Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6971 for the Rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue, between Pacific Coast Highway and Spring Street; award the contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, of Brea, CA, for the base bid in the amount of $2,154,780 and the additive bid in the amount of $396,400, for a total of $2,551,180; authorize a 15 percent contingency of $382,677, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,933,857; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and consider and accept the determination that this project is statutorily exempt from CEQA. (Districts 6,7)

LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0712

Item ten is report from Public Works and Financial Management, with the recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller for the rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue in the sixth and seventh District, an amount not to exceed $2.9 million. There's been a motion in a second by Councilmember Turanga and Councilmember Andrews Councilmember Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. At my community budget hearing. Last week I heard concerns from residents in regards to local hiring of contractors. I was wondering if Mr. A, I forget. The. Error if he can explain the city's process when it comes to local hiring. Honorable mayor and honorable council members. As I indicated in your community briefing, the city strives to hire local companies to perform contract work. There's a process that finance management is requiring us to follow, and we have done that for this project. In most cases, due to government laws or contracting laws, we have to follow those rules. Also, the laws responsible bidder, which is solely Milner for this project, is not a local company, but they are the lowest responsible bidders. But every local company has an opportunity to bid the project and there were local companies who built the project, but unfortunately they were not the lowest bidder. I'm still looking for. What's the process for local hiring that this company might have or access to? They do any recruiting or any opportunities to local persons to apply for these jobs that might be available to put on this rehab. Well, we follow the city's charter and cities municipal ordinances for local hire. And I think we've done that with this. I don't think there's any mandate for currently in place that mandates that local hires do the job for our if not the lowest bidder to do the perform the job. So there's a conflict that this needs to be resolved in the future. Okay. And also, approximately how long will this project take? Obviously, the concern, of course, of residents around that area would be of getting alternate routes or alternate parking, especially if there's parking in the street that's going to be affected. Has there been an outreach into that community in regards to what is available to them while this work is being done? Thank you for asking that question. Public Works has a very robust outreach program. After the contractors is on board, we have a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, which your office will be invited. You will be part of that process. We we will wait for contractor to give us their construction schedule. We anticipate this project to last approximately six months. But that's not that's that's what the duration for the contract is, including holidays and weekends. After the contractor gives us the schedule, we will coordinate that with your office at no point. The street will be closed for traffic, so there will always be one lane of traffic at all times. We work with the community to make sure that we don't have impacts to parking and to residents accessing their their houses. So we walk each, we walk the block and and the contractor delivers a notice to each household. And we give them information as when the construction will start, what the impacts are. We suspend our parking enforcement during that period of construction. If there are any special needs, we will accommodate the residents with parking on adjacent streets and we coordinate with our street sweeping and also trash collection. So there is a tremendous of coordination that goes on with every single project in the city. And I'm proud to say that we're very successful in managing contracts and contractors and providing the best service to our residents. That's great. Well, one final question. Also, what came out in my budget hearing is some complaints from constituents that there have been a number of projects that have basically gone on result unresolved in the last couple of years. Can you explain the process of how a project gets on the list or on a schedule, and when might these projects get on line to A to be completed? Well, in the past, the practice has been that the council officers have been requesting certain projects to be administered in the city. I'm hoping that with our new payment management plan, we will change that practice. That will come to you with a list of projects that are the most efficient and eminent projects to be performed. And with collaboration with your office will choose a five year CIP program and will include some of those streets, I'm sure, as you know. And you will recognize that the funding for our local streets is not sufficient for the demands that we're seeing out there. So there has to be a careful selection when those streets are paved at what what period of time. Yeah. What was the name of that document again? The payment management plan, Poppy. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews. You know, I to definitely click on with Mr. our councilman Mr. Urunga was speaking about spatial acquiring. You know, I understand what Scully and Miller they're very large contractors and I can see how they can come in is a much, you know, they can bid, you know, with these other small companies, which would have a chance to bid against them. But I think we're going to have to really kind of restructure our hiring practices when it comes to local hiring. And I'm very, very, very, you know, trying to understand, you know, we get these various contractors. We can have to kind of stay locally with our hiring practices because it seems like we can get these big contractors coming to our city and we get nothing. You know, I'm with them that. So I think we're going to be looking deeper to this to see why we bring these contractors in here. We're going to have to stay locally. We know we can't tell individuals how to hire individuals who they are. But at least I think we're going to have to look into this more and let people know that we are contractors here. You're going to have to, like, give at least as some kind of benefits and let some of these individuals work. That's locally in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. I see no other comment on this from the council. Any public comment on the item? See none. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. Item, I believe. Moving on to ordnances, item 11. Item 11 as a report is an ordinance with a recommendation to adopt an ordinance approving rates and charges for water and sewer services by the Long Beach Water Department effective October 1st, 2014.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Casto Corporation, Inc., dba The Brit, 1744 East Broadway, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0935

Thank you. The first hearing involved financial management department with a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant the entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Cascade Corporation doing business as the Britt at 1744 East Broadway for an entertainment with dancing by patrons permit. This is in District two. Okay, I'm going to turn this over to our city manager. This item will be held will be taken care of by Jason MacDonald, our business services manager and Commander. Farfan. Mayor Council Members. Jason MacDonald Purchasing and Business Services Manager for the Financial Management Department. Tonight you have in front of you the application for entertainment with dancing forecast of corporation doing business as the Britt 1744 East Broadway in District two. All the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application and proposed conditions are contained in the packet that was provided. We would like to highlight the fact that this is an existing business that had previously held a short term entertainment permit. We are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application or conditions. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to first begin by going if there's any public comments on the hearing, this would be now the time for you to come forward. And just please identify yourself for the record. I am Tom Hertzog, property owner at 1725 East Second Street. My partner and I and our two sons live there. Well, my partner I have lived there for 20 years. Our adopted sons for up to ten or so. Anyway, the threat has been more of a problem in the last five years since the city first granted the variance for the outdoor patio, gogo dancers and even karaoke. I live two blocks away or 2 hours away, and we have constant, ongoing issues with the noise. In the last year I didn't bring my calendar, but I've called the police probably approximately ten, 10 to 12 times, maybe a little bit more. But there is a record of that because the city council directed it to the residences to manage this issue instead of addressing it themselves. So we have a noise noise issue where the board is not complying with the noise ordinance. And I don't know if you've read the noise ordinance, but it is at from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. at 55 decibels at the property line. Actually have a noise meter from my project work where I know from my bathroom window they exceeded. So we have that calling the threat they will respond. But I've also been told any number of language that it's not my business knowing that I am a property owner vested and financially inclined. It does affect my property value. It does affect our quality of life. Finally, it is the City Council's duty to implement the noise ordinance and the general plan and that does disturb, does do disturbing noise with language, loud music in close proximity to residential sleeping court facilities, which if you look it up, it's 880 dash 130. So anyway, I've called all the officers strongly opposed to this being in favor. It doesn't generate enough revenue to allow dancing in a bar of 880 800 square feet. It's going to put more people out onto the patio, which doesn't have any noise restrictions, puts more smoke, more general nuisance out into the neighborhood, which address public a number of properties. So even with the, you know, the apartments right around it, we have to deal with it. So you may vote for it thinking that, oh, it's business, but no, it's our life and it's our homes. So please vote against that. There are not a good business. Thank you. Any other comments? Please. Hi, my name's Reg Latham. I'm the property owner at 1747 East Second Street, which is directly behind the Britt. Our property lines are right next to each other, so our little courtyard in the back of our house, I've. Got a wife and two kids. In elementary school. I live there. But the place in 2005 did a really good remodel and it's a good property. I can tell you when we first moved in it was okay. We knew we were behind a bar. We knew what we were getting into. There's there's no secret there. We've been fine. The variants five years ago that increased the noise level substantially. Is there smoke that we can count that we smell coming into our home at night? Yes. Is there a lot of noise? Yes. Are there people walking in that door next to the bar and defecating and sleeping and doing whatever in that in that space between our house and apartments next to us? Yes. However, we've been living close in proximity with these people and we've been working with them and we haven't really complained. But I can tell you now that if you vote with them even more noise rates, there's going to be some serious problems and there will be. The police called your services will be will be used. And it's just going to waste a bunch of people's time and effort and money. Owning a home, owning a rental property, that's a business, too. And when we sell our house, we don't want exterior issues with an appraisal saying that there's smoke coming in the house that you can hear cursing. You can see vagrants. And it's very loud. So common sense would give you guys a little bit more insight as to how to vote on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers, please? Very good you cook as he dress circumstance circumstances have it. I was here at the last hearing you had and the dialog is the same. Essentially my take is essentially the owners are giving the middle finger to the residents. Nothing has changed substantially. So they're in violation of a code. You need to take action in concert with that and bring down the hammer period or close the place down. There are a lot of bars or, you know. I've yet to hear of any complaints out of of Jojo's. And there are a lot of other bars around this town that can act responsibly. Period. It's just a question of whether or not the owners want to be like that and whether or not the elected representatives want to keep taking the cash from the people to allow them to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker put. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Jerry Cochran. I'm the property owner at 1735. East Second. Street and 1732 through 1738 Broadway. My apartment building is adjacent to the brick, particularly the patio, and I have been unable to keep tenants in one of my units based on the noise and more importantly, the smoke from the patio. I've had to turn over like every 90 days in one of my units, and I've had several people that move out my one rear unit and number three backs right up to the patio. And as somebody has. Said previously, we have people defecating, doing a little bit of everything. Right, actually, between my building and the Brett and the noise is extreme and the smoke is just absolutely ridiculous. And I know Long Beach is very considered over smoking and where you can and can't, but when you have residential around this facility and as the president, the previous speaker spoke, he has little children. This is a problem. And I, I beg you to not allow them to go forward with this project. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment. I'm going to close the. There's more public comment, please. If there is public comment, please come forward. If you have public comment, I need you to line up at the at the at the podium right now. And there's something else that's beeping. Can someone turn that off? Used to have. Thank you so much. This general manager. I just took over managing it seven months ago. I know their concerns. The gate on the left side is not our property. It's the apartment complex. It used to be locked since the new people took over. It is unlocked so we can't really control people going in and out. I have put a doorman out on the patio to control the noise on Friday and Saturday nights when it's open till midnight. It actually closes at 1145 because we're on bar time on Friday and Saturday nights during the week. It closes at ten, so it's actually closed at 945. We are working on, you know, controlling the issues, the smoke. I can see it as being a problem. There's you know, it's a smoking patio. We could go nonsmoking on it. I don't you know, I would hate to do that for the patrons, but it is under doing it. I spoke with both the neighbors. And commented up there in the past trying to control issues and problems with it. They both have. My personal cell number to call me at any time. I haven't, you know. Trying to do our best there. So I don't know. I say that. Thank you. Could you please state your name for the record? Yeah. Joe Meeker. Julia. Thank you. And see no other public comment. I'm going to close the comments and bring the public hearing back to the council with Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few questions for staff, and I'm wondering if the owners in the audience. Mr. Beaker is the owner here. Okay. Thank you. So, two staff. I wanted to ask about Mr. Herzog's comment regarding the noise ordinance and violation of our noise ordinance based on a decibel reading that he's received. Did staff send anyone out? I don't know if Mr. Kurz in the audience. But Vice Mayor Lowenthal. The business license department doesn't have meter readings for noise complaints that I would want to speak to health before we could answer that question if they sent someone out for those. I don't see how in the audience. I see general health in the audience, but I don't see our health department in the audience. I'm just Lenny phrases delicately. If a constituent is concerned about a noise ordinance violation, would we not have contacted Health to investigate that? Vice versa. The process would have been that the complaining party would have called either the police department after hours or the health department during working hours. And then the police department did their normal review of the entertainment permit. So I'd let them speak to any other issues they identified there. But we were not made aware of any issues regarding noise from health prior to the to the tonight. And I can't see past Councilmember Richardson. Is that PD sitting next to you? So would you be able to answer that question in terms of the violation? Well, a part of the investigation. We contact residents within 100 foot radius, and it was 46 residents total. None of the. 4617 were not opposed to or opposed to an entertainment permit and 24 were not home. However, with the 24 that were not. Home, we do leave notes to contact the police if they have any positive or negative input. As far as the concerns for for noise or music from June 28th. 2014 through today, we responded five times to location. One was for a dispute. One was for an intoxicated person. Two were for misdemeanor assaults, and one was a theft of a passport. So basically, since. June 28th, we have not received any calls for service regarding loud music. And I think Mr. Herzog feels differently, correct? Yes. And I appreciate the report. I and I appreciate Mr. Becker being here. I understand that you're new and you're put in a precarious situation. So I'm not going to ask you to answer to anything or any questions. But I will say this has been in place for five years and we've had plenty of time to work it out. And hitting the reset button every time someone comes forward for an application is not fair to the residents. And and I appreciate the summary of what our outreach resulted in. It resulted in 17 people being okay and two people opposed. But unfortunately, when we talk about quality of life, it can't be that numbers game. The people that live the closest are impacted the most. And so we have to make some mitigation efforts. And so tonight, I don't I didn't know this coming here that I would feel this way, but I don't know that I feel comfortable proceeding tonight. I'd like to speak with the owner who's not here. I want to address the issue of the patio noise. I understand that it is a smoking patio and people do have a right to smoke outdoors. But in the second district we have such density of units very close together. And so it's a little different when your patio is right under someone's window. And I do think that that matters, whether that leads to a no smoking policy in the entire building, that's something we can talk about. I'd like to talk about that with your owner and the noise ordinance. I do want health to go out and and perhaps partner with Mr. Herzog and and his family. So when you do feel that a noise ordinance violation took place, perhaps we we can contact help that night. Mr. Kerr does provide his mobile number. And so I know it's a late night call, but I'd like us to be able to get that reading as well. And so that's going to take going to take a little bit of time. And so, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to ask to put this over. And Mr. City Attorney, would that require a time certain? I believe the answer is yes. But if the if you had a date that you wanted to continue to. Or they could bring it back as a new item at a future date. Or they can bring it back when? At a date. A future date. After you've we can put it back on the agenda at a later date. It doesn't have to be to a time certain. Okay. I would appreciate that, because I'd like to respect people's schedule and I'm not sure when we're able to get that on our end. And so if we can. December would be a great time if we can bring it back. But if it's not possible, then we will schedule it to when we can. And so for now, that's my motion is to put the item over until we have the opportunity to talk with the owner and collaborate a little bit more with our residents that are primarily impacted. I understand there are others that might be in support. Is there is there is a second kit has been in motion in a second we did the public comment period please cast your votes on to holding this over. The motion carries eight votes. Motion carries. Moving on. Mr. Kirkup, we're going to do the public comment period first. I have eight members of the public that want to speak. I'm going to ask the first four to please line up at the podium Fred Potter, Ricardo Ceja, Shawn Lanigan and Larry Goodhue.

Recommendation to receive the application of Coffee House Holdings, Incorporated, dba Starbucks No. 5578, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 7565 Carson Boulevard, submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC, and direct City Manager to withdraw the protest if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_06162015_15-0546

Report from the Police Department recommendation to receive the application of Starbucks for an original app. For an original application of an ABC license at 7565 Carson Boulevard. Submit a public notice of protest and direct the city manager to withdraw the protest if a copy is granted. District five. Okay. This is we're on item number 13. Is there a is there a staff report? There is no staff report. This will be held over when Councilmember Mungo returns. Okay. So I didn't. Perfect. I didn't. 14. I didn't hear. I didn't have that note. Did you have that notation? We would need a motion. We're going to. Move forward then. Okay. Okay. So I don't know why people are saying we're holding it over. That's right. But no, no, no. Oh, someone's going to do the motion. Perfect. Vice Lowenthal. Thank you. I just sorry for the confusion. I wanted to make the motion to continue the item. Item 13 to the regularly scheduled June 23rd, 2015 Council meeting. In light of the fact that this concerns Council District five and Councilmember Mongeau would like to be present. Thank you. There's a second. Any public comment on holding this over saying please cast your votes? Motion carry seven zero 14. Report from Public Works Recommendation to execute a public walkways occupancy occupancy permit with an extension parklet for sidewalk dining at his My Vegan Kitchen located at 34 zero East Fourth Street. District one.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 990 North King Street in Villa Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (single- to two-unit), located at 990 King Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.

DenverCityCouncil_06212021_21-0407

Councilmember Canete, would you please put Council Bill 407 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-407 be placed upon final consideration and do pass by the. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 407 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Jason Morrison here with us. Go ahead, Jason. Great. Thank you. Council President Gilmore and good evening, members of council. And my name is Jason Morrison. I'm a senior city planner with community planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the rezoning at 990 King Street. And the request is from ESU, which is a single unit district to e t u c which is a two unit district. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District three, which is Jamie Torres's district. It's in the Villa Park neighborhood. And the vacant property is located on King Street between West 10th Avenue and West Ninth Avenue. The property owner is proposing to rezone the property from Eastside to Ntuc, which would allow for a variety of building forms , including urban house, detached accessory, dwelling unit, duplex and tandem house. The proposed E2 C, which has urban edge two units with a minimum lot area of 565,500 square feet as the district is intended for use in the urban edge neighborhood context, which is characterized by primarily single unit and C unit uses located along local and residential arterial streets. The existing zoning is Eastside, which is a single unit district allowing the Urban House primary building for. Surrounding zoning in the area includes single unit mixed use and multi-unit zoning. As I noted, the site currently sits vacant. It is surrounded by mostly single unit uses as well as two unit multi-unit and some commercial and retail. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site. With the proposed rezoning on the top left and nearby, you see examples of some of the single units multi-unit as well as some of the commercial. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board and moved forward by committee since the staff report was published. We have received one letter in opposition from a resident in the area. This letter expresses a desire to see a commercial use proposed at this location. We've also received one letter in opposition from the Villa Park R.A., which expressed the concern over the lack of engagement and communication on behalf of the applicant. As a result, the applicant postponed his May 24th City Council public hearing to conduct further outreach with the community. In a sense, spoken with the R.A. and with various neighborhood residents and staff has received no additional public comment. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning and that's comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan. Starting with Comprehensive Plan 2040. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies and Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Looking at Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is urban edge. These areas are characterized by single unit and two unit residential areas where commercial and mixed use development tends to be found along main corridors. As the rezoning would allow a two unit district in building forms that would address the street similar to the Urban Housebuilding Forum. The proposed district is appropriate and consistent with the blueprint Denver Context Description. Next, we're looking at a future place. The subject site is designated as a local corridor feature place type on the Blueprint Denver Future Places Map. This place type primarily provides options for dining, entertainment and shopping, but also includes residential uses and office uses. When a residential zone district is proposed, as is the case for this rezoning, it primarily be located to encourage active street frontages, where heights are generally up to three stories. The proposed E2 Zone District has a maximum allowable building height of two and a half storeys and allows residential building forms, including urban house detached accessory dwelling unit duplexes and townhouses, which is compatible with the local corridor or feature place designation. We print Denver classified North King Street as a local or on designated street and local streets can vary in their land uses and are found in all neighborhood contexts. They're most often characterized by residential uses. West 10th Avenue is characterized as a residential correct collector, which serves primarily residential uses. The proposed U.S. district is consistent with these descriptions because it allows for additional residential uses at the subject site served by both local and residential collector. Finally we're looking at the growth strategy, the growth area blueprint. Denver is all the areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is map for this area. And finally, when looking at the Villa Park neighborhood plan, the subject site is within the boundaries of this plan, which was adopted by September City Council back in 1991. The overall vision established within this neighborhood plan calls for the protection of neighborhood character, where the Villa Park neighborhood well will continue to be a neighborhood of mostly single unit houses, with a few small apartment buildings and apartment complexes interspersed within those houses. The proposed rezoning to ETSI provides additional residential building forms to the Villa Park neighborhood, which helps maintain the residential character outlined in the vision of this neighborhood plan. The maximum height and scale of this two unit district is sensitive to the existing neighborhood character of single unit homes and offers residents a diversity of housing options close to transit because the Knox station, as well as civic uses such as Lakewood Gulch and Parker Sanchez Park, while also providing compatible building forms among the existing single unit structures in the area. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets selection criteria, the rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations. Will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans, providing a new housing type in a largely single unit area within close proximity to multiple transit options. The application identifies several change for changing conditions as a justifying circumstance. Additionally, the trends of the city and vision and the adopted plans focus on adding additional housing density around transit stations. With the addition of the Knox station, there has already been recent multifamily redevelopment and reinvestment in the area to support high frequency transit. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose and intent of the U.S. zoning district. Based on the review criteria, CPD recommends approval of application at 20 800161. Thank you. Council President Gilmore and was able to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Jason, for the presentation. And we've received no written testimony in regard to Council Bill 21, Dash 0407. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And we are going to go ahead and start with our first speaker, Jamie Aguilar. Good afternoon, City Council President and good morning, Mrs. Aguilar and the president of the Park Neighborhood Association. It's been an active organization for over 30 years. We met last in person in February 2020. We met with the applicant briefly in the fall of 2019, and we have been meeting via Zoom as much as possible with the free until the fall of 2020, when we activated a website and our own Zoom account and started our monthly meetings in January 2021. The resumption of rezonings and licensing started to bombard us, and in March 2020 we had a meeting with those second to oppose this rezoning that we received in January. After watching the committee, there was concern about the comments about and and the comments of a game being played and the lack of presentation to our neighborhood that we got used to and the general comment that we were anti-development. And so that prompted a vote in April 2021 where it was opposed due to the lack of community engagement that other neighbors and other applicants have gone through. And they felt a little bit blindsided that we would support or not support something. So there was a vote called in May 2021. The applicant did attend our meeting and then what we set up as their neighborhood to try to reengage our community that we lost touch with as have office hours. And so the fourth Saturday usually following with some exceptions actually for the fourth Saturday happens before the fourth Wednesday. We had office hours on that holiday weekend. It was not very well attended, I'm sure. I was not able to attend. We did hear from the applicant at our meeting briefly. He was not on the agenda. We had already had an agenda set, but he said basically was one of the biggest takeaways was that he was not going to build an ugly and ugly maximized envelope box. And so I did get to speak to the applicant. I raised my concerns at lots of possibility and opportunities set in blueprint. And and we also submitted a letter just kind of outlining the reason why we oppose. And that's all I have to say. I wanted to yield my time to the parish for the officer that was following in November. Thank you. Hi, May. And sorry for the mispronunciation of your name in the beginning. Thank you for joining us this evening. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening, members of council. And I'll be here. Mm hmm. Go ahead. Yes, my name is just Evolution Paris, and I'm representing for Black Star, a symbol for self defense, positive sentiment for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We are in favor of this rezoning tonight and meets all five of the criteria. I'm excited to see that there's not going to be development here and there's going to actually be house and place here. We're in a housing crisis, so any opportunities are just helpful for us to create more opportunities to create housing. I'm all in support of. So I'm in support of this rezoning for me. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers for this bill. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 407 Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, President Gilmore. Jason on the. We spend a lot of time in committee discussing the local corridor as it relates to blueprint future spaces. If this had not been a local corridor and had remained low residential like the rest of the surrounding context, would a t you see still also been allowed under that circumstance? I'm not necessarily so we would look at obviously the existing pattern and see if we would certainly rely on the area plans to to kind of speak to that a little bit if there was a desire to move the neighborhood in that direction or if the lot sizes you were kind of yielding that that development down the road and kind of you're seeing some of those changes. We certainly would analyze that, but that would not be the case had it not be have not been mapped for this corridor. Right. So under a local corridor, what are some of the other contexts that would have been allowed in a neighborhood like this? Yeah. So good question. So within a local corridor and because it is mapped as such, that does yield to a little bit higher intensity uses. So that's where you do see uses such as duplexes, tandem houses, row houses and the like, even kind of a small multifamily when it comes to residential. You also can see office uses as well as some of the mixed use. Okay. Thank you so much. I have some questions for the applicant if we can bring them in. Last name is Claudius. Yeah. Yeah. Michael moved. Over. Have either Zac or Stacy helping, but we need to move. Michael, caucus over, please. Thank you. All right, go ahead. Cancel them. Hi, Michael. Good evening, counsel. Can you remind us a bit of what your outreach looked like before you submitted your application? I have attended one hour. I had attended one R.A. meeting several years ago. And then. Yes. And what did it look like after Ludi came in? I had emailed about. I had emailed all my I'm sorry, not emailed. I had written letters to all of my proximal neighbors. I had spoke to. This is Pacheco and her granddaughter would be interested in. Anyways, I spoke to several of my neighbors as well as writing them letters. Okay. And then had you considered how did a duplex end up in kind of your your set of plans? Is it as an applicant, you know, you never lived in the house prior to its being torn down, right? No, ma'am. The home was. Unsuitable for housing. It was it had structural issues. It had it was laden with asbestos. So the only option for that particular structure was to be demolished and removed. And how did a duplex end up on your radar to be constructed? Well, the city desperately needs housing. And I thought that I would I could provide additional housing for Denver. One of the things that you mentioned the last time that we heard from you at committee were. Some comments about either the neighbors or neighborhood folks or our members. I can't remember exactly who you were referring to, but that they don't like new developments into that context. Was that conveyed during the R.A. meeting that you attended in 2019? No, I don't really recall how those comments were made or displayed. I think there were some. Misunderstandings during. The looting. Committee. I. I'm learning as I'm going here. So. So those were not things that were mentioned by neighbors during the R.A. meeting. Correct. Okay. And have you ever developed property anywhere else? The home that I'm living in is was purchased at auction and I remodeled it. I have not done a ground up development. I also manage three rentals in the around the city of Denver, all of which I have invested significant capital to make habitable. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clegg. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any right now. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Torres. Up next, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I want to first start with Jason. Jason, can you tell me when the West Side area plan is scheduled to be done? A no come from the Tories. You could probably answer that as well. But I know it's been handled through the planning department, so. Correct. So that is a very good question. I just so happens I'm not on that that area plan. I know that they are moving along. And it's my understanding that they and Councilman Councilwoman Torres, she may know this a little bit better, as my understanding. I think they're aiming towards the end of the year here. As I correct Councilwoman Torres, I should note that I apologize because. The the kind of end date is still kind of coming. We're waiting for draft recommendations is where we're at right now. So should be coming soon. But end of year, I think is a is a goal that we're at draft recommendations right now. Does it have any different recommendations for the 10th Avenue corridor in this area? There is mention of activation to be to be quite honest. You know, we're this this is one block or two one and a half blocks from the Knox Court light rail station. There is small retail at 10th and Knox Court. Uh, it is not too dissimilar from what Blueprint recognizes as a potential local corridor. Probably not any more than that as far as I can remember. Okay, so it looks on the map like it's really just a four block stretch along with 10th Avenue. Correct. So this is considered a local corridor? Yes. See, I wanted to ask Jason another question about what role did Ness play in this conversation? Great question. I appreciate the question. So as with every rezoning, the rezoning application is referred to various agencies. So are folks that hosted and did did see this particular application. However, given the smaller size of the redevelopments there, it was not necessarily on the radar for any type of affordable housing agreement or component. Okay. And then just one last question. Can you just clarify if the ADA zoning actually requires an existing structure on the site, or can a vacant lot be declared as a lot for an EDU, which means you could potentially build two units on the one. But it's the latter, so it can be constructed on a vacant lot. Okay. And then I just wanted to ask the applicant if there. And I'm not absolutely crystal clear that the EDU is one of the allowable uses under the ITU zoning. Is that one of them? It is. I can tell you my intent is not to build a navy. Okay. So you want to build a duplex on the site? Yes, ma'am. Which means you potentially could could build on the entire lot. Right. I mean, a lot of our duplexes across the city that are being built take up the entire lot. I mean, most of it's the structure part of it's the garage. Right. A lot of them are attached garages. This would be a detached garage. And I think as per the donee, the zoning code, you are only allowed to build up to 63% of the footprint. So actually a substantial portion of the lot would be for a garden or for backyard things of that nature. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next step, we have Councilmember Flynn. Hey, Madam President. Just some concern. I want to follow up on Councilwoman Torres. And this is in her district. So I'm not I spent a lot of time on 10th Avenue. When the West Rail. Line was under construction. So I am somewhat familiar with, but I haven't it up there lately. Now Blueprint Denver says that the future place type here is local corridor, as the councilwoman said. And I'm concerned that the applicant is seeking a zone district that specifically does not allow the definition of local corridor, provides options for dining, entertainment , shopping, but includes some residential and employment uses. The E2 zone would not allow. Dining, entertainment or shopping. Is that is that correct? That is correct. So I'm wondering how you determined that this was consistent with Blueprint Denver. When Blueprint Denver maps this as local corridor, which would allow some residential, but would also open up the possibility that the owner could develop it for some commercial use as the neighborhood association or one of the letters of opposition had said, this zone district excludes that. So I'm curious how you determined it was consistent. Sure. So as with any rezoning request, we would take a number of factors into consideration. So in this particular case, we certainly looked at the plan guidance. So you referenced Blueprint Denver. Well, the future place designation does allow for commercial and retail. It does also allow for office uses and residential. When looking at the street types, this particular property is on the corner of a local streets with residential uses as well as West 10th Avenue, which is a residential collector. So we look at that and kind of see how the uses might might comply with with the street designations in the area. We also looked at the the growth the growth types. So it isn't as it is measured as all other areas of the city, which does tend to yield more residential, it does allow for more residential growth as opposed to some of the commercial, commercial and retail. And then finally, we're looking at the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan, kind of the same thing there. I know that it is an old plan and we do have the West Area plan, which is currently in recommended developing recommendations. But within that Go Park neighborhood plan, it does fit quite a bit to maintaining that residential character in the neighborhood. And so, you know, on that particular note, with any rezoning, we do look at the surrounding context. And so when looking on not streets and then even along West 10th Avenue, there is primarily single residential, single unit residential. And so looking at kind of the appropriateness of the request as it relates to kind of that that existing and surrounding context. Jason, do you know, was there discussion about a a zoned district that would have allowed construction of the duplex but still would have also included a local corridor uses so that in the future, if the duplex units are not developed or if they get old and you know, in the future get replaced or scraped, that there could then be the a local corridor sort of use that blueprint Denver called for here. What were the other zoned districts. That would have allowed. Allowed the owner to proceed with the duplex but still be consistent with allowing in commercial use in the future? Unfortunately there is not within the urban edge context. So within the urban edge context, if the applicant were to go after a commercial kind of mixed use zone district duplex would not be an allowable use. Hmm. Interesting. Okay. Sounds like a problem with our with our districts. More so than anything else. I think, Madam President, that's all that I have at the moment. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I see council pro-tem Torrence your backup in the queue. Yep. Thank you so much. Councilman Flynn reminded me of a question under mixed use in the urban edge context. Jason either for mix two or three or M Main Street, two or three. Is the townhouse building form an allowable building form? It is, yes. So that the townhouse would be the lowest, I guess, lowest kind of quote unquote, in terms of residential use. So you can still get residential, even if you have a shopfront building form, you can still get residential out of out of some of those building forms. Correct. And you can get a townhouse. You just cannot get a duplex. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. And not seen in the other hands raised. I had a question for the applicant. Mr. Claudius, I remember in Ludi when you joined us, it didn't sound like you had a. E just do all of those brown bean adjacent property owners and let them know your intent. And I know you sense talked with the R.A. in the area, but wanted to understand what additional communication you maybe have had with the surrounding property owners. Yeah. So. Thank you, Councilwoman. My neighbor to my south, Mrs. Pacheco. She would love to have her granddaughter move into one of the units so she could be close to her family and the people directly to the north across of King. I'm gonna see if I can get this right. Yeah, I believe that's right. Either to the north or to the west. Across the king there are kind couple they rent from a landlord there. I've met the families in the four plex across the across from ten and they are also kind people. I've also met the people behind the alley. I have not received any. I have not communicated with anybody who is concerned with either the building form or the disruption to the neighborhood. Everybody has been supportive and kind people. And so I appreciate that. And so you have communicated with all of the surrounding property owners that you're saying. Yes, you have. I have. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Just have that final question. And seen no other hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council on council bill 407 council pro tempore us. Sorry. I was not physically raising my hand. My light goes off when I'm not moving at my desk. Okay. It's all okay. I was calling anyway, so. I thank you so much and I appreciate your final questions there. Council President Because it is the timing of all of this is also what hinges for me and Will I appreciate Mr. Clovis, the applicant, reaching out to neighbors and trying to engage a more deliberate conversation with the R.A. Those efforts took place after after Louis after committee, after the application had already been filed, including outreach to my office at Jason's encouragement. And so had any of these conversations taken place before, I don't know if it would have changed the outcome. I couldn't. I can't predict that. But what those conversations allow for is an opportunity to discuss both what's happening in that neighborhood now and because Mr. Clovis doesn't live at the property, hasn't lived at that property before, he does. He may not know those things, including the West Area plan and what neighbors and the entire West area have been talking about in terms of that particular node for activation and for housing. So it's not an either or conversation, but it is an exploration. And even diving further into what are some of the allowable contexts, what are some of the allowable zoned districts that can provide a multitude of things beyond a current vision that could allow for something down the road ? If Mr. Claudius either decides not to build his duplex or somebody else decides to build something instead of the duplex down the road, they would only be tied to a duplex. Right now, in an area where this community is envisioned, more pedestrian activation, things that neighbors can walk to, which has been wholly missing in this in this part of town. We do need housing and but we also need a conversation about what kind of housing is necessary. And just to give an example, though, I appreciate Ms.. Pacheco wanting to live next to her daughter. Some of the duplexes that have been built in Villa Park in the last several years are selling for over seven and $800,000 each side. So this is not about just building housing or how to make it affordable. Duplexes are not meeting that need right now, and this community has made a number of efforts to try to engage that conversation a little bit differently. I don't believe it has met the criteria, the last criteria in particular. So I'll be a no this evening. Thank you. Counsel Pro Tem Torres. Next up, we've got council member Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate hearing the comments from Councilwoman Torres, my neighbor, to the north of my district, and getting that additional background. But I am not a member of the Luti committee, so I didn't attend that meeting. And I know that's basically perfunctory because they're entitled to a hearing. But I did start looking at this over the last week and reading the staff report, and I and I am I am. Convinced that it does not meet the. Consistent with the adopted plans criteria. Matter of fact, I believe it's inconsistent with blueprint. Maybe if this were a request, a block or two to the east or the West, it would be different. But to act, to have a zone, a rezoning to a district that does not allow the local quarter uses on a on a on a block where local quarter uses were outlined in blueprint. I think that is a deviation from the plan and not consistent. Consistent. So I will I will be joining my neighbor Council on Tourism voting now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval. Hmm. Thank you. Madam President, I, too, will be voting no. I'm even though my council district is only a little portion of West Denver. I have participated in the West Area Plan and I have heard from the neighbors who have talked about wanting to extend the mixed use. And given that blueprint, Denver is called this out as a local corridor. I think this is a missed opportunity to explore which type of zone district that we can. And just kitty corner across from there is the next two ex zone district which would allow for residential and also could allow for future retail uses if needed. So I think that as Councilman Quinn so eloquently put, if we have local corridor mapped in Blueprint Denver for future places, I think we need to look to our adopted plans to give us guidance. Well, the West Area plan is being vetted and the recommendations come through. So I also will be a no thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Up next, we have Councilmember Hines. I thank you, council president. I agree with the concerns of my colleagues. I do want to just add one other thing. I want to thank CPD for their hard work and I know that you are working with. You know, the, the, the boundaries that you are given. We all have boundaries. And I want to I want to thank you for that. I want to encourage people as well that if they have thoughts about how they want to rezone their their property, I would encourage them to reach out to the council office before the application is filed so that there is there is the opportunity for dialog and and perhaps realizing something that might be even more in line with what the property owner wants and and also in line with what the community wants. Thank you. Council president. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you, madam. Madam President, you know, I've just been concerned. It seems there's been a little bit of a rash in these zoning applications recently where applicants don't seem to be doing their utmost as far as outreach into the community. And I think part of the problem may be that I think it's kind of appears to me kind of gray as to what CPD is actually requiring of applicants. I know that it's recommended that they speak to their neighbors. It's recommended that they speak to the council member. But there doesn't seem to be a straightforward form for replies to those requests. And I think it's awfully important for us in judging these to know what the to have some sort of evidence as to what the nearby neighbors are saying. So that's what I wanted to add to the conversation tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, and not seen any other hands raised. I will go ahead and weigh in. I did attend the leading meeting and it is very disappointing to me that the applicant before the rezoning application was filed, didn't reach out to the council office and from the conversation was dismissive of the surrounding property owners opinion. Thoughts about this folks can be very nice, but they also have an opportunity to have their voices heard and to fully understand the impacts of a rezoning and it being quasi judicial and the importance of broad community outreach, especially when development will affect surrounding property owners as well. And so I don't believe that what is being proposed meets the consistency of the adopted plans, and I will be voting no against this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 407, please. Torres No. Black. Now. CdeBaca. Clark. No. Flynn. No. Herndon now. HINES Yeah. Cashman No. Carnage? No. Ortega. Oh. Sandoval. No. Sawyer? No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the burning and announce the results. 12 nays. 12 nays zero ays Council Bill 20 1-0407 has failed. We're going to go ahead and shift gears here and move on to our second and final public hearing this evening. Council member Kenneth. Will you please put Council Bill 498 on the floor for final passage?

Resolution Recognizing September as Suicide Prevention and Action Month in the City of Boston. On motion of Councilors Arroyo and Mejia the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_09222021_2021-1006

Thank you. Docket 1006 Councilors Arroyo and Maria offered the following resolution recognizing September as suicide prevention and action month in the city of Boston. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the district council from Hyde Park Councilor Arroyo. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. September is Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month. Suicide is currently the 10th leading cause of death for adults. And when you go to the ages of 10 to 34 years old, it is actually the second leading cause of death, which is heartbreaking. As somebody myself who is struggling with suicidal ideation, as some members of this council shared their own struggles. We know that part of the problem is that mental health and concerns around mental health are stigmatized in a way that prevent people from seeking help and doing that. And so while I have the floor and if anybody is watching this, you can seek confidential emotional support by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 28, which is 24 seven at one 800 273 talk and four for English. And it's actually 18818886289454 for Spanish. This is something that I'd like to. With with this pandemic, we're going to see sort of unseen levels of post traumatic stress disorder, unseen levels of trauma. And I don't think that we have adequately we didn't have the resources, frankly, on the ground to deal with trauma and things like that the way we needed to before this pandemic. And I think this is something that beyond just resolutions and things that we're going to do as we head into this next step of recovery, this is something that simply does just have to be a focus for us and for our city and for the country. And so I'd also like to thank my co-sponsor on this councilman here who has bravely shared her story time and time again. And so I hope to see real assets and real attention on this matter moving forward, because mental health is wildly important to the city and really is wildly important to everything else that anybody does on any given day. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Counselor Arroyo. The chair now recognizes the at large council from Dorchester Councilor. Me here. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Councilor Arroyo for co-sponsoring this resolution with us. I'm going to keep it together. Are you going to keep it together? I would also like to put out a trigger warning for folks listening in that we will be talking about a topic of suicide. And I think people need to acknowledge that that is triggering for a lot of folks. Last year, when we sponsored this resolution, I shared my own story as a survivor. I shared the story because I knew it was important to show. That that anyone could be living their lives with those dark thoughts in their head. And that is why I want to talk about today the fact that anyone could be living with suicide ideations or tendencies. A person experiencing these things may not look like what you expect. They may not resemble what you see in the movies or on TV. Depression and suicide. Suicidal ideation takes on many different shapes and forms that may look completely different from one person to another. That is why it's so important to check in on the important people in your life. To check in on yourself to. Remind the people in your life that no matter that they matter to you, even the people who may make it look like everything is fine in their lives. I also want to talk about what suicide prevention really looks like because contrary to what most people think. Suicide prevention is more than just sharing suicide prevention hotlines. Suicide prevention is food security. Suicide prevention is affordable housing. It's access to affordable health care, de-stigmatizing mental illness, family acceptance of the LGBTQ relatives, financial security and so much more. As an office, we have fought to uplift mental illness throughout COVID 19 pandemic. And all issues and sectors. And we know. That what we have, that what has been top of mind for everyone as well has been mental health and wellness, especially those who are experiencing social isolation. We need to continue that work beyond the pandemic and we look forward to committing ourselves to that work. I move that we suspend the rules and pass this resolution today. And think of all of those who are at home, sitting alone, feeling unloved, unseen, unheard. And for all of those who have lost loved ones by suicide, we send you lots of love. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman. Here, the chair now recognizes the At-Large Council from Dorchester Councilor Annie Society. George, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you to the makers, the lead sponsors on this resolution. I think it's so important that we continue to talk aloud about about suicide, about the necessary work that needs to be done to prevent suicide and to support those that have been directly impacted by this. Please add my name and look forward to this passage as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Sabi George. Madam Clerk, please add Councilor Ni Sabi George The chair now recognizes the District Councilor from Dorchester Councilor Frank Baker. The floor is yours. Thank you. Mr. Chair. First, add my name. December 7th, 1992. Michael Malone, Moldova. He called me on the phone. He was drinking that night. He had been sober for a while. He shot himself over the phone to me. I didn't even realize how much it was going to affect me till I was. Through what I did to to try to numb my pain for those however many years I was numb of my pain. But thank you for. I'm putting this forth when someone. Is in that position and takes themself out. We don't even know how bad it is. And and and also the families and the people that are around them also affected me for years. I still think of him every day. He was my best friend in grammar school and we kind of fell apart a little bit. He went heavy on to one side and I was trying to remain straight in my life. And so it's a way for me to honor a buddy of mine. And I appreciate it. Thank you. Counselor Roy on counseling being a very, very important. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Baker. And I'm quite pleased. Councilor Frank Baker. But any other councilors wish to speak on this. But any councilors wish to have their name. Madam Clerk, please add. Councilor. Councilor. Brain. Councilor Campbell. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Flaherty. Councilor Flynn. Councilor. Me here. Please add the chair and councilor to councilors. Arroyo and me and Baker are seeking suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket 1006. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket is passed. Thank you, Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1007.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2541-2731 W. Holden Pl., 2602-2660 W. Holden Pl., 2516-2610 W. 13th Ave., 2646-2746 W. 13th Ave., 1260-1280 N. Decatur St. and 2775 W. 13th Ave. Rezones properties at 2541-2731 West Holden Place; 2516-2746, 2775 West 13th Avenue; and 1260-1280 North Decatur Street from I-MX-5, UO-2, I-A, UO-2 (industrial and light industrial, mixed use, 5 stories, use overlay allowing billboards) and C-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 (urban center, multi-unit, 30 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses) to C-MX-8, UO-1 (urban center, mixed use, 8 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0563

