final record and we're going to send it to the store to to the server. Right. I mean, the difference is you can't modify the video. The video is what it is. A report that has an error can be corrected. The video is always whatever you've captured, you've captured. So you can't you can't really go back and modify it. You can't go you wouldn't want us to be able to modify the video, right? It would defeat the purpose. So either the video is allowed to exist, mistake or not, or or we go through this three layered process of getting reviews and final approval to delete a recording that two people removed from the recording agree is unnecessary . A locker room scene, a private conversation, things of that nature. I personally as the chief, I'm comfortable with that, with the because I've got to two layers of review removed from the actual recording. And I'm you know, I'm hoping that that you're all comfortable with that, too. I'm willing I'm willing to take a look at it. I'm just saying that that was the thought process that we I, I understand. That's my comment. Amber Ashcraft, thank. You and thank you for the information you've provided us with Chief Hilary. And I also e-mailed you earlier with some questions. So I want to raise two items that I think I actually raised before when you came to us for the authorization to purchase this equipment. And the first one is on from page one of the draft policy. And it is has to do this would be Section four or 50.4 system administrator responsibilities. And the fourth responsibility listed is policy and procedure review and evaluation. And you will recall not too long ago, we in the last administration, we approved the purchase and use of license plate readers, but the Council also requested that the policy be reviewed and evaluated just to see, you know, first year out, what could we do better? And I mean, I think every year there should be a review. So what I would like to see added to the language in this section, that policy and procedure review and evaluation take place no less than once every calendar year. And I think it's just the sort of thing again, council doesn't vote on this, but it's the sort of thing that on an annual basis you would come back before the council and just give us an overview of, you know, what your experience has been. So I'd appreciate your consideration of that. And then my second concern and again, I raised this before and it's something that the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union in their white paper, had talked about and the Fremont Police Department policy that you provided us also, I thought articulated it very well. And what this is, is in situations where you could have a victim of rape or domestic abuse or some other sensitive crime who doesn't want to be recorded. And, you know, this person has already been victimized. We don't want to to further that. And so my my concern was, you know, do officers could they have some sort of discretion? And I'm just reading the the language. So I feel like two things. The city attorney doesn't like us using our phones at the desk, but this is really just reading. The Fremont policy says that officers may cease recording when encountering or interviewing a victim who is in a vulnerable position or who asked not to be video recorded. And and there's also other language in that same section of the Fremont policy and procedure for their body worn cameras that talks about sometimes you have someone who is a witness who's giving you information, who doesn't necessarily want to be seen on camera cooperating with the police and giving information. And if there wasn't that option to say, hey, I'll talk to you, but not if you're recording me, then you might not have that information to help you solve a crime. So what could you what could you tell us about that? So, first of all, I'm completely comfortable with adding the exact language in the Fremont policy regarding encountering or interviewing a victim who's in a vulnerable position. That's that's honestly, to me, that's an easy one. We've given the officers in in our policy a lot of discretion to record or to not record. And what what we were trying to avoid was to do to list so many specific incidents that it just became too much for them in that, you know, as their the sort of the dynamics of, you know, when you show up for a case and you've got people talking to you and different that they would, you know , I'm recording you but I'm not recording you and. We put it, we thought we might put them. Make it too confusing for them. Too much for them to have to process. But but to me, this is I mean, this is an easy one. And I'm confident that they would see that anyway and and exercise their discretion to not record it or to maybe just do an audio recording versus a video recording, which we still have the ability to do. So, yeah, I'll tell you right now that when we go back, I'll I'll add that to the policy. I appreciate that. Sure. I'm sorry. What was the other one was for? For a witness who might be hesitant to. Let's see. Yeah, same. Same issue. We. We actually, I think, uh, and forgive me for not having the whole thing memorized yet, but we have in for 50.8 prohibited use. We have conversation. I'm sorry. Encounters with undercover officers or confidential informants. Not every not every witness is a confidential informant. That was my point. That that I thought it was just a little bit broader, that if you have I mean, I don't know that we have so much of a problem here, but in a neighboring jurisdiction, there's a big problem with getting people to cooperate with the police. And I don't think it's because they're all wearing body worn cameras. But we we don't want to do anything that would make someone hesitant to come for. I don't think we do it right. No, no, you do your job. But no. We absolutely don't. So I just you know, those were the two. And again, I thought the Fremont policy, which I know you referred to and attached for us to to look at to it, I thought it it laid it out quite succinctly in in that same section that talks about victims in vulnerable position. Sure. Yeah. Those are happening to me. Yeah. Those are easy ones to add. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Sure. Hey Member de sa. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Hilary, thank you very much. Appreciate all the information that you shared. I think the comment I really have to make is simply that, you know, with Black Lives Matter as a backdrop, to me, it seems fitting that a middle of the road city like Alameda is adopting one of the key agenda items of Black Lives Matter. On having local law enforcement wear body cameras. So on behalf of our residents. We, the city council, have made a significant commitment of $425,000 in this. And I hope our community is proud of us having done so. Yeah. I saw someone come in. The chief are putting this policy together. I mean, I think I mentioned this when we had the discussion over the expenditure that, you know, policymakers are struggling with how to craft an effective policy, one that really respects the civil rights of our citizens, you know, but at the same time, you know , does not interfere unduly and is overly prescriptive to officers doing their job. And I think you were able to find on that right balance. And I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. So, first of all, I also want to commend you for bringing this forward. And my recollection is that we unanimously voted for the body cameras and looked forward to you bringing back your draft policy. And and for the audience and for people that don't know, there has been, in addition to the agenda item, the staff submittal where it has the policies of San Leandro as well as what was the other one, Fremont. Fremont. So that members of the community, you can go back and you can look at this now and you can see what other communities are doing and then compare it with ours. You can always communicate with the chief with your suggestions. There will be in the future, changes to the policy. It will always. The goal is to have it be responsive to our community's needs. And I and I do want to commend you for bringing this forward, adding the additional documents to help educate our community. I want to follow up in regards to if there were a California request under the California Public Records Act or the video for a recording, how would that be treated? Um, I would. My general my general not exclusive, but general thought is going to be that I'm going to deny those requests as exempt under disclosure because they're investigative records. And as I mentioned to all of you in the email that I sent you, I attached a recent opinion from May of this year from the California Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a lawsuit that had to do with license plate reader records, not body camera. But the issues are the same. And the court in that case found that that those records were all investigative in nature and therefore exempt from disclosure under the act. And that's that's where my position comes from and that's where it's going to stay until that changes. Having said that, I acknowledge in the end, my policy does allow for me to release videos to the media of my discretion if I feel that, you know, it's worthy to do so, where the where the information would be more beneficial for the public to know than to keep to myself. And so I. I don't intend to always say no. But what I what I want to protect the public from is this sort of voyeuristic element that enters into this, where someone sees the police enter their neighbor's home for God knows what kind of a call. And then they think, Well, I would like to see what happened inside that house. So I'm going to make a Public Records Act request because we're paying for those cameras and those police officers. And I have a right to see what happened in their home. I'm going to respectfully disagree and say that that's a that's a police investigation and it's not for you. On the other hand, if there's an incident, God forbid, where somebody you know, where. We're looking at a potential civil unrest because of an incident that happened. And the release of that video, as we saw in Boston recently, quells that concern. Then I'll be the first person at the front steps of the police department giving out that video to the media. So thank you. And I think it's important to acknowledge I have found every time I ask you a question that you come back with a reasonable explanation. And I would encourage anyone from the community that has questions to feel free to ask Chief O'Leary for for his reasoning in creating this policy. And then I wanted to add also on page 28 of the additional documents that were attached is where you'll find that case, the ACLU case is attached or the community as part of this agenda item to review so everyone can review that themselves. So thank you for providing that. Also, if you could explain activation when when the cameras would be activated that that part of the policy. Okay. So one of the things that we did not want to do when we wrote the policy was put the officers in a position where basically if they forgot or because of the circumstances didn't activate the camera, that they were now going to be subject to some sort of discipline because they didn't hit the button as they got into a middle of a fight or or worse. What we've done is we've told them. That there are many incidents and we identify them in the policy where they should or where we want them to. But we're not making it mandatory. And again, I want to give them discretion to turn these things on. Some some incidents can start out very, very calm, not confrontational and not anything that an officer would think worthy of recording and then on a dime can can turn into something that does need to be recorded. So in saying that, I'll remind you that the cameras that we're buying have a 32nd buffer so that it can't the camera's constantly recording whether the officer turns it on or not. But it can go back 30 seconds. So if the officer suddenly is in a situation where they say, Oh, I need to record this, they can hit the button and it goes back 30 seconds. And I think that's going to alleviate a lot of that a lot of the problems that we would have if we didn't have that feature in the camera. And that was one of the reasons why we went with the Taser camera was because of that feature. You know, and I want to just throw this out here since we're talking about it. And and for the public, there's going to be a time period here when when we when I distribute these cameras to the officers, we have them. They're sitting in boxes over at the police department. But I promise you, I wouldn't put them out until we had this discussion. These are these are new pieces of equipment for them. And I don't have my full belt on, but we're talking about ammunition, handguns, pepper spray, handcuffs, radio flashlight. There's a lot of stuff on the belt. It's going to take them some time. They're going to have to go through some training. It's going to take them some time to get used to the fact, just like you can remember, when we all had to remember to put our seatbelts on. It takes a little while. Once it was required to remember. Get in the car. Open the door. Put your seatbelt on. Right. This is going to happen with police officers. We've seen this in other jurisdictions. They're going to especially in the beginning, it's not going to come to them second nature. It's going to take some time to develop the muscle memory of I've got to record this. We also know this because we've had audio recorders for nine years, and when we first got them, we found that people were missing things. Now. They record them all the time, but it's on a different location on their belt. So I just would ask for a little patience and understanding from the public and from all of you that, you know, there could be some times early on where doesn't it doesn't go on because they're just frankly not used to having them . Any other questions? Comments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Should it? Six be received a report from the Public Utilities Board on Alameda Municipal Power's five year Strategic Plan, Capital Improvements and Financial Status. Or. I pushed her. Good evening. I'm Madeleine Dean, and I'm a commissioner on the Public Utility Board and also currently serving as president. And what we'd like to do is really bring you up to date on some of the things going on with the public utility board, some of our projections for the future. Starting with some current issues. A big one for us is distributed generation and this is something a few of you have already asked us questions about rooftop solar, how we're handling it, what's going on with it. So we thought we'd give you just a little bit of update of where we're heading in the future. We still don't have direct answers on some of these, but we have some main issues. One is rooftop solar, and that's something that right now we have rebates on. We also have a NIMH program where people are get in net energy metering funds. And as we look at that, the mandated portion of it is going to expire soon, not before the end of the year probably, but we need to have a policy in place going forward. We also are looking at the fact that we may need to treat residential customers different than we do commercial customers in that area and also our municipal customers. So that's another thing that we have to develop policy around and it's going to take some time and some working with the community. We've already started some of those conversations, but it's going to be ongoing for a while. Community Solar is something we're interested in. As all of you know, we have rec funds that we receive for selling off some of our renewable credits and also selling off for a period of time some of our renewable energy, those funds we can use in different ways, but it needs to be really applied to energy efficiency or renewable power in some way. One of the things we're looking at is the potential of community solar, whether it be a standalone project, a partnership with a business, one of the developers, a partnership with the schools, whatever that might be in the future, we don't know yet. We're still looking into what other communities are doing with it, what are the potentials, what are some of the pitfalls and hazards of doing it and trying to figure out where we want to go with that? The net energy meter in the NEM, as I mentioned, that's something that is a true of at the end of a cycle or end of the year where money is refunded to customers. The feed in tariff is a method that's been used in a number of areas and this is one that as the energy is fed into the grid, if you want to think big term as as it's fed in from a customer who has an excess, that's

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to accept a total of $981,509 in grant funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, through the Housing-Related Parks Program, to be utilized for the rehabilitation of park facilities and park grounds at Drake, Peace, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parks; execute any documents necessary for the administration of the projects; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR) by $981,509, offset by reimbursement grant revenue. (Districts 1,6)