I Please closer the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Counsel Bill 509 has passed. Thank you. Regulations for the final bill tonight. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 563 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Council Bill. 563 should be placed upon final consideration and due pass. It has been moved. And second, you have the second. There it is. It has been moved. And second, it up and up. Then can you please bring in the staff report? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of Council Curt Upton, Community Planning and Development tonight. This rezoning is a legislative proposal from Councilman Paul Lopez to rezone some property in the Sun Valley neighborhood. So obviously, we're in Council District three in the Sun Valley neighborhood and just southeast of the Decatur Federal Light Rail Station, almost about a quarter mile at 13th Avenue in Decatur Street. So the existing zoning is a mixture of industrial zone districts and a former Chapter 59 or old code mixed use District two north of 13th Avenue. There's two overlays in place in this rezoning area. South of 13th Avenue is the U. Oh two overlay, which is a billboard use overlay. North of 13th Avenue. There's a yellow one overlay, which is an adult use overlay, and that's those both of those overlays are in place today. So the proposal is a little over eight acres. Again, this is a legislative rezoning initiated by Councilman Lopez to implement the recently, recently adopted Sun Valley neighborhood slash Decatur Federal Stationary, a plan to move away from the existing industrial zone districts. There's a variety of barriers with the industrial zone districts for establishing the vision of the neighborhood. And the billboard overlay, again, that's located south of 13th Avenue, is proposed to be removed. The Adult Use Overlay, which is currently in place today north of 13th Avenue, is proposed to be retained. Initially it was proposed to be removed, but there are some legal issues with removing it which we could get into later in the presentation if you have any questions on that. So I'll get into the existing land use context. There's a variety of land uses in the district today. There's some residential vacant land surface parking and some industrial land uses as well as office or nonprofit uses as well surrounding as is quasi public, obviously with a public park and some utility infrastructure directly to the northeast in terms of an Excel substation. This gives you an idea of the scale and the character of the existing buildings. Low scale, primarily one and two storey buildings. And again, sort of the transitioning residential mixed in with industrial warehouse character today. So in terms of process, we did do this a little differently from our standard process, although we did notice it as we do all map amendments. But we did meet with the Sun Valley Community Coalition, hosted us for a variety of meetings on six different occasions out in the neighborhood, and that was attended by myself, the councilmen and the council and staff, as well as a variety of stakeholders to discuss and answer questions on this proposed rezoning. The Planning Board did recommend unanimous approval of this. However, there is some opposition out in the community. Sun Valley Community Coalition is in support of this. They did vote to support this rezoning. However, there is a nonprofit organization in the in the proposed rezoning area called Earth Links that provides a variety of important services for the neighborhood . And they are concerned that the increase in height could negatively impact their urban agriculture slash community garden facility. This was a topic that was discussed a few times in our meetings out in the community, and there are some some additional letters in the packet from small from a small business owner that is very much in support of the increased height. And the Sun Valley Community Coalition is in support of this increased height as well. There's also some additional letters that have been submitted from organizations outside of the rezoning area and outside of the neighborhood that are also in opposition to this because of the potential negative impact on the Earth links, property and operations. So with that, I will get into consistency with adopted plans for a blueprint in Denver. This is an area of change and is classified as transit oriented development. As you all know, both of those are areas of change. Our areas where we're trying to direct growth in the city transit or in development is also an area we're trying to direct growth in terms of mixed use development, higher intensity development, multi storeys and pedestrian friendly design. The street classifications for 13th Avenue and Decatur Street are both mixed use collectors. Mixed use collectors also recommend mixed mix of uses, higher intensity, multistory developments and pedestrian friendly street frontages. We also have the Sun Valley neighborhood and Decatur Federal Station area plan. These were recently adopted in 2013. They align also with Blueprint Denver in designating this area, which is the red polygon is the rezoning area. But all of the pink area on this map is designated as Transit Warrior Development, with the same recommendations as Blueprint Denver. Again, higher intensity uses to take advantage of the light rail station, multi stories, multistory development and mixed use development with pedestrian friendly design features. The Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan also has recommended heights map and this location. All of it falls within the eight storey maximum height recommendation for the plan. There are other designations throughout the area that range from three stories and up to 12 stories in the station area. This image is of 13 Avenue and gives you a sense of what the proposed vision is at build out of the station area. Again, this is more of the pedestrian friendly streets and multistory mixed use development. This is another shot looking west from the river and again, gives you a sense of the transit oriented development, character and scale that's articulated in the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan and that the proposed zone district of CMCs eight is intended to help facilitate. So with that, we do find that the proposal of mixed use development CMCs eight of up to eight storeys is consistent with all of our plans. It's consistent with Blueprint Denver. It's specifically consistent with the recently adopted Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan Indicator, federal stationary plan that calls for mixed use development of up to eight storeys with a pedestrian friendly design features. It does further the uniformity of district regulations for the public health, safety and welfare and meets our justified circumstances criteria. Obviously, the Carter Federal Light Rail Station is in place. There's changing conditions and there's multiple plans calling for a redevelopment of this area. Denver Housing Authority has also completed an extensive visioning effort and master planning effort for their Choice Neighborhoods application with the Sun Valley Eco District. And so for those reasons, we do feel it meets our changing circumstances criteria. It's also consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. The district, again, is intended to encourage pedestrian friendly, mixed use development of up to eight storeys, and that's the character that's articulated in the adopted plans. And so with that, I'll be happy to take any questions on this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'll be I'll call the first five speakers. You can come on this front row and we'll start with Caitlin Cronin. Caitlin Cronin, Phil Cassar, Gaia Summers. Sorry if we have some of the spelt wrong read Silberman. And Carol McLean. You guys can all come to the front in that order. So we'll start first with Kathleen Cronin. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks and members of the council. Yeah, my name is Kathleen Cronin. I'm the executive director of Earthlings. And while I actually physically live in Aurora, Colorado, all my waking hours are spent at 2746 West 13th Avenue in Denver, where Earthlings is in the packet. I think that you were looking at in the and the overview that Mr. Upton was doing. We're located basically right at the corner of Current 13th Avenue in Decatur. The plan that's under consideration or possibly going to be put into effect actually moves 13th to a block to our south. But at the present time, we're at the corner of 13th and Decatur. Our concern basically has to do with the potential shading of our garden. We have occupied this space now for about two years. We've owned it for three years and we've put approximately $1.1 million into this property. And one of the major things that we do in our program is working with homeless adults in and gardening and workshop program. We're a micro employer of folks and we have a 70% or better success rate at getting folks into housing if they've been working with us for a year or more. So we we we know that what we do is significant and we know that what we do works. There's plenty of studies that talk about the benefits of working in Earth and in fact, various organizations from other justice communities or social services communities come to talk to us about how to establish similar programs in other locations. The worry is if we go to eight stories around us from our south and our east, we will basically close off about two thirds of our potential gardening space. That will leave us with about 2000 square feet to garden, as opposed to the 8000 square feet that we have available to us. We are a central piece of the Food Access Coalition for Sun Valley. We moved there with the intention of being able to provide locally grown food, which was part of the plan that's being referred to here. And we feel that we're trying to help in that. And that means and that this change to eight stories right in our area would well possibly affect us negatively. I would like to point out that as the city, we have kind of a suggestion or a plank, if you will, we wish to be a sustainable city. And I've been told over and over again by Mr. Upton and others that there is no protection for sun access in the city under the zoning code. And I would just ask that this council consider at this time that this is an opportunity to perhaps provide some access for discussion. Your time is. Up. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Phil Kasper. My name is Phil Kasper. I've been a resident of Sun Valley for virtually 30 years. I guess you might call me the face of gentrification, but. 90% of the property owners in the rezoning parcel signed to have their properties zoned before Councilman Lopez chose to go ahead and bring this as a legislative action. And we appreciate the fact that it did so. It's taken a longer process. The planning for this community to increase its residential use goes back to the Fairview Community Land Trust that was established in 2000. One was supported by Mayor Webb, but because of zoning, we couldn't do anything in the neighborhood. This is appropriate. To be considered tonight because of the problem with the inability to house the working class. I would highly recommend. That you pass this tonight. And I highly recommend that when you consider affordable housing, you consider making it permanently affordable, whether it is rental or ownership. Make it make it so that someone that buys a subsidized, built house does not get to capture as much of the appreciation as someone that buys it just straight off the market. And again, I, I appreciate your support on making this change in Sun Valley. We can be part of the solution. Thank you, Casper. Guy Summers. But they are the. Hi towns. I was homeless and I walked by. Excuse me. I'm sorry. And so. Can you say it's. Beautiful? Can you say your name for the record, please? Stating guy. Guy Summers. Thank you. Sorry. Stating love, hope, courage and community in many languages. And I went into this amazing place. Earthquakes is in a food desert and also serves many homeless angry people. Sorry, some of the plants grown there are sold. We need sun to grow them. With the funds going. How's the homeless population? The bee hives. We have eight of them. The bees will leave these hives, which without the flowers we could grow, which will also result in a financial loss. If the eight story buildings are built to the east or the south of 27, 46, West 13th Avenue, which is Earthlings property, our garden will be cut in by more than half. I have spoken to senators and mayors about financial help to aid us, the disabled, the seniors and the homeless. There is no funding for us, but earthlings and its garden towers. Please use your hearts, not people's wallets. When you vote tonight, please do not pass this change. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Summers. Reed Silverman. Good evening, council members. My name is Reed Silberman. I'm the owner of Ink Monster Graphic Design and Printing. Also the. Proud. 2016 SBA, Colorado Small Business Person of the Year. I do mention. This because Sun. Valley was a very big part of the reason I was even nominated for this award. So thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on the matter of the Sun Valley CMC Zoning. I feel very strongly about this point considering my property. 2721 West Holden Place. Is one of the properties Earthlings would like to prevent from. Being rezoned in line with the development. Plan. Since I purchased the building, I have put a tremendous amount of sacrifice. Time, money, commitment into. This building and into this neighborhood. I am formally requesting that my property. Be zoned to see a max eight as it calls out. In the approved development. Plan. I would like to point out that everyone who purchased property in Sun Valley area in the past five years already knew these properties were intended to be rezone to CMCs eight, as it was clearly stated in the station area plan, which is now and has final approval. A large. Motivating factor for purchasing my property. In 2012, one year. Before Earthlings was knowing and in favor of. The new. Development plan and the rezoning to see a max eight. It is hard for me to understand how somebody could purchase property in and invest in renovation, knowing they'll have to dispute new zoning down the road. Think Monster took. Loans, not. Grant from the Fed and SBA to move Ink Monster to this enterprise zone. For job creation. And economic development in Sun. Valley. All in. I have just about $1,000,000. Invested into this particular. Property. You can see the cost breakdown in your packets. That I provided also. Before and after. Pictures of what I have done to renovate and. Make this property what it is. Since we moved to Sun Valley, we have more than doubled in size from 6 to 18 full time paid employees ink masters, creating. More jobs, bringing tax revenue. To the city, educating youth. And is growing very. Quickly. We are heavily involved in the community by producing community events including the Sun Valley, Denver Days, Neighborhood BLOCK Party. For the second year in a row, we work with. Fresh Start in the Rudy Rec Center during. Thanksgiving and Christmas, as well as. I provide internships. Through his YMCA program and always its workforce program. I also give Sun Valley Youth motivational tours of our facility and encourage them to follow their passions and dreams. I understand Earthlings opposition of the rezoning, and I can deeply appreciate it. However, it is my understanding that almost every residential and commercial property owner is aware of and in support of the new CMHC zoning and has been aware of the possible change for many years, especially considering most of us are on the Pillar committees for the Sun for the Valley Development Plan. Mr. Silver, you are out of time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Col McLennan. Could in a council members. My name is Carol McLennan. I live at 2 to 4 to Ivanhoe Street, but I'm the president of the board of directors of Earthlings, and I'm speaking tonight in that capacity. I just wanted to make three points briefly. We've submitted probably more information than you'd like from us talking about our own investments, etc. But I wanted to clarify that when we bought the property, we did that with full knowledge of the Decatur Federal Station area plan. We met with CPD specifically because we had this kind of strange IMX five zoning at the time and wondered if that was something that was going to be a problem in the future. We knew there might be some consideration for rezoning, particularly with the I.A. properties, but maybe ours, maybe not. We did a fine analysis of the Decatur Federal Station area plan, and that's included in your packets. And yes, we knew that the maximum building heights could be eight stories, but throughout the plan it talked about 2 to 8. And as you've seen, there are many, many policies that made us feel as though we could be part of this tiered, we could contribute to the community, and that we could provide a service not only to our participants but to the Sun Valley community. And we have done that. Our packets indicate we put another $550,000 into the property since we moved in two years ago, 130,000 of which is with a CDBG grant from the Office of Economic Development. We knew that we had a gym when we bought this property, and we were thrilled and surprised that speculators hadn't jumped in and bought it before we did. What we didn't know was how much that property was going to help us fulfill our mission even more than we anticipated. We are close to services that our participants need bus stops, the bike and pad trail, the medical center and the Health and Human Services less than a block away. Our participants who come to us are low income people who have been homeless. They come and stay with us week after week for an average of two years. And when they come to us, they work, they make products, they are creative, they are productive, and they are adding to the community. And we've made incredible connections in that community. Our board voted to stay and to get a permanent home so that we wouldn't be gentrified out of yet another community in a few years. We want to be there. We are good friends with our neighbors. We support Reid and all and all the other properties around us. I know we disagree on this issue, but we're asking you to look at the full array of policies that are in that plan, diversity being one of them, and ask you to consider rezoning just a couple of these properties other than eight stories, maybe five stories , so that we can do what we do, provide services for those who need the services the most, where they are available, and make this an example of what you can do to be inclusive and diverse and every tod across the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jean Ann Granville. Janine Granville. I'll get it right. Hi, I'm Jean Granville. I'm representing the Sun Valley Community Coalition, the registered neighborhood organization. I'm also the executive director of Fresh Start, a nonprofit that is located in and owns property at 2715 West Holden Place, which is also included in the application for rezoning. I just want to reiterate that we did have numerous meetings and are very grateful for Councilman Lopez, his staff, and for Curt Upton with the Planning Department for keeping us part of this process throughout its tenure. And I really appreciate to above that we did review the application and voted on it in our June 7th general monthly meeting, and it was by a majority vote in favor. It was noted at the time, prior to the vote, that the zoning application was consistent with the Decatur Federal Station area plan that had been passed in 2013, and many of the impacted property owners had participated in that planning process and wanted to see it move forward. It was also noted that this was an excellent opportunity for the affordable housing that we've all been really concerned about. Concerns that were expressed by Earthlings, I think, have been met with a tremendous amount of sympathy and empathy. They are a vital part of our community since they have moved in. They have provided leadership and services beyond just their own mission, but to contribute to the development of the neighborhood. While it's not an easy solution, and frankly, we have no easy idea of what that solution might be. We really do hope that Earthlings can get whatever assistance it needs as the plans start to unfold, that they can continue to be part of our neighborhood and to thrive as we all hope. So thank you very much. Thank you so much. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions about the. The role that our food policy and food coordinator in the city plays. We've had a series of public meetings that took place around the city that asked for input on the role of food sustainability in this city and the importance of it. You know, we all know that California doesn't get the water they used to. And so a lot of our produce no longer comes from California. And a lot of these conversations were about how we need to be taking some initiative to create food sustainability right here in our own community. So when we have organizations and entities that are doing that, I think we need to do everything possible to try to protect those important elements within our neighborhood, particularly when they are providing service to the very neighborhoods that they are within. So that's one issue in terms of understanding the interface between the plan that has been put together by Blake Angelo and the zoning applications that we have coming forward across the city, not just in this neighborhood, because some of the input that came out of some of those meetings was we need to be seeing developments very similar to our own park across the street where we have flower gardens, but we're growing food in between the flowers. And I'm not sure where exactly that food goes, but looking at those kinds of opportunities all across the city. So I'm asking our city staff if that issue even came up in terms of the interface between our food policy plan, if you will, and in this particular development, because of the impact to a particular business in the neighborhood that plays that very role. Yeah. Yes. I mean, the the Sun Valley, Decatur Federal Stationary Plant I'll speak to that was very much support of of the idea of, you know, healthy foods, growing foods, you know, supermarket access, eliminating food deserts and all those sorts of things. And so that's why there was this discussion in the community that the issue is for this location. It's very close to the light rail station. And so we also have recommendations in multiple documents throughout the city to take advantage of these prime locations that are very close, you know, within the quarter mile of a light rail station to target it with additional redevelopment and density and mixed use development. And so there's a very clear map in the plan that shows this area as eight stories. And so for those reasons, while, you know, there was a lot of sympathy and there was a lot of value of the community garden idea and the Earth Links idea , the plan was very clear. It should also be noted that the the existing zoning today on the surrounding properties from Earthlings would allow up to 70 feet in height. So this change would would bump that up to 110 feet, which is eight stories. So there would be some additional height, but there is a would be potentially impacts today with the current zoning with heights that are not built out as as high as they could go today. So the basically what you're saying is the stationary plan basically trumps the food policy plan. I guess I wouldn't say that. I guess for for this zoning case, we have to look at adopted plans blueprint, Denver and the and the station area plan. And while there is some recommendations that are consistent with the food plan that you're talking about for this particular location and this particular proposal, we feel that this zone district is appropriate. So let me change the focus now on proximity to Fairmont School. So is that directly across the street? We're looking at a map. Is it half a block away or across the street from the boundaries of where this new zoning is proposed? I was looking at the map and I couldn't tell if it was across the street from the edge of the school property or if it's half a block away. But it's right across directly. It's just north. So we're talking about eight stories that would be directly across the street from. You know. The. Because it seems they were rezoning, too, right? I've seen several folks say no. Anybody want to clarify? I'll pull up the map here. The way you have to. You have to you have to you have to come to the mic, actually. Point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't know that our staff realizes we don't. We don't any more see the presentation that you're giving. Yeah, we can open the same PowerPoint, but we have no idea what side you're on, and there's no slide numbers. So please try to describe the slide you're on when you reference it so that we can follow. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilwoman Kurt, can you give 2 seconds for us? Yeah. Okay. So 12th Avenue North Side is a full row of homes with short, mostly short lots. And then on the corner of Decatur and 12th and there's a community garden. And then opposite that on the alley is a church that's all residential for about eight lots. And there's vacant I a property that has been hasn't been developed. It's been demolished for 20 years. Okay. And then the rest of the properties that are all signed on to be resolved. Thank you. Uh, Curt, did you want to show something to the council or. Well, I guess I just. I moved back to the. The location slide in the presentation, which is an aerial photo. What is what? What slide is that on. It's the blue. I. Think. It's what. Page do you have a page or the. Numbers on here. Like what? Slide for everyone, for city council. For this location at the top of the slide and 2014 aerial photo at the bottom left. So if you can see hold in place there it's actually the school property is to the south of of that it's you can't it's kind of off of off of the screen. So while it's not directly adjacent, it is in proximity to the school property. So the school property, just to be clear, the school property is across the street from the edge of what this new boundary will be. Well, there's not. So if you look at the aerial photo, if you see hold in place on the aerial photo, right. If you look down, there's an alley there and there's another block of properties there. And then to the south of that is the school. So it's probably about a block or two from the rezoning area. Councilman, Councilman Lopez, you want to get in? Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Ortega, if you look at the slide, this is proposal. I don't see the numbers on the slides proposal. And you see the blue was that CMC's proposed that that southern edge is buffered by homes, it's buffered by structures. When you go south, the 12th, 12th is the property line at the school. Okay, so you have that buffer between the CMC in the school that's probably you're looking at probably. 200 feet max, probably maybe 250. I don't know. It it goes from it's almost like a. Isosceles triangle. All right, it just. Narrows out to the east, but it's thicker on longer on the west side. It's if you look. There, you could see looking at. It. 12th Avenue, south of 12th Avenue is a fair amount, is it doesn't? So to answer your question, it doesn't. But Fairmont is just a half a block north of it in some places, and it's like probably maybe 100 feet. Just one other further clarifying question. Okay. Does the rezoning in any way, shape or form propose maintaining the grid system of the current roads? Or. You know, the area is a little restricted to get in and out of. And so if we're proposing higher density, but we're not doing anything to improve the infrastructure. Are we are we creating more problems down the road that this neighborhood's going to have to deal with? I mean, I, I think we're looking at a similar situation where we've re zoned the whole Foch Street corridor with very, very high densities , and we've got one road into that site. And so are we going to be dealing with some of those kinds of challenges? And did those issues come up in the conversation about this rezoning? Yeah. So there is a plan as part of the the adopted stationary plan to reconfigure some of these streets and reintroduce more of a grid system in this area. And I believe Public Works is looking at 13 Avenue as an early project of realigning 13th Avenue to improve the connectivity in the area. So yeah, there is a plan to improve the street infrastructure and add more connectivity than there is today. But those will be separate conversations about how that happens and when that happens. Correct. Or was that part of this process? It's not part of the rezoning, but the rezoning is consistent. I guess I would say the rezoning doesn't prevent that from happening in the future. It's consistent with the circulation plan that's in the adopted plan. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Okay. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. If you stay up there and just so I can address one of these questions, if I may, that we are talking about the 13th Avenue realignment realignment, some of those streets. I mean, here's the thing. You really got to look from a further height, from a higher standpoint to look at the whole neighborhood. There's going to be a lot of questions of how we realign, because it's not just this site that I mean, it's also the DHEA properties in the Casitas and stuff that are you know, we're going to look at increasing density as we go in the future, creating more opportunities for affordable housing. My my question is, there's a couple of properties trying to figure this out here. There's there's a property just south of 13th Avenue that is west of the Garden and I'm sorry, east of the things properties. And then just north of Pink Monster. That is not part of the plan. Can you speak to as to why they are not part of the rezoning? Yeah. So they came in earlier on a different schedule than this rezoning and they were already approved for Max eight. So that's why on the proposal slide that you're mentioning, there's that little sort of notch that's missing. Can you speak also to a little bit more the community process I want and, you know, intended future use? And this is something that perhaps I don't know, somebody from the neighborhood association can speak to as well, too. So if you can kind of talk a little bit more about the community process, what that was like, what the how we addressed some of these questions. And if you want to come out to the to the podium to talk about, you know, the intended use and what the plan will be, what's envisioned there, I think that kind of clears up this. Description of it as being, quote unquote. You're asking for the intended use for the already zoned for property. The vision for the future. Use for the already zoned property for the. Post. O for our our larger proposal. Zoned and then proposal. Well, I think that is part of the whole the Carter Stationery, a federal stationery, a plan. The whole idea of it is is to try to really activate as much as we can around the light rail station. And as has happened in other parts of the city and counties, we are seeing much more density around those areas . And we are very committed in Sun Valley to be a neighborhood that really is affordable, that continues to be family oriented as it is now, and to be one that is affordable and to be more of a mixed income. I think that the ACM x eight zoning that was allowed, I think back almost a year ago that was passed by council, it was one step to try to provide a parcel that could be a future theater, as well as also house arts and other kinds of of activities or amenities. So we have really ambitious plans, but we think that with the leadership of the Denver Housing Authority who is steward stewarded much of the choice neighborhood planning that those plans can actually come to fruition. If I. If I may. Thank you. If I may. Mr. President. Chris. I'm sorry. Chris are. Go, Casper, if you want to come up as well to. Come on. Who are you calling up? Phil? Phil? Yeah. Do you want to come up to the podium, please? On the Cater Federal Stationery Up plan and the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan. Simple question. When's the first time that you all sat down to talk about plans for these areas? The response? The Sun Valley neighborhood hasn't had a neighborhood plan for 40 years until recently. And the. Attempted to get a neighborhood plan to increase housing going all the way back to 2001. But the city wasn't ready because the transportation infrastructure was in the planning works and it was delayed and delayed at the expense of generations of kids in a very bad neighborhood for a very, very long time. And I don't think that most of these council people could be considered to be part of the reason for that. There are I know Debbie has always gone to bat for this community, and I've said it before in this in this council room, that there were a lot of council people that were complicit to a crime against all those kids for all those years. It's time to make. This a healthy. Family neighborhood. And this is the zoning that's going to do it. So. I think that it should be supported. Now, are there any questions I'd be glad to answer? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. You, Councilman Espinosa. Hey, Phil. Phil Kobach. So it's good to see you again. It's been a long time. There's a slide in the deck that shows the Sun Valley neighborhood planning a vision for 13th Avenue. Were you part of that planning process that developed that? Yes. I'm going all the way. Yes. So does this. Property owner for 25 years. Does this rezoning alone do what's necessary to get that vision implemented? Could you repeat that? Will this rezoning alone do what's needed to make that vision for 13th Avenue come to fruition? Well, it will need. It'll need the support from council. It will also need a lot of resources that that will come from federal sources and and hopefully state and city and local and and developers. It needs to be a mixed community with ownership and rental, but it does not need to be a party place. You know, when there was a discussion with the community and and Kurt might be able to answer this as well. Was there discussion about this vision and how infrastructure rezoning could and should perpetuate that vision? And what that because there's a specific character that's rendered here that isn't just inherent in the reasoning. And so all. Discussions and our discussions were complete with infrastructure changes, the character of the of the streets, the different types of housing placement of different types of housing, including grocery services. Access across the river, actually pedestrian bridge and possibly expansion on and on, stuff like that. And. I'm talking about a community that had to fight 15 years to get a laundry facility. Yeah. No, the reason why I'm asking is that if you says you have this vision, so you know this neighborhood, you've been there really long time. This 13th Avenue, this zone is is considerably wider than the existing 13th Avenue. And while there's a street, a tree lawn on both sides of 13th Avenue, as depicted here, there's also this sort of healthy sort of cafe breakout space that is certainly doable. A cmcs eight is a use by right but you would have to voluntarily not build to. And the other thing is is we first have to widen the ride away to to capture both to vehicle travel lanes, to bike lanes into on street parking lanes. And so to implement this vision. One of my frustrations is we have this great vision that we worked a long time with Sun Valley residents and a lot of the people that just testified on both sides of this thing and in how the problem is, is that should we be using when we get in the legislative process, should we have codified ways to implement this vision? As part of that rezoning piece? I don't sense that it's in there. So was there any discussion about doing that? Not directly. I will say with that depiction there, what we have is an old 13th Avenue and a new 13th Avenue and the old 13th Avenue will see much less traffic and the bicycle lanes in the parking that is depicted there may not all be exactly the same. However, what will be the property is being consolidated into one ownership. So the entire property on the north and south side of what is holding today and. 60% of the property on what is 13th today has been accumulated by by one controlling entity so that they can it's being planned for cut through to realign it, which has been the city's design for 15 years, while 13 years they brought it to us 13 years ago. This community didn't like it. Well, the community that was there has gone for the most part. Is that a private party or is that a public entity that it's. A partner in the neighborhoods? The development group that's working with the FHA. Yeah. Okay. So they are working with the. Yes. Okay. So thank you. Thanks, though. Thanks. Question for anything else? No, thanks. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate that. It's for somebody from earth Linx that mentioned the 80% shadow coverage of the late. And thanks for mentioning the heights, because that's one of the things that struck me about Cinemax. Five I mean, IMAX five is, is very healthy. So when you did the study that came up with the 80%, what height was used in that analysis? That was the eight stories. So 110 feet or. Yes. Okay. And then what was the percentage of coverage at 70 feet? It's much less we we only lose about 25, 25 by 100. Square feet of our garden, so we lose much less when we had done that study before we moved in. That's 2500 square feet. You said so it's right by the back alley of our I don't know if you're familiar with our spot, but we have a lot of gardens over there. So we would lose some. But we we were willing to take that risk when we moved in. Okay. And so how many square feet did you say you would lose in the eight cm x eight scenario? We lose all of our two lots on our east side and we would lose half of our current south north garden. So we would have one north garden left. I'm estimating right now we would have about 50 feet by 50 feet left. That's currently gardened. Yeah. So. Okay. Do you have you ever talked about partnerships? I mean, I know it's dedicated parkland, but we do have gardens of sorts. Have you ever talked with using about with with Denver parks or any other city agency about that space between you and Rudy? That's great. Solar access and not exactly a ballfield. We have not talked to Rudy. No. You know, our history, we have done gardening offsite from our location. We're very anxious to be able to be owners and continue to live where we are and not be subject to the whims of other landlords. Yeah, but we have not had an opportunity to speak with Rudy directly about that. And did you ever have any conversations about potential 70 foot, 75 foot height limits on the CM eight zoned district, at least for a portion to sort of protect the existing development? We had talked to Councilman Lopez and Mr. Upton from planning, and at one time it looked that that was maybe a possibility, but that that has changed. Any reason why you maybe, Curt? Well, I'm sure they could speak for themselves. I can't really speak for them. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Kirk. Yes, Councilman. So we did discuss that as part of the community dialog, an option to restrict heights. And part of the challenge is that it's not Earthlings property that where they're requesting necessarily the height reduction, the real impact is the surrounding properties that they don't own. Right. And so but it's not a taking if you're capping a portion at 70, which is their current. Yeah. Yeah. Essentially agreed it's not a taking but there there were some voices that felt that that was limiting their rights or their potential rights in the future and therefore that you know that. We were sort of picking winners and losers where the plan was very clear. So so for those for those reasons, because there are property owners surrounding the Earthlings facility who want the eight stories. And the plan is very clear that says eight stories, one of the issues. So that being one issue, another issue is as if it was taken off or adjusted in the legislative city initiated rezoning. There could be a scenario where those private property owners move forward with their own rezoning and CPD internally as a team, we thought about that and because the plan was so clear for eight stories, we would recommend probably recommend approval for those as well. And so for those reasons, plus, again, a lot of stakeholders discussion around this issue. Again, we met out there about six times. We landed on implementing the plan as it was written. So the struggle that I have is that the pride growing season are really when the solar angles are pretty high. So you don't need that much of a step back in order to sort of move in a story off of a seven story and or a six story and still maintain a good I mean, maintain the solar access that you're providing. So. I mean, you're still you could still do eight stories in 110 feet. It's just it's just, you know, it's step back for a distance to sort of maintain that access. I didn't I don't think that's a huge ask. But so back to what I was showing with Phil Kasper, though. This is so I think, Councilman Lopez, do you want to speak to this as well? Because you said you had to. Yeah, I do. So so two points in the discussion because, you know, of course, you know, with a legislator resigning my office myself and, you know, particularly were very, very instrumental and right at point zero with these discussions in the talks with are things early on and looking at those properties to the south and potentially looked at an idea of having a smaller. Height, a. Lower height, but the property owners immediately to the south that were adjacent to those two earthlings, once they realized that everybody else was eight except for theirs, were absolutely opposed to it. It was they felt there was a property rights issue and therefore not knocked down with that either. One of the companies, I think, feel that that's Margie that there's not one of those houses isn't it. Yeah. You and that. So they were opposed to it, number one. It's not it's not everything's property. And second, just as a point of order, we already determined that, you know, solar access is not a viable or a legal . Factor in a zoning such as this. So yeah, that's where the conundrum exists. And so we can chase down that rabbit hole all we want. But at the end of the day, the community in our community process is very thorough, had discussions with folks all over the neighborhood, particularly with earthlings, particularly with the property owners to the south who are opposed to that. And these are folks who have been these are some of the only property owners, only residential property owners in Sun Valley. Yeah. Now, my issue, I mean, my concern is, is, is multi-layered in that and I'm sorry we didn't bring this up in committee, but the when we do, I did mention that when we're doing a legislative rezone, we should be doing that. We should sort of try to leverage our position such that we actually are sort of pushing for the outcomes that are are being that had already been shared and negotiated and and and adopted. In some cases. There's a GDP here and a smaller rate plan and others in other investments. And so, you know, how do we how do we sculpt? When the city's doing legislative rezoning something to get the outcomes that have been shared. So back to that graphic, though, because this is to my colleagues, I'm going to bust this out again. I've done it. Haven't done this in a long time. This is the existing 13th Avenue that's been depicted here. It's two lanes in a parking width, you know, stall space wide. You know, is there. I know this is sort of public works, but how do you compel future development here to sort of render get to this rendering when that's the right of way? And if we grant this new zone district, you can build CMCs aid as you use to go right to the property line tomorrow, I mean, the day after it's adopted. Yeah. So you're correct. Public Works is studying this street specifically in 13 day Avenue. I think that there is some additional right of way beyond what's shown in the pavement there. So while this this concept drawing is not engineering exact, there is, as you mentioned, an approved general development plan that does specify the lanes and the rights of way widths for 13 avenue and all that the circulation system in place. And so when, when projects come in to development services, they will be checked against that general development plan that's in place that will provide some protection of that system as it develops. Yeah, but we don't have any design guidelines or standards for this area. That's correct. Okay. All right. Thanks. Further questions. Okay. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. So, Curt, were zoning to a maximum of eight storeys, is what the proposal is, right? Yes, but we're not. We don't know that it's going to be eight storeys. They can build anything outside storeys. It's the usual deal. We have no development plan. We don't know what building is going where at this point. Correct. Okay. So. Is it? Going to cripple the neighborhood plan. If we were to zone as earthlings, who's asking, you know, some five stories around that plot? Is that creating some sort of a problem to realizing the goals of that neighborhood? So. So in the scenario that the proposal came in for less than eight stories, you're saying would it be inconsistent with the neighborhood plan? No. I mean, I understand the neighborhood plan says it wants eight there. Yeah. So it would be inconsistent. But I'm wondering to what degree you think it would. Really affect the goals of the neighborhood because we don't know what they're getting anyway. They may get three stories in these eight story districts, or they may get eight. But I guess. Where I'm coming from is. And I don't know the neighborhood as as well as Phil or as my friend Councilman Lopez. But we keep talking about how important affordable housing is in Denver. And then we zone 100 acres of Arapahoe Square with no affordable housing. And we talk about food deserts and the need for local food plan. And I'm just wondering if. Maybe it doesn't make sense to try to accommodate something like this. It may not. I'm just asking. Mm hmm. Well, I think I mean, I think it's a it's a good point. We did discuss this issue in our neighborhood conversations of if eight stores was even feasible on these parcels. And so that was something that we discussed. And we did find an example of a similar block size that could fit eight storeys, as in this proposed rezoning area. But I think the larger issue is that this is a very recently adopted plan. This rezoning area is very close to a light rail station. And we only again, we only have so many of those available throughout the city. And because there are property owners involved and as the councilman mentioned, owner occupants of some of these residential properties who would like to take advantage of the plan that was recently adopted. And if we were to go in a different direction and recommend a different height and those private property owners came in at a later date and asked for the zoning, consistent with the plan, we would have probably our hands tied to recommend approval because the plan is so clear in this area. So again, I think for those reasons, that's why we came to any story recommendation for this. Some neighborhood plans now. Governance, zoning. Because that's not my experience. I mean, their neighborhood plans are recommendations. We hear that over and over and over again. And then we see situations where the neighborhood wants one thing and their plan says one thing and CPD recommends something else. So. So certainly. I mean, they're not. Not all neighborhood plans are regulatory, and this one isn't regulatory. So I kind of agree with that. But one of our criteria for recommending approval or denial, as you know, for rezoning cases is consistency with adopted plans. And so that was the point I was making. Just to clarify. Sure. No, I understand that. And it it it is a conundrum. I have respect for for the neighborhoods self-will. Without question, but operations like earthlings are just going to be subject to getting pushed farther and farther and farther away as we gentrify every square inch of land in the city until they don't exist. So what's in the best interests of the city, you know, is what I'm trying to figure out. So that's all my questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Curt. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. It was mentioned earlier that somewhere in the plan calls for 2 to 8 stories from what I've seen. It looks like it's just identified as eight. Can you speak to that? Yeah. So whenever we have height recommendations and this goes for all of our plans, including this plan, it's a maximum, right, a maximum height. But we put in a range meaning that we don't want to be unclear, that if that if there was an eight stories recommendation in place and someone for whatever reason wanted to come in with five stories or three stories or some other height recommendation that we wouldn't necessarily not support that because the market could be at the time that that height just wasn't feasible. And so we usually recommend ranges of heights up to a maximum for those reasons. But there's nowhere in the plan that calls out the what the zoning should allow as anything less than eight. There's nothing specifically in the plan that says we should not support something less than eight, if that's what you're just. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. All right. Any more speakers here? And I see none. A public hearing for counsel. Bill 563 is now closed. Comments by members of council. Hmm. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I wanted to start by thanking everybody who came out tonight to testify for the bill. You know, it's a good day. When we got Sun Valley on the agenda in the city council, especially this neighborhood. And it is one of the poorest neighborhoods, the poorest neighborhood in Denver and one of the poorest in the state. And it has always had that stigma and it's always been the stigma of not. Mile High Station, mile High Stadium or a light rail or, you know, the Platte River and the amenity of the Platte River. But as this industrial area or as as a small island of poverty and projects surrounded by industry, surrounded by a barrier of I-25, surrounded by the river as a barrier, not as an amenity, sort of, you know, kept a far from Mile High Stadium. Any opportunities up north? No one ever thought of 13th Avenue as an opportunity to create economic development and jobs for the neighborhood. Nobody ever looked at real lining the streets in the neighborhood to make them safer until we started. And I say we should say until the community in Sun Valley really started pushing the idea of the neighborhood plan. The idea and its advocates. And that goes for folks who don't live in the district and the neighborhood as well. I think EarthLink is a very important partner. And, you know, I've sat down with the members of earthlings to look at those ideas very early on, that we look at the idea of possibly taking it down a notch on that south side, given with the caveat that given that the property owners are okay with it, and I resent the fact that this is labeled as some kind of gentrification. The folks who have lived south in those lives, those properties in question. Are not a gentrifying force. These are the only property owners. And they're not McMansions. They're not high scale owners. These are neighborhood folks who have lived here, and you could shake your head all you want. These are neighborhood folks who have lived here since before I was even born, before my mom was even born, when it was not popular to live in this side of town. They dealt with the violence. They dealt with the poverty. They dealt with the stigma. And if we really want to go after affordable homelessness, we build units, folks. That's what this area is intending to do. That's what this rezoning is intending to do. And not to build duplexes, but to build units, enough units, so that we can tackle this issue of affordable housing without being pointed at and saying those are the projects that kids from the projects. That's the worst thing that we've done in this city as we've clumped all the projects together. East Village. Westwood Homes. Columbine. The Casitas. The worst thing that we could have done is say, but Mala, we have units for poor folks because that stigma lives on. And Sun Valley has probably there's no other neighborhood than Sun Valley that's been hit with that stick more. We want to fix that. We want to create that opportunity. The answer is mixed income, mixed use, industrial. Does this create this creative new the zone districts out there that allow you to live up top, work on the bottom. Right. And we want to hold that accountable. And for me, when we when I look at this rezoning, it. Absolutely. Look, this is something that I have said, especially when we had the Westwood plan up in front of us, that these are not these plans are not, and nor should they ever be intended to sit on a shelf and say, look at this architect. Look at the architects we paid a bunch for and the planners who we paid a bunch for. Look at their work. It's going to sit on this dusty shelf in the city. We don't want that. These plans are intended to be implemented. Right. And that is one of those that's the intent here. We don't want that. Finally, finally, after 40 years, this neighborhood has a neighborhood plan and a path forward, and it's going to sit on some dusty shelf. It's meant to be implemented. And we want to create this opportunity. We want to create this density. We want to create affordable and affordability here right at the light rail station. It is an alignment of a lot of our values. The Anti-Poverty, Safe Streets, access to transit, Sun Valley is where it's at. And when you when you zoom back and you look at all the property south, you look at the Casitas, you look at what's in store and what the vision is for legacy. This is a neighborhood that's going to be transformed without requiring poor people to leave. Which is what gentrification does. Gentrification and community development are two separate conversations, two separate things. Gentrification requires an aristocracy to push out people that are poor. You replace people who are poor with this aristocracy, this gentry. That's the. That's where gentrification comes from. That word. The gentry. There's a displacement. There's no displacement. What we want to create is this implementation of plan. So, ma'am, I absolutely feel you when you when you tell me, look, we this is our home. This is our home. This is our hope here. We want to be able to establish that. We want we want to give her things. I when I look at this, I want to give earthlings the same bargaining chip that every other property owner does get with this rezoning. Without that, I think it's an injustice. I think you could do a heck of a lot more than the opportunity is there. Now. Is this solve the whole problem of Sun Valley? Absolutely not. This is solve the problem of food deserts. Absolutely not. Right. But it does put a step in the right direction. And I don't want us to have to be put in this weird position where we have to choose. Do we choose closing a, you know, you know, hindering an opportunity to lift us out of a food desert or creating more affordable units for folks that really, truly need it? You want both? It's the matter of figuring out how we do that. And we can't do that by limiting somebody's property rights. She? Legally. We can't do that. So when we look at this reasoning, it is illegal for me to be able to say, Well, I'm opposed to this because it creates more shade . That is not a legal reason for us to do it. We can't. So in you know, in closing my closing remarks, I just I'm I want to implement what the residents of Sun Valley have worked so hard decades for to do. It's a start implementing that plan. And as a councilman, that's why this is a legislative rezoning. So it's not for developers, it's for the residents. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And we're glad you're you're here. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to briefly address the criteria, which is what we're required to judge zoning on. And I think that the criteria is fairly clear in this case, that there is a strong case for the rezoning. But it does not mean that I'm not very empathetic. I want to thank Earthlings for having me out and touring me and some of the neighboring properties as well, for showing me some of the important opportunities. And also just should have said this. First, thank you to all of you for staying on. What's the late and long night? So I appreciate all of your presence. So I guess the thing I want to say is that based on the plan, based on the criteria, I just don't have a basis to vote against this rezoning. But I you know, here are a few problem solving suggestions and hopes because I think that we have some time these projects take a little while to go from concept to construction. So I don't know what that is for each of the neighboring properties. But you know, hopefully you have at least three years until that shade arrives, perhaps more depending on the economy and financing and all the things that have to come together to make a tall building come to fruition. So, you know, one idea is that, you know, I don't you know, I don't know if you've had a chance to go to see a place like, oh, my gosh, it's late. It just escaped me. The grow house, the mind meld of the at large seats grow house, you know, an indoor space aquaponics. There's a whole bunch of ways to grow inside structures, but and there's a cost involved. So you have me committing right now to say that would be the kind of ideas invested in your current space already may need to invest more to be able to keep, you know, the next generation of food growth. You know, we have a marijuana industry that tells us all the time that they would like to be better neighbors. And we know that some of them are in this vicinity. And so they know a lot about indoor growing and structures. And so maybe there is an opportunity there to connect an industry that wants to and should be doing better as neighbors, to think about how you might be able to use space, you know, with artificial light or other things. There is the opportunity for rooftop gardens. So if your neighbors I understand that that for your neighbors to use their rooftops, that puts you at the mercy of the landlords in the same way that you have not wanted to be. But there's also we have a homeless, you know, housing toolkit that helps to pair folks who are service provider experts with housing experts. And so maybe you have your own three, five or even eight storey housing with rooftop gardens, and you can pair through this toolkit process that the city has to really bring expertize together. These are all really long term ideas and they're all really expensive, and I don't offer any of them lightly as solutions, but I do believe that the service you provide is essential. I think it's as essential as the rest of the neighborhood plan. And I want you to know that I'm committed if I can make introductions. You know, Susan Powers is a person who's always talking about podium growth. You know, how could you build over parking lots and things like that? So we have some creative folks. And so if we can help introduce you to them and make those partnerships so that we can make this time matter, I don't want you to feel like the testimony has fallen on deaf ears. So. So my obligation is to vote with the criteria. But the education you've provided, the perspective you've brought is important. And I'm here and dedicated to helping to make whatever's possible. You know, explore that with you. So thanks for thanks for your time tonight. And to the neighbors, congratulations on, you know, the long process of moving a plan towards fruition and lots lots more work to do we know and the infrastructure we're we'll probably be here next on that but we're aware of that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Espinosa. Oh, yeah. You've always had a tough row to hoe are earthlings because the as my colleague Robin Can said, Councilwoman Canete, sorry, the justification is there. You know, obviously we're not compelled to the justification for IMAX is also thought of there as a use by right but you know it's my frustration and why my line of questioning is there is a lot of public investment that has gone on for decades in Sun Valley and then more recently on this revisioning and in the future on implementing those plans for the river and for Sun Valley and. And in the stadium. And when council's involved, I would have liked. I'm just sorry, Paul. I would like to see more sort of agreements sort of hammered out either through the administration or whatnot, on how this vision can be brought forward. You know, my frustration is we create these neighborhood plans in any one of these individual property owners could have come to the council and initiated their own rezoning application on their individual process parcels and gotten them through on the same criteria. I mean, you could have rubber stamp this thing and just on your plot and your plot and your plot, and it would have been the same justification, the same things for each individual. So when the council's leading that as a legislative move, I my my expectation from us and is that we're we're actually doing we're going the extra step to move towards that that long term vision because I'm you don't have to look any further than my neighborhood of Jefferson Park to go. We have got zero. Zero new mixed use development that wasn't fought for by the neighborhood. So everything that's happened since 2010 has been residential, pure residential. That's not true. There's now a new building at 25th and Elliot going up, but that's a main street zone district and they can't actually know they could do you. Right. 100% residential. The that's it. Very minimal square footage in all the redevelopment of that community. And so when when we create this zone district and we don't have other regulating tools in place, we're sort of at the whim of the of the market in the industry. And hopefully those agreements are being hammered out with the FHA and that whatever vision is going to that's out there is going to come to fruition. But that's just my just general disposition is that, you know, we have spent a lot of public money getting these neighborhood plans to this point and all this documentation. We actually had all the formative legwork to go the next step, which is to sort of more compelling regulations. And instead we went the rezoning, which, like I said, any property owner could have done and made this exact CPD would have made the exact same case. So, I mean, there's no again, there's no compelling reason why the I mean, the criteria is met, but it's just I just it's so I feel for you earthlings know, like I said, you would have been facing it in a different format as well. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I actually had the opportunity to work on the Federal Decatur stationary plan before I was on council as a stakeholder. And it's one of those plans that I always think back to now whenever we're embarking on any kind of plan in the communities that I serve today, because the community outreach and engagement was so robust and so creative and there was just so, so many community members involved and their voices being heard and engaged in that process, like maybe no other plan I've ever seen. And, you know, I think that the the plan is pretty clear on this. And unfortunately, you know, I mean, and I've also had the opportunity to go and visit with earthlings and just phenomenal work being done over there. So it is one of those rock and a hard place kind of things. But at the end of the day, the the volume of community input that went into that plan and the engagement and the buy in of that community. And then, you know, as Earthlings mentioned, coming in and knowing that that plan was there, being able to look at that plan and take a calculated risk. And to be honest with you, it may still pan out just fine because as you've heard somebody, just because they have eight story zoning doesn't mean that they build eight storeys. But as my colleagues have pointed out, the criteria that we are tasked with looking at with this is clear. And this is is well within that criteria. And also, you know, I think on top of that, I think why we have the criteria that does this lineup with neighborhood plan, especially neighborhood plans that are as new as they are, is to respect the fact that this is what the community decided was the vision for this area . And that is is is bigger than individual land uses. And so, again, my my heart goes out. I hope that we can find some creative solutions. And some of this may, you know, resolve itself as buildings get built. But this is the vision. And a clear roadmap was laid out. And it clearly meets the criteria that we're faced with as this community continues to grow into a plan that had so much engagement and buy in. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, President Pro Tem Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of my comments have have been shared by my colleagues. You know, Earthlings could have chosen to not want to be included within the boundaries. But that wouldn't have solved the problem. The the the height would have. Been there from adjacent properties and that would have still had the same impact on Earthlings had you chosen to go that route. This Saturday, I had the opportunity to go over to the Delta Center at 34th and Eudora and they have an incredible facility which is much larger than the grow house, which is in the O'Leary neighborhood . And they're doing hydroponics and aquaponics. And I really believe this is the direction that food sustainability needs to move towards because, you know, otherwise we're reliant on just so many days of sunlight to to grow our food in in this city. And so I, too, am committed to working with you all to find a more long term solution. I think it's incumbent on us as a city to be looking at supporting more of these types of projects. And, you know, I firmly believe that we need to be incorporating food sustainability into all of our developments, that we should be having more solar gardens, we should be having, you know, more green space that requires gardening as opposed to grass or, you know, other types of of vegetation. But. The other thing I want to mention is that once this up zoning passes, the pressures will be incredible for developers to want to purchase and assemble enough land to be able to do more development. And as much as you all want to retain affordability and retain that neighborhood feel of the Sun Valley community. I think those pressures are going to be real. Just like we've seen at all the other TOD sites where land is being assembled and resold. So those of you who are property owners, I would just strongly encourage you to, you know, to drive that train and not let it be driven by somebody else. If if that's the destiny that you all want for the neighborhood is to really dictate what that development is going to look like, what it's going to feel like , how it interfaces with the properties to the south and the school. And, you know, I think the school is going to be an even more important asset in that neighborhood as you have more bodies that would would move to the neighborhood, whether it's, you know, some of the Todd land that's that's closer to the rail stop that will be developed or whether it will be any of these parcels. So I think the the challenges will come with as the city works with you to widen that street. Obviously, if this zoning goes through tonight, it more likely will those of you who are property owners, the city will have to be paying more for that land to widen that street because of the change in the zoning. So those are just some inherent issues that are real that we'll be dealing with down the road. Like many of my colleagues have shared. I think because this has been part of the overall plans for this area. And, you know, Sun Valley is one of those communities that, as Phil Kasper said earlier. There's been lots of requests to have attention paid to this neighborhood. I can remember when we had many of the single family homes on 13th Avenue who couldn't get a loan to do fix up work on those homes because of the industrial zoning that they had. And so people were kind of stuck, you know, at the mercy of of trying to find some other way to get their homes improved because banks wouldn't lend to them. And so this neighborhood has dealt with many challenges over the years. And I think the changes that are yet to come will will absolutely benefit the neighborhood, the opportunities to get a nearby grocery store. The fact that you currently have such great access to the light rail station at Federal Boulevard and in. What is that, 14th avenue? Yeah, um, just. Just add to the opportunities for the people who live in the neighborhood and, you know, I know you need to create that synergy and have more, more bodies in the neighborhood. But I think it's important for this to move forward. And I'm going to be voting for it tonight. But I am absolutely committed to working with earthlings in trying to find another way to still keep that food sustainability available. And I just want to commend you for your work that you do with the homeless population as well, because that is such an important element of us as a city trying to find tools and solutions to helping get people back to work. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish I had an answer to all these a rock and a hard place deals that come before us. And I think I could as far as meeting the criteria that were charged with addressing, I think I could make a dying swan grasp at impacting an agricultural use in a negative manner. May not be me meeting the health and welfare of our community. For me. Feel like Simon Legree Earthlings knew what the possibility of what they were getting into. The main thing is, I would like to. Strengthen our cities attention to small area plans. Rather than Chip added Because I've had small area plans in my district, Chip Dad and development take place that the neighborhood majority voice spoke against. So that is a major element in it as far as gentrification or not gentrification. If it. I could get a written contract that whatever is going to happen on this plot of land is going to benefit the current residents and their families for generations. I'd be saluting this in a New York minute. But my what I've been seeing unfolding in our city. Is. That's not the case. I have the same worries for Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, you know, and the changes that are coming to those neighborhoods. If this is going to benefit them, absolutely. Without question. I hope that be the case. For me, the guiding factor is a clear neighborhood process, a clear neighborhood plan. But this is not a yes vote I'm going to be happy about, not 100%. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah, just this is just dovetailing on what Councilman Cashman said and specifically, actually what Councilman Clark said. He said that this is a community vision. When he was recounting his experience with the Decatur station. And and so I want. What? Also I wanted to comment to my colleagues is that yeah, those, those plans are just what you said in the way you said it about that vision and it's implemented in the plan. But somehow we end up just looking at that map. There's a there's all those pictures and there's a lot of words in there that talk about a lot of things. But we end up just looking at the map and and if it says eight and the purple is shaded the right shade, the justification is largely there, and then the rest is sort of boilerplate stuff. So to what I mean, sorry, Councilman Catherine, you know, I'm starting to think that we need to figure out what the tools are to actually capture the rest of that plan. Yeah. More robustly in these decision making processes. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, you're back. Yeah. Just really quickly, I think it bothers me to hear folks on this say that they have questions about the community process. I think it won. We've had it. I think we've been working on this for, what, eight months per. Close to eight months. Started out with community. Countless community meetings read. We had meetings in your shop. Had meetings in your facility. To her the site. Fact that we started this the the actual vision for this community plan. Federal to Cater Station plan since, what, 2001? They say that there's a lack of community process as such a misnomer is so incorrect. It's community that brought this to my desk. And so I assure you that that is the case. And secondly, you know, got to go back to the dictionary and look at gentrification. So it is that this placement. Is the fact that so many people in this city, if they look like my skin color, they walk into a bank. Chances are they're going to get the night alone. Discrimination is rampant, especially for folks in this neighborhood. The fact that somebody has an industrial use and simply wants to put in a windows in their house or, you know, try to find financing so they can stay in their house. That's a big deal. And yet, you know, we're going to say, well, we want to limit their property rights because we want to grow for five months out of the year to help homelessness. Which is a good and very noble cause. But we got to step back and look at the big picture. Is the fight in the homeless? Is it going to be right here in that parcel at this particular rezoning? The fight to close the food desert in Sun Valley, is it going to be on this particular rezoning? There's so much more that's going to take place in. And you know, if you really want to implement the plan and have this customized zoning that Rafael Espinosa love so much about. Right. Then that means your property is going to get taken and you got to give it up. That's just a matter of fact. In the streets in Sun Valley. That's the question that we have. If we're going to widen some of these streets, if we're going to align them, that means that some property is going to get taken. I would love to see you there being the first one to say I'm in. Because I tell you what, it's going to sting when you see the price and what that's going to cost you. So for me, you got to step back. You got to look at the bigger picture. You got to look at the neighborhood plan. You got to look at what's there and what's being implemented. And yes, there was a community process and all poor people are getting pushed out for the sake of. Hipsters are gentrification. This is. Taking it from an industrial use to something that's a little bit better, especially for those residents on that side. Thank you, Mr. President. I support this, obviously. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. There are no more comments. I have some thoughts on this, but I will save them all because I'm so grateful that you're sitting in those hard seats at midnight and you all have worked really hard on this whole neighborhood. And sometimes the decisions go like you want them to, sometimes they don't. And I would just ask that you would stay in it. The fact that you showed up and we got to hear your perspective. You may not feel it, but it has helped this conversation and helped our future success on small area plans, amending plans, working on station area plans. And so I appreciate all of your involvement with that. Madam Secretary. Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye, Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore, i. Herndon. I. Cashman. Yup. Can each. By. Mr. President. I please close the voting, announce results? Lebanese love. Mr. President. No, no, no. It's a Lebanese because a settlement is not here. To be true. But, yeah. It didn't work. LOPEZ It's good. That's why we have you here. Just for the record, it didn't show up. Okay. Computers. Okay, let me get through this. 1212 I's council. 563 has passed. There is some pre adjournment announcements. The first one is Councilwoman Black, Councilman Lopez, myself. We need to get a hat for the CSU ram.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotions Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $2,490, offset by the Third Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to the Friends of Belmont Shore for summer concert; and Decrease appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotions Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $2,490 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_07132021_21-0649

In fact, and I'm not sure if there are there are folks here for any of the funds transfer item items or not, but we have so many of those. Why don't we just do those ones right now and just get those out of the way? Because your staff in the back we have let's do item 22, 23, 25, 31, 33 and 34 all funds transfers. We can just read those all into the record and we'll take one vote. So that starts with item 21. Did you say. I believe there are items 22, 23, 25, 31, 33 and 34 I think are all the funds transfer items. Item 22 Communication from Councilwoman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $2,490 to provide a donation to the Friends of Belmont Shore for Summer Concert. Item 23 Communication from Councilwoman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $460 to provide a donation to children today for the annual 3rd of July celebration. Big Bang on the Bay. Item 25 Communication from Councilwoman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 2300 to provide a donation to the Community Action Team for their annual community events. Item 31 Communication from Councilwoman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 6000 for a community concert on August 1st, 2021. Item 33 Recommendation and Communication from Councilman Austin Councilmember Your UNGA recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 2000 to provide a donation to the Los Cerritos Neighborhood Association to support the summer concerts at Los Cerritos Park. And Item 34 recommend a communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a contribution to the Partners of Parks to support the Juneteenth 2021 celebration. Item 35 Communication from Councilwoman Sara. Recommendation to approve the expenditure of $5,000 in the General Fund group as a reward for information identification. I'm sorry, that's not a fund transfer. That's correct. 35 needs to be heard separately. Thank you. Great. That was it. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Is your public comment or any of these funds transfers? No public comment on those items. Councilman Price, anything? Councilman Sara. Anything? Okay, then. Let's go. We have a motion in a second. Please cast your votes. Councilwoman Mango. And it's just for the public. The councilman's system is not working. So she's sitting over in the eighth District. I'm renting a seat in the eighth District tonight. Motion carries a zero. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go back to our our study session then, and which we have scheduled today, which is a big staff presentation. I want to I'm going to open it up and let me know, Mr. Modica, when you guys are set up and ready.

Recommendation to approve expenditure of $10,000 as a reward for information to solve the murder of Fred Taft on July 21, 2018.

LongBeachCC_09042018_18-0791

Communication from Mayor Garcia, Councilwoman Mongo, Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilmember Richardson recommendation to approve expenditures of $10,000 as a reward for information to solve the murder of Fred Taft on July 21st, 2018. He was going to he was going to say, you just thank you. Let me. Say sorry. Okay. There we go. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Court. And I do want to just begin by making some comments. I had a chance to make these comments earlier to the public and to the family as well, who I know is here. I'll repeat some of them because they are they are important. We know that the incredibly tragic murder that happened in our community has been horrible to watch and unfold in our community. We know that the Taft family is here today and they deserve justice and answers for the murder of Fred Taft, someone that was a son and a father, a family member, a friend. And from everything that I've heard from family members and the community, someone that was very joyous and loved life, we're we know that the entire community mourns this tragedy. We also know that we're doing everything that we can to bring the perpetrator or perpetrators to justice. In this case, we're also and continue to ask the public to please bring any information possible to help bring justice to the Taft family and healing for the community. We have been working with L.A. County, the county of Los Angeles, and Supervisor Janice Hahn to put together a reward for any information that would lead our department to the arrest of whoever did this heinous and horrific act of hate. We want to ensure that we get this individual off our streets. And we believe and we know that with these reward, this reward that we're putting forward today, we hope we can make that even a reality sooner. The sooner the better. We are matching today the $10,000 that the county is putting forward. We will also put forward $10,000 for a $20,000 reward on information that could be helpful for us to catch the person that killed Mr. Taft. I want to of course, I appreciate everyone that was there earlier today at the at the press event, especially the family. And I want to thank County Supervisor Janice Horne for her support. This would not be possible without her and of course, of the department and particularly the detectives who are working on this case. I just want to thank them and I hope that this helps bring some additional additional closure and justice to this case. And so the motion there is a motion and a second I want to I know we have some folks that want to make some comments. So Councilman Richardson, who's made the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to take a moment and express my deep, deep condolences to the family, to the Taft family. This was, you know, across kitchen tables and living rooms all across the city. People were just shocked by this incident. And I you know, I have to tell you, you know, this isn't this isn't the Long Beach that we want to represent. We want to make sure everybody knows that our parks are safe for everybody no matter what. You know what your ethnic makeup is, no matter what side of town you are in, we have to make sure that we are very clear about that. And so if there was anything more that we could do, I offer my office, my support to you. I want to thank Supervisor Hahn for stepping up and offering this this reward. I want to acknowledge to our police officers who've kept the council up to speed on this, and they've been sort of leaning forward and doing everything they can. And I want to thank the mayor for stepping forward and suggesting that the city council offer this additional reward. So with that said, I offer my condolences and my support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilman Austin. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And also, I'd like to express my deepest sympathy to the Taft family. I had an opportunity to speak with you all a little earlier today, and we'll let you know that that this this myself and I think this entire council is with your family. We want to make sure that we are doing everything we can do. We give our P.D. all the tools and resources they have. They they need to work to bring this this monster who is currently on our streets to justice. These types of acts in public restrooms are violent. Acts are not, will not and cannot be tolerated in our city in any way. And I know there's been some some controversy over, you know, how we classify what happened. I can tell you that anybody who can, you know, use a firearm and take an innocent life in a public restroom has nothing but evil and hate in their hearts. And so. This individual has to be brought to justice. And so to the public, if anybody has any sort of information whatsoever, hopefully you're listening at home. Your conscience is is pulling on you. Please give our Long Beach PD a call. If you with any information you can to help solve this case. I'll be supporting this item enthusiastically. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Vice Mayor Andrews? Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank the Taft family for being here today. This morning, I had an opportunity to speak to these individuals, and I'm hopeful that with the approval of this fund, some will come forward. This family needs comfort and closure. And while they may never heal completely, knowing that someone is being held responsible for this senseless killing may help. I will keep this family in my prayers. And if anyone knows someone, something or someone, please come forward. Because definitely that may help. And I want to let every one of you know that this is something that we cannot tolerate. And we will do everything we can to bring this individual individuals to justice. Thank you very much. VEGA Councilman. Councilmember Pearce I just want to echo the same sentiments of my council colleagues and say that my heart is with you and that we are prepared to make sure that our PD has all the tools they need to find who did this and to make sure that you all also know what we're fighting to find this person and bring them to justice. The city is here to help support you. We have a great health department with mental health services that really help you whenever you're going through times like this. I know how hard it can be. So, yes, I'm extremely happy that we are putting together the resources to be able to track this person down, but know that even after they are found, we are still your family and we are still here to help you through this hard time. So thank you. Thank you very much. Councilwoman, at this time is our public comment on this item, which is the reward. Kate, seeing no seeing no public comment on the. Yes, please come forward. Good evening. Thank you. My name's Mary Ann Drummond. I'm in their district. And as a Long Beach citizen. And I'd just like to make a few points. One, of course, I think we can all agree that nobody, no family. Should go through. Something like this. Right. There's just. There are no words for that. And we need to really be standing up for that. And I really appreciate. What folks have said about standing behind. The family and doing. Whatever can be done. And I also want to resist the urge to minimize what happened, the the context. Of who and how long and at what time of day and with what nonchalance this all happened, right? I think in today's society. It's all with today's noise. It's easy to maybe get exhausted or. Want or even want to to look at it in the face and say. That's a lot to look at. But I think that in understanding that. You know, this is a white man in the middle of the day. Within seconds of Frederick Taft walking into that. Restroom. Is effectively executed. And he saunters out. Right. So this is I mean, that's if. That's just. Excruciatingly disturbing. Right. And I don't want that to be lost on folks. I don't want to see that being minimized. I am just really grateful and urging for your support on this, on supporting this to do whatever we can. And I also want to mention that. You know, like white supremacy activity like that and we tend to look at Charlottesville. Charlottesville is not. It's the tip of the iceberg. Things like this, things like that. Have happened all over and including in the Southland, so including San Bernardino and Santa monica. And there have been a lot of so the kinds of things that are brewing in general out there. This is a scary thing to have had it happen and. And potentially inspiring some of that. Sort of. Thinking. So at any rate. Thank you so much. And for taking this deeply seriously. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Esteemed Council. Members. Mayor Garcia. Hello, I'm Shelley Walther, and I'm a member of the Lakewood Village community in Long Beach. I'm here to ask you to support the $10,000 reward to help find the man who murdered Frederick Taft at Panama American Park on the afternoon of July 21st. When I first heard that someone had been murdered. In broad daylight. In our neighborhood park and the racial circumstances surrounding. Surrounding the crime, I didn't want to believe that. Such a horrific act had been committed. I'm deeply concerned with the Long Beach Police Department's lack of response regarding the murder in our community. It seems like our community is doing. Most of the work. My Lakewood Village neighbors are unifying to support the Taft family and to stand against white supremacist hate acts. We're collectively seeing and hearing. Comments made by Long Beach residents in response to the murder. Such as. They're keeping out the riff raff. And our city is being taken over more and more. Which tells you the extent of racism that exists in Long Beach. I want you to know. That the majority of our community is unifying in love. And doing what is right by calling out hate and hopefully drawing out information about the killer. Many residents have started putting out the sign as a as a as unity to fight. Against the hate that we feel is brewing. It's painful knowing to. Go to Pan-Am Park now, knowing that such a hateful act occurred there and the killer is at large. I feel like I'm going to vomit as I approach that restroom. I see children of color playing in the park. Do they know that? What happened there? Do they know that they're in danger? It's been over a month since Fred Taft was murdered. Why, if a murderer is among us. Are my white neighbors and I not more afraid? Could it possibly be because my skin is the right color? Resources need to be considered, including asking the. FBI to. Investigate this as a hate crime. And to bring forward information about the killer. Himself. I hope the. City and the Long Beach Police Department will step up and take action against hate in our community. We have to be honest about the judgments that surround this case and not allow them to continue or to proliferate. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Vicky Yamashita. I am a 25 year resident of Lakewood Village and I live in the fifth District. I my home is about 100 yards away from Pan American Park. And from my driveway, I can actually see the restroom where Fred spent the last moments of his life. And like many Lakewood resident Lakewood Village residents, this is the place where. We. Very comfortably and without giving a second thought, took our kids to play, walked our dogs and taken even a late night stroll, feeling quite safe until very recently. And unfortunately, this park is never going to feel the same for those of us who have this relationship with them. But I don't want this to sound like it's about me, because this is not at all about my loss. This is about the loss of a family that is grieving and trying to grapple with what in the hell happened that day? On that day that was supposed to be a day of family celebration. I'm here tonight to ask the council to support the $1,000 reward. It sounds like I will be thanking you. It sounds like everyone is in support of this, but in hopes that this aids in the apprehension of this of this killer. I'm also here to. Ask people to. Go into. A place that's. Kind of uncomfortable, and that is to talk and think about race and how that affects all of us in our day to day lives. I'm asking for the Long Beach Police Department to provide as much transparency and information that they can without jeopardizing the case, of course, to support the Taaffe family and the residents of Lakewood Village and to assure us that all of the reported racist incidents that were surrounding this crime and the dates of the crime are taken into proper account. We're talking about some of the racist taunts that have been reported and some of the racist graffiti that has been documented there. Hate has no place in in Lakewood Village unless we let it. But what we need to do and be willing to do is to look at it really openly and transparently. And so to that end, I, too, have one of the signs that we have a smaller version and a lawn version sign. And this is a show of solidarity to the family and to the fellow residents to say that hate has no, no place here and that we want to look at this crime kind of with eyes wide open. In my closing statements, I'd like to say that if we're going to continue to grow as a community, everyone, the residents, the city officials and law enforcement must all be willing to lean in. Someone said that that phrase a few minutes earlier to talk to each other honestly and most of all to really listen to each other and even and especially when these conversations can make us uncomfortable, when we are talking around about topics such as race and white supremacy, I feel that this is the only way that a city like ours can have the full bragging rights for the diversity that so many of us cherish in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor and city council members. My name is Michael Swalwell, sir. I am the president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach. I am a 30 year resident of Lakewood Village. I've passed through Pan American Park almost every day for the last eight years when I added a morning walk as part of my daily exercise . I walked before the sun came up, and every so often, late at night, I rarely worried about my safety. Then Fred tapped was murdered. Fred was a man. As am I. Fred was middle age. I am too. Fred was a grandfather. So am I. And I visit the park with my granddaughter. Fred was a responsible member of the community. I think the same of myself. But I feel no more afraid today than I did before Fred was murdered because that we have much in common. There is a crucial difference between Fred Taft and myself. Fred Taft was black and I'm white. If the reward being proposed is approved and it leads to the conviction of the white man seen leaving the murder scene, justice will not be fully served. That will only happen if the city takes meaningful actions to address the climate that encourages a hate crime such as this to occur. I'm not saying it's among everyone, but it is pervasive and it is present. And unless we think there isn't such a climate, I went to read a comment posted on the social media app Nextdoor in which people identify themselves. So this is not anonymous. It's a post that I find filled with misinformation and irrelevancy. I am all for fighting the killer. But putting up a tree or a plaque to commemorate the life of Fred Taft might be going a little too far. The year was that the family reunion was a blood family reunion. Did you see in the TV interview how the whole family was wearing red if he was an old gangbanger from years ago? I don't want to celebrate his life. I'm not trying to be mean. But I know he. Was because I know he was an innocent victim in this case. But how the gangs have destroyed every neighborhood they have been involved in, with all the drugs and the murders and the extortion and everything else they do. I'm just saying, before you put up a plaque, make sure the man was never part of all that. All right. A concert. Just what I want you to make sure. Mr. Good. Here's our last public speaker. I'm going to close the speakers list on this item. Okay. So, Mr. Jeans and then and then that's the final public speaker. I'm going to close the speakers list. I just want to be for Mr. Spencer. It's just to the just to the three folks that just spoke. I just want to thank you for coming forward and saying what you said, but most importantly, for standing up within your own community and saying what you said and being vocal about it within your neighborhood. That is not something that a lot of people choose to do. And I'm aware of the types of comments that are put on on that site and have read things equal to or worse. In some ways, that disgusts me, and I'm sure a lot of people should feel the same way. But but to the three folks that just spoke. You know, allies and people that support these types of conversations are so important and the work can't always be left to a community. And I think that that allyship is really, really important. And so I just wanted to thank those folks for come. And that was, I can tell, your passion there. So thank you. Mr.. Good to you. Larry Good. You. I've lived in Long Beach since 1977. And in all candor, I don't think I don't think I've ever set foot in that park or much of the northern parts of Council District eight or nine. But a few months ago and I forget what the crime was. It triggered by thinking on this. There was another crime. It was either in the eighth or ninth District and. The only time I would traverse through those areas would be on the blue line. And when you go up on the blue line, you're generally looking at your newspaper or reading and don't pay that much attention to what what's on either side of you. About it was about 18 maybe excuse me, about two and a half months ago when they had that MTA bus debacle from Artesia up to Rosa Parks, which stopped at every single corner, every red light, every intersection there was for three to 5 to 8 minutes and so forth in some cases . And as it is looking out there, I think it's the Mingus Hills area and so forth. And I had been reading about some crimes, and it occurred to me that the thought process is what would those people live up there? Be safer and be better off if they fell under the EGIS and protection. Of the county or whoever it is that is taking care of Dillinger's hills and those surrounding the surrounding areas. I don't know the extent of all the crimes up there, but I do know our police department is stretched thin, notwithstanding some very good management now. And so I think it's worthwhile taking a look. To see what how the best interests of the public that live there and have to deal with what's going on can be best served. And I think we should ask the city needs to ask itself some hard questions and would they be better with the better served? By. Having the Long Beach, the the county patrol, that area or some other paradigm. Other than Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Diane. The jeans. I fully support this effort to. Put forward a word. It's about time. I absolutely support it. And I. Would invite you. The. Next time. If anyone has a criticism. Of the football. Players or whoever decides to sit or kneel during the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance to Remember. This type of. Incident they're bringing. They're not being disrespectful. They're trying to bring attention to. This type of situation. It's horrendous. I can't even imagine how the family must feel. Not just. That he was murdered, but he was he was murdered. Because of his the color of his skin. And so when. I see these people. In fact, I. Personally. Normally do not stand. I continue my work and I sit because when the Pledge of Allegiance says, end justice, liberty and justice for all. And that was stolen from this gentleman. So every time any time you ever anyone that's watching this. Before you. Criticize someone sitting or kneeling. Remember, this is the type of incident that is the surrenders type of incident. That they are protesting. So please think think about it. And I absolutely support what you're doing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Logins. There's there's a there's a motion and a second. I have some some councilmembers here. So, Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. And we want to thank everybody for showing up. And thank you for those that spoke today. And also want to apologize for, you know, the agenda item today was around the $10,000. And we have a long agenda will likely be here. So who knows when one or two. And so we just kind of plow through and say, okay, this is what we want to do. But part of the work that I care deeply about on this council, I know my council colleagues care deeply about is around governing, not just for equity, but for racial equity. And that we as a council have struggled with how do we talk about these conversations? How do we make sure that it's not just us up here, but that we are implementing a culture and a process that allows us to pause and talk about the one thing that I firmly believe if we govern for racial equity, everything else thrives, that if we govern for those that have been impacted by the police system, by hate crimes, by violence, by drugs, by all of that, that our entire city is going to be better for it. So I really want to thank you for having us pause. And I want to ask staff, I know that, you know, Councilmember Rex Richardson helped lead the Office of equity and I wanted to ask staff have just some follow up can be done in the community around facilitating some meetings around some of the hate crimes. I know that I've had hate crimes in my district in the past, but some process with the Office of Equity and maybe our Human Relations Commission where we can talk about a space for both of the communities to come together and identify, maybe there's just a little bit of a process that we could put in place there so that we can we can figure out outside of tracking down this person, are there some community events, some? I like your signs. I like the idea of signs that say Long Beach isn't a place for hate. You know, like just have us have that conversation so we don't let this moment pass us by without us taking the opportunity to talk about race a little bit more. My question. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember a Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just the just the question. Mr. WEST. So we've done rewards in the past. What were the levels on the rewards? The you know, in the in recent history. I believe we've matched what the county has done. The county's done. I believe that one reward at 25, one reward at 20. I believe. So. And then we match those. Yes. We basically took the lead from the county. Okay. I would say I remember a number of those and they just seemed higher. And and I do appreciate the county offering $10,000 for not limit it to stop at $10,000. If we wanted to offer a $25,000 reward, something like that. We have the ability to do so. Correct. Okay. Well, that said, I think that we should be very clear that we're not you know, it's a tricky assigning a value associated with someone's life is very tricky. So I think we should begin to talk about a standard when we issue a reward or a match for reward, you think about a standard. So what was the what was the amount on the last one? I'd like to get to that level. It was 25,000. It was 22 individuals. Okay. So if the council were like, I'm going to amend my motion to make our match 20,000 instead of ten. And we'll we'll go ahead we'll go ahead and accept that. I think what we've and I support that we've done traditionally, of course, is the county will tell us the number and then we'll match the county. But it's absolutely appropriate for the council to decide a number. And I think that that's a maybe a practice that we've done in the past. It should be change moving forward as well. Absolutely. So that so that just we make sure I have the motion on the floor. Councilmember it's. Did you say 20? Is it. From 22? From 10. To 20. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. So we have the new motion on the floor, which is 20,000. See no other no other speakers. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to appreciate my colleagues, both Mayor Andrews and Councilman Austin and Councilmember Richardson, for supporting this item with me. And I appreciate the idea of bringing the total reward up to 30,000. So 20 plus the ten. This has been a very, very trying time for the community. I appreciate those of you who have stayed engaged. I know that it has been a long process, but I want you to know that there is no limit to the amount of police investigative resources that have been put forward. At no time has anyone in detectives bureau been told they cannot do overtime if there's any lead that they have. Commander Herzog even updated me on Friday when I was at Memorial. That they were authorizing additional overtime for investigations that were necessary. And I know he's even put in some of his time out of another division. So the day we find this person will not come soon enough. Thank you for your continued efforts and keeping this at the forefront. Okay. Well, thank you very much. We have a we have a motion in a second for a $20,000 reward that will be match with what the county did earlier today. Please go ahead, members, and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And again, I particularly want to thank the Taft family who I know is here, family and friends. So thank you again. I know you were with us earlier and we appreciate you being here again today. I know it's very taxing and we appreciate it greatly. So thank you. Let me go ahead and move on with with the regular agenda now. We do have, of course, before we start our hour meeting, we do have a continuation of the budget hearing. And so today for the budget hearing, we have harbor department, we have the water department, and then we will have further discussions on the budget. Obviously, the budget can be adopted tonight. It could also be adopted at the deadline, which would be next week. And so that would be the the option of the council that they'll be discussing a little bit later today. So we do have some for presentations and I know questions as well. And so we will begin with our harbor department presentation and then we'll go into a wider department presentation and we'll go into questions on on those

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0004

I'd have never to go read it. That would be you. Course. It's a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and declare the ordinance. Amending the zoning regulations of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of billboards offsite advertising. Read the first time lead over to the next meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to the Met to submit ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission for finding of performance with the logo with the Certified Local Coastal Program and to accept the categorical, categorical exemption of C 13 118. Thank you. Ms.. Frick. Yes, Mayor. Members of the council tonight seems to be the night where we hopefully conclude many issues that have been undergoing analysis and debate for years on end. This is one of those items, billboards, and we're hoping to present to you something that the council, in fact, will approve tonight so that we can get this taken care of. And Amy Burdick will provide the staff report is broader. I'm still. Here. Yes. Aren't we all? I apologize for my items. So we are here to talk to you about billboards tonight. You're probably familiar with this. 2009. It goes back to 2009 where the city council adopted a moratorium. The council extended that moratorium for a year and then asked us to come back with some revisions to the billboard ordinance. We did that in December of 2011. The first reading of the ordinance was presented and approved. The second reading of the ordinance did not pass. So the ordinance failed for lack of a majority vote. In March of 2012, we did come forward with some changes to off premise advertising, which you did approve. And then in October of this year, 2013, you directed us to go back to our original language from December of 2011. We have done that. In fact, you also asked us in October of 2013 to add some language related to the ability to enter into development agreements. For. The development of electronic billboards. So we have done that. We have presented to you an ordinance. We did take the liberty of making a couple of cleanup changes in the ordinance as well. And in the past six weeks or so, we have had meetings with all four major billboard companies to discuss the changes that we are proposing . In essence, we are suggesting that conversion of billboards to an electronic format could be permitted within the city. It does involve a cap and trade program, if you will, or a take down program with the goal of removing billboards in non-conforming areas. So we have presented to you the original language. We have made a couple of changes, as I said, to clarify the findings that we would make on a copy. And we are prepared to move forward with staff's proposal tonight. I'm sure you have questions. I'll wait for them. Okay, Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mayor and Miss Frick. You're right. This certainly has been a long, long saga. But we'll see what we do tonight. I first of all, I want to thank staff, particularly Amy Bodak, for your long, hard work on this item. And you democracy may not be the fastest system, but I do think it's the best because we'll end up having I think is a better product from robust discussion. So I just want you know, I think this council appreciates particularly your efforts whenever you have something that makes everybody happy, that's the nature of democracy. But I think tonight. Yeah, so that's that's pretty close to the best we're going to get. I do have one question. Miss Bodak, we had discussed about the map you had produced several times before, but I want to make sure it was available publicly and hopefully attach the item. Mr. City Clerk If possible, could you describe that map as. Modica? My understanding is this map, at least as that. Or as currently reads, shows the public where electronic billboards could be if I granted a copy accurate? Yes, sir. We did pass the maps out and we did work with the city clerk's department and the city clerk to make sure that this is attached to the agenda item. This map was originally presented in 2011 and it shows the approximate location of all 350 plus billboards within the city and our approximation of where we think the billboards could go in the future. This is an approximation. We did lay out the zones that they would be allowed, and we did include a landscaped freeway buffer as defined by Caltrans to try to demonstrate what areas of the city we expected electronic billboards to occur. It is an art rather than a science because it does depend on, you know, the approval of each individual copy. So we. We. Can't present this with with 100% accuracy, but certainly our best guess. Well, thank you, Ms.. Bodak and I encourage everyone who is interested to take a look at that online. I think the bottom line is that vast areas of the city, including residential neighborhoods, are not eligible for electronic billboards. Is that is that correct? As a as a generalization? Yes, sir. That's very fair to say. All right. Well, with that, I would like to go ahead and move the staff recommendation the second. The O'Donnell. Secondary. There's emotion in the second Constable Lowenthal. No past. Thank you. Councilmember Neal. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Miss BODETT, could you explain subsection C to me, please? Specifically 21.5 4.170. Yes. I think his. Page. Yes. So what we have defined under this ordinance, all billboards that don't have a copy would be considered non-conforming. That was not our intention. We are trying to define certain billboards as being non-conforming and then allow for the opportunity for other billboards to be converted. So the the the billboards that fall under this category, are you familiar with them? I believe it's like five of them. Are they conforming now? Are they are they conforming under our current? Well, no. They're not. They would be non-conforming. And. Have we. Had. But they're conforming under state law, correct? No. They would not be. If this is a defined landscape buffer under Caltrans definitions, they would not be able to build a billboard there now. Okay. So these particular billboards have been grandfathered in and they've been there for so long that. Have they had? I guess what I'm getting at is have we had complaints and challenges in regards to these as far as people trying to a requesting that they be removed. I'm not sure. What. Five billboards you're referring to. My understanding is that they are loaned the the four or five freeway. So there are a number of billboards along the four or five freeway and there are a number of electronic on-premise signs along the four or five freeway that the two electronic signs that you see on the four or five freeway are not considered billboards. So we do not have any electronic billboards today in the city. We only have static billboards. So we don't have experience in dealing with complaints related to electronic billboards because we technically don't have any in the city. Well, I would like to move a friendly amendment on this, if we could. And just as we strike subsection C 21.5 4.17 on. Okay. There's. Well. There was that. I'm sorry. I wanted to clarify that, actually. Was that a friendly amendment or without a substantive motion? No friendly amendment. Okay. Well, that's where Johnson. Thinks by spirit. Well, I guess I'd ask staff. Describe why. What is section C? What does it do? And what was staff's intention in placing subsection C? And finally, and I usually only ask three part questions, I apologize, but what would be the effect of removing subsection C? So we have defined existing billboards that are built within landscape buffers to be non-conforming, meaning that they would not be able to be built today. They're they're essentially illegal or non-conforming. We have established a series of criteria to define those billboards which we would allow to be converted, and those billboards which we do not believe should be converted. The removal of this section would negate the purpose of the ordinance, which is to remove non-conforming billboards. I'm sure you had more questions, sir. I can't remember them all. Oh, yeah. So based on what you're saying is the purpose of the substantive C is to provide an incentive for the billboard companies to participate in the cap and trade and convert to electronic or. In a sense, yes. You know, there are a number of billboards throughout the city that we believe should not convert to digital. And we believe that by complying with the Caltrans standards of not allowing an electronic billboard within the landscape, buffer is one of those situations. There is one caveat where an existing billboard within the landscape landscaped buffer along the four or five freeway could convert. And that is if they acquire credits through Caltrans, which a number of the billboard companies already have, and that Caltrans would allow them to use their credits that they've gained from another location in the state and apply them to the Long Beach location. Our ordinance specifically allows that to occur within the landscaped buffer, provided that they have the Caltrans credits and apply those to the Long Beach location. Otherwise, we are treating this as a consistent land use. We are not segregating one company versus another. We are looking at this as as one land use issue across the board. We have determined, you know, that there is a number of of non-conforming billboards within the city that that should be removed, that are in inappropriate locations. And the removal of this section would negate that purpose. I will given staff's opinion that removal would be against the integrity of the statute and given the fact we've talked about for three years. Mr. Neal, I respectfully not want to take that amendment. Are you making a substitute or are you just leaving it as is for now? I think I'm just going to leave it at that. Councilman O'Donnell. I actually James Johnson asked my question. So I'm I'm ready to hear from the public. Okay. So, you know, other counties coming in right now, I'm going to open it up to public comment. Please step forward if you have a comment. Good evening, Vice Mayor, council members. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. We stand in support of this amendment. We have an agreement with a couple of the billboard companies that will put a lot of our folks to work, taking down the illegitimate billboards and putting up whatever new electronic billboards transpire, which are going to put men and women from your community to work. So that's the bare basics of it. So we stand in support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Well, it's a little redundant because there's an agreement that we're going to have electronic billboards. But I would like to give my advocacy that, Proposition two, that we should have electronic billboards. Even if it sounds superfluous for me, I would say it first of all, it's an abridgment a speech. Not to have billboards, to make announcements. And Mr. Parkin might want to address himself to that problem after I'm finished. Would it be in the of the speech not to have them? I would also say that it beautifies the landscape. Really. It's like having lights on a Christmas tree with gifts. It because. Beautiful. Well, having a picture framed. Yeah, it's beautiful. Surely the Japanese and those in Las Vegas have learned this virtue. And that night, their streets are left with billboards that are quite beautiful and gorgeous to behold. Also, it would be to our advantage to see to for the rest of the public to see that we are really concerned with business and what makes business works. These billboards would be advanced and also be business oriented. They provide information. They are a virtue, not a defect, like some socialists might maintain who put a damper on business to attain the so-called public good. Well, it isn't. I would also like to say that this is a cue, Mr. O'Donnell, that when I spoke earlier about about having an advertisement film for a production company, film production companies might be amended to say that a film should be made a half an hour film made but provided with things that would make it memorable. Like Sharman and Champagne, they'll enjoy it and also go along with enlightenment in that regard. Oh, and what is conformity? What is a billboard? It doesn't conform. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Tim Fox. Same with CBS Outdoor based in Los Angeles. Thank you for your time. First, I want to thank staff. As you guys know, it's been a long process and a lot of work has been done. We have a few concerns about the proposed ordinance as it is. I have a letter I'll submit for the record, but the brief synopsis of it is the first issue in table 54 one. I believe the correct was there are some spacing issues that we would like to address. The industry standard in most cities is different than what is stated in the table, and we think that if we could address that and bring in an industry standard which would be approximately 500 feet between what we call posters and a thousand feet between digital signs. It's basically the Caltrans code, but it just maybe a little more clarification. And there is also no spacing entered in one of the boxes if you were going to take an existing sign and expand it. And there was another provision within the proposed ordinance that we're concerned about where if a our company is one of them, we do have inventory within the city that we could use to take down and build digital or convert. There is a requirement that all of the removals have to occur before we're allowed to build a sign. We would hope there would be some discussion on the ability to perhaps build the sign, not turn it on, and then we could do the removals just for some protections to make sure that we don't lose the rights to existing signs. I know that was addressed a little bit in the ordinance, but just maybe some more protection, that type of thing. Other than that, we're happy to move along with the ordinance, you know, and have if you have questions, we'd be happy to answer. But thank you again for all your help. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here on behalf of Regency. I want to clear up some issues on the subsection that was discussed here a minute ago. The purpose and intent, as I recall from the city council three years ago, was to focus on those billboards that were in the residential communities . Subsection C deals. Strictly with freeway billboards that are within the landscape. Area of 660 feet. Nothing but that. So we're talking about very few billboards. Very few faces. In the faces that Councilmember Neal is referring to are five faces that if subsection C was. Left in, there would be deferred. Non-Conforming. Now, what does it mean when they're deemed non-conforming? What it means is, is. That you got to go through a cap and trade program. Okay. So everybody's on board with cap and trade. So 4 to 1 ratio, I'm talking about five faces. So on a 41 ratio, if I've got five faces, then I'm gone. And in fact, in that particular instance, Regency is wiped out of half of their inventory in the city of Long Beach. So are you in a. Position tonight that you. Don't want to take out one subsection C an impact half the inventory of the company here in the city of Long Beach? I don't think so. Your purpose here is to vote on an issue that has to do with the billboards are in a residential community. The ones we're talking about, the. Freeways have never been discussed. Never had opposition. No comments that I'm aware of by any residents here in the city of Long Beach. Furthermore, we're not talking about replacing them with digital. We're talking about just leaving them alone. The reason why Regency. Has these five faces. Is because they had these billboards here longer than state law. They were grandfathered in. I understand where staff's coming from. I understand the fact that they want to be on the same page with state law. That makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, that one sentence in subsection C will basically take half of the inventory out of what Regency currently has and does very well with. I don't think that's your intent tonight. I thought your intent tonight from the last three years of going through this was to focus on the cap and trade program in a residential area with all the billboards are in the residence and what their concerns are not on billboards that nobody really comments about that are on the freeway. So I respectfully request that you consider subsection C all over again to. Remove it and get clarification. On the specific impact of that language. It's one sentence. Thank you very much. Thank you. The public comment. Very good. You? I'm always afraid of the creeping crud. I would suggest it. They've got those. The five billboards that the previous speaker just referenced, that you put in language that if those ever do go digital. Each one will be at a cost of $1,000,000 a month. Which would flow to the city. I don't like to use digital billboards. I've seen what happened up and in L.A. and the creeping crud and I can just see in a matter of it wouldn't be too too long one. Eventually they would be coming in, marching right down into neighborhoods. So restructure the language. So you make it very clear that there exists no conditions under which any digital billboard would be allowed, be it on near the signs that it's on city property or within the city of Long Beach, whether it be near the freeway or in a city that you don't want it. But if, in fact, it does happen. Million dollars per board per month. Thank you. And if you can't figure out what to do with $1,000,000 per boy per month, let me know and I'll show you where the money can best be used. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council members Victor Dela Cruz with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips on land use council to Regency Outdoor Advertising. I just want to follow up on what Mike Murchison had said. The ordinance, as it's currently crafted, has four different types of non-conforming billboards. You have the billboards that are located in residential areas, in plan development districts, all those areas where we don't want billboards to. There are the billboards that are on local streets exactly where you want to remove the billboards from. Three There are the landscape freeway segments, the areas that frankly, nobody cares about. These are freeway oriented billboards that don't disturb residential neighborhoods at all. And then four, there are those billboards that are on rooftops. Those are the non-conforming signs we would like to do is to have subsection C removed because those particular billboards, one, don't disturb any residential neighborhoods and don't hurt the integrity of of our residential neighborhoods. Second, it's important to realize that these billboards on the four or five, we may talk about the integrity of the ordinance and the fact that there's somehow going to be a strong incentive to remove billboards on freeways to participate in the cap and trade. I can assure you that no billboard company is going to remove a single freeway off of the 405 as part of this program. They are way too valuable. These are the cream of the crop of the billboards. And unless if subsection C is not removed, what you would be forcing Regency to do is to take down its freeway, its freeway oriented signs on the four or five, its most valuable signs in order to be able to participate in the digital program. You may recall that at the last council meeting you directed staff to include development agreement language for those companies that could not participate in the cap and trade program. And we'd like to thank staff for working with us to incorporate that language. That language is in there. But unfortunately, because of subsection C, we would be precluded from participating in the development agreement process. What we're asking for is if we want to convert any of these billboards on freeways to digital. We would then go through a whole process of planning, commission planning, commission review, city council review in exchange for significant public benefits for the city and revenue. And you could choose to approve those digital conversions or not. We would still have to go through a very long process, but we would just ask you to remove subsection C so that Regency can participate in this program, just like all of the other billboard companies. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember DeLong. One of the speakers talked about the the permit process and when the the non-conforming signs would be taken down. And could staff elaborate on that? Certainly we did realize that this was be an issue the last time around, and we have tried to write the ordinance that would provide some level of protection to the to the applicant. We do have a requirement that when they get a a C up and a copy is being processed, the Billboard company has to provide us with a list of non-conforming billboards that they intend to remove as part of this cap and trade program. They get to determine which ones they want to put forth in terms of which ones they want to take down. As a package that would be part of their c u p permit. But in order to assure that a billboard does not get constructed or converted, we are going to require that the removal does happen of those non-conforming billboards. The assurances that we have provided is that the c u p, the one year vesting period of the c p is delayed or extended until such time that that bill, that last non-conforming billboard is removed, that they still have a full year under their c p to implement the electronic billboard. There is grave concerns that allowing somebody to essentially build a house and let them move their furniture in, but don't let them live there that they're going to, you know, end up living there when our back is turned. So we do have grave concerns that if we structure it in any other way, that the billboard company will effect effectively flip the switch and that the electronics will commence and we will have no authority to to get them to remove the non-conforming billboards. Okay. So but we're in the process. Do the old billboards come down. After they have been granted ACP by the Planning Commission? They apply for a demolition permits. They can certainly get building permits plan checked, but they don't get to have the building permit for the new electronic billboard until after the demolition of the old billboards are complete. Okay. But I guess my concern is maybe if I own that business, I wouldn't want to turn off all my revenue for X period of time before I had the new revenue coming in. And I guess what I like to propose and you can tell me what truck and would you see is I don't know why we wouldn't do it. More like a certificate of occupancy that will let you build the new board. But you can't occupy you can't activate it until the old billboards are down. And while I understand your concern that somebody might violate that regulation and turn it on, that we need to have a strict enforcement penalty, and I know it's a thousand bucks a day or, you know, do something that's extraordinarily painful, that if you turn on that sign before the old ones are removed, it's going to cost you dearly. I'm pretty sure we would not have a high enough citation that would accommodate that. $1,000 a day to an electronic billboard is really not a lot of money. Our issue is, you know, consistency with how we treat the building code across all land uses. We do not allow occupancy until all requirements are met. And so we are very firm on this. This position. Well. Kind of give me give me an example of that. When you say what's like a billboard, do you tear something down? And then you might have multi-month before you put something up and you lose your revenue in the meantime. Give me an example of something that's similar in the city. I'll give you an example of somebody who's not supposed to demolish a partial house in a in a while. They're waiting for their local coastal development permit and they still do it. Yeah, but they didn't lose revenue. In the meanwhile, we enforce them. Maybe they had rental income that that they ended up kicking out and then we've extended and delayed the process. Right. But that's completely different. That's that's where that building owner chose illegally. But that building owner chose to to move those tenants out and lose revenue. Show me an example where the city is insisting you lose revenue off the existing operation for a period of time. I don't think it's an issue of revenue for us. It's a it's a the perspective of you don't get to have the vested right or the opportunity until you have complied. And so there's there's no creative way that we can come up with to demonstrate that they're going to comply and remove their billboards in order to get the right that we are granting them for the electronics. It is a privilege that we are giving them to to allow them to convert to electronics. I think that's the difference between us. You know, when you say you don't look at the revenue perspective, you're not looking at it from the customer's perspective. They're a customers of the city. So I think we do need to give them the ability to get everything up and running, but they cannot turn it on. They can't occupy it right until they meet that. And then there needs to be some kind of a stiff penalty or some other action. And maybe, you know, we start a process, we have to take it down or something. But I don't know. I think we get here in a different way. And I also think that if a a billboard company tries to challenge us, challenge us and do something illegal, they're going to find it very difficult to continue to do business in the city of Long Beach. So let's let it percolate a little more. But I'm going to come back with a substitute or friendly amendment on this issue before we close it out. But could you also comment on the item regarding the number of feet, the 500 feet, a thousand feet that the gentleman referred to and what our requirements are and which ones are both confirmed to the state? I'm sorry, sir, can you repeat that? So one of the gentlemen talked about that. I guess in the language, it's 500 feet, maybe for some billboard, a thousand feet for a digital billboard, but that doesn't conform with what state code is. Can you elaborate on that? Or if not, we'll have the gentleman come back up and asked the question again. We're actually being more liberal than the state. We are allowing boards within 300 feet. Okay. Could you the gentleman that's a question for you. Could you come back up so we could resolve that? Tim Fox, CBS Outdoor. I'll read the paragraph I put together. Make it hopefully more clear. Sorry about that. Another issue of concern is in table 54, dash one as it relates to spacing between billboards. The city's proposed spacing is a minimum of 300 feet or Caltrans requirements as they are on the freeway. Most, if not all, cities require a spacing distance of 600 feet between larger non digital 672 square feet, what we call bulletins, billboards and 300 feet minimum, sometimes 500 feet, depending on the city. Between the smaller, non-digital, 300 square feet or less. Billboards. Those are called posters. There is also no spacing requirement noted for the enlargement of an existing sign, or at least the way we interpreted the the the table. We would propose that the city adopt the spacing of 600 feet between non-digital billboards, between the size of 300 to 672 square feet, which is a poster in a bulletin. A minimum of 300 feet between billboards, 300 feet or less, and a minimum of 1000 feet between all digital billboards. That's just a proposal. So how does that compare to what staff are recommending at other cities? Again, on on on the electronics, we are much more liberal. We are suggesting a minimum of 300 feet. The speaker just said a thousand feet. Okay. So I still believe that we're being more liberal. Okay, I'm finished for now. But maybe before this comes back, I say I'm going to ask for either friendly or a substitute to address the the permit issue. So perhaps you could give some thought to see if there is any other approach that might be satisfactory to both of us. Thank you. Councilor Johnson Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, but one of the speakers had mentioned about the non-performing billboards along the freeway and the desire to keep them static. If there were a static billboard along a freeway and the ordinance were to pass as proposed. Would that still be allowed to exist? Correct. It would be allowed to exist in its current state, and if the company wished to convert it, that would be allowed if it if that company had Caltrans credits. Okay. So basically illegal non-conforming, it. Would remain illegal non-conforming that would be allowed to remain in its static position. Okay. Thank you. Controversy. Gypsy But I think in following that up, if I understood Mr. Murchison, I think the issue is the the face requirement. It's not just that they should be allowed to continue there, but maybe if you clarify that a little bit more about when he mentioned five, five faces and that if you were to convert, that you lose , is that correct? You lose your inventory. That doesn't make sense. That's not seems to be our intent. Our intent is to remove non-conforming billboards throughout the city. We did not look at one company's inventory over another company's inventory. We kept this at a very neutral level where we did not get into qualifications and scenarios of what billboard would be converted and what building would not be converted. We did instead look at opportunities and granting the privilege of converting to electronic. There is a mechanism for all billboard companies to work with the other billboard companies to remove non-conforming billboards within the city. This ordinance does not limit a company from only removing nonconforming billboards within its own inventory. In fact, it it provides an incentive that when all nonconforming billboards are removed, the conversion is at a 1 to 1 ratio instead of 8 to 1 or 6 to 1 or 4 to 1. So we do stand by the position that this company in particular could continue to maintain its static billboard on the four or five freeway. It could continue to pursue conversion through the receipt of Caltrans credits. And if it wishes to convert to to electronic. Keep that can you or Mr. Chair if we could have the individual who brought that up, could you clarify what their concern focuses on about the five faces and, you know, obliterate the inventory? And I understand that we're not focusing on a particular company, but I think when a business comes and says, if we do this, we lose our inventory. So I do not believe that this is the only company that would be required to remove billboards in order to get the benefit of electronics. I didn't suggest that. But could we just get clarification? I mean, does that that's kind of an onerous thing to be presenting to the councilman? I need to understand a little bit more before I take a vote. I'm going to go and have customer ships. If you can, please answer the councilmembers question on that. Sure. So Regency has nine total billboard structures in the city, and they're all on freeways. All of the other companies have significantly larger inventories, but their billboards are, to a great extent, located in residential neighborhoods, on local streets, precisely the sorts of billboards that the city wants to come down. Relatively speaking, the terms that the value of freeway adjacent billboards verses the value of billboards that are located on residential streets where you don't have nearly as much traffic. It's it's it's it's apples and oranges. So if if subsection C were to remain Regency in order to convert one of its billboards to digital would have to take down four of its extremely valuable billboard faces on freeways. And those billboards don't really bother anybody because they're not in residential neighborhoods. And if I recall correctly, when stat when staff was asked to include a development agreement option, it was precisely to deal with this situation and the development agreement. Language right now allows a company to negotiate a development agreement for digital conversions if it can show that it is infeasible for them to take down enough nonconforming billboards. Unfortunately, because of that, because of that language, if if if our billboards on freeways are deemed non-conforming, then Regency might be in a position where it won't be able to negotiate a development agreement. So all we're asking for is the ability to participate in the digital conversion process by coming to the city, because it isn't feasible to take down our structures and we would negotiate a certain dollar amount and other community benefits as part of that development agreement that would go through planning commission and city council review. But does does that does that make sense in terms of. No, I understand that. And my my understanding I misspoke. I thought the council had asked staff to see if there was a possibility of being able to do that in lieu of coming up with some kind of cash in lieu of having to take them. We do have the ability and it is written in here to enter into development agreements. We do not set the negotiated positions because that would be based on individual negotiations of a development agreement. It is not an either or situation. You can't just walk in and ask for a development agreement in order to convert to electronics. You have to demonstrate, as Mr. de la Cruz mentioned, in feasibility to convert to electronics because you don't have enough inventory or because you are unable to come up with a cooperative relationship with somebody else who may have a lot of inventory. Those are all legitimate grounds for determining that it is infeasible for them to come to do additional takedowns. And so we do include language that allows them to enter into negotiations, but does not but does not guarantee, you know, a development agreement based on on specific parameters. We awareness park and other cities that have done this. Is this is this the framework in which they've handled this situation? That's my first question. Second question is, how many other freeway billboards are we talking about in the city? They're talking about, I believe, nine. We do have we are familiar with a number of other cities that do have development agreements for billboards. Each of them have their own unique terms because they are, you know, specific to those cities. West Hollywood industry are a couple of those cities. We do have I want to make it clear that there are nine structures that Regency owns, but there are 15 phases. And I think that that's what Mr. De La Cruz was referring to, that he had five places on the four or five, but I think that only equates to three locations. There are. According to this map, you know, probably 20 billboards within the freeway landscape by far along the four or five freeway that would be potentially impacted. So help me on that. So for these other entities, if they were to want to convert, they could take their inventories in other parts of the town and take those down and then convert along the freeway to electronic. But correct. No. Along the 405 freeway, no. Along other parts of the freeway, like the 710 freeway where there is no landscape buffer. Yes. So we are talking about 20 billboards that exist in a legal non-conforming state right now. And so none of those 20 would be allowed to convert to digital along the four or five freeway, but they would be allowed to remain as nonconforming billboards. And and, you know, and they would also be allowed to convert to electronics through the use of Caltrans credits. And just to add to that, if if we take these billboards out of the equation, I think one of the important things to understand is what is. So let's picture the future of the that the billboard landscape in Long Beach right after this ordinance is passed. What's going to end up happening is that all of the billboard companies will do a will will take down their significantly less valuable billboards on residential and local streets. And you're going to see applications as part of a cap and trade program to convert the billboards that that are not in landscaped areas into digitals and regency would also like the opportunity to be able to do that. And the only way that the only way that it would be able to do that is if if if those billboards that it has right now are not factored into the calculation of what is non-conforming only for purposes of removal. Because of the ordinance, the billboards would still be non-conforming under the ordinance. We're just address addressing subsection C for purposes of removal, which leads to the question of whether a billboard company would then be able to negotiate a development agreement. So it doesn't really it doesn't really radically change the equation at all. I think I think it conservatorships go very. Quickly when I'm understanding from this photo it does not preclude them coming to try to negotiate. That seems to be the crux of the question. Does that subsection preclude them from negotiating with the city or does it maybe the city attorney can opine on this since you wrote it. They have to demonstrate technical enforceability in order to come to us for a development agreement. So that means that the non-conforming billboards, you know, are infeasible for them to remove regardless of who owns it. Yes, but have we defined what their responsibility includes in terms for an argument? We have not. We have been very, very careful about being very narrow in in what, you know, what we're putting in there for in terms of terms for a development agreement. And again, I want to clarify, though, that they would be, Mr. Mayes, that you can address because that they would be able to negotiate with the city, obviously, considering whether or not they can make an argument about enforceability. The difficulty they had and I think this is what Mr. De La Cruz has articulated trying to articulate, is that they would have a non-conforming billboard in place. And the overall arching goal of this ordinance is to remove non-conforming billboards. If the current language remains, they could come to the city and try to negotiate with a development agreement or for a development agreement. But we would say you have a non-conforming billboard that you can remove. So how? There's nothing that would preclude them from removing it. So how do they demonstrate in feasibility? It wouldn't simply be because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do. It would have to be something more. And what the ordinance envisions in feasibility to be is a situation where a company simply has no. For instance, if a company came to the city and had no billboards in place, obviously they have nothing to take down. So they could demonstrate that it would be infeasible to for them to participate in cap and trade so they would be eligible, presumably to do a development agreement if they did not have a number. Let's say the number is they need to remove six in order to participate in cap and trade. If they said to us, yeah, but our inventory is only four, well obviously they can't remove six. So we would say, well, remove four, who will waive the other two and you can participate in a development agreement. Or the other alternative is that the ordinance envisions is that a company, this is another possibility has no current inventory. They could acquire inventory or partner with another company that has current inventory in the city to take those five down or whatever the number is they're going to be taking down. And then they could participate in the cap and trade and build a new electronic billboard someplace else. So it does provide flexibility, but Mr. De La Cruz is correct under their particular scenario. If that if the language remains the same, they most likely would not be able to participate in a development agreement because they could not demonstrate in feasibility. And let me ask, is there a way that we can. Struck some alternate language that protects the integrity of the intent of removing nonconforming but understanding that we've got a smaller business entity in the city so small but a an entity that doesn't have I mean, whose inventory is restricted in that particular case, what it kind of makes it difficult. There's really no way to do that because as Ms.. Black indicated, we didn't look, we can't treat each company differently. Their billboard is just as non-conforming as other companies billboards along the freeway. So that really can't make that. We can remove it altogether as a requirement, which is what he's requesting. And that would what. Would that do to them? The overall ordinance, if you remove that. Substitution, if you remove that, then those billboards would no longer be considered nonconforming. And so then they wouldn't have to use that as part of the equation. They would be able to come in and say, Well, we don't have any non-conforming billboards along the freeway, therefore we want a development agreement with you. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, it does. It just it's it seems to be particularly onerous on I know, you know, singling out a business, but we have a situation because we're developing an ordinance, putting it on top of an existing situation. That is and I think that's why we put the provision in there, not just specifically for this company, but for a situation that would still allow somebody like this to participate. In other words, if they had credits from somewhere else, Caltrans credits from someplace else in the state, they could use those credits to convert that? That's correct. They could use them locally. So if you have credits in another area, they can be used here under this under this ordinance. Okay. Well. I'm going to I'm going to move on to the next council members cued up. Councilman DeLong. Two questions, Mr. Mason. You know, you've talked about a feasibility and you said it doesn't include economic and feasibility. Could it or could they say, look, this is making it 4 to 1, just doesn't pencil? I think it maybe I was too strong on that. I mean, in theory, the way the ordinance is written, it could I'm just saying, practically speaking, you know, going through the planning commission, the city council, it may be difficult to make the argument that, you know, finances alone make it infeasible, because in theory, everyone could make that argument. But the the the development agreement section is broad enough. It's possible. I mean. Well, everybody could make that argument. I think it's going to resonate more along a freeway, high profile billboards. I mean, I do see that going to be a significantly higher value there than there would be something that's in a residential neighborhood that has a much lower traffic count, etc.. So I do think there's a an argument to be made. The second question I had is so these billboards that we're discussing now to today without the without a new ordinance, but the existing one, are they. Illegal, legal. Legal, non-conforming? What is their classification? Today, under our ordinance and under state law, they would be considered legal non-conforming. They were all the ones we're talking about were all built before Caltrans implemented their landscape freeway design guidelines. Okay. And in the new ordinance, they'll still be legal non-conforming. There's no requirement under the new ordinance that anything be removed unless someone wants to participate voluntarily in a cap and trade so they can stay there indefinitely. I guess the the if it's possible to do it, the only I would like to see is, you know, the last time we talked about this, what we were desirous of is trying to get staff the flexibility of negotiating development agreements when the formula just wouldn't work for whatever reason, whether it be technical, would it be lack of inventory, whether it be economic feasibility, whatever. But to have that and then candidly, you know, we're hoping to hold staff accountable that you're going to negotiate the appropriate deal. And, you know, they're going to have to justify to your satisfaction. And ultimately the council's through a copy process that it makes sense. So and I believe that we've built that flexibility in there. The section that we'd be talking about is section 21, 54, 112. And if you have the draft ordinance, that would be on page three, that line 14. A. And it simply says in the event that an applicant, applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions of Section 2154 160, which is the removal cap and trade related to the removal of nonconforming. Or boards. An applicant shall then be eligible to apply for a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 2129, which is our development agreement section. I guess the major rhetorical question there, one, am I missing if if there is the ability to handle this situation and the proposed ordinance, I guess it's not clear to me why I changed anything. And I think what Mr. De La Cruz would say is that in a hyper technical sense, he I'm guessing he probably agrees with me that it would be difficult, practically speaking, to prove in feasibility if the only argument is I'm going to lose some money by not taking down this billboard on the freeway. That may that might be a hard sell in the community for and feasibility. And I think he wants more assurance or more certainty that they could participate in the development agreement without having to take down those billboards that have that they own specifically and adjacent to their freeway. And I guess while you can't predict the outcome, I guess what I would hope is that, you know, staff renegotiate the best deal they could with us for moving one or two or three. If it's something less than four, there's some number in there that makes economic sense for the for the business to go to digital. And yet the city has gotten the best deal that it can, you know, for us and our residents. And I don't want to speak for Regency, but I think Regency has said that they would not be interested in taking down any of those freeway billboards that they own as part of a cap and trade, even in the development agreement scenario. But. Some question. Dylan can ask a question if you'd like to. I'd like to ask that question. Please come forward. If you could address that, because clearly that would seem a bit rigid. To me if you had the ability to. You know. It's practically almost all our inventory to be able to participate in. And it's a very it's there particularly valuable billboards. But the reason I've been kind of scurrying up here and trying to get something in, which is I'm hearing that there's a little bit of hesitation to remove subsection C. I want to also propose another alternative that I think would do the job very simply through the through the insertion of some additional language. If you look at the section 21.5, 4.1 12, which deals with development agreements, it says in the event that an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions related to the removal of nonconforming billboards. We could add some language saying excluding the removal of billboards in landscape buffer areas, then the applicant shall be eligible to apply for development agreements. And I think that that solves the problem quite, quite, quite simply. Hello, Mr. Mays. Do you want to. Opine on that? Well, I guess it has the exact same effect of removing subsection D, so it's really a policy decision of the council. And if it's council's desire to allow those billboards that currently exist adjacent to the freeway that are non-conforming to stay, then it's just too simple to remove subsection C as it is to try and fool around with the development agreement language. It has the same effect either way. I guess. You know, just speaking for myself, I mean, I'm supportive of staff negotiating a deal with that business and having the confidence and staff that, you know, they're going to extract something from those signs. And I would imagine if the company said, listen, we're not going to give anything, we're not giving a single sign, nothing. All we want is new. My hunch is staff isn't going to go for that deal. Hopefully I have the confidence and you know, if we can figure out how to direct this or they can go through the development agreement process and they still got to go through the planning commission, they still got to go through copy. I mean, there are a number of hurdles that they're going to have to go through to make their case. I don't mind giving them the ability to make the case. No more. It takes us out. But one of the things Ms.. Boda suggested is that we could change it. We couldn't do it tonight, but we could bring it back next week at second reading because you can't do this on the fly. But you could change the development agreement language to require specifically that as part of any development agreement that at least one billboard be removed. I don't know if that meets region C's concerns. Probably not, but. Yeah, I don't. I mean, I'd I personally be concerned about a number that is as as low as the floor likes. I want to give staff some flexibility about it. I don't want to be arbitrary, but I guess another perhaps way to do it. I say you couldn't do that tonight anyways. May we pass the ordinance as it is? We've we've taken a bite at this apple every once in a while and keep working this issue for another 30 or 60 days. And if we have to come back with another small tweak, do it at that time and maybe not not try and do it tonight, since it doesn't at least I'm not sensing any consensus here of what the best move forward is, other than a desire to to be open to a change in agreement. Okay, I see a few nods there so I'll, I'll relinquish the mic, but that would be where I think we ought to go. What is motion say right now? Mr. Johnson's motion is on the floor. Can't have accountability until next year. Just briefly, I would support what Councilmember DeLong proposed just now. It's come back with that. Is if I'm saying this correctly, what we have is we have a motion on the floor by Councilman Johnson to move the staff recommendation forward, but also with the understanding that we would possibly get additional information or some options on this one piece that's in discussion right now on this on the section. Mr. Johnson, are we okay with that? And that and that additional information on this one piece could come as soon as the second reading. Is that what I'm hearing also from Mr. DeLong. Would probably wouldn't bring it back at second reading. I think what Mr. DeLong was proposing, if I understood it, was just to pass it as is, which was Mr. Johnson's motion. And then at a later date, if council wants to take it up again, as you have this time, to insert something that would give more flexibility to staff after we had a reasoned opportunity to look at it, you could certainly amend like any ordinance amended at any time. Yeah, I guess what I see as part of this is we're directing staff tonight. You know, they come back in 30 days with a recommendation for how to tweak it again, if they have it or whatever a reasonable period of time. It's I think I think what we're doing is asking for a proactive that it would come back to us, that that piece of it is a correct. Yes, it could be a heck of a memo. It could be rescheduling through the council. But yeah, give a time certain. And you know, Amy, if you can comment on how much time you think you'd need to to address that issue. Could you give me 60 days? Sure. Thank you. Get 60 days. 60 days from the effective date of the ordinance. How about 60 days after second reading? Sure. Okay. And we try it out. We actually do need to vote on this because there's the ordinance and then there's a resolution referring it to the Coastal Commission. So we will need a second vote. Okay. And I still have the other issue, Vice Mayor, but if there's other people cued up with something, go to them too and I'll come back at the end. Conservatorships keep my question would be the staff. I know it was immediately shot down, but could staff give its reasoning why, if we were looking for an alternative that you offered that alternative of, they would have to replace at least one billboard if we get some. Just quickly the thinking behind that, because I don't think we you know, it was like, no, no, we want to do that. What was the reason for that? The intent of the ordinance is to remove billboards. If the development agreement does not address that intent of the ordinance, then, you know, that really should be the basis of where negotiations start. And so we would suggest that for any development agreement that would be negotiated related to billboards, that it starts with the basis that there has to be some removal. Right. Well, I would think that I think what Mr. DeLong said then is just a little bit more on point, and is that I think that's the intent of the ordinance is to do that. But staff should have the flexibility to figure out how that can be negotiated. I do agree with them. Also, I think that we'd all have a hard time supporting, you know, an adamant refusal not to remove any to be able to do that. So I think while you've indicated one, I think the intent of the ordinance is very clear is to remove. She removed Billboard. So I would feel comfortable that, you know, having staff, being able to negotiate what that entails and how that's done would be sufficient to follow through the intent. And if we can, Mr. Chair, just quickly, because we had this whole issue has been about them and they seem to be waving about. No, I know. As long as they have a question, customer ships keep going. What was your. Our our our big concern is just the nature of the billboard industry and what will happen if you move forward with this chunk of the ordinance and you leave us laying out there for for for 60 days. What will happen is that other companies and, you know, we all get along, but nonetheless, they will they will jump out of leases. They will go to property, and they will go to property owners and say, we have the right to enter into into agreements with these property owners for digital billboards. Regency does not. And and that's why you know, and this goes back I think we were at this, you know, 2 to 2 years ago or so. That was the key issue back then that we were already starting to have companies come to our to to come to our properties and talking to the company to to the property owners that we have relationships with to try to jump those leases. So I would beg you to please, you know, if you're going to do it, either table it and so that you can come back with the staff report or just direct staff to incorporate the simple language that would allow that would that that would not that would not require non-conforming billboards to be a part of the equation in order to participate in the development agreement process. I think my, my key thing, Mike, when I suggested that alternative language, the language pertaining to non-conforming billboards with about freeways and landscape buffer areas, those would still those would still remain non-conforming. So the ordinance wouldn't touch that. It would just basically say that, yes, Regency may have non-conforming billboards and freeways on freeways, but despite that, they can still negotiate a development agreement. And that and that's the little that's the difference between removing subsection C altogether and just including some language that has a carve out for it for development agreements. That's just as you know, it's not infeasible with the exception of those billboards that are in the landscape buffer areas. If you include that little parenthetical right there, you're not changing the ordinance at all except to be able to give Region C the opportunity to negotiate a development agreement. And as some of you have said as part of that process, staff, the Planning Commission, City Council could say we want X amount of dollars where they could say we want a billboard to come down. You know, it's within the discretion of the Planning Commission and city council as part of that negotiation to come up with a deal that works best for the city. Councilmember LOWENTHAL And back to Councilmember Dillon. Just if I could ask Dave's opinion, just based on what the speaker said. The issue of getting a jump on the leases that in that open market, that could happen anywhere. I don't know that that's a situation that we're specifically creating or unfairly creating. I see that that potential exists today. That is correct. All companies have the ability today to go negotiate leases for new billboards tomorrow, irregardless of whether we come back with two weeks, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days from now. It does not preclude anybody from negotiating in the free market. Okay. All right. The other thought that I have and wanted to see your thoughts on is if there is an interest and I'm not I haven't thought this through to ensure that that doesn't necessarily happen to a company that only has five billboards or however many how many billboards are we talking about where that potential could happen , where the jump on Lisas could take place? As described any freeway location. So it's five, right? No, no. This is four new freeway locations. And so there are property owners, for example, along the 710 freeway where electronic billboards would be allowed and that do not have any billboards from any company today. And so those property owners would certainly be in a position to negotiate the best lease that they wish to negotiate with the company that they choose. Okay. I understand that now. Thank you. Got somebody along. Okay. So my last item is biotech. I don't know if you had a chance to give any further thought as far as when the permits and so forth would be issued for the new building. If you have an idea, great. But if not, then I'll have Councilmember Johnson either take mine as a friendly amendment or I'll make a substitute, whatever your preferences. Mike May says he has some language. Come. Okay. Mr. Bass? Yeah. Councilor went along. I would clean this language up a little bit before it came back on second reading, but I think what we would be doing would be making an amendment to section 2154 161. What page. I'm sorry. 21 116. Mr. PAGE First. Page 12. Page 12. By 19, subsection D. All right, I'm ready. And what could work is something like that again. I would clean it up a little bit before it came back. In all cases, the new or replacement billboard shall not be activated or otherwise used for any purpose unless or until the non-conforming billboards have been completely demolished. Failure to abide by this provision shall result in an administrative fine of $1,000 per day. Okay. So, Mr. Johnson, you like a friendly amendment or substitute motion? Well, I guess I'll just ask staff. What? Do you have a concern with that or what would you do? I apologize to. The city attorney, but I do have concerns about that. And so if this is a the direction that the city council wishes to go, I would ask that there be in place a cash bond for each of the billboards that was supposed to have been removed but didn't get removed before the electronics were turned on. And that cash bond to be extremely significant and that that city council can direct where that money goes if we are to collect on that cash bond. I'm open to that. Yes. Councilman, darling, I don't have a problem with where you want to go. I want to make sure the the penalties are. Sufficient to do where. You want to go. I agree. So perhaps it makes sense to just ask them to come back with the second reading or I mean, I don't know. If we have the language. I don't want to I mean, I want to be able to get to a second reading times. That's minor. So we can't do that. I don't think we can do it justice tonight, but it's not a significant enough change that we could not. If we understand what the direction is and if the direction is a significant cash bond, we can certainly bring that back to you. That language on second reading, you may want to discuss again what significant is, but we'll come up with the number that we think is appropriate and then we can debate that number if we need to. Yeah, no, that's fine, Mary, to just just make it be careful that you don't make it so outrageously expensive to post the bond that it defeats the entire purpose that nobody does it. So let's just come up with an appropriate price. I just want to state that this is a very lucrative business. The conversion of billboards to electronics provides immense revenues and is of significant benefit to all of the companies who have inventory within the city. So I don't know what your realm of significance is, but it's in my realm, it's clearly more than $1,000. You know, I would probably add a few zeros to that. When you get the bond back, if. You. But you can't make the cost of providing the bond, you know, several. Months for what the revenue. At. That point you know over the. Clearly understood we're on the. Same page. Yes. So is that a friendly amendment? Okay. Okay. So we have a we have a friendly amendment on the floor. We've had public comment. We couldn't have a vote on the motion before us. And Mr. DeLong, just to just to clarify, is part of this motion still the additional request you had made earlier, Mr. Johnson, with it coming back, that piece of it. Or no? Yes. Correct. Correct. But we gave it 60 days, etc.. Okay, great. Okay. So do we have a motion on the floor? Members, who's going to cast your vote before? Excuse me, before we take a vote. And there's some confusion as to exactly what we're doing. But I think that what is taking place is it's basically a motion to approve staff's recommendation with two friendly amendments. The first would be to bring the audit, bring the report back with a recommendation within 60 days after the ordinance becomes effective that would give the city council more guidance or more suggestions in regard to whether or not it's appropriate to remove that section. See that we were talking about removing Modify. That's one friendly amendment. And the other friendly amendment is to not require the removal of all billboards that are being removed prior to the construction of the new billboard. But instead of that requiring a cash bond be posted in a significant amount at the time of approval, or in conjunction with the approval of a copy for each billboard that is to be removed? That is correct. Mr. WONG That is correct, yep. So. Johnson Ken, we're going to go ahead and go to a vote, cast your votes on a yes. Are we still ahead of schedule? Yes. Motion. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. We're getting we're getting close over three. The city attorney, we also need a motion on the resolution estimate. Wasn't there a second vote. On this item? Sorry, there's. We need a set. You're correct. We need a second.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for a new Right-of-Entry Permit to Camp Fire Angeles, a nonprofit 501c3, for the construction of Discovery Trails at DeForest Park, 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 the Discovery Trails for public recreation, which meets a recreational need within the City. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_10202020_20-1042

I am too pleased when I am 14. Pleased clear eyed in 14. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to execute a new right of entry permit to Campfire Angeles for the construction of Discovery Trails at the Forest Park District nine. Councilor Richardson was about to comment on this. Just move it. Just move the item. All right. Secondly, Sun has. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? No public comment on item 14. Would you please call for the Bell District one? District one. I. District to. I'm District three. District three. District by district for. I. District five. I District six. All right. District seven. I District nine. I. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 S. Franklin Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0471

Ortega. I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Nice Lebanese Council Bills 20 2-4, seven one and 20 2-475 may be taken out of order. Council members say to Barca, Will you please put bills 471 and 475 on the floor for final passage? Yes, I move that council bills 22, dash 471 and for 75 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration of accountability 20 20471 and 20 20475. With their public hearings be postponed to Monday, June 20th, 2022. Thank you. Not seeing any other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council bills 20 2-4, seven one and 22. Dash 475, please. Herndon, I. Hines. Can you. I think that was the Kenny G. Yeah. Kenny. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I'm black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. It's 11 eyes. Actually, 11 eyes. Thank you. 11 eyes. Final consideration of council bills. 22, dash four, seven one and 22. Dash 475 with their public hearings will be postponed to Monday, June 20th. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member State Barca. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 20 2-5 46 547 559 five 6561 562 563 581 587 588 602 528 567 610 611 612 614 615 616 five 3565 599 600 6016096 5485 545 553 568 580 460668 651 519 527 526. 532. 533. 443. 515. And that is a long list. Yes, we got them all. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye CdeBaca. Eye for an. Eye. Herndon High. Haynes Cashman. Sorry, can high Ortega. I send them off. I swear. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes in the eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on council bill 22, dash 412 changing the zoning classification for 4401 South , a back street in Hamden South, and a combined public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash four two for amending the Denver Zoning Code. Council Bill 22, Dash 426 amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing.

A bill for an ordinance establishing a system of licensing and inspections of certain long-term residential rental properties. Creates an ordinance establishing a system of licensing and inspections of residential rental properties. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-14-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0420

All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And thank you, Jessica, for the answers. And we are going to go ahead and move along then. The next item up is Council Bill 420 Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Bill 420 on the floor for final consideration. As Council President and move that Council Bill 420 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded, council members say, to pocket your motion to amend. A move that council bill 20 1-0 420 be amended in the following particulars on page two. Line five strike January 1st, 2023, and replace it with July 31st, 2022 and on line 14. Strike January 1st, 2024 and replace it with July 31st, 2022. All right. We have a move. We have it moved. And I think I heard the second there is that Councilman Hines second. Okay. All right. We've got the second from Councilman Hines questions or comments by members of council on this amendment. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. This change is to basically bring the compliance requirement date a little sooner, a little closer to us for the rental registry. We have it bumped out in in two phases one for our multi-unit, one for our single family units. And I think we should just be creating some parity there and making them both required compliance by 2022. I think that would meet the needs of our residents in the city a little bit better. And this is something that's been raised along with my upcoming amendment by our constituents, especially having spent a lot of time talking to mom and pops, mom and pop landlords for our Right to counsel initiative. While the sooner they might be a challenge for everybody, folks really want to see parity across what we're asking of all landlords. And so this is to achieve that. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. I think you're council president. Do you know if this was the implementation date was discussed in the stakeholder process? Are you asking me or Councilmember CdeBaca? Well, ideally, I would ask you, but I don't know if there's someone else that that that has knowledge of the stakeholder process or I mean, ideally, I would ask someone who is part of the stakeholder process as opposed to having you play dual role of sponsor and council president. But if you're willing to answer it, I don't I don't want to put you on the spot. Oh, I'm perfectly happy to answer that question. Yes, we discussed the phasing in depth because this will be the largest license that we have within the city and county of Denver. And so, as you might imagine, excise and licensing would like to see the phasing because they need to get this program stood up. And it really is best practices across the nation that you don't just all of a sudden open up a license, but that you actually have an incentive period, you have a phasing in period. And it was specifically discussed among the stakeholders around what that phasing in would look like. And we based on their feedback, that is the phasing that you see in the original ordinance language because they specifically wanted to see multifamily go in first, followed by single dwelling units. So essentially with the phasing, it would allow all of 2022 and 2023 for those single family dwelling units to come into compliance and be able to pass an inspection to successfully secure their license. So is it reasonable to say that the that there are a couple of challenges here that the phasing is meant to address? The first is we're going to have time to plan and prepare and do some rulemaking, too, I'm guessing. And and then the second is for institutional property owners probably have a bit more discipline or bandwidth to consider a rental registry. And mom and pop landlords need a little more time to catch up. Am I? Mm hmm. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm also trying to be as expeditious since we are here and in the full council. Yup. You paraphrased it. Perfect. The other thing I think that folks should consider is that by having one start date, it creates a huge bottleneck of licenses that are going to licenses that are going to come in. And then upon that four year renewal, you're also going to have that bottleneck. And so I am not in support of this amendment. And I would ask my colleagues to vote the amendment down. So I'm sorry we're doing maybe this kind of work on the floor. Councilmember CdeBaca, do you have any thoughts as to what? Yeah. I mean, I hear what the concern is, and I disagree that we're setting a bottleneck date. We're giving a whole year for people to come into compliance. And I don't think that. A phasing has to be annual phasing. I think that there could be a six month phasing for one, a six month phasing for the other. We know where the multi-family units are. It's much easier for us to reach out to them and gain compliance. We also have property tax, property assessments, wastewater fees. All of those things go out directly to owners. And so we have plenty of touch points to communicate directly with landlords. And I think that 2022 is a reasonable amount of time to give them the runway we need for them to get into compliance. All right. Thank you both, Councilmember CdeBaca and President Gilmore. No further questions. Right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. I thank the council president. Yeah. I guess my concern about moving the data is besides adding, I like the extra time for the mom and pop landlords to figure out how to address the situation. As I wonder, at the capacity of the the inspection industry and with the tens of thousands of rental units that will be meeting their initial inspection. As you know, Madam President, I, I asked you to consider on the second when when the license comes up for renewal four years down the road to consider allowing landlords to self attest. And you responded that you would certainly consider that based on whatever data we assemble from the first go round with inspections. And I accept that as a reasonable approach to the matter. But I do like the added time, not just for for the landlords, but for the inspection industry to get a rather large job done. So thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And seen in the queue. There are no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on the First Amendment, please. CDEBACA All right. CLARK No. Flynn. Now. You know. Cashman. No. Can each. No. Ortega. Oh. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. Oh. Black? No. Madam President? No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One I 11 nis. One i 11 nis. The amendment to the First Amendment to 20 1-0420 has failed. Council Member Sayed Ibaka Your second motion to amend, please. I move that council bill 20 1-4 28 be amended in the following particulars on page seven, strike lines six through ten and replace with each unit on a parcel is $50. All right, we have it moved. Is there a second? So again. All right. We have a second questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council member State Abarca. Thank you. This amendment levies the same fee for every rental unit rather than giving large discounts to corporate landlords who have multiple units on a single parcel. Right. Thank you. We've got council member Sawyer. You're a thinks, not a president. I'm wondering whether you considered the cost that it would be that this change would be passing along in your original determination. Were you when you came up with the plan that you came up with, could you. Would you mind just walking me through that again? I think you mentioned it last last week a little bit. Or maybe, councilman, can you do but just and just curious. About. Why the two different treatments for the large property owners on the. Smaller ones? Thanks. Sure. Happy to. Thank you for the question. You know, when we started this work with our stakeholder group that we purposely seeded with affordable housing providers and affordable housing property owners, we knew that whatever fees we assess were going to be passed on to the renters. And so we needed to craft the original policy with that intent in mind that it was going to be passed on to the renters. And so that's why we kept the fees low to, one, mitigate the amount that would be passed on to the renters, knowing that renters in multi-unit apartment buildings are sometimes some of our most vulnerable renters, and that we also kept the fees low to encourage compliance. And really, when you're looking at the property owners are also responsible for arranging their own inspections that are heavily discounts that for smaller property owners because they only have one unit that they would have to get inspected versus the multifamily. They're required to have 10% of their units inspected. And so we know that that's an added cost in the thousands of dollars for the large multifamily apartment buildings. If you have 350 units, you're required to get 35 of those units inspected. And we knew that that was going to get passed on to the renters as well. And then lastly, the fees must be reasonable. This isn't a tax that we're assessing on property owners. It's a fee. And so those fees must be reasonable and they have to be supported by real costs. And the city, whatever the cost is going to be of the license program, the fees have to cover that cost, but only that cost. And so the amendment, it will generate close to $10 million. And I can tell you right now that those are not real costs that that that the program would incur. And so I don't believe that this increase meets the level of having a fee versus it really being perhaps a tax. Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate that clarification. Thanks, my cousin. All right. Thank you. Council member Slayer. Council member Hines. Take your council president. Did you consider. Hi. This $50 fee and then excusing mom and pop property owners from paying a fee at all for the parcels just to, you know, so that didn't end up being $10 million collected or whatever and more equitable to the small landlords. I think I'm understanding your question. We considered a lot of different scenarios because we've been working on this for two years, and so we knew that we needed to start somewhere and that in having the fees low, you know, the application fee is $50, it aligns with the short term rentals. And then the license fee was is $50 for a single dwelling unit owner. We kept them very low and we didn't want to exempt them other than the affordable housing providers that we have in the city. Because really this is a business and they are running a business. And so we wanted them to also have to comply with the application and license fee. But again, we needed to start somewhere and we needed to make sure that the cost was low. And I believe that we've accomplished that. And if the fee is out of balance with the cost and it is considered a tax, does that mean that the entire program would be in jeopardy? I believe that there would be serious questions about the program. And I'm happy to have Jonathan Griffin, who's in the queue. He can perhaps answer that question for you. Thank you. Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel. Can you repeat the question, Councilman? Yes, sir, absolutely. The question is, the statement was that if every person was charged $50, then the amount of fees collected would be $10 million, which is well above the cost of implementing the program and could be therefore considered a tax instead of a fee. So if that is the case, if the collections are well above the the cost of implementing the program, does could that potentially jeopardize the entire program? Yes, that is correct. I mean, the program would be opened up to legal challenges. Then under the Aspen case that came out back in 2018, which spoke to reasonable fees as part of their paper bag bill. It said that the charge had to bear a reasonable relationship to direct or indirect costs of the government providing service to regulating the activity. And so if there was not a reasonable relationship within the two costs, that could be challenged. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you again. Council President. Yeah, I'm struggling with this little bit. While I recognize that someone has 300 apartments and. And that the amount that they're end up paying, if I were units inspected, would would be challenging. But I'm I'm trying to I'm guessing that if that would be the case, that they would end up working a deal with with whomever is doing the inspections for a lesser, lesser fee per inspection. And and even if they were paying the same amount, the amount passed on to the renter would be the same per unit as a single family or a single unit landlord. So I'm struggling a little bit with this. While I understand the legal necessity for keeping this as a fee and not going past the cost of the program. I'm wondering if there isn't perhaps another way to to balance this. And should this pass, as you've proposed? That's another thing I would hope we would look at moving down the road. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, I'm happy to answer here. You need to have some sort of application and license fee to encourage compliance. If we had, you know, $10 or $1, would we have the compliance that we're looking for? And I would also ask that, you know, we don't make perfect the enemy of good policy, because we've got to start on this program and get, you know, a few years of data to understand where we're at with it. And then we're going to evaluate it on a yearly basis in July and happy to dig into that more. But we need to start somewhere. And I believe that we have kept the fees low enough that this is a good place for us to start. It's less than $5 a month that would be potentially passed on to the renters, from the property owners as we have the policy right now. All right. Next up, we've got Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President, I. I, too, like Councilman Cashman. And I'm intrigued by this. I see the intent of the amendment that Councilwoman CdeBaca has proposed is basically looking at the corporate gift of a volume discount. Essentially, I would rather, though, see the converse of this. And Council president, we have I think we chatted about this early on in the process that perhaps a single license fee for a mom and pop landlord who a family might have three or four rentals scattered around the city. I would much rather see a singular license fee for that situation than than charging the operators of 300 unit complex for each unit. And but I know that we didn't have votes to do that. And I understood the reasoning behind it that Megan had emailed to me. So but I would with this amendment, I think I would rather see the converse of it to give her the same kind of consideration to a mom and pop it that just managed, you know, a handful of rentals around the city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you back up. Yeah, I echo a lot of what Councilman Cashman and Flynn have said. I proposed early on the converse or a fee based on rent and what am I bracket? The landlord was catering to so that we can incentivize low rent and disincentivise predatory rents. I think that while sometimes our multifamily units are providing affordable rates, we also have many of the multifamily units providing our luxury rates as well. And so my my issue here is that. It's not about the the $50. I think the $50 is a reasonable fee. I if we're not trying to generate that much money, we could go lower. My issue here is treating landlords equitably. We're not. We're not we don't actually have a fee that's tied to something rational, like square footage, like parcel, like rent. It's very arbitrary. If you look at the fee brackets and while Jonathan mentioned that we could be sued if we raised over the a couple hundred thousand dollars that we're trying to generate and we used it on something other than administration of the database, we could be sued because that could be perceived as a tax. I wonder, Jonathan, if you would be willing to speak to the potential of a lawsuit by small landlords who feel that their fee is not rational in their being and there a fee is being imposed on them that it is not being fairly imposed on other landlords by unit. Yeah. My understanding is that there was a study done on this. So again, that was why it's not considered a tax is that there is a reasonable relationship to the costs and that there was a study done to make sure of that. It does not appear in the method you're prescribing that there would be a study done. Can you explain how the fee is reasonable for the single unit provider versus the multi-unit provider when in reality a multi unit provider would be able to take advantage of economies of scale and would be able to absorb the $250 easily and pay for the, what, 30% of the inspections. Whereas you have an individual owner who is less able, less likely to be able to absorb that that fee, but also less likely to be able to absorb 100% of their inspections. Because even though we're giving the multifamily units 30% of their inspections, the single family unit is still required to pay for 100% of their inspections. I mean, I can always kind of speak generally to what's defined as reasonable on the law. Both, you know, there's a long line of cases of, you know, from the US Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment as well as Colorado Analog in our Constitution. And there's heavy deference granted to the legislature and the lawmakers when they're setting their fees. So if there is something so I mean, in my mind, this fee would be found as reasonable. But yeah. But what is the definition of reasonable? The I mean, the kind of the major definition when we're talking about excessive fines is that the fine has to be grossly dis support, just proportional to the gravity of the offense or of the charge. So this would need to be that's kind of the general standard for reasonableness under the Supreme Court. Is that grossly disproportionate? And is there anything in there about equal application? Of the fee. Is there anything? I'm sorry. I'm not following your question. So $50 is reasonable. And I say that as a landlord and somebody who's rented $50 is reasonable. The issue is not the fee. The amount of the fee. It is the application to others in the same business. It's like killing me. It's like telling me I have to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. But somebody who is filling up a tanker gets to pay $0.25 for that same gallon of gas. I'm not aware of anything that's looked at the tier structure and made that type of determination. And again, the basic standard of grossly disproportionate, you know, is what's looked at. So, no, I'm not aware of any anything that's ever looked at a tiered system and said that one tier was was unfair to another tier. Got it. And Councilwoman Gilmore, can you explain what the Fed ties back to in the tiered system? Because I I've gone through it and tried to see, you know, could it is it attached to square footage? Is it attached to the the single parcel? Is it attached to rent? I'm not finding the thing that the fee is attached to. Can you help me understand that? Sure happy to. The and I and I would love to also remind folks that the increased requirement of unit inspections and so we're only talking right now about the license fee. We're not talking anything about the cost that we know, again, will be passed on to the renters. It's the inspection fees. And so through the stakeholder process, it was a non-negotiable for the stakeholders to waive any sort of inspection requirements. And so we have the inspections across the board, but it is tied to the cost of the program and to administer it. And we knew that we needed to start low. And so we started with $50 for one unit and went up from there, basing the criteria on the number of parcels that we had that were in the 2 to 10 scenario, the 11 to 50 and the 51 2 to 50 scenario, because we wanted to have a good overview of what it would take to administer this license program based only on fees, and then also take into consideration the cost of the inspections that we knew were going to be required and that would be passed on to the renters. And so that was the criteria that we looked at for the program. The application fee is in alignment with the short term rental program. It's $50, and that covers the administrative costs. And so and the application fee is a one time fee. It is not needed to be paid upon renewal. And so that is the rationale. And we have worked very, very closely with excise and licensing and our partners to ensure that this we weren't gouging anybody on this, that we were really taking this into consideration and across the board being able to implement this and pay for the program as well. It's still not explaining how it connects to the landlord. I hear that there was a overall amount that was determined and then we backtracked to figure out how we would raise that. And I don't think I'm going to get the answer I'm looking for anyhow. But I've also been asked several times through our right to counsel proposal, how our proposal would interface with citizen led ballot initiative that's out there that proposes essentially the right to counsel the rental registry and the fee. Can you talk to us a little bit about how if the citizen led ballot initiative passes, this will interface? I don't have a crystal ball. So there will be limited interface, at least initially because, you know, we're standing up this program and we need to get it. We need to get it implemented. The citizen led ballot initiative, those funds raised will truly be a tax. And through that ballot initiative, you would need to identify where those dollars went to and how they're collected because of the tax for any fees for this proposal, anything that is revenue generated will go directly into the general fund and then it will be reallocated through the annual budget process. Got it. Thank you for that. That's it from my questions. All right. Thank you. Up next, we have Councilwoman Connie. Thank you. Council President I really appreciate the dialog. I just wanted to share two sets of observations and in terms of how I'm going to vote on this amendment. The first is that I frankly do a lot, as you all know, of housing stuff. And I get to spend time with economists and and I think a lot about housing prices and what impacts them and what doesn't. And I will just say there's a pretty large body of research that demonstrates that program costs like these do not get passed on a dollar to dollar to tenants. And we have this discussion a lot in the inclusionary housing realm. But the reason is that, generally speaking, in a marketplace, the seller is selling at the highest possible price the buyer can pay or will pay. And so generally speaking, you know, if your fridge breaks in your rental unit in the middle of a of a year , you don't get to raise the rent to replace the fridge because one, you have a lease. Two, you have your tenant may be at the top of what they can afford because if you could be charging more for that unit, you probably would be already. Right. And we've seen this in this market, right. That landlords will just continually raise the rent to the most that they can get for the quality of that unit, the location of that unit, etc.. So there's a lot of economic research that that will say that the cost of this program may not get passed on dollar for dollar. They may end up getting absorbed partially through, you know, reduced profits, partially through reduced other things that, you know, maybe landlords spend a little less than something else, landscaping, whatever. But the short story is that that these costs get spread over over a range of things. But the good news is, if I'm wrong, if the economists are wrong and the landlords are right when they say dollar for dollar, every dollar is getting passed on. That's why these fees are low. So that's why this is a prudent approach, right, to entering the marketplace with a new cost. So. So but I just I will just say I personally do not I side with the economists that generally speaking, dollar for dollar, not every cost does get passed on because generally the rents already at the top. So be that what it may, that's just more for your academic stimulation tonight. The second thing I wanted to mention in terms of what councilman would say to back is asking what's the basis? And the basis is the parcel. And I'll I'll share two reasons why I think that is appropriate for a starting point here. Number one is there are many things we do by parcel. So, for example, I send one property tax bill to an apartment owner. I don't send 300, but I do send one property tax bill to every single family home, regardless of who owns them. If they own 200, I don't send one bill to 200 different single family homes. I send one bill to each parcel. So there are a number of things we do in the city that we regulate by parcel. So this is consistent with some other ways that we do things as a city. Secondly, even though it would look it would be more like a tax if we were doing it based on value, which is why, as much as I might value wise, like the idea of charging by the price, that's just it looks and feels a lot more like a tax than a fee, especially if the unit doesn't cost the government more to regulate. So the but but you will I will say that the average value of a single family home or a townhome is going to be greater than the average value of an apartment. So if your concern is that you want folks who are owning, I mean, the value, if you were to evaluate a medium single family priced home or a duplex or even the ones that are being rented, you know, might be in the 3 to $500000 range, whereas the average value of an apartment might be in the 200000 to $400000 range. So they are just they are qualitatively value wise. Unit four, unit not the same. And the single family unit is worth more. So that's just a fact. It's not the basis why it was chosen, but it is a piece of why it may be more equitable than you think. You know that we think not you, any one person, but just that we might think off the top of our heads. The last thing I want to share is I do want to caution us from this assumption that every single family home out there is owned by a mom and pop. In fact, it is a massive business of equity funds to purchase, particularly during the foreclosure crisis, massive quantities of single family homes that were packaged on a resale market. There is an entire campaign to get the Federal Reserve and the folks who are engaged in this selling of, you know, bad mortgages to offer them first to community organizations. But that's a slow campaign. And the truth is big capital owns many single family homes. So I just want us to be cautious about any assumption that a single family home is necessarily owned by a neighbor. It's not to say that that's not. The case, right. There are definitely some some individuals who owned single family homes. But I would guess that when the data comes in, we'll learn more about how many are owned. Even the LLC can be confusing, right? It might look like 12 different LLC, but they all have the exact same partners in them. So it'll be very interesting to see what we can glean from the data. But so, so I respect the concerns, but for the reasons I've identified, I will be supporting the bill as is and not voting for the amendments. Thank you, Madam President. Q Council member. KOINANGE And I will go ahead and make my final comment. Thank you for the for the questions of my colleagues. And I respectfully ask that my colleagues vote down or vote no on this amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment. CdeBaca I. Clark No. Flynn. Now. HINES. Oh. Cashman. I believe you're muted, Councilman. No. Can each now. Ortega? No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Black? No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One 811 days. When I 11 nays the second amendment to 20 1-0420 has failed. Council Bill 20 1-0420 is on the floor for final passage. Questions by members of Council on Council Bill 420. Give it a moment here. All right. Councilmember Flynn. And just for folks, we will have questions first and then we'll follow by comment. So wanted to split those up. So if anybody has questions, now is the time. All right. I'm not seeing any questions. And so we will go ahead and move on to comments by members of Council on 420 and Council member Flynn. Did you want to get up first in the queue? Go ahead. Sure. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I didn't have questions. I just had a comment. I wanted to amplify the same remarks that I made last week that I want to request that when rulemaking occurs on this, particularly with the the guardrails on inspections, that we'd be careful not to that this registry and the inspection process not turn into an accelerant for displacement, particularly when some of our older housing stock in our very vulnerable neighborhoods are vulnerable to displacement. That is, that we not end up incentivizing the owners to sell and have redeveloped into unaffordable, particularly unaffordable duplex or or McMansion type of a development that we keep these affordable rentals in the pool with inspections that truly look at the standards for habitation safety, life safety and that sort of thing. And not with an eye toward older houses that don't meet current building codes and never can if we required them to upgrade would would simply be taken off the rental market. And so that's that's my that's my direct not to I can't give direction to the department, but that's my request of the licensing folks and the inspection folks that we truly make it targeted toward habitability and life safety. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to echo what Councilman Flynn said. I have received a lot of feedback from constituents in Council. District One who. Owned smaller or not even smaller, but older homes and a lot of older homes in historic districts, too. And so they have a lot of concerns that their hallways won't make, won't meet the inspection standard. They have concerns that just a lot of concerns with older homes. So I had mentioned to you when we spoke about this, about having historic Denver as part of a partner, because if you are a member with historic Denver, you get a group, a list of contractors who've been vetted through historic Denver who know how to work on older homes because, say, for instance, if somebody has to add an egress window into their older home, you cut into the foundation. It's a little bit different type of building stock. And there's there there's programs out there's people out there who know how to do it. And one thing I do want to comment on is that you don't have to wait until the very end. If you own single family homes to get the $50 permit, you can rent, you can get it earlier, which is a $25 permit. And as I mentioned to you, council president about having an inspection preemptively, that's something I'm a rent. I own a rental property. I've been thinking about doing and I've been telling my constituents if they could get an inspection preemptively. So preemptive so that they know what to fix and they have a couple of years to fix it. So there's don't the the cost don't get passed down to the small mom and pop owners, because that's mostly all I've heard from in Council District one are people who. Own several different. Single family rental properties, and that's their concern. I haven't heard much concern about the actual need for the rental registry. Most of the concerns that my council office has heard from is the inspection. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Sawyer. He's not a president and they appreciate what Councilman Sandoval just said. I hear the same thing in my office, and I think that's spot on. And I think the determining factor in really making the decision here is the costs that are passed along to the renters as it stands now. I think the financial estimates that we were provided indicate the average cost of the proposal is $4 per unit. And so to me, that balances the city's interests in protecting our most vulnerable citizens and maintaining safe housing stock with the recognition that our residents simply cannot bear that many more costs given COVID and market conditions and all of those things. So the intent of the proposal is to make housing safer and more accessible to all. And I think that adding too many costs to that will dilute the proposal by significantly raising the rents in our city, increasing the barriers to housing affordability. So I'm in support of the rental registry this evening as a whole and will be in voting in favor of it. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Council member soya. Council member. Each. Thank you. Council President I first just want to say thank you to you and your staff as well as to the agencies. This was no easy feat to get a set of city agencies willing to take on a task this large. And I think it's critical. So I want to thank them for their willingness to move and grow and and think about meeting the new needs that we've identified in our policymaking work here in the council because we rely on them to implement. And so so thank you to everyone who participated. For me, I think about this policy as a piece of a trajectory that we in Denver have been on as we have grown up as a city. And I don't just mean up in size. I mean up in complexity, up in being a major destination for businesses to relocate with workers. You know, I don't know if the Cowtown reputation was ever really deserved by the city of Denver. I think it was always dynamic and it always had things. But to the extent that we are unquestionably a modern city, that's a world class destination, it is natural that we have to grow our systems to manage that city in ways that we didn't have before. Right. And that meant banning forms of discrimination like use of source of income. That was the first renter protection that was passed four years ago by the city council. And since then, we've continued to look at ways that we can address evictions with eviction defense programs. We try to add the first rental assistance program that was available beyond those that were the deepest, lowest income. We used to have a human services program only. But each of these pieces is part of a trajectory, along with the requirements that we've been able to negotiate with developers. And we may be considering requiring in the future that when you have a city of this size and this complexity and frankly, with the exacerbated inequality that has come, then these are the mitigations that are needed for us to manage that city. And so I do just want to share one perspective. I know that we've heard about the landlords who shared concerns, and that's understandable given the change. But I want folks to know that I'm also hearing from landlords who are supportive. One of them is an elder African-American woman who owns several properties in the city, who reached out to our office to say that she was very supportive of this. And Ms.. Davis, this is what she said to me. She said, I pay these fees in other places. It's no big deal and it's really good because I want landlords to be responsible. I don't think it's fair to have people in this city who are not doing what they should be because they don't have anyone checking on them, whereas everywhere else they do business. I have to pay these fees and you know, and I know that at least it's a level playing field. So I think that's really important for the landlord who invests in their life and safety systems and make sure their unit is safe. They shouldn't be competing with someone who's not investing in those things. So I just wanted to share a different landlord perspective that we haven't heard as much about, but certainly is out there. And that is someone who supports this ordinance tonight. So I want to thank Ms.. Davis for reaching out to my office, and I want to thank my colleagues. And I'm excited to vote yes on the evolution of our city into a more equitable and more managed place. Thank you. Thank you. Council member can each council member. Tories. Thank you so much, Madam President. Appreciate the work that's gone into this in responding to a number of emails from District three landlords. You know, we were emphasizing that this is a basic responsibility of a city, the size and depth of Denver, that we know what our rental stock is and that it meets basic capitation rules. Even when we looked at vacancy rates in the past in Denver. The number was misleading because it only calculated vacant units that had been previously occupied, not newly built vacant units that have never been rented. We should know what our stock is and who's responsible for them. My district was, when described by Councilman Kasich earlier, about single family homes that have turned over to investors, and we know very little about them or how many they own. One of our partners wrote this in their letter of support. As with so many things, COVID 19 has brought to light the importance and benefits of maintaining a central record of our community's rental housing stock. Various federal, state and local level renter protections and resources came online in an effort to keep people housed through this public health crisis. It would have been incredibly helpful to have current contact information for rental property owners and operators sort of enabled clear and efficient communication of still evolving policy changes and affordable rental assistance funds to the benefit of landlords and tenants alike throughout the pandemic. That was from enterprise community partners. I look forward to voting in favor of this tonight. I thank you for all of your hard work as President Gilmore and Kimmage even before I came into office on this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you. Council President First of all, I want to thank you very much for considering the the tsunami of questions that I have sent your way. And thanks to you and your staff. And I am absolutely convinced that you've been as thoughtful as is humanly possible in creation of this policy. I still have some questions that I'm you know, I'm concerned about, you know, the that we still may be putting too much burden on some of our smaller landlords. And I'm thinking maybe it's in the those that have like 2 to 10 different parcels of single family homes. And so I'll be looking at that. But, you know, I want to be sure and I appreciate Councilman CdeBaca bringing up this question to be sure, where we're spreading the burden fairly. So I'll be looking at that. I think I'm 100% convinced of the importance of creating this rental registry. And I think as as Council Pro-Tem Torres just said, being able to contact our renters and our landlords with important policy changes coming down the road and I think having an as accurate a number as we can put together of rental properties to help us in, in a crafting policy down the road, I think is is critically important. You know, I we can't leave that complaint based. I've heard from a number of people that we've got the state warrant of habitability. We've already got things on the books, but they all require a renter to file a complaint, which puts one way or another puts their welcome mat in in their residence at risk. And so I support the inspection, the preemptive attempt to create safe housing. I do, again, have concerns about that. The the inspect, the inspection list, the checklist that every every landlord I've spoken to, I would say easily 80% of the landlords I've spoken to, that's their concern. And I've tried to put their mind to rest as best I can. But I have concerns myself. I'll be at rest when I see that final list along with my landlord. So I hope to, you know, keep keep an eye on that, be as involved in that as as I'm welcomed to be. So with that, I will be supporting this. I think you're exactly right. You know, not only is it not wanting to ruin the good by striving for perfection, but I think the way it's set up, the phased approach gives us a lot of time to arm wrestle over some details that I think are important in this. And again, thank you and thanks to you to your co-sponsor for the effort to put this together. Councilwoman Kenny just. I think it's fair to say, been our our council champion, at least in my time on council for affordable housing and safe housing. And I appreciate her efforts as well. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I, too, want to express my appreciation for the two year process that you've been through by engaging multiple stakeholders to get input. And that reflected change along the way, including during the time that you brought this to before council. And that means you were listening and really took into account all of that input into this final bill that's before us tonight. I also want to just express that during the rulemaking process, when that comes up, that will be really important to keep us informed about when that comes up so that we will probably hear from people during that time frame as well. And I want to just extend my appreciation to all of the constituents that we've heard from on both sides of this issue. I think the fees are something we're going to have to monitor to ensure that it's not something that continues to grow over time. As we all know, when the Platform Park Hill project came forward, those wastewater fees were originally created to identify impervious surface that people had on their properties, and that was expanded to include the cost of the plaque to Park Hill Drainage Project, which, you know, taxpayers across the city ended up helping bear that cost as opposed to it being placed on each individual property. So it's why getting those annual reports to city council will be really important to monitor. And like with any ordinance, if we find that there are things that need to be tweaked over time, it gives us the ability to see what the reports are showing us and to make whatever necessary changes going to have to be made in the future to the ordinance. Obviously this is targeted to focus on habitability and life safety issues. And I think one of the challenges we're going to have is making sure that there are enough inspectors that can handle the volume of the inspections that will need to occur. And you and I have talked about the fact that there are organizations out there that provide the certification for those inspectors. And this is a great opportunity for people who are unemployed that can go out and get a license to be I think it's a license or a certification to become an inspector so that anybody who is unemployed can can have a new profession. This is going to be an ongoing process and a great opportunity for them to tap into this. So overall, I appreciate the work that you and Megan and folks from the city attorney's office and Dottie and Councilwoman Leach and others have have put into bringing this forward. I think in general, having that registry is going to be extremely helpful and it will be helpful as we continue to look at any policy changes that allow us to figure out how we continue to create that affordable stock that has varying price points for people in our housing market that are below what is considered market rate housing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council member Ortega. I was thinking about Stella Madrid. We've got to get Stella in the the home inspections gig. As you were talking. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. I thank you for the bill and for all the hard work you, your staff, and your stakeholder process and all the stakeholder members have put into this topic. I'm just a council member. Cashman. I agree with you. I'm concerned that we're, uh. I just want to make sure that we're continuing to use our equity lens as we move into rulemaking, assuming this passes. And I look forward to having a list of our property owners. After all, the city's relationship is with the property owner, not the renter. And I want to make sure we have someone other than a registered agent in some out-of-state LLC. When a renter has concerns or when we need to discuss health, safety and welfare issues like snow abatement or a navigable right of way, including our sidewalk, which is the adjacent property owners responsibility. And to councilmember, can you just point we are an increasingly, increasingly complex city downtown or not? We're now one of the largest, 25 largest cities in the nation. I like that. We're getting more information about our housing stock, including long term rentals. Frankly, we should probably get more information about our short term rentals, too. The data collection helps us understand what we have in Denver so we can better shape policy for our future. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. I thought I was never going to get calls on my head, kept getting put down for some reason. I just wanted to share that. While I do not believe that the fee is being applied equitably or even equally, I do wholeheartedly support a registry. I think it's critical that we're able to track our landlords and our rental dwelling units within the city. I do want to echo what my colleagues have mentioned about wanting to be informed about the rulemaking process. I think it's going to be really important for the long term for us to create a data system that in the long term can be useful to the average citizen in Denver. There are other cities who have had nonprofit organizations who are in the process of creating their own usable databases for citizens. And so what I hope can happen with this database is that, one, we can infer, integrate, violation and complaint data in a in a map that can be interacted with in real time. I also hope that this can become a resource for landlords. Not all landlords are looking to exploit their renters. And I think that when there are good resources available for a landlord like we've experienced throughout COVID, with rental assistance, with property tax rebates, those kinds of pieces of information struggle to find landlords. And I think that this eventually can be a very helpful tool if we make it that. And so I hope that we're very intentional on creating something that's usable for everybody and not just a system for us to hoard information internally at the city. And very excited to support this and see what comes next. I hope that any landlords who feel like we've crossed some line here or have work to do, I hope you all will get engaged and help us shape the 2.0 version of this legislation. Because always remember anything that we pass here can be undone by us or by the citizens. And I encourage all of you to take government into your hands and make sure that it's working for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. All right. I see no other hands raised. I'll go ahead here and want to thank all of my colleagues for all of your questions and your comments. You, my council office and I, along with affordable housing experts, providers and owners, we have been working for the past two years to address tenants rights and protections. And for the first time in Denver's history, we will have significant renter protections through the healthy residential rentals for all license. We have thoroughly researched and crafted this policy to mitigate concerns of unintended consequences to tenants, such as fees being passed on to renters or displacement. I'm proud of this policy and it is well researched, fair and equitable. I'd like to acknowledge and sincerely thank my two council co-sponsors. Council President Pro Tem Torres and Councilwoman Robin Kinney. Megan Allen's my chief of staff. Thank you for all of your hard work on this. You were tirelessly you you were tirelessly in your persistence in making sure that we could get good answers to the great questions posed. And also Melissa Sotelo in my council office and Emily Lapel, our legislative analysts who did our early research. I'd like to also personally thank Tiana Patterson from Elevation Community Land Trust, Kate Steen Stig Berg excuse me, Stig Berg and Michael Reddick from Healthier Colorado. Aubrey has filed from Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Kenzie Halstead and Katie McKenna from Enterprise Community Partners and Tonya Pringle from the city of Boulder and our amazing city agencies and staff who are truly experts and collaborated on this policy. Reggie Ngubane, who wrote this ordinance. And so blogger Kirsten Crawford and John Griffin from our city attorney's office. Molly Duplass. Shane and Erica Rogers from Excise and Licensing. Melissa Totty and Nick M Heiser from our Department of Housing Stability. And Julie Sapp. And John Keeler from the Climate Action Sustainable Resources Office. Tara Olsen. And Will Fenton from the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And all of the additional agency staff members who joined our stakeholder group to share their expertize and knowledge. We had a lot of help in crafting this policy, I must say. Denver has been in a housing crisis for decades, and the pandemic has put even more uncertainties on our residents who rent. For the first time, we will have a license that will ensure our rental properties are safe and meet Denver's housing standards. We'll collect that basic property owner information as well as important rental data to enable us to broadly share resources with tenants and strengthen our tenant, landlord education and outreach. The phased in proactive rental license program, where inspections are required and done routinely every four years, will help identify issues and protect the health and safety of tenants more efficiently. This shifts the burden of code enforcement from relying solely on a tenant complaint to a more prevention based, equitable approach to improve housing quality. In partnership with Councilwoman Connie. Additional renter protections include a requirement starting on January 1st, 2022, that renters have a written lease for all new tenancies exceeding 30 days. That rental owners and operators provide a notice of tenant's rights and resources and provide them again if there's any demand for rent. The Colorado Center on Law and Policy, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of Coloradans experiencing poverty excuse me, are in support of this policy from Jack Regan Brogan, their senior attorney. This proposed ordinance would establish a meaningful process for ensuring a minimum degree of health and safety in residential rental properties by allowing for regular inspections of rental units. The proposed license program would more equitably standardize health and safety protections for residential tenants. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that this program would quite literally save lives. Many times during this process, people have asked me, why is this so important to you? Well, it's important to me because if it's happening in my community to renters, for example, that Green Valley Ranch property that we've used as one of the most egregious violators with black mold, exposed electrical wires, etc., then it's happening in all of our communities. It's personal as well. We will, for the first time be able to collect data on how many rental units are ADA accessible. You see, my dad is an incomplete quadriplegic. He had a car accident when he when I was 22 years old. And he uses an electric motorized wheelchair for everything that he does. Parking accommodations and more data are important to make sure that we're supporting those in our community. And also because for a short time, my husband and I lived in a rented mobile home. Every time it got down below freezing, the pipes would freeze. We didn't have water. We had a brand new baby. But I couldn't make formula. We couldn't wash our hands. We couldn't wash our dishes. We couldn't even flush the toilet. Hearing renters voices and their stories. Their experiences have all supported the need for this rental license, with required inspections to ensure that property owners understand clearly their obligations if they are going to rent a property in Denver. Last I asked you to think about how important your home was to you and your loved ones over the past year. How important was it for your children who when they were learning remotely? Or if you're a caregiver for a vulnerable family member. Our homes became our sanctuaries. Every renter in Denver should be afforded the right to know that their rental unit meets the minimum housing standards, along with the requirement of a written lease and access to tenants rights and resources. Thank you to my colleagues for your support and I respectfully ask for your vote this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 0420, please. Black. Hi. CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Hines. I. Cashman. Hi. Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear. I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0420 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Clerk, Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes. Council President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Four 4426 For 14 or 15 for 16 or 17 for 18. 388. 389. 436. 438. 279. And 151. Second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. He needs. Hi. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Hi, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0309 changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Washington Park.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation from the People’s Budget Coalition on the People’s Budget Proposal FY 2021.