LongBeachCC_12122017_17-1137

Motion carries. Thank you, Adam. 22. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to accept a total of $981,509 in grant funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development through the Housing Related Parks program to be utilized for the rehabilitation of park facilities and park playgrounds, District one and six. There there's a motion in a second that comes from Gonzales in the comments, or. It can have a quick. Look where we get a quick staff report. Sure. This is very exciting as well. Our Parks Recreation and Marine Director re night. Good evening. Honorable married members of the council. Yes, we're very excited to receive this grant from the state. And just under $1,000,000. We want to make sure everyone. Understands that the grant guidelines were very restricted as to what types of projects and areas that we could spend the funding. So this will fund three projects. One is some. Upgrades desperately needed upgrades and repairs to the Drake Park Community Center. We are also going to be replacing a very well worn and loved. Playground at Peace Park and giving them a brand new playground which has been long overdue, as well. As another. Brand new playground at Martin Luther King Park. So we're very excited about these projects. Those are all three so needed. That's great. Really great to hear. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you. Again, I'd like to thank Maria for this, because the fact that this will really, you know, be greatly benefited from the investment in our parks and also I'm looking forward to the ribbon cutting. So thank you again. Really wonderful investment. Thank you again. Thank you. And no public comment on this. Please, members cast their votes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Special Events Committee, special events permitting, and special events fees; amending Sections 15.52.005, 15.52.010, 15.52.020, 15.52.030, 15.52.040, 15.52.050, 15.52.060, 15.52.080, and 15.52.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing and replacing Section 15.52.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118463

Report. Of the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Agenda. Item one Council Bill 118463 Relating to the Special Events Committee. Special Events Permitting and Special Events Fees Amending Sections 15.5 2.05.010.020.030.040.050.060.0800 and 15.5 2.090 of the Seattle Missile Code and Repealing and Replacing Section 15.5 2.0700 of the Seattle and the Zip code. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto. Thank you, Council President Burgess. Our special event fees have not. Changed since 1991. And when one looked at. The fees. Themselves, they really didn't make sense and they didn't serve the interests of the public at. All. We love our special events. They make our city what it is. But at the same time, I think the level of public subsidies and the public cost to special events was really becoming a point that we really needed to examine at the Office of Economic Development, reviewed and looked at other cities and best practices throughout the country, and found that. In fact, our fee structure. Was out of line with what others charged. There was a series of meetings of the of the. Committee to look at the different. Options. Available. We heard from the public. And there were several amendments made to the executive's recommendations that addressed many of the issues. For example, thanks to Councilmember Salant, there was clarifying language to protect free speech events and to and to separate those out. For a mix of free speech events. We created a two year gradual phase in an introduction to the fees. Kept the fees so that increases would not be exceed 10%, as well as measures to look at the program after the first year. An audit are our police costs, which in many cases are the largest cost of special event fees. I want to thank the Office of Economic Development for working with us. This did pass out of the committee without. Without objections. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill. O'Brien. All right. Okamoto. All right. Rasmussen. All right. So want. I. Back shot? Gordon I. Harrill I. Lakota I am President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items two and three.

Recommendation to Accept Alameda Family Services Presentation Summarizing Activities Performed Under its One-Year Contract for Student Mental Health Services. (Community Development)

AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8136

Were individual therapy students with a high level of need. I was just saying Mr. Jenks has a lot of experience with family and family therapy. He is a father of young children. Do whatever you need to do. Okay, 1/2. Maybe he can play with Malia's. This is real. You. We love children. You can bring them on camera. I appreciate everyone's patience, though. It was a minor legal issue that needed under the regulations. Can be it can be big. Yeah. Okay. So with individual therapy, as I said, we wanted this to be a gap, though our services are designated to provide those who have medical. And so this person would provide services to those with private insurance and who had barriers to accessing outside support. Examples of barriers might be related to their gender or gender or sexual identity, where telling their parents that they want to seek services may not be an option, or situations where a family culture may minimize the severity of mental health. This clinician also provided group therapy as well as case management, and the case management was a very important part of the services they provided. They helped connect the youth and their family to family, to providers in and around Alameda. As you can imagine, we have a number of youth seeking services and we have a finite resources. And so this person really made sure to work with the families to get them connected to outside resources when available and in many times advocated on behalf of the client and the family for those services with their insurance companies. Next slide. So these are the services that were provided up to the shelter in place. I tried to divide us between those times because the Covenant Shelter in place really did impact how we were able to provide services. So this therapist was holding a caseload of 15 clients. They also had a group that had five clients. The drop in crisis drop ins and the briefing interventions that I spoke about earlier, there are 43 unique students and families that were supported. Many of them were in multiple locations where she was continuing to connect with the family and make sure that they were connected. The top three reasons for services were anxiety or stress, depression and family or peer conflict. And then I listed these crises just to be able to show some of the issues that were coming up. There was a one year hospitalization that she was involved in, four CPS reports and three different incidences that required law enforcement. Just in case anyone doesn't know, can you tell us what else he stands for? Yes. Child Protective Services. So if there was any allegations of abuse against a minor, I think it is important to note that of the 15 clients that this clinician was seen. Five of them actually had been hospitalized before they came into our care. Next time. I want to be able to provide an example of, you know, one of the clients that we were able to serve. So there was a youth who came in on their own to the health center. This youth was really struggling with ongoing depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm and is an overall high levels of anxiety there, expressing feelings of hopelessness, difficulty imagining a future in which they were alive and thriving. Additionally, this youth was also concerned and struggled with their perception of how their parents would re-inject their gender and sexual identity. And so this youth engage in our services, undermined our consent at first, meaning without parental approval. But our goal was always to be able to support the youth in having support at home. And so we connected them not only with our our therapist, but our clinician connected them to some of the other events that are hosted and workshops by the health center that that client was able to connect with peers who are experiencing similar struggles and eventually got to the place where she was open and being able to have a conversation with their parents. And this connection was so great and being able to provide those parents with psychoeducation and guidance and really being able to increase that level of support at home. Next slide. So since Colbert in the shelter in place, I'm proud to say that Alameda Family Services did a wonderful job being able to pivot into telehealth and being able to continue to provide therapeutic services to our existing clients. There was obviously an increase in case management involvement with families. You know, families were experiencing losses of income and jobs and being able to figure out ways to work with our local food bank, working with family support centers, and really trying to to make sure that family were getting their basic needs met. Something that was awesome that this clinician did is we actually contacted every student that had come through our three health centers but did not have a confirmed source of support. So as I mentioned, you might have a student who comes in and does a check in and then they don't continue with a service or we don't personally connect them to someone. And so we went through and contacted all those youth just to do a quick check in and see how they were doing and see if anyone wanted to to start services. This clinician opened up six additional clients in the shelter in place, which was great. You know, there was a shift in the in how her services were being delivered because we didn't have as many students walking in. So we were able to shift that more towards individual services. And then we actually also increased the frequency of those sessions for those youth who are really struggling. Next slide. I just put up my contact information as well. And I wanted to end by just again voicing my appreciation on behalf of our agency and specifically my school based services program for the support from City Council and the continued collaboration that Alameda Family Services has with us to serve our Alameda community. When I open, I know there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jenks. That's a very moving and impressive presentation, and we're very grateful to have Alameda Family Services in our city council. Any comments, questions for Mr. Jenks? I. Vice Mayor, is that your hand going up? I was just going to say I just really appreciated the presentation. I'm really glad that our council chose to support this in our budget and it looks like it's been a great success and I really appreciate you taking the time to come. Tell us about it. And and I guess my quick question would be, so I know it's uncertain how a USG is going to open up in the fall. I guess there's a semester actually starts next month in August. What kinds of what kinds of considerations are is AFS making for how you will provide your services. Yeah, that's a great question. You know, Governor Newsom's announcement that we're going to be starting in distance learning really solidified for for us and specifically our program that's based out of the school, how to start approaching our services. We're so fortunate to have a really good relationship with AUC, personal relationships with the principals. They also have positions at their school called intervention leads that are kind of our liaison to the school. And so we're we're planning to tour on our services, you know, as normal, being able to get our referrals directly from the school and being able to provide individual services, group services, group services are a little bit more difficult in the wake of this. It's great that we're able to get everyone for city council, but rounding up a number of third graders to meet at a time is a little bit more challenging, you know, outside of their outside of their school and classroom time. But, you know, we've been fortunate to have HIPA compliant telehealth and being able to actually involve family members a lot more in the services. And so we're very confident in how we're going to be able to continue our support. That's good to hear. Anything further from council or do I have a motion to accept this report? Coulson. Thank you, madam. Do we have any public comment? Oh, thank you. Thank you. For that matter. Do we have a public comment? We have no one on Zoom raising their hand, and we have not received any written comments. Okay. All right. Well, I will thank you, Mr. Jenks, and think of other family services for this. This is one of the few opportunities, I think, as a council that we were able to spend money in our budget. You know, that you can directly correlate to helping an individual, you know, in possibly saving their lives where we didn't have that service provided before. So I'm really honored that our council was able to do that, and I'm glad that we were able to extend it. So I'd like to make the motion to I guess we accept the presentation, right? Mm hmm. Yes, I'll make that motion. Okay. Councilmember Vela, are you both raising your hand to second and to make a comment? Yes. Yes. Take this. So I'm going to second the motion. I also just want to highlight and Cale, thank you for presenting. I think that so much about about providing these services is preventing the need for additional, more costly services down the road in response to where we have not provided preventative care upfront. And so I think it's really critical, especially in light of all of the changes that are going on relative to the pandemic, that we find a way to work collaboratively with our community partners like AMI Family Services. And I just want to also thank Kathryn for the work that they're doing at the early childhood centers and things like that where we've really been able to make a difference. So thank you. And I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you. So we've had a motion by councilmember already seconded by Councilmember Vela and discussion. I see. Councilmember Desai. It's funny when you point in a direction, Councilman Brody, he's actually below you on my screen. But I. Think. If you met Councilmember de SA. Yeah, yeah. Come on, guys, I'm already confused. Councilmember Desai Okay, well, just quickly, I want to also express my appreciation to the Alameda Unified School District School Board. I remember some I believe it was the trustees, Jennifer Williams, who had raised this issue at one of our meetings, I think it was regarding the Social Service Human Relations Board. So she was there as well. And so I just want to extend my appreciation for the school board for allowing us to partner with them in this important area. Very important area. All right. We've had the motion the second we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Not quite my o.d. I vella. I may as the Ashcroft. I. That carries by five eyes. And just that once that I must complete. I just wanted you to know you'll be recessing this meeting to take item two D and just to keep everybody going in order. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Nice to see you, Mr. Jenks. Okay, so it's a recess, but don't go anywhere. It just means we're jumping from one agenda. To. The. I think this is toward the end of our agenda, isn't it? Yes. We are now going to move to. The 701 special meeting. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Item 2D. Correct. Correct. All right. So who do we have presenting on that? I believe the city attorney will start and I will then. Go into the record. Oh, do we need to note the roll call for? I guess we do for us. And roll call, Madam Clerk. Brokaw has been noted. Adam Clark has been notified. President Sorry, I was either. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so then would you introduce this next item, please? Adoption is the resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multifamily housing in Alameda and the citywide density limitation of one housing unit per 2000 square feet of land and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure. All right, so city attorney Mr. Chan, are you leading on this one? I am. I'll start and please clerk and the planning. Are you able to hear me? I am. I think you are. Okay, great. And the city clerk and the planning director are both present, as well as, I believe, Assistant. Attorney Selina Chen, who will all participate in the presentation and answer the. Council question. I'll make my presentation short. The Council made a policy decision at its last. Meeting to direct staff to return with this particular resolution to place on the ballot to repeal all of Article 26, which is, first of all, the prohibition on multi-family housing. And second of all, the limitation of 2000 square feet of. Land for housing units. Consistent with your correction, we brought you back to resolution. In our research, we've. Uncovered that the Article 26 not only is in the charter, but also. That it was inserted into the. General plan by the voters in 1991, which. Requires the same 2000 square. Feet of land for housing units in perpetuity. Unless the voters. Remove that. So as a result, what we are bringing. Back to you is a repeal of that provision in the. General plan as well. But to be clear, that does not change. Any of the general plan or zoning. Limitations that are presently in place. In the general plan or the zoning code. Those will remain in place, and this ballot measure does. Nothing to change it. It will be left to subsequent council action to do something or nothing to get these various provisions that currently exist in the general plan and the zoning ordinance. With that, I'm happy to turn it over to the City. Clerk to continue the presentation. So my person should be quick, quick and easy. And they at the last council meeting, the city council did two things about the arguments. They determined that the argument in favor would be authored by the mayor and vice mayor and they would determine who would sign. And the argument against would be authored by Councilmember de Song, and he would work on that with whoever he wanted. So and then the argument deadlines are going to be for the direct arguments. They will be due August 5th and the rebuttal arguments will be due August 17th. And since the Council will both be authoring arguments, if they get the highest priority in the elections code, anybody else submitting arguments, they would not be selected as long as the council does meet those deadlines and submit them. Thank you, Madam Clerk and Mr. Thomas. Ms.. Chan, anything to add? This is so. In addition, I have nothing to add. Thank you. Oh, but it's always nice to see you. Although we can't quite see you. Nice to have you here. And thanks for your good work on this item. Okay, Mr. Thomas, anything you want to add? No, thank you, madam. Okay. Okay. Everyone's taking my directives about. We've got to move things along. So then council. Any discussion? Madam Mayor. So, you know, we have nobody on Zoom who's raised their hand and no public comment submitted on this. Thank you. By the fifth item, I'm going to remember about public comment. It's not like this is new to me. Okay. So did we know there's council every day, so we've got everybody. Okay. So therefore, do I have a motion to adopt the resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday , November 3rd, for the submission of a proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multi-family housing in Alameda and the citywide density limit limitation of one housing unit per 2000 square feet of land and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure to have a motion. So moved. It's been moved by the Vice Mayor Jovicic and it's been stolen by Council member. Any further discussion council seeing that? Mr.. DE So please. It's just a procedural question. So, so is embedded in the motion. Are we reaffirming? Well, let me put it this way. Just cut to the chase. I would prefer to vote no on this motion because I obviously don't want to see a measure changed. But is the language of this motion that that is the signers already set from last time? In other words, what I'm asking. Yes, the signers are. Yeah. If the signers are included in the resolution, it's one of the sections of the resolution that designates and it was included from the last meeting that those two sections and who would sign it. So it is in the resolution. Yes. I see. Okay. Okay. You have it. All right. Okay. And then just to clarify, we are simply voting to put this on the ballot. That's just to be put on the ballot in November. So just. Just what I said, not, you know, for or against, but putting it on the ballot. So any further questions or discussion? CNN. May we have a call cover, please? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Of course. Sorry. My quick comment is this I appreciate being able to sign the no side, but as you all know, I would prefer that this not be put on the ballot. And so for that reason, I will be voting no, even though I will continue to sign it. So is that an option or do I have to vote? Yes. Okay, face.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to enter into an agreement with Tait Environmental Services, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, to provide Underground Storage Tank (UST) consulting and project management services, in an annual amount not to exceed $240,000, for a period of one year starting January 1, 2015, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0053