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0895

Item 14 is communication from Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Zendaya's recommendation to receive and file a presentation from the People's Budget Coalition on the proposed budget proposal, FY 2021. You're right. Thank you. I'll turn it over to Councilmember Pearce. Thank you so much. I know that we've never done a presentation like this before in council. I think the budget has been organizing with different nonprofits and organizations for several years. I think officially presenting a people's budget for the last five years. I could be wrong there, but we thought it was important just to hear a presentation. I know they've made lots of requests. I recognize that this budget year is a extremely tight budget year. But we thought since they've done so much work around this, given the historical context, that we give some space for them to present today . So I have not had a chance to see the presentation yet, so I look forward to seeing this today and hearing from my council colleagues. So thank you. For. Having me. We have them on the line. That's a question for the court. Councilmember, what was your question? I believe the clerk has them lined up to speak, got for the presentation. So I was just putting her. Ailsa Chang, are you on the line? Yeah, we're here. And this time. My. Kids like Elsa and Dawn. I believe you guys have 10 minutes, so if you'd like to go ahead and get started. Great. Thank you. So good evening. I'm John McCain's District two residence in long beach and the People Coalition. Co-Presenters are Gaby. Hernandez, the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. Troy Peters with Invest in Youth Campaign and Maniac Bay, BLM and. HUD Council. Thank you, Councilwoman Mary Finn Anthony Pearce for incentivizing our presentation tonight. Next slide, please. Mayor Garcia, you recently posted on social media your support for. BLM and racial justice, as have other council members. And some of you have said absolutely nothing and your silence speaks. Volumes to the actions that you take today are far more significant than your platitudes on social media. You got to make the tough decisions tonight to ensure our whole city's values are actually reflected in this budget. Next slide, please. We are. Also here tonight because of police violence. Corruption and your negligence as mayor and council members. We are not here because. We condemn what happened in Minneapolis or in Kansas City. But what is happening right here in Long Beach. Because you, mayor, city council and city manager, past and present, have enabled this violent police department. You support corruption without BP and their police officers association allowing you to operate with impunity and zero accountability. Over five years, the Post spent more than $860,000 on the mission of benefiting our BPD. And so purchasing you and other political candidates like Sandy Allen in exchange for you to protect their killer cops and to buy your silence. And then the way you are, like the way when they snuck in Article. Nine of their email you. September 17th last year. To hide their vinyl record. Next slide, please. We are here not just because of your connection with. The place, but the department's own. Corruption. Killer cops using tiger techs. To delete. Records. Destroying hard records. And aiming guns at innocent protesters like Dante Parks. The loner threatened to have his. Toddler taken away plotting to murder activists like Sun King smiling Talons coins praising their violence. Mangold neglects to address the white supremacist vigilante murder. Of Frederick Path. And you all historically allowed seed money to. Run the seed and retaliate against Tomas Gonzalez after he thought your health costing taxpayers another 700,000 plus dollars. This is why you have to defund the Arab, please. We are also here because of this department's murder. With impunity. You turned a blind eye to Don Tasered and sat on his back three times, mistaking cell phone. For a gun. Officer Hernandez murdered for Murad when he needed care which firemen were providing. Six officers murdered Lionel. Hampton after a passer by claimed his airsoft rifle. With a real gun. Expired. I'm including. The murder of beloved think. Wine cream salting and the largest jury verdict for cop killing in Long Beach hit $39.8 million. Next slide, please. This and more is a reflection of your collective magnanimity. You have enabled. And supported these murders of our sons, our daughters, our brothers, sisters, neighbors and friends. Who will be next? Next slide, please, Gabby. We all know that repeal consumes 44% of our general fund and 240 million taxpayer dollars, most of which goes to pay the salaries, benefits and overtime of more than 850 cops. But what is the true cause of racist, violent policing? Next slide. Since 2014, the city has spent more than 31 million to settle 61 excessive force in wrongful death lawsuit against LPD. That's more than Baltimore, Minneapolis, Denver and Oakland have paid for police lawsuits. This law shows only the top four highest payouts, but this settlements are just the tip of the iceberg. Next slide. They'll be PD almost never fires or disciplines, officers involved in killings or injuring people. Legal records dating back to 2007 showed that in 65, LPD officers have been involved in committing violence against community members, including 28 officers involved in killing people. And this is just the small subset of violent officers with official legal complaints against them. Most of these violent officers and killer cops were still on the city's payroll as of last year. Not only are these battling cops still out here policing the community, they're actually rewarded. OLB PD has promoted at least 12 of the Bailin cops to ranks of Sergeant and lieutenant, including the cops involved in the killings of Lynette Gibson, John, the real Mike Gordon, Jenny and Jason consistently. The city has paid this 65 billion and killer cops more than 52 million in salaries and benefits in the years following their violent offenses. 52 million doesn't even include the cost of access, insurance and city attorneys who defend violent cops. Next slide. All of these numbers and all of this cause points to a toxic culture and system of white supremacy that you all bought to protect and expand every time you throw more money at police and less and less money as systems of care. LAPD is not just a few bad apples, but a whole rotten orchard, one that protects and rewards repeat offenders like officers Salvadore Latorre and Jason Kirk, both of whom have killed multiple people and caused the city millions of dollars in payouts and salaries. And because of this negligence of successive mayors, councils and city matters, Long Beach taxpayers continue to foot the bill for violent and killer cops year after year, while police continue to terrorize black communities in communities of color. Next, life choice. All of this is why we're calling on you to defund OPD and reimagine community safety. Our communities need care, not cops. We're calling on you to divest from LAPD by at least 20%. That's $50 million for the budget shortfall and then reinvest the remaining 20 million into the people's budget. Any other essential services like community health, libraries and parks. Next slide, please. When we divest from BP, we must reinvest in black lives and communities of color. One We must reimagine community safety without police terror grounded in restorative justice and black empowerment. Two We must establish dedicated funding to build affordable and supportive housing. Three, We must invest 4.4 million to provide a right to counsel for all renters to reduce evictions and prevent homelessness. Or we must invest 700,000 to establish a rental housing division to communicate with both tenants and landlords and enforce tenant protections. Next slide, please. We must create Community Health Councils for community led crisis response or mental health and safety. Six We must provide free job training for black residents and revise the city's project labor agreement so that black contractors and workers benefit from union jobs. Seven We must invest 2.3 million fully funded language access and finally create a culture of language justice by moving service in-house. Eight We must boost senior and youth development programing and supportive services. And nine finally, we must invest 400,000 to renew and expand the Long Beach Justice Fund to provide free, universal legal representation to our immigrant neighbors facing deportation. Next slide, please, for Maniac. Unlike the city, unlike the city of Long Beach, true reconciliation, as applied by the people of Australia, Canada and South Africa is based on a few key principles. Led by the victims, those who were harmed, and to the perpetrators of the harm. The city of Long Beach and the Elbe PD. They must be truthful in their testimony and conciliatory in their tone. This is key because Chief Luna, LAPD and the PSA have not been apologetic nor conciliatory, even after the facts of historical racism and discrimination have been proven and exposed. Instead, we see political assassination plots, social media posts filled with lies and scare tactics and outright bragging of their violent history with their backs in boots challenge coins. When it comes to equity, black citizens in Long Beach have been at the top of all the negative statistics and at the bottom of all the positive ones. These facts are why the city itself declared racism a public health crisis. This is why EUR 1.5 million for racial reconciliation is simply a joke. Defunding the racist police by 5% is not enough to address the true needs of the community. We are calling for a true victim led process where at least 20% of the LAPD budget is divested and reinvested in the people's budget. And those who have been harmed the most, the black community. You were elected by the people to represent the people, not the police department. You have the power to begin to overturn the culture of systematic racism and white supremacy in City Hall and the Elbe PD. Do not wait for another viral video or another multimillion dollar payout. Do not wait for another innocent life to be taken. Be bold and be brave and be a visionary. Leaders of the people that we elected you to be. History can be on your side if you make the right decision. Thank you. We're happy to ask questions. Councilmember first. Thank you, Mayor. Well, that was a unique presentation for the council. I think that you guys spoke from your heart and your experience, and I appreciate the moment. I know that this is probably not a comfortable presentation. It wasn't 100%, I think, what people were expecting. But I want us to focus on the fact that what the message here is that you guys have a platform of things that you've asked for. And whenever people ask, where does the money come from? You're looking at those departments in the city where you feel like. That should come from. And I know that there will probably be maybe some discussion on this item or maybe on the budget item. But I really wanted to focus on the requests that were made around the housing work, the language access work, and that that was the purpose of this presentation. So I appreciate your guys time. I'm not sure if there's any other council comments, but that's those are my comments. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. I don't I don't see any. I'm will go to the comment on the item. Our first speaker is Daniel Arturo. Hi. I'm calling in support of the adoption of the People's Budget in support. Of. Everything that was just presented. I strongly do not believe the police make communities safer. My name is Daniela Carroll. By the way, I don't know if I said that and. I think that even. With the proposed budget. Cutting, the small amount. That's being cut from the police budget, they're still going to be better staffed than most of our other departments in our library or health or parks and economic development departments. And I don't find that acceptable. I believe that providing legal defense and rental assistance for Long Beach residents needs to be a priority, along with language access, of course. And I think we need to re-imagine a long beach in which we are hiring social workers and librarians and afterschool tutors and people who could make the city more equitable. And I just want to end in saying. And advocating for adopting the people's budget. And reallocating funds and additional resources on an ongoing basis to community led priorities that create health, opportunity, community and justice. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Miller. Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. My name is Jemima and I am a community organizer with the Long Beach Immigrants Rights Coalition. I am here today because, again, I am disappointed by how little our voice matters to the city council mayor. Every time I leave the city council meeting, I think to myself, what could we have done better to be heard by city council? What can we do to make them realize that they are witnesses of literal murder task by police? They honor and accept money from grandmothers. Mother's daughters are here. Tell you what, they need to keep their community safe. As you ignore them, the children are listening. I will say this again, and the generations after me will continue to say this. The police are murdering black and brown communities, and you're allowing this to happen by giving them the resources to do it. Taking a stand is defunding the police by 20%, not taking pictures and with protesters with fists in the air while continuing to get police funding. 40% of the city's general fund police violence has to stop. And you are now in a position of power to make that happen. Tonight, you had the choice to make the right decision to be brave and listen to the very people you swore to represent. Defund the police and fund programs that will give renters the opportunity for legal representation. Yes, this will prevent homelessness. Renew the justice fund. You'll be able to unite immigrant families and keep them safe from deadly conditions in detention centers. Renew it by 400,000 with 50,000 to go to lba. Thank you. Our next speaker. Is melissa garlick. Hi there. Thank you, mayor and council members. My name is Melissa GARLICK. I'm testifying on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice, specifically to investment in the Long Beach Justice Fund. We've been proud to partner with the City of Long Beach as part of our safe network, as a leader in creating a legal defense fund that advances universal representation for Long Beach residents facing detention and deportation. And as part of the People's Budget proposal, we urge you to support $400,000 for the Long Beach Justice Fund for FY 21 and as part of a permanent component of Long Beach City Council. As the devastating impacts of a public health crisis meet the harms inflicted by systemic racism, the accumulation of injustices facing immigrant communities, communities of color, black immigrants has reached a tipping point, and its consequences will continue unless communities take action. Now is the time to examine the city's police budget, reimagine public safety and invest in communities. The stakes are high. Immigrants of color who are racially profiled and criminalized are funneled into the detention and deportation machinery. Communities need local investment and programs that protect communities of color and immigrant communities and language justice. Science is an investment in keeping together families and communities who are criminalized and targeted by overpolicing and increased immigration enforcement. It's a widely supported program that ensures lawyers on the front lines fighting every day for the health, freedom and due process of immigrants in detention. Support for this program is needed now more than ever. Thank you. Our next speaker is Norberto Lopez. Gilberto Lopez. Roberto Lopez. Your time starts now. Jordan. Jordan, during your time starts now. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Jordan. The people's budget has been demanding defunding LAPD for years. So the councilmembers who say they don't understand what divestment is or they don't understand any of this, I have to ask, were you not paying attention during those meetings? Because I know recently council members have been leaving during certain parts of meetings, as we saw last week, when certain council members had to be texted and brought back in. So I just wanted to say that it is frankly insulting that the people's budget is getting a presentation after all these years, on the same day that you're passing a budget and you're not making any significant changes to the budget or delaying it or really taking into consideration all. Councilmember Richardson, in a few meetings ago, you specifically asked the city manager about your reconciliation process. He told you that? There would be hearings in October, but it's not relevant to the budget. Blah, blah, blah, that type of thing. So I have to ask, what is the point of your reconciliation process if it has no impact on the budget and the police still get all this money and we can't fund any of the demands of the people's budget or close the. Funding shortfalls this year without cutting essential services. If the reconciliation process happens after the budget passes, if nothing changes at the budget, how will the police have been reconciled? How well anything have changed? Defund the police and take a bold stand against police violence, divest from BPD and then invest differently in our community health and safety. Thank you. Our next speaker is Norberto Lopez. Tony. Hello? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, I'm calling my name as the term project director with Libra, and I'm calling in support of people's budget and hoping that the city council can adopt it. We're calling on the city to really look at the needs of the community and not the needs of the police or the developers. We've been asking for the people's budget for a year. You know, we had a. Presentation today. But it's not enough. What we're asking for is for direct action and for you to actually adopt what we're asking for. We're asking for a housing division. We're asking for more affordable housing. We're also asking that there's a right to council program in the city to help tenants out. We really, really, really need you to defund the police and fund community initiatives that really help out the people that need it the most, not funding people who make twice as much or even three times as much as a community member. So we're really asking you to defund the police and adopt the people's budget. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going. To move to the Spanish. Interpretation, interpretation. Portion of the public. Comments or give us a moment. And. The first speaker is Elizabeth Gonzalez. Lisa Gonzalez Primero. What, autumn? My question. Here may. Be number 25 as one palace. My name is Thomas. And you put this together. George Wallace may nominate Palin. My name is on, and I'm here. To give. A check. I'm going to tell you that I'm very disappointed in regards to this participation. But he made it. First of all, how about another? I couldn't hear. Noninvolvement in that and interpret that as. Yeah. And I couldn't understand what the interpreter was saying. Norah. I feel that I'm being a general. This is back home in Colorado and there's the process. I want to keep getting. Close to each other. And to really feel that I am being heard. Jennifer, see that one point there? We see open up all there and they're all communication willingly. We need good service so that we are able to have good bilingual communication getting there. They look, they start Orlando. We need to have the actual fluidity of what is actually being seen. As everyday symbols. Para la policia the man has gone and banged the policy into. But I make them say, re-issue the production. I still think that we need to defund the police of at least 20% so that we are able to improve the language. Sundance, L.A.. I see that excuse that a lack of money that. He dissembled for not being supportive. And so I feel that we are up on that clinical development. Sorry. We're having trouble with the translators line. Give us a moment. Okay. They cannot hear me. Okay. Can you hear me now in English? Yes. On muted. Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. Did you hear the whole interpretation of what was said just now or. No? No. You cut off about halfway through the interpretation. Okay. Where? What was the last thing that you heard? Because I have it here in my notes. She requested a 20% reduction in the police budget was her last comment that you translated to us. Okay, so we put a request for 20% budget at 20% defunding of the police from the budget because that would really help the great needs that we have in the community, for example, that would really have the major language needs that we have. Because I do feel that we're not being heard in for example, defund ment with 20% would also help opening our mental health clinics. That is also something that could be done with that. And that was the last thing that she said. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jose CU. When I started in the scooter. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? My scooter when I started. Clean yourself a scooter. My kitchen staff. Feel. Okay. We've periprocedural and dosing your lecture context today. I think young people think that, but that is all about meeting me. Interpret that in a moment. But I saw this thing, you know. When I started mean cassava. He used to assemble not only a of this computer. I said, Do you mean that? Suppose you keep that in the present. Okay. But beneficial. The person that here in this house in Houston meant the eagerness of into policy to kill a policy are also all my loser paracetamol troublesome Mr. Comunidad attempted the galore gay then if he said he I thought to be my on this a local in Cousteau e or looked and took the several examples in the way law recourses into policy. You are a moot de la familia. Get some of this Carlos in me council frequency equals e nor the in all your but your polar. Here is a lunar event that this was of this a local law must put on the possible only familiar. Okay moment it does in your OC. And everybody hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Yes. Good afternoon. First of all, I come here with great humility and with great respect to all of you to really make a call out to you for a 20% a defunding of the police. This really would help the communities that have been unfairly evicted in this case. Not only would that help the communities that have been unfairly evicted, but these funds that have been misused could actually be used not only to have the communities that have been unfairly evicted, but it would really mean great support for communities such as myself that have gone through that situation. I, for example, went through this situation. I was evicted. I'm fairly and justly with five kids, without any assistance whatsoever, without any other way of protecting them, processing it. Get in there. Stop it this long. Get your stupid end or get your crooked appointee up. It was sort of a course of Jeopardy era and said, benefit yourself. But I'm a sort of la comunidad thinking that I. I think that. Title. I think that the police has a lot of resources and that could be very beneficial for everybody in the community in general. Seek out senior. See Novello and specifically the Una comunidad is by now and they get out. They like much of communities others in Long Beach system even though in pursuing this precarious get a fiscal appointee. My loser with the Iran are you are asking my your interview is yours e a look at some parents have all told Abbas. Okay we being I also want to say that you know these funds that the police says in this case misusing that this could also actually be helped to assist the community and in general and I just don't mean specifically just for, you know, the Hispanic community or for the black community, but I mean, for the community in general, there are many people that need support that live in many precarious situations. And I think that these funds could also be used not only for assistance for elderly people or even for special education services for parents. Thank you. Our next speaker is Luis Maria Ortiz. Getting into what I do, what I lose. Maria Ortiz. Cinerama is quicker. Is quicker. Three. Okay. Sing it up with the presenter Joyce Culture. Winner. Seven nominations. My loyalty. The story of what we do is we obtain not only that, but I say to my San Jose, are you there environmental? So I'm all for them. She's a chemical interpreter, saying, My name is Maria Ortiz. And once again, I am asking that you please reinvest these funds back into the community so that we can, for example, be able to invest and open up and centers for mental health assistance. Senora. Are you there live? Who is delivering them records? The orientation that we are able to as well provide resources for the youth where they get services related to guidance and orientation. Seeing us in Europe. Don't they select proposals for you? Yes, I mean. Were there. They were the youth not only got support, but also guidance as well. T. Don't get established on my my. But okay, look, when it's over, it's going to moment those critical. Where they were. We also have prevention programs for the youth where especially in these very tough times seeing us in Europe. Give them space. And they don't think that the ability to intentionally send souls. Where they use, especially in these very tough times where there are so much uncertainty, but the youth does not feel that they are alone. Getting the attempt over that much better holiness in basic details. And that we actually are able to invest more in programs for the youth and not remove these programs instead. Economic development, we will respond accordingly. And to not lose our focus, which should be the youth and how to assist them. Yes. On which. Evidence. And that is all. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. You start concretely come in through your poorly compressed 30 kilograms? Yes. Oh. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The second on this motion by counsel was in defiance has been withdrawn. So there is no there was no second on this motion. Is there a second on this motion? Any second on this motion. Okay. So, Mr. City Attorney, I believe since there's no second on Councilman Pierce's motion, the item dies without a vote. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.

A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the East Central Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Adopts the East Central Area Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-15-20.

DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-0930

So the east central area, for those of you who are not familiar or as a reminder are the six neighborhood statistical areas adjacent to Colfax Avenue and between Broadway and Colorado Boulevard. Four of the six neighborhood statistical areas are on Council District ten. And two of the neighborhoods are in Council District nine. And that culminates in about 83% of the population in District ten and 17% in District nine. So the plan is organized around topics and also some areas or the neighborhoods within the east central area. So it includes land use and built form that makes recommendations related to zoning and urban design, economy and housing, which has recommendations related to small businesses, jobs, training and affordable housing mobility, which makes recommendations related to infrastructure. For bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and quality of life infrastructure that covers landscaping, green infrastructure, the tree canopy and parks. There's also sections within the plan for each neighborhood statistical area in East Central that gives customized recommendations for the unique attributes of each neighborhood, as well as the Colfax corridor. And finally, an implementation section that outlines a work program for short term and long term implementation of recommendations. The planning process, as well as the plan content itself was prepared through an equity lens, and that includes the three equity concepts that are in Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. That's access to opportunity, vulnerability to displacement, jobs and housing diversity. And while the plan has a number of recommendations across those comprehensive topics, I'm going to highlight the six priority recommendations that consistently rose to the top throughout our planning process. The first is to strengthen the local economy by providing training for jobs and local industries, improving access to employment and supporting locally owned independent businesses. And that includes partnerships with East Central hospitals. East Central has a number of hospitals, both within the area, as well as right adjacent to the area along the boundaries. And leveraging this asset of the hospitals to provide more training for residents and affordable housing, particularly for health care employees. Secondly, to preserve the independent culture of Colfax by proactively helping small, independent businesses survive and thrive during and after. Colfax Bus Rapid Transit Construction by providing financial and technical assistance. We have also a number of other recommendations to help small, locally owned businesses throughout the East Central area, especially during this time of COVID. That can help make sure that we are doing what we can to prevent displacement of those businesses. Second, to make housing more affordable and make more options available to a wide range of families and individuals. And this includes providing a more diverse range of housing options in our neighborhoods, as well as using every tool in the toolbox , including zoning, to address the housing shortage by adding more affordable housing, especially affordable housing that's close to convenient public transit. Third to improve services for residents experiencing homelessness and to take steps to prevent more people from losing their homes. And this includes a key emphasis on reducing involuntary displacement by preserving existing affordable housing in the east central area, as well as enhancing social services to residents experiencing homelessness. A key aspect of this is to preserve the existing income restricted housing, which over the plan horizon, more than half are scheduled to go back online as market rate housing and losing the income restriction that have been put in place. So a key aspect of making East Central more affordable is to permanently preserve the existing affordable housing that we're going to lose. Fourth is to make our streets safer and more comfortable for everyone by improving walking, bicycling and public transit infrastructure. This includes building high quality sidewalks and safer crossings along Colfax and the streets immediately adjacent and parallel to Colfax. That includes 13th, 14th, 16th and 17th. Making sure that those streets are much safer to travel along and to cross. The East Central area contains some of our most historic neighborhoods and landmark structures in Denver, and this has been a key priority throughout the process to expand historic preservation by making it easier to reuse existing buildings, creating more historic districts, and ensuring that new buildings, when they are built, are fit in better with our surrounding neighborhoods through contextual design standards. This includes a recommendation to create what's called an adaptive reuse ordinance that helps reduce regulatory barriers for small businesses looking to expand or move into existing buildings, incentivizing preservation of historically significant and and character, providing buildings and adopting new standards for quality design and compatibility with adjacent homes. And then sixth, which is the last priority recommendation, is to reduce our carbon pollution and create more climate resilient neighborhoods by providing more opportunities for people to live and work near transit, adding shade trees and taking a green approach to stormwater management. These this includes directing growth near high quality transit and protecting mature trees and focusing and prioritizing tree planting efforts in strategic areas where the tree canopy is deficient. Each neighborhood section that I mentioned earlier also includes what we call a transformative project, where we visualize how some of these recommendations can come together through physical changes in the environment. And so some of them include the District six police station redevelopment, key intersections such as Park Avenue 11th and Ogden, Colfax and Colorado 17th and Garfield 13th and Vine and a new community garden and neighborhood park in the Converse Park neighborhood. The implementation section categorizes our recommendations into three buckets. One, the regulatory topic public infrastructure and partnerships and programs. And again, this will set up our implementation program that will start once the plan is adopted. So now we'll get into the three review criteria that are used to evaluate approval of area plans. The first is that it is an inclusive committee process. Second, that it's consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040. And third, that the plan demonstrates a long term view. So first I'll talk about the inclusive community process. As Laura mentioned, this was a three year process which is longer than we usually take for area plans, quite a bit longer. We extended the process by a full year because stakeholders and other community residents asked for additional time to do outreach, asked for additional time to review materials throughout the process. And we we agreed with that and we granted those extensions. The process was robust. Over 3500 participants weighed in at our workshops and online, and we received over 10,000 comments throughout this period. This included six community wide workshops, 14 focus group meetings where we met with topic based experts in priority topics such as affordable housing, small businesses , walking and bicycling, and 11 online survey surveys and activities. All of our community workshops had an online equivalent, so if you couldn't make the workshop, you could always take the same exact activities on on our website. Using online tools, we had 30 steering committee meetings. We met 24 times with Arnaud's and other community groups. We had six office hours sessions where we allowed anyone who wanted to ask any questions or provide additional feedback and more of a one on one environment. The opportunity to do so. And we met with community members out in their neighborhoods to do field surveys of important locations within the east central area. Our outreach included 23 CPD newsletters, three Denver Planning Board meetings that were on television. We fired and put pop up events at 81 locations where printed materials were provided and people were able to answer questions and provide comments. And we had at least eight stories in the local media that included the Denver Post, Denver 79 News and Fox 31. Can me outreach also included language access services, as Laura mentioned. We had Spanish language interpretation, food and child care at every community workshop. We also hired two additional planners just for this project who were completely fluent and bilingual that were made available at the workshops for anyone who needed that assistance. So not only professional interpretation, but bilingual planners that could help people who needed those services do the activities. Multiple staff members from our consultant team, we're also bilingual as well. All of our fliers that we distributed throughout the East Central area, which included libraries, rec center schools, apartment buildings, businesses, all of those fliers were printed both in English and Spanish. All of our electronic communication web materials online activities are compatible with smartphones. They're all ADA accessible and they're all available for auto translation. And in some instances, people mentioned that they had difficulty accessing the plan, document or other materials online. And so by request, we did create print copies and delivered print copies of materials to those individuals that needed that. One of the things that I think our team is proud of that we did in this community outreach process was we set up a demographic tracking system from the very beginning of the process, and we did that not just to be able to report out at the end of the process who we reached. But we looked at that data throughout the process at each milestone, and in order to identify the demographic gaps and who, we were not hearing from any central area. So we would look at the demographic forms that were submitted both in our in-person meetings and online, and we would compare that data to the census demographics of the East Central area. And consistently throughout the process, the most underrepresented group were younger, lower income renters, particularly in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. So with that, we we did targeted outreach to help fill some of those gaps. We we did a number of meetings at apartment buildings, such as the residences that Franklin Park, resident Renaissance, Uptown Lofts. As Laura mentioned, for the first time in our department's history that we're aware of anyway, we partnered with service providers Price in the city, and we did direct outreach to residents in East Central Area who are experiencing homelessness. That that input we received from those residents were, was directly and directly inform our social services recommendations in the plan. We did target outreach of schools and we had a partnership with Councilman Hines office, who used his own resources and his own staff to hold a series of over a dozen additional meetings focused on younger, lower income renters and capital. So the draft plan itself. So after the multiple years of engagement that I just summarized, we put out a draft plan document. And just on the draft plan document, we had over 300 residents weigh in and placed comments within that document for suggestions. So we got over 3000 comments on our different drafts of the plan and we produced three of them. Most of those comments were smaller changes, but we did make over 100 substantive policy changes in response to that participation on the draft plan document. We're also very keen on transparency. We put every single comment that we received online and they're all on our website and we went to the length of responding to every single comment. And those responses are on his web or on our website as well. The Planning Board unanimously approved the central plan at their September 2nd meeting with two clarity and correctness conditions. Seven members of the public spoke in support of the plan, and three spoke in opposition to the plan at the planning board hearing. So with that, we we staff find that the East Central Area plan meets the first criteria that it was developed through an inclusive public process. The second criteria of plan consistency with comprehensive plan 2040. This is in your staff report but the the six vision elements of comprehensive plan 2040 that provide the organizing framework for that plan are included as an organizing principle in the East Central Plan. We expanded on the vision statements in each of these each of these domains, each of these topic areas, and found consistency with numerous goals and strategies where we expanded upon those goals and vision statements and strategies or clarified or customized those vision goals, visions, goals and strategies within each central area. Likewise, Blueprint Denver has an organizing framework of three major topic areas land use and built form, mobility and quality of life infrastructure. The central plan has all three of these topics in the plan and we've expanded upon and are consistent with many of those policies within those three topic areas. There's a number of maps that are in Blueprint Denver The Future Places, which is the land use designations, the growth strategy, the equity concepts, the mobile priority maps. All of these maps were created within the East Central Plan and will update blueprint Denver's Comprehensive Maps upon adoption. So with that, we do find that the plan is the central plan is consistent with both comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. And then the last criteria is that the plan has a long term view. So the essential plan has a 2040 planning horizon and establishes that longer term view to maintain the look and feel of established residential neighborhoods while accommodating growth and strategically directing that growth to centers and corridors that are well-served by high quality transit. The vision will take many years to achieve. It is ambitious and so we do find that the East Central Area Plan has the appropriate long term perspective. So with that, our staff recommendation is that the East Central Plan is recommended for approving, recommended for approval, having met the review criteria. And that concludes my presentation. All right. Thank you very much. We have 32 speakers and we have a one hour time slot scheduled to hear from the public. And so we will go ahead and dove right in. I want to remind speakers that they have 3 minutes each. And if you could maybe limit your comments or if folks have already spoke on a certain portion of the plan, maybe you let that stand in the record and allow that would help us get more speakers into the queue. And so our first speaker that we have is Molly McKinley. Evening Council. My name's Molly McKinlay. I live in the Cheesman Park neighborhood and I serve as the vice chair of the Denver Streets Partnership, a coalition of community organizations advocating for people friendly. Denver The best is ensuring our city is healthy, safe and accessible to everyone, regardless of how they get around. Our support for the adoption of the Central Area Plan. Are pleased to see that many aspects of the area wide mobility recommendations in the East Central Area Plan will support the creation of more people friendly streets consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint number. You strongly endorse the mode share and traffic safety goals and focus on creating bold changes to the mobility system by repurposing street space along key corridors, prioritized safe and accessible walking, biking, rolling and transit on unaffected streets in the East Central area, which were implemented earlier this spring in response to the pandemic. The philosophy of if you build it, they will come, finally come to life in all kinds of folks from roller blading, people walking and running. And my favorite, which is then kids learning to ride bikes, take to these newly arranged public spaces. But we've seen on a few streets. Imagine if we expand spaces and opportunities for walking, biking, rolling and transit as outlined throughout the East Central Area Plan. That will be a huge part of how we meet our city wide mode share and traffic safety goals. Oh. Friendly speech. Well, not only from street designs that support walking, biking, rolling and transit, but also land use and development patterns that make these transportation modes accessible and practical ways people reach their daily destinations. Diversity Partnership therefore strongly endorses the recommendations in the plan for increased density along Colfax, other transit corridors allowing density near transit. And that maximizes the number of people who can access the service and use it on a regular basis, which expands the benefit of existing and future transit investments further. Two of the most significant household expenses are housing and transportation. Building affordable housing units near transit ensures people who need it the most have access and can significantly reduce transportation costs or cost burden. Households, which make up 36% of households in the east central area and city that allows people to live close to their daily destinations. Also makes walking and biking a realistic option getting from place to place rather than forcing people to live far away. Driving is the only practical option to get where they need to go. The Denver Streets Partnership urges you to adopt this plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Morales. Okay. Hi. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Jesse. My name is Jesse Morelli, and I am the president of the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association. And I'm here tonight to represent the interests and desires of our members and board. I apologize. My presentation leaves something to be desired. That's a little disconcerting. Is this format. I would like to start by saying I would be remiss not to voice the frustration of our Renaud in our neighboring Arnaud's about the east central area plan. And the fact that we're at this point already, despite immense opposition that CPD's been informed of and concern that we've voiced. Well, we're glad to have the opportunity to make our voices heard. We do have serious concerns that the city's adoption of this plan. It's been a predetermined outcome and in the process it's been put in place that Mr. Upton just described. To develop, it was more window dressing than actually gathering neighborhoods, input and support, and that the content of the plan has always been determined and no input from us has really been considered. What I'm here to say specifically is that I have been authorized by a unanimous vote of our members to oppose the adoption of the East Central Area plan for a variety of reasons, but mainly because we believe that the plan represents the city putting into place directions to other city agencies. It would one compromise at best, but in our view most likely threaten public safety in and around our neighborhoods. It also proposes to increase residential density without considering or resolving in advance the impact this increased density would have on our infrastructure, with specific concerns in our group regarding the negative impact on our schools. Finally, we believe the plan prioritizes the interests of developers and other business at the cost of residents and residential property owners. So in addition to those things, we like to say that we also had some serious concerns and real complaints about the process that's been followed. But to understand our opposition, I think that some background in support. Is is warranted. First of all, Sandy was Santa, which is the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association, was never notified of this plane. I think we represent a significant part of the area outlined in the plan, but we were never asked to participate in the process. We were never notified of the process and our input was never asked for. Despite never being notified of the planning process or included in any way until we found out about it independently. The Santa Board and all of our members have been actively engaged on these issues, and we've done our best to represent ourselves. Q That's the time we have allotted. Thank you for speaking on this tonight. Next up, we have just Sela Camacho. Okay. He went as much as a door behind a colonial city power in the Medici Domino movie in El Inglés, or a social contract or an interpreter. So you analyze what is personal in his final journals and hat on what other plan? The recent rallies they meant the real plan for many of the unconventional. They will never mother companero Nino a. Cooper Gallagher them. They were one of the many local control amphibian pest control centers. We got us on the air for that eagle as company minister and whereas I see no local star in terms of purchasing as como your. Less information getting in and this final lane and Patel is moving Walker yellow featuring nothing with the other look if he still planned it alive yet Gill said partner this. Dispersal and. This you're sure there will only be a loss plan if that is the last two that Israel cruise contest open in the driver's bracket participant is you look at not the interpret this near your participative Israel cruise maybe hook us Estrella Romney on this in September the columnist had a plan if Cassian your young male reunion you got it on Amiga. Yeah my Paralympic fumble and then the. They look at this map is how do they not have it in this year? You cannot say, look, this whole plan is recommending not putting them there now that Mubarak will still participate in any company that. You could get pregnant or kill you that not the initial plan dishonorably and not proceed en masse for you. That must complete complicate. A person must commit. You'll get more than one participant. Talk to me was no less important. I was there. This is what people are still in this environment. They're being. What I see is the little they are. They're all good. Yes. What are they? Incluyen Abelson, is that his? That's when the person has come. We joke they must participate. Considering make when the what them and the other or you consider considering postpone is what affected the plan through? Yep. As soon as. Your grass has what is picture? Thank you, Miss Camacho. We unfortunately did not have the request for an interpreter tonight. And so asking any of my colleagues on the meeting if they would be willing to. Do a quick summary of Miss Camacho's points for us. Or we'll have to end up and just let it stand. Oh, Councilman CdeBaca. Happy to do a quick overview. Miss, come on. Look at that. She found out about the plan from a parent of her student. She has tried to engage and at multiple junctures has been unable to engage because of a lack of interpretation. She feels very reluctant about or hesitant about this plan because of the fears of displacement. And she hopes that you all will listen to her and people like her and make these meetings more conducive to people like her. If I left anything else, jump in. Miss Camacho, thank you so much for being here tonight. And and I think we we got the interpretation. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And we apologize about that. We usually have a heads up regarding the interpretation. So thank you, Ms.. Camacho. Next up, we have Kristen Ferguson. Hi. Thank you. My name's Kristen Ferguson. I live in Congress Park. It's hard to think about how to summarize what you think about a 300 page document and three months or less. But I guess I'll try. I am personally excited about the guidance and the plan in the plan that is being presented. I think it is forward thinking. It's anticipating the growth in our city. It's trying to support some of the city goals to be less car dependent. And that is really the thing that I'm the most excited about. I live at the intersection of 11th and Steele and Steel Street is suggested to be a neighborhood bikeway, which I think would be really great. I'm hoping that by making it that there will be some traffic calming adjustments. I live at an intersection that's a little bit offset and there's a lot of confusion about what happens when people get to that intersection because it's two stop signs, it's only two a stop sign. And so I'm hoping that through this plan that there are opportunities to make our intersection safer. Steele is a cut through because it goes all the way from 17th, all the way down to Cherry Creek. And so I'm excited to continue to be able to walk, ride my bike, push the stroller with my kids and see the city densify in a way that is safe and inclusive for our families. So, yeah, so I, I, I've been happy to see some of the changes or clarifications made as people have expressed concerns. But as a Denver resident, I am excited about some of the vision that's been cast and appreciate the work that many of the people in this hall have been doing to to make it safer and more inclusive. So thank you. Thank you, Miss Ferguson. Up next, we have Mark Spear. Hi, my name is Mark Speer, and I'm an elected volunteer board member of the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association, and I've been authorized by our board to speak on Sonny's behalf. I have lived within the boundaries for the past 15 years. The process was woefully inadequate for even the most privileged residents. It was not an inclusive community process in any way. We just heard from Curt Upton that the outreach was targeted to younger, lower income renters and Capitol Hill, not to homeowners, not to older or longer term renters, and not to the other five neighborhoods that the plan covers. For example, Savannah was completely overlooked during the notification process. Individual residents in the Congress Park neighborhood of our R.A. were not notified. Santa was not asked to engage our members, nor was it given any budget to do so. If the plan had not been extended, as was described earlier this evening, Santa would not have even heard of it until after it had passed. That said, time for public review and comment is worthless without a process for incorporating that feedback. Last fall, after Congress Park neighborhood alerted Santa to the plan, Santa did engage CPD during the planning process, and CPD was present for one of the largest meetings in the history of our R.A.. In October of last year, CPD presented a recap, answered questions, heard our concerns, and then promptly disregarded them all. And subsequent plan revisions, with the exception of the correction of what they said at the time, was a typo that had Seventh Avenue labeled as a transit priority Street. Later, CPD mischaracterized that as a, quote, concession to Santa. Their change currently labels the Seventh Avenue Avenue Parkway as a collector street defined as, quote, streets, whose main function is to collect movement from local streets and convey it to arterial streets and, quote, Anyone who knows the Seventh Avenue Parkway knows that this is not an actor. Accurate characterization of what is likely these streets most used for recreation in the entire city. Although Santa is comprised of two pieces of census neighborhoods, the southern, the two southernmost blocks of Congress Park and the two northernmost blocks of country club. Our neighborhood is truly defined by the Seventh Avenue Parkway, not those census designations. The Parkway is such a significant feature that CPD included all of the parkway in each gap, even the section from York to Williams, which lies outside of the cop boundaries. Residents who live near E camp are now being told that they are not affected by the cap and there are misinformed with the implication that their concerns are not relevant. I urge City Council to understand that residents both within and near e copper most definitely affected by the plan, especially when the city discusses increasing density in areas that already have overcrowded schools. Thank you, sir. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Frank Locke, a Tory. I thank you, Madam President. My name is Frank Loconte. I am a resident of City Park West, and within Council District nine, I'm also the steering committee chair for the East Central Area Plan. I'm speaking to you wearing those hats. But as many of you know, I'm also the executive director of the Colfax AV Business Improvement District. As a city council, you've recently adopted the Citywide Comprehensive Plan, and there's nothing in this plan that runs counter to that. For that reason and. More, I encourage you to vote. To adopt the East Central Area plan there. One example is that these plans are conducted because it's a way that we can help identify where there are projects and ideas that intersect and understand those synergies. I'll give two examples. One. There's a recommendation around change of use or adaptive reuse. For instance, many locally owned small businesses are inhibited and in some cases intimidated to even start new businesses on existing properties. If they're going to change the use from, let's say, selling tires to selling tacos, because it will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements. By revising these change of use regulations, it'll make it easier for local small businesses, but it also protect the potentially historic buildings from demolition and thereby prevent the demolished concrete and rebar from going to landfills. Therefore, it's a win for small businesses, for preservation and for sustainability. A triple win. Another example is the District six police station. It's been identified in this. Plan as a transformational site that's ripe for. Infill development, which could provide housing, it can provide community centers, perhaps even outposts for the store program. And retail and small businesses. Might even be able to have space. For themselves or incubator space. That's a quadruple win. And if we layer in there that it will enhance transit success by directing growth to the corridors and also reduce pressure to build within the neighboring communities. That's win number. Five and. Six. These are just a couple of examples from the plan. In the end, the steering committee voted 7 to 2. In. Support. Five of those voting in support came from residents. All of the members of the steering committee are property owners. The community also clearly spoke in support, as evidenced by the thousands of comments and thousands of people that provided 170 substantive recommendation adjustment adjustments, all of which enjoyed at least a majority support and in most cases, overwhelming support. So I encourage you I'll be here all night. If you want to ask clarifying questions, I encourage you to vote to support this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Joel to untied it. Untied? I'm sorry, Joel. I probably misspoke. Okay, it's. Fine. Thank you for your time. I'm Joe Untied, reside at 1915 East 22nd Avenue and have for 35 years. I am very am also the president of City Park West R.A. but tonight I speak to you as a resident. I'm very concerned for our community. And I want to ask everyone. What are we doing? We have all heard the city explanation that this process has been going on for three years. There has been outreach and more than enough. Time for comment. But I'm here to tell you. Long term minority residents have been totally left out of this process. In February, a civil rights violation was suggested by City Park West. The city postponed the comment period and developed an outreach plan with our R.A.. Then COVID hit. They could not complete their efforts. Yet when questioned about this at Denver planning meeting, staff read a list of outreach efforts, including schools, churches, service providers. This outreach was not done in our neighborhood. In fact, we asked. CPD. As advised by a city council person to provide the list. Of outreach and the dates. We received a list of restaurants and local businesses where fliers were dropped off. Few of whom are visited by minority populations. Individual neighborhoods were not involved in the creation of these plans. There was no outreach to black owned businesses, churches, residents to gain their perspective or input. Rather, the planning document was developed by a paid consulting firm who then sought public input. Most individual neighborhood plans were discarded. Our neighborhood has a rich Afro-American history. Families have owned their properties for over 100 years. The words of an 80 year old black woman who is my neighbor said, I remember when no one in the city gave a damn about this neighborhood. Now the land is worth something. There is a politically appointed, quite honestly, very white steering committee with no. Public. Involvement. No way for anyone to get involved who is new. Do not take comments and they take the vote to decide on which public comments are made to the plan. Numerous people, myself included, have made comments that fell on deaf ears. We have an affordable housing and homeless crisis occurring right now in Denver. DPW and City Park West convened a group of nonprofit, affordable housing helpers, the true affordable housing developers. There was an overwhelming consensus that up zoning does not create affordable housing. Quite the contrary, it increases property values and for stories are too cost prohibitive to build affordable housing. We are experiencing a pandemic and civil unrest not seen since the 1960s. Our area in northeast Denver has one of the highest COVID rates in the city. Households might not have computers and have no interest in civics at this horrible time. So I ask you, is this a plan of the people? Is it fair to all? Thank you. Next up, we have Elizabeth Chester. Hi. Good evening. My name is Lisa Chester and I am a Congress Park resident and also the chair of the Park AC Streets Committee. I do on a preponderance of a toddler in the background really into banging pots. So if it's loud, let me know. This is kind of dinnertime, but I just wanted to show my support for the East Central Area plan tonight. I guess there's I didn't have as many comments prepared as everyone else, but there's three main points. I kind of wanted to hit one by talking about the process. And I know there's mixed reviews on this, but from my perspective, I thought that the process was incredibly inclusive. And Kurt and Scott, thank you for responding 100% of the time to any questions showing up to 100% of the time, to all of our meetings, answering any questions. I also wanted to show my support specifically as it relates to the safety and mobility section. I feel like this aligns really well with Vision Zero. And not only did you listen to us, but you actually took a plan that our committee had worked on throughout a year, a public process on our park group. And you took that plan, reviewed it, and incorporated it throughout the plan. So that's really exciting for me to see some of our work that we did at the neighborhood level to be incorporated into an adopted plan. So thank you for that. And I think some of our members on our committee had actually mentioned this, and I think this is just a really telling example. I'm super passionate about making crossings safer. I have a child and a dog and just the simple things in life of be able to cross the street and not be fearful of crossing six, eight , 13th, 14th, which have been mentioned when use the example, try to hold my hand out and walk across Sixth Avenue and make it in time. And you can't. And this plan really starts looking at some of those issues and how to make those simple things safer, which will add so much to our lives. And I think also many of the other sections I'm very supportive of as well, but did just kind of want to speak to the mobility and safety issue this evening, because this plan is as much about for me, but more for my child and future generations to come. So thank you for all of your hard work and thoughtfulness. And again, I'm sorry it's a little out here, but I support the central area. Thank you. No worries. Thank you, Elizabeth. And thanks for the work that you're doing at home. And the youngest participant we've had in there. So lucky mom is a little tricky to attend these things. So thank you guys so much for understanding. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, next up, we have Myles Conklin. Yes. Thank you, everyone. I hope you can hear me. So my name is Miles Tanglin and I'm a 20 year resident of Congress Park Live on Clark Street. And I was appointed to the steering committee by Councilman Wayne New District ten, and I participated with the committee for the last three years. I have past committee experience serving on Denver, Wright, Parks and Rec, Dr. COG as well as I continue to serve on the Colfax Connect Task Force. The steering committee began in July 2017, and during that subsequent and during that and subsequent meetings, I continually asked about our community engagement plan, how we would reach out, what we would term success, and how we would measure it. I also made CPD aware that a lot of the are in those week bi monthly, so organizing would take some time. There was never any response to those comments or questions. It was only until CPD rolled out the completed community engagement plan in early 2019 that was to be completed and adopted ten or 11 months later. This timeline did not allow for organized meetings as draft plans were released later that summer. The plan timeline was extended in small additions, which also did not help with effective community organization. There are some other topics that basically this plan did not look into or information was not released to the committee or the public. The committee had requested BRT traffic studies to understand the impacts of BRT on this corridor as well as the neighborhoods and adjacent arterials. This would be needed to understand how design, parking and incentivize high density locations would be impacting each other. Also, Colfax Connex was expecting the BRT alternate station locations they had discussed to be brought up to the public. This planning process decided not to touch on those topics. And so again, Colfax connects with their cities, was hoping to get direction from this plan. We also had requested parking studies and it was only at the last meeting of the planning or the steering committee that CPD said, we will release the parking studies. We were hoping to understand how all of this fit together. There were some protected bikeways being proposed on 14th Avenue and then there would be traffic diverted on either arterials as BRT is implemented. So we were concerned about that. There was also questions about Sun Shadows studies and we were basically told. We give you an example and we basically satisfy that. But actually there was extensive study and these buildings existed, but they were never presented to the public. So a few of my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Miles. Next up, I believe we have Dimitri. So Bronski. Drew wrote to me. I'll let you correct me, Dimitri. We're going to go ahead and get you promoted into the panelists. All right. Hi. My name features Eva. Rodney and I live in Council District ten. And the North Capitol Hill neighborhood. I'm speaking to you tonight as a resident of Denver for close to 15 years. And I'm also a delegate of the TNR now, which is officially endorsed. The plan and a board member are going to be Denver, which also supports the plan. However, I'm speaking on my own behalf. I'm here to urge you to vote to support the East Essential Area Plan. I have followed a plan for over three years by going to the numerous public workshops, open steering committee meetings, Councilman Heinz's sessions and meetings that I've helped organize via my role as a delegate of the DNR. No more. The plan doesn't go far enough to meet our housing needs and transportation environmental goals. I believe that it does move the needle in the right direction by allowing more density along transit corridors, closer to offices and commercial centers. We allow people to live more sustainably, reduce reliance on carbon spewing and street space hogging automobiles, make the city more fiscally sustainable, and provide for more housing where housing is greatly needed. COVID 19 is of great concern today. This plans goal is to make the east central area one of the most walkable places in the city by 2040. Meeting and exceeding the goals of Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040. One point of concern is that the most affluent communities such as the Congress Park neighborhood were essentially able to make themselves exempt from any change and keep the majority of their neighborhoods largely unchanged. This creates undue redevelopment pressure on the rest of the city, especially the communities most affected by gentrification. We can't allow the one percenters of Denver to bend neighborhood planning initiative to their wells at the expense of everyone else. While this plan overall is still redeemable and should be passed with future tweaks to make it more fair. Thank you for your time and please vote in support of the Central Area Plan. Thank you. In queue. Up next, we have Mary Harrington. Hi. My name is Mary Coddington, and I'm here today on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative, a group of 17 affordable housing providers and service providers that coordinate efforts to address the entire spectrum of housing needs across our community. The Neighborhood Development, the Neighborhood Development Collaborative supports the East Central Area Plan and encourages City Council to approve it. We support the plan for the following reasons. Community input on this plan was compared with the demographics of the plan area and planners targeted further outreach to get a more representative voice, including those of renters and people experiencing homelessness. This type of engagement is crucial to break away from patterns that entrench inequities, including planning only for those who are already economically secure. Building on this style of engagement, one of the plan recommendations is to empower underrepresented residents to be more involved in collaborative in city government. This recommendation specifically calls out the need to eliminate structural racism in the planning process and increase the involvement of Black, Brown and Indigenous residents. As we work to improve inclusivity, City Council at times may need to push back on voices that have traditionally held power in the city. Community feedback indicated that the East Central area currently benefits young professionals and to a lesser extent, families. But far fewer people indicated the area was supportive for senior or low income residents. The plan remedies that through multiple recommendations that address housing affordability in ways that are responsive to neighborhood contexts. Some of these include the allowance of accessory dwelling units, offering resources to support rehab for small multi-unit properties in exchange for affordability commitments and leveraging heightened incentives as a way to encourage the development of more affordable housing at transit stops. That last piece is an important tool to increase overall housing stock, as well as encourage the development of more affordable housing options in places with access to employment centers. This is key for neighborhood stability. More than one third of east central area residents are housing cost burdened, and the only way to get out of that housing cost burden is to have access to higher paying jobs. Additional recommendations that address this issue include the preservation of local businesses and connecting residents to job training. The plan includes several other recommendations to stabilize existing residents at risk of involuntary displacement, including exploring options for residents to age and place, options to increase home ownership and alternative tenure. Options such as housing, land trusts. There's an overwhelming need for more affordable housing options in the city. And. The equity focused recommendations in this plan offer important tools to meet that challenge. Again, the Neighborhood Development Collaborative urges City Council to adopt the East Central Area Plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, we have Pam Packer. Hi. My name is Pam Parker, and I'm a resident of Congress Park. I live at the corner. Of Ninth and Steele. And although I don't agree with all aspects. Of the plan, one piece of the plan that I'm really happy about is the potential designation of Steele and potentially Ninth Avenue being designated as high comfort bikeways. I think this is. A move in the right direction for the livability of our neighborhood. In our community. And I. Just feel like, as. Another person. Mentioned earlier. How steel seems to be a corridor for a lot of traffic. And we do feel like creating this high comfort bike way will encourage more people to ride their bikes and be safe on the roads when they're doing so. So I do. Support that aspect of the plan and. I look forward to the final vote at the end of. This of this hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Pam. Next up, we have Emily Clarke. And we're going to go ahead. And you might have to unmute yourself, Emily. Okay. All right. Thank you. My name is Emily Clarke. I live in Denver in Council District nine and in the South City Park neighborhood. I'm speaking to you tonight as a resident of South City Park in Denver and not as a representative of any other affiliation that I have. I urge you to vote in support of the East Central Area Plan. I have followed this plan fairly well because I'm involved in my R.A. and have attended many meetings over the past couple of years. The central plan is in the urban core. And there have been. There are many benefits to the increased density that the plan proposes. The proposed height increase is appropriate and intermittently along Colfax is the best place for it. I think this plan provides a good balance of housing options, including low income, without losing the heart of our current neighborhoods. The plan continues to thoughtfully make our neighborhoods even more walkable and bikeable, which is what many of us living in this area seek. Lastly, I'd just like to thank the city for everything it's done over the last few years to inform all levels of community and solicit feedback about this important plan. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, we have Jesse Paris. You might need to unmute yourself, Jesse. Hello. Hi. Go ahead, Jesse. Um. Want to know what this. I'm. I'm needed for guests. I'm glad to see that you are supporting various forms of housing. That people can actually afford. So I'm definitely in favor of that. So yeah, that's the only thing I want to say that I'm in favor of on this. But like I said, I'm either for or against this. I'm just glad to see that the city has taken the initiative to detail what affordable housing looks like, because that term was going around a lot and we know firsthand that the city is not affordable anymore and the house in the city is not affordable anymore. So see that in this East Central Area plan, after three years of surveys and research, the city has finally admitted that. Affordable housing needs to be a priority and it really should be attainable housing because this is not affordable, but it's a start. So that's all I have to say. Well, so I'm leaning for against this. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Shawn Mandel. Hi. My name is Shawn Mandel, and I'm sorry my video isn't working, but I'm speaking on behalf of the Bluebird Business Improvement District. I would like to recommend that City Council approved the plan. The Bluebird Business Improvement District sent a letter on September 28th in support of the plan. We specifically like that the main street zoning and the changes to the Mainstreet zoning will allow smaller lots to be redeveloped, will allow a little more flexibility for the type of new development that we can do along Colfax. And I think that it goes a long way to support economic development along the corridor. So again, we recommend support of the plan. All right. Thank you. Brad SIEGEL is up next. Good evening, Denver City Council. My name is Brad Segal. I reside on the 1200 block of Detroit Street in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm wearing three hats tonight. The first hat is I am president of Progressive Urban Management Associates, the lead consulting firm that's been assisting the city help develop the plan. Our firm has managed 13 subcontractors for this project, all experts in their field, and 12 of the 13 firms are based in Denver. Many of the consultants like myself live in the neighborhoods that are affected by these plans. Number two, hat is I am a Denver native and a 29 year homeowner in Congress Park. My wife and I have raised two boys here. They attended schools, including Teller, Moray and East, all located within the plan area. And my third hat is I'm a small business owner. I employ seven persons located at Colfax and Marion in the North Capitol Hill neighborhood. I'll just make two quick comments that haven't been mentioned. One is I do want to highlight that the East Central Area Plan is the first neighborhood plan in Denver to offer strong recommendations for encouraging affordable housing and ways to protect and preserve small community serving businesses. The economy section of the plan, which really focuses on preventing displacement, is a strong precedent for the rest of the city. And the second comment I'll make is that COVID 19 and the pandemic create urgency to approve and start implementing the plan. Many of its recommendations could assist in economic recovery and also improve the quality of life in all of these neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. I'll remain available throughout your deliberations tonight. I can provide any additional information. All right. Thank you, Brad. Next up, we have Kevin MATTHEWS. Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I'm a Congress Park resident. I live at ten, 10th and Madison. I've been following the plan for the last three years. Overall, the plan is okay, but I wish there were some things that were stronger. I recognize that plans like these are compromises, but we're often compromising on things that we can no longer afford to compromise on. So my biggest concern is the what kind of world my son is going to inherit and the growing climate crisis. We have to cut carbon emissions in half this decade, and you do it again the following decade and again after that. The current recommendations in this plan. So Denver's own mobility goals are to call for a 30% of commuters walking, biking or taking transit by 2030 and 50% by 2050. I don't think these goals are strong enough for Denver. Overall, the east central area goal is 50% of commuters using noncore options by 2040. Considering our close adjacency to downtown, I wish these were a little bit stronger, closer to 70 to 80%. But I do agree with a couple together Congress Park residents who spoken up tonight appreciating the some of the traffic calming and and the neighborhood bikeways. The other thing I wanted to mention is that. You know, I think one of the real missed opportunities. When you. Look at carbon emissions capital of the Capitol Hill neighborhood has the the second lowest emissions per household in Denver. And we're going to need neighborhoods that look a lot more like it. One of the things I see in Congress Park right now is, you know, the only development that's really going on is kind of the pop top where you have your old bungalows that are having that are basically doubling in size as a single family home. Some of them are 3000, 3500 square feet. And as soon as you do that, that's $1,000,000 home. And that is a really that's a large missed opportunity from both a climate standpoint and an affordability standpoint. I have friends now who rents who would love to to buy a home in Commerce Park but can't afford it. One of my friends is a vice president of I.T. at a bank. He's not. He's a person of means. I had some young neighbors of mine who just went down the neighborhood and bought a house in Cole because it was it was more affordable. And so when we talk about Denver's growth, which we're going to see a lot of in the next couple decades, we got to figure out where it's going to go. Are we only going to point at the invert it out or the rich neighborhoods are going to do their share? So I hope you adopt this. Thanks. Thank you. All right. We've got 12 speakers left and about 15 minutes left of our one hour courtesy public hearing. And so just wanted to remind folks if comments have already been made. If you could limit your comment so we can hopefully get through all the speakers who have signed up tonight. And so next up, we've got Anna DeWitt. I everyone. I'm on a two. I'm a Denver teacher and I live in D10. I'm also a dues paying member of the Santa seventh Avenue Parkway, Orono and the CPA in Congress Park. I know these are nos. Do not speak for me, nor did I was. I asked to vote. On. This matter for my R.A.. I'm here because I support the E cap and I encourage council to do the same. I followed the essential area plan very closely, and I've attended several public meetings as a Denver teacher and a mother of a toddler. I was impressed by the effort to include more bike paths in central Denver. I want my students and my daughter to be able to travel safely to and from school. I was also impressed that though Congress Park has been given the designation of historical significance. Under the plan, it would still be easier for homeowners to build an 82 or a granny flat. I want more diversity for Central Denver, and adding cheaper and more affordable housing options is a great way to start allowing more Denver, more neighbors and our neighborhood. Now as an active union member involved in the teaching community, I try to look at these. Plans with the eyes of how this affect my fellow. Teachers and my students, especially those most marginalized. I remember quite vividly that a man shouted out at a public meeting that our schools cannot contain our students. So let's talk about that. I wish I could show you charts, but bear with me when I start talking numbers. Overall, the city of Denver and the schools of Denver are experiencing segregation. 75% of central Denver's elementary students are white. And of course, they are. 75% of central Denver residents are white. If we want our schools to equalize or in other words, integrate 55.5% of the Denver population, we'd have to relocate to different neighborhoods. Don't we want to send our children to schools that are diverse? The East and the east sorry east central area plan could help integrate our neighborhoods and therefore our schools because it allow for more affordable housing options. Also, almost every single school in central Denver has a projected 5% decrease in enrollments, and that was before COVID. Central Denver needs more families with children living here. And yes, though class sizes are too large, that does not have to do with enrollment. It has to do with how DPS allocates money to their schools. At a time when DPS is experiencing massive budget cuts, more students in our schools equal more funding to our schools. And it happened just as that. I urge you all to vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Ellen Adelson. And you make up, you might have to meet yourself. Good evening. I'm Ellen Adelson. I'm a resident of Denver and I'm representing historic Denver. Historic Denver supports that central area plan, which includes many of Denver's oldest neighborhoods and a rich collection of historic buildings and places. The plan reflects the. Value the community gives to historic. Buildings and places and the importance of preserving them, which is essential to a vibrant, inclusive and authentic Denver. Prior priority priorities to preserve and reuse significant buildings. Encourage preservation within neighborhoods and along corridors. Adopt adaptive reuse ordinance and support. Small local businesses are all consistent with historic Denver's values. Historic Denver appreciates that the Discover Denver data has been used to document the rich collection of historic structures throughout the planned area. The land use and built form tool. Use of both historic and existing buildings. The transportation recommendations must protect the historic parkways that are an essential part of the area and provide much needed green space and encourage neighborhood gathering and informal recreation. Of course, no plan is successful without thoughtful, coordinated and consistent implementation. Historic Denver stands ready to assist in developing criteria. To establish eligibility. For incentives such as a housing unit bonus. Again, historic. Denver is pleased to support the East. Central Area Plan and its thoughtful. Preservation and. Building review strategies. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Travis Liquor. Thank you so much. My name is Travis Leiker and I'm president of the board of directors for Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods Shrine, as it's affectionately known, as is Denver's largest and oldest registered neighborhood organization that has a footprint in both District nine and District ten for city council. And we're here tonight, and I'm authorized to speak on behalf of our organization to express our support for the East Central Area Plan. And we say just a number, a few reasons for our support. First, community engagement is paramount to successfully planning neighborhoods for future generations. And after nearly 10,000 online comments, 54 community meetings and myriad focus groups, we feel that the city plan planners have done an adequate job, if not more than an adequate job, of engaging the community. Secondly, preserving historic architectural assets is essential to maintaining neighborhood character, and we're thrilled to see that this plan incorporates exciting and new, innovative uses for many of our city's oldest treasured structures. Third, bringing Denver ites together at the local level makes our community stronger. The plan is comprehensive and provides a framework by which creating new neighborhood gathering spots will be central to the future of the city and for this neighborhood. In 2019, China reaffirmed its commitment to environmental sustainability. We are thrilled to see that trees, climate appropriate landscaping and preserving Denver's tree canopy will be a part of this future plan. And then join and join partners like the Denver Streets Partnership in a shared mission to ensure safe streets for everyone, no matter their zip code, their financial means, or how they get from one point to the next. And so we're pleased to see streets like 23rd Avenue, Gaylord, Mont View and Colorado Boulevard and as well as Sherman Street as part of this greater neighborhood planning effort. And then access to affordable housing is also chief among our priorities to an end, certainly to achieving economic self-sufficiency. And so we're hopeful that integrating mission, missing middle sorry, housing, as well as other residential areas, coupled with discouraging demolitions and encouraging affordability, will promote greater access to homeownership. And then finally, a diverse, thriving workforce is bolstered through locally owned businesses and collaborative work culture and is at the heart of Denver's evolving economy. So recruiting new small to midsize businesses provides opportunities for workforce development and economic opportunity. And we agree that diversity of housing and jobs captures our shared vision for neighborhoods with equitable access to quality employment options, as well as housing choices that accommodate households of different ages, sizes and incomes. Thank you again for your time. And Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Denver's largest R.A. expressed expresses support. For the East Central Area plan. Thank you. Next up, we have Jonathan Capelli. Well everyone. My name is Jonathan Capelli and. I'm speaking today on. Behalf of All in Denver, which is a nonprofit advocacy. Organization with over 300 members. That believes in working together to create a more equitable city. For all where everyone prospers. And as such, we strongly support the E cap, one of the six pillars of Blueprint Denver. Which we also supported. Was equity. This plan is one of the first plans to come out after Blueprint. Denver manifest this pillar by incorporating equity throughout and therefore it's in line with something that we've already adopted as a city after four. Years of deliberation. And the input of thousands. The disparate impacts of COVID exposes even starker terms. The ongoing. Need with equity into the very fabric of our planning, documents and policy. Taking action on. These principles. Can't wait and in fact reflect the priorities of the community also generated. In addition. To we condemn Denver. By more than 10,000 comments then form decaf over the course of the. Last three years. When it comes to mobility. The auto dependent infrastructure disconnected pedestrian. And bicycle infrastructure of Colfax. Belies the residential neighborhood of the blocks immediately north and south of corridor. This plan seeks to remedy that by laying the groundwork for bus, rapid transit and other improvements that will result in a corridor that's less noisy, less polluted, more friendly to families, bicyclists and those from mobility impaired. Earlier touted the fact that equity is an important part of this plan. One way that that shows up in the plan is in how it ensures the absorption of growth and distribution of housing is not just concentrated in low income communities where gentrification is already happening. To be an inclusive neighborhood, it means providing inclusive housing opportunities for all. Anything else amounts to an exclusive community, which is antithetical to the stated goals of the city. Gentle density. A key transit hubs with high incentives for affordable housing. The sensible way to make sure that this part of the corridor is pulling its weight and helping bolster our woefully low supply of affordable housing. It's not a carte blanche for developers. It lays the foundation for an incentive based approach to shaping development in a way that helps the community. Gentrification is happening and growth is a part of it and is in some ways inevitable. But a plan like this that shapes the growth in a way that increases affordability while growing is the best and perhaps the only approach. There's also an environmental argument to this. We know from recent incentives or initiative the city to improve sustainability that nearly 50% of carbon emissions in the city come from building emissions alone. The smoke, shroud and ash punctuated nature over the last few months illustrate this time for Denver to start pulling its weight on this to proactively reduce emissions of global warming, which in turn leads to an. Air fire prone environment. Building sensibly, dense, efficient buildings where appropriate helps to combat air pollution from energy cost savings and transportation based emissions from folks who would otherwise have to commute from far away to work in and. Support our economy. For this and other reasons, we. Support the plan. That's the time that we have. Next up, we have Alison Torbett. Hi. I'm going to cut my comments very short. About 99% of them were just covered by the man from all in Denver. Another 20% were covered by the teacher from Congress Park. I just think. When I first bought. My house in my old house in 1997 at 14th and Downing, I was really worried. They were saying that, you know, the prices were going to burst and I was going to be able to keep the value of it. It cost $95,000 for a 1200 square foot duplex. We need to have more $95,000 houses. People need to be able to come up with a down payment by that house to live in that house and also work as a teacher or work, you know, have a roommate, something. That house has quintupled in 20 years. It sold last year for $450,000, more or less. It's ridiculous. The prices are going like that. We need to have more density. We need to have more options. We need to not just have housing for very, very poor people or housing for very, very rich people. Those of us who are making, you know, a civilized living need to be able to afford a house. I literally can't afford to downsize my house cost more. But. Thanks very much. Please support this program. Thank you, Alison. Next up, we have Stephen Chester. Hello. Members of the council. My name is Steven Chester. I'm a resident of Congress Park. Like Alyson, I'll keep my comments very short. I know we're up against the time, but I'm just here to voice my full support for the essential neighborhood plan. I want to talk about two things really quickly, the process. I think the process is incredibly inclusive and equitable. There's a real difference between electoral process and an equal process. And some of the comments you heard earlier about certain folks that felt like their voice wasn't heard or not enough money was given to their neighborhood organization to do extra outreach. That's equality. I think this process was truly equitable in the sense that extra resources and time were given to. Those are often left out of the planning process, like renters and in younger folks that often don't even know what planning is or how to get engaged. And I just want to applaud CPD at Scott and for especially for all the work that they've done to to make sure that people like me walk into the neighborhood and I'm walking my dog asking people, you know, about this neighborhood plan. And I'm shocked the amount of people that said, Oh, yeah, I heard about that and I really support it, but unfortunately I don't see those those faces here today. So I just wanted to kind of be the voice of a lot of the folks in my neighborhood that really support this plan and are really excited about it . And then lastly, I think some of the mobility recommendations as we talked to earlier, are really spot on. And with a small child being able to safely walk and bike in my own neighborhood is really paramount to why I chose to live in the neighborhood that I like, that I know I can. I'm lucky enough to choose a neighborhood to live in, and I want to make sure that other residents of Denver have the same opportunity to live in a safe place and not be worry about a a Carmona McDonald's or trying to cross a busy street that cuts through our neighborhood. So with that, again, I urge your full support of the plan. Thank you, Steven. We have Mark Marshall up next. Thank you. Yes. My name is Mark. Marshall, the vice president of real estate at Urban Land Conservancy. We support the east. Area. East central area plan. We are located at the corner of 16th and down in specific areas of the plan that we support are bolstering the health care and wellness sector as a foundation for economic growth. We will work with partners like hospitals, DPS, non-profits and housing developers. To address the issues around workforce housing. And training needs. We also recognize that. Stable housing is a pretty tremendous predictor of successful. Health outcomes. As well as educational. Outcomes. Second area we support is preserving affordable housing and stabilize. And residents at risk of displacement. Some of the programs that are in place that are existing. In our in the city I think can be better. Marketed. These include rental assistance, utility assistance, property tax abatements. We also like to support extending covenants for income restricted properties. The third area we support is creating new housing near transit and and amenities along the corridor. We'd like to see density increased along the Cold Facts corridor in exchange for affordability. And community benefiting spaces. The fourth area we support of the plan is expanding the diversity. Of housing types and. Affordability in all the neighborhoods. Throughout. The planned area. We'd like to see more 80 youths present here addressing this missing. Middle housing. Increase in the types of duplex, triplex and four place practices, as well as townhomes that are compatible with the neighborhood and affordable as well. We support increasing the access to supportive housing and social services for vulnerable communities and residents. We encourage the repurposing of and redevelopment of. Motels. Along core along Colfax for permanent supportive or transitional. Housing and developing more. Permanent. Supportive housing. Wraps in services such as health care, child care and workforce housing. As a property owner, we're seeing and landlord and you'll see we are seeing the effects of COVID with many residents on the street. And we really support the services. That will get these get the residents housed and the. Services that they need. Thank you once. Again, Marc Marshall with Urban Land Conservancy. And we support the East Central Area Plan. Thank you, Mark. Next up, we have the ball dagger. Yes. Hello, Council. Good evening. My name is Anibal Bordiga. I've been a resident, an architect in the area for over 15 years. I'd keep this pretty quick. I go to the highlights. These areas are these neighborhoods that are studied in the plan are fantastic, in large part to their age. At the same time, they've been successful for for all these decades because they've been flexible. These neighborhoods have historic homes next to mansions. We have mature trees and infrastructure that's aging, but at the same time is part of the charm that everybody loves. But by being flexible, it's been these neighborhoods have been able to accommodate future growth. For decades. This plan builds on that history and provides new ideas and concepts that will help the neighborhoods grow into the future. One of those interesting points in the plan is the use of transfer development rights. There's a graphic in the plan that shows unused zoning or unused development rate on certain properties and supports the fact that just because it's zoned, it won't and doesn't necessarily mean that it will get built to that maximum zoning density that doesn't need to be a lost concept or that zoning doesn't need to go to waste necessarily in the use of transfer development. Right. That would allow contentious issues like Times Diner to be resolved without coming to council for a resolution. It would allow longtime property owners to remain in place and not have to contemplate demolition. Another good concept that's in this plan is the adaptive reuse concepts, which will just allow many of the historic or just older buildings that people value to remain in place and be modernized without exceedingly overly burdensome request of bringing everything up to today's standards. In closing, I urge you to support this and wanted to just point out that these neighborhoods have grown into fabulous neighborhoods over decades despite all sorts of external forces. This plan provides the guidance and flexibility to support future change in these neighborhoods, and it will build on the historic success. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Next up, we've got two speakers left. Rob Connaughton. I probably mispronounced it, Rob, but you can correct me. And you might need to unmute yourself, Rob. Can you hear me now? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm a resident of Congress Park, the 800 block of Steel Street. I've participated in the process. The process over the last probably couple of years. I didn't get it at the very start. But I want to encourage the adoption of the plan by the council. I'm very supportive of particularly the the mobility component of the plan, trying to reduce the reliance on vehicles and expand such things as bikeways. There's a bikeway proposed along steel that would pass in front of my house and I think that's fantastic, as well as Detroit and Ninth, I believe I am generally supportive of higher densities along Colfax because of the BRT, the Bus Rapid Transit Project. Absent that, I don't think I would be, I think increases in density over current density levels. And this is a reminder, this is still a very dense neighborhood, even though parts of it are single family. They really need to be tied to transit. And Denver does not have very good transit, at least that that that is high quality and is accessible to multiple neighborhoods. For me, it's a seven block walk to Colfax just to get to the BRT when that eventually comes online. And Cherry Creek doesn't really have any good transit access. So these are issues that that if we're going to increase density, it needs to be tied to high quality transit. And I think that this plan is very good in that it does not automatically or recommend up zoning of single family portions of the district, which are fairly small in comparison to the entire district covered by the plan. These are old 100 year old single family neighborhoods that are as they are right now. They're already relatively dense, certainly compared to what you'd find in Castle Pines or places like that. And we need to remember that these are already pretty green neighborhoods. Because they not auto. Dependent. So I wanted to just compliment the city and the planners who've worked on this for recognizing and and recognizing the diversity within the neighborhood and also keeping an eye out toward sort of preserving these older neighborhoods. So thank you very much. Thank you. Our last speaker is michelle reichmuth. Hi. My name is Michelle. Reichmuth and I live in Council District nine and the South City Park neighborhood and I was born in this neighborhood, so City Park at Mercy Hospital and I've lived in the neighborhood for 22 of my 53 years on the planet. I have two boys and they're both students at East High Denver Public School boys. And my father and grandparents have lived in the East Central planning area. I bring up these personal elements because I feel that I've always been engaged in my community. I love community stuff and I feel confident that the East Central plan is going to improve these neighborhoods. I feel that there was a lot of heart put into this and I'm proud of how the process went. I followed the East Central Area plan fairly well because I was on the East Central Plan Steering Committee for roughly the last three years, and I was I've been involved with the South or the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. There's been a lot of topics that have been covered today that I agree with the importance of increasing density and low income housing, as well as improving mobility, all in the spirit of improving climates and lives, life's experience . And so what I'm going to focus on is just the one thing that I want to see a. This thing I want to say about the plot. The plan is that I'm impressed with the plan for many reasons, but the main reason for me was the overall process. I've worked in environmental consulting and now I'm a civil servant at EPA and I feel like the process is so important for pulling in people's opinions. And this process was organized, well-thought out, educational, detailed and visionary. And most important to me is it allowed thousands of people to become involved and provide input. Was it perfect? No, and nothing ever is. But I can stand here and say that I was impressed and and my expectations were extremely exceeded. I'm proud of my city's inclusiveness and tenacity and technology and resources. For example, they used a program online that collected concerns and big ideas from anyone, and they tie it to the location on a map so there can be informed decisions made on what's going on throughout the area. Anyway, please support the East Central Plan. That's the time. Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers. And thank you all for for staying with us. We're going to go ahead and move to questions of city council. And first up, we have Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions on the East Central Area plan, of course, and NPI in general. So for for the planning, anyone who's got the answer, how many homes are in the cap area. And I'd love if, you know, owner owned as opposed to rentals. Kurt. Yeah. So I think there is about 50,000 residents in in the East Central area. I think that translates to this off the top of my head. I can I can double check these, but about 30 to 40000 housing units. A big majority of those are renter households. And I'll Scott, if you have that that number accessible. I can get it in just 2 seconds. But 32,000 households in Central and I don't have. Did you say 32,000? Scott Yes, 32,000. Thank you. What I'm wondering, while Scott's looking that up, did you do a mass mailing to every address in the district in the study area? We did not know. We decided that our outreach resources were better used on more targeted fly ring pop up events and those kind of other activities rather than a mailer. Okay. Can you talk about the diversity or lack of it, of the steering committee? So that's been a challenge in really many of our planning processes. And E Central is no different. When those committee members were appointed by the council members, the previous two council members, I think they tried in earnest to appoint a diverse committee. So there are a number of different points of view on the committee. There's people who represent small businesses such as the business improvement districts are and those are represented. There were development interests represented on the steering committee and then from different walks of life. You know, we have we had social services workers who are that that's what they did for their day job all the way to, you know, you know, executive director in the case of so and yeah. How large was the committee? Remind me again, please. So it shrank by a couple of members, but by the end of the process, there were 12. And so were there any representatives from communities of color? There was one steering committee representative who was nonwhite at the end of the process. There was another one at the beginning of the process, but she had to drop out because of other commitments. Thank you for that. Another question. I have two more. Madam President, if you don't mind, I'm wondering, how are height incentives working around town? Are they successful? Have they met expectations? Yes, it's a good question. I think. I think our point of view in CPD is that there were lessons learned from the recent pilot at the 30th in Blake Station where that was. That project moved forward and we are underway now. There is a the affordable housing zoning incentive projects that's looking at that pilot. Lessons learned ways we can improve upon that. And also looking at all the other cities that are using zoning as a tool for more affordable housing to try to maximize those community benefits. So does this plan allow for implementation of those lessons learned down the road? Yes. It recommends that we look at all of those lessons and we we improve upon that zoning based affordable housing incentive program in a way that sort of informs the regulatory process that's just been kicked off. Okay. And I guess the last question I have and it's I trying to reach for the right word and I don't mean to be too cynical, but have have have we been successful or where have we been successful in halting displacement? Well, I mean, that's a it's a big topic and a big priority. I mean, I think what we can do in a plan is articulate the goal of reducing and using all of the tools we have at our disposal to prevent involuntary displacement, including new and innovative tools that we aren't yet existing, and that include zoning, which oftentimes creates, you know, very intense opinions on how to use zoning for some of these goals. And so what we have said is that we need sort of this all hands on deck approach to try to address this problem of not only residential displacement, which is a huge concern, but also small businesses, small business displacement, which is also a huge concern, especially in the east central area, where almost 80% of the businesses are small, locally owned, mom and pops. And so we've had to think outside the box and create some creative strategies to try to address that issue as well. Yeah. Okay. And Scott, I had asked about rental as opposed to ownership, if you have that. Yeah. About 70% of households in East Central are renter occupied. So do you have do you have quantity of businesses in the in the study area? Yes, we do have that somewhere. I can find that number for you as well. All right. Well, I'll I'll say thank you, Madam President. And Scott, if you can get a stat whenever you find it. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black. Thanks Madam President, and thanks for the presentation, CPD. Just a couple of questions. In your beginning remarks, Kurt, I think you said there were 3500 participants in 10,000 comments. But on slide, I think it was 23, it said there were only 300 commenters. Right. So the larger number at the beginning, the 3500 participants, those were people who participated throughout the three years. So at all of our workshops and events and community meetings, the 300 number was just a few months at the end of the process when all of the information was compiled into the draft plan document and people weighed in on those specifics wording and the details of the plan document where we received several thousand comments from 300 participants in that process. And of the 3500 participants over three years were those 3500 unique participants. Yeah, so we call that touch points. So we did. I mean, it's we did our best to try to weed out duplicate duplicative participants, but so that's an estimate. But yeah, it's about 3500 unique participants. Do you know the demographics of those people and what neighborhoods they came from? And yeah, so we did track those demographics racially. The, the, the participants in our plan are generally consistent with the census demographics within a few percentage points of the east central area. As I mentioned before, the largest underrepresented group throughout the process were younger, lower income renters, which is why we disproportionally adjusted our resources again through that equity lens to try to target more participation from that from underrepresented groups where we saw the largest disparity. Okay. And we heard from, I think, one R.A. tonight who does not support it. Do you have. Supportive other Arnaud's. Yeah. So you also heard from China, Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. That's an R.A. They they support the plan. There are others that other RINO's that didn't take an official vote on the plan because I don't know why, but I don't know if they got to a complete consensus, especially when you're you're talking about some of these recommendations around zoning and density and building heights. People have very strong opinions. You know, there's only there's over 50 recommendations, policy recommendations in the plan. And when we originally released those recommendations over a year ago, and we did it in survey form and asked people how they felt about those recommendations. And nearly all of those recommendations had very strong support, over 70% support, with the exception of the recommendations that had to do with building height and density. Where those recommendations were more like 60, 40 or 55, 50 or more mixed opinion. And people just have very strong opinions about that topic. So of all the Arnaud's you heard from, there was just one that was in favor of it and one that was officially opposed. I believe that's right. Okay. And on that, I think one of the slides said the steering committee, there were several members of the steering committee who didn't support it. What were their reasons? Well, the the final vote, the vote of the plan at the steering committee was seven in favor and two against. One of those members, Miles, provided his comments tonight in his remarks. And I think I won't speak for him, but he has some questions about the process. And oftentimes, it's it's a it's a hard technical concept to explain. And we run into this in many of our plans is the difference between a planning document, which is really a guide that articulates a long term outcome and outlines some some policies to achieve those outcomes versus the very specific regulatory language that is that lives in zoning or the very specific designs of infrastructure. And those happen in later processes. And the difference between a plan document and those details has created some discomfort among some some members. And I think, Miles, I can safely say, was one of one of the people who were uncomfortable with that. And then the other member who was concerned about the plan, I think it's echoed some of the concerns that we've heard from residents just regarding the impacts of potential density in the east central area. And those could include, you know, street parking issues and traffic issues. Okay. I just have one final question. So there are other efforts and CPD happening now and will be happening in the future. And I'm wondering if you discussed that during your efforts. I know when the Far Northeast plan happened, they which was met with much love and celebration. So we didn't have any of this controversy when that was brought to us. But they didn't talk about 80 news or a group living or residential infill or, you know, changing single unit zoning to duplex in triplex. Did you talk about all those things during this conversation? Yeah. I mean, we we learned early on in the process that we could not ignore. We had to have a strong emphasis on the affordable housing shortage in the east central area. I could pull up some of the numbers, but they were pretty mind boggling when we started looking at the data that we had. About 11,000, over 11,000 households in the east central area were cost burden, which is over a third of all the households being they're struggling to pay their rent or their mortgage. There is also a shortage of affordable units at the lower income levels of over 3000. We calculated through one of our consultants. For the first time I've seen in an area plan the specific number of low income units that we were short, which is over 3000, and we made that public. We say we have this huge problem. We also looked at all of the income, the current today income restricted units in the area. And we found out that almost half, about 46% of those current income restricted units or 1400 units were going to expire over the next ten years and potentially come back on the market as market rate units and therefore lose their affordability protections for people. So we knew early on that we had to do something pretty specific and serious and we could not avoid some of these really difficult conversations about how we were going to fill that affordable housing shortage. But did you specifically talk about these other efforts that are happening concurrently and plan for the future? And by that, are are you do you mean the missing middle in-fill housing options, the affordable housing zoning incentive project? We did talk about those two concurrent efforts, if that's what you mean. Yes. And group living and residential infill. Yeah. So, yeah. So the missing middle housing options is the residential infill program. We talked quite a bit about that. That was one of the topics that generated those strong opinions. We didn't talk so much about the Group Living Project. Even though those questions came up. We were pretty far into our process when that process started, where I think it was. We were already on year three when the group living proposal came out, but we did answer many questions about how that project might intersect in interrelate with these plans. So is addressing the missing middle the idea that single unit zoning would be replaced with duplexes and triplexes in four collapses? Yeah. So it's, it's looking at some of our lower density areas and in trying to figure out what is the best, most thoughtful way to introduce new housing options that are more affordable for particularly for middle income people. And so that you know how would we might integrate duplexes? Triplexes and four flex's. The east central area is almost entirely not a single unit today. So it's it's almost entirely apartments, a row, homes, duplexes. There's only a few blocks, basically the southern portion of one of the neighborhood statistical areas and Congress Park and then the northern two blocks of City Park West are really the only single unit areas. Even those areas have some of missing middle housing in there already. So it's it wasn't as big of an issue generally in East Central area as in terms of a topic as in some of our other plan areas like the east area. But it did have very strong opinions in those in those portions of the plan area. Okay. I know I said that was my last question, but I just have a follow up to that. So I I'm yet to see any new development in Denver or Inglewood, which is right next to my district where this is happening. Where there. Duplexes or triplexes or SLI homes have gone up on what was formerly a single unit dwelling, where the new dwellings are much more expensive than the original house that was there. So I, I'd like to see some kind of evidence that that is going to result in that missing middle housing. There's an entire statistical neighborhood in my district, University Hills, where they're tearing down what were very modest homes. And you'll see slide homes or duplexes that are six, $800,000, which are not affordable. And that's what I'm seeing in Inglewood right next door. And we've all seen it a lot up in not me understandable districts so for a future discussion. But thank you for answering my question. Sorry I went on so long. I'll just make one one quick point, because that's an important point. I think we definitely agree with that point of view. Councilwoman Black, we heard that point of view throughout our process. And so we've we've crafted that recommendation to be very focused on not encouraging demolition and redevelopment of of those homes, but rather repurposing some of those homes as duplexes. And I think that's why you see some support from historic Denver, for example, for some of these recommendations, because we're taking more of a preservation approach to that integration of housing. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. I want to dove a little bit deeper into some of the questions Councilwoman Black and Councilman Cashman were asking about guaranteeing this affordability and this missing middle that we need. We have multiple plans across the city that have tried to address equity and affordability. And when it comes down to a rezoning, what we've found is that our plans don't guarantee any kind of movement on our goals. And so can you guys tell me how you've fashioned this to be different than any of the other plans we're using that are not yielding any results? Well. So I think for for the missing middle housing options in particular, what we recommended, again, was to try to get away from the debt, the consequence of scraping existing bungalows, for example, and then putting up larger duplexes, for example. And so we've explicitly said that that's not the outcome that were intending with this. And we've crafted the recommendation to say that that that those homes should be preserved instead of redeveloped and created creating larger footprints. I mean, some of the ideas around Missing Middle is that in general, smaller square footage is far more affordable than larger square footage is. And so obviously, you know, there's prices rise in single unit areas very quickly as well. And so we're trying to address that issue in some of these neighborhoods. What's different also, I'll say about the density approach in the central area, and this is particularly along Colfax and our transit corridors that we're recommending is what we would typically do in a plan like this, where we're planning a high capacity transit facility or BRT along Colfax is we would automatically allow more housing to be built near those transit stations. So that's a planning practice called D.O.T. or transit route development that's been used in Denver, that's been used in almost every city that has high capacity transit, both nationally and internationally as a way to improve carbon pollution, to lower air pollution, to manage traffic better, to allow people to reduce transportation costs. And so that has been the standard that we've used. However, we took a different approach in the East Central area, in part due to the number of shortage of affordable housing units that we researched at the beginning of this process. And what we've said is you do not get any additional units even near our transit stops unless you provide community benefits with the top priority being affordable income restricted units. So that's a different approach than we normally would take and what cities around the world would normally take when you're planning a high capacity transit route. So while we don't use the word guarantee because the city does not itself build affordable housing, we invest in affordable housing, we create policies to encourage and incentivize affordable housing. But we have shifted those policies to say, if you want more, then you have to do more and provide those community assets and affordable housing being one of them. So. The issue here, I think, is, you know, if you split a historic home or you reuse a single family home and make it a duplex. There's nobody saying that. In order to do that, you must charge an affordable amount for rent. In fact, they can charge really whatever the market will allow them to charge. And you can say you're in a historic home, so that makes it even more valuable. And so I'm wondering. With that and with Todd development, knowing that Todd development has really backfired on us. Are we incent are we pushing growth in an area without recognizing what causes displacement? When we talk about displacement, it happens because we increase the value of an area for speculators, for developers, for landowners. When we increase the value of the area because we allow more things to be built, we allow more profit to be generated, taxes go up and push people out and cause displacement. And so I'm wondering, you know, when we talk, when we say the city doesn't do affordable housing. How have we fed into displacement with the plans and the way that we drive growth? Have you guys analyzed the growth after we've created a plan in an area? Yeah. I mean, that's a it's a insightful question. It's definitely a complicated answer. And it's something that I think all cities that are growing, especially are trying to address. There's the many factors that that you find that contribute to displacement and gentrification. There are some neighborhoods that don't see a lot of development that have rising prices, and there are some neighborhoods that we have development that also see rising prices and vice versa. So it's not just as simple as development causes displacement according to data that we've seen. What we do know is from examples like San Francisco is that when you severely restrict the supply of housing while the city is growing and more people are moving to it, that prices tend to rise very rapidly. And so the thinking around density is where can we place density where people can benefit from infrastructure like transit, like parks and community services so that people have a higher quality of life and that we can manage pollution and carbon emissions in a more appropriate way. And what we've said in this plan is that we should couple those strategies for strategic growth with our affordable housing tools. So included in that missing middle recommendation, which is the infill housing options of duplexes and triplexes and row homes, we've said that we should that we should couple that recommendation with affordable housing tools, such as the pilot study on the West Side, looking at use and creating incentives again for residents who want to become sort of their own developer and develop their own properties and how we can partner with them through other organizations to keep those rents at a reasonable level. And using some of those that same thinking and that pilot on the West Side in this missing middle housing recommendations. And that's that's part of the East Central policy recommendation as well. And so my last question, with respect to affordable housing, we got really close to being explicit about what we expect to see from development when we said that height would only be allowed. Four. Originally it was for affordable housing, and then we softened up on that language to say that height would be allowed for a community, substantial community benefit. And we didn't set in stone what a community a community benefit meant. We just gave some examples. Can you explain to me why we softened up on that language? Why we backed up and what could be the unintended consequences of backing up? Yeah. I also think that's a really great question. So, yes, we did not limit community benefits only to affordable housing. However, we did say clearly that affordable housing is the top priority through this process. Remember, one. One thing to remember is that this is a long term plan and must be a long term plan. And so it's looking out 20 years. And the hope anyways is that 20 years from now we won't always be in an affordable housing crisis. And so we did put on some additional community benefits. One being that you heard tonight was the issue of small, locally owned businesses being displaced. And so that is an issue that we don't really have many policy tools. The Denver doesn't. Most cities don't. And so we had to think about how we could look at that issue through these creative solutions of using zoning and entitlements. And so we put on the table affordable business space as a way to incentivize that that outcome that we heard from the community. And that's particularly important along corridors like Colfax, where, again, more than 75% of those businesses are small, locally owned independents. So for that reason, we did broaden that recommendation, too, to look at businesses and as well as other things that are in short supply in certain areas. So if there is a food desert, we have said that an affordable grocery store and we we and we were specific about saying affordable grocery stores in affordable daycares where those essential services are needed, where there is accessibility issues. We also clarified, I think, to your concern, Councilwoman CdeBaca, about those details not yet being decided upon, and that's correct. And so we've clarified that those entitlements, those that additional height or density, cannot be granted until council has decided upon those community benefits. And those details are figured out. So you're committing that council will get to decide what appropriate community benefits are before CPD makes a recommendation to approve a rezoning on Colfax. Yeah, that's what's written in the recommendation. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Up next, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I've got a couple of questions. Some are somewhat along the lines of others, but I'm going to start with a different set that has not been asked. So first of all, this is probably for you, Kurt. So can you tell me if the same level of outreach was done in in all areas, and was there any concerted effort made in areas that were more predominantly minority, both African-American and Latino? You know. So we. Did intentionally. Hold. Community events and workshops geographically, dispersed it in every single neighborhood throughout the three year process. As I mentioned previously, we did shift our resources to be to do disproportionate outreach to those underrepresented groups that contained, you know, the demographics that were that had the disparities. So that was younger, lower income renters in in neighborhoods like Capitol Hill. In terms of your question about racial demographics, the east central area, while there is some diversity in the east central area, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, the percentage of nonwhite residents in the east central area is, I think, 20 or 30% somewhere . Is that is that correct, Scott? It's about 22%. Right. And it's pretty widely distributed. I mean, there's no obvious location in East Central area where there is a concentration of people of color. That said, we did try to do outreach to places that are, you know, historically more diverse in terms of their destinations. So schools. Recreation centers. We target our outreach at places where communities gather. We as was mentioned previously, we did outreach directly to people who've been marginalized, such as people experiencing homelessness. We did pop up events at bus stops in other locations. So we didn't make an effort to try to diversify who we were hearing from. And in the final percentages of plan participants versus the census, demographics of the East Central area was generally consistent in terms of the percentage of nonwhite participants. So are you familiar with a Title IX complaint that's been filed? About outreach to I believe it's more concentrated on the Spanish speaking population within the boundaries. So there was a Title six complaint. Which is the term used in the federal statute, because the portion of this planning process received federal funds that went to the Federal Transit Administration. That's the. Other. Entity that was the guarantor. And that was several months ago in the complaint. And in that email that was sent to them was that we did not do a mailer as part of our notification process, whereas we did do a mailer in another plan area. And that was that. The complaint is that that was an unfair process that we had. And so we did have a discussion about that. We did evaluate it. We did respond to that complaint to the person and explain why we did what we did. And we found that there was not any kind of violation. Both RTD, which is the overseer of the federal grant that we had as well as the FTA, were not we did not find that there was any title issue with that notification question. We have heard. Just to be clear, let me clarify one point. Was the grant isolated to. Just specific conversations around the transportation part of the plan or was it isolated to the BRT? And so my next question after you answer that will be how did the BRT fall into the plan? All the work that's been going on with that. Into the short. So to your first part of the question, no, the grant was used for all the topics in the plan. So urban design, interpretation, preservation, etc. It wasn't just focused on BRT or the Colfax corridor, however, you know, because it was the Federal Transit Administration who was the Grand Tour. They were the Federal Transit Administration, you know, is also looking at Colfax to be an investor in that Colfax bus rapid transit. And so part of the reason that they give out these grants is to make sure that the land use and other issues like affordable housing are addressed and planned for ahead of that infrastructure, which is why we decided as a city to move forward with the east central in the east area plans ahead of some other parts of the city, because we wanted to make sure that we were being proactive and helping to guide that change that could occur from a huge infrastructure investment like BRT along Colfax and making sure that we're trying to guide that those changes in an equitable as a way possible. So that's kind of how that fits in as we looked at what the impacts of that infrastructure may have and try to create strategies and policies so that the community benefits from that infrastructure in there and we try to minimize any unintended consequences. So who who specifically responded from the city of Denver to the the complaint that was filed and was that submitted to the RTA? Yeah. I think it was it was submitted to FTA. FTA. So yeah, the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Transit Administration said that the city and RTD being the grant, the grantees should be the one to respond. And so I don't know the exact staff person that responded, but we sent a variety of emails related to this issue of mailer notification to those who are complaining about it. Okay. So one of the questions I ask during our budget process is who is our Title six person in the city of Denver? The airport used to have one. We used to have one in the city attorney's office. I don't know that we do have one now. So that's part of why I was asking who responded. And I guess I want to see if our city attorney is on to see if we do have a Title six point person in the city attorney's office as we did before. Of me. If you're on, would you mind chiming in and then I'll jump back to you. Purpose another questions. All right. We're going to go ahead and get Nate promoted up into the Pamela's. And Nate, I'm assuming you're the right person to answer this question. It may need to get bumped above your head, but that you might know since so many of these end up being interface with land use and transportation. I don't see him in our queue. Not yet. Or I can say well, always. While we find Nate in this specific instance. I think your question, councilman, our customers take it as a little broader. But in this specific instance, because we were a federal grantee, that RTD was is the the designated call, the designated recipient of federal funds from transit from Federal Transit Administration. So it's really their purview and their role in this instance to be the compliance person for Title six. But we were rewarded for responding. But that doesn't answer the question about who our point person is. And if if we get made in, we can maybe plug him in. If I can just continue with a couple more of my questions with Kurt. Do you mind if we move in that direction, Madam President? We can. And I'm getting information here that right now, you know what? I think we have Skye Stewart in our panel, so I'm going to go ahead and look. Okay. I think I can answer that question. That question about Channel six. Okay. Sir. Hi, Sky Stuart. Mayor's Office, Council one. We do not have someone assigned in the city attorney's office to that role. It's something that we are talking about. You raised this question during budget hearings and we're working through who is the most appropriate person. It's something that HRC has talked about taking on in the past, but we don't have it officially assigned there. So following up on your question, we're working to get that assigned. It is not someone assigned in the city attorney's office currently. Okay. Thank you for answering that. So all right, proceed with my other questions. So when we look at the height recommendations that are in the document. You know, obviously there are areas that are much higher densities than what exists today. And I want to know if any of the conversation looked at sort of maintaining a floor. And this is very different from what the 38 than Blake looked at. I mean, they looked at raising the density and then anything above that would be, you know, that included affordability could go higher. And if we used today's zoning as the floor and obviously, you know, the the change of the plan doesn't automatically result in the properties. But if we. Looked at setting a floor differently than what we did at 30th and Blake. And then people who want to go up to the levels that are spelled out in the plan could could reason, but it would require the the contribution of affordability. Was that part of the discussion at all? So that that gets to sort of the the issue that has been raised in our planning process of like those very specific details. And that that specific question about, I think we were talking about is the base height. That we call the floor. That's part of the conversation that's going on right now with affordable housing, zoning and seven project in the regulatory process. What we've we've recommended as a policy in the central plan is we didn't answer that specific question. But what we did say is that if you want to go beyond what you have today, you have to provide community benefits with affordable housing being the top priority in terms of where that exact base will go. That question specifically will be answered by that affordable housing and zoning incentive project. And that will create a base for the overall area, or will it be a case by case situation where the base is set? I think the goal is to create a consistent approach throughout the city and not just a case by case decision. Okay. I think that's probably going to be much easier to apply if it's done that way. You know, the other thing I just want to share is that we have seen that where we have encouraged higher densities, it hasn't equal affordability. And until we put the right levers in place and they're not always necessarily incentives, but where we have the right levers, that's where we're going to start to see affordability. Because, I mean, you could look at the Reno area, you could look at downtown, you could look at almost any area of our city or any of our TOD locations. You know, it's not generally where there are affordable projects. You know, some of them have incorporated some affordability, but not by and large. So can you give. Nest played a role in giving input into addressing some of the displacement concerns or recommendations that could have folded into the plan. And how was that incorporated? So yeah, Irene and her team announced we formed a interdepartmental working group. They've been a great partner and looking at our affordable housing recommendations, our anti displacement recommendations, along with other staff and host detail and others. And absolutely, I mean, the the neighborhoods in East Central are not one of the nest target areas. But in another project that we're working on in the East Cole Fox neighborhood, that is one of their target areas. And so we were having those discussions simultaneously with the same question about how we're going to get innovative and do everything we can to look at this displacement issue. And so our recommendations were developed in partnership with NEST and other staff members. And did that apply both to residential as well as businesses? Yeah. Displacement issue. Thank you. Can you tell me if the issue of connectivity was part of the discussion so that where we're including or asking any of the development to include affordability, that we're ensuring that connectivity to the Internet, whether it's through Comcast or CenturyLink or whatever, is not a lead behind barrier for for certain communities. And, you know, we've seen this played out in COVID with kids having to work from home and not having the Internet and having to be sent home either with our light by our libraries, with hotspots or other ways to ensure that, you know, lower income children are not being left behind in their education. So did that come up as part of the conversation? I think. Poverty covered it. Also. That's why I'm asking. Yeah, it didn't come up. In terms of like those community benefits that we're talking about, which were more a little broader than that. But what we did have as part of our sort of long term vision statement of outcomes was this idea of having free, high speed Internet service in community spaces, whether that's, you know, the rec centers and libraries, even parks and plasma spaces. And so that that concept is in is in the plan. Okay. But it didn't come up as part of the actual developments that may be going on, if there are new development, new projects that take advantage of some of the density opportunities. You know, not not that not that level. Okay. And then just one last question. Jumping back to the BRT. We're. Any of the details that have come out of the whole BRT planning effort incorporated into the the East Central Area Plan. And and can you just sort of highlight where that's at? Is that in the transportation section trying to pull up the. Yeah. So really in two and two places, we have a whole section of the plan called the Colfax Corridor section where that linkage between BRT and the plan is, is, is articulated also because we receive extra grant funding through this project, we hired two planners in the Department of Transportation Infrastructure to work exclusively, exclusively on the central plan and east area plan. And so they provided that close coordination with the with the BRT team throughout the process. So that got folded into them into this central area plan. Okay. If you could maybe highlight where I find that in the document, is it in the transportation or the transit part of it? So yeah, if you look at the Colfax corridor section of the plan, you'll see the BRT stops in a lot of thinking around the land use changes that we've contemplated near those stops. It's kind of sprinkled in many sections of the plan. I mean, the BRT is such a big project. That's how we we for example, the height recommendations along Colfax were considered. You know, there were proximity to BRT stops. Many of the improvements that we've recommended for mobility in the mobility section where we're connecting bike lanes and crossings and pedestrian improvements, are that those station locations were looked at as connections to those as sort of nodes or little hubs along Colfax, so that the concept of BRT was really integral into many, many elements and topics throughout the plan. Those were extracted from the BRT plan into this plan. Yeah. I mean. It's it's a little of both. Right. So the the recommendations in the East Central Plan are informing the the BRT plan, which is now in the design phase. And everything done ahead of that informed that central plan. Okay. I think that's the end of my questions for right now. So. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And we do have Nate Lucero up in the queue. And so just wanted I know, Nate, you had your hand raised. Wanted to give you an opportunity if you had something to weigh in on the Title six issue. Thank you, Madam President. I don't have anything in addition to what Sky has already said. Thank you, though. All right. Very good. Thank you, Nate. Next up, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Upton, I have some questions for you. I want to start on civil rights. So, as you may know, civil rights are the reason why I am elected official today. And any sort of civil rights complaint is concerning to me. And, you know, my. The reason I'm an elected official is because my interest in protecting the civil rights of working for people with disabilities. So I do I guess I just want to add, in addition to what Councilmember Ortega had mentioned, did you. Have you gotten anything from RTD lately saying that that the Title six investigation is open or closed for what? Those statuses. You know, we've. We've heard some sort of rumors in the community that like this that this was done. But we've been checking in with RTD and they have consistently said no, there has been no complaint filed with us. We haven't received any official complaint. I checked with them just as, you know, like a 3:00 today just to make sure. And it was a no. It was at 106 today, but yes, this afternoon. So sorry, I. Was asking you question and knew the answer to you. But but I think it's important that certainly we've heard about the Title six complaint and and you reached out this afternoon. And as we understand, there is no process or complaint under way. So we're. Whether we have a Title six attorney or representative, I think that's another issue. And I think I think Councilmember, take it for for bringing that up. I think that's beyond this particular plan and discussion tonight. But but I do support her. Her concern that. How many public meetings did you hold for that very plan? Well, with your help included in that final push, when we did that extension to get more underrepresented residents, we're over 100. I don't know the exact number, but I know it's over 100. Okay. Yeah, that's it's good to get a sense of the size of those meetings. How many of them did someone request interpretation or translation services? I don't believe I can check. I don't believe anyone ever requested it. And even though all of our community workshops, we did invest quite a bit of resources into making sure that we had professional interpreters available at all of them. And we sent out the all of our outreach materials in both English and Spanish. We didn't get people taking advantage of those at those meetings. And I think that's in part due. It wasn't really surprising because when we're doing our research and we're setting up our communication plan, at the beginning of the process, we were looking at the demographics of the central area and the percentage of limited English to non-English speakers is quite low and the east central area ranges from anywhere from 0% in Congress Park to, you know, around 2% as a high end city Park West, I believe. So it's really around 1% average in the whole East Central Plan. That's different from other plans we do in the West area plan or outreach we're doing out in East Colfax where, you know, we have participants from five or six different languages in the meeting simultaneously and we provide those services. I know in the Far Northeast plan, Councilman Gilmore had a really great relations with many of the Spanish speakers and Latino community up there. And so we had more participants up there, but we just didn't we didn't see it as much in the east central area. Yeah. So thank you for that. And and just some of the demographics because someone asked them and. And the response was 80%. The it's actually on page two that the basic I mean, page one is the title page and the page to. Date the basic demographics. And and this is a I is a very Caucasian district. So 79% or 78.8% are are Caucasian or white in the in the plan area. And that's very close to the to the demographics of our district, ten to so about nine or nine and a half percent Latino. But but many of those are English speaking or maybe bilingual. And there are very few I know that I've not had any concerns with any of my town halls or outreach about native Spanish translation or translation into any other language. But I certainly am willing to accommodate it. Should it should it be necessary? Um, so I want to talk about. So speaking of, you know, um, a bit of diversity. So again, this is a pretty white plan. Um, can you give. So, but as you mentioned, there's diversity in other ways. So Miss Robinson. Mentioned that. 70% of the. Of the plan area is renter occupied. Do you know where the highest concentration of owner occupied? Where's that 30%? I believe the the highest concentration of owner occupied is in Congress Park. And the. Southern. Portion of cars park. Yeah, well, I would agree with that. So what it was. So let's let's take a snapshot. So Draft One was released in November of 2019, I believe. And and then in February of 2020, I think you and I did a check of where the data elements, the data that we had received so far . Do you do you know where the majority of data points were from at that point? Yeah. Scott, can you confirm this? But I recall we had a disproportionate at that point in the process, we had a disproportionately high number of comments and participants from Congress park from that from the car park neighborhood. And I want to say for some reason, the number 65 sticks in my head that 65% of the responses or the data a data points were from Congress part and particular South Congress part. So I guess the conclusion I'm trying to draw here is that in some ways it makes sense, but that people who were homeowners in single family homes really represented overrepresented. The demographics in February, I guess, is that. Do you do you think that that's a reasonable. Comment. That's right. I mean, that's the other side of the coin of the underrepresented population that we tried to target was we had overrepresentation in the opposite area. Yeah. And that's that's also what I'm what I was trying to get at. You mentioned even today that that the lower income renters and younger folks were under underrepresented. If you're also looking at page two, the vast majority of the district, I mean, the majority of the district is millennial, right? So, you know, between 25 and 34, there's a huge spike. Is that? Is that right? Yeah, that's right. I mean, generally the east central areas, younger, um, younger and again, huge majority renter. Yeah. So I mean, I think it's important just that in context in that, um, you did mention that you, you did some specific targeted outreach and you mentioned Capitol Hill. I think where I'm trying to go with this is you reached out to Capitol Hill because it wasn't because Capitol Hill was the only data point you were trying to get. It was you got a whole bunch of data points from other areas and you were trying to trying to create a more representative set of data based on, as you mentioned, the census data. So the next thing I want to ask about is reach. I think that you mentioned 10,000 data points for your cap at this point, is that right? I could do wrong. Yeah. Yeah, over over 10,000. And do you know how many data points blueprint got? I remember looking at this at some point a while back, but I remember when I looked at the numbers that were in East Central versus Blueprint Denver as they were comparable. I don't know the exact number, but it was surprising to me that we had almost the same level of outreach. And blueprint, a citywide plan that I mean, you know, 78 neighborhoods. It covers all 78 neighborhoods. Right. And this is only six neighborhoods. Right. So I just seems kudos to you, I guess is where I'm going with the amount of outreach for this plan is. Is on. Par with the citywide plan. Yeah, it is just six neighborhoods, though. The last thing that I wanted to ask you about was affordable housing. So I hear some concerns about affordable housing. Yeah. As we heard in the testimony earlier tonight, we have so many affordable housing providers who have spoken out in support of the East Central Area Plan. Can you help me understand how this plan provides benefits for affordable housing, where the market rate providers may not have certain benefits? Yeah. I mean, so this is one of the yeah, this is a plan where we looked at this question pretty intensely. We created an entire chapter which was little different than other plans we had done previously. That was all about affordable housing. So we have a number of recommendations, both zoning related and non zoning related. Again, in that partnership we have a host and NEST and other organizations. We did focus groups with affordable housing developers and we really have a robust package of policies and recommendations to look at affordable housing. And I think the one that has gotten the most attention and community feedback has been the one around zoning. And what we've done, as I tried to explain earlier, is with this with this recommendation that says you must provide community benefits if you want to be able to develop higher and more dense. And the priority is affordable housing. I think what that does is it gives an advantage to developers that build affordable housing. So affordable housing developers are now at more of an advantage because all of these properties have an incentive to build in affordable, affordable housing and a disincentive to not build affordable housing. So if you're affordable housing, if you if your job is to build affordable housing, you know, generally you're supportive of this plan, which is why I think you see that the testimony. And then so Telluride, the Telluride decision. You know, I would I would admit I am a little. I would like for there to be more affordable housing discussions. Homelessness is the biggest issue facing District ten. And the best way to. Do to help with homelessness is to provide them homes. And and so, you know, the Telluride decision is a state law that. That permit. Prevents any political subdivision from allowing rent control. And in the year 2000, the Colorado State Supreme Court decided that any requirement of workforce housing is considered a form of rent control. And so let's there was legislation introduced in the state legislature this year, COVID mix things up. But let's say that in 2021, the the folks at the in in the General Assembly, they pass something that allows us to require affordable housing and all developments. How does that how does that fit into the U.S. Treasury plan? Well, we have to start over. Or will we? Will that plug in to what we've created so far? Absolutely. I mean, the, um, you know, the what would result from that would, you know, would just be more affordable housing. Right. So what we've done this really thoughtful research, especially along Colfax, really a lot by lot analysis where we applied criteria on which lots would be most appropriate to add additional density or additional height in which should be preserved from a historic preservation standpoint or just an urban design standpoint. And we really went through that a lot by a lot of analysis and created a very detailed plan of areas, what we want to preserve and this balance of growth and preservation, which is why I think you see the testimony tonight from historic Denver and others who want to see more housing both support. The plan is that if you know, if additional tools like state laws change, that's just going to accelerate and help us meet those housing goals even more than the tools that we have provided. So I think that answers the question. Yeah. And I have one other question. We've gotten some feedback today from a registered neighborhood organization that they they're frustrated that their entire earner was not included in the plan boundaries. Can you can you help me identify which what the plan area is, um, by, I'm assuming it's actually, I'm, this is a question I know the answer to and I'm trying to get you to give me the answer anyway. So let me, let me be a little blunter. The plan area we chose statistical neighborhoods right as the boundaries we chose six statistical neighborhoods. Why did you or the city or whoever the powers that be chose choose statistical neighborhoods as a boundary as opposed to registered neighborhood organizations as a boundary. Yeah. So we get. This question from time to time. And those statistical neighborhood boundaries were established in the 1970s. They align with census tracts. The city has been using those statistical neighborhood boundaries to track demographic change over the years and as as you know, RINO's basically determine their own boundaries. And so for those reasons we use the statistical boundaries as a way to make sure we're being consistent. We have a basis of research and understanding an area over time so that. The statistical boundaries survive through rezonings, sorry. Well, through rezonings too, but through our analysis, they come and go and we're about to do a remapping of our city council districts. But the statistical neighborhood remains the same even through those those reapportionment processes, too, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Scott. Simply because I emailed him earlier today in the interest of giving staff adequate time to actually answer a question with preparation. But it would help me very much in analyzing this. It was enough to read through the plan itself, but it supplants for existing neighborhood plans. I think it's uptown. And what are they? Uptown Capitol Hill, Cheesman Park, Congress Park and the East Colfax Plans. It would really help me analyze this if I better understood in what ways are we perhaps radically changing those existing plans to something else, and in what ways are we keeping or retaining some of the elements of those existing plans? That would help me understand how much change these these neighborhoods might reasonably expect over the next 20 years with with the E cap. So, Scott, again, did I give you enough time to to love that or to analyze that question? Yes. Yeah. Thank you for saying that to us. And it's a great question. One of the first things we did in this planning process was read through those existing plans. One of the recommendations in those plans of whether it was still relevant or not or things have changed and no longer made sense, all of those into the new plan. But a lot of these plans are fairly old, including the Up to Never Plan, which was 34 years old now. And he's never that's been a very different situation when a lot of these plans were written in the eighties and nineties by the mayor. So a lot of the recommendations just make sense. Back then, there was a lot of concern about encouraging reinvestment in these neighborhoods. That is never as it seems for disinvestment for the recent years. And there's concern about how do we get people to move into these neighborhoods and spend money on these neighborhoods? And as we know, that's not the issue we're facing today. We're facing the opposite issue that we have a lot of people that want to live in these neighborhoods and not enough housing. And these old plans didn't really deal with housing at all. And as we've talked about tonight from our housing is a major component of this neighborhood plan or the new neighborhood, and that's just one example . So the ceasefire plan is significantly different than what these old plans had. That, I think, reflects how the city's evolved over the last 25 to 35 years. You recall offhand of those four plans, how old were each of those? Uptown. When was that? Yeah, uptown was 1986. 86, 86? Yes. That's before Councilman Hines was born, I think. And he lives there now. The Capital Hill Cheeseman Park Plan is 1993, I believe the current plan is 1995 and East Colfax Plan is 2004, I believe. Okay. Thank you. I. I also wanted to ask. Well, the other question I e-mailed you has already been addressed here. And I was about the the ethnic and racial makeup of the steering committee. And I hear that you addressed that earlier. So thank you. Or maybe Kirk did. I don't know who's best to address this. Last question. I have maybe, Kurt. We've talked about a lot about affordable housing. I'm still a little unclear on how this plan incentivizes it. What I see is encouragement, actually, maybe discouragement that's wrong said encouragement not to demolish. And I don't that's a double negative or something. In order to add units to existing properties as opposed to scraping, I know we love to throw around this term gentle density. I, I look at gentle density as displacing you with a smile because the neighborhoods where I've seen it happen. My aide, Dana montano, bought her grandmother's house when she and Albert were married. Her now late husband sold it off in the nineties. And we look that up recently. It's in Philip Park and it was valued by the assessor the last time in 2016 at 169 nine, it was bought and demolished a year later for almost 300, replaced with duplex units that each sell for about $600,000. So like Councilwoman Black and some other members, I have a concern that that we keep doing these things thinking that will produce one result. Yet they keep producing the other. Resolving Telluride, as, as Councilman Hines mentioned, won't solve that problem because this is private investors building new housing, selling it on the open market. So I worry about this gentle density. So how does cap. Do a better job at encouraging affordability. I read through and I saw the you know, maybe we can relax the bulk plane requirements or rear setbacks to discourage demolition. Is that it? And also is in this plan that will actually accomplish this goal. Yeah, I think that's that's a great question, Councilman Flynn. I mean, like I said before, there's a number of recommendations. We have a whole. Affordable. Housing section of the plan that gets into things like trying to prevent the expiration of covenants and more more of those program programmatic recommendations. But to your specific point about the general density or the infill housing density, it's again, a small portion of the east central area that's that this that that recommendation applies to. But in our partnership with historic Denver and discover Denver through this process, um, we have a, we have a Discover Denver survey so that we surveyed all of these neighborhoods for historical significance and the single unit areas where that recommendation would apply are historically significant. And so for multiple reasons, not for the reasons you said which, which are, which we agree with. And it has been a point of view that's shared through our process about demolishing smaller bungalows and replacing them with larger monster, like maximize every square inch of the zoning that you have. We explicitly have said in our policy that that's not what we should be encouraging, right? That's not the outcome we want to happen. And if the recommendation says that if additional housing units are added in these areas, the actually have to preserve the existing structure if it's historically significant. And all of these areas where this would apply are historically significant. So that's the approach is it's it's encouraging a preservation and it's discouraging that scrape and, you know, the sort of McMansion style homes. Right. All right. We also have some interest we also have more specific versions about encouraging programs to provide dedicated, affordable housing when these new units are added. So I feel like that recommendation 11 in the plan, it has recommendations specifically about the. A missing Middle East is built into these neighborhoods. Look at programs that can help them get built and then as part of that help requiring affordability in those units. All right. I will I will look at that while the rest of the debate goes on. 11. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have at the moment. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, you're back up. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Upton, people keep moving to Denver. Does de discourage people moving to this plant area? No, I think it is balance again. We come up with a balanced approach to allowing for the projected growth. So one of the first things we did was we looked at the 2040 Dr. Card housing and job projections, and we made sure that the land use recommendations could accommodate those housing and job projections. And while still putting into place policies to address that housing shortage that we had, especially at the lower income levels and trying to balance that with historic preservation. So that was kind of that balanced approach that we took. So a lot of people are moving to Denver because of jobs, because we've suddenly gained a lot of jobs and because of access to outdoor activities. Does or can ICAP discourage people moving here for jobs or outdoor activities? No. Okay. And then what about in 2020? We've got people moving here from. The coast because. They're climate refugees. You know, the West Coast is on fire and is flooding and the East Coast is. Is there anything in the U.S. plan that discourages people to move into the six neighborhoods because of. Global warming. I don't. Yeah, I don't think so. So I guess so. If we had people moving to Denver for a whole bunch of reasons, does that affect housing affordability? Yeah. Like I previously mentioned, you know, it's something that we look at in making sure that housing supply is keeping pace with the number of population moving to. To Denver. Yeah. I mean, I'm not trying to I guess I'm not trying to be critical of you. I'm trying to say it's very difficult for us when we have a perfect place to live and people really want to live here. And and so, you know, if we could keep the factors, just the people who are existing in the area plan and not have anyone else move to the area, I think we could we could perhaps tackle housing affordability a little bit better than one when we have a whole bunch of people really care because because it's a perfect slice of our planet. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. I have one remaining question. My other questions were asked by my colleagues, either Kerr or Scott. Are any of the bus rapid transit plans, are they funded or will they be funded in 2021? So we do have dodgy staff if you want to get into specifics. But it's my understanding that the next phase of the Colfax Bus Rapid Transit Project is funded through a general obligation bond funding. They're moving forward with that project and advancing the phase. I think. I think Mike Gill is on the call. If you have any follow ups or don't want more specifics on that, he's that he's in charge of that project. Okay. You know what? We'll go ahead. I just as long as we know that that you're considering something and I'm not seeing him raise his hand right now, so. Oh, there you go. Mike, do you want to go ahead and chime in? Yeah. I missed a little bit of the conversation when I was being promoted, but the question was around the next phase of the BRT, we do have about $5 million in city funds from previous years, as well as $55 million in the 2017 go bond that's available for this next phase. And that's what we're moving forward with, our NEPA clearance and the design phase. Okay. Great. Thank you. That was the the question I wanted answered. So. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0930 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I want to open my comments by thanking more, thanking everyone who is still here, because this is obviously a long conversation, but this is an important conversation. But I also want to thank Councilman Cashman. When I was elected, he quote, he was quoted as calling me an urbanist. If only I had known that word before I was elected, I definitely would have used it. So to me, urbanism is about having places where people want to be and having places where people want to go. I talked a lot about the concept of a 20 minute neighborhood. Basically, we all deserve the opportunity to be close to things. We need to survive and thrive all within a 20 minute walk or role as in no cars. We live in the real world, not Narnia. But I still think that District ten is pretty darn perfect. Much of what makes District Ten so perfect is that we're a slice of the city where people want to live, work and play. I've lived in the East Central Area playing boundary since 2007, and I personally followed this plan since before I was a candidate. I sat on a blueprint representing Central Denver for a while and it's a central area plan was a natural extension. Obviously, my role now is different than than in 2017, but I definitely had a long view of the process. DeKalb extends Blueprint Denver and pushes that concept of the 20 minute neighborhood further to the forefront. It means adding reasonable density where it makes sense, like Colfax as an example, and limiting additional density where it doesn't make sense . Like, for example, in South Congress Park. It also means a limit reducing or eliminating certain areas of proposed additional density. As an example, the plan had at one time a proposed additional density around the businesses in Congress Park. And after hearing from the neighbors, those those proposed additional density areas were removed because it was clear that's not what the neighbors wanted. So as you've heard, this plan has been endorsed by numerous organizations, including the OMB, Denver, Denver Streets Partnership, Colfax and Blueprint BID's Neighborhood Development Collaborative, including our 15 Affordable Housing and Social Service Providers. And historic Denver. These are very different organizations with different priorities. Yet this plan finds a way to appeal to each of them. There are elements. There are elements on the planet supporting local businesses, housing affordability, addressing homelessness, vision zero and historic preservation. Again, just one example. 54% of Congress parks homes were built before 1940. And this plan, encouraged, encourages preserving those buildings to preserve the character of the neighborhood. This includes encouraging more historic districts, creating adaptive reuse ordinances to to encourage reuse of a building rather than a scrape. And it even encourages expanding private property rights for people with historic homes so that they can make better use of their own property. The intent is to provide additional tools to preserve our city's character rather than demolish it for the next McMansion. District ten and cap as some of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. And I'm glad that helps the city and property owners preserve that beauty, even if it's in Capital Hill, Cheeseman or Congress part. I do want to provide two cautions for recap just like everyone, most everyone else. This isn't exactly what I wanted either. First, I wish there were more affordable housing in the plan. Still, this isn't really a I don't believe a problem with the plan. It's more to do with the laws that handcuff our ability to require affordable housing. State legislation was introduced in 2020 to preserve reverse the Telluride decision, but COVID decided to upend that bill along with lots of others. I continue to encourage everyone to contact their state legislators to ask them to reverse Telluride and to give us all political subdivisions, including Denver. The tools we need to do what is clearly demanded by the people of Denver. Second. I'm saddened by the amount of misinformation that is that surrounds this plan. We've talked about this before as a council, and I want to bring it up again for this discussion right now. Denver law says Ana's are the way we should communicate with the people and the way people should respond. It's it's clear that that communication process needs improvement. And and it is no more front and center than with the central plan. Here's a troubling point. We've got all of us have received a bunch of email in the last 24 hours, and about half of them that I analyzed don't even live in the plan area. It's trouble. Troubling for two reasons. First, because they believe they're in the plain area. They after all, they signed it saying that they were eastern shore area plan residents, but they're not. Second, there are maps of the plan area on pages two, three, four, ten, 13, 14, 16, 17, twice on page 18 and all over the, etc. airplane document. So and if you prefer words instead of images, you don't have to read beyond the first sentence of the first page to get the list of included neighborhoods. So it suggests that people were taking positions without even looking at the plan at all. That's okay. If the if the information people are using to base their position is accurate and if the process is transparent, I'm not certain that is the case. So. One of the things that we did me we as in the district office, is we assisted that conversation between government and its people. I asked to delay the planned process. I didn't just ask for the delay without doing anything. We dedicated 100% one of the one of the team in district office to the essential airplane outreach. We fired thousands of residents. We partnered with property management companies who sent emails to their renters about etc. area plan. We held 14 additional community events and several train the trainer events to some of our events. Had a few people and one presentation had more than 150 people. There was so much outreach that my office had a scheduled event at bang up to the elephant in Capitol, an unknown to us. One of our trainers also had an early plan program at the exact same time and the exact same venue. As I understand it, the outreach more than doubled the data points thanks to that extra 30 day extension and more importantly, increased responses in areas that were underrepresented before outreach. 83% of this plan houses districts and residents. I want to thank them sincerely for their time and their fair consideration of others interests, not just their own. When it comes to the future of our beautiful city, it takes courage to change our approach to land and land use, transportation and climate as we move forward. I want to thank the steering committee members for their time, because I don't think anyone received 100% of what they wanted throughout this process. I also want to thank my team. We augmented city staff and our nose with outreach and I want to thank all of them for the extra work and stress during this process. I believe it is a strong plan thanks to CPD with help from so many other stakeholders and I urge my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. First, I'd like to thank everybody, Scott, Kurt, everyone else in CPD who put an endless amount of time into seeking input, including you. Councilman Chris. Councilman Hines. I appreciate all of that. And as much as input is important, all the input in the world doesn't matter if we don't heed the recommendations and deal with the concerns that people raise. I personally really love the adaptive reuse and change of use elements and the historic preservation pieces of the plan. And I want to thank her for acknowledging that I was the only person of color on the steering committee after inheriting Councilman Brooks seat. While the makeup of the steering committee was very disturbing. They were appointed largely by my predecessor and fortunate for me, Frank Lo Cantor was very graceful in addressing several instances of inappropriate comments around race and class from other steering committee members. So a huge thank you to Frank for helping in that way as the only person of color on the steering committee for the tail end. Responding to the articulated plan, I was extremely disturbed to have to have had a conversation in our very last meeting where we had to literally define social equity because not all of the members of the committee had heard the words or heard of the words or their meaning. We had several moments where I had to challenge committee members on comments about affordable housing not being appropriate, an appropriate community benefit, because it would bring down property values and comments that we needed to clean up the seedy parts of Colfax. I'm very frustrated by things mentioned by several other speakers tonight, including Miles. Miss Camacho and Joe Miles brought up the BRT traffic modeling, the design, the parking, the walking density, the walking and density studies that they requested and the alternate B BRT stops that were never really included. And but this whole plan was catalyzed by BRT. So I felt like not blending those two things together, the way that members were asking for it to be blended was problematic. I wish that we were having separate conversations about the mobility and safety component because from the few meetings that I was able to attend pre-COVID, most residents , especially the frustrated ones, they didn't appreciate tackling the potential for upcoming density with the needed safety, street measures and bike lanes. And so I wish those were separate and I support a lot of those elements in the plan. But our office had over 620 residents voiced their opposition to this plan. I think we need to be really careful about believing that will be able to meet our missing middle needs with a plan that doesn't explicitly define housing needs that must be met. The height incentives are even looser here in this plan than they were in the high incentives in the 38th and Blake overlay. And those incentives didn't yield any affordability. Everywhere in my district on the south side of Colfax, on the north side of Colfax is proof that more density doesn't equal affordability. While many of the neighborhoods in District ten have had plans, neighborhood plans in as old as many years as I am old, my district happens to have almost all of our neighborhoods have a neighborhood plan, and they're relatively recent. And what we know is that first comes the plan, then comes the rapid displacement and gentrification. And so I want us to be very cautious about that. Incentives without a mechanism to actualize affordability will once again open the doors to rampant development and accelerated displacement, particularly for the 70% of renters in this corridor, with the majority of the area relying on benevolent landlords to maintain affordability. I'm very concerned about how how rapidly land speculators will pounce on the opportunities presented for massive redevelopment along this corridor as long as they include community benefits. Community benefits that could range from parks, a swimming pool for the elite to affordable housing for those who actually need it. I'd love to believe that the insight, the height incentives. Open the open, the. Market for affordable, affordable housing developers, as mentioned. But the price of land is the first barrier to any benevolent build. This plan exponentially increases the value of land along the corridor with seven votes and nothing else for those reasons. I can't. Support this plan as it stands. Without firming up our expectations for affordable housing development and defining in the plan what our priorities are around community benefits. So with that, I'm a no tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca and Councilman Hines, for your great comments. I just have a few things to say. One is that although most of you know, I am a lifelong resident of Southeast Denver, I actually was born in the East Central Area Plan area at Saint Joseph's Hospital many, many, many, many years ago . So in my district, unlike yours, Councilwoman Sayed Abarca, we do not have one neighborhood plan ever in the history of Southeast Denver. So I have been pushing for a long time for some plans in my district. And so when we have one in my district, I want it to be more like the far northeast area plan where everyone came to our council meeting to tell us how much they loved it. So this controversy with this one is really troubling me. And so I just want to express my concerns to CPD as we move forward with future area plans. I don't like this current controversy. I think it makes us all feel really uncomfortable. I feel like we need to listen to all of our residents. And right now I feel like we're having a war between NIMBYs and NIMBYs, and I feel like there's got to be a middle ground somewhere. So I hope moving forward we can find a middle ground that more people are happy with what we're doing. I also have concerns that our areas are too big. They're they're massive. I know we're trying to do a lot in it in a relatively short amount of time, even though it's going to be more than a decade . But these areas are they're just so completely different. Every neighborhood within the plan is so unique and so different. And I think that's part of the reason we're seeing that the disagreement and the controversy that we're seeing tonight, I don't know if there's a way we can divide them up some more, but I do think that that's going to end up. Having more opposition as we move forward. I also am concerned, I mentioned this earlier that there are too many CPD efforts going on and there are siloed. I think we need to talk about all of them together with our community members so they understand everything that we're doing. And they don't just hear about one thing and they get comfortable with that. And then lo and behold, something else pops up and they're like, Well, but you didn't tell me about that one. So I do have concerns about that. We can talk about it later. And as I think most of us mentioned tonight, we have concerns that density results in affordability when that's not what we've seen at all in Denver. So that's something else I have huge concerns about. I will be supporting this. I feel like there is overwhelming support for it. I appreciate Councilman Hines. It's predominantly in his district and he's an enthusiastic supporter of it and I will be supporting it. And I look forward CPD with working with you on the Near Southeast Area Plan, which is a tiny part of it is in my district. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. I also want to thank everyone the staff and steering committee and community members, and especially the council members who participated in the process. These plans are incredibly time consuming and a really complex task full of trade offs and tough conversations. So I really appreciate the hard work that went into this. And I think, you know, no matter whether you're a supporter of this plan or not, I really admire the dedication of the group of people who came together to get this done and what they've accomplished over the last three years. So I think this is a tough decision. I think from the testimony that I heard tonight, some of the community is voicing its frustration really with the process. And based on my own personal experience in the area, you know, in the East Area plan, you know, I can I can understand that concern. I can understand that frustration. This is the first area planned to go through in an area that was already settled because the far northeast plan was adopted. Yeah, it was adopted a year and a half ago. But that plan covers an area that was largely undeveloped. And so it was it had different challenges, I think, and broad community support, certainly much broader community support than this one. So I think this plan and the East Area plan are different because they're they're the first plans that are involving neighborhoods that are fully built out and where there are people who are already there. And there are some tough lessons that were learned by CPD in the process around these plans that are just sort of a different situation than that first plan. But I really appreciate that CPD took the time to slow down and, you know, really reengage the community in partnership with the council office and ensure broader and more thoughtful engagement in the community. We've heard a lot of testimony about how different organizations, especially District ten, council office and CPD, some of the neighborhood organizations steering committee, worked hard over the last year to bring awareness of the plan to the community, particularly to the renters who hadn't previously heard about it. And I think to the our, you know, community of residents who are experiencing homelessness, which is incredible. I mean, that's unheard of in the city and county of Denver. And I don't I'm not sure that we have really celebrated that enough tonight. I'm not sure that we've really, like, taken a moment to celebrate that enough tonight. Think about what we just said. When has that ever been done before in the history of the city and county of Denver? That's amazing. And say what you will about this plan. The fact that that was done is really incredible. And you guys should all be incredibly proud of yourselves that you were a part of that because that is a big deal. And I just don't think that we really stopped tonight to think about that for a second. So I just want to really make sure that we do that for a minute here and celebrate that because it needs to be celebrated because that is that's really important that that we took the extra time and the extra thought to be inclusive, because that should have been happening this entire time and it wasn't. And so thanks for doing that. So and I think it's really important to recognize, you know, this wasn't some backroom process that was secretive and created only by the wealthy and well-connected. I think one of the things we as council members here so often is that, you know, things backroom deals happen and things are done and we find out about it later as a community members, that's not what happened here. And that's really amazing and really important. So, you know, I talk all the time about how I truly believe that under the principles of Plan 2040 and Blueprint 2019, all of our neighborhoods are better off with a plan than without a plan. But really, the question is, is this the right plan? Does this plan achieve its purposes? Right, because no plan is perfect. But is this is this plan, you know, does it do what we need it to do? And, of course, we all wish that the neighborhood plans went further to guarantee affordability. You know, Telluride severely limits us. And so I also want to just please put out there to everyone and anyone in the state who is listening right now. Please tell you ride has got to go. It is crushing us and we will live with, you know, this missing middle for for a very, very long time and the consequences of Telluride for a very, very long time. Because we've lived with it for 20 years and it's it's ridiculous. So, you know, everyone on the stage, please, this has got to be fixed. But I digress. Thoughtful development doesn't mean no development. And I say that all the time. Our city is going to grow because cities that don't grow die. And that's not what we want. We but we've got to grow in a way that makes sense. And so the question is, does this plan make sense? And I think the answer is it's not perfect, but it does. It focuses growth along the Colfax corridor, where it belongs and where those additional residents can help support our local businesses. So that that makes sense. You know, no one is going to get everything that they want when it comes to these plans and everyone has to give. And that means no one is going to be completely happy with how the plan has turned out. Everyone's a little disappointed and everyone's a little mad, and that's probably the way it should be. And from what I heard tonight, that's kind of what I wanted to hear. That's a signal of success. Some people telling us that there isn't enough density in the plan. Some people testifying that there's too much development and density in the plan. To me, that's indicative that we have found a good middle ground and that's an indication that we are sort of where we should be with this plan. And so that means that I will be supporting it tonight. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. There's enough from the principals in the process of this plan for me to support it. However, I agree with Councilman, said Abarca, that I'm not comfortable that we really do have the techniques in place to prevent displacement or to guarantee affordable housing emerges out of this plan. And so I just heard, just to keep our shoulder to the wheel, to find those tools for a while. Well, I support what's been said about the need for changes to give us more flexibility in affordability. Lacking those tools, we need to figure this out. So I would continue to look in that direction. I think the outreach budget needs to be larger. I believe it's been a substantial effort. And that said, I know some of the people who've testified tonight that were dissatisfied with that process. And I there are people I respect. So I believe there were some holes that can be patched. I think that is very frequently the case. And again, we need to keep trying to figure that out. As Councilman Hines brought up, you know, the the way we don't send out information into the community and the way we expect the community to respond to us is a bit of a piece of Swiss cheese. And again, it has holes that need to be patched and we need to get that done. As far as one part of the process that I wanted to look at is, you know, having been a journalist for a long time, I would write articles about processes like this that unfold over a period of years. And inevitably, when the bulldozers are at the door, people are I never heard about this. No one ever told me about this. I think we need to recognize that that is a fact of life. And so when we get to that last stage where we're ready to go, then we need to put on the brakes as a matter part of that process and understand we need more time. And at that last stage, we need to put out another blast and let people know, hey, the bulldozers are here. Here's what's going on and give it that one last time for public input. That said, I you know, I thank the staff and I thank the hundreds of neighbors who participated and lent their ideas. I feel for those who don't feel that they were heard, and that's always a tough piece of this. But as I said at the beginning, I think I'm hearing enough about the process and the principles that that I can give this my support and being one of the next council people up for the Near Southeast plan, that will begin, it looks like early next year. I'll be looking to do my best to help fill those those blanks that need to be filled. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Some of my comments have been made by my colleagues on both sides of this issue. I also would like to say thank you to our staff from CPB, Kurt and Scott, and the consultants that worked with you, and all of the neighbors who participated and gave input on all sides of this issue. We received quite a bit of email communications from both sides on this issue, and I've tried to listen intently. I had not taken a position one way or the other until listening to all the input here tonight. I appreciate the the concerted effort to include the historic preservation component. I think that's important in trying to recognize the value of some of our historic structures that we have throughout our city. And without speaking to it and including it in our plans, it doesn't always happen. I also appreciate the inclusion of Nest into the conversation about how do we move forward to include displacement measures to ensure that development doesn't always equal displacement and gentrification. As we had heard about concerns about outreach to some of our minority populations that have language differences. I think it is critical that we always adhere to following the Title six guidelines, and I would appreciate if we get a copy of the response that the Federal Transit Administration sent back to RTD, and I heard that that does exist. So I think it would be helpful for us to see that. Lastly, the conversation about the fact that CPD is already engaged in discussion about looking at Bass Heights as one of the levers, if you will, that can be used to. Address. You know, where we can include affordability, which is. Different from Telluride. I think council needs to be included in that conversation. It can't just be a CPD discussion. I think we need to have some input into that before it's a final product that's brought to us for adoption, assuming that includes, you know, approval by council. But I think we would all want to have some, some input into looking at that and sharing our thoughts and feedback before anything is finalized, whether it includes council input or not. And I just think that this has had a lot of input on all sides. And I am. Concern that we were not able to accommodate Ms.. Camacho just knowing there was a Title IX complaint filed around language issues and somehow we should have been alerted so that we could have accommodated ensuring that her voice was was heard as she shared it with us. And I appreciate that. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you know, tried to interpret what she was saying for us. And, you know, I know at the end she asked the question about how are we ensuring that that we are covering languages as one of the things. And and I did hear from our staff that that was accommodated. But I also heard from the community that on the front end of the process, it took people speaking to that issue on multiple occasions before some of the materials started getting copied. You know, in in Spanish. In English, before there were interpreters. Interpreters accommodated at some of the meetings. And I think this just needs to be our norm moving forward on any neighborhood plans where we identify what specific languages are needed to incorporate the materials and to find the right people to help ensuring that we're capturing the voice of those communities where needed. I will be supporting this tonight. I think there's a lot of work that's gone into this. I attended at least two meetings in the community where the central area plan was discussed. And, you know, I saw that the staff was listening intently, whether everybody's. Input was folded into every component. That doesn't always happen. But I think this this is one that looks like it has that balance to it. And so I will be supporting it to my. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you so much. Just want to thank the team, CPD and. Particularly the council offices of Councilman CdeBaca. And Hines. It really does take that partnership. With those offices. You know, I'm heavily. Involved in my own area plan and we're still working our way through some similar issues of reach. You know, feeling like you can fully inform 50,000 people. In a constantly. Changing city is a really difficult task. So I thank you for the three years of that effort. And and really being able to show that you made some really diligent outreach. It takes it takes that depth. The resources and time that everyone put into this. Are most important. Working council is. Land use and it always comes back. To plan compliance. So. That these plans. Really speak to what a neighborhood. Wants at the end of the day, and what they. Want to see their community grow into is really difficult. To come to a singular decision about. So I appreciate. The hard work that you. All put into it. I will be supporting tonight and just want to thank all the folks who have been involved, the duration of the project, but even those who came in at any point during that that. Period of time and tried to come up. To speed. It is lengthy. It is a huge document. It is complex and sometimes hard to see how does it affect my home and my property and my family? And sometimes in the face of that, it just creates resistance. And we have a lot of. Resistant communities and neighborhoods and. Homeowners. In the city, and we've got to be willing to. Be adaptable for a greater good. So thank you to CPD and to my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. And I'll go ahead and add my comments. The far northeast plan has been referenced a few times, and I have to say, myself and Councilman Herndon, we were relentless in. Pushing back and asking CPD when they said, We want 15 members on the steering committee. We went back and forth and I think we got it to either 18 or 20 members on the steering committee. And that is how you're welcoming and engaging folks and KCUR and Scott and your team. I want to thank you for the work that you've put into this and also Councilman Hines and Councilwoman CdeBaca. But you also need to have the representation. And it's unfortunate that we didn't have more people of color engaged in this process. And unfortunately, this is we're starting to see a pattern, I think, with CPD and the engagement, that it's not where we need it to be. It's not where community wants it to be. You've got to build that trust with folks. And even for some of the the monolingual folks that we had on the steering committee, I believe we even had some that shared a position so that we weren't taking up individuals time unnecessarily, that they could kind of tag team it and that we could get more outreach that way. And everything was always translated. Even if my council office had to do the translation, we translated it because it was that important that we knew we needed to have that, and so we were going to go that extra step. And so I would just ask that CPD really reevaluate how you're authentically engaging with community. And if you have one person of color and that is the elected councilperson for that area, that's not good enough. That's a point where. There should be a pause and there should be a recalibration. And I understand that this process has been going on for three years and there's been engagement, and there's about 70% of the folks that live in this area are renters. But we've got to up our game as a city and be more responsive to what those in our community who. Maybe don't have the privilege and the power to push their way in the door. We've got to open up that door and make sure that it's the right door that they want to come through and continue to do that over and over and over again. And I know a lot of times in the far northeast plan, I'm sure our planners were like. She's overdoing it. They're doing too much. But that's the work that we did. And that's why I believe we didn't have a big push back. And it wasn't contentious because we did that work upfront. And I appreciate all the community members that spoke and even in favor or in opposition. I'm glad that we were able to hear you and the comments of my colleagues tonight as well. And I'm I'm going to support this because there's been three years worth of work put into this and thousands and thousands of comments. But I also want to. Really point out the deficits that we're continuing to see and hear from CPD. And I'm not blaming the particular members that presented tonight. I think that this is indicative of. A larger conversation that needs to be had among CPD staff and administration to make sure that we're truly getting this right because this can make or break a neighborhood. And the one thing I would say, Councilman Hines and Councilwoman CdeBaca, there is going to be parts of this plan that you're going to have to go to bat on, that maybe CPD planners are trying to do something or shape something, and it's not the intent of the community. And we've had occurrences of that. And so we've had to go back and kind of call the bluff on it. Is that really what the community said or did the community say that because they were trying to get to a different outcome, not more of the same, and to really have those conversations. And so I will be supporting it tonight, but not without a bit of frustration and also sadness that we're at this point in the city around equity. And we're still, unfortunately, having some of these same conversations. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I. See tobacco? No. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hence I. Cashman. I can h i. Ortega. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. Bye. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results one day. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 930 has passed. On Monday, November 2nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 965, changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside and a required public hearing on Council Bill 983, changing the zoning classification for 1790, South Humboldt Street and University and a required public hearing on Council

Recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Lemon Avenue "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Freedom Park."