Item ten. Item ten Report from Financial Management Recommendation to enter into into an agreement with environmental services to provide underground storage tank consulting in an annual amount not to exceed ten 40,000 citywide. Mr. City Manager. We have a brief report from our fleet manager, Dave Berlin, on. Dan sorry, Dan Vice many long time members of council. This is due to the complex nature of the underground storage tank and fuel operations program. The Fleet Bureau is an employed industry specialist to deal with specific functions within the program over the past seven years, starting in 2008, and this consultant provides additional oversight and industry expertize. TATE Environmental Services has been providing consulting services for the underground storage tank program at Fleet for the past two and a half years. And they've also been providing construction management support for the past year and a half. Their organization is well staffed with knowledgeable professionals in the management of fuel facilities and compliance with local, state and federal regulations. We are currently using state environmental to help resolve ongoing issues and manage the future construction and ongoing construction of three different underground storage tanks currently in operation right now. That's a short summary. I can take any questions. Councilman Austin. There's been a motion and a second councilmember. Councilman Andrews and Councilmember Austin. Yes. I just want to, uh, to ask another clarifying question for for the benefit of those who may not understand why we're moving forward with this consulting agreement. What is are the risk of us not having this type of expertize and guidance for the city in regards to dealing with these underground storage tanks? Yes, Councilman, the the risks are damage to the environment. The city has an extensive fuel management system to provide fuel for city vehicles throughout the city at numerous sites throughout the city. So there is concern always to protect the environment. And then there's also compliance with the regulatory aspect that we need to ensure we are always on track with. And what happens if we're not in compliance? If we're not in compliance, we stand the risk of being fined by the state. I think you and that could be well in excess of the contract award, is that correct? Absolutely. It can be in the millions of dollars. Okay. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item ten? Please come forward. State your name. I support the comp, the contract in overall. I think that we do need that expertize and that's what gives rise to my raising this comment. I just want to make sure that there's no plans now to put in a tank in somebody's backyard or close to a neighborhood that we don't know about now. And the people that if there are any tanks going in are scheduled to be going in, that the neighbors have been thoroughly vetted on that aspect. So we don't face the situation like we do with the unfortunate bike path coming within ten feet of or even less than that, I guess, of people's front windows and so forth . So I just I commend the department for the job they do, but I just want to make sure they remain ever vigilant on that aspect and not try to slip something in because on your pressured into doing so. Thank you. Seeing no further comment. Members, please cast your vote. I. Councilman Andrews. Motion carries seven zero. Item 11.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents, and any needed subsequent amendments, with the Department of Defense through the Office of Economic Adjustment, to accept funds totaling $1,342,406 funded by the Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Reductions in Defense Industry Employment, to continue implementation of a project that addresses the economic and workforce impact of the C-17 plant closure; execute an agreement, and any needed subsequent amendments, with project partners in the amount totaling $1,125,000, for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; and Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grants Fund (SR 150) in the Economic and Property Development Department (EP) by $1,342,406, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08152017_17-0689

Motion carries. Next we have item 20. Report from Economic and Property Development Recommendation to execute all documents with the Department of Defense through the Office of Economic Adjustment to accept funds totaling 1,342,406. To continue implementation of a project that addresses the economic and workforce impact of the C17 plant closure citywide. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Yes, we have Nick Schulz, the director of our Workforce Investment Board, who has worked to get this grant from the Department of Defense. Nick, so good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor and honorable members of Council. This is actually a phase two of our economic adjustment project here in the city of Long Beach. As you may well may well be aware, our first. Project was for a total of about. 4 million, just under $4 million. And that project, integrated direct services to dislocated workers created a master plan for our C-17 plant and surrounding parcels to ensure future users would maximize economic benefit of the facility. Work product from phase one included again a master plan. Document to help guide decision making concerning site use. Once Boeing Corporation has ultimately vacated the site, it created an. Online skills transfer platform. To help impacted workers prepare for. New employment and opportunities that looked at special. Zoning and planning activities. Prepare to prepare the site. For future use and it created an economic and labor market study to analyze and help identify impacted firms and help them transition successfully from suppliers of Boeing into other available markets. Phase two of the project will bring the city just over $1.5. Million and will build on the efforts. Of our Phase one approach. And the major phases to be included of this Phase two project. Include expanding the economic analysis to better understand the. Impacts of the C-17 to the closure to the city a. Few years out, the ultimate economic well-being and condition of the workers who have been impacted and continuing efforts to support and transition the supply chain away from aerospace and defense opportunities into other market opportunities. As well as completion. Of planning and site analysis to guide any future development on the site. I can speak further about any of those elements if you have any questions. I think we're okay, but good job tonight. Is any public comment on this item? In the supporting material for the agenda. It says earlier this year, OCA, which is the federal government, notified Pacific Gateway that the city would receive additional funding of one and a half million dollars plus to continue and expand the project for this new round of grant funds. Pacific Gateway will work with various businesses to assess their economic competitiveness, conduct, asset mapping, and support the city's modified planning and zoning documents. I don't think I heard that in that description. So the federal government notified a local business that the federal government is sending money to the city of Long Beach to give to local business so they can contract with two additional businesses to support planning and zoning changes now being considered. Why is the federal government providing money to higher businesses? To be a proponent of pending laws which should be supported locally. Why is the federal government including intruding through three businesses in a matter that needs to be supported or opposed by the citizens of this city and our city council? I strongly oppose acceptance of these funds. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and seeing the federal public comment. Members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Energy Resources Department to schedule a study session for the City Council to review the operation of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). The scope of the study session should include reviews of SERRF’s incineration process, operational costs, energy production, recycling capabilities, greenhouse gas emissions, and possible alternatives.

LongBeachCC_03222022_22-0329

Thank you. Next is item 20. Item 20 Communication from Councilman Alston. Councilmember Oranga recommendation to require City Manager to work with the Energy Resources Department to schedule a study session to review the operation of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility. Councilman Austin. Thank you so much. And I want to, first of all, thank our Councilmember Jurado for signing on this very important item for the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility, also known to serve as one of two facilities, actually still of its kind, still operating in the state, was first opened in 1988 and Phillips facility services long beaches refuse burning approximately 275,000 tons of solid waste each year, converting this waste into energy. This is specifically timely because there is a bill HB 1857 that will remove diversion credits from the city that we receive from landfill avoidance. And this critic accounts for about 10% of our diversion goals currently. And as 2024 approaches, our council and residents, I believe, should be really informed on service operations and its impacts to help determine the Phillips facility's future. For this reason, I'm requesting a study session to better understand the operational, environmental and financial impacts of surf, its effectiveness compared to other alternative methods of waste management and its viability for continued use. And again, I'd like to thank Councilmember Urunga for helping me bring this forward, but also look forward to a robust conversation with the community and and a great staff report. Hopefully when this comes back. And so I ask for your support. Thank you, Councilman Miranda. But thank you, Councilmember, asking for including me in this very important item. It's new to me in terms of my district. I just the through redistricting as it is now in my district. And I think it's important that we revisit serve to get a better handle for especially my residents in terms of what it actually does and how it operates in the city of Long Beach and how we can make some improvements if needed to or whatever. The report comes back with only. I'm totally encouraged by the fact that we're going to be looking into this. There's a lot of issues. Timing has changed. I mean, this facility is what, over 20 years old or so, whether it's I mean, 88 year old came to my son's age, got to look at, you know, it's time that we need to revisit. There's a lot of trash out there, of course, a lot of other types of trash that are that is accumulating. And now we're looking at trying to look at how we can do green waste and serve, might have a play in that disposal as well. So I'm looking forward to that report. And as a consumer also said, a robust discussion about this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes, I thank you, Vice Mayor. This is an interesting item and a complicated issue. And as chair of the Climate Action Environment Committee, our committee back in August of 2021 requested a presentation on Sur Suture, and we were expecting a discussion on options this year. Also, given that this facility is now part of Councilmember Year Ranges District, I think it would be beneficial to hold a study session for him as well, as well as all of us on council and understanding. Service, environment. Impact. Cost and effectiveness. Compared to the other forms of waste management. Management is also going to be important for us to consider. I'm happy to look into this at a committee level as we have already been working on this or discussed this at the council level. If my colleagues, my colleagues. So decide. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Mungo. Thank you. I always am a big supporter of Cerf, and I think that the more people that know about it and know what it does to save us emissions, the better. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I just want to just to reemphasize that we brought this item forward because I thought it was very important to obviously study these at committee levels. And we have committees that that do this work and we encourage you to continue to do that. But it's a timeliness issue with legislation pending. We've also had legislation that has really put us in a situation where we we've had to rethink, sir, from, you know, what are we doing with our organic waste? We won't be able to use that facility for organic waste moving forward. And so I think it's important that we have this public study session. We've heard from some some members of the public who who really, really want to get this on the agenda to understand this. And I think if we have a comfortable place where everybody is understanding where this is, what understanding this facility and is on the same page in terms of getting the information, we will be in a better position to take some positions. There could be positions taken then state legislation committee. There could be positions taken. And Councilmember Allen, your committee on climate, this affects so many aspects of our our work. And I know there is a movement we've already taken positions as a council to to move toward zero waste. All of that is relevant to this conversation related to serve. So again, I hope to have your support on this item. Thank you. I'll just add my comments here. I think, you know, we've talked about surf a lot over the years and it's certainly time for a fresh conversation. I think committees can also go deep, you know, have a little bit more time to, you know, evaluate and make recommendations to the council as well. And I also think, you know, technology has probably changed since the time all of us joined the council. I'm really interested in anaerobic digestion. I'm interested in, you know, what maintains jobs. And I also also know that we need to keep an eye on what other cities are doing around the world, around waste. So I think I think it's time for a study session. And I think going that doesn't stop I think the committee from sort of owning recommendations around it, you know, taking a deeper dove. So I think this is a both and so is any public comment. I see one. Dave Shukla. Good evening. Two years ago, by telephonic correspondence, I. Thank you. Two years ago, by telephonic correspondence, I asked for the job to run, sir, because it's hard for me to imagine more perverse incentives for a city that sells oil to pay for things, to also have a scheme to make money or electricity from burning fed things. Ultimately, I mean, it's a kind of perverse closed loop of endless profit accumulation as long as we can pull the stuff up as fast as possible. And that is something that not only the global atmosphere, but the local soil and the local population is is is bearing in terms of pollution impacts. And then there's the whole question of, you know, what happens to the ashes ultimately? As a Hindu, I care about that. It's important to note, as someone who helped S.B. 100 get passed, that green waste or waste slurry, the kind of value stream that folks are looking to get out of anaerobic digestion. That's that's not a clean energy source. And it's something that like in the case of Phenix, you're going to create another perverse incentive for municipal dependency. But the broader kind of question, just from a physical perspective, is how many times is the port going to build this city out? I mean, it bailed it out of the recession of the nineties when the Navy left. But if you take the one site where you want to pipe in the electricity and just kind of wrap it up around this one facility, you may buy yourself out of things that are happening literally next week, going to be in the Bay Area talking to folks about offshore wind. And to be perfectly honest, I mean, if the city doesn't want those opportunities, you don't want clean energy, you want to keep trying to make money off of selling oil. It may be time to admit defeat in my hometown and help all the other coastal cities in California eat your fucking lunch. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Councilwoman Mango can. The motion is carried.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land disturbing activity; updating the Grading Code to align with updates to other codes; and amending Sections 22.170.020, 22.170.050, 22.170.060, 22.170.070, 22.170.080, 22.170.110, and 22.170.190 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120084

120084 An Ordinance. Relating to land disturbing activity. Updating the greeting code to align with updates to other codes and amending sections. 22.170.02. 0.050.060.070.110.190 of the Seattle Animal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. And colleagues, my apologies for not using my camera. My my Wi-Fi here is glitching a little bit, so it seems to improve when I turn the video off. If that resolves, I'll make sure to turn my video back on. But in the meantime, to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of the committee and is going to walk us through this piece of legislation. Thank you, council president and thank you, Deputy Clerk, showing the this legislation and the next two bills are all related to the technical codes that are updated regularly by the State Department of Construction Inspection. These bills come to council after years long process processes that begin with updates to internal guidelines and eventually continues on to state level updates and finally, city level updates. This legislation specifically is updating the grading code, which is flat surfaces without subterranean anything and no buildings. This will be the first update to the grading codes since 2009 and the updates are minimal. Examples of the changes in this code include requiring a grading permit when land disturbing activity on a site exceeds 5000 square feet rather than one acre, requiring a grading permit whenever groundwater is being extracted and broadening the definition of potentially hazardous location to include any site on EPA or ecology list form this investigation or cleanup of contamination . This is technical in nature and I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Council President. Thank you so much, colleagues. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill? Else? Yes. Herbold as. Whereas I. Lewis. Yeah. MORALES Yes. Hostetter, I. Peterson Yes. Want. Yes. Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the first please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item ten into the record? And the short title is fine. Jan Item ten Council Bill 120083 An ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes amending section 7.13.1, 3.7 and 16131.1.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by repealing Sections 21.52.204 and 21.52.281; amending Sections 21.15.1560, 21.15.2310, 21.15.2420, 21.15.3000, 21.15.3015, 21.21.302(B)(4), Table 31-1, Table 32-1, and 21.52.249, and by adding Sections 21.15.1576, 21.15.1859, 21.25.905, 21.52.200.1, 21.52.240.5, and 21.52.270.1, all relating to Conditional Use Permits, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09182018_18-0819