LongBeachCC_12162014_14-0812

Item number 16 Communication from Councilman D Andrews, Chair of Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric, right of way between Martin Luther King Jr Avenue and Lemon Avenue and ACP Freedom Park. Yes, thank you. I would like to also show my appreciation to both parks and commissioners and the housing neighborhood community for positive recommendations for the naming of this park. The NAACP organization Roots helped pave the way to a better quality of life for all Americans, as well as, you know, countries that are beyond our borders. I hope that you will support this item. I would like to move to approve second. Got any further comment on the item? Motion carries six zero of. Item number 17 Communication from Councilman D Andrews, Chair of Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to name the park site located on one avenue at 20th Street, Jenni Rivera Memorial Park.

A bill for an ordinance modifying Article II, Chapter 18 of the Revised Municipal Code of Denver by adding a Division 5 titled COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Bonus Program for the purpose of providing a one-time $400 bonus to eligible employees who complied with the vaccine mandate on or before the September 30, 2021 deadline, or were exempted from the mandate and have not been disciplined or had discipline proceedings initiated against them for violating their accommodation requirements through December 10, 2021. Amends Article II, Chapter 18 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding a Division 5 titled COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Bonus Program for the purpose of providing a one-time $400 bonus to eligible employees who comply with the vaccine mandate on or before September 30, 2021, or receive approved exemptions for medical or religious reasons. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-5-21.

DenverCityCouncil_10182021_21-1058

Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 1058 be ordered published. Thank you. We need it to be moved and seconded. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1058. Council Member Sawyer. Thinks Madam President, I called out this bill so that I can vote no on it. Before I say anything else, I want to recognize our incredible city staff who's worked so hard over the last 20 months under extraordinary circumstances. And I fully support the premium and hazard pay proposals that are also on first reading tonight. But our city doesn't have unlimited funds, and I believe that the taxpayers would prefer we use this money to invest it in our community. So let's talk about what else could be done with this money if we chose to use it differently. This money is $5 million. It could build five miles of sidewalks. It could install seven new stoplights, depending on the cost, renovate four city playgrounds, fill the funding gap needed to complete the renovation of the Downtown Central Library Fund , the city's financial commitment on at least three affordable housing developments through host. This is five times the amount of money that the city has set aside from ARPA funds for small business safety and security grants. With this $5 million, we could staff foot and bike patrols and implement community policing programs in ten unique neighborhoods in our city for a full year. As grateful as I am to our staff. I find it difficult, difficult to allocate money to bonuses when there are so many outstanding projects that need to be funded in our city. And for this reason, I'm voting no tonight. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. I echo the sentiments of my colleague, Councilwoman Sawyer. I feel it's inappropriate to provide bonuses for people to do something medical with their body. It feels like this is something we should have thought about when we were forcing people to be deployed into shelters. Or we should have done other things to let our workers know that we appreciate them. This feels inappropriate. And so I'll be a no on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank my colleagues. They've said some of the things that I would already say. I'm very happy to support our employees and in Denver and intend to do so with the bill that is here in introduction tonight. This particular one was a confusing rollout. And in addition to the things my colleagues have already said, and even in the press release that the press release talks about how much our employees have sacrificed. I agree with that 100%. I'm not sure that we should have that in the press release, when in fact all this is meant to do is a reward for those who have already been vaccinated. So if we wanted to do a reward, I think that we should have announced that earlier. So it's just a very confusing rollout. Again, and in addition to all the things my colleagues have already said. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Next up, we have Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I have tried to get there on this proposal, and I do want to thank the staff who worked on this to make it better than it was when it was first proposed. I also want to say that I'm fully supportive of the hazard pay proposal that separate from this. But a bonus for getting vaccinated, I believe, is missing the mark for many reasons. First, as I've stated before, giving a bonus for something that everyone should be expected to do furthers the idea that getting vaccinated is a bonus or an extra thing that people can do if they'd like. We should be focused on letting all residents of Denver know that getting vaccinated is not an extra. It is the responsibility of responsible citizens in our community to get vaccinated, to protect themselves, and to protect the rest of us. Hundreds of thousands of Denver residents have done their civic duty and have gotten vaccinated because it's the right thing to do, and they're not getting bonuses for that. Also, as I've shared before, I've been told by many of my constituent that Denver, my constituents, that Denver rewarding city employees for doing the right thing feels to them like a slap in the face. Furthermore, rewarding employees who got vaccinated only when they were required to. At the same financial level that employees are being rewarded who did the right thing the first day they were eligible to do so also feels like a slap in the face for thousands of Denver city employees who did the right thing the first opportunity they had and didn't have to be mandated to do it. I do think that is really important after a really rough over year to make sure that we tell our employees that we do value them. In the past year and a half has been really hard and that we appreciate what they have done and what they continue to do. That's really important. And I think that there are a lot of ways that we could have done that in a lot of ways that we could have structured this to reward employees without it being tied in the way that it is, to the same reward for people who voluntarily did this when they first could and provided months of extra protection for Denver residents and and folks who who didn't didn't do that and possibly got other people passed COVID on to other people before they were mandated to get a vaccination. So I think that this is ill conceived as proposed, not the intent, but in in the mechanism of how we're doing it. And so for those reasons, I will also be a know this evening. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Next up, we've got Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Unfortunately, we while the math is correct and the dollars would allow for a variety of other projects to be completed, mathematically, we don't have the employees to complete the projects that are on the books now. We were not picking up the trash in our parks as frequently as we would like to in the maintenance in our parks. Hasn't been up to the standards that I know our parks department would like were down. Police officers were down. Sheriff's. Every department is down. And we're in competition with in the industries across our city, private industries and across the country. So we're in a real world where we've got to stop the bleeding. This program, which I opposed when it was initially presented and as I've considered it, gave us a dual opportunity to stimulate, increase the percentage of our employees who did get vaccinated, to reward all people who got vaccinated, as well as those who met the criteria for legitimate exemptions. We've got to compete with industries that will offer our people more money than than we can offer them in our annual budget. So I'm willing to offer this thank you to to our employees. It is not. I wish it could be more. It could probably have been structured in a different way. But I'm going to say yes to this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Next up, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. It's taken a minute for my camera to turn on. I'm not sure what's going on with that. So I also want to weigh in in support of this particular piece of legislation tonight. I appreciate the extra work that was done by our finance department after listening to input from members of the City Council. I think. Folks need to be reminded that our employees took 2020 a number of furlough days and we're scheduled to have furlough days in 2021. But those were canceled, but they took a huge financial hit in 2020 at a time that many of them were having to work at the vaccine sites and at the testing sites and at the food distribution sites. And some of the very families, some of our employees or some of the very families that were having to be in line at DPS and at our food banks because not everybody makes you know. Affordable living wages that works for our city. And so I think this is an important way to reward our employees, not only who have taken this. The hazard pay, I think, is an important element of this. And for those who have chosen not to and have not provided any kind of. Waiver that's been approved. Those are people who are lucky to get this. You know, this this extra pay. So I just appreciate the work that is being done and has been done by all of our city employees. And I'm going to be supporting this through. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I would rather have all employees vaccinated. And if it means offering bonuses as incentives, the goal is to get people vaccinated and tamp down the virus. That's going to be with us for quite some time. We want to get our as many folks vaccinated in our city and our region and our state as possible. And I support this, as do numerous other entities American Airlines, Aldi, Kroger, Target, Wal-Mart are all offering their employees bonuses to get their vaccines so that we can beat the virus. It would be a Pyrrhic victory to say we're we're not going to pay bonuses. You should do the right thing and get the vaccine and then put up with the continued spread of the virus through our community. So I will support this measure tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Clark, we have you back up. Yeah, thank you. Madam President. I just want to make a quick clarification. Totally. You know, all of the time we disagree up here and totally respect all my colleagues in all of our disagreements. That's part of democracy. I just want to clarify, we talked about this in committee, but didn't want this to go and end up in the media. I want to clarify that this is not a bonus for people to get vaccinated. In fact, in committee asked very directly, will this get one more person vaccinated, one more person with the vaccine closer to the end of COVID? And the answer was no. This is a reward for things that have already happened. This is not an incentive and it will not increase the number of people vaccinated one bit. So I just wanted to clarify on that point, which is again, part of why I'm. No, thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Hines, you're back up. Thank you. Council President. The only thing I would add to Councilmember Clark's comment is that this was announced just a few days before the deadline for the end of vaccinations if there's really want it. If this was meant to be an encouragement and incentive, it would have been presented months before. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1058, please. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. No. Torres. I see tobacco. No. Clark. No. Flynn. I. Herndon. Hines. No. Cashman. I can eat. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. For his eight eyes. Four. Nays. Eight. Ice. Council Bill 1058 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Clerk Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Madam President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the Bloc for the following items. 12291156. 1129113411351136111311141115111611171119112011211122112311241125112611461152122310251029113711441150115110851109106411111105. Should be. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. CdeBaca I. Clark, I. FLine. I. Herndon Hinds. All right. Cashman Can each I. Sawyer Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 US 12 ays the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. This evening Council will serve as a quasi judicial board of equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for two local maintenance districts West 44th Avenue and Elliott Street, Pedestrian Mall and Tennyson Street Skate portions of 38th to 44th in Council District one. Anyone wishing to speak on either of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. Sign up. Opened online at 4:30 p.m.. If you've already signed up to speak, please do not sign up again as we've already received your submission. If you have not already signed up to speak, sign up remains open until the end of recess. If there are no objections from members of Council, we will take a ten minute recess.

A bill for an ordinance making appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business for the year 2021 and for the purposes required by the Charter and by other law. Approves the 2021 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (Long Bill).

DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1216

Thank you, Councilwoman Zoya and Reggie and Molly and Skye. The next item up is Council Bill 1216. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 1216 on the floor for publication? Yes, Madam President. I move the Council Bill 22 1216 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved. Thank you for the second questions or comments by members of Council. Council members say to Barca. Thank you, Madam President, and just wanted to go on record as a No. One. All right. Thank you. Not seen in the other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Peter Barca. No. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. I. Can each. I. Ortega, I. Several. I. Where? I. Torres. I. Black. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. When they theorize. 12 Eyes Council Bill 1216 has been ordered published. The next item up is Council Bill 1138. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 113 on the floor for publication?

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall, LLC concerning design, construction, finance, operation, and maintaining certain areas of Jeppesen Terminal at Denver International Airport. Approves a thirty-four year contract with Denver Great Hall, LLC in the amount of $1.8 billion to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain certain areas within levels 5 and 6 of the Jeppesen Terminal, and the corridor from the terminal towards Concourse A, which includes the airline ticket lobbies, passenger screening checkpoint, concessions space, baggage claim area, and all associated public circulation space for a guaranteed price and schedule at Denver International Airport (201735867). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-26-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of

DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0822

13 eyes council bill 810 has passed. Thank you, Tracey. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the. Last. Bill of the night. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 822 Council Resolution 822 on the floor? I move that council resolution 822 be adopted. All right. It has been moved. And second it the one hour courtesy public hearing is open. May we have the staff report? Kim Day. Denver International Airport. Thank you, president brooks. Council members. I just want to start by thanking each and every one of you for the enormous amount of time that you have devoted to try and understand this very complex project. And I will give you, I promise, a very quick overview tonight. As you have heard me say many times, this is a transformative project. It prepares the airport for the future. It enhances safety and security, increases the capacity of the terminal, improves and replaces aging infrastructure while elevating the passenger experience. Since we opened in 1995, we have almost doubled the passenger traffic and we expect to continue to see growth into the future. Our airline partners have requested almost 30% growth in Gates. That means we need to, in parallel, increase capacity of the train that connects the terminal to the concourse, widen parts of Penn Boulevard, look at possibly accelerating the seventh runway and increase the capacity of the drop off curb and, of course, the terminal itself. And we expect our tremendous growth to continue as we expect to in 2017, above 61 million passengers. The current level of passengers, along with the projected growth, is straining our existing infrastructure. To construct and finance this project, we have chosen to enter into a public private partnership with the Great Hall Partners, an association of three firms bringing equity to this project Ferrovial Saunders and Magic Johnson Enterprises Loop Capital. This team will take full risk to bring the project in on its price and schedule. But and let me be very clear the airport still owns and maintains control of the terminal. The Great Hall Partners will bring to us their expertize in running award winning concessions programs, community outreach and training and development. And they will bring $378 million in equity and debt to the deal. They will guarantee price and schedule, and for this they will get a license to operate the terminal concessions for 30 years, retaining only 20% of the concessions revenue. The airport will invest $480 million, which is approximately the cost of the non concession construction. We will receive 80% of the revenue from the concessions program. We will reimburse the Great Hall Partners for the operations and maintenance cost over the 30 year operational period costs that we would have incurred if we were to manage the concessions. We will also repay the Great Hall Partners investment at a 4.8% return over the 30 years. The Great Hall Partners are also assuming risk of the success of the commercial program. If and only if it performs as estimated, they will generate an additional 6% return on their investment. The contract before you tonight is for 34 years. Four years of construction, 30 years of operation. It includes the $480 million investment by the airport that I mentioned. We're also maintaining a $120 million contingency for potential changes in the industry. Passenger processing. Security processing. Things we hope we never spend during the 30 years of operation we will pay predetermined amounts to reimburse the Great Hall Partners for operation and maintenance and to repay their investment at the 4.8% return. This results in a maximum contract value of $1.8 billion. Just to remind everybody, none of this is taxpayer dollars or general fund dollars. All will be paid from airport revenue. The construction project itself is $650 million. And with our $120 million contingency, we're identifying a range of 650 to $770 million. This image shows the most compelling need for this project reducing the vulnerability of our checkpoints. And while we do this, we will improve the security, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the experience of passengers. We also need to increase the capacity of the terminal to balance the increase in gates requested by carriers and to address our aging facility with its increasing failing systems. This project will give us new elevators, new escalators, upgraded restrooms and systems, a new welcome area for international passengers, a new south entrance and meeting and greeting area for domestic passengers, right sized check in and security checkpoint areas. More curb drop off capacity on level six and will end with an elevated passenger experience. And this project prepares Denver International Airport well for our future while raising the bar as we look at our industry peers. Thank you. And the team and I are here for questions later. Great. And Ms.. Day, that's your entire presentation. That is my. Oh, wow. Okay. Here we go. All right. We are into the hearing portion and this is how we do it here at city council. This is a courtesy public hearing, meaning that this is not a required public hearing. It's a one hour courtesy that the council listens to the public on some of these more in-depth issues. And so it will be one hour will keep the clock. The pro tem here will look at the clock to make sure we're keeping it on time. And we will go through 25 speakers attempt to go through 25 speakers, which puts us over an hour. So what we're asking so that everybody gets to it. There's going to be a lot of folks, perhaps, if you're speaking on this, condensed your comments because folks that you're speaking with are going to say the same thing. So if you can condense it to about 2 minutes, we can really get everybody in here and get it through. So I'm going to call the first five speakers up. Please let me get this bench to call these speakers up. That'd be great. Ralph Bluefin. Joyce Foster. Bill BOLLING. What a hidden filter. Sorry, Hayden filter. Sorry if I mispronounce that. And why Livingston? So those are the first five. Ralph Lupine, you are first. And introduce yourself when you're ready. His counsel. My name is Ralph Bluford. I represent the Rocky Mountain Chapter National Electrical Contractors Association. I want to thank you, first of all, for allowing me to address you tonight. Our contractors perform a variety of work throughout the state of Colorado in the commercial, industrial, institutional and residential sectors. And we would like to go on record in support of this project and the positive impact it will have for the city of Denver and the surrounding areas. Job creation, sustainability of our pension, health and training programs will also come into play as a result of this project. And with respect to training, our contractors, along with our IBEW partners, offers some of the best educational programs for supervisors, electricians and apprentices that the industry can offer. Such training goes a long way to ensure the quality of the electrical installations that will be required for this project. As an association. ECA will also make every effort to support our contractors who may become involved in this critical venture. Thank you. Thank you. Resolution. All right. Joyce Foster. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the Denver City Council. My name is Joyce Foster. I'm a former city council member and a former Colorado state senator. In 1993, when I was elected and. We were here until 3 a.m. every Monday night discussing airport issues. Someone very smart told me never to allow the airport to become an authority. I'm afraid this may be the back door into one. Many nights, it would. Have been a lot easier since we were dealing with pretty hostile concession contracts. People elected me and you. To represent them. And make decisions, not a private company. By supporting this contract tonight, the citizens. Of Colorado will no longer. Have anybody to complain to. I know that sounds tempting, but your hands will be. Tied along with the next. Three decades of elected city council. Members. One airport vote I remember vividly was that of our baggage contractor VA. He wanted us to buy a $30 million maintenance contract. The lobby was strong and they had their seven votes. I merely asked a question while sitting. Where you are. Why should we buy that. When you haven't even. Made the system operational yet? Well, I was able to convince a couple more. Colleagues and we didn't buy it, thank goodness. And United Airlines. Had to take the entire system over. You know, the one that never worked. The airlines are the largest concessions. They must have input. And because the airports had to do everything differently after 911 when our airport was already operational. We all needed the flexibility to make changes. Maybe there's language. To make minor changes, but you won't be in the driver's seat. I promise. Future council members will assume the contractor is correct. And do as they say. No one will have the history. I've only contacted a couple of you and yes, I know I'm a Joyce come lately, but I'm here now to hopefully change. A few minds. In 34 years, I'll be. 107 years old. If I'm still celebrating birthdays. My grandchildren will range in age from. 46 to 51. This is the most. Important asset we in Denver. Have. I strongly. Urge you to. Reconsider your. Yes vote. Support Councilman Espinosa's suggestion. Pay the $9 million. And then my suggestion run like hell. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Honorable Joyce Foster. All right, Bill Bolen. Good evening. I'm Bill Bolen. I'm with Paradise Leggo. There we are, an airport concessionaire. While new to Dan. We've been around for three years. We're in the Southwest project, and we have brought 120. Jobs to the airport. And we just we're getting ready to open up in East and bring another 50 jobs to the airport. And we look forward to this great hall project to bring more jobs. Here done and why we've been successful with the current RFP process in the. Airport. We also look forward to this new public private partnership and. Continued success at it. Dan Airport, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bolen. What what heightened filter. Oh. Not here. Okay. Why Livingston? Good evening, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today as a member of the business and the traveling community. I'm honored to be a current member of the airport community. Ms.. Livingston, can you introduce yourself? I'm y Livingston and I'm an airport concessionaire and also the owner of Whitestone World Teas. I have been a certified TB firm for over four years and have seen the growth and improvement of our airport over that time. I support the continued improvement of the sixth busiest airport in the country by supporting the Great Hall Project. With the proposed changes, my support really centers on four main areas security. The new plan reduces our overall vulnerability very dramatically and at a time that's needed for the times that we live in. Secondly, the Esthetics Airport is aging, and we need to be proactive and thoughtful in our approach to transform the space from good to great and to be timely with this transformation. Opportunities from multiple firms is my third main goal operations for women and minority firms, for all of those that have an opportunity to participate in the concessions program. And then finally, the size of this project produces tremendous growth opportunities in our area for local businesses and additional employment opportunities. This project, in my opinion, is the right undertaking at the right time, and I don't want to see our airport fall behind in terms of its capabilities and capacity. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Livingston. All right. I'm going to call the next five folks up here. Nick Hostetler, Hush Bleu, Herman Malone, Steven Jagannath and Gavin Malloy. And one more. Michael Kiley. Nick. Just Stetler, your first. Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you also. I really appreciated earlier when you guys took the stance against racism and discrimination at the very beginning of tonight's session. My name is Nick Hostetler. I'm a union organizer with Asthma Council 76. A group of city workers and myself came tonight to speak about working conditions at the airport and human services. But considering the topic, we will come back next month for that. So tonight I I'd like to stand in solidarity with Unite here local 23 workers out at DIA in opposing the Great Hall Project. We know that without a retention agreement, concession workers will lose their jobs. And what's more, city jobs in the Great Hall could be it could be jeopardized. And those are some of the members that we represent that could be jeopardized as a result of contract language that gives Ferrovial a great deal of control over the Great Hall . If FERROVIAL has control over the Great Hall, they could potentially use that control to outsource city jobs in the area. Ask me Local 158 is concerned about appropriation of city funds for capital projects which impact these city jobs. And this is city money being spent on a questionable contract that displaces workers and constricts a budget that could otherwise be used to improve the lives and workplaces of city workers. So we're very concerned about that. We therefore ask the city council to do they consider the importance of these employee jobs and also in the future for Ask Me, Local one, five, eight and other unions to be more actively included in the next contracting contracting discussion. So thank you very much for your time tonight. Thank you, Mr. Stettler. All right. Herman Miller. Good evening. Council President Elvis Brooks and distinguished men and members of City Council. My name is Herman Malone and I reside at 8136 East Fairmont Drive. And here in the city. 80230. Oh. It's a pleasure to appear before you this evening to briefly discuss the most important part that is before you tonight. As one of the founding members of the Colorado Black Chamber of Commerce, where I served as its chairman for a number of years, in addition to the Rocky Mountain Minerals Supply Development, the Development Council. And in addition to being a business owner for the past 40 years, I have witnessed some significant milestones, including the hard fought campaign and passage of the land acquisition vote, which led to the development of the international airport. Proudly. Our community plays a significant role in the mayor opinions vision for a great city and airport and the way of administration. We witness the construction and completion of the day and the establishment of a minority and women owned business participation goals . These significant goals essentially put them on the map for a progressive city. Ready to include all of the citizens and an equitable opportunity to participate economically. Today we are faced with another milestone the renovation and expansion of our terminal dubbed the Great Hall. As a proponent of this project. And the approach that the management has taken to build it. I think there are synergies at play between the public and private sectors and I also think is a definitely a unique concept and trust that the team will preserve the integrity. Of the Minority Business Enterprise. Program. In a manner which allows the DBI community to be fully integrated and the public private partnership terminal development. Including establishing goals that are clearly defined and therefore be accountable for any shortages in achieving those goals. And also the local minority business development center and the local community to be included in the utilization of achieving those established goals. With that being said, thank you very much for the opportunity. And thank you, Mr. Malone. Steve. Check it. The reason why. Mike up. Here you go. Good evening. My name is Steve Jake with the vice president for United Airlines at DIA. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. As our President, Scott Kirby, stated here last month, the DIA and United Partnership is one of our strongest airport airline relationships anywhere in the world. We have a very long track record of working together. We appreciate the collaboration and engagement between the city teams and United. Over the last few weeks to resolve issues arising from the current Great Hall redesign. Significant progress has been made, but we remain concerned with the proposed level six design. We respectfully request that the DEA and United teams continue to work through these significant and outstanding operational concerns. We simply cannot afford months or years of operational disruption for additional construction or projects if the proposed level six design fails. While we do not diminish the value of the simulation work that was undertaken, it is virtually impossible to predict real world customer and operational behaviors with complete certainty. So it's best to plan for contingencies. Day's last round of simulations indicate that the current level six design does work. However, as we've previously articulated, computer simulations focus on a future single standard day that can rarely capture changes over an extended period of time, let alone anticipate the numerous variables in the highly complex environment of an airport. The simulations for the checkpoint area requires a 28 of the 34 plan lanes and the current design must be open and fully staffed or else a security queue begins to overflow into our lobbies. Based on our extensive experience of delivering new check point facilities across the country, we do not believe this TSA scenario is realistic on a consistent basis. Our lobby operations as well require additional study to ensure they have customer friendly flows with minimal congestion and acceptable lane wait times. We ask that any cost associated with day two construction to alleviate congestion or additional address additional problems created by the level six design be borne by DIA and their design partners. Airlines should not have to bear the burden of additional costs to fix the operational deficiencies in for Louisville's Great Hall design. As these issues have been brought to the day's attention in the pre-development stage. Finally, the proposed P3 deal with FERROVIAL requires the airport to maximize the amount of concessions revenue available to Ferrovial. To accomplish this, the airport needs to maximize the amount of available space awarded to Ferrovial and the concessions program. Mr. Jacquie. Yes. You've run out of time. Very good. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Gavin Malloy. Good evening. I'm Gavin Malloy from United Airlines. Available for questions. Great. Michael Kiley. Hello. Good evening. My name is Michael Kealy. I live in Council District one and I'm also a candidate for the Colorado State Legislature, House District four. I'm here tonight representing the Committee for City and Airport Fairness. Veronica Barela is here tonight or was and she's the chair of our committee. So we support the renovations, the need for renovations for the Great Hall. We understand the benefits from sales. Tax and for safety, but we have concerns and we're asking that the deal be amended. The concerns are as follows We believe the contract is far too long. How can anyone possibly. Know what is needed from the airport 30 years from now? Ferrovial hasn't been needed for the first 20 years, and we're not understanding why they're needed now. The city can finance these renovations at much lower cost than the current terms in the deal. All the profits will leave our state. Rather than being reinvested in Colorado. And why are we guaranteeing for over a profit? We should be guaranteeing a living wage for the citizens of Denver and affordable housing and affordable health care. We should never guarantee a profit to a corporation in a commercial venture. We need 100% assurance that the jobs created by this project will pay a living wage. A prevailing wage. Excuse me. Paying less than a living wage means those workers will require city or state services to live in the metro area. Paying anything less than a living wage amounts to corporate welfare. We need the. Project to have high goals. For engaging and bringing equity to the minority business opportunities. And we ask that local concessions be prioritized to keep the character of DIA. In summary, we strongly recommend that the City Council vote for an. Extension and make essential adjustments to get this deal done right. Take bold action. Maximize the benefit of the great hall renovations for the people of Denver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kiley. All right. We're going to call the next five up here. Monica Stringer, Kevin Abels, Tiffany Patrick, Mark Thompson. And Nick Sullivan. Monica Stringer. You are first. Stringer. I'm sorry. But. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Monica Stanger. I'm the founder, president and CEO of Server Tech Electrical Contractors. I am here to tell you that I have earned the opportunity to have my own business in this city because of Denver International Airport. This airport has been a huge economic engine for our city. I started my company 17 years ago within dense walls. 17 years later, I employ 20 full time individuals and we had gross revenues in 2016 of $9 million. This continued growth has allowed us to train our workforce beyond industry standard. This would not have been possible if the opportunities were not available to us. This project is a great, thriving opportunity for this small business community. If they are granted great participation in it, thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Ms.. Dinger. Kevin Abels. Good evening. I'm Kevin Abels. I live in Harvard Park neighborhood. Denver City Council District two. I'm here speaking as the Denver chapter president of Unite Here, Local 23. We represent 2000 hospitality workers in metro Denver, including 500 at the airport. Our union supports responsible airport development. However, we do not support this contract. Our members are the dishwashers, the cooks, the servers, and the bartenders that make our airport great. And we want to make the airport even better. That's why for over a year, we have talked to you, the members of council, about how we want to be a part of the redevelopment of the terminal. And we'd like to thank you all for partnering with us. You have given us a seat at the stakeholder table, and we appreciate you for that. We look forward to partnering with you and all the officials at the airport on future projects as well. On the other hand, Ferrovial has refused to partner with airport concessions workers. Our union reached out many times to engage Ferrovial in a discussion about our members most important concerns. Number one, after being laid off, will displaced workers receive the first right of refusal? Once equivalent concessions, jobs become available. And number two will Ferrovial and its concessions. Subcontractors respect the decision of a majority of workers on whether or not to unionize. Sadly, over the past year, Ferrovial did not seriously engage with us, let alone come to an agreement on these concerns. Ferrovial is lack of good faith means that we cannot support this contract. This company has shown a disregard for workers who have been at the airport long before they ever will be. Ferrovial has not done what it takes to build worker support for this proposal. Airport concessions workers are very concerned that if this contract is approved for Rovio, we'll have a 34 year pass to ignore us instead of partnering with us. Regardless of what happens with the contract tonight, please see concessions workers as partners of the city and the airport. Our cooks and servers will continue to take a seat at the table. We remain hopeful that we can make the airport even better by all working together on the next projects and contracts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Abels. Tiffany Patrick. My name is Tiffany Patrick and I represent U.S. Engineering, a local union mechanical contractor. And should the contract pass tonight, I will be managing the mechanical and plumbing portions of this project in partnership with the Great Hall Partners Design, Build, Joint Venture and our minority and women owned mechanical and plumbing contractor teammates. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Council for their support of this project. Thank you, Mr. Patrick. Mark Thompson. Council President Brooks. Did I do that? You might have, but that's okay. I do that. Members of council. I considered opening my comments tonight with a song selection from the musical Annie. However, the kids stole my thunder. I do want to take the first bit of my comment and thank you for providing that opportunity to the youth of our community. I realize you've been seeing a lot of the Carpenters recently. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Carpenters and our community for the time and the opportunities to meet with you individually and again tonight. I'm here tonight on behalf of our members to talk about the Great Hall Project. I'm not here to speak in favor or against. This is another project that means opportunity. We do have a real concern about our city pumping money into an industry that is polluted with labor brokers, wage theft, payroll fraud and cash pay . Cash pay meaning? No taxes, no workers comp, no unemployment. We are an organization of carpenters, and we've been building this city since 1884. We just want to make sure that we build it responsibly. Unfortunately, we have had some fraud issues, some payroll fraud issues on recent projects at the Denver airport. We have discussed with most of you about apprenticeship opportunities, about career training that we believe would ensure that we are building the Denver airport the right way. We're asking for your help in promoting the creation of good jobs in Denver, in the Denver construction industry, as well as developing a well-trained local workforce. Again, we're looking for opportunities for the citizens of our community and in apprenticeship training, the youth of our community. I'd like to thank you for your leadership. I'd like to thank you for your support. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Nick O'Sullivan. Good evening. My name's Nick O'Sullivan. I live in Sloan's Lake. I'm the co-founder of Brothers Barbecue and Nugget Ice Cream. My brother and I opened our business 20 years ago here in Denver, a little place, about 900 square feet. We didn't have any employees. And now we've expanded to seven locations and we have over 100 employees. We've also been selected now to open up a brother's barbecue at the airport and terminal at the Den Lounge. I just like to say that, you know, the exposure and the sales volume will take our companies to the next level . And we're really thankful that Denver is bringing local businesses like ours with them as this amazing city continues to grow and thrive. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say thank you to the City Council for recognizing us as a Denver original. And we look forward to serving you in February at DIA. We support the Great Hall expansion as it will give other local businesses like ours a chance to show the world what great companies Denver has. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. O'Sullivan. All right. I'm going to call the next five individuals up. Rob Prince, Michelle Verizon's, David de Villa and Howard Arnold. One more. Zach McNeill. Rob Prince. You're up first, sir. Members of the council. I hadn't really come here to speak, to be frank, but I'm so concerned about this issue that I decided that I would. I've done a little research, some I I'm against this proposal. And I just want to state it clearly and just to just give you a few explanations why. First, I've lived in Denver for 42 years. 3187, West 40th Avenue. My wife is a nurse at the Colorado State Veterans Home. I have two daughters, one who's a therapist at Kaiser, and the second who's taught for 19 years in the Mapleton School District. I was a senior lecturer of international studies at the University of Denver's Corbell School, and I retired from there two years ago, or at least I thought I retired and then all these things are coming up. What are my concerns about this issue? Several. First, the length of the contract. This ought to have been mentioned, a 15,000 page contract, I've heard. And also the size, the financial size of what we're dealing with, 1.8, 1.8 billion. So there's that. I'm also concerned, just given the research that I've done about one of the companies that's involved and its record, and that is ferrovial that several people have mentioned. So some have mentioned it's labor issues, but there are other things just that you ought to consider. First of all, it's been cited specifically in a recent Amnesty International report for for a facility related to off the coast of Australia, in which it's one of the main players, ferrovial, that is, get houses of people trying to become refugees there. And the human rights abuses there have been well documented. So that's something you should consider. Secondly, recent news suggests that they're having problems in in Great Britain. When Great Britain privatized their they're their airports Ferrovial is part of a larger consortium became ran seven of those airports recently I believe they were asked to to end their contracts with three or four of them. And you might want to look into that. And finally, there have been they had major problems, labor problems in Canada with with contracts, with airport contracts. So I really think that that that needs to be that needs to be looked at, really. The person who spoke for for me the clearest was former city councilwoman Joyce Prince. Okay. And her comment about how this place is going to be run and who's going to be running it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Michelle Burstyn's. Did I get that right? That's right. Okay. Hi, I'm Michelle Burns. I work and live in northwest Denver and I'm currently living on 20 something CLAYTON In your district. Mr. Brooks, I am here representing the Millennial World Traveler. I travel several times a month. I was just in Europe a month ago, took a trip last weekend, and I'm flying to Vegas on Tuesday, so I kind of fit that category. I fly by the seat of my pants and I am really proud to call DIA my my airport. I do think that the flow is a little inefficient and it doesn't feel that is it is as safe to me as it should be seeing other airports globally and seeing how they have the flow set up, you know, really brings that to my forefront of why I am in favor of this project. I just don't understand that we're such an international airport and we have so many people at risk. Safety wise. I do think that it is time to improve as it was mentioned. We've basically nearly doubled our foot traffic since we've opened. And now is the time. As a millennial, we also love our options and we really love local retail. We're excited about some of those new places that could potentially be coming in. More convenience, better safety and efficiency in general speaks to. Kind. Of the millennials. With this project, it will bring a lot of jobs for people who need it. Obviously grow the economy and we do think that that's very important. Also, another thing I'd like to mention is taking the airline from Union Station to ticketing through TSA. It just feels like it's, again, inefficient and and feels like it could be better streamlined. I just ask that you consider this plan. It will make us feel more safe, streamline travel, save us all time, and of course, bring jobs and local business into DIA. Just ask that you look at the bigger picture and vote in favor for this project. Thank you, Ms.. Persons. David de Villa. Good evening. Thank you. Council President. Members of council. My name is Dave de Villa. I'm a fifth generation Denver native. I live in Denver currently. I work for a board of directors who install mechanical and plumbing systems in commercial projects, much like the one envisioned here at DIA. We represent about 7000 workers in this state. I'm told as of today, that number may be closer to 7500. I have 150 members in the state who build everything from homes to hospitals. Airports in particular at our vendors and vendor members were about 180. We are have been around since 1886. No, I'm not the founding executive director. This project contemplates a $650 million price tag. What that means is it will create 11,800 construction jobs. Those are local jobs will be created here in part with Ferrovial. We've met with them a number of times. Contrary to some of the comments earlier offered by another speaker, they have been open and receptive and been good to work with. But I'm also here to talk about our friends. Saunders Construction. There are a local contractor who hires local subcontractors, like the ones that employ me. We thank Saunders for their continued partnership. They reinvest in this community and they're great partners to work for. Should you choose to approve this contract, not only will it generate 11,800 new jobs, it will also return two and a half times or $1.2 billion to the economy, although we don't know Ferrovial as well as we do. Saunders Everything from our meetings have been positive. We look forward to this project. We ask you, please vote in favor of this bill and this project. And as a former city council person, I know the role that you are in. I will tell you that P3 projects not only are the wave of the future, but the world is watching on how we handle this project and additional investments are made possible by how this is handled. Sure, there are some things that in hindsight may have been dealt with a little bit differently. But what I would say to you is I think Ferrovial and Saunders have helped us work through those. So again, I would ask your support in favor of this project and this bill. Thank you. Honorable Dave de Villa. Thank you. Howard on. Mr. President. Honorable City Council. My name is Howard Arnold. I'm currently the business manager for the Rocky Mountain Bike Trails District Council. I'm also the past president of the Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council. We also belong to the MMP Alliance that stands for Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Alliance. These are the union contractors and respective labor unions for the mechanical, electrical and piping trades. They typically make up about 60% of the cost of a project. This project will put hundreds of construction workers to work. These are jobs that come with a five year apprenticeship and continued training for the rest of their career. They'll provide health care for the workers and their entire families. They'll pay prevailing wages and they'll pay pensions so that at the end of their working career, they can retire in dignity. These are large these large public works projects that hire union contractors are transformational for people. Often times, for generations, it lifts people into the middle class. 30% of our membership are minorities and women, and we're working with a local community organizer, Servicios de la Raza, to recruit more folks who've been disadvantaged into our trades. This project will put bread on the table for hundreds upon hundreds of craft workers and their families. I appreciate Ferrovial has experience in building these types of large projects, and I applaud them for selecting an excellent Colorado local general contractor. Saunders Company. Saunders Company will hire Colorado subcontractors and will employ local Colorado building construction trades men and women. Please vote to make this project reality. Working people need it. The city of Denver needs it. And the safety and welfare of millions of people. The cross through our city needed as well. Please note. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Honor. All right, Zach McNeal. Mr. President, members of the council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and speak. I am totally for this project at Denver International Airport as a small business concessionaire for the past ten years. I've seen a lot of growth in our airport years ago. A few years ago we were rated number one in the US. I want to get us back there and do everything that I can. I am all about giving back to the community and when I started at DIA, that's one of the things that I did heavily was invest in our youth and put together a program. So you want to own your own small business. I'd like to think we were fairly successful with that, but now we have the opportunity to put that on steroids, not just for the youth in our city, but also for other small businesses that we have the ability to mentor. So. The commitment that I will like to make to you tonight is that we will work tirelessly within optimal concessions to make it work for youth, to mentor them, to give them jobs, to grow and nurture other small businesses so we can share the success. But we have to seize this opportunity. There was only one other opportunity where we had the ability to do concessions, do outreach, touch small businesses in a major way. That was 22 years ago when the airport opened. This is the only other time that it is occurring. We have to take advantage of this opportunity. So I'll make the commitment to you that we will work tirelessly to get that done and to help make then become number one again. And I would ask you guys to vote in favor of this project and not let this great city down. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. MacNeil. All right. I'm going to call the next five up. Thank you all. Rob McDaniel. Andrew Rusty Gonzalez. Trinidad Rodriguez. Walter Eisenberg. And Tom Allen and we are complete. Oh, you guys did a great job. Okay, Robbie, now you are first. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this evening. Council President. Members of council. My name is Rob McDaniel. I reside at 22nd and Huston Hudson. In Park Hill and our offices are headquartered at 25th and Washington. And council president Brooks is district. I'm here tonight to speak in support. Of the Great Hall Project and everything that it represents for our community. In 1994, I was an intern in Governor. Roemer's International. Trade Office, and one of my many jobs was to do the check at the Christmas. Party at the yet to be opened Denver International Airport. During that great event. I was able to actually enjoy a little bit of the speeches and the festivities. And Tom Clarke spoke very eloquently about what DIA meant. Despite all the problems we had with the baggage claim system and everything else. And he said that Denver was going to. Be Denver International Airport was going to be not. Only a gateway to the world for Colorado, but a gateway for the 21st century. I think the Ferrovial project and what's going on with the Great Hall today absolutely carries that vision forward. US as a company, I went on my own as a small subcontractor to a company here in in Denver working at the airport in 2009 as a one person shop. I'm happy and proud that we've now grown to 12 full time staff in. The Five Points neighborhood. We have projects. Now in Seattle, Tacoma at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and we just opened an office in Cincinnati, Ohio, to represent our activities in the Eastern Seaboard. All of this activity, all of these jobs, the. Revenue we've been able to. Create has been. Facilitated and helped by the work we've earned and delivered at DIA. So we thank the airport and we look forward. For what this project means going forward for our company. I think the numbers speak for themselves, but sharing one small story from our company, Ferrovial, like all big companies, has many, many subcontractors. And we've been working. Diligently with one of their subcontractors to form a joint venture alliance here. In Denver and also to help represent. Our company and our services and solutions in Spain. So they have not it's a 500 person company headquartered in Spain. They've never had operations in Colorado or anywhere in the United States. And this project is helping them enter this market, so much so that they're actually considering. Putting. Their offices, their US. Headquarters here in Denver. And for us, that is a huge opportunity to grow our business in. Europe. And hopefully in other parts of the world. As this as we continue to become a global passageway. I urge you to support this this bill and support this project for the local economy and for small companies like mine. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McDaniel. Andrew Rusty Gonzalez. Good evening. Rusty Gonzalez 35 years ago, I made a conscious decision to leave the Big Apple, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and move to Denver, Colorado, to start an electrical contracting business. In that 30 in that 35 years, I've learned a lot about construction in Denver. I've owned my current company for 21 years. I've owned electrical contracting businesses for 30 years. And that 30 years as a small business owner, I've written over 1000 W-2s as a small business owner. After starting my business, I learned the importance of getting involved in fair wages. I've been a union contractor my entire time. I recently sat on the Auditors Prevailing Wage Ordinance Committee and was successful on that. That's the last time you all saw me. I also became active in the organized labor for the electoral industry. I'm on the board, vice president and board on the board of directors of the National Electrical Contract Association, who works in collaboration with the IBEW to create over 2000 construction jobs. Additionally, I'm the past president of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado, formerly known as the Hispanic contractor Colorado. Now Colorado's diversity leader, which we represent over 100 small business construction owners, which also has hundreds of jobs. So. I guess what I'd like to say is one thing I've learned since I've left the Big Apple was the importance of being a small business owner in Denver and working with the city on these large scale projects. I've been very, very blessed, very, very fortunate, as I said, to have been part of working to help create in excess of 2000, 2000 jobs. And I see this project as another opportunity for many of the small and bedbug species, the ease to benefit from this project, not only short term, but long term. So I encourage your support on this. As always, it's great to see you. Peace out. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Best joke of the night, Big Apple. All right. Trinidad Rodriguez. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council, thanks for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Trini Rodriguez. I'm an investment banker. I live and work in Denver. Just a few short minutes away from where I was. Born and raised and. Villa Park neighborhood. And I'm here in that capacity as a resident and employee who works in the city. And county of Denver and uses Denver International Airport. Regularly, both with my family and for business travel. I was thinking back. To when Denver International Airport opened and remembering sort of my first experience with it. And that was when I flew out. To begin a semester. Of college and flew out of Stapleton and then flew back. In the Denver International Airport. And I remember. The, you know, significance of seeing the great new facility. But so much has changed since then. This is a key opportunity to invest in Denver International Airport as an asset to create capacity for many years to come, to accommodate. The very rapidly growing. On the origin and destination traffic that flows through Denver as the city itself grows. As you considered with the bond many this investment has a very similar sort of business case and rationale to be able to accommodate continued significant growth in our region. I I'm also urging support. You know, public private. Partnerships are a unique tool and they are not the right tool for every job. But based on how the transaction and the terms of the deal are structured, it can be very beneficial to all the parties involved. And I believe the team. At Denver International Airport and the city and county of Denver. Administration and management have have worked to that. Goal. I understand that. The for. As one particular measure, as an investment banker, we look at credit rating. Agencies and credit ratings. And I understand that the city team has very much briefed the three nationally recognized credit rating agencies that rate the. Bonds on Denver. International Airport and that by virtue of the transaction structure in terms and the way those terms fit within the flow of funds of how Denver International Den's obligations are met, that this only works to enhance the credit. Worthiness of the airport's capital financing program and enhances the ability to achieve the all important credit rating metrics that determine the rating on. Bonds such as downs. So with that, I just wanted to lend my perspective. Thank you again for the opportunity and I urge support of this spell. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Walter Eisenberg. Thank you so much. Thank you, counsel. My name's Walter Eisenberg. I'm president and CEO of Sage Hospitality. I'm a member of the Visit Denver Board of Directors. Member of Colorado Hotel Lodging Association, which is supported this. And a trustee of Metro State University that has entered into an agreement with the Great Hall Project for job training in advance of this evening. I live in Denver, have been here 33 years 1984 moved here to start sage hospitality. Today we employ about 6000 people, a thousand of who work in the city and county of Denver. 22 years ago, we opened DIA and I would tell you that my view of the last 33 years, by far and away the most important economic impact investment that we have ever made. And I cannot imagine what our city would or would not look like, perhaps if we still had Stapleton. The airport is now 22 years old. Four years from now, when this project is completed, I think that we would all agree that it is time to reinvest and update the facilities as have been described. I think that there's been some discussion about the term of this agreement and we have firsthand experience with P threes at Denver Union Station. I think we would all agree that it is a wildly successful P three. We have a 99 year agreement with an option to extend for 50 years. So this seems like a pretty short deal to me. So I would encourage you to think about this opportunity to take private dollars in partnership with DIA to reinvent and improve our airport and bring it up to current standards. I would encourage you to be bold and vote yes in favor of the project. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Isenberg. And last but not least, Tom Allen. Thank you, counsel. My name is Tom Allen. I am the president of Intermountain Electric. We are a union electrical contractor here in Denver. We started in 1946. And we've been out at the airport since it opened. In the last nearly two years, we've been providing pricing to the Great Hall partner team to. Help them through this initial pricing process. And should council. Support this. Project. And I hope you will. It will hopefully. Mean a lot of jobs for my company and for many companies. For the years to come. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Um, I just got to say, 25 speakers, 50 minutes is very impressive, so thank everyone for keeping your comments concise and to the point. Yeah, very effective. All right. We're going into questions, questions by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. If I. And Commerce Day up to the microphone, please. It is. Council. You said that the private partners assume full risk. And I'm wondering if you can explain what you mean by that. They assume full risk for price and schedule. So they are giving us a firm fixed fee of $650 million to build the project. And they have a schedule that has us opening the fall of 2021 for completion. Okay. So and I think at least one of my colleagues will talk a little bit more about this. But the one area that seems to be left open is change directives that that Dan might require of the project. And I understand we have $120 million set aside to cover that. Is that correct? That would be for changes that happened in the industry. Ferrovial takes responsibility for opening the ceiling and finding a surprise that's on them. But if something changes in the next couple of years about how you use your phone to process, and that means we need to redesign part of the Great Hall. We would pay for that out of our contingency, right. Or any other design changes we want to make along the way. Okay, Mr. De Vere, I have that right. Would you mind? And Mr. President, I've got about 90 questions, but I'll ask three and then give it up, if that's okay. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Q Thank you. 11,800 jobs. That sounds like an awful lot of jobs from one speaker talked about 500 carpenters jobs, I think. Tell me more how you get to that number. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. We commission as the electrical contractors, the sheet metal contractors and the mechanical plumbing contractors. Every other year, an economic impact study that I can send you a copy of with Colorado State University. They're the only accredited construction management program in the state. They do a research project for us. And this January they conclude or we release the last installment of that for every million dollars you spend in construction. It creates 18 direct jobs. What I didn't quote you was the indirect figure, which brings that closer to like 28. So if you just take 18 times 650 million, you get to 11,800. And are we talking a job year, a construction jobs? So for every six, every million dollars you spend, you create 18 construction jobs. Direct construction jobs. Indirect things would be items like suppliers, downstream partners, other other supporters that feed the industry. I can get you the exact study with all the metrics that are used in order to calculate that, if that would be helpful. Well, I'm not going to beat this. And I'm just like I said, I'm trying to understand what a job means. You know, as far as is this the length of the project? Is this someone who may show up during the project for a limited period of time? So there are sometimes in projects like this, there could be upwards of 60 contracts with construction firms. Mechanical and plumbing would be either one, or in this case, it is one. But everybody who hits that job site, the way that the economic multipliers work is it calculates a job is created, eight of them for every million dollars you spend. I'll make sure that we get your copy and everybody else on council copy of that as well. That's okay. I'm guessing after tonight I'm not going to want to read a lot about this project. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll pass the microphone. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I've had lots of questions that have been answered, and I appreciate all of the folks who have been involved in getting my questions answered, but some of them have raised additional questions. So let me first start with safety and security. I asked a question and I got a response back, and I'm not sure it was completely accurate about what our safety or security rating is for the city of Denver's airport in terms of the vulnerability of our airport and. Not necessarily just related to checkpoint, but in general. Um, and I don't know if this is, what's the word I'm looking for. Maybe protected information, but. So so the question I want to know the answer to my question is, are we at the highest level of the security rating on the scale that is used by federal government agencies to rate the security risks of airports around the country? I'm not aware of any particular rating system that is used that's applied to our airport. What I will tell you is that the TSA every I believe it's three years, does a vulnerability assessment. And the last two or three of them, they have pointed out that our Great Hall is indeed a vulnerability that we need to address . Not sure that directly answers your question. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out where we are on that scale, because I understand there is a a rating, if you will. And so that's why I'm asking the question. And none of us here at the from the airport are aware of a rating scale for the airports. Okay. Well, let me go on with my next question. So it sounds like the issues have not been completely resolved between the CIA and the airlines in terms of concerns about throughput traffic on level six and how those will be resolved. Is that accurate? And it sounds like there are still ongoing conversations. I'll let Mr. Malloy come up and tell you from the united side of things. But I think we've worked really hard the last couple of weeks. I think they're planning team agrees that the simulation showed that it all works. What we are focusing on now is if it shouldn't work and let's just say things change, right? There are there are other aspects that could happen in the next couple of years that we have not anticipated. We are looking at what we are jointly calling relief valves, ways that we could add even more capacity. But I think it might be good for you to hear directly from United on this. That would be helpful. And in the meantime, it's my understanding, if you would just please come to the microphone that the. What I heard pretty loud and clear was that the open TSA lanes that are managed by non airline or airport employees are federal government employees would require 28 of those lanes to be open and staffed. So if you can help address where we're at in the process and whether those issues have fully been resolved or are there still ongoing conversations with DIA about addressing the concerns that were, I think, pretty eloquently expressed when we had our committee meeting about. Backup and co-mingling of TSA check in traffic along with passenger ticketing and baggage check in traffic that would be all located on level six. So to answer your first question, conversations are ongoing. I think we've been encouraged by those conversations in the last couple of weeks. We do have an ideological disagreement about when you pull the relief valves. We would like to see those valves incorporated into the Great Hall Construction Program so that we don't have a situation that the design fails. We'd prefer for those relief valves to be built now so that if something does happen, they're ready to go. And we don't have congestion. We have a genuine operational concern here. We want to make sure our customers can get through the airport efficiently. Your question, in terms of TSA, the simulation study does say that with 28 lanes of the 34 lanes, that the queuing should not back out into the lobby. That's only six lanes that can be unstaffed by TSA. And we have seen through our implementation of checkpoint projects throughout the country, that's pretty aggressive staffing by TSA. So we remain pretty concerned. I know the the airport feels pretty convinced that we can work with TSA and solve that problem. We have not seen that in reality in other airports. So can you and Kimmel ask you the same question? Help address what we see as normal staffing levels today? Are we are we operating at 100% or are we at 80% with TSA lines open? So it varies. Every day we review the schedule of the day with TSA as to the ebbs and flows of traffic, and so they attempt to staff it as best they can in terms of using their resources. I think they do a fairly good job. We have had amazing growth in the last year and we have had occasions here recently where we have been beyond the queue. But it is not because they're not staffing lanes, it's because currently we don't have enough capacity for this growth that we are seeing. I'll also just to comment as as Mr. Malloy said, we do think the TSA is going to want to staff this facility. This is their new prototype that we have an IMU with them. They are working with us on the design and developing this new concept for screening, and it is in their best interest to make sure that this doesn't fail. So I think they have a an unusual commitment to staff this airport that they may not have in others that are in the United System. And Kim, just from having the opportunity to travel and review the technology that we're going to be utilizing it, it is very apparent that that would assist with the traffic throughput, but it's still contingent on how many lanes we have open. Correct? Absolutely, yes. Okay. Mr. President, I do have other questions. I know you've got people in the queue. If you could just put me back in. I'll come back later with some of the other questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman, New. York, you. Let's just talk about the project review process. Can you describe how the proposed projects are going to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and reviewing the cost and the schedule and the quality of construction? Certainly. Well, we are at 30% design right now. So with with the optimism that this will be approved tonight, we will take that 30% to 100% between now and next summer, working very hard with our our partners here. Once we begin construction, then things change a little bit. Gisela has a third party who relates who directly reports to her, who will be overseeing the construction in terms of change orders and anything financial. On a regular basis, they'll be doing that oversight. We will also have an executive committee that will have representatives from this body, as well as representatives from the mayor's office and other city agencies that will be briefed on a regular basis on the process, both in terms of the construction and the cost. You also know we have an elected auditor that has the responsibility of making sure that everything we do at the airport is done in a legal and efficient manner. And I am assuming that Auditor O'Brien will periodically put this project on the list of things to audit. So there will be that outside audit as well. I'd also say because of the structure of a P3, there is additional oversight from the investors on the Ferrovial side who are very concerned about the investment and making sure there's a return so that there's that level of oversight. And then additionally, all the bondholders put yet another level of oversight. So there are a number of layers that will be looking at this project for the next 34 years. And I should say the Finance Department will be involved with that review process as well as the auditor. You know, they own their they on your review committee are the guys learned and the individual the structure of the project manager is going to be part of that with the finance department. Yes. The Brendan Hanlon, our CFO, is actually a member of the executive committee. And the person in Portuguese. Is that more of a project manager person that will he actually this person be going to the site or is it really more of a financial individual is looking at the financial details review. It's more from the financial part perspective. Well, there'll be a person, a project manager that will be looking at the construction as it goes along and working with partners and and everybody. That gives you reports about construction progress. And. You know, Stu Williams, well, he will be living and breathing this job 24 seven. One of the things that's been very effective with the National Western Center is is Kelly and his staff coming and giving quarterly reviews to our city council committee. And I just want to know, would you be willing to do that for our Business Development Committee to just brief the city council so that all council members can, you know, get an opportunity to to listen to how that things are progressing during the construction period. We'd be delighted to do that. Be great. Thank you. Now, my colleague brought up change directors, you know, being a cause that, you know, the city may occur if it happens, if you start getting into the 100 million, $120 million contingency, is a red flag going to go off or what's going to happen with them? When you start thinking about when you start getting into that contingency, especially if you if you if a if some major design situation occurs where you may even exceed that 120 million, that's the you know, we want to safeguard that. How do how do you plan on monitoring that? Well, first off, we are going to be very transparent about any use of the contingency. Let me start there. If we were to exceed it, we would actually have to come back to this body and get an amendment to the contract, because the contract has a maximum amount that we can spend. But yes, we are going to be monitoring it closely. I think these are not going to be little teeny things that add up. This contingency will be used for large issues that we have to deal with large industry issues. So they will be very obvious and transparent to all of you. Okay. Ask very good question about the concession agreement. You know, if if Ferrovial decides that it's not working out for them, do they have the right to transfer this agreement or or move this agreement to a third party outside of this? Or do they have the right to discontinue as a company and allow the rights for concession management to a third party? I'm going to ask City Attorney Dan Reamer to answer that one, if I might. Counsel. Good evening, Dan Ramer, City Attorney's Office. The short answer to the question is that the the developer's ability to transfer control and equity investment in the project is quite limited. There are two specific time periods. One is between the effective date and two years. So within the first two years of the development agreement, the ability to change and change control is subject to the city's essentially sole discretion. And after that two year period, it is up to the city's reasonable discretion. And there are conditions that have to be satisfied, such that the the substitute entity is equal or better capable to perform the services of the development agreement. Now, you know, we're not talking about construction. I'm talking about the concession agreement. That's what you're talking about, right? Yes. Okay. This concession group and with city council being involved with that process of approving that change of responsibility. It would not technically be an amendment to the development agreement because that power is conferred upon the city in the authority that the council would be granting this evening. So it would not require that the airport come back to the city council for that change in control. Would that be brought to a city council committee at least for discussion? So the city council would be apprized of that before it occurs? I am I am sure that it would in the ordinary course, but if you asked the CEO, I'm sure she would agree, just as she did a moment ago, to bring it to you, regardless of whether or not it would be standard. I think that's comforting. Last question for Gisela one. This I appreciate so much the last three weeks providing financial information to me to understand the deal, and I think it's a very attractive arrangement. So I appreciate stuff. Just a real simple question. I know the answer to this and I trust you explicitly. I just want to make sure that all the cost information that you've given us is accurate. And then in all the 15,000 pages of addendum or appendices, there's nothing in there. There's a hidden costs. It's going to come out all of a sudden later on down the road that's going to exceed the cost of this contract. That 1.8 is a good number, billion dollar number for our project, right? That's correct, Councilman. All of that is contained in the development agreement. And in that 1.8 billion other than the airports financing costs that we've discussed. But yes, nothing else in the 15,000 pages. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Brown. All right. Thank you, Councilman. New council mechanics. Thank you very much. I so appreciate the responsiveness that Kim, your team has had very, very responsive and prompt. So my question I think for is for you in the discussions you've had with the airports, airlines so far, have you agreed to any changes in the construction projects that differ from the plans to date or whatever it is that's being considered tonight? Not at this point, no. Okay. And do you have any sense or can you estimate for me what the potential total risk is? So there's things they may want that are not even on the table. And then there's a range of things that, you know, that you all might be discussing. I guess what I want to get at is what is the maximum risk for cost changes related to the negotiations that are going to continue after this contract is approved. So I wish I could give you a number. We are not there. I will just tell you generally what we are talking about. We're talking about extending the baggage system to level one are the hotel and transit center so that they could possibly have a group check in at that level. We are talking about the possibility of locating some additional ticket counters on level four of the HTC served by that same baggage system that I just described. That would require some modification to level four, which right now is is empty, as well as an escalator that would come up from the from the level one up to level four and then also an escalator that would then get you up to level five. We're also talking about something that we refer to as modern zero. If you could imagine the area on both, you could do it on both east and west side, just to the north of the end of the ticket lobby that, you know, today we could add on in that area there. We could add not just ticket lobby space, but we could potentially add the level below so that we could add more bag claim space. All of those are just conceptual ways we might expand, and we are truly just doing, you know, freehand drawings at this point. And over the next few weeks, what we hope to do with the United is to refine them more and get to the point where we actually have costs, but we don't today. I'm sorry. Okay. And then this may be a question for Diane, but I want to understand, if we assume that some or all of these changes get made, are these all eligible for and with the costs come from the contingency, considering the fact that none of the costs would be known until after this contract were executed. So to be. Clear, owner changes are changes in scope. Mm hmm. They are not unforeseen circumstances. They are decisions made by the owner to change the scope of the project. The kinds of things that Kim just described could be added to the developer's scope or could be treated as entirely separate projects. It depends upon when the triggering event might be. If it's within the four year construction period, they may be owner changes and the airport may call upon the contingency in order to fund them. If they are simply plans that are that are developed and then put on a shelf that could be procured as an entirely separate construction project due to be resurrected when they may be needed. Five years, ten years, 15 years from now. Okay. Thank you for that information. A different set of questions. And this is one that I guess is a little less technical and a little more philosophical, because one of the fundamental questions we are grappling with is the role of the public sector and the role of private sector. So Kim, I guess I'd like to start with you and then I'll follow up with the similar questions for Ferrovial. But, you know, this is don't I don't expect you have a real number, but how many outside stakeholders would you say that you know, that you have met with throughout this process, as in people who are not part of the airport or the city family, but external stakeholders. People with an interest. People with an opinion. From the public. Well, I. Stacey is here somewhere. She might be able to tell me how many public presentations we have given. It's. Maybe 30 public presentations. I'm thinking more about meetings where you've really met with groups, whether it be CAF or whether it be contractor associations, folks who've said to you, I have an idea, I have a concern, I want to sit down and talk. And it may not be you personally if there's someone else. George I don't know if that falls more under your team, but I just trying to get a sense of how the airport as an entity operates as it relates to stakeholders. So I would say both ourselves and Ferrovial, independently and sometimes together have met with multiple groups, whether they are formal or informal groups here in Denver. You heard earlier this evening from CAF, we have met with CAF. You've heard from a number of a number of groups who have special interests that we have met with. We have tried to touch anyone we could. I would say that I don't know how to quantify it, but we have tried and tried very, very hard to do broad outreach. And do you want knowledge or do you want to say anything? But I want to just follow up with you first. Okay. So would it be safe to say that in some of those meetings you've heard ideas that you didn't agree with or met with groups who have publicly criticized the airport? I think that's fair to say. And I guess this you know, again, I'm just trying to get a sense of our role as a public entity. Why do you keep meeting with folks who might criticize you or who have ideas you don't agree with? So I think it's fair to say we also hear ideas we do agree with. So it's not all negative. And I think that's really important. And even if we don't agree, I think it's very important that the public understand why we're trying to do this. We are a public agency. We are your airport. We are everyone's airport. And while we're not going to get everybody on board, we certainly like to take the time to explain why we're doing it. Okay. Thank you. So I will now ask some similar questions to Rovio. And then after this set of questions, Mr. President, I, too, will see and let someone else take a turn. But so you heard our airport director talk a little bit. So is it your sense that if you all are awarded this contract, that you will be stepping into the role of, in some ways serving as a liaison or representative of a public airport, that you will be no longer just a private company, but you'll be doing something in the public sphere. Is that with that? Would you agree with that statement or. Every every public and private transaction that we carry out, we always take into account that fact that we will be working in an asset that is heavily exposed to the public sector, to the public service. So we are totally aware of that and have a long experience providing services to the public in the context of our concessions , lease leases and privatizations. So you you know, we had a mr. de Villa and a couple of others mentioned how very many meetings they had with you. Did they share some ideas with you that you maybe didn't agree with or that you weren't quite able to act on, but you kept meeting with them and found other things to talk about? Would that be? We have held many meetings with different stakeholders in the community with respect to construction, development, concession management and training centers. And we have found many ideas very interested or that can be accomplished. And developing this project or their ideas perhaps are less interesting or cannot be achieved in the context of this project. There's one particular community organization that has tried to meet with you and, you know, had one meeting and was told that you wouldn't meet with them any more. And that is you might hear the representative of the service workers, which is different than the construction workers. I would like to hear your explanation as to why you didn't feel that you had an obligation to continue to meet with them. Yes, we we have held at least three meetings and a number of conferences, a number of telephone conversations without a specific association. And what I would like to confirm is that Rubiales, a company that guarantees the rights of employees, is an employee of Ferrovial. I have the right to strike the freedom of association, collective bargaining, having the right to collective bargaining through representatives of employees or unions. I have access to prevailing wage framework agreements we consider trade unions as our partners. We have signed agreements with more than with more than 350 unions representing more than 12 million members, including 35 countries . So we are a friendly company with respect to unions. What has happened with this company is that the approach of this association was a good result into removing the right of choice of the union that would represent the future employees of the concessions in the Great Hall. And that's something that we will not be sympathetic or could agree with. So there was something you couldn't agree on. Did they ask to continue to talk and meet again? Excuse me? Did they ask to continue to meet and talk? Have they asked for meetings that with you? After the three meetings that we held and that meeting at Boeing that we could then. Except with decided to stop having more conversations, especially taking into account the aggressive approach of that association against the company they represent. Is there any other community organization or business that you've refused to meet with? No, no, no. Just one representing workers? That's correct. The community for airport fairness. Have you met with that organization? Sorry. The Committee for Airport Fairness. Have you met with with that organization? It's it's a group of folks interested in contracting and other. I think we held a meeting with then. I was not there personally. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Sir. Councilwoman Cami. Is that okay? My screen is open. Councilman Espinosa sort of along that line, Tom Allen and any of the other union people that spoke. Could you. Come up? Are you all familiar with the Unite Here 23 group? And their requests for worker retention provisions. No. We're now more in the construction industry and those are collective bargaining. When you speak into the mic, please, whoever speaking. Councilman, identify yourself. I'm Ralph Llewellyn with the National Electrical Contractors Association. And we hold the bargaining rights for our electrical contractors who sign letters of assent to our agreements. I'm not familiar with that organization that you mentioned. Our main focus is with the IBEW electricians. Do you feel that workers that have that have worked at DIA and made it successful? I mean, you one of you cited its rankings and it's currently very well ranked in the world and in the nation. Do you feel that there should have been worker retention provisions in the contract for people that are currently employed out in the airport? I have to say I'm not that familiar with the demands of the players in that group. So I. I really have no comment on that. Go ahead, sir. Sure. Councilman Espinosa. Council. Mr. President. So, actually, I met Dave, DVR, contractor, exec and myself. Got to meet early on with representatives from Saunders and Ferrovial. And before I did that, I knew I had this meeting coming on and I did talk to Unite here. I talk with Kevin. I talked with the president of the Denver Area Labor Federation, Josh Downey, and told them I was going to have a meeting with Rossville and Saunders and ask them if they're just exactly what their what the problem was. If there was an issue there so that I would I would send them I would carry the message for them. When we met and I did that, I said, well, what I was told was that they were the they being the unite here their main their to me they only had two main issues then. One was that they is that they would not be interfered with if they tried to organize the workers in the new shops. And the other was that the workers would have jobs still, so they wouldn't lose their job if they if their shop moved out of the terminal to above or moved out to somewhere else in the airport. And I carried that message to Ferrovial and to Saunders. And what they told me was that they would not stand in the way of the workers if they wanted to organize. They wouldn't, they wouldn't. They would stay neutral. They wouldn't get involved in that. And they any of the people that were union out there now would still be union. If they wanted to be in the union, they would not interfere with those guys. I what I understood the main crux was the, the shops that were going to be built that weren't built yet. There was some disagreement over whether they would require them to be union or not. I think that was what at least what I understood was the crux of the conversation. And I appreciate, you know, sort of putting you on the spot. But, you know, as somebody who's, you know, an architect by trade, I'm not a you know, I. Wish architects had. A union. Right, because we worked long, long hours for lower wages despite what everyone thinks or what you see in the movies. The the so I'm trying to figure out how we got to a situation where there's union support on the labor, the on the construction labor side, but actual organized employees or, you know, struggling with this this with these terms or getting terms. So I appreciate the background. I probably still don't understand it the way I do. I'll probably ask Kevin later to sort of come up and collaborate. Yeah. So I think there was an agreement with the hotel out there that they wanted to model agreement with for political reasons, as I understand. But I don't really understand all of that. I know the issues. That's what I was told. So yeah, but there is no sort of blanket brotherhood across unions to say. Look, we're. Labor is labor. We know that we're in the construction phase of it. Certainly we I would like to see everybody via the union. I would like see everybody, even if they're not in the union, have good wages and fair pensions, health care. Those are things that we should all have as people here in this great country, in our great city. It makes our it makes our city better. It makes our communities better when we have those sorts of things. So I don't think that I think from what my perspective was, this was a contractor that was going to offer those types of jobs for the construction industry. And I think that's great. Okay. Well, some of that I right. I respect it. I mean, I understand that significant portion of the responsibility actually falls on us. We could have we could have as council sort of made provisions of that, that they would have to sort of incorporate into their agreements. And we didn't do that. So now we're in a situation. Where we're looking. For voluntary compliance. So I mean, our inclusion into their their agreement. So thank you all very much. Sorry to put you all in the spotlight. Anyone anyone else have something to say? A quick comment. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. As a as a union, we do support dignity for all workers. We support that. And we'll fight for that. I will state that, you know, all of our construction trades issues have not been addressed as of yet. And still, you know, we're looking to all on the apprenticeship language as well, which is being talked about, concerned about timeliness of that. But as far as unite here, we haven't met with them, but certainly we support their them and their workers in their fight for dignity. Great. Thank you very much. So. Sure. I am here representing small businesses. I'm also an electrical contractor. Electrical contractors or small businesses usually are not union members. So. I guess that the city of Denver is kind of like to try to accomplish a perfect balance to give opportunities to small businesses and big businesses and working together. So I ask for the consideration of this job not to be closed just to union members, because that will take a big chunk of the small business community. Out of the participation of this job. Thank you. Thank you. So to Ferrovial, did you. Did you at some point do an analysis and have some sort of understanding of the economic impact if you had made sort of any sort of concessions or labor agreements. Of some sort? Council Member Yes, we analyzed the proposal made by Unite here. You know, to understand the terms and conditions that they were proposing. And the first point that I would like to clarify for the benefit of everyone is that our great hall partners will not be the employer of any of the workers that will be working, hopefully, if this project is approved in the future. Concessionaires of the Great Hall. We are not that we are not going to be a master concessionaire. We are just developing procurement. Those units and the future concessionaires will have to hire to recruit those employees. What we have always stated from the very beginning, more than a year ago, we proposed creating a training center for those future employees of the concessionaires in order to help in the development. And we even committed ourselves to injecting money on day one. And I'm sure you will have seen in the financial model money contributions on an annual basis in order to foster the development of those future employees of the concessionaire. So we are very well aware that having those employees being developed, been retained that can develop an excellent career in those units is critical for the community. But what we cannot do, what we cannot accept is signing on behalf of those future concessionaire exclusivity agreements, to have those employees of the concessionaires being represented by one trade union, because that would neglect the right of those employees to decide who is the right representative of those employees. So do you have. That number on what you thought. It would, the economic consequence it would be to this agreement? We don't have I couldn't estimate the number to the economic standpoint of that agreement and. And I'll finish this line of questioning and I'll see. I had other topics, but. So you did the grant, the analysis in the green. So where I struggle with that, having read the entirety of the contract not I will admit to not in all the appendices is that there are that. You there are a. Lot of. Provisions that you are requirements that you are obligating any of your concessionaires to adhere to through the terms of the contract that are flow that are, you know, carried out. I mean, carry. Through pass through from. From Denver to your. Concessionaires. Writing additional provisions is not prohibited. So long as they don't they don't. Jack mean they're not illegal. So there certainly would have been the capacity whether, you know, it's not something it is. I want to stress that it is your choice to not have. That is not. There's nothing that we're. Doing that's preventing you from from making those requirements of your concessionaires. You simply do not want to put. Those sort of requirements on your concessionaires. That is correct. Correct. You understand that we we must keep the right of choice, of the right of the representatives that the future employees of those concessionaires want to want to have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilor Lopez. Yeah, thank you. I wanted to continue the line of questioning with with Labor and in particular with the conversations with the concession workers and well, I guess the know here and not sure if they will be I mean drivers at all. I guess so. I want to come back to this. The the situation where you said you've met with the folks from Unite here. How many times? Yes, we we. Had a very long conference call with then in order to understand their approach with a representative from the East Coast. That was a very long meeting in order to understand what they were proposing. I had a physical meeting in in the Westin Hotel at the airport with three representatives from Unite here. And after that meeting, I had a very long conversation again in order to provide feedback about that meeting. Now, do you. Were there any kind of middle ground that was achieved? Was there any kind of I don't want to say this is believed to be redundant, but was there any kind of concession made or any kind of middle ground achieved? I mean, it seems like there's been ongoing conversations. Has there been any proposal? Basically, we council member. We received an email you. From Unite here. What we were told was that if we were going to if we could accept that you. Completely that John would support from really in this process. There were a number of clauses in that MRU that I don't understand if could be cited through negotiation or not . That's that's something that we don't that we've been approached that would not be acceptable, especially neglecting the rights of the future employees of those concessionaires to decide who is the right representatives of those employees. Now I understand that ask for unique exclusivity. I want to get away from union exclusivity. And, you know, I don't want to it's a slippery slope. And when it starts using language that third parties, workers in the union, I don't like that. I think it's. You mean we don't throw our third party ourselves as folks in the United States? Right. As one union. And I want to in unison and I want to focus on that word, but I. I mean. Were there any counter offers or proposals? It was. I mean, we understand that retention is an issue. We understand that that wages are an issue. Have there been anything any commitments to those issues? Not necessarily to to an organization. But to have those issues out there that they are bringing up. Right. And what are those what are those proposals or what are those counter ideas or offers? We we understand with respect to jobs that the issue that the concessionaires are going to have in the Great Hall Project is to attract and retain talent, as far as we know. In the airport, there are more than 400 job opportunities available. So we all understand that the problem is going to be job destruction. There is going to be job retention and attraction. That's why we are focusing all our attention, commitment and investment in developing that training center. That is an obligation for our team according to the development agreement that you will have seen. With respect to your second question. Could you please repeat your point? Councilmember Yeah, I'm wondering since in talking about the issues of retention and talking about the issues or mostly job retention, then and then, you know, the living wage piece, right? Aside from exclusivity with a union? Yes. Right. Have there been any commitments to meet those two concerns? Right. And what commitments are those are those written commitments? Is there something in writing that says that this is something that you will honor? Right. But prevailing wage obligations are included in the development agreement. As you know, council member. So that's an obligation that our thing will have to comply. That's an obligation that we are used to complying in every year where we work. As I was explaining to Council member Kanis before. And that that applies to the concession workers. As far as I understand those, cos those workers are workers of the concessionaires and they will have to deal with their employees the kind of salaries that they will have. Access to and as those jobs are coming up. The retention issue. Is there a commitment of ferrovial or operators to those employees to keep them? To give the first right of refusal, what they brought up is their commitment. We have a commitment to make interviews, at least three interviews. That is going to be done by the future concessionaires to those persons that have lost their jobs because of this project. What would be in a circumstance where they would not be employed anymore? Like you said, it's three interviews. Is is there something that would prevent them from gaining employment if they've been working at a concession in the airport for a long time? And let's say that the concept changes or whatever. Is there anything that would prevent them from getting that? As far as I understand, the issue in the airport is retaining. So having an employee that is available to be recruited, that has experience working in the airport, that has been but not not getting a job when there are now more than 400 job job back answers. And we are going to develop through the future concessionaires on 800 positions. I think that is a very unlikely scenario, taking into account the skills of that worker that has been there for ten years. Yeah. I understand. I just. And, Mr. President, if you look. I understand that. I just want to make sure that that that that that that employee that worker knows that because, yes, there they're going to be 400 jobs. As you guys are talking about. There will be 400 jobs. Like, hey, man, there's there's a bunch of jobs for you to choose from. Don't worry about it. But that doesn't necessarily get the guarantee then the first right of refusal. Is there any been any kind of agreement that addresses the first right of refusal? Right. Aside from the three interviews. There are no more counter guarantees in the development agreement on their behalf. Okay. Thank you. Thank thank you so much. And, Mr. President, if I just have one more on another topic, that's fine. This has to do with contracting with mwb and also well, in this case, activity. Right. The program and I don't know who's most appropriate to answer this question, but 34 years, right. We we all talk about, you know, 34 years. I think, you know, my daughter's ten now. She'll be 44 when this when we have a next the next crack of this. In those 34 years as minorities and as women, we would hope that, well, as the population grows. We would hope that the the number of entrepreneurs that are women and minorities also grow. What are we doing to make sure in that 34 years that where we're at right now, that that number, whatever it is, 33%, whatever percentage that that number doesn't stay flat. Those 33, those 34 years that it grows with that. And what are the determining factors and what's the commitment from the airport and ferrovial, I guess, with this with this contract to ensure that that stays in pace with population changes and growth. So Councilman, to answer, I just want to separate the maybe be ordinance from the act. And that's why you asked it in both the MWB and then KDB program. So that the maybe ordinance clearly applies to the design and construction, the four year design and construction phase, the $650 million project that the CEO described before goals have been established 33% for design, 18% for construction put forward by the Office of Economic Development and presented by the Mayor. So those goals apply to the design and construction phase of the project as KDB, the AC, KDB, the Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, which is a mandate of the Department of Transportation. That is what will control active participation in the concession program going forward during the 30 year operating period. That goal has been established within the development agreement at 26%. So would you say that the feds control that? We don't we don't determine that. That the number is a locally derived number based on disparity and other factors. The program itself is overseen by the Department of Transportation in the Federal Aviation Administration. So that goal has been set at 26%, but that goal will be revisited. So what I'm trying to get at is the answer to your question with respect to KDB. The goal will be revisited during the operating period and we've set that that period at ten years to correspond to the likely length of the individual concession agreements. The contract requires that concession agreements be no longer than ten years. And so we've set ten years. So the AC DB goal will be revisited during the operating period. Okay. I appreciate that. And, you know, council president, my concern with this questioning is that it would I'd be hopeful in 34 years that there is no more disparity to have to argue about. But as you've seen and the disparity continues and I don't want to pretend like there wouldn't be disparity in 34 years. Right. It hasn't gone away recently. And I don't want to I want to make sure that we keep that in mind. So that's an important value of the city in this council. And I want to make sure that that's reflected in every movement that we do in this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. You're getting in the comments there. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't see the fellows here from. Ask me, are they is anyone still here? That was Nick Hostetler. Okay. He had made a statement that I maybe I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly, but he seemed to indicate that there were city jobs that were in jeopardy. He left. Okay. Yeah. There's Kim. You don't know what that was about, do you? I can't imagine that we would be reducing the number of city jobs on this. No, not to my knowledge. Is there any discussion around that? Thank you. And Mr. Jack Quinn from United might be able to answer this along with Kim. In your talks, you've made some progress. But if we vote on this tonight, the agreement is is approved. And what I'm wondering is, do you see is there room within this agreement after it's approved, assuming it is for you to conclude what the matters that you are after? Within the framework of that agreement. Once it's at once it's approved, because once it's done, we live by those rules. This. So to make sure that I answer your question properly, just to restate what you said. Are we comfortable that if approved tonight, that there's enough within the existing format to be able to affect the change? Yes, of course. I wanted to reach to reach a satisfactory conclusion to your issues. Yeah. Actually, Gavin would probably be better for that. Thank you. I think the short answer is it will require change orders. If we were to implement any of the levers we have identified, they are not in scope of the current contract and I know that they could be treated as a different project, but at the end of the day, there's one payer for that and that's the airline community. So it will cost more money to implement any of the changes that we've suggested. Okay. Kim, would you agree with that? If. If we were. If we get to the point that we believe we need to implement them. Now, that would be true, I think, though. Well, let's start with we're still working. We're still trying to define them. Number two, the question is, do they need to be built now or not? I think we as the airport have a great deal of faith in the work that we've done with the planners in the simulation that we can't see today, investing millions of dollars into something as a relief valve when when we don't see a need for it. Right. We also because this project is being done in phases. The ticket lobby will be up and running while we're building the the checkpoints. So I think we feel there is a period down the road where we can evaluate this and see how it's all working. So I would say to you in our mind, it's not something we would do to modify the contract today. More likely, if a few years from now we decide we need to do it, they would be standalone projects if indeed they're done. Okay. And I think what I'm hearing is there's a couple of ways to do that. We could do it as a separate project. We could do it as change ordering through the through this contract. But either way, approving this tonight doesn't stand in the way of resolving these talks. It does not. And I'll just remind everyone, you know, United is our major carrier. We know they're our future. We know they're growing here. We want it to work and to succeed with them. So we're not fighting that. We don't want United to be successful and grow and have the the space that they need. We just don't agree on how this plan impacts them right now. But we will do everything we can to make sure united to successful here. Okay. Thank you. Kim, on the in the concessions development and the management program, there is a every two year review of market trends and ability for ferrovial to modify the direction it's going in consultation with with us as the owners. I correct. That's correct. So. So in approving something that will be in place for 30 years of the of the on M period does not mean that whatever is there on day one is there on year 30. In fact, would probably be highly unlikely that it would. Absolutely. And we are sharing the benefit of the revenue. So both parties have incentive to work to continually improve what we have there in the Great Hall. Mm hmm. And could you describe briefly, just briefly, the recourses that the city has for nonperformance or, you know, for. My understanding is there are penalties for nonperformance. And remarkably, in my view, there's no bonuses for for better performance. I'm reminded that you might have negotiated that. Yeah. So to take the last part of your question first, with respect to bonuses, there is only one bonus, early bonus, which is early completion of the TSA security screening checkpoint. That is the only financial bonus with respect to payment deductions. There is a scheme in place where if the developer fails to perform in the manner that's prescribed in the development agreement, then there will be payment deductions made against their supplemental payments. So they they do have to perform. There has been some confusion about the guarantee of their profit. It is not guaranteed in the sense that if they fail to deliver and make the project available according to their standards, they will not achieve that anticipated rate of return. Right. And just one word of advice. I won't use the word scheme when talking about this. Kevin Abels calculation. I've I've met with you several times. I've also met with the concessionaires in the airport. I'm having trouble understanding. So I keep hearing that the principal problem with the concession operations is keeping people there in the first place. And the concessionaires are telling me that they can pretty much guarantee that workers will be displaced and terminal will be able to be positioned elsewhere. And if it's not on the airside, if that person can't get an airside badge for some reason that most concessionaires have operations in town and would be able to place them in town. Do you have any notion of how many workers you think unite here? Things might not be placed. Well, I mean, this the renovations in the very terminal will impact between two and 300 existing workers. Mm hmm. Whether or not they are placed or not is now, you know, totally at the hands of chance. The agreements that we've come to with other, more responsible airport companies like the Westin and midfield create a pipeline and a system for people to land in a job that they're qualified for that that simply will not exist in the Great Hall Project, unfortunately. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I have three questions, but I'm going to add one for a fourth to follow up on Councilman Flynn's last question. Can someone from the airport comment on what Kevin said about there not being a pipeline? Because I thought there was a direct pipeline to provide jobs for the displaced workers. For. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm George Merritt with Airport Government Affairs. So we spent last fall working with our concessions association and to look at the number of employees in the Great Hall and working with them. What we found is that most of the concessions there were part of an ownership group that were ready and willing to bring those workers out onto the concourses, or, as Councilman Flynn said, moving downtown. And for those that were not part of the of that of an ownership group, we even instituted programs at the airport specifically with those people in mind. So we created that website that all of you have seen a job website at the airport to bring people out there. And then again, our concessions association is eager to talk about. There are 400 vacant jobs ready for people to fill at any given moment. So I think it's fair to say that our concessions association has embraced this challenge to make sure that the people that want to work at the airport, particularly those that are badged, are valuable commodities and we want to keep them out there. Thank you. And number two. That? No, that one didn't count. Okay, one. I know I've heard about three different opportunities for professional development, the Great Hall Academy, which is in cooperation with Metropolitan State University and Emily Griffiths Technical College, and then apprenticeship programs. And then also about an engineering apprenticeship program with the Colorado School of Mines. So is there someone who can just talk about some of those professional development opportunities? Council member and I can talk with respect to the Great Hall Partners Training Center. That's a. And a training center that will be developed, by the way, told partners that that that activity has been included in the development agreement. As part of the document that was referring, Councilmember Flynn of the Council of the Concessions Development Management Program. So that's an obligation on our site, although was something that we already proposed one year ago as part of our proposal, our bid to the airport of our to Denver International Airport, that training center. I would say that if this project is approved is a reality. There is a budget already allocated. We are committing $100,000 on day one and 50% of the marketing fund to that training center. We have the tools and the partners, the tools we have been working. Without different associations, the concession associations and the existing concession as the airport, in order to identify the right framework and the right needs to recognize that training the standpoint of the future employees of the concessionaires. And secondly, we also have the tools with respect to the partners. We have been working with Metro State University, with Emily Griffith Foundation and with the community college in order to have the right partners that can help us put in a facility standpoint, logistics and also to put the courses together. We have also had discussions with the airport in order to have venues available in the airport, in order to get the most efficient training and avoid that the concessionaire employees can use, that time can waste time going from one place to the other for training purposes. We think that we can develop these 14 years ago. We start something similar like pivotal right now that Heathrow Academy has been able to put into work more than 30, more than 3200 employees because of our efforts putting that together. We also have an internal university call for our university that has a massive institute and developing this training center. So with the right partners, with the right assessment and with the Budget Committee, that we think that this can be a reality if these facilities of. Thank you. Is there someone who can comment on those other. Apprenticeship and car. School of mines. I think I think Howard talked about apprenticeship. Councilman. Councilman Black. Councilwoman Black. So apprenticeships are a great, great tool for us and for a lot of people. And really and I'll speak specifically about the Pipefitters because I know about that apprenticeship more than I do the others, although they're they're all based pretty much the same way as I understand it. And what happens there is is it's a five year apprenticeship. It costs the student $200 a year for books. The local union subsidizes the rest of the cost of that school year. And it's an accredited course. It's an accredited college course. So at the end of five years, they have 45 college credits for about $1,000 and no student debt. They actually get a raise every year, a pretty good raise to 10% a year, which and 15% the last two years. So it's a really a pretty darn good deal. You could actually get your associate's degree with just the general education classes. There's 17 general education classes that that if you could take them, Simon Tinsley, if you'd like to, you could also come out. And if you get the right jobs and you hit their breaking up over time in the right places, that you can make a pretty darn good living. $100,000 is not unheard of. So it's apprenticeship is a great a great opportunity for a lot of folks. So are you going to be actively recruiting people to be apprentices to do work at the airport? Yes, ma'am. We already are in airport in many other places, too. We are actively recruiting every day. So that that's one of the reasons we have a grant with the state to do community outreach, specifically to reach out to folks that have been disadvantaged for one reason or another, whether it's where they live, whether it's they're a minority or whatever that might be. It lists people into the middle class. This route is truly transformational, and not just for that job. Oftentimes for generations down the road, it's made a difference in people's lives. And we had members here today that could tell you that they retired and went home. So but I hope that answers your question. Thank you. I think that's great. Right. Thanks. That was only two. So the last question is for someone from the airport. And it's a two part question. Eisenberg said his is the Union Station public private partnership was 99 years. And at the committee meeting we talked about how, for example, the Elway's concession agreement was for ten years. So can someone come in and why this agreement is for 30 years? So, Councilwoman, typically when you invest in a project, you depending on the size of the investment, you need a certain amount of time in order to recover that investment. So if you take some of our smaller concessions that may be, let's say, 100,000, 200,000 or even up to a million or two that we'll invest to outfit a concession at the airport. Typically, 7 to 10 years may be adequate for that. But if you're talking about a project that's in the hundreds of millions, it is not unreasonable to have a 30 year return. If you think about the bonds that we issue at the airport to fund our projects. Those are also in the hundreds of millions. Those are 30 year bonds. And that gives you the appropriate period of time to ensure that you can recover your investment and make the payments. So it really is tied size of investment, length of return. Thank you. You're welcome. Ah. Anymore. Okay. Uh, kill some black councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry to keep bringing us back to some of these. First of all, I just want to thank the entire team for being available for questions and helping us navigate through this contract. I want to start with airport. I'm guessing this will be a George Merritt question, but I'll let the airport team pick back two workers at the airport. You've heard a lot of questions about this is obviously something that's really important to a lot of us. And, you know, I had had the opportunity to meet with people, some of the awesome people who work at our airport and make it the great place that it is out in the Great Hall. Also concerned that Great Hall closes for four years. That's a long time to wait in line to have a new job in that same space. So I just want to get real. You know, we've talked a lot about it, but people right now who are employed in the airport, in the Great Hall, will they have a job when this construction goes under? When this goes under construction? Thank you, Councilman. So the short answer to that is yes. We worked very hard last fall with our concessions association to look at, and you've. Already covered that. I'm looking for a commitment here in public. Well, the workers who are in the Great Hall, who want to continue working, will they have a job. Particularly if you can pass a background check to or B badge to go out on the concourses? You know, if you had to move from a from a great hall out to the concourses, that that would be the hurdle. But, yes, I think if you are ready and want to keep working at the airport, we've put in place several systems. So that. Yes, that is absolutely correct. Okay. And then for Ferrovial. Yes. I know that there were issues and negotiation and things that you didn't want or feel comfortable committing on behalf of future concessionaires. But will ferrovial respect workers rights to organize and form a union should they choose to? So will Ferrovial respect workers, the workers right to organize and form a union should they choose to. And will ferrovial interfere in any way with the workers rights to organize and form a union so that you. Will not. Interfere? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Wow. Councilman Clark, that was quick. Okay, we are back to the top. Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. Someone from the airport. About the concessions. So, as I understand it, part of the agreement is in the Great Hall. No one can have more than 20% of either the restaurant side or the retail side, and no more than 30% combined. Is that correct? My understanding that correct. Yes, that's. Correct. Okay. And for for someone from the airport. So does this agreement allow Ferrovial to be a concession owner in either the Great Hall or on the concourses? No, it does not. So two part question. With respect to the concourses, the development agreement has it says nothing about and provides no rights, contractual or otherwise, to the developer in connection with concourse concessions. But it doesn't prevent them from bidding for the concourses. No, it doesn't prevent them from from bidding on on any concession contract. But the second part of your question, the development agreement does prohibit the developer from being an owner in concessions in the Great Hall. So they are not, as the representative from Ferrovial explained, they are not a master concessionaire. Typically a master concessionaire is the owner and operator of some number of the concession locations. The Great Hall Partners will not be the owner and the operator of individual concessions. Okay. And I think you alluded to it before. Michael Kiley made this statement. Why are we guaranteeing of overall a profit? Are we guaranteeing for overall a profit? No, we are not guaranteeing ferrovial a profit. One thing I would be clear on is that there's always mark up in construction contracts and various contracts. So we do guarantee profit in the same sense that we are guaranteeing profit here. But my point before was simply that the 10.8% return is realized only if the Great Hall Partners team performs at the level that is identified within their baseline financial forecast, and that includes their 20% of the concession revenue. So that is doesn't come close to being guaranteed. They absolutely have to perform in order to get to that rate of return. Even with respect to the 4.8% rate of return, that is contingent upon great hall partners delivering and making the facility available and satisfying the performance standards. And if they do not, then there will there may be performing payment deductions that would take them below that 4.8%. Okay. Thank you. And one question for Ferrovial. One of our speakers alluded to the fact that you may be ending contracts at UK airports. Can you address that? Yeah. Thank you for the question. Council member Ferrovial led the consortium that took over a company called B.A. in the UK in 2006. That after we after that transaction was completed, the antitrust authorities in the UK forced our company, that consortium, to divest a number of airports in that country because of a potential monopoly, because of a potential monopolistic situation in two areas of the UK, in southern England and in Scotland. Because of that decision of the antitrust authorities, we were forced to sell two airports in England, Gatwick and Stansted and one airport in Scotland, Edinburgh. So yes, there were those divestment, those day when this happened that we were forced to sell those airports because the antitrust authorities of the UK forced us to do it. And that's right. When was when did you get out of Stansted? Stansted transaction if I am not wrong happened in 2000, late 2012. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Catherine. Catherine, council member. Take a back up. Thank you. So I want to go back to the. Issue of potentially solving some of the airline concerns by looking at level four of the hotel and transit center. So I would like to know and know it's something that I was able to see and it was talked about when I did a tour of the airport as a potential future project that may come on. But it was not part of the discussion of the build out of the Great Hall. And so, number one, is any of that covered in the existing costs for the Great Hall right now? If that ends up being a solution for how to address some of the throughput issues raised by the airlines? No, it is not in this contract. Okay. Does that require TSA approvals and or financing? What if we move down to to proceed with that? So any time you inject baggage into the system that then screens baggage, we would certainly be working with TSA to make sure that they agreed with the system that we designed and built there. Not sure if that answered your question. Well, we would need their involvement if we're looking at any TSA check in point under level four or are we only looking at baggage? We are only one point. There was some discussion about potentially some TSA lanes, if you will. Yes. Level four two, we are not looking at putting in TSA lanes that would actually check people in. That's not part of what we're talking about with the United. We're talking about ticket lobby, space and kiosks. That's what we're discussing. What you're talking about in terms of TSA use of level. Four years ago when we built out the HTC, we thought that the fourth floor might be a place where we could relieve TSA by adding additional checkpoints. Right now, using these automatic screening lanes that we're proposing, we don't need to use that space for checkpoints. So we're talking about ticket lobby space in level four. Okay. And in doing that, it would free up some of the space on level six if that were to be done as a. Potential no, this would be in addition to what we're building on level six. Okay. All right. Let me go to my next question. I had a comment on that one, but I will leave that for later. I want to ask Diane Durfee if she wouldn't mind coming to. The microphone. Deanne was brought on to assist some of us who had additional questions around the review of the contract. And I know you had an opportunity to look at that. So my first question is related to a comment that was made earlier by Mr. Reimer about. Let me make sure I've got the right question in front of me. So transfer of concessions. And I think Councilman New asked this question. It's my understanding that any concession that would be. Transfer the ownership would be transferred would require our DSB office involvement. Is that correct? Because I know you work directly with our oversight of our DSP office. Can you can you respond to that? Greenly Diane Durfee with the city attorney's office. We have, as was discussed earlier and Mr. Reamer already discussed, this contract involves both the CDB program on the concession side and then on the construction side, our MWB program and has established goals for felt for both of those aspects of the project. The activity is a federal program, as Mr. Bremer identified. The MWB as our local program. So with respect to your question on transfer of concessions, I think that the concession and I'm not as. Familiar with the A.C.T. program as I am with the MWB. Program, but my understanding is that they would still have to comply with all the federal requirements. Regulations regarding how the ACP programs. So nothing is being done in this contract that alters the federal requirements. And rules and regulations that have to be followed. And same with our BWB. And that is true. We added as part. Of the contract a compliance plan on the Mwb side for the construction. Establish the goals for that, and we have not altered anything in that compliance plan that runs with our current laws on the MWB program. Okay. Thank you, Dan Reimer, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So I want to get back to the issue of concentration of ownership. Someone who currently may already meet that threshold, that 20%. Limit for concentration of ownership. If they meet that on A, B or C, are they then allowed to also have a concession in the Great Hall? So are we playing with two different standards for both locations? So we may need to call up Patrick Hecht, the chief commercial officer, who's more familiar with how that concentration of ownership would would work under the development agreement. Okay. As a practical matter, that will be helpful, because one of my concerns is that we have ongoing changes that happen with how we have regulated the the concessionaires. We've had changing rules, I guess is is the terminology I want to use. So can you help clarify the answer to my question? Sure. Thank you. Councilman Patrick Hecht, chief commercial officer for the airport. We have a concentration of ownership policy that dictates how much a any one concessionaire can own of our concession program that we have under our control and concourses. A-B and C for OVL is going to have a very similar. Program, but the two don't have. Overlap. So someone has 20% on A, B and C and couldn't necessarily bidder would have to divest in order to bid on A, B, and C, they could actually get 20% of the program in in the Great Hall as well without having to divest in A, B and C. So the two programs operate separately from that respect, but they're modeled very similarly so that any one person in Great Hall can't. Control, say, 80%. Of the Great Hall Project under under for obvious proposal. But potentially somebody could control 40% and total at the airport 20% on the. Main terminal and 20% on A, B and C. Yeah, but the the main terminal isn't even. Remotely close to half of the. Concession. Space at the airport, something a bit closer, say 20%. So you're talking about 20% of 20% that they could control. So they wouldn't control 40% of entire airport space. They'd still be limited to what would be 20% of the airport space in that case. Yeah, I guess I'm talking concessions as opposed to space. But I'm in our our programs are built around space, so it's built around square footage. Okay. Thank you. And I do have just a couple quick more, if I may. So. Mr. can stay home, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So it's my understanding that some of our labor unions have been in conversation with you there. I don't know that there are actual agreements, but I'm not sure that all of our trades, both labor and non union and nonunion apprenticeship programs, have sort of received the green light permission approvals, whatever the right terminology is that Ferrovial will work with have have your contractor work with all of the apprenticeship programs that exist in the city. So can you tell me if this is something that you all are asking your contractors who will be doing the work to be working with our trades? And this is this does not take away from any of our in the DWP programs. This, you know, I see this as complimentary. So. Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I would calling someone from the BJP that can help us to address this question. With respect to apprenticeship programs. With respect to apprenticeship programs that are sort. So what I'm asking is if Ferrovial is committing to. Ask your contractors who will be working on the project to work with the Colorado approved. Apprenticeship programs. And why this is important is because we have a labor shortage of skilled workers in this city with all the construction that's going on and where we can ensure, especially with publicly financed projects, which I consider this to be, we should be doing everything we can with all of our trades to. Develop those skills, ensure that folks in our community who are sort of left behind have that opportunity to be raised up. And so I'm asking the question of you, because you've selected that team of contractors and subcontractors that will be working on this project. Okay. May I ask? My understanding is that. That's correct. But if you can please confirm. Good evening, council. I'm Angela Berry Robertson, the director of diversity for Ferrovial. I can say that we've worked with the apprenticeship programs and workforce initiatives for this project, so I can say that we will definitely actively work with the apprenticeship programs as well as not in lieu of and in consortia with the MWB programs that we have on the project. So any that are not already connected to you all, you you have that open door is what I'm hearing you say. To work directly with them as well. Between ourselves as well as our contractors, we would definitely encourage the utilization of apprenticeship programs and understanding the Labor needs as well as initiatives here in this in the city and county. So. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. My last question is, it's actually for Gisela. Who wouldn't mind coming up? So I know Councilman New as sort of a version of my question, but I'm wondering exactly how DeLay plans to track the spin on this project, especially given that part of the funding for. Some of the build out is being included in bond financing that has moved through this council. I want to make sure that we're able to track it in a similar way that we did with the Hotel and Transit Center, even though it may have different funding sources. So can you just sort of elaborate on that in a. I mean, you may have already said it and I just didn't hear it in the same way. Absolutely. So we'll be tracking the expenditures of this project like we do any other project. We have a number of requirements through accounting standards and the city's fiscal policies, which require us to track the value of any asset we build, regardless of how it's funded. So whether it's airport bonds, airport cash reserves or actually funding that the developer brings to the table, much like when the city has developers put in infrastructure that then comes to the city as an asset to maintain. The exact same arrangement exists here and we will make sure that we track every dollar spent on the project. We'll have a project controls team can mentioned earlier that will be very much engaged on a regular basis to review all of the invoices that come through the project design and construction phase. We will be paying our portion of the progress payments on a monthly basis. A requirement of that is a very stringent report that we placed as a requirement on the developer that they will need to provide to US monthly because we will not make the progress payment until our construction team is assured us on the financial side that the work that the invoice represents has actually been done to the performance standards that Dan mentioned earlier. So there's a number of checks throughout that process. Performance standards, construction standards, financial spend, all of that will be reviewed on a monthly basis during the entire four year construction period. So is that a city team or does that a combination of city and consultants working with us to. A common mission? Okay. And then this is just part of this. So. In addressing the issue of change, order or change directives. In the past, there was someone who had served on that committee that was actually the requester of the change orders. And I know there were changed recommended changes by the city auditor around that. So can you tell me who the Change Management Committee is made up of that is supposed to look at those change orders or change directives? And again, this is important because this is where we begin to eat into the $120 million jersey. I agree with your concerns as a CPA and a prior auditor myself. I share that concern and separation of duties. I think all my colleagues at the airport can tell you and probably a pain for them on most days, because I do have that concern. So we will have a committee that has no one from the construction side serving on the committee, which includes our internal staff. I respect very much to William and his staff, but they will not be on that committee. There will be finance staff from the airport. There will be a representative from the auditor's office. There will be a representative from the Department of Finance within the city. And we will also have some outside experts yet to be identified. But to your point, there will be no conflict of interest. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Councilwoman can eat your up. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to go back about, oh, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes to clarify something that occurred in the exchange with Councilman Lopez. So I think it was you, Nacho, where he asked about the cause that you mentioned this not a question for you, actually, but you stated that the prevailing wage applied and he asked. That covers the concessionaires and almost the whole front row nodded. And you said Yes. So can I get please Dan Durfee or Dan Reamer to clarify what, if any, wage policies apply to the concessionaires at this airport? One sec. Sorry. Then I said. I didn't say yes. What I said is, as far as I understand, those salaries would be negotiated between the concessionaires and the employees. The prevailing wage, according to my understanding of the agreement, will be explained by by but would apply to the NC works and on M works. Okay. So there are a lot of different workers and there's a lot of different pieces of the project. So what I think we've tried to work through is the application of the prevailing wage ordinance during both the design and construction and the O&M phase. And what I have assured the Council and we've worked through the development agreement with the developer is not just agreed. The prevailing wage ordinance in the development agreement clearly applies to the extent it applies during both the design and construction and the onam phase. So great hall partners will have workers, they have O&M responsibilities, there will be janitorial contracts, there will be other classifications of workers who are subject to the prevailing wage ordinance. And so prevailing wage will apply to them. Prevailing wage right now does not typically apply to the concession workers themselves. That's not a category of worker that is subject to the prevailing wage ordinance. So again, I don't mean to sound too much like a lawyer, but the prevailing wage ordinance will apply through the development agreement to the extent that it applies, but won't cover additional workers beyond what's provided for in the ordinance. Okay. And I think that's a really important distinction. So and here's my shorter way of saying it back. If concessionaires do construction work. You know, to build out their space. They will be covered with that wage ordinance. But their servers, their retail workers, the folks who clean their they're they're they're bus people, the service workers who are employed in concessions do not have any wage standards at the airport at this time. They do not have wage standards. They have market forces. And market forces right now affect wages and are right now in the process of increasing wages at the airport. But correct over 34 years, I think we can be guaranteed that market forces will change. And so I want to ask Kevin Abels to come up. I know a lot of my colleagues have been asking a lot of really detailed questions about proposed agreements and what folks liked and what they didn't like. I actually am not interested in that so much. I've approved many contracts in this chambers where there were no agreements. What really I'm trying to get at and I still am not quite satisfied with, is understanding this idea of whether or not people are expected to meet and talk. And so I just want to ask you very clearly, did you receive any ideas, proposed changes, suggestions or any constructive ideas from Ferrovial or the airport and how the ideas you had proposed might become more acceptable? No, we didn't. And we specifically asked for them. We told them that the agreements that we were offering and the ideas we had were but a starting point and that we would really look forward to a constructive conversation. But they chose not to give us anything concrete back. Thanks, Kim, and I appreciate that. So, Kim, I want to just chat with you a little more. And so I have seen you all meet with concessionaires who have sued you. I've seen you meet with groups of minority contractors who have done press conferences and rallies criticizing the airport. I'm imagining a scenario whereby you would say to United, I don't agree with your idea that we shouldn't move, you know, some of this security to to level five. And so therefore, I won't meet with you. I've never seen the airport say because I don't agree with you or because you've criticized me. I have no obligation to be in dialog. I've never heard the airport say that. And so here's my question. You're asking us to approve this partner stepping into your shoes. Who else are they allowed not to agree with or to meet with? Who else might they say? I don't have to meet with you. You've criticized me. I don't agree with you. I guess I want to understand where the limits are, because we now have one situation where there wasn't. They didn't agree with the first idea. There was one in-person meeting, two phone calls, but there was no desire to continue. I guess I want to understand who else would that could that happen to in the course of 34 years and how or why? Or help me understand. Are we okay with that when it's not the way that you all do business? I am struggling and I want you to help me. So. So. I was not part of any of those conversations. So I can tell you what went down there. What I can tell you is in the last two years, as we have worked with this developer, we have found a group that supports our value system that has ad nauseum held meetings, listened to people, listen to us , allowed us to change things. I think this is a very open team of people that we have a great deal of confidence will be a good partner for 34 years. I just can't comment on this specific thing because I have no personal. I wasn't there. I just don't have any. What if it became a pattern? I mean, is there anything and if they if there was a pattern of them refusing to meet with and I mean, we've all in my six years, I have seen more concessionaires and groups of contractors criticize the airport and criticize the contracting process. It's going to happen when they start choosing who's didn't do business with them and who's not. There will be folks who are upset. And I guess I guess I just want to understand, is this what if it became a pattern? So what we have to we have the right to terminate for convenience. And that might be, you know, one of the reasons it's since us to that termination. I hope we never get there because I truly do have faith in these guys. But we do have outs. We are not we are not stuck for 34 years. That's not what you're doing tonight. You're you're voting on a contract that has lots of out if things do not turn out the way we anticipate them being. So I just want to ask one more question in our show, and then I think most of my questions have been answered for tonight. So can you tell me. Yes. Do you believe you have an obligation if you step in and serve as our public airport manager, do you have an obligation to meet with external stakeholders with whom you may not agree or who may have criticisms about your company? Do you have that obligation under this contract? And I have had that obligation for the last two and a half years in which I have been working in this project. Will you meet with Unite here following this meeting, regardless of the outcome? We have met with Danica as explained before, the point that you were making with respect to trying to develop or making counterproposals. The core part of their agreement proposed by that association to us was forcing the future concessionaires to have an exclusivity with respect to the session or the choice of those employees that will be working at the concessionaires. That was the whole point of that union. So that was something that we could not accept. Secondly is very easy to say that there cannot have a meeting. In a meeting that we are not taking as many meetings as we are requesting and simultaneously having a campaign in the press against our company and simultaneously having that union protesting and picketing in the airport against our company. So in order to have meetings, you must have a friendly approach for both sides. And we didn't see that friendly approach from Unite here. So you will not meet even after this meeting, regardless of the outcome you will not meet, is that. I just want to make sure I understand. We are happy to take meetings in a friendly way, you know, to understand the request of anybody so we can address their concerns and try to reach a common position as simultaneously we are continuously attacked by that party. Can be difficult to have a meeting in that context because you are being threat. Through the meeting. We know a little bit about having meetings with folks who are mad at you and attack you up here. So that that's a part of what we do every day in the public sector. We take meetings with people who have really harsh things to say about us. And if you have this contract, that is what you're signing up for. And we have taken those meetings despite those attacks. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Council members, it is 11 p.m. and we're starting to get down to the nitty gritty. So now we have council managers gone. Councilman Espinosa, you're up and then Councilman New. This is that's interesting. This talk about this conversation or lack thereof with Unite here sort of illustrates one of the core problems with this whole. Structure. People go to their representatives on council in the elected government to listen and hopefully affect change and answer the question in that. Well, no, but. So remember that I'm going to come back to that because, you know, it's it's worth saying. So the question I have. Let's start with this one. This and you've mentioned that you've been working with them for two years. This RF process predates my time on council. So the wheels were set in motion for ap3 years ago. Where were those? The RFP is that you you obtained and you shortlisted and got to ferrovial. Were any of them at this to this magnitude on cost? You know, at the 650 to $770. Million range. And delivering essentially the same thing, you know, because we have this issue of going from 400 million to 770 million is the top end. What did you see back then that did that mean was there any indication on those prior proposals? So maybe it's worth me just taking a second to explain the process we've been through for the last two years. We first put out a request for qualifications. We asked for teams to submit their qualifications. They came to us as entities that had a contractor and equity partners. From that RFQ process, we then a short there were, I believe five five that that first applied and we shortlisted to four. We then worked to work independently with each of the teams over the course of nine or ten months. We met with them independently. We told them what we expected in terms of the physical plan. We told them what we expected in terms of the agreement we would have to operate it. We specified certain things like the length of term. We eventually got to a point where we specified some physical requirements, but we basically let each of these teams develop an independent design and put in an independent proposal to us that had a deal structure that they preferred, a financial structure that they developed. So we didn't lay out a requirement necessarily. We then took the proposals and evaluated them. Out of all of that process came our selection of the Ferrovial team to be the best person partner for us to then go to the next phase, which was the pre-development agreement, which was an attempt for us to negotiate exclusively with our number one choice to see if we could get to a deal that we could then bring before this council. And that's where we are today with this deal that we have negotiated with Ferrovial all of this time. My point in going through that is this is sort of evolved and the design has been done together. The $650 million construction cost is related to a project that we have designed with FERROVIAL over the last six months or nine months. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, that does. But what worries me in that process is not seeing. Having not been privy to all the work that you did with all the four that were shortlisted and seeing essentially. You know, where they ended up and how you ended up selecting Ferrovial. Is, is, is, is sort of concerning because, you know, last year you came to us with a different sort of end game, essentially a much lower cost total project that would have had a much lower cost to two, you know, much lower impact to your bottom. Line. This and we ended up here and so I just wonder if if there was any information in what was submitted back then that would have given us any indication that this is this is where we would be. Where we would end up. So let me say we can. My recollection is there was no real cost talked about when we brought the PDA contract to you at that point in time. We so I'm not sure where this 400,000 or 400 million is coming from. There was a there was a letter by a proposer that we did not choose that had some numbers in them, but we did not bring you a cost when we brought you the Ferrovial team because we didn't have a design at that point in time that was finalized. What we wanted to do during this period, which we have used in the last year, was to design the right project and then price it out. I will say we've had independent review of this price. Stew Williams, who is the program manager, has brought in an outside third party. They have sat for hours and hours and hours. They've gone through unit cost and and refined the scope and made sure that this is a tight price and a tight project. Why don't we? So, again, you've made a commitment to to calcium and knew that you would do some sort of update. The fact that we are. We weren't updated when you were doing the maybe you were. I wasn't here. And the fact that it feels like we were not updated during the negotiations about the different models and the different things that were being presented, we weren't. Updated about. The the order of magnitude that might be in the final. The proposal, as this thing was being developed over the last six months, I mean, we could have done a monthly report or even two quarterly reports that said, look, are the scale of this project is is on the order of magnitude of this. But this is we're only 15% designed. And we still have all these unknowns. The you know, to me. Might be indicative of how transparent you will be going forward with with the. With. The amount of latitude that we're getting. Can you because of lot in the contract for OVL is required to do a lot of this reporting on a monthly basis in a sort of real time. Could you commit to a sort of written report on the contingency, a written monthly, monthly written report on the contingency status, along with a quarterly report at Committee on the Status of the Contingency and Construction Progress. A happy to do that. I do want to clarify two things you just said, though. So last year when we brought forth the contract to negotiate with Ferrovial and the PDA, we showed you in the in the in the business committee at that time that the other proposers designs, we have not hidden that from anyone that's been that's been out there for anyone to look at. I would also say that what we've been doing in the last nine months is negotiation. And so we have not been sharing this information because it is a negotiation. It is confidential. We have allowed various sources to participate after signing a non-disclosure agreement, but we really have had this under wraps for a very good reason, and that is so that we could negotiate the best deal for us going forward after today. Yes, everything is public. Yes. We're happy to give you a monthly report. We're happy to go to the committee and brief you on a regular basis. We'd be more than happy to do that. What's frustrating there is, is even members of council after the contract was was in our position, it was in our wheelhouse for consideration. Members of council asked for essentially the let you not issue enter into the non-disclosure agreement to sort of review everything that was reviewed that was never offered, you know. So I'm not sure what was offered, you know, in the reading room we had. You had everything. We had extraction. We had financial models. Yeah, but people were doing other people in the city were reviewing these things over the course of those nine months that you were doing and negotiating. And no member of council was and no member of council will be part of the committee, as far as I know, unless you're going to commit to it right now that a member of council will be part of the committee going forward. We have had to, I believe both council member Herndon was and Councilwoman Ortega have been serving on the executive committee for this project. And we we will agree to go forward with that same group. Wow. Why don't we have an updated maybe. Maybe I'm in the wrong committee to have gotten that update. So then one last question on sort of related, Debbie Ortega. I mean, Councilwoman Ortega had a. Question. In writing that said, I am reading the contract. Am I reading the contract correctly? That Den will pay ferrovial $1.8 billion. Over the life of the agreement, plus 20% of the. Concession. Revenue generated by the Great Hall. The answer was yes. The airport will pay $1.8 billion over the life of the development agreement. Airport payments were split. Well, then there's detail on the airport payment. The a member of the administration just this morning in response to a similar question, said the developer takes all the risk for the price of the schedule and construction. The airport pays back the developers $380 million investment for it at a return of 4.8. Is that. Is that summary, get us to $3.8 million. Is that accurate portrayal? Does that get us to the 3.8 million billion. Three $1.8 billion. So 380 million at 4.8%. So the 1.8 million is the construction cost. It includes our contingency. It includes 30 years of operating repayment, of financing, which is the 4.8% return, plus us reimbursing them for operations and maintenance. That is what is in the $1.8 billion contract. Can you elaborate on maybe. Where the number is, 380 million and a return of 4.8 came from is a response to. The developers investing $378 million. I think we have rounded that up to the three eight. Okay. That's a combination of equity and debt. Okay. I just take it that the rest of that will go into comment, but it just seemed to imply that that was essentially it was sort of minimizing the cost of this when instead we are proving if we approve, this is a $1.8 billion payback. That is the contract that's before you tonight. Okay. Thank you. No further question. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, California. Real quick, Gisela. Please. Let's go over some numbers real quick. Okay. If you split this the split contract into the construction piece and the concession fees. Okay. And we're looking at our contribution of, say, 600 million and the partnership put in 170 million for the seven services, assuming we spend all the contingency. Okay. And that's so our contribution is about that 78%. You know, on a on a non P3 contract, what would that percent be? 100%? It would be 100% unless it's funded partially by the FAA via grant or another granting agency. So strictly from a financial viewpoint, that's the vantage of the P3 agreement that we're actually spending less on the construction than we normally would in a street construction contract. That's correct. That allows us to use our resources in other projects. Of a concession agreement where, you know, it looks to me, you know, the numbers we've been working with, the profitability is coming out of that concession agreement. And so and FERROVIAL has value. It looks like what what I've been told is, you know, we're on the existing concession agreement. We're getting about a dollar $0.41 per square foot. In the Great Hall concessions. That's correct. And Froebel is going to be able to generate $3.34 about, you know, two times. What, approximately. Less so. And we're going to get 80% of that increase in the revenue that they're going to generate through their rental arrangement. Yes, 80% comes to the airport. So in a normal. And in what kind of arrangement is there with the concessionaires on the concourse? Is it what percentage do we give there? So the percentage of the sales that the concessionaires generate is approximately the same collected by the airport versus the developer. The difference is the airport retains 100% of the percentage that we get from the concessions in the concourses, and we receive 80%. In the case of the Great Hall via the current arrangement under the development agreement, so approximately 20%. Okay. So just from an existing standpoint, we're going to earn more money from the concession agreement through the Great Hall. It looks like to me and you're estimating about $100 million profit on this whole project. And, you know, which I think is typical CFO, very conservative. And I think it's going to be a lot more than that, but it's going to be I want to assure the public this is a very profitable arrangement that we're entering into with this great hall. So correct. That's correct. So we are able to generate revenues that flows into the top of our waterfall, which gives us additional capacity not only to cover our current debt obligations, but also to reinvest in our facilities. And then we make the payments at the lower end of our waterfall or the way our funds flow through, which again gives us the flexibility to make sure that we can use our resources where best deployed. But yes, we do anticipate currently, based on the base financial model, that we will have additional funds that will be generated as a result of this project. We will then reinvest in the remaining programs, which includes gate expansions for our airlines, widening of Penn Boulevard and other projects that will help make the customer experience at the airport much better. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman and Councilman Cashman. I know maybe the third time's the charm. You know, sometimes you're in the game and you're watching your teammates strike out, but it's your turn up. So I'm going to give it one more try. Ferrovial. The whole thing with Unite here. It feels like a schoolyard fight. It's where somebody says something and the other person gets hurt. And that's it. You won't talk anymore. And I'm aware of the aggressive campaign that Unite here has waged against your company in an attempt to stimulate negotiation. Yeah. I'd be angry, too. It got pretty tough. The problem that I'm struggling with. Is that Mr. Ables and the management of of. That union represents several hundred people. That have legitimate concerns. Over their future employment. So I'm going to ask. Is there any way? That you. Recognize that sometimes things get heated. And that you can agree. To reopen. Communication. You're an open spirit to try to hear their concerns at a new level. Or if you just refuse to talk. We are happy to open any channel of communication and understand their requests and try to address them. That's why you have our commitment for that, for communication, collaboration and trying to understand and address the legitimate needs of every stakeholder in this community. Including you. I appreciate that. I feel like that's some degree of movement. But I want to be real clear, because I think it's important. Would you say? Commit to. Six meetings, one a month. Six one hour meetings one a month with unite here with an open spirit. Putting that. Difficult time. Behind again. If it were just one person involved. I probably wouldn't be as concerned. But it's a few, several hundred families. And while I understand there's processes, I mean, I look at the job market and I figure it's going to be a lot of jobs. But I'm also looking at as counsel McNeil said you as the face. If not at the airport of the Great Hall of somewhere. And I'm getting lost in the in the in the number of 10 to 20% of the concessions in the airport, depending on when we build out the the concourses. So yeah, six meetings, one a month, one hour in person sitting down with. Mr. Abels you have our commitment for that council member and I understand your query. Thank you very much for that. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm not sure we've heard from Councilman Herndon yet. Are you? That's fine. Has been heard in. Kim Are we asking Ferrovial to do our current concessions that we have at the airport? Do they require worker retention with the concessions? No. So what the current policy is right now at the admin, we're asking for over all to do the exact same thing. Yeah. In fact, we were we were very careful to do pass through of all the requirements that you have given us. We have passed all of those through to Ferrovial. So Unite here is trying to get ferrovial to do above and beyond what every concessionaire on A, B, or C concourse doesn't do right now. So cancer. I haven't been in those meetings. Understand? Tell you what, you might hear us. Asking, but that is certainly mine. So if there if there's an issue, why wait? I'm going in the comments. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. President. I, i respect the ability to catch yourself. Councilman. All right. Councilman Ortega. Okay, this is my final question. And it's you know, I've raised a lot of questions about the risk to DIA, and I would like to know what contingency plan the airport has if the Great Hall does not operate as designed or simulated. And so what I want I'm aware that we have step in rights for the contract, but. I want to know that we actually have a step in ready plan if you know the wheels fall off the bus and we have to step in. Do we have the wherewithal, staffing expertize to to be able to do that? At whatever stage we happen to be in, whether it's, you know, during construction, during the operations, do we actually have a real plan that we can just step in and do that job? So I'm to let the city attorney talk about, you know, our rights in terms of the contract. We are not sitting with 20 plans in the drawer that we can just pull out. But things like this don't happen overnight. If we see a trend that something is happening, we're going to go put a plan together. That's what we do. So so Kim, let me just address that briefly, because we rely on certain aspects within this contract to. We rely on self-reporting. And if things are happening and they're not reported, how do we know what's going on? I'm not sure we're looking each other. Maybe you could ask that again. We're not really understanding. Okay. So if there are, I don't know, breaches of the contract or we're not meeting the I don't know the goals of what is anticipated to be collected in terms of revenues or you know, I'm just making some of this up, but under the management of these concessions or oversight. We rely on self-reporting from this contractor. From the from the developer. But if those reports, those self reports are not being forwarded, we were not aware of certain things going on. That's what triggers any of the step in rights if there are certain things that are not. Reconcilable. Right. So my question gets back to what contingency plan do we have that? You know, in place to be able to step in and take control. I mean, I get we have step in rights, but what is what plan do we have? Do we have the expertize in staffing and in. You know. Just the skill sets to be able to keep this we'll keep this bus rolling if some of the wheels do fall off. So I just I want to be clear about the manner in which the wheels may fall off. So first, the airport believes that they have a plan that will work and can be implemented. The developer's responsibility with respect to the level six improvements is simply to design and construct those improvements. And they walk away from those areas outside of any warranty work. So if future changes are required, particularly to level six, the ticket lobbies, the security screening checkpoint, the airline offices, and those improvements on level six, public circulation curb that all remains within the discretion and exclusive authority of the airport to bring another contract to develop it through the AIM team to engage in planning necessary to put forward a construction contract and a plan that would be presented to this body. That is not a matter of step in rights. That is a that is a question about the termination of the developer's responsibilities. So with respect to level six improvements, their responsibility will terminate upon substantial completion and the expiration of any warranty work. So if the wheels come off of that bus, then the airport would deal with that through a separate contract with. So we're looking at them exclusively then. Is what. What I hear you saying in terms of the construction of the build out of level six. From the construction of the build out of the concession area so far. Correct. So with respect to level five and the island that the developer will be responsible for, they will be responsible for both designing and constructing those commercial areas, as well as managing those commercial areas during the operating period of the agreement. If there are shortfalls in revenue, the development agreement provides mechanisms by which the airport and the airport's consultants can review the plans and the documents and that concession development management plan to try and establish why the developer is not making the revenue that they had forecast. So there are there are provisions for both minor shortfalls and material shortfalls, and the airport's responsibilities obviously increase in the event of a material shortfall. So if the wheels come off the bus in the sense that developer is not performing and the sales are not what what have been anticipated, and that is attributable to acts or omissions on the part of the developer, then we know precisely what will happen. It will be a combination of the airport and its consultants that will review the plans and develop a remedial plan to try and get those revenues back up to where they should be. It is also important to note that the Concession Development and management plan is intended to be a living document. It's already been mentioned here, but with respect to brands and brand mix and and performance and what's working, the airport and the developer will have that opportunity on a on a two year basis every two years that CDP document will be updated and that will be an opportunity to review maybe, maybe not terrible deficiencies, but sort of minor tweaks that may need to be made in the program in order to make sure that it's achieving its maximum potential. So if for whatever reason. We've got legitimate reasons to terminate the contract because of all the out clauses that are in it. After that point, if there is some new entity brought in, does that reengage council in the process? Because technically this deal would be null and void at that point, correct? Well, there are a couple of different termination provisions. We've already talked about termination for convenience. So that's the airport's option to terminate at any time for any reason. And there is a formula for calculating what would be owed to the developer in the event of termination for convenience. If it's termination in the event of a default, then there is a separate formula that would be established for for termination. But the short answer to your question is it if the agreement if the development agreement is terminated. Then the airport has every right to do whatever it wants, whether that's to take on the management of the program itself or to find a master concessionaire, to find a new developer, to find somebody who would who would satisfy the need, whatever it may be at the time that the development agreement terminates. Okay. Can I just add one thing? Sorry. I just wanted Patrick to come up. We obviously do have the talent and the ability in-house to run a concession program. And so, Patrick, maybe you could talk about stepping in if we had to. So, Councilman, I think to Dan's. Point, there's a number of different ways. If we got to a point where Ferrovial is no longer involved in not running the program for us, that we could go you could certainly replace Ferrovial just with someone else who is very similar to Ferrovial. But I think in the case where from a contingency perspective, how we would actually step in, we run 150,000 square feet of concessions on the concourses. Now in this contract, we have required for OVL to have a lot of things that look and feel a lot like us. The concentration of ownership we talked about PDC program as a number of things were required. And I think very importantly, a contract that has a number of provisions that are exactly like our provisions in our contracts that have to. Be in their contract with their concessionaire. So if we take it over, it is now essentially. One of our contracts and we have staff because we do that on the concourses that can now take it over. Would I maybe need more staff potentially to run this program now as part of it? But in all ways, it's. Going to look and feel a lot like what we do today. So I feel very confident that we could take over and run this program because it's very similar to how we actually operate in the world today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Two tiny one, tiny one. One ones are the single standard de. The model. The mountain. The model with the single standard de. Does does that. What was mentioned in the comments was at 28, you require it requires 28 lanes. Is that true? So. So we. I'm not sure exactly how to answer this. We're designing a facility that has 32 automatic screening lanes. They are they have a lot more throughput, almost twice as much as our existing checkpoints. Do we believe that with the 32 lanes, we can get to about a 30% increase in capacity over what we have in our terminal today? It's not based on a given day. So when you model it, you don't model for a typical day and model for sort of different conditions. And so when they do a simulation, they do simulations for different conditions, right? Peak peak hour of an average day, things like that. So they model all of those elements. So how many lanes are needed on a typical day? I wish there was a typical day. That's the problem with this question. It isn't a typical thing. We don't designed to a typical day. We designed to a peak hour of an average day. And so how many lanes in a peak hour on an average day. So to get a 30% increase in the capacity of the terminal, you need 32 lanes, which is what we're putting in, 34 lanes, I'm sorry, 34 lanes. On an average day at your peak. Our peak hour. Your average day. Yeah. Sorry that got they got to five. And each day of a peak month. So my concern is. I'm looking based on. A lot of the conversation. I'm looking for a commitment from built in which always does it and ferrovial who's new to this game to work with the airlines. It sounded today or in our earlier conversations that, you know, there are concerns that we're close to resolution. Since you have 70% of the design to still complete, can both Dan and Ferrovial agree to absorb the changes needed to address the concerns that have been raised thus far with Arrow by the airlines? So we're continuing to try and get to a place where we understand the plan and how it works. We've done simulations. We are looking at these relievers, but there isn't. There is nothing that I can stand here today and say we could invest in and that would solve the problem. We are still in a study phase. So I can't commit to you that we are that any of these elements are going to be built. We're just not there yet. What I will commit to you is we have spent the last two weeks working very closely with United. We will continue to work with United. It's really important for us that they agree with us that we're building the right thing and that this is successful for them. We will get to that point. I can't tell you, though, what the answer is to get us there, whether it is changing the design or building something else or just doing 20 more simulations so that we all agree. We've tested all of the possibilities and we feel comfortable in it. And as I said earlier, that the ticket lobbies are going to open before the security screening checkpoint. So we have it we have an opportunity there to test it, really to make sure it works. So that's your that's the track record. I mean, we obviously care very deeply about United as the given the number of gates that they have. And I assume Ferrovial is also very much aware that the traffic that goes through that the main terminal is largely driven by United in their success here. Can I hear the same comments from Ferrovial because that has been the concern today. So just keep in mind, we will contain ownership and operation of the ticket lobby. All they are doing is building out what we are asking them to build. They really don't have a dog in this fight. So you're going to continue to listen and capture these needs. Okay. All right. Think they don't have any more questions? Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Most of my questions. It's my turn and most of my questions were answered. I have some very specific questions for you, Kim Who is actually the dad PM on this? Williams Mr. WILLIAMS Great. Who is the security consultant on the project? Who is the security? So when you, when you, when you start looking at the security lines and things like that, not that TSA, but are you do you have a consultant that you're working with to for the feel of the rooms, the you know, the esthetics of the location? Good evening. Stu Williams. Senior vice president of special programs in the Great Hall. So, Councilman, to answer your question. On the Ferrovial design. Team, they have a company that. Is done all the modeling and has done additional modeling. As we've been working with United to try different scenarios. To come up with this. So they do. Modeling of both ticket. And security lines nationwide. You answer it. Thank you. That's what I want to know. We didn't get to that. And I wanted to make sure. And so last question is around equity partners. And so, Natalie, I think I'm going to ask you this. So, I mean, we've been asking questions for 2 hours and we really haven't got into the equity partners. And I really want to answer I want you to answer this question of the equity partner Saunders and Magic Johnson Company. What kind of role will they have play in shaping the airport? Are they silent partners or they just investors? Obviously, Saunders is doing construction as well, but what kind of role will they have? Thank you for that question, Mr. President. We have a set of hold this agreement executed among federal airports, GRC and Sounders, and that agreement is confirm that we retain 80% of the equity and 20% is owned by a baseball owned by GRC. And Sounders GRC has 95% of that vehicle and 5% is owned by Sounders because of the agreements that we have as part of that sort of hold this agreement, Sounders FC through that they call, we have a number of rights in the corporate in the future corporate governance of the SPV that will be the developer signing the the concession agreement. That is. Right. So what I'm trying to get to the crux of it is Sounders a local company? Yes. Well, they. And I'm assuming this is. Yes, but will they have the right to get their subs? Get their folks connected who are connected here in Denver? Make sure they're employed? Are they they're okay to do that? Sanders is also is not only part of the developer, he's also part of the DJT that's design and build joint venture. Get that so they can hire. They can either subs down. Joint venture is owned 70 70% by federal agreement and 30% by Sanders because of the algorithms that they have among the two companies. I'm sure that Sanders will be heavily involved in the future development of the program. That's why that was the most important reason why more than two years ago we decided to work with then and they decided to work with us. Will Magic Johnson's company be able to with concessions and folks like that? You know, I want to see will they be able to have influence over the concession individuals that we bring on specifically with AC DC. That's our intention and commitment. And I would ask you to, you know, to confirm that because we have. Great. Thank you, Councilman. Jim Reynolds, managing partner. With Johnson Loop Capital. We have approximately. 19% of the equity asanas as 1% of Rossville. Has 80%. I think my partner. Magic Johnson came and addressed this body around our commitment to Mwb and HDB at the airport and in the city. And we expect to have a very prominent and active role and working with, selecting, speaking to and encouraging the growth of Mwb businesses here in Denver. It's our view that just as this will be an absolute showcase. For the Denver International Airport. We expect that for Mwb participation, it will match that same standard. Great. And specifically, the folks in the community want to know. Access for black businesses. Access for Latino businesses. Access for female women owned businesses. Well, it's not lost on me that nine nine out of your 13. Members are minorities and women. And in my conversations with the mayor, he made it very clear that this is one of the most important issues on his plate. And we absolutely agreed that it is one of the most important issues on ours. I had an opportunity to speak to maybe a couple hundred folks that either were concessionaires wanted to be concessionaires, wanted to grow their concessions. I know my partner, Magic Johnson came and also spoke. I know several of the council people were there. With also groups that wanted to be. Concessionaires. And so we have been very. Active in that role. Magic himself also owns concessions at airports and has built them. As you know, I'm an investment banker and has built businesses. We also are both mwb businesses that both started our businesses from scratch and built them to pretty substantial businesses today. So we understand how is done. We understand the commitment. We also understand that the biggest impact on the city of Denver is going to be growing those businesses here in Denver. It's not our expectation that you will see a lot of mwb come from outside of Denver, although you may see some. It's our expectation that the growth will come from right here, from every forum that we've given. And there have been several. The appetite and the energy around the minority and women owned businesses around this project has been about the highest I've ever seen, and the focus and the commitment from them is here. So I think you'll see an amazing result from from this project and our participation. Mr.. REYNOLDS Thank you. You answered my question. Thank you. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon. Yes. Okay. So don't get too excited because this is the easy part. Thank you, Mr. President. I need to offer a technical amendment to this resolution so I move that Council Resolution 820 to be amended in the following particulars. On page one, line 18 Strike City Clerk's Filing number 201735867. And Replace with City Clerk's Filing number 2017-0375. It has been moved and second it. Tell us what happened. You want explain that. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to correct the clerk's filing number and to fix a typographical error in the development agreement. Okay, great. Other members of council. Can we correct this without going into comments or. Is that right? Um, I have a question about this because I think it was more than just one typographical error. Councilwoman. Well, other folks have questions on this. Okay, let's do. I'm going after them. Councilman Cashman. No question. FLYNN okay. LOPEZ No, not on this. Uh, Councilman Gilmore. President Brooks, I have a comment I need to make. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. All right. I will be abstaining on voting on this due to my. Brother in. Law having an interest in the Great Hall Project. Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you. And thanks for sitting through this public hearing. Okay, let's see. Council. Councilwoman Canete. Councilman Ortega. Okay. So I'd like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind coming up, because it's my understanding it was a result of your review and finding some of the issues that resulted in this change, this amendment. So will you just clarify that it is more than just a typo? There were a handful of typographical errors that were found in our review that were cleaned up as a result of discussions between myself and Dan Laycock. Yes. But. It's my recollection from our discussion that involved a little more than just typographical. I'm going to defer to Mr. Remer, if there was one there change that was made with respect to the last section in the contract regarding the delegation. There were maybe two changes in the amendment that are. More than typographical errors. One has to do with the proper articulation of the nondiscrimination requirement to make sure that it it it accurately captures the the the direction that the city is moving with respect to gender variance and gender expression. So that may or may not, depending upon your point of view, be a typographical error. And the other change that borders on substantive or materiality is a request to simply delete a provision about council's delegation, something that is already covered within the Denver Revised Municipal Code. And it was something that we was put into the development agreement to add clarity and turned out to increase confusion. And so we've struck that provision. I think they could generally be within the realm of typos, but that I understand that's a subject of discussion. But I think that is. I appreciate you explaining that because the last two items clearly explain that it's more than just typographical errors in in wording that is in the contract. So I think it was just important for my colleagues to hear that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman do. Councilman Herndon, I think. Okay, it's been moved. And second, it we're voting on the amendments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon. The freshman carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Did you say no? I like black eye. Clark, I. Espinosa, I. Flynn. I feel more. Than. Mr. President. I police force following announced results. 12 one abstention. All right. 12 eyes, one abstention. The amendment passes. Councilman Espinosa, we need you to make a motion to adopt an amendment amended. Sir. Bill number I. I move that we. Eight 2230 a move the council adopted Resolution 822 as amended. It's been moved and seconded. All right. Now we are commenting on this bill as amended. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And I know what you all are sitting there thinking at almost midnight. That was a great video Councilman Herndon showed at the beginning of this council meeting. You know, so everyone has experience with the airport, but mine is pretty substantial. I represented the airport for four years and I worked at the airport for for two with United Airlines. So I know the airport extensively. I could tell you a bunch of boring facts that would be great at trivia. If you're wondering about the spinning fans as you drive through from the Great Hall to the different terminals, we have 5280. In case you're wondering, because we're 50 to 80 mile high. So I've been at the airport and I think about how good of the how important of the project this is what? Kills organizations is complacency. The belief that you don't need to improve and that you need to continue to find ways to better yourself. And I applaud the airport and the team that we've had over the two decades that the airport has been around, because we have always sought ways to better our airport. And the amazing thing about this is that we have a huge reason why we cannot be complacent when it comes to the Great Hall Project. And that's my first reason why we need support. This is safety and security. And you cannot overstate that the vulnerabilities that we have with our current configuration need to be immediately addressed. And that is the main reason why this should move forward just from a safety and security standpoint. I think of many days that I've walked around that airport and I just stand on level six as a veteran and look around and thinking we have some challenges that need to be addressed. And shortly after getting elected to represent the airport in District 11, sitting down with Kim as she explained her vision for how this needs to move forward, it was very refreshing. So safety and security is, number one, why we need to move forward with this project. Number two is modernization. We have a 1990s configuration and a 2017 and beyond airport. It just doesn't fit. And there's not a lot of minimal things that you can do to fix that. I thought a great slide that came out in committee was when Dan showed the other airports that are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure. Los Angeles, 14 billion. San Francisco, 6 billion. LaGuardia, 8 billion. Billions of dollars in their infrastructure because we need to improve that. The airlines have given back 150,000 feet of ticketing space, 15% that they have given back to the airport because they don't need anymore. You see that when you are walking on level six, all of this empty ticketing space. What are we going to do with that? We have to modernize. Kansas City, where I'm from, is having a conversation right now about creating a one main terminal. And I remember being in Kansas City. I was either reading about us talking about on TV. They were talking about the pros and cons and the con was not to do it. They said, We don't want to be Denver because you have this idea when you come out to level six and you look down and this is my third reason why this is important for efficiency and improvement, because when we take TSA and move them up to level six, we're not using the same technology that we're going to have right now. We're using state of the art. We will be the first airport to use this technology in this country. As Kim was talking about working with the TSA to make sure that this works. Had the pleasure of traveling overseas to Europe to see how modern it is, how efficient it is, the throughput we will move people through quicker. So from an improvement and efficiency standpoint, that's why this is so important. Airports create experiences. It's more than just people getting on a plane and traveling. We are competing globally with airports. The Houston's the LA's. They're not our competitors. We are going against Munich. We are going against Incheon. We are going because those international airports, because that's who we want to be. The world class airport. If you think about Skytrax and if you're not familiar with Skytrax, that is the standard when it comes to airlines and airports, when it comes to ratings. If you think about the top ten airports in the world, none of them are in the United States of America. If you think about five star airports and none of them are in the United States or in this country. But when Skytrax did the 2017 top airports, one I want to congratulate then because they were fourth when it came to regional airports. But number nine of the best airports in the world was London Heathrow. Guess who runs a terminal at London Heathrow? Ferrovial. If you want to be the best, you hire the best privately. Now, let me quickly talk about some of the reasons, if you will. This is a great deal. But if you're striving for perfect, we're not going to get there. Do not let perfect be the enemy of great. And if you look sure, there are things you can find wrong with this. Why is it 30 years? I think he's like, I have a great answer for why, for that time period, this council in 2012 approved a ten year contract for L.A. and also threw down 2012. This council will not weigh in on that. The next council is not going to weigh in on that. So we have already made decisions that future councils aren't going to be invested in. We don't choose every retail right now. Provenzano The seven year contract. 40 kiosks right now in our airport. This council has never weighed in on it. So the implication that we always make decisions is not accurate. But if we are going to give away that ability, we have hired a partner who knows how to run and manage airports, and their experience is a testament to that. And the last point I will say is this. The concessions. Why would we ask a ferrovial to do what we don't ask of A, B and C concourse? If you enter with all due respect to the unite here, what they are asked are they are trying to do is change policy. That is our job. Sit down with council members and push for a new policy with concessions that does that. Let's have that conversation. But to make Ferrovial do that and actually not ferrovial future concessionaires, because as they said, we're not going to run them, but we're going to hire companies to do that. Why would they do that? Why would we create that double standard where it's one standard on the main car, on the Great Hall and not on A, B and C. But that's a good conversation to have. We have had it. Previous councils have talked to us about it because I remember those conversations and briefings from David Rodwell. So that's why to me that doesn't make sense. Yes. Sit down and have a conversation with them. And I appreciate you doing that. But if you reach a fundamental disagreement. I'm not sure how you go forward with that. But I appreciate you having those meetings and explaining why this is why you're choosing not to do that. So thank you, Mr. President. I'm a huge supporter of this. I would urge my colleagues to do so for the reasons that I noted. And I look forward to voting, hopefully before 1:00. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. We all hope to do that. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. And I only wish I could be as in as energetic as Councilman Herndon just was, but I'm a little more tired than he is. Last week I met here in this room with students from our sister city in France, the city of Brest, which is a very old city in northwest France on the Atlantic Ocean. And we talked about the similarities and differences between Denver and Brest brass. Entire history has been formed by the fact that it's on the Atlantic Ocean. It's a port. It's a naval city. And we talked about what it means to be a landlocked city like Denver in the center of a continent. And how does Denver connect to the world? So a century ago, it was railroads and later interstate highways connected us. But it was our visionary mayor, Federico Pena, who asked Denver eight to imagine a great city by investing in our city and in a new airport. I'm a Denver native and I grew up in southeast Denver near Monaco. So for a lot of my life, when we went to the airport, we left, I don't know, an hour before our plane left, drove down Monaco, jumped out of the car, random airplane. I thought it was great. I didn't understand why we needed a new airport. But it didn't take long for me or the critics to see that Mayor Pena was right. Our new world class airport put Denver on the map and it connected us to the world. It invigorated our economy. And according to an article in the Kansas City Star, DIA is the linchpin of Colorado's tradition to a global 21st century economy flush with high paying jobs. The airport is our port. After 22 years, Denver remains a world class airport, but the world is changing. It is much more connected. Airports are different today. Just as Councilman Herman Herndon pointed out, retail is changing and airports are more than just places that you pass through. They're becoming places that you want to be with movies, bowling, beer, gardens, and so much more. Investment in infrastructure pays off, and it's important to maintain and update our airport to keep it fresh so that airlines and passengers want to fly to and through Denver. Like Mayor Pena, our airport leadership is visionary and is anticipating the future and planning for increased security and for 80 million passengers just to go over what we've been going over for 3 hours. First and foremost, security is the driving force of this project. But there's really two parts of it. And I have explained this in phone calls and emails to constituents who have contacted me, but there is the remodeling of the terminal, and I explain it as a 66, $650 million gutting of your house . You're redoing your bathrooms, your floors, your walls, your stairs, your elevators. You're redoing it all. And most importantly, we're moving and redesigning security to increase. Safety. As we've already said, Great Hall Partners will manage the entire project and guarantee the $650 million price tag and a completion date. The risk is theirs, not ours. The local construction company, Saunders, who will hire local subcontractors, will build the project. They are honoring prevailing wage, minority and women owned business contractors. Trade unions are in support. We talked about the professional development opportunities, which I think are really terrific and also any future changes, as Councilman Herndon pointed out, to any policies that we might make about minimum wage or any labor agreements would apply to this contract. In addition to this. The airport is also doing other capital improvement projects. And when Councilman Herndon just listed how much all the other airports are investing, we're investing more than the 1.8 billion. I think it's three and a half billion because we're we're adding 26 new gates. We're widening Pena Boulevard, major runway maintenance, name maintenance, redesigning baggage systems. Lastly, the other part of the contract is for the Great Hall Partners to manage and maintain the concessions. We've we've already talked about it. They're motivated to to succeed. They only make money if it succeeds. So what's best for them is also best for us. Lastly, I know you all have met with us so many times and have answered so many questions and I have a lot of confidence in you. I also know you have relied on the top experts in the world and the country. You hired the top three law firm in the country to develop the contract you're working with to, say, the airline's top engineers and designers. I have confidence in our design team to do what's best for our airport and for Denver, and I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. And I was right. I was telling people yesterday we would not be voting on this Monday night. We're not going to be. This. This has been a fascinating process of trying to come to yes or come to no on this contract. I've spoken to people I have great respect for who think this is a terrible idea. And I've spoken to people I have great respect for who think this is a spectacular idea and that complicates things. I've spoken to experts on legal matters, financial matters, labor issues, business practices, both on city staff and outside of city staff. And I'm pleased to say, you know, my my friend, Councilman Herndon and I often find ourselves on different sides of issues. But what I agree with him wholeheartedly is and have from from the first time I heard about this is this project needs to get done. As has been talked about, our security process has for flaws as far as crowd safety and control. Our screening process compared to other airports we've seen is antiquated. At this point, we can get people through the TSA lines more quickly and with so much less stress. With with new with new technology. And to use the the entire floor of the Great Hall for a travel related cattle call is is offensive at one level. I mean this is a world class beauty. You know, the are the jets and terminal is just stunning. And we it should be a place where people can relax, wander, shop if they care to have a drink while waiting for someone to come in off a plane. The interior of the Great Hall should at least begin to approach the elegance of the roof above it. So as I said, I'm clear the project needs to get done, but the project is only part of the equation. The big thing is the deal and trying to understand if this is or is not a good deal. I mean, first of all, what kind of lunatic would sign a 30 year contract? Right. Many of us, many of us buy our homes on on 30 year mortgages. And over the course of that mortgage, you know, I'm still I think I have about eight years left to pay on my home. The past couple of months, I bought a new dishwasher. I'm paying off my mortgage. I bought, you know, a new a new refrigerator. And I'm going to paint my house. And in the course of the 30 years that this contract runs, God knows what's going to happen to that airport. I mean, we may be building an entire other terminal within 30 years. It's almost assured we're going to build at least one more runway and things are going to break and need to be repaired while we're doing this. So that concept is not all that far from. The good thing that I've come to to believe about this contract is as opposed to my mortgage, there's a lot more protections built in for the airport in this contract than I have in my mortgage. If the economy goes south, I could be in a big time jam. If I get sick, I could be in a big time jam. I doubt any of the staff sitting here today is going to be here working at DIA in 34 years. But there are protections for the airport during construction. If something goes awry there, there are protections for the airport. If three years into it, Ferrovial decides they've got another project and they want to head south. So I think that is awfully important. The taxpayers. This is important to me as I look at this contract is DIA and I excuse me for a day and then I'm still back in the old school days of DIA. The airport is an enterprise, and this project, if something happens that we can envision and it becomes a big problem, that does not roll back on Denver taxpayers. And right now that's important for me because this for me is a test case for P3. And I know we've had others, but this is this is a whole different level and. You know, I look at the fact that and I appreciate ferrovial expressing a willingness to reopen contact with our friends at Unite here . But, you know, I don't know you guys. And if this were a contract where Ferrovial was going to have control over 40% of the concessions or 60% of the concessions, I don't think I'd be considering this contract. This this is, as I understand, this Ferrovial will be looking at around 15 to 20% of the concessions. Okay. We we've got full ownership over the airport. We've got full ownership over the Great Hall. We're trying this out to see how this goes. I remain I have concerns over. Giving up that oversight. While I fully agree with Councilman Herndon's interpretation of exactly how much oversight we have currently, but it is a give. We're all learning about P3 and what that means, and I've said it before, but I feel it's important. I mean, I see this as a major alteration to the way we do government. You know, we we've added to the judiciary and the executive and legislative, and we're bringing private business into an area making decisions that previously have been legislative. And we're going to have to see how that goes. So. You know, I came in here tonight leaning towards. Yes. And that whole discussion of the labor issues. Your answer, sir, was really important to me. And I appreciate that. As I said, the project needs to get done. I feel we have enough assurances that it's financially sound, that the airport's protected and the taxpayers are protected. So. I'm leaning towards? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Okay, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate Councilman Herndon's recounting as he represents the area where the airport is. He's naturally very familiar with it. I could probably tell him where the where the aliens are hiding out, though. Councilwoman Ortega and I probably recall the groundbreaking back in 89 and going out there almost every day. When there was nothing but a Grange Hall at some lonely country crossroads. And this this last major airport to be built in the United States. Since then, no other airport has been built new from the ground up. And it's become, what is it, a $26 billion economic generator annually for the state of Colorado. And I remember those first years. I remember those some boneheaded decisions. The toll gates. Everybody remembers the toll gates. Everybody coming into the airport had to pull a ticket even if you didn't have to pay on the way out. It took about an hour to get out. I remember I remember asking the mayor why you were putting a fountain in the middle of the terminal overtop of a 25,000 volt electrical train system, and they ended up putting a stainless steel drip pan under it so that it wouldn't short out the train. But by and large, it turned out to be. You remember that, right? By and large, it turned out to be a very good decision. And and I think it proved it refuted most of the criticism. It didn't go financially belly up after 18 months. You know, we've had some issues with the soils. We've replaced a lot of concrete, but it is 22 actually the concrete's, about 25, 26 years old when that went in. And Councilman Ortega probably remembers going out there in the first years and enjoying the gypsum terminal as this wonderful place to go and sit and wait for your wait for your party to arrive. And and then one one day in September of 2001, some al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four jet airliners and changed our world. We designed an airport for the days before 911. And suddenly that airport had to adjust and we couldn't use the jets and terminal for the way it was meant to be used anymore. It became, as Councilman Cashman so aptly put, a cattle call. When I look when I look in there and I don't remember the days where we used to be able to go out and enjoy that space, it's just amazing that we're we're cramming this function into a space that was never designed for it. So for the folks who think that we're changing the Great Hall and we're messing with the airport. The Jeppeson terminal already was messed with. It was messed with on September 11. And I see this project as us reclaiming the Great Hall and making it better than even than it was in those first days. 911 changed where the hotel went. You know, I wasn't real happy when the whole I actually ran into Kurt Fentress last night and I knew who the architect for the airport. And I'm not real happy that the hotel went there, but where we were going to put it initially, 911 said, we can't do that anymore. So we had to adjust to make changes. So I believe what we're doing today is taking the Great Hall back to what it was supposed to be when it opened in 1995. Long term contracts, as Councilman Cashman mentioned, the 30 year mortgage. The same thing applies to the $1.8 billion cost because that's not $1.8 billion today. That's over the 34 years, just like my home mortgage. In addition to paying the mortgage for 30 years, I'm also paying the heat, the light, the gas. I'm fixing the roof. I'm changing out the kitchen over time. This that 1.8 billion includes 38 years. When you go out, the other three, the one on which I worked after the newspaper closed and I worked at RTD, the Eagle three project, the train to the airport, the 34 year cost of that concession agreement is significantly more than this $1.8 billion paying for 30 years of operations and maintenance, running electric trains in and out of the airport, and then Arvada and Westminster. So it does not scare me that this is 30 years. It has to be 30 years. There's a reason mortgages are 30 years in. Car payments are well, they used to be three. I don't know what they are now. Seven year car loans. There's a reason for that is because you need to earn back the investment. We have made long term deals before. Bill McNichols, when he was mayor, made a 99 year deal with the Winter Park Rec Association. Are we still in that agreement? No, we're not. We've renegotiated that, I think, twice now. The Denver Broncos are no longer playing in Mile High Stadium. But guess what? The lease that they signed in when they added the skyboxes was supposed to expire next year. That stadium hasn't been there in 15 years. Walter Eisenberg stole some of my script earlier today when I was going to point out that the Union Station Alliance has a 99 year lease on on Union Station with an extension. In 1990, we entered into an agreement with the National West, with the Western Stock Show Association for the Stock Show to keep it in keep it in Denver for 50 years. And right now, we're renegotiating all that as as we speak. We've renegotiated the Winter Park deal in 2002 with interest, and that's now a 50 year lease. So the long term nature of this contract is is just an essential part of it. It's not something that should scare us off. If you were troubled, if you're out there watching or if you're sitting here in the chamber, if you are troubled by some of the cost issues, the cost increases on the hotel and a transit center project that we did. You should like this deal because now we're turning that all over to Ferrovial for a guaranteed maximum price, and they are responsible for any of those cost increases unless we add some scope out of that contingency. You should like that because hopefully you won't see those kind of headlines from our management of this project as we deal with the inevitable changes. When Ferrovial takes down a wall and finds something that. Is that their risk? That's their issue to fix. The biggest concern that I had going into this was that this takes away the city council's authority to approve or disapprove concession contracts for the 30 years of operations and maintenance. And as I sat down, I read through the concession agreement and found it is a living document that the the pyramid that the Ferrovial and the airport will sit down every two years and say, where are the trends going? How can we changes? How can we maximize the return on this project that makes more sense than what we're doing now because we lock in our concessions for much longer than that. And they're all staggered. This is a much more coordinated approach to doing to redoing that great hall and managing it in a more holistic way. It makes makes much more sense. Great hall partners can have much more flexibility and be much more nimble in responding to market changes than we could be even out on the concourses. And then I realized that for as long as I've been here covering airport concessions here on the council or at the newspaper. We have never turned down a concession contract at the airport brought to us. Not that that's a reason to turn it over to you. But the only two contracts concessions I can recall being pulled were two concessions in 1993 that that I and my partner, the Rocky Mountain News, wrote about some some kind of issues that had that existed with the proposals. And I see you laughing again. And Mayor Webb pulled them. Those are the only two concession agreements I've ever seen not go through and had nothing to do with the council. So turning this over to Ferrovial for that 30 year old M period, along with the parameters and the safety that we have in the concession development and management program. I have a lot of confidence that that this will be a very good and beneficial project for the city. And so, Mr. President, I'll be happy to support this. And I'd ask my my colleagues who are still on the fence to consider all the all that I've just said and vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flint. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Council President Brooks. I had to struggle with this decision and have made my myself clear to the folks in the airport community. The advocates. For me, having a say is a big deal. Not because. Because of a power dynamic. Because it's public. Because this is a public airport. It was our time as a public that built this airport. And it is our oversight over the years that built the airport, the public. At this council and one previous but us. And that that's that's who we are. You know, I did get an opportunity to see some of the other airports. And I was impressed by so. But their private. And we cannot compare apples and oranges when it comes to private and public facilities. I want to make something very clear before we start and before I make some additional points. Being that we are a public airport. However this shakes out. We are the public. This council represents Denver. That's the interest that we have at this table. And it's nothing to laugh at. It's nothing to sneer at. It's nothing to be taken lightly. This is something that is sacred to us and our say. In these matters are absolutely sacred. And that's something that you can't take lightly. And not only affirming that we are public, but we are also watching. A Labor violation, we will know about it. Discrimination either as a concessionaire. In a contract, an unfair process and unfair labor practice. We're watching. And we have the authority to act and we will maintain the authority to act. And that's something that we will always have. That is the difference between a private entity and a public. And let's not get that confused. Right. This is a contract. But we don't give up our ability to make policies that govern the our our our asset as a public. So I want to make that absolutely clear. And knowing that, have a little bit more assurance. Of our role. Now, 34 years is absolutely a long time. My baby girl will be 44. Right. But what are we getting for those 44 years? You know, I know some houses that I wouldn't. But I would detest. Having to pay for for 34 for 30 years on a loan like that. There are some bad deals that we can get locked into just because, you know, there are other deals out there with the same amount of time doesn't mean that we can. My other issues labor. And it's dear to me because I've organized workers at this airport in my previous life. I know what it is like. I've seen it. But I also know what it is like when somebody is respected on the job. You've had a lot of different fights. And every single one of them, they've been settled. Why? Because it's public. We don't have the. The the. If you would call it. Right. We don't we don't have the the luxury. I wouldn't call it a luxury. They just ignore it. Right as as some practices are in the private sector, I will just ignore them, let them scream their lungs out. We'll have security deal with them. Absolutely not. This is a public airport. And in this public airport, the dishwasher is going to get the same amount of respect as the ironworker, as the greeter. A job is a job in the eyes of the airport and in the eyes of the public. And it is with the exact same dignity that we treat those jobs. So although I very much applaud the what's written in the contracts, the prevailing wage, you know, the incentives, the benefits, the apprenticeship opportunities that's given to one part of labor. I would expect that to extend over to the folks that are making a third of the way. Your dishwasher's. Your cooks. Your preps. The cashiers. We brag all the time about how our airport is beautiful and sparkling clean. Well, it doesn't happen automatically. It doesn't happen with elves at night. These are real people. My father was one of those real people in downtown. Let me tell you a little story. Every time my dad and his company as a janitor making minimum wage. Would be outbid at a building. They'd have to leave. He'd have to find another job. And with that, we'd have to find another house. I look at George because he wrote about this one time when he was a reporter. There's no secret. That I bounced around from one place to the other to the point where it was actually an issue when I was running for office, because they couldn't determine exactly where the hell I lived. That is because my father had to change houses every single time to the point where we actually moved in a home where I didn't fit anymore. And with that was a new level of poverty. To the point where I was out by 17. That's what happens when you don't have retention. That's what happens after ten years of or a few years of working. And then all of a sudden you're let go and you've got to start anew again. Making minimum wage. These aren't just issues of ideology. These are real lives that we're talking about. And in 34 years, that's a few generations. And are we going to sign a contract that's going to be 34 years of poverty or 30 years of 34 years of prosperity for people who are working at the airport. Right. These are the maintainers of our airport. When it comes to the concessionaires. I want to make sure and I've made this clear. That if you're a CDB. You or a small business person in Denver. Whether you sell burritos or hamburgers or yoga or whatever, you have that idea. When somebody asked me, Hey, how can I get into the airport? How can I work at the airport? Oh, my God, that seems like a killer opportunity. I said, Well, first you got to win the lottery. You have a better shot at winning the lottery than working at the airport. I'm sorry. As a concessionaire that needs to change. And this this program needs to be. Impartial. Right. When I go to different airports, I don't want to go to the same old stores at every airport in every city. I want to see I want to taste that city if I'm if I am there just on a layover. I want to experience Denver. Right. That's what it's about. I. I wasn't. No. I want to make sure. Ferrovial. You were on record. People here testified on record. When it comes to somebody wanting to organize. I don't believe in exclusivity, but I believe in Fox's opportunity and the right to form a union. I don't care if it's at an airport. I don't care if it's at a farm field. I don't care if it's in one of our buildings in this very building as well. That needs to be maintained. That needs to be defended. And again, in the public sector, there are other practices. But here, that's not our practice here. That's a value of our city. Right. And you're seeing this over and over again. And I've been part of different councils to see how this has grown. It is essential. That freedom, that opportunity. Right. And. With that. And we have our job to do as council now, as council members announced to be that check and balance. Now, last thing I will end with. We will have a retention ordinance. If you cannot create that policy. Which was told to us in committee. We will. And as a matter of fact, we have begun. And so that is something that is that is essential to us. I don't want to wait till you have to do it. I want to see the steps being taken before we have to make it policy. And that goes. Also, it surprised me that the prevailing wage that we offer for some folks in the building aren't extended to the least among us. The least paid. Right. There's a lot of people that look like me. I want to make sure that they have that that. That opportunity as well, too. We can we shouldn't pick and choose what jobs deserve, prevailing wage and what don't. So I think that's something that I really, really want to look into at the end of the day. I am leaning towards a yes. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Candace, let me just say this real quick. The air is off in here and we're working on getting it on for you. Incredible people. Okay. One thing. I noticed that as I took my sweater off and it's a very strategic move, Charlie, to get things get things. Going. Turns off it at midnight. I've got zero steps up here for the this state in August. So thank you to all those who testified. Thank you to the contractor and the team and to to the good good questions from my colleagues there, I think, are three things that we're obligated to explore here. One, is this the right project? Two, is this the right contract? Three, is this the right partner? And I think that from the questions we had, you may not think that we're concerned about some of the financial components. That because for me personally, I didn't ask a lot of questions about that. And that is because I spent about 6 hours of time, both with various members of the team and talking to other folks and experts looking at that. And what I found was really encouraging. Councilman Lopez described the checks and balances, and I start with a fair bit of skepticism about P threes because they throw off the balance of the public sector transparency, accountability, ability to control and evolve. And so I start with skepticism about that loss of balance in that check in the system. But here are some of the features that that I think are important to note. We retain ownership, right? We're not turning over the asset. We get approval over a number of components, the concession plans and other things. That is not a feature in all of these agreements to be able to have approval rights over some of these personnel and especially over policies. Our key policies do apply, be them contracting policies or the auditor's ability to audit worker policies. I shared a lot of concerns in committee and probably spent a lot of time asking questions about the compensation event. One of my top concerns with privatization of public assets is the fact that if we have to change our approach, then I it appalls me that we have to pay a contractor for things that we have to do to protect the public interest, safety, whatever it is. So I spent a lot of time and even as late in the day as I forget what it was. 420 today learned that the compensation events do not require us to pay this contractor if there are changes in policy that apply to the entire airport and aren't just focused on them in terms and it took six definitions sorted out at the exact same time to get there. So in my defense, that's why I didn't get it till 420 today. But but because it looks like we'd have to pay for those things. But when you sort through the definitions, we can change the policies we need to. To Councilman Herndon's point, there is responsibility on the part of this council to take responsibility for policy, not just on worker issues, but it might be on other issues, safety, for example, in the future. But we will not have to pay for those changes. That is a key. I could not vote for this contract if that were the opposite. And we are going to have public auditor access, which means beyond my expertize during the years of this contract, if something's going awry, there's an. Expert team that can have. Access. So that is a fair bit of protection, control, influence and standards for a deal like this. So I appreciated Councilman Herndon's comment that no no deal is perfect. The part of this deal that is concerning is the lack of a final design on the airport pieces or the airline pieces. That's a concern. If there were support in this council to delay this contract to get that resolved, that would be the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do would be finish your design, enter into your contract. This is not a best practice to be knowing that you're looking at changes when you sign a contract. It's just not. Having listened to the comments tonight and watched the vote in committee, I don't think there's the votes for that delay. So this contract isn't perfect, but but I am weighing that risk right about that piece. The design. Is this the right project? So we talked about the deal and it's a it's a better deal than many public private partnerships. Is this the right project? I share the analysis of my colleagues about the need for the redesign of security. I spent, what, 36 minutes waiting for it for a6am flight to get through security? That's not an acceptable wait time, I don't think. And I think that I was not a fan of the walk through retail. I will share the key factor that got me there because I and I heard from constituents on this, I probably heard from more constituents on that fact than any other aspect of this deal. Right. And there are wide walkways and we actually have a written standard about how wide the walkway has to be. So people actually aren't trapped in a sense that they can't get through with their bag. They are trapped in a in a narrow mall place that they can't get out of. It's not like an IKEA. Right. And so I don't love that piece of the design, but I am satisfied that we have a standard so that people who are in a hurry can get through quickly. And so I'm there on that piece of the design. Obviously, the airline piece applies to this project as well, so then we get to the point of the partner. So I was surprised how far I was able to come on this contract. Coming into this meeting today. But I was stuck on is this the right partner? And, you know, again, I just want to clarify for members of the public who may not be aware, why is the council asking all these questions about workers and labor? There's values involved, as Councilman Lopez said, but there's actually an economic interest. The airport is a revenue generating economic enterprise for the city and county of Denver. We have a labor dispute going on. That labor dispute has resulted in bad media. It has resulted in protests and, you know, other actions at the airport that are, frankly, a turnoff to the traveling public and they represent an economic threat to our asset. Right. A major I mean, in fact, labor disruptions are such a risk. They're named in this contract as an economic risk. So we have this financial interest in the airport and disputes, lawsuits, things like that are a risk to us. And I believe that risk needs to be managed. We are neutral on what the outcome of these conversations are, right? That's for the parties to figure out. But the fact that it's my expectation that public entities sit down and talk and they sit down and listen. That's the kind of partner we need to be doing business with. And I you know, it's rare to see a conversation move in this chambers the way that this one did tonight. But but I think that is is really for me, the important part is that I got to know because we I mean, I meant what I said. There will be people mad at this contractor. There will be there will be legal threats. There will be disputes. And I need to know that no matter who those parties are, if they are minority contractors, if they are my active contractors, concessionaires, that this partner will do what our airport would have done, which is to meet , talk, listen and not a not not shut the door. And so so that's the part I was stuck on and I heard move movement on that tonight. So. So I am ready to support this agreement. It's not perfect, but it is strong. And the agreement, you know, the project is strong. And I got to get to know this partner better. Councilman Cashman, I hate following you because you cover everything, but I too, you know, need to get to know you better and know that this commitment isn't a fleeting in the chambers kind of moment, but that it's really who you are and that you are going to stick through hard conversations. So. So, you know, I'm taking that leap of faith, but and I expect the folks you meet with to do that in good faith and to call a cease fire on, you know, negative press and other things and have a quiet, private conversation. So I expect that of them to. Okay. With that, I'm ready to say yes. Thank you. All right, Councilwoman, can each thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry that we're spending all this time doing what most folks would observe as committee work on the floor. I appreciate the time that we are taking because we actually only had 30 minutes of discussion when this came to our committee, and it only came to committee one time for us to actually see the. Tales of this steel. So the fact that we're having that we have this many questions and we're having this much discussion is a result of of feeling like this was a rushed process. We did extend this contract one time at the request of the contractor because there were some things that were identified that resulted in, you know, having to make some additional changes to the design. And we could have done the same thing by this council asking for an extension to allow us to get all of our questions answered. I think the fact that we had an extra one week delay because the public hearing was postponed until tonight, gave some of us a little bit more time to get our questions answered. I do appreciate the time that airport staff has spent with me and and others within the city to get my over 70 questions answered. I tried to do my best to plow through the contract. There were several of us who. We're really feeling under the gun. So we actually hired an attorney or we consulted with an attorney who had followed up with our city attorney's office until we were told that we had no jurisdiction to. We didn't have the authority to do that. But that's how how. I guess uncomfortable some of us were in trying to really understand the details of this legal document, this legal contract. And it was very much written in legal terms. You know, you read one page and it refers you to several different sections. And unless you had a hard copy in front of you, it's hard to do that. Or you have to have multiple screens to be able to jump back and forth to the different sections to really completely understand what we were obligating the city to . I have no doubt that Ferrovial brings the expertize to the table. Having seen the work that they do at the Heathrow Airport, and I appreciate the fact that DIA took several of us to see the security systems in both Heathrow and Schiphol Airport to understand what we were looking at as part of the new technology for this airport. I think that will be. An incredible. Improvement in addition to to our airport that will, to a large degree, help with some of the throughput concerns that were expressed by our airline folks. But I think we're still sort of at the mercy of TSA to have adequate staffing to ensure that we can move and process people quick enough to ensure that we don't have the backup and the co-mingling of traffic on level six. Everyone that I've talked to that's had any direct involvement with P3 deals has been very clear, and we've read this in many of the articles that it is more expensive to finance these deals privately than it is to use our public financing tools to do them. I understand why DIA is looking at this because of the other improvements that we're looking at that will add more debt to to this important asset. I am the sole member on this dais who was actually here when we built the airport. I serve on this council with a team of colleagues who believe that this. Airport was going to be the economic engine that it truly has become and will continue to be for for a very long time. And I don't think there's anyone here that's more committed than I am having, you know, had that history and involvement. And, you know, I take the time to go out to the airport and to meet and talk with some of the concessionaires and to to better understand what some of the issues are from from their perspective, as we have, you know, those contracts that move through our process. Councilman Herndon mentioned that. You know, we shouldn't have complacency. And I don't think anyone here who is raising questions about this particular long term deal is is saying that we're settling for mediocrity or that we're not committed to some of the changes that I think are important that need to be made. And, you know, over time, we've seen many changes to this airport and will continue to do so. As we expand, we build the seventh runway, we add the extra gates to keep growing as this airport has. So I don't you know, and when you look at the fact that we have had some ten year contracts, those are basically for those concessions that are doing restaurants because of the capital investment that they have to make and looking at the opportunity to recoup some of that investment over over time. Some of the key elements of my concerns have. We're raised around transparency and the process. Councilman Herndon and I did sit on a committee. This was completely different than a negotiating committee that Kathy Reynolds and I sat on where we were basically closing down McNichols Sports Arena and working with cranky sports to open the Pepsi Center. We were actually members of that negotiating committee. We were thoroughly familiar with the details of the deal. We were keeping our colleagues, you know, informed of the changes as they were moving through the process so that we didn't get so far out, that we had to take, you know, ten steps backwards to bring everybody along. This process was informing us of some of the timing changes that were that were happening, but we were never involved in any of the details of the deal as it was moving through the process. I think that might have been extremely helpful to, you know, better understanding this. Obviously, taking the trips, looking at the the technology we were looking at was extremely helpful in understanding the the technology that that we wanted to install at our airport. That, again, I think, will will move traffic quicker. But. The fact that we're only at 30% design, we still have not addressed the airline concerns thoroughly. I'm concerned that we will begin to eat into our $120 million contingency fund. We don't know what that is going to look like until those discussions and those issues get resolved. But the fact that we're. Moving this forward with that completely unresolved is is very concerning to me. The fact that we had a 15,000 page contract that we basically had a week to review before it came to committee. That was part of why some of us looked at, you know, trying to get some additional assistance to help us figure out, you know, what this this obligation meant. I appreciate the fact that there are provisions in the contract that provide greater protections for the city of Denver and for for the airport as. This project moves through its various phases. But I, I don't have that comfort level that some of my colleagues do in terms of. Where where this deal is at. And I appreciate the work that everybody has put into it. I guess the last couple of things I want to say is that. When you look at the fact that we've got additional expense that we're going to incur at this airport, we are extending a lot of debt on this project and would. You know, and again, it's part of evolving and the airport wanting to. Be able to be that magnet for the region and be able to bring in more more airline traffic. Both. You know, domestically as well as internationally. But. I want to see that our concessionaires. So so one of the issues that we talked about earlier is the fact that we will allow a concessionaire who may already be at that concentration of ownership in our terminals will in our concourses will be allowed to bid. And I would love. I think it's important that people who have concessions on A, B and C can bid to be operators on the main terminal. But at the same time, if you already have a concentration of ownership, you know, I think that gets to a place where maybe we're looking at more of a monopoly for some of our concessionaires. And I don't think that's fair as we want to bring in more of our local businesses to participate in this airport. So I you know, I could probably go on and on with some of my concerns. I've been very vocal in this process during. You know, during committee in when this came to us last week about some of those issues. But I am just not there taking counsel out of having any review. And in really it's future mayors and city councils from being able to look at the concessions that will be selected. And I just want to say, having having met the folks that are part of the Ferrovial team, I think you all are nice people. I appreciate having had the opportunity to to meet with you, to ask questions. But. That that doesn't have anything to do with where I've landed on this. And so I just am not going to be supporting this tonight. And again, thank you, everyone, who has taken the time to be here until this late hour. But. I will not be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Nu. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we've had very little discussion about the safety improvements. There's no question we're all comfortable that it's going to be a much safer environment for all our passengers and residents. So I think we're all very clear about that. The also, we've had very little discussion about the quality of four wheels merchandizing. I think it's going to be a higher level of quality operation there. And so to me, a safer environment and a greater customer satisfaction to me is going to lead to greater profits in that and this whole deal. So I think it'll be a better experience for all customers. It will lead to greater profitability. And to me that profitability is the future of our airport. We need those resources to help develop our airport and accommodate our growth and expansion. So I'm just pleased with the deal and are pleased that we're going to manage it because most important to me and to our citizens is this whole review and evaluation system and this process we're putting in place. I'm very pleased with Gisela and her financial staff. I trust them. They're going to be very good to help monitor this. Our CFO, Brendan Hanlon, is a great guy and he's so sharp he's going to be involved and our city auditors, unbelievable. He's going to be ordered in. Right, left. Paul, for Kim I to stay up late at night worrying about what he's going to look at. And most important to me is, is we're going to include the city council in this review process, give quarterly reports, answer our questions, everybody monitoring issues. So I'm very comfortable with this whole arrangement. And and I think it's going to be the Air Force, just such an asset for our city. And I think this investment in infrastructure is just going to bring us up to a higher level of quality and recognition of the city, which we deserve. So I'll be glad to support us tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa with 3 minutes before one, you know. Sorry, Chris. Councilman Herndon. I'm going to eat up here. Your goal. First, I want to thank Dan, Kim, Stu. Aaron, George Keesler, everybody. You know, if you've anybody has seen me in meetings. No, sort of. I'm I'm fairly abrasive at times. And that was no different here. But I appreciate you sort of entertaining me time and again, both here. At my own home and out it. Out at the airport to sort of scrutinize the design. You know, like, you know, I've. Lamented not having a similar sort of time with the contract, not that you guys haven't been available. But it's just that and my district has a. Lot of things going on with it and a lot of irons in the fire, no different than anybody else, but I really still wish. I had more. Time. That said, I don't think it would change anything because. I want to also. Extend some appreciation to the Ferrovial team. Talking with you guys on the three occasions that we did sort of more in detail dialog. I felt like I always got. You know. You know, very, very. Quick, capable answers from very professional people that understood what exactly what it was that they were trying to deliver. And and so I just want to before I go further in my comments, just to express my complete and utter appreciation for the the involvement in this very intense time period. And you're willing your willingness to sort of accommodate us in the capacity that you did. But for me, private money isn't cheaper than bonding with our stellar credit rating. I know that we can pay the $9 Million termination fee, then design and deliver this project without a P3 arrangement. That position is actually a consequence of your work. Denver Airport near the victims of your own success. This is not the first time I said that you put it best when you said regarding capital projects, quote, Dyn is extremely well positioned due to its size, thoughtful planning and financial stability. You guys Denver Airport achieve that without any P3 arrangements. Today, Dan is ranked by industry publication, their World Airport Awards ninth. Best airport serving greater than 50 million passengers. Third best airport staff in North America. Second best domestic airport. Second best airport in North America. Third best regional airport in the world. And first best regional airport in North America. Those are titles, you know, that you guys achieved today without any three arrangements. And so congratulations and kudos. We really appreciate that because it is the economic engine that it is and vital to this area. I agree with the landside concept completely. You know, the physical design of this in approach and solution is, is, is, is. Is. Is, is. Stellar high, but its success is vulnerable to TSA performance, and that is an unfortunate reality. The contract is not an issue from a technical standpoint as it is very, very good. I mean, I have no issue with the documents that I have reviewed. And the whole thing as as stated and presented here today is very, very, very doable, exactly as promised in the timelines and the terms. And there is a clear availability for the airport to avoid a boondoggle or to address any impediment. So I don't fear going forward with this. But given the strength and given the strength of Din, if I was the seventh vote, I would be hard pressed not to support you guys in this request. But admittedly, I have the luxury of being able to vote my conscience on this one. And because not every loop is closed. Labor Airlines. TSA design and the transfer transfer of risk means an expensive delivery method. This approach is not about to me. This approach is not about saving money. It is simply providing predictability at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars. Now I get why you would want to do it this way, but I still don't see any need. Cutting out council is to me authority like. And it puts distance between people and their assets. And that is not what my constituents are asking for. I'm glad that the analogy of the House was brought up, but to me it's more like giving a contractor with worse credit than you a bedroom in your house to operate an Airbnb for 30 years and to all to help pay for the kitchen remodel you really need. That is to me in a nutshell, what this arrangement is and unnecessary. So again, everything I've said it for that I'll, I'll be voting no. But it's not, it's, it's not lightly. And so I do. I don't fear going. Forward if council chooses to move in that direction. Thank you. Thank you. Guzman. Espinosa. Guzman. Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Kennedy said about five people ago how hard it was to go because people have covered everything that you had to say. And I think people up here have covered a lot and it's late. And so I just wanted to say thank you to the air. I guess it's technically early. I really want to say thank you to our airport team. It is it was not an easy process to get this put together. It was not an easy process to get to here. And it certainly was not an easy process to get the 13 of us with our unique personalities and unique needs and how we needed to dove into this all of the information that we need to be able to vote on this tonight. I remember one day after having a bit of a mini meltdown on how many trees were being killed with the pages of print documents that were being brought to me. And I had a little mini meltdown on air and back there. And then I ran into him in the hall the next day with just boxes. Full of binders. And I my eyes got this big and then his eyes got this big and he said, There are other people who asked for this. There's not one here for you. And it just put into clear perspective just how hard a job you have and in getting us what we need. And you did a spectacular job of of that and making yourselves available at the Duffy role in the spare room here. And so I just wanted to say thank you. I will say that I don't think that it's. Possible that any of us could fully understand the 15,000 pages. It needs experts. And you are experts. I think it's even challenged Councilman Flynn, who generally catches all of our typos in the back parts of the document. And so anyone who's voting yesterday, as I will be, is doing it in large part because we are putting a lot of trust in our airport team. And and I think that you have shown time and again that you have earned that trust in running the airport and how you've brought this forward and the hard work that you've done to help us understand this work. So I just wanted to say thank you and thank you, Mr. President. All I have. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right. Say a couple of words in this. Thank you all for being here. You went through security. Some of you pay for parking and you sat and wouldn't seats for a long time. So I really appreciate you all. And I think on behalf of all the council, we really appreciate you guys. You know, I think about what we've done tonight. We approved $937 million in a very equitable and inclusive fashion for the entire city through our go bond. We approve over $300 million of of wastewater redevelopment opportunities for the worst basin in the city of Denver. And we're taking the sixth busiest airport to the next level in the country. And there's a lot of concern over those things. And the community is obviously alarmed because we're going from a small town to a small, big city. We are becoming an international destination. And this is what international cities do. They make bold moves. And this is bold. But in the in the grand scheme of things of of international destinations, New York, LaGuardia just approved a $4 billion . And they need to do it a $4 billion improvement to their airport. So I know a lot of us keep doing those comparisons to our homes and our living rooms. It's not apples to apples. We're on a new level. We are competing globally. So the vision that our great mayor, Mayor Paine, you had is coming to fruition. And so it's hard for all of us, but this is the right direction. Let me just tell you why I'm supporting this. Authority versus influence. See, we have authority over a lot of things. A city council. And we think we have authority. But really, what we do is have influence and this P-3. Gives us and remains, you know, maintains that influence. I think. The authority of having every ten years a concessions agreement come through city council. We will lose that. But the influence for me to sit with Nacho and his business partners and say, I don't like how this is being run, I will still have that ability and I don't think people understand that or get that. I still can go to any. Even though they may not come through city council, any agency, head and even business in the city and say we need to get this done for our community. And that is the influence which we hold as City Council. So to say that you've taken our power away is not accurate authority versus influence. We still have an incredible influence. I talked about the world class airport, Sanders construction as a kind of clean it up a little bit in Denver and I love what you guys do. I love that you connect with local contractors. I love that you connect with local unions. And to have these contracting unions come in and speak about you being connected to them, I mean, that already had me so excited. So thank you guys for being a local organization that is serious about employing local folks and contracting business. And then no one really has been talking about this. And I think people are afraid to talk about magic. And but I'm a I'm going to tell you why I'm excited to talk about an African-American investor in this city for the first time at this level, I am a static because there are African-Americans in this city to do not feel like they are a part of the success in Denver. And I'm holding on to it because now there is an there's a gateway. There's an opportunity. And we have. Research Magic Johnson, not just when he played, but his actual business and his actual dealings in other cities. And we're excited about that opportunity in Denver because it's much bigger than just the airport. It's about the community. And thank you for already coming to the community and engaging in the community and Ferrovial, I appreciate you being honest and working with the community. I think Councilwoman Canete had some points of, yeah, we got to continue to work with folks even when they're not. Being the best. You know, they're they're protesting against us and things like that. We deal with that all day. I got people protesting me right now. Right. But we continue to engage because in public life, it's our duty to be kind to people in their misunderstanding or their understanding of us. Right. And so that's the way we want to be. That's who we are as Colorado. And I sense that you're going to do that. I sense that you're going to be a part of that. And so to the airport, thank you so much for your hard work. I feel like you guys worked like crazy. But now the real work begins to get this thing done. So thank you all for being here. We are going to move this thing for. Madam Secretary, roll call. Hi. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hey, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Abstain. Herndon high fashion can each. Lopez right. You. Something happened. Okay. Ortega. No, Sussman. I. Mr. President, I. Got the following results. Ten eyes two. Nays one. Abstention two. Nice to net two names. One Abstention Council Bill 822 has passed. Congratulations. See no other business before this body was manager.