Lucian Karis. Thank you. Hearing item two. Item Choose the report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt negative declarations. Zero one Dash 18 declared ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 of the Land Beach Police Code, all relating to conditional use permit. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and Adobe Resolution authorizing the Director of Development Services to submit amendment of the Long Beach zoning regulations and supporting materials to the California Coastal Commission for Approval and Certification Citywide. Thank you. Staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight's staff presentation will be done by current planning officer Kerry Tai. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the city council. Tonight, staff is pleased to present to you proposed amendments pertaining to the city's use permit review process. Just a bit of background. In March of 2017, the city kicked off a city council initiated request to review the city's conditional use permit. As the council knows, there are uses in the city that are permitted by write in the city's zoning ordinance, and there are also uses that are subject to an extra process known as a use permit. Some are conditional use permits and some are administrative use permits. They're just sort of major and minor. But the request stemmed from feedback from city business owners who cited that the use permit process was hindering some of the creation or opening of new businesses, in particular aspects related to timeliness, predictability, efficiency and cost. So staff focused on these aspects and reviewed ways to maintain the ability of the community to address concerns, but also to try to improve on some of the aspects that the business owners were expressing concerns about. And so all of this really was done with the overarching goal of improving the city's image as a great place to do business. And so just an overview of the process. There are some dates on the screen, but I'll just quickly run through them. Since last spring, the staff did a multi-month engagement, along with a consultant with stakeholders and business associations in the community. The consultant that assisted the staff also did a thorough analysis of the city's zoning regulations and pointed out recommendations on how to make the process more clear and even how to make the zoning ordinance more clear. The engagement effort also included a study session with the Planning Commission, as well as the Economic Development Commission. And then staff also individually reached out to numerous business associations that, due to their staffing limitations, were not able to participate in some of the meetings. And so we did one one on one outreach prior to the Planning Commission hearing on June 7th. Staff also addressed inquiries from several resident groups pertaining to some of the changes which I'll go through in a bit. So after that extensive stakeholder effort in preparation of zoning recommendations, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on this item on June 7th and recommended recommended approval that the City Council approve this application. So I'm going to go through just some more detail about some of the stakeholder issues. I'm going to categorize them. But generally, they fell under a several categories that I'm sure are familiar to many. Alcohol regulations, parking regulations, procedures and cost. And then the last aspect was the identification of the need for business assistance. In other words, the stakeholders mentioned that a lot of folks that appear before the city to start a business simply lacked the knowledge of what the process was and could have used better assistance to guide them through the process. In terms of the technical aspect of the zoning code, the consultant did an analysis and compared Long Beach to several other pier cities. The city's notification process for use permits, which right now is a 750 foot radius consisting of property owners and occupants, was found to be greater than pure cities. They also found the consultant also found that some cities do a much better job of providing information on business assistance and also sharing what what's going on in the process, what the steps are and what other applications are in the process. And lastly, the consultant noted that Long Beach's application costs seemed higher because the costs are bundled. The the cost to process the application, the notification costs and various surcharges are all bundled into one. And so they appear to be higher when in fact, when the numbers are actually broken down, they actually are pretty comparable in terms of the zoning code. The the assessment was that there were definitely definitions in the code that were outdated and and convoluted that made the code somewhat difficult to understand. There were missing references to certain issues, certain aspects relating to alcohol, so that the city's regulation of alcohol did not jive with the state alcohol and beverage controls regulations, and also that overall the code could use a better just just a better clarification. So one of the main recommendations, though, in terms of speeding up the process, was doing a review of uses and determining whether those uses in actuality needed use permits. The reason for that is the city's zoning ordinance was largely crafted in 1988 with intermittent amendments for the last 30 years, basically. And there are some regulations that could be deemed to be outdated given the there's new ways to do business and the new sort of marketplace and economy. So some of the uses that the that were identified as needing updated included included laundromats which currently require an administrative use permit, second hand stores. So reuse stores, thrift stores, those all require conditional I'm sorry, administrative use permits. Daycares in multifamily zones currently require conditional use permits. And yet the city's housing element identifies multifamily zones as areas needing daycares. The most live work units and commercial districts also require use permits when most other cities are not requiring use permits for that because adequate development standards can be put into place to regulate those. And so the there are basically there's a list of uses and their associated development standards, which also showed that there was a need to update the regulations based on kind of more modern way of doing business is one example is that for daycares the hours of operation were limited from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.. But today's longer work hours. Parents need to drop the kids off earlier and pick them up later. And so that was one of the changes that we are proposing. With regard to public notification, I did give a little background. The city's 750 foot notification does exceed what the state minimum is, which is 300. However, one thing that the staff took a look at was the effectiveness of that notification. We typically send out a couple of hundred, sometimes over a couple, sometimes over several thousand. If it's a project in the downtown, it's they're known to have over 4000 notices in a single mailing, and sometimes over 20% of them come back as returned mail. And also as a result of that, we've had public hearings where one or two people show up a result as a result of more than a thousand notices going out. So certainly staff observed the the lack of efficiency and effectiveness of that notification. So studied ways that other cities are providing notification of projects. The one recommendation that was that came down very strongly was digital notification. Clearly the movement of communication towards the Internet, the use of the website to the city's website, to post public notification as well as email email services like L.B. Link, where people are able to sign up for issues that they're interested in, as well as the thousands of people following the city on social media have been proven to be effective ways of getting the word out on projects that that are being proposed and also the state law, as well as many other cities allow for newspaper publication when the number of notices exceeds 1000 properties. That is a common occurrence in the projects that that Long Beach sees. And so one of the proposed changes is, is to incorporate that allowance into the zoning ordinance. And then the last part is in terms of a procedure, not necessarily notification, but creating a an administrative land use process to document uses that are by rights so that applicants can come in and sign and acknowledge that they understand the development regulations before they open a business so they can operate in accordance with city regulations. And they've indicated to the city that they understand that. So in your packet or there's an ordinance summarizing the changes that I've just summarized, and I want to go and just talk about a few next steps. So certainly the some of the stakeholder concerns related to some broader issues relating to, for example, alcohol sales and the changing nature of alcohol regulations, be it late night sales, late night sales of alcohol or change in alcohol products because it's sort of a moving target. Right now, the staff is acknowledging that there is a need to perform a continued study of improvements to to alcohol sales procedures. Also in the staff report, the the staff talks about the ease of use of the code after some of the changes are made. There are a couple of chapters in the zoning ordinance that are just very difficult to use. Things are not in order and things are difficult to find. And so the recommendation is to come back and reorganize some of the chapters without any content change just to improve the ease of use. And then lastly, the next step is to recommend enhancing the city's website to provide increased information about development proposals. And I and an example of that would be a map based software that shows what projects are going on so that people can easily relate what the what ongoing projects are in their neighborhood and what is most relevant to them. And so this process certainly is not over. I think this is step one of and of an effort to make it easier to do business in the city, to negotiate the city's use permit process. And the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed changes in the attached ordinance. That concludes my presentation and I can answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pearce. Yes. Thank you very much, staff. This has been a long time coming. So when I first started talking about even running to sit behind this dais, I talked to a lot of small business owners that said that they had a lot of challenges with the conditional use permits, the process, the amount of funds it took for them to get their doors open with the types of uses that they that they wanted and that the cost was much higher than other cities. And so I am really happy. I want to just give a little bit of context and then I'll ask a couple of questions. This item came forward in December of 2016 with my council colleagues Lena Gonzalez, Stacey Mango, Al Austin, and that we together, you know, set out to try to get Long Beach to be updated for our businesses. And so this conditional use process has been several years in the making and not only included an outside consultant to work on this, but we did make sure that we included COBA, that we included small businesses, large businesses and multiple types of businesses. So I want to applaud staff because I know when we've done community outreach in the past and when this first came up, it was difficult to get some of the other users to participate in the process and really understand the Laundromats and some of those other uses that might not be as engaged in our city like restaurants are, because we all eat all the time. And so I want to recognize that we had a roundtable that included COBR, all of our business associations within the city, as well as individual neighborhood associations, Rose Park, Alamitos Beach, Bluff Heights, and in our downtown area as well. And so what was that in West Side? So definitely West Side, but that those were part of a work group that the consultants worked with, that this didn't just come out of city staff, but city staff really did a great job picking it up and leading it and making sure that it came back with a complete overhaul that the city is really due to have. So I'm really happy to see it here. I know that we had some questions the last time we met with community members around the online process. Could you elaborate a little bit of how you're working with it? And we discussed cutting back some of the paper notifications, but how are we really going to trust that are online sources like social media is the right way? What cities have we seen do that before? Shura Council Member Pearce, thank you for the question. In the in the study of the peer cities, the consultant took a look at the cities of Oakland, Anaheim, West, Hollywood and Huntington Beach I'm sorry, and took a look at what they are doing and they are taking advantage of a lot of digital digital notification processes. And in terms of working with are it working to ensure that the digital notification that this proposal is going to be effective? One of the very specific performance criteria that we have incorporated into the digital notification requirement. So it's not going to be optional. It's going to be in addition to the mailing that's going to be starting at 300 feet with a couple of exceptions, but starting at 300 feet, it's going to be mandatory digital notification. It means we have to advertise those public notices in an electronic format. And not only that, the performance criteria is it's going to be based on what is currently the most effective. In other words, where do we have the most followers? Where do we have the most subscribers? And the reason for that was to provide a way for the code, which does not change very often to respond to digital internet usage, which does change, I mean, in every two or three years, you know, a new form of social media peaks or a new website peaks, and it's to allow our code to have the flexibility without having to change it time and time again. And that will be developed through a policy within the Department of Development Services to regularly track what is the most effective notification method, and then to use, at a minimum, two of those. Great and I don't recall you going through it necessarily in your presentation, but you mentioned that some of them will be 300 feet, some of them will. Some of the uses are required to be further distance. Can you recap that one more time for me? Absolutely. So, yeah, I'm happy to go over that. It's going to make it a little complicated with the numbers. So the state minimum is 300 feet. So staff is so staff is proposing to move the default notification to 300 feet. But that would include still both the property owners and the occupants, which is still above and beyond what the state requirement is. State only allows only requires property owners, but for users, for example, that have buffers for the massage users that have a 700 foot buffer or a tattoo use that has a 500 foot buffer, the any any of those uses that requires a use permit, that notification would automatically be extended to that buffer to ensure that we have added coverage. Also, any project that has any parking reduction, anything a variance for parking, parking, shared parking that would remain at the 750 foot notification. And that was because during our engagement with the residential stakeholders, that was that was at the top of the list in terms of concerns about businesses taking up parking into residential neighborhoods. And so they wanted to be aware of any instance where that where the potential for there was the potential for that to happen. So that stays at 750. And so those are some of the examples of how the default is 300. But there are there are tiered systems to account for specific situations. Great. Thank you for that. I will just close with I think you touched on it, it's a rare opportunity to sit here and and go through the code like this. I think you guys have done a great job on really not having a blanket policy, but really going line by line with all the different uses. And I encourage my my council colleagues to support this change. I also want to recognize the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Commission that also spent a lot of time with this as well. So thank you guys very, very much. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Yeah. I want to thank Councilmember Pearce for bringing it forward some time ago and really our staff for continuing to bring us to where we're at now. I think this is a great win for small business and I just want to ask a few things. How does that look like internally? It's got to be a lot easier now for you or is that are we going to have a little bit of a a road to overcome before this actually comes to fruition and we figure out what the streamlining will look like? Sure. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales. That's a that's a great question. And we are we are undergoing the internal process improvements that will effectuate the changes at. So one thing that, you know, I, I didn't specifically talk about, but I think it's covered in terms of in the report is that the slight reduction in the notification will have a cost savings and staff will be bringing back a slight fee update which will basically it'll reduce the fee for anybody who isn't subject to the the full 750 foot notification. So that's one internal process that you will actually see. And in terms of other uses, we know very specifically which uses have what buffers. And so we'll know which tier to put them in and put them in the the appropriate cost bracket, if you will. Right now at the back of our application packet, we already have all the different uses that require use permits listed out. And so it's just a matter of whenever a certain use comes in that meets the criteria for an extended buffer, we will be able to identify that pretty easily and then note that buffer for their application processing accordingly. Great. Thank you. That's great to hear. And were there any other I know that we're still in the next steps. We're continuing the discussion on alcohol sale procedures. I know that's probably the number one thing that we hear, especially in downtown. Do we know do we have any in addition to that alcohol sales discussion, do we have any other alternatives scenarios that were brought up that may not be in this presentation that were just sort of other ideas that we're looking at as well? I one of the things that we heard from applicants or a number of the businesses was their interest in a business that was currently selling alcohol that desired to potentially move to a different location. They would very much like a process that allows an existing business who's a good operator, hasn't had any issues or troubles to open up a new location and have them go through a minimal process because of their good record at one property. And that is something we're exploring. It is a challenge because every neighborhood is different. Every community, every location is different. And right now, we haven't found a way to essentially get them there to to waive the set up process. But one of the things in Kerry's presentation, she mentioned that we are taking a deeper dove, looking at alcohol sales. So as a part of that process will be exploring whether or not there is some way to minimize that process. But we that was one of the alternatives that that was put forward that we considered but could not we couldn't get there in this process. But we all will still be exploring that as an option. Great, Will, thank you. And I look forward to seeing how that evolves. And then just last thing that I think that has been mentioned is the multiple methods of communication. I think especially when it comes to development, we've known that's been sort of an issue that community members have talked about and ensuring that specific community groups are included. I know that we do a radius, but there's some community groups that might be right outside the radius. So I know we're being a little bit more cautious and mindful of that, which is good. One last question. Is there are there any existing proposals in the pipeline that would be affected? I don't know if there's like an abundance of laundromats that want to come to the downtown by chance. I just want to ask that. Yeah. Thank you for the question. And, you know, I'll answer that question and then I'll follow up on the other point. But actually, no, coincidentally, right now we do not have any pending applications for thrift stores, laundromats, daycares or or live work units. So and then to the other point about the neighborhood groups, it is currently already a part of the development services process. They use permit process to notify neighborhood groups not only when the public notification goes out, but also when the application is received. So while that is not codified, it is already part of our process. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much for the work. I appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I'm very familiar with the neighborhood notification process. I haven't been neighborhood president for six years, but I still receive notifications, so I know that it is alive and well and working. But I think that our work to ensure that those lists are updated and while I happen to still serve on my neighborhood board and keep them apprized , that might not always happen, had something different happen to me than coming to the dais. So I think that we need to work really hard. I know that Neighborhood Services is always updating the list, but there has to be a process specifically as it pertains to each development. So the one in in my neighborhood recently was the Dorado. The Dorado received a notification to the neighborhood president email address, which came to me and I haven't been president for quite a bit of time, so we need to work on that a bit. I'm really excited. And while I appreciate Councilmember Pierce's excitement about this, this first came to the council in 2014 with Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez and I when we first started talking about components of notification and the social media options related to digital advertising and geofencing around an area and ensuring that the ads for those areas are specific in nature. So, for instance, you can on a map put a box around a development project, and then anyone who looks at their browser for Google or any of the others would get an ad that this is happening in their community. And I don't know that I've. I hear that there's a social media component, but I don't know that that ad component that we kind of talked about back in 2014 has been included. Is that something that you guys are still considering? That is new information. But what I would say is that it's not currently a part of this process, but that is absolutely something we can explore. Christopher, do you have just for clarification, by adding in boosted post or. Or. ID using a different function? It's actually so at the time, the first project that was using this, I can't remember what it was, but there was a discussion around. Not. Not everyone's on social media. And so literally for a very small price. And I know that I've had talks. The person who brought this to my attention was Mr. Worthington. He uses this in the area quite well, where when you are a person who lives in 900808, no matter if you're on your phone. Anywhere. They can do it by two. Two paths. One, when you're near the dealership. If you're on a device, they can push forward an ad to you. And then the second is, if you live in this area, no matter what device you're on, let's say you're on an iPad in Pasadena, but you live in Long Beach. The ad could be pushed to you. There's lots of options, but it's actually targeting people, especially on my side of town, who may not participate in social media but go on the Internet to purchase things. And the but so you might be shopping on Amazon and the ad will pop up. There were even ads during this last campaign that would say vote for somebody for November right there in the Amazon screen. And so those are another very inexpensive way. I mean, they're so cheap ad buys, they would probably be less expensive and more effective than the mailings that are getting such. Low, low return. It would be very interested in looking at that. Yes. And there's people who know more about this than I do, obviously, that we can connect with the other component of this that I think came forward and I know Mr. Councilmember Richardson's. Up next is we talked about a phase two of this, which was first, let's look at the code and make it easier to get the copies . But there were also discussions related to what are the tools that we can put online that once they're in that process? They can download specific measurable specs. So let's say, for instance, their barrier to entry is an ADA bathroom. Councilmember Richardson kind of talked at the dais and I'm really stretching here. This was five years ago, but about the ability to just log on and say, here are 12 ADA bathrooms that meet the requirement. You should be able to download one of them and have your contractor do it instead of going through the processes and procedures . But like preapproved, here's what you need. To get done. And I know that was a part of the 2014 theory and Plan, which was a long time ago and several staff members ago. But I don't want it to get lost in the in the discussion. I think that this is a great first step, and I'm glad we're all on board. And I, I think the group of councilmembers who who brought this back in 2016 are very dedicated to getting this process to be streamlined. But I would also say that in my last three years, the number of businesses. That don't feel they fit. In the box. Has increased. So. A tiny, tiny gem of. Like six moms sitting around with six. Kids playing. Ball. It's not a gym, but they're being required to fit at the parking rate of a 24 hour fitness. And so finding those subcategories. I think, are. Going to be really important in the next five years. Thank you for all your work. Kathryn Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So congratulations and thank you to Councilman Pearce and all the signers on this original item. And, you know, you know, to take it even further back, I think the council before us even had a view a couple, I think, to keep conversations going to continue to evolve as we move forward. A couple things. So. On the notification. I understand that that is one of the largest expenses of a CFP, but I do have concerns and I do agree that we need to be able to use a scalpel and be more strategic and save money. But at the same time, the concept of simply using a newspaper ad over a certain threshold, we just don't have circulation and newspaper circulation in entire areas of town, which I think that that's going to disproportionately disengage certain communities. And I think we have to think through that a little bit. I think we have to have a question. Does this conversation still does this ordinance still leave the conversation open to talk about the actual the notification process? So the way that we handle public notifications, are we still there's the doors that open to discuss this outside of this ordinance? Well, if this ordinance passes, it would be the ordinance that would govern how we do notices going forward until the council decides to amend it once again. So that but that's specific to caps. I mean, all public notices. I mean, there there needs to be a broader conversation in general about public notices sort of, you know, how do you simplify them, make use less legal language and simplify the syntax? So basic people, you know, basic folks can understand that context. So are we able to talk about, like the structure of the notice, what it looks like? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Because I like to have a conversation outside of the S.U.V.. I like most of what's presented here, but I want to have a better conversation about making sure the public notices are simply just more effective and communicate the message better to all communities. Make sure we have a common denominator, a language that the common person can can comment on the language. Specifically on the laundromats. So we have a number of laundromats. And I I'm glad to know there isn't an, you know, a long line of laundromats waiting to get into the city. So that was that was good news. But laundromats, they do bring their 24 hours. And the nature of laundromat is loitering. People are washing their clothes and people need to wash their clothes. I get that. But certain hours a night, they require certain security standards or perhaps even hours of operation. The ability to to regulate the hours operation of laundromats, a new modern laundromat that's locating in the area. Does do the standards within this ordinance allow us to regulate operating hours on a laundromat? Thank you for your question, Councilmember Richardson. Yes. The purpose of development standards for these uses that we are proposing to allow by. Right. Rather than through a use permit, the purpose of those development standards is to ensure that those uses operate in a manner that does not create any potential for impacts of any kind. So that's absolutely acceptable here. And we are happy to hear your thoughts on that. So the ability to regulate time, hours operation is in this ordinance. The ability to correct it's not currently proposed. What would that process look like? So who would who would weigh in on that? Is it a an administrative officer or zoning officer? Who would who would apply that? It wouldn't be the city council. But who would it be? Typically what we've done is in in the interest of trying to simplify the process of getting these use permits, we've gone away from what we call the discretionary process, where it goes to the VA or goes to the planning commission. We've put in place an administrative process where it could go from whatever the time period was and the significant cost of going to the Planning Commission or the CAA. We've reduced the costs, but we've put in place what we call an administrative permit process, which takes a few days and it's a couple of hundred dollars rather than the long, drawn out process that costs thousands of dollars. But to protect the integrity and the compatibility of these uses that are no longer going to be a part of a public hearing process, we are adopting what we call operational standards or performance standards for each one of those and each one of those. Depending upon the nature of the use, we will craft a set of standards such as they may affect the operating hours, it may affect the opening and close times, it may affect signage, a number of different things that affect how it could potentially affect the neighbors. And that would be adopted and included as a part of this ordinance. So the. Standard. So you're saying the standard those standards would not be on a project by project basis. We would need to adopt them in these. That's correct. They would be put in place as a part of this ordinance. And we have standards now for the myriad of different types of projects like. And I'm going to just give you an example, a trucking use. When a trucking use comes down through a C, you p process there, the code contains very specific standards that that particular use has to comply with. And that's just one example. There are a myriad of other types of uses that are subject to a C up process where the code literally calls out very specifically what those standards be. They set back B they are as of Operation B, they landscaping and that is what would be incorporated with this action, those what we call special development standards. So what are what are the hours of operations proposed in this ordinance for laundromats? They currently are not. And that's why we made the comment earlier. If you have specific suggestions, we could certainly include that in this ordinance. Well. I think we should have our hours of operation. I haven't done any specific outreach to find out, like what are the what is palatable. I think they need to be on a project by project basis, I think. Councilman Yeah. That's something we couldn't do tonight because we didn't put anybody on notice that we might be restricting hours of operations. If this ordinance passes, we would have to bring it back to make that change, you know, and publicly notice it. But that said, there are a number of operational standards already in here. For instance, there's a 500 foot separation. So you don't get an overconcentration. There's a requirement that an attendant be on duty at all times and it's open. There's a requirement for the glazing, for the windows, how much are transparent so that people can see what's going on in and out. There's ten, 12, 15 standards of operation. Two kind of noise is one of the things that's covered in here, to keep the laundromat from becoming a nuisance. If you get a situation in the future where a particular one becomes a nuisance or you have a trend where they become a nuisance, we could always come back and amend this, or you could make a suggestion tonight, but we'd have to put that over to another date to. So that the public has notice of that that restriction might go into effect. And the Council I would just like to add that in considering the potential for this use to and what it might potentially impact, I think staff has been very diligent in crafting that set of specific development standards. I would just suggest that maybe a step that you could consider is to let this go forward. And if there are any problems, we can certainly monitor it, keep a close look at it, and we would certainly have the opportunity to come back and make additional revisions if if if we feel or you feel that is warranted . If the council feels it's warranted. Well, I do. And I feel that the conversation around I think it needs a little bit more work on in terms of the laundromat conversation, but I don't want to hold up the ordinance on that. So what I'd like to do is, you know, once we move, once this moves forward, maybe we convene a conversation and look at look into what the standard operating hours are and do a little bit outreach and maybe do an amendment in six months. Once we've done a little bit of outreach, you're open to working. That's acceptable to staff. Okay. Good. And then? And then. So the noticing on the public outreach went from 750 feet to 300 feet. Correct. As a starting point, correct? Okay. Although there are many exceptions. And we notify separately neighborhood associations. Right? That's correct. Do we notify any other civic or affinity groups like churches? No. We notify schools within a radius. Do we notify churches or any other affinity groups in the area? The only additional noticing would be for any parties that have previously expressed interest in that particular project that we would notify them. So unless somebody has previously notified us, no, there's not any particular group that's in the additional bucket. At what point is city council notified? As part of the the Planning Bureau's notification process, a notice of public hearing is transmitted to the Council District Office in which the project is located. Okay, so so I think we need to I think we need to do we have the ability to open it up beyond neighborhood associations include churches and schools within a more or more broad radius. If we're not going to do direct mail and save money and we know newspaper circulation and let's be honest, there's a lot of conversation about the digital divide in the city. So we shouldn't just assume using a technological solution is be the answer. So if we're going to save money by not doing as much on a mailer, then we should take that extra step and do a little bit more broad outreach to the organizations in the area. So particularly churches, business improvement districts and schools, I think at least those organizations within a broader radius should be included. So that's something we already have provision for. Is that something we can include to make? I don't know that I can let the city attorney respond to that. But I think that your other suggestions about looking at the hours of operation, certainly we can look at some refinements to the noticing to expand that. But I I'd prefer that staff had some time to examine. That a little bit. More closely. So we're not doing something on the fly, but be thoughtful about it and bring something back for the Council to to consider. Mr. May I was just going to add that that noticing that we're talking about really isn't even and never has been part of the ordinance is something that staff is implemented to, you know , get better transparency. So that's it's something we could change any time. So we could bring that back a recommendation back from the planning commission at the time. We bring back the further discussion about the laundromat, and they could do that. Absolutely. I think that I think that's smart. So we move forward. What we have now, we bring back a conversation about laundromats, but also about the broader conversation of how we know this, which is not specific, just two cups, but how we do public noticing in general the method, the means, all those things. They we have a broader conversation on that. But thank you. This is very good work. Again, Councilwoman Pearce, thanks for taking the lead on this. And it has my vote to make. From a super. Don. Thank you. I'm going to follow up on the council notification that Councilmember Richardson just brought up, and I had that as my number one priority anyway. So it's just coincidental that that was just discussed. So my greatest challenge over the last three years has been council notification. The reason it's so important is whether it's snail mail or however the public finds out about a project. Guess who they call first when they have questions and we should be notified as to what's going on. So I take it, and this might be a question for Mr. May, so we have policy and then we have something within the code. So could council notification be codified so that we make sure that it's an absolute that has to happen? It could be codified, but you could just as easily do it by policy and direct staff to notify you at a certain point in time with any application process, it wouldn't be necessary to have it. The code staff would still have to follow your directive. Okay, so that hasn't worked in the past. So it's just been spotty. And so I just I can't emphasize enough and I don't want to pick on development services because this is across the board. Back to Councilman Richardson's point. We have a fire training center in our district. They hand deliver notices to the public. Again, even with the fire training centers phone number on there, they will call the council office. So unless we have a copy of that notice, we have nothing to provide the public. So I just think in the spirit of Councilmember Richardson bringing this back, in terms of a general topic of notification, let's make sure we look at all those possible options. The other question, I think, is also for Mr. Mays, and that are there any legal limits to notification? That is, for instance, if if we wanted to put a notice out in our weekly email blast, would that be allowed legally? Sure you can always go above and beyond what the state law requires. And state law requires a minimum of three, a 300 foot mailing radius. So for the most part, the city's standards as projected insurgents are above what the state law requires. But you can always you can do as much. Okay. The next question I have sounds like it would it's a little too detailed or nit picking, but it's actually round one when the standard went from 300 to 750 feet. And I remember a lot of the questions back then. And one was, if you're dealing with a large property, where do you start the zero point? And it used to be in the center of that property. And I don't know if it's policy or code now, but the public asks that it be on the outer perimeters, the borders of that property. Is that the way it's measured now? Thank you for your question, Councilman. Super. And yes, the the radius is measured from the outer boundary of the property or properties. If they if the project site comprises multiple properties, it's not from the center point, it's from the to the property boundaries. Okay. And the last item I have would be and again, I think Councilmember Richardson was getting to this point, that we have residents who just aren't going to get the message electronically. How do we replicate that snail mail option if we're not going to do it anymore? Well, I mean, to the 750 feet, we're no longer doing it. Maybe I have that wrong. We're reducing the 750 to 300 for for hardcopy mailings. Yeah. That's so that's that's correct. Residents have a I think we listed a menu of options and certainly happy to take into consideration, you know, the not necessarily the the active electronic version but the the the passive version that Councilwoman Mongo mentioned. And we could take that into consideration. But yes, the one of the it's about balance and I think the 300 foot is is is continuing to be is going to continue on the mailing and that there's no change to that. And so the important part for for the staff was to identify the uses that were subject to the extended buffers as well as the sensitive topic uses like the parking and retain those extended buffers for that purpose. So, so I think it's about balancing how to improve the, the, the use permit cost in the process, but also trying to replicate as best as possible the existing notification. And you know, with, with the vast majority of people moving toward electronic, native electronic media, if you will, you know, I think also the outreach effort is to let everybody know that, you know, if you if you want to hear about all the agendas on all the items to sign up for those for those lists. But, yes, there there obviously will be a minor portion that that will have to make an effort to be notified. Okay. So this is just off the top of my head because we do an e-newsletter blast every Friday at 1:30 p.m.. We have request for hardcopy versions of that. So if if we look at this studying this whole issue, maybe you could sign up to request a hard copy version of notices? Sure. Absolutely. And there there we have had we had a past stakeholder effort where somebody it was it was a survey, but some small group of people requested the hard copy surveys. And we were we were happy to oblige. And also, the department keeps a permanent notification list for people who are interested and being notified on a wide range of projects. And that could also be a way for us to know who needs hard copies. Thank you for that. Thank you for that suggestion. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you for all the hard work you've put in. Councilman, just to add in, you know where we're talking about the mailed. Notices for copies, but we didn't talk in this presentation about things that are changing. And we did survey both our customers and the folks that we hear from in the public. And the number. One way that people learn about a project is they heard from a neighbor who already knew. The number two way they learn about it is that giant sign that we put on the property itself. And that portion of the notification process is not changing whatsoever, and that's a very important part of our notification process. We didn't have an extended discussion of that this evening because it's not changing, but that is something that people appreciate and that will continue today. The other thing is we're here in front of you tonight on this narrow topic of the copy, but one of the instructions council gave when the land use element was in front of you was to do an update of outreach overall. And that effort is underway and we'll be able to give you an update towards the end of the calendar year. But that also means having better lines of communication between individuals and neighborhood groups and the department and the city so that there are those lines of communication. So when an individual project comes in, that's not the first time that the homeowner or resident has had some interaction with the department, that there's some existing relationship that they can draw upon to understand the process and participate in the process. I think. Thank you for that. And may the record show that Christopher Coons brought up the term land use element. I did not. So but that gets back to my earlier point. I'll just make one last point. Thank you for bringing up the large sign on the property. I never want to learn about a project in my district from one of those large signs. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pierce. So a little fact about my first engagement in Long Beach was around the notification process. And those large signs came from some community activism work that we did. So sorry that they're so big, but they do help. I did what I wanted to follow up on the question around laundromats because I don't necessarily have a challenge with them being 24 hour in my district, but I understand the type of business that can operate in there. So can you clarify one more time on the process that we agreed to? We're going to pass it tonight. And then what are we going to do with the laundromat question? Okay. Thank you for the question. So what we agreed upon was to move forward with the proposed ordinance tonight. And based on the I mean, the list of development standards here to ensure that the laundromats operate, you know, in a in a neighbor friendly manner is extensive. And so what we'll do is take a look and study other maybe other cities, study any calls of service for laundromats and determine whether an hours of operation parameter would be appropriate and bring that back within six months can. Okay. Is there a way to bring that back? When's the next reading of this? In two weeks. We can. It's too soon. Yeah. For second reading. I can hear. You even though I can't see you. It's okay. For the second reading, I'm assuming I'll be back in a few weeks. Yeah. We would not have we would not have sufficient time to prepare any. Recommendations on that. Okay. I think that that that answers my question. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to before we go to a vote, we're going to public comment. Any public comment on this hearing? Sing, Sing nun, please come forward if there is one. Any other public comment on this, seeing that this would be the only public comment. Thanks, Mayor. Good evening. Members of the City Council. Customer Pierce. Thank you very much for bringing this item to our attention and certainly engaging the business community. I think the opportunity for the business community. To have a say in really what their. Future looks like is very, very important. And having this opportunity really, really makes a difference to that business community. I want to thank the Planning Commission and staff for the work that they've done. Being able to reach out to you and making amendments and recommendations to the proposal really means a lot. And certainly appreciate the opportunity to work in a smarter and more efficient and effective manner really makes it more business friendly. I think that's really what we're trying to do. And really appreciate that, that gesture. Appreciate that and look forward to that support. Thanks. Thank you. With that, we're going to go to Councilman Richardson. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays, is it possible to move forward? The ordinance must separate and divide the laundromats from the ordinance until we've had that conversation over the course of the next six months. So we could. I was just looking at it. We could pull that whole section out. It would take some remembering and we would bring it back to you with the correct numbering for the various sections next week for second reading and hold the laundromat in abeyance. That would not be a problem. Sure. And out you know, Councilmember, you go with that. Okay. So that's our friendly amendment. So the friendly amendment would be removed to remove any amendments to the zoning ordinance related to laundromats, specifically section as it is currently styled. Section 21.5 2.239 would be removed for second reading when this comes back. So correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Andrew M. Jordan, Inc., DBA A&B Construction, in a Not to Exceed Amount of $31,277,673, for the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Capital Improvement Program Budget by Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Alameda Point Backbone Infrastructure Capital Improvement Project (C75000) by $5,790,913 from Available Fund Balance in the Alameda Point/Base Reuse Fund (290) to Construct the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55. (Public Works 31041520)

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1757

Is recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with interim Jordan, anchoring businesses and construction in an amount not to exceed $31 million. 277,673 for the Army. 2.4 Use area infrastructure replacement phase one and Phase two number p.w 11 1955 An adoption of related budget resolution. Ex Madam Clerk and we are joined again by our public works director Aaron Smith. Welcome back. And the floor is yours. Right? The screen. Okay. So making sure we can get thumbs up. Everybody can see my screen. And see your screen. Excellent. Good evening again, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Council, Aaron Smith, Public Works Director. I'm very excited to be here this evening to present award of a construction contract to build backbone infrastructure in Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area. Council is considering two items this evening award of a $31 million contract to A and B, construction and a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the base reuse fund to the capital budget. Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area shown here highlighted in yellow, is a historic district. Buildings within the reuse area are planned to be incrementally sold to private property owners on a parcel by parcel basis. Upon receipt of funds from the sale of properties, the city is overseeing the logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure under the Capital Improvement Program. Five buildings have sold to date, shown here in yellow, generating 31 million in revenue governing. The phased implementation of infrastructure in the reuse area is a 2017 agreement. The city has with estimated the city agreed to build out the water system in three phases as shown here. Phases one, two and three. Color coded. The agreement has specific requirements and milestones for the water system, design and installation. Following a building sale in any one of the given phases, since buildings have sold in both Phase one and phase two, the city is obligated and is replacing the Old Navy installed water system in these phases. As this work is advancing ahead of city phase two and the West Midway Project. We are also bringing in Eastbay mud infrastructure from Main Street into the reuse area along that section of West Midway in West Tower shown here in purple. In addition to the water system, the project includes all backbone infrastructure in phase one there, and all backbone infrastructure include sewer storm, joint trench, street lighting, landscaping and complete streets with bike, pedestrian and transit facilities. It also the streets will capture 100% of stormwater runoff and have that treated in the fire retention areas before discharge to the bay. This substantial project was successfully bid and we received four responsive bids. The low bid was A and B or is A and B construction out of Berkeley. Their bid came in and the total $28 million figure is shown here on the slide. When you add it, 10% contingency councils considering award of the construction contract of $31,277,673. To award the contract. We're also seeking a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the Base Reuse Fund to the capital budget. This will allow not only award of the contracts this evening, but ensure adequate funding for additional soft costs during a two year construction period. The appropriation or the budget amendment tonight can be considered a request to advance building CIL revenue from the sale of Building 92, which is in Phase one. Building 92 was originally going to be sold in 2018, but the Surplus Lands Act delayed the sale and now that requirements in the Surplus Land Act have been met. The building is intended to be sold this summer. The last building evaluation was in 2018 and it was 7.2 million. The following sale of Building 92 that that actual sale amount would be deposited back into the base re-use fund. So I kept my presentation nice and short. I hope I can't see everybody, but I hope we're smiling because this is a really exciting project for me. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and have a productive conversation. Thank you, Miss Murph. I think we are smiling. That was a great presentation. I love those graphics where you have all the colored arrows showing every which way, where things are. I mean, who knew sewage could be and sewer and water and electrical engineer? Totally. Anyway, before we go to our clarifying questions, we have public speakers on this item. We do not. Okay. Close public comment on this item. Council. Comments. Questions. Motion. Hands up, counselor. Not sweating. I have a couple questions. I'm not sure if you're able to pull back up the map first, only because I don't know how to I don't know what to call it. But this you should schedule phases one, two and three. What is what is the is is being minor? The VA doing the not phase one two and three part of the. Or the beehive. Those are exercising. Only go back. I'm sorry. Councilmember, what area are you. Discussing in. The area is not listed one, two or three up in the beehive and whatnot. I'm just curious. Understood. Yeah. So that's considered part of the development area in the master infrastructure plan. Our community development director, Lisa maxwell, would be able to speak in more detail. I believe that area is called Edge K, but the intent is that it would be sold to a developer and the developer would be bringing in the infrastructure. Okay. And then where the were the top blue, the blue, that section that doesn't have a number under the blue arrow. Yeah. My understanding these are not considered backbone street. So the adaptive reuse area when when these areas are subdivided and sold, the adjacent development would be bringing in frontage improvements. Okay, great. I guess the other question that I, I guess one could ask is the $31 million program we heard earlier that when the city does programs of this size, we take it to the voters if the voters approve this. Not the the project specifically, but the policy around building sale revenue being spent on backbone infrastructure in the adaptive reuse area. If the voters approve that. That's my understanding. I'm going to look to perhaps our city manager's office as well. I know the master infrastructure plan contemplates this approach. Master infrastructure plan was brought to council and approved, and they do contemplate this sort of logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure in the reuse area. I can follow up with you further, Councilmember, just specifically when when that building sale revenue into backbone infrastructure was formally approved? No, I'm sorry. I understand how it's done. My question is, is whether or not there were any votes of the city electorate that approved this project or anything like this project. My my understanding my memory and understanding and involvement is that that it was all council directed. Including that the fiscal neutrality project that our policy that you're discussing. And that's what I would if it would help. Mr. SMITH Were you perhaps harkening back to an earlier discussion this evening? Well, yeah. As I said, we heard earlier that projects of $30 million and even $9 million are are always approved by the voters and that it's not council appropriate to be making decisions. And I'm just trying to understand whether or not this project falls into that. Well, I could see. I think I was busy when they let me call on you. I was going to say. Why don't we let I? Because I think you might be referring to council members this statement. So why don't we hear from council decide what you were, what you said or intended to say? Yeah, I don't see any issue here. The earlier discussion was about the use of general fund money and the choices we make between activities funded by general fund money. In this case, this is basically a pay as you go kind of activity where the proceeds of the sales of a property are being paid to, are being used to pay for the infrastructure that will eventually help this area. Is just two completely separate subjects. The one was about general fund and the cumulative amount of money that you could have had different choices to spend the $37 million. This is a very specific project where it's about the sales and the uses of land proceeds. It's not unusual. I mean, we don't have to go to the voters for the sales of land proceeds at Alameda Point. We haven't done that. So. Thank you. So I just wanted to give Mr. Smith the benefit of some backstory. Kels, we're not quite that to you. Think so? Yeah, I think I have one other comment that I may make later, but I'll just point out that it was it was a council policy that made the sale of these buildings, put the money into a fund that was going to go back and be used to fund this infrastructure. That was that was a council decision. So these aren't special funds like act funds or park funds or whatever else. These were council decisions that that made these large decisions about how to move funds around to address large, significant city costs. And I don't have a problem with it. I just that. Sorry, that's that. My apologies if I wasn't clear. Ms.. Smith, I don't have a problem with that at all. I think it's a very small one. In fact, I've been a very strong proponent for maintaining the Fiscal Neutrality Project program and really making sure that we maintain that commitment to our community, that that that we are fiscally neutral out here. I just I think you can draw the lines wherever you want, but at the end of the day, we don't have a threshold by which we go to the voters for certain things. And I think this is a perfectly good example of how past councils have made policies that have driven decisions that are now being implemented by this council in order to meet long term needs. Thank you. I think it looks great and I will be looking forward to supporting it when there is a motion. Would you like to make that motion? Yeah. I'd be happy to. I will move approval of this. Of this item. Thank you. Grab a second. Will continue our discussion. Councilmember Daza a. Second with continued discussion. Perfect. Would you like to go next on the discussion? Yes. Thank you. This is an exciting project that will move the redevelopment of Alameda. Councilmember Desai made his way to options. Sorry. So the city clerk tried so hard with me, I. I'm supposed to stop now. We need to do that housekeeping vote because it's coming up on 11 p.m.. So we have a couple more items to go. We've got seven C on automated license plate readers. We have seven D on addressing catalytic converter theft and we have what? We have three council referrals. I would entertain a motion to complete this current item or on and the other to seven C and at 70 and the agenda in the meeting. Then we need four votes to do it. So whatever we do, we got to do it between before 11:00 or it becomes a moot point. So anyone want to make a quick motion to hear this item and two more. Sure. Counselor desk. The excitement. You might like to have a second. It's not. Very reassuring. No. Okay. Um hmm. So we just want to say, I would. Make I would make a motion that we just finish this item. It'll be 11:00 when that happens that we hear the rest of our updates and everything else. Just continue the rest of our updates. What updates. Are you? We agree. We have counsel communications and oral communications. Sorry. Well, we don't have any more communications because we finished before 15 minutes was up. So we we have. Okay. So that's a motion then to do finish this item and here council communication, correct? Yes. Okay. Anyone willing to second councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Actually, I thought he was going to second member Desert Motion. And I'm interested in seconding that motion and following what you had suggested, Mayor. Oh, okay. Which was to do those three items. You still need more votes. Isolate for votes. Yeah, well, you never know. You never know. Okay. We've had a motion by Councilmember Desai that's been secured by Councilmember Herr Spencer. I'm. We have a roll call vote, please. Disorientation. I heard Spencer. I knocked. Right. That was the No and Bella no cash high. That motion failed due to two since it required for it. Okay. Then I would ask that we also move those two items that we're not going to get to tonight on the regular agenda to the item six on the next council meeting. As I move. And wait until tomorrow, Harry Spencer had her hand up for. So let me call her then back to you. Kelso Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to try to at least get through a finish of this one and then do the 75, which is the cameras, and go for it quickly and then tell you what the then that's the motion. Finish this item and do 70 days of your second council release. Okay. Roll call vote on clerk, please. Council Member Dave i. I for spencer. I next. Five. Sorry, I can hear you, but I think that was a no also. Now, I don't know what's going on with my microphone, you know. Okay. Okay. You know, where is Ashcroft? I that. Okay, we revert to revert to plan B. So those two items said then. What did I say? C and D go to item six in the next agenda. Okay. Council member knocks away. All right. I think I was I was going to say, are you looking for emotion? I'll be make that make that emotion for you. Is it emotional? Which is to direction? Yes. You need emotion to put it on that section. Yes. Okay. Yes, I need emotion. Okay. Gebert Herrera, Spencer crossover here. Spencer, you're making the motion. Okay, Catherine, that's what you're seconding, correct? Yes. Okay. 70 and continued items, correct? Correct. Yes, I. See. Okay. And in the order of the same order, I don't want to change your order. Right. But they're going to be like numbers three and four on the section six. So seven, you should follow the when we carry them all over is my point or 7f2 for that matter. All of them would carry out just keeping the same order from the original agenda as well. Mm. Yeah, that actually makes sense I think because that was the order in which they were listed, but they're coming at the top of the agenda so we ought to be able to get through them. Let's see if we can get through the vote to do that. Okay. We have a roll call vote, please. A birdie flag. Hi, Parish. Spencer. Hi. Next fight? Hi, Mila. I may as. I carry. Sci fi advice. All right. Okay. And apologies to any staff for those two items that we didn't get to. But let's continue. Where were we? We were we had measures second. And does anyone any further discussion? Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I'd like a point of order in regards to and I'd like to know can, can I start talking about a prior agenda item and how that vote may be consistent. Or inconsistent with my position. On this item? Because asking the city attorney, city attorney is that what you're asking? Khurshid. If so. Councilmember Without knowing specifics, generally, as long as your conversation relates to this item, the Brown Act gives you latitude. So, for example, you could explain that I'm voting yes on this item because among other things, you've looked at this item from a prior agenda item from a different perspective, and that has helped you to get to. Yes. What about if I said I voted against I voted no on a prior item that dealt with the pension. Councilmember Herrera Spitzer Mr. Shinn was still talking, so I would ask, just let him finish. And then I will be happy to have you answer your next question. Please finish what you were explaining, Mr. Chen. I'm good. I'm good. Thank you very much. My apologies. Okay, so we'll try to talk over each other, okay? Question. Next question. Councilor Gregory Spencer. Thank you. Yes. So I could understand that the city attorney had completed his comments as I appreciate being able to continue mine and unfortunately I was interrupted one more time. But I'd like to be able to continue my comments because earlier we had a council member essentially I'm going to bring up comments from a prior agenda item that have, as far as I can tell, no relevance to this item. But I too voted no for the prior item. And I would like a point of order in regards to may I continue and discuss why I voted no on that item and yet I will be voting yes on this item. Well. I'm city manager of. My question. Well, is it. A question for me. Madam? I'm not sure. It's it's not true. It's a legal question. I you know, I think what we what we do and we we we all work hard at what we do. And sometimes maybe we get a little agitated about things. We we. But at the end of the day, we're doing the people's work. People are watching. People have stayed up until 11:00. They might be interested in how we're going to move the infrastructure on this very important project for our city forward. You you have 9 minutes. We all do for our allocated time and your you know, as long as you stay within the Brown Act and as the city attorney has explained it, you have some latitude. I mean, you have the right to to discuss. So I would imagine he would champion, although he's very always very courteous, but he would let us know when we're veering into Brown Act, the danger zones, wouldn't you? Mr. Shand So. Yeah, it's a matter of mayor and council member. If I may just share one, maybe I can try to be further helpful here now that I'd have a little more specifics from Councilmember Spencer, which is that I think my suggestion is that instead of necessarily explaining and going into detail about what you did at a prior agenda item, you use, whatever your prior experience is to relate to how you might vote in this case. So that would be my suggestion. Is to relate everything to this matter. But you certainly could use prior agenda items to inform your decisions here and to compare and contrast. I hope that's helpful, Councilmember. May I continue? Yes, you may. Thank you, Mayor. So I do appreciate the comment from the city attorney, but I think that's actually a different response to what we had occurred earlier between two council members and I. Two did vote against the 9 million being allocated. But I do think that that's actually in the former agenda item, and I really don't think it's. Appropriate to be. Discussing at this time. So I actually do want to stay within the boundaries of this agenda item and not discuss the 9 million or voting no on a prior agenda item. Because I really don't. Think it is relevant to this item. I think it did stray outside of the Brown Act. And in regards to this item. I think that I want to commend staff. I think that I'm very happy seeing this move forward. I, I do think that there has been multiple. Agreements. From former councils and it's been implemented that the moneys from the projects out of the point will be spent out at the point to support that infrastructure and the building there of and that the balance of the city will not be imposed upon to complete any of the projects out there. And I. There were multiple. Actually, I think that we did have several votes go to the people where council was pretty much given kept trying to figure out how to make progress out of the point. And at least one measure failed out there. So I think council has tried to hear the public and try to figure out how we're going to do this. And I think the policy of fiscal neutrality was in fact a good policy. And I think it's really helped us try to balance the needs of the community at large and really encourage and in some ways force this the staff and the city council members and the developers to to actually do a heavy lift out there. And I don't I don't I want to actually focus on that. This is a really heavy lift that staff is bringing forward. And I don't want to distract it with other agenda items because I. Think this is really good work. So I do really want to commend the staff and. The developers throughout this. Year trying to figure out how we're going to build and develop. The point that we have all found has turned out to be extremely expensive, extremely expensive and really, really hard to do. So I want to thank I think it's Director Smith now for doing this work. I'm looking forward to the project moving along and I think we are making a good attempt to do our best for the people at large. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Harry Spencer at their comments. Questions. Councilmember Desai. Thanks. Yes, thank you. So, you know, I just want to say, you know, what I like about the project that's in front of us is that. I do think that it's consistent with the vote of the people in the sense that when I got elected to City Council in 1996, my message was that Alameda Point has to pay for itself. So I think in that sense that that message certainly got through. And so I really appreciate that. All joking aside, I think this is a great use. People understand that Alameda point, you know, the money that's generated out there through the land proceeds really have to be funneled back in. There's just there's no need for, you know, having elections on every item out of Alameda Point. So that was kind of a broad statement that I ran on in 1996 successfully. And then ultimately in 2003, I finally created the fiscal neutrality policy for Al Gore. Made a point. And I see everything that's happening here still being aligned with what we talked about and what we decided way back, you know, more than 25 years to 20 years ago plus. So so I'm excited about this project and I think, you know, the things that are just happening around there from not just Blade AM thank God that they were able to hang in there all these years, but also the new kind of outdoor beer at the hall or whatever it is. There's a lot of exciting things going on and I think this is going to be a part of that. And so I certainly appreciate. I appreciate the residents of Alameda hanging in there with us. And I think, you know, these are great days that are going to be coming down even faster than than we think. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Councilmember, they said. I would agree this is a very exciting time. I agree with councilmember herrera spencer. This is a heavy lift. I really commend staff. Public Works director Aaron Smith and all the folks you've worked with. And just there's there's lots of moving parts when you talk about all these different utilities there. There's a lot of different representatives that go in there. And yet when you go out to Alameda Point, it really is pretty impressive with what has developed. I mean, those of us who've been working on it a long time know there's still more to come. But we've come a long way and this is an absolutely essential part of this this development, and to enable it to move forward. And I'll just throw out an enticing little date for your calendar. Is that on Saturday, April 9th, just a few weeks from now, we're going to be doing the ribbon cutting for the waterfront park at Alameda Point. So I've got it scheduled from, well, I guess 1 to 5. But I think the ribbon cutting is somewhere of the beginning of people's lives. Lots of excitement is planned that I'm not a part of planning. But yeah, we'd love to see members of the public and I'm sure it'll be a beautiful day. So anyway, we need a vote to move this item forward. And I think we had the motion and the second, so there's no further discussion and that's in hands up. Now we have a roll call vote, please. It's an invitation. Yes. Sir. Spencer, I. Next slide. Hi. Vella. I may, as I like, carries by writing. All right. That's great news. Thank you so much, staff. And we appreciate all your hard work on this. All right. So with that, we move down the agenda to item because we've already done the city manager's communications. So then we just jump right down to council communications.

A RESOLUTION requesting the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to transfer excess property around the Air Route Surveillance Radar facility at Discovery Park to The City of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) purposes.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_Res 32006

Agenda item 14. Resolution 32006. A resolution requesting the Federal Aviation Authority to transfer excess property around the air route surveillance radar facility at Discovery Park to the city of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation Purposes. Thank you so much. I move to adopt resolution 32006 at second I. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution 32006 member Lewis. As the sponsor of this item, you are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. Pro-Tem, as I mentioned during morning briefing, this is a project that started at the request of friends at Discovery Park, which is a citizen based organization in the Magnolia community. And beyond that advocates for Discovery Park and for enhancing the recreation opportunities at the park. Phil Goebel Sang, who is the president of Friends of Discovery Park, distributed a letter to the council and Parker Dawson on my staff distributed that letter just for about an suspenders to all the council offices this morning and I expressing the interest of friends of Discovery Park in this the acquisition of this parcel of property. In keeping with actions that other communities around the country have taken for some of the excess land around FAA towers that have been integrated for public uses and the enjoyment of the general public primarily into into parks and greenways. The area of Discovery Park where this current parcel sits will be well known to lots of frequent park goers. It occupies a space on top of a prominent vista near the field in the footprint of the old base where a lot of the old army buildings are located. With the removal of this fencing and the access of the parcel, it'll offer great views to general members of the public and will offer additional recreation activities and possibilities for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation to explore. And it should be noted that this resolution is the culmination of an extensive process of consulting with neighborhood organizations, with the Department of Parks and Recreation, and with the chair of the relevant committee, Councilmember Juarez, who was helpful in crafting the tone and scope of this resolution. It should also be noted that the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation has confirmed that maintenance of this additional acquisition of land, should it be granted from the Federal Aviation Administration, would comment no increase to ongoing maintenance costs and could be absorbed within existing expenses. And I look forward to continuing to work with our congressional delegation, namely Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, both of whom I have been in contact with my office through the pendency of creating this resolution over the past several months. I want to thank Parker Dodson for doing a lot of great work with the stakeholders to move this forward and look forward to eventually having this additional public space for visitors of Discovery Park to enjoy. So with that, I would urge the adoption of the resolution. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, there any comments or questions for the sponsor of this resolution? I am not seeing any excited or what is being characterized as practically the most impactful change to Discovery Park in decades. So thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for moving this work forward. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution? So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mosquito. I. Peterson, I. Council president pro tem her vote? Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. In moving through to the final items on the agenda items 15 through 19. Will the clerk please read items 15 through 19 into the record?

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment levy for the period of October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09112018_18-0786

Now we're going to move to the first gear. And it's been moved. It's been poor. So we're going to move to the second Hui. Hearing Item number two Report from Economic Development Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment Levy for the period of October one, 2018 through September 30, 2019, and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement for one year term District three . Thank you. I think we have a staff report. Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. We have a staff report by Eric Romero, our project manager in the Economic Development Department. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. This item is the annual approval of the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Ongoing Assessment. On August 21st, 2018, the City Council approved the resolution granting approval of the annual report and set today's date for the public hearing. The recommended action of this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment nor significant changes in proposed activity. Therefore, staff request that the City Council receive the supporting documentation into the record, approve the resolution, continue the levy of the assessment, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. That concludes my report. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you, Eric. I want to thank you and your team for the excellent support you provide to the Belmont Shore Business Association bid. They continue to perform very well. Most of the vacancies on the street have been filled with very exciting new businesses coming in. The business corridor is adapting well to consumer trends in terms of the types of businesses that are coming in. And it's just a pleasure, very much a pleasure to represent that area and to see it continue to thrive and grow. And much of that has to do with city staff that help support the efforts of the organization led by Deedee Rossi as the executive director. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Any public comment on this item? Seeing nonmembers, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We're going to our next hearing. And before we do that, I didn't get a chance earlier. I want to thank we have a public policy classroom, Cal State, Long Beach. It's here. And Masters and public policy class. Dr. Allison Diggins class over there. How are you doing? She's a great instructor and thank you to the class for being here from class at Long Beach. So thank you guys also. Next up is our is our next hearing if we can please have that read.

Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointment approved by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_01052016_15-1333

Great. Congratulations. I'm going to ask you guys if you want to start making your way down. We're going to take a quick photo of all the new commissioners and the next commission item, which is the which is item 16 for one of the appointments. Communication from Councilman Austin and Personnel and Civil Service Committee recommendation to receive a charter commission appointment approved by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee. Thank you. The Civil Service Committee went ahead and approved this this item. This is for one of the charter commissions. So it is our new Parks and Recreation commissioner. And I want to welcome her as well. It's Margot Morales who's in the back. Margot is a District seven resident and we're appointing her to her first term as a commissioner of Parks and Rec. She has served in leadership capacities with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Rec from 97 to 2005. During her tenure, she worked in various administrative capacities ranging from capital projects, Special Assistant to the Parks and Recreation Director, Public Relations and Contract Administration. Ms.. Morales has had been a commissioner on the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Board brings a lot of experience when it comes to parks and parks management and also comes from a part of town that's not oftentimes represented on the parks board. And so I want to, Margot, welcome you to this commission. And with that, there is a motion and a second and there any public comment on this item. CNN. Please go ahead and cast your votes. And then if I can ask the council to come forward and we'll take a photo with the new commissioners. And I think motion carries. Comes when price motion carries. Okay. How are you guys? How are you? Are you good? Thank you very much for your time. Okay. Yes. You're going to. You're going to love it. Okay. I got to. You got to leave. Yes, thank you. We do a lot of things when we introduce our commission. All right. Let's come over this way. Yeah, let's go back behind. Let's go over here. Oh, look, it's better. Oh, I just had surgery. I thought the men. Are going to be okay. Where are we going? Somewhere. Oh, those are. Oh, I'm totally copying. Yeah. That's right. Thank you, guys. I know, I know. We're going to do something crazy. Oh, yes. Okay. Very talented. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, that's great. I thought I. Okay. We are doing management had a request to take to take 15 and then the Edison an item. So we're taking a 15.