Adopt resolution repealing Resolution No. C-28279 for the dissolution of the Commission on Youth and Children.

LongBeachCC_07102018_18-0580

Motion carry. Thank you. Item 31. Item 31 is a communication from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the language municipal code by adding Chapter 2.56. Establishing a Commission on Youth and Families. Read the first time and lead it over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and a resolution Repealing Resolution for the Resolutions of the Commissions on Youth and Children. Thank you. I just want to actually just think the city during the staff. I know that you guys worked with the commission itself to kind of restructure itself and that these recommendations came from the commission as a better way to move forward. And I know that this is a commission that has gone through a lot of change over the last ten years. And they believe that this new format and this new makeup will allow them to do their work moving forward. And so I just wanted to thank all of you for for working with them. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. I think I love the restructure and I really appreciate the effort in making this a very holistic commission. And I look forward to seeing what we can do in a in a more positive way and more impactful. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Any public comment on this? Please cast your votes. Bush and Kerry's.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning green buildings and for conforming amendments to Chapters 2 and 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code. Amends Article XIII Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) concerning green buildings and Chapters 2 and 10 with conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-11-18. Amended 10-22-18 to correct cross-references to other portions of the bill.

DenverCityCouncil_10222018_18-1134

A move against the bill 1018 1134 be ordered published. It has been waiting for the screen to catch up. Yeah. There we go. It's fun. Moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman your motion to amend. I move that council bill 1134 be amended in the following particulars. I also after this amendment I have a comment after we pass this amendment. Thank you very much. In the following particulars one on page 13, line six, strike ten, dash 301a to C or F and replace with ten. Dash 301a to B or F. Number two on page 13, line seven, strike ten, dash three oh to A to C and replace with ten. Dash 302a to B, number three on page 14, line 13, strike ten, dash 307c and replace with ten 307d, number four on page 16, line one after ten 3018 to add or add or ten, dash three oh to A to C. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of the council. Would you like to make a comment on that? Remember, I felt more like a bureaucrat. In those couple of seconds. This is obviously a clerical change. They got some letters wrong, and so we had to change the letters so that they match what we meant to say. Thanks. This looks like front, front page news tomorrow. All right. So no other comments or questions on this one. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Sussman. Black Eye. Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. I can h. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Hi. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 1134 has been amended. Kels menu. We need a motion now to order publish as amended a move the council bill 1134 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman. Actually, it's not a comment so much about this change, but it is a comment that I'd like to make about the bill as a whole. Do you want me to wait till after? I think this is the bill as amended. So the whole bill is on the floor right now. So I think now would be a great time. Thank you. Some of you may have seen the council meeting that we had. The council committee meeting. I had mentioned that we didn't have anything in the ordinance. Speaking to the requirement that the Department of Public Health report back the findings they have regarding the measures that are being taken and what their effect has been and whether they are measures which are our working. Are they are they doing the things that we expect them to do in part and just sort of one word in this particular bill, they have added our our attorney did add that there will be a report due, but I would like to let you know that I've had a good conversation with our Department of Environmental. Health. With Katrina Lanigan and asked her if she wouldn't create a rule, not that it would be an ordinance, but it would be in rules that this report have some very specific expectations. And that is that when they do a report and we expect it to be annually, they will measure whether there has been an effect on the urban heat island, which which measures have worked there, which ones don't, what the effect has been on increasing our green space in the city and what that green space has done for the environment. Information research done on water quality. Certainly some of our intention is to work with our stormwater runoff and whether the greenhouse gas emissions have or have improved. I know that's going to be difficult research to do, but I think it's important for us because we have made all of these requirements for buildings, both new and existing, that we understand. What the effects are. Have we made the right decisions? Are there other things that could have worked better? And and if we don't get some sort of report and research done on that, we'll never know whether it's working or not. So they did. Katrina was very amenable to putting that in the rules after the ordinance passes. And I just wanted to let my fellow council people know that. And I think I did mention that it would be an annual report and it would report both to the advisory committee and to the council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Susman. Seeing nobody else in line, Madam Secretary. Rocco. SUSSMAN All right. Black I. Brooks. I. Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Herndon. Cashman. Kenny. Lopez I knew. Ortega Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting and announce the results. 1339 Council Bill 1134 has been ordered published as amended. That does conclude the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills and final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote i. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman New, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor and move the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration and be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block for the following items. These are all series 18. Start with the resolutions 1135, 1139, 1142 and 26 1032, 1071, 1095, 1096, 1099, 1111, 4711 48 1152 937 1046 1047 1048 1124, 1132, 1133, 1102 and 1104. Now the bills for final consideration. 629. 1074. 1079. 1077. Ten. 78. Ten. 89. 75. And 1089. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye Burks. I. Espinosa. Hi Flynn I. Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman. Can each Lopez. Hi. New. Ortega I. Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I Madam Secretary, please go as voting announce results 1313 I As 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 1072 designating the Vassar School bungalows historic district as a district for preservation and a required public hearing on the

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Gilmore Construction Corporation for on-call construction services as needed. Approves a contract with Gilmore Construction Corporation for $15,000,000 and for three years for on-call construction services as needed, including deferred maintenance and renovation work, in municipal buildings, citywide (201947349). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-15-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-16-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0318

No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. All right, Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, you've called out 318. What would you like for us to do with this one? Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to call this out for a separate vote to abstain, because my brother in law's company is the vendor. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Resolution 318 on the floor for adoption? I move that resolution 318 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Right. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yep. I'm not speaking specific to this particular one, but to all of our on call contracts. I had requested some information from public works, which I received and I am now going through. As you know, I have continued to ask a lot of questions about. Looking at how we determine. You know who gets these contracts? Which ones get renewed and have funding added to? We don't see on the front end how many of them will have an BWB goals attached to them. And I think this is our process of us being able to approve all of these contracts, and I think we need to look at shoring that up more so so that when we want to look back and see what the impact is that we have had from uncle contracts, making sure that as folks in our in BWB community have have shared concerns in the past, that sometimes they think this might be a way of circumventing the BWB process and without always being able to get the data on how many have we used, how often have we used them, how many did we never use at all? And it's expensive to go through responding to an RFP and then finally getting one and then maybe never even being utilized. And so until we see the data, we don't know what all of that is and what that shows. And so I'm going through that and maybe recommending some changes to our process so that we have a better way of looking at them to ensure we know exactly what is happening with the spend. You know, with all of these coming through tonight, they can spend up to $5 million on the projects. And, you know, we don't know what those projects are at this point in time that are going to be funded through these on call contracts. So having that information to look at, I think is going to be helpful to us in the future. Thank you. Katherine Ortega. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Gilmore and Sting. Black. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. All right. Cashman. I can. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, I assessment. Mr. President. All right. I'm secretary, please. Because voting announced the results. Tonight as one abstention. Ten eyes, one abstention. Resolution 318 has been adopted. Can you put the next item on our screens, please? Councilman Ortega, you have a question on 296?

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supervised use site pilot program contingent upon the state General Assembly passing legislation authorizing the operation of supervised use sites in the state of Colorado. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.

DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1292

No, no, it's three names. Council Resolution 1300 has been abducted. All right. That brings us to 1292. Madam Secretary, if you could put that up on our screens. And Councilman Cashman, will you please? What? Counsel Bill 1292 on the floor. Yes, I moved the council bill 18, Dash 1290 to be ordered published. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn. You called this one up? Yes, Mr. President, I did. In the three years that I've been sitting up here and indeed looking back on the probably 30 years I used to sit over there, I can't recall an issue on which I have struggled. As much as I struggled trying to come to terms with this one, because this is literally life and death. And I recognize that and I respect that. There are just so many moving parts. To the issue of supervised use facilities. And I haven't been able to settle yet on whether I believe I truly believe that this approach will be effective. Or the best way to proceed, as opposed to some other methods I've seen elsewhere. And as I did more research, I came to believe that it would be really good for this city to provide. To its citizens, not just to its first responders, but to family members and to citizens and to volunteers. Naloxone kits or Narcan kits. And to have them volunteer or even in their own family, to go out into the community where we are finding. Overdose deaths. I had one right around the corner from my office in the Bear Valley Shopping Center. A woman in it was found in a car after three weeks in an abandoned car. So this is this hits real close to home to me. I've also had a heroin bust of a dealer right outside my office in Bear Valley. This hits real close to me as well. And while I was considering whether this other approach might be more effective as I'm watching television last night after the news, 60 Minutes came on and detailed the this very program in Salt Lake City , this program of distributing naloxone kits to the general population and the effect it's having on saving lives there, as opposed to establishing a single site here where the government will then sponsor you in in safely injecting your opioids or your meth or whatever substance. And so I'm still so unsettled, not just on the matters of law, the state law, which still doesn't allow that may change in the next session. And I understand that this bill is contingent on that passing, but also the issue of federal federal law and whether this runs afoul of federal law. We know that the Justice Department believes that it does. And so, Mr. President, at this point, I know that there are votes here to pass this, but I intend to be probably the sole no vote on this, because I'm not convinced that this is the best approach for this city. The deciding factor for me was a recent article in Vancouver where they've run a site like this for 15 years, and in the year 2017, Vancouver set a record for overdose deaths after 15 years of having such a facility. The problem in Vancouver was I think it was 48% more deaths in 2017 than in 2016. And this is after 15 years of this approach. So I'm not persuaded that a government sanctioned injection facility is a better approach than having a community full of volunteers who go where the problem is, who go to the Cherry Creek bike path or the central library. In the Central Library, they've had. 21. Overdoses reversed by the security teams down there since about the last year and a half. And I think that would be a much better approach than to set up a facility like this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I am in support of this bill, and I just think that it's really important for us to take a real realized reality. People are going to be doing this and people are going to be doing this on our streets. If we pretend that it's not happening, it's not going to go away. And we we are known. In Denver for doing some very bold. Things. And even though it I don't really want to compare them, we win against federal government for marijuana. Again, sort of looking at reality. What is the reality here? And I think with the safe injections, we can at least prevent some deaths. I actually want to sort of like Councilman Flynn was talking about. I'd like to also think about the deaths that that we might prevent that aren't about public injection, but the deaths of people inside their homes, the sort of the invisible addicts, the ones that are taking the pills. And certainly the 60 Minutes article last night talked a great deal about that. Here I am already. We haven't passed this one and I'm piling on. What can we what can we do next to to understand the reality of the situation? We have to be grown up about this and what can we do? And I feel like this is a really important step. If it doesn't work, I suppose we'll learn how to make it work. And we wouldn't never learn how to make it work if we didn't try this this particular path to helping folks who are struggling with this disease. This is a disease. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, everybody, that's here. And thank you for being a part of this journey and teaching this entire city what's going on in the dark. Councilman Flynn mentioned some issues. This is a hard decision for him. If this is an easy decision for you and you are supportive of this, please stand up. Thank you. All of these individuals here are in our community and they have personally witnessed the hard stuff that we've been thinking about for the last. Well, that I've been thinking of for the last year and a half, but that we've been contemplating for the last four weeks. And this is a public health crisis that we're in and we're bringing it to the light. And I am supportive of this. I do feel like we've waited long enough and it's time that we address this issue. Councilman Flynn, let me just address two things that you said that are a little bit inaccurate. One, the government is not sponsoring this. This actually is going to be privately run. A nonprofit will run this. That's in the bill. Number two, Vancouver is one, but 60 cities internationally that have data in context. And so to just look at that and not look at the other cities like a Barcelona, which I've mentioned this many times, the day one that they've opened up a supervised use site. Dramatically. They saw a drop in deaths and they're continuing to see a drop in deaths. And so it's important that you look at the data per the context that you're in. Last thing I'll say is we have no good American data. That's why we're asking for this pilot. And here tonight, we do have a state senator who will help us take this to the next level. And I'd love. Mr.. Mr. President, if you indulge me for about 3 minutes, to have State Senator elect Brittany Patterson come and just share a little bit, because I believe she's for the title for this bill at the state. And I think we need to hear about that at the city. Is that okay, Mr. President? Yup. Go ahead. Hello, everybody. It's great to be here. I've never actually testified, so I apologize if I didn't go. Don't actually do the right rules and I call you by the right title. I am currently state representative. I was just elected to enter the state senate. I have pulled a bill and I just wanted to come here to thank you for taking this initiative because Denver, actually showing that they want to move forward with a pilot program is going to be an essential step in us actually taking action at the state level. I feel very confident with the change in leadership that will actually get a fair hearing this time and that this will be a bipartisan bill. I know that this is an uncomfortable issue to talk about. It is something that we don't want to recognize is happening. But I can tell you that whether or not we pass this pilot program and whether or not we pass this at the state level, people are going to continue to use and inject drugs and they are going to continue to die. In fact, we saw the highest overdose rates last year in the highest death toll that we've had here in Colorado. And we expect it to continue to rise here and nationally. We've been told by experts that it's going to get worse before it gets better. And to Councilman Flynn, what happened in Vancouver is actually because it wasn't because of the safe you cite, it was because right now they're actually having a surge of fentanyl. And so we've met with with professionals. I had the opportunity to visit Vancouver and the the police officers that we were in contact with said that heroin doesn't even exist there anymore because they get such a a greater high from fentanyl. So that's actually where the skyrocket of deaths is happening. So what we have the opportunity to do right now is to make history in making sure that we are treating people with an addiction, with the care that they need, that we're bringing them out of the shadows for people that are injecting drugs. This has been a long journey. You don't just start using heroin. I know my mom was overprescribed. Opioids, like so many people here in Colorado and across the United States, she was a soccer mom. We were in the middle class. She is an amazing person. This is this affects everybody. I mean, I'm telling her story because the greatest barrier that I have found to actually getting people the help that they need is the stigma that exists. And when we talk about even this site, it is it is uncomfortable for people to talk about. So I want to tell you about my mom. She was overprescribed opioids. Like so many people, she had a back problem. We've seen a system that has incentivized overprescribing. That's why right now we are facing a public health crisis. We are facing the greatest public health crisis of our time. And you happened to be elected during this time. And it is incumbent upon all of us to act. And this is one measure in ensuring that we're actually keeping people alive that have gone down the path. 80% of people who use and inject drugs started off with prescription opioids like my mom. So when you think about that journey that has led them to the point where they became wildly addicted, like my mom, so many people are getting cut off of their prescription without access to treatment because right now we're trying to ramp up actually getting them the help that they need. But we need to make sure that we're keeping them alive today. I when you are injecting drug injecting drugs, it's very isolating. So a lot of these people, the point of having a pilot program to have these super supervised sites is actually bring them out of the shadows in front of health professionals that are not only going to ensure that when they're using drugs, they're not overdosing, but also building those relationships, having a room where they can sit, get they're making sure that we are testing them for hepatitis C, for HIV, making sure that when they're ready to get help, that we actually give them the prescription that they need for medication assisted treatment. And then ultimately, when they're ready to move towards our. Recovery, that they have those relationships intact and that we're actually building capacity there to get them the treatment that they need. So my mom has been addicted to drugs for 30 years. She was cut off when her doctor recognized she had a problem. And she, like so many people, was just trying to stay well. It wasn't about getting high. It was about making sure that she was not going through withdrawal. People who are addicted say that withdrawal is they fear withdrawal more than death. So when you think about the physical pain that that must be that you fear going through that more than death. So they will do anything to stay well. And that's why so so many people have moved to injecting drugs, to buying cheap heroin on the street. And we've seen an increase in fentanyl here as well. So you have an incredible opportunity to move forward to show Colorado that we are not going to increase the amount of crime in this area. In fact, it's been proven to do the opposite, that we are going to save lives and that we are going to actually get people to help that they need. This is going to really change. Be an example for Colorado. And I just want to thank thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you for taking this up. This is this is critical for the United States and for Colorado. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, was that all you. Had a follow up at the end? Okay. Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilman Flynn on a couple of areas. I'd like to see Naloxone much more readily available in the community. I think that makes great sense. And I also agree that I don't know that this is the right solution for Denver. What I do know is that we have no drug treatment beds available in the Denver area. I know that we don't have a functioning mental health system in the Denver area outside our jail system. We have like 98 or 90 beds at Denver Health for both mental health and drug treatment. For a city of 700,000 and a metro area, somewhere around 3 million are allowing people to die in restaurant bathrooms and in our parks and on the street has not slowed the the opioid epidemic. And as Mr. Patterson said, you know, the landscape changes continually. Now it's fentanyl. Who knows what else is going to be appearing for me? And I totally understand the difficulty that many people are have having wrapping their minds around providing a facility for people to inject. Illegal drugs. I get that it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around it, but we need to try something to stem the tide. As as my friend Lisa Revell says all the time, we can't get someone into treatment when they're dead. You know. While while the country is getting off its lazy behind to take care of the mentally ill and to take care of people suffering from the disease of addiction, we owe it to to our community to do something to keep keep things going until we can give them the care that they need. So I'll be voting to move this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. I watched I watched the 60 minute piece and what was happening there were an 80 $80 drug was being put to market at $4,000 is appalling. And I hope that companies commitment to bringing that drug price back down is fall through. And I hope that people maybe all of you will write in Visio and make sure that that drug, which there's their mechanism for delivery, is far simpler than anything else on the market and could be readily administered by people, the layperson. There's no reason why in America that isn't the standard protocol for how we deliver this drug. That said, the life saving ability of naloxone is proven. And I can tell you, if one life is saved in the supervised use facility, the facility is paid for. And so that as tangible as that is, the only reason I mean, that isn't the only reason I supported supervised use facilities. From the moment Councilman Brooks approached me on this and I've never wavered on that is because it's not just the life saved in the facility. When you're present and able to address that, it's the other aspects that are tangible from this side of the dais in delivering services to this community is you will get fewer overdose deaths because those lives are saved, you will get fewer ambulance calls for overdoses. When I went on my one ride along with with the FDA and I'm sort of maybe violating hip rules, we went on one of those calls. I've never experienced that. And it was it was eye opening. And and that's midday on a on a on a Friday. That's not the hot spot for when those things are. But it happens on a routine basis in this city. The decrease in transmitted diseases that are transmitted by by dirty needles and things like that, all of those have major consequences to our our ability as a city to deliver services to populations that need them. And so this is actually the step in the right direction. And and so thank you, Councilman Brooks. Thank you all for supporting council in in doing what is is is a bit a bit too progressive for some, but it's the right thing for this city. And and I'm happy to be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I am a yes vote. This is this is very easy to me when the question was asked me about it. And this was absolute. Yes. And for a couple of reasons. And one is in this country, we are absolutely backwards. We are backwards when it comes to drug treatment. We are backwards when it comes to medicine. We are backwards when it comes to health care. We are an industrialized nation and we are an incredibly powerful nation and a wealthy nation. Yet we do not. You have more access to illicit and pharmaceutical drugs than you do to medicine to treat it. And when it comes to when it comes to treating it, we create all these barriers. We don't we don't believe it's a function of government to treat it. We don't believe I mean, we believe it's a it's a privilege and not a right. Collectively, there is something wrong with that. And so we are in we of course, we're going to be afraid of it. Of course we're going to be fearful and nervous about it if we haven't been exposed to how to actually treated. And in order to do that, you have to leave stateside and go across the world to see how they're treating it. And we have to learn from other countries. We have to learn from other, you know, other governments that are doing this right. I do believe this is absolutely worth it. I don't want to see somebody overdose pass away anywhere in a park or in a bathroom, anywhere or even in a facility. And this you know, this is an opportunity to go in that right direction. It's more than just a test. We know that this is proven. And when when we put our our resources and we behind it, and we do believe it is our function. Right. And so finally, I think I would imagine that. If you are in one of these sites, you have access to not just sterile, sterile needles and people there who are supervising you and know what to do just in case, but also because you have someone to talk to. And that person, that interaction could be that interaction that gets them on that right path. So you know what? Maybe I shouldn't do this. You think I should do this? It's up to you. It's a survival rate. I mean, you have those conversations. Think about those conversations. And how those in and of themselves are life saving. And that's what we want. Access to care. Access. That is so easy. Yes. On this one. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't going to say anything tonight because this is just first reading and it will be back up next week. But since everybody is talking, I thought I should put in my $0.02 worth. I agree with all of the things that have been said for the reasons why we should have this and it is a crisis and there are no solutions. And so for those reasons, I am in favor of it. However, I do agree with Councilman Flynn's concerns. So there are two things that are really important to me. One is that there is treatment available and that it will connect people to treatment. And I said that in committee, someone Cashman said it tonight, we don't have enough treatment, so we've got to work on that. The other thing is the fact that it's a pilot and we need data and we need real data. And I think it will be hard to collect because it's a changing landscape if there's more fentanyl coming in. I don't know how you collect that data, but we need to have real data so that we can look back and see how successful it was or it wasn't. So without those two features, I would not be supporting it. But as of now I am in support of it. And thank you for your work, Councilman Brooks, and everyone, for being here tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilman Brooks for his not just sponsorship, but leadership on this issue and to the community. That also is leading example of code governing, where you work together to challenge and take on a challenge. I guess for me, I just was thinking about the comments about this being a disease and I think about what if it was kidney disease and people were trying to treat themselves with their own dialysis and they were dying in the alley because they'd done it wrong? Or what if it was cancer and they were, you know, self administering in no other disease model do we leave folks to fend for themselves. And so the difference between this and the other diseases is the stigma, right? That's the stigma and the misunderstanding that the point at which addiction occurs, it becomes medical. It's it's a physical dependency. It's not a weak moral character. And in this particular set it well in some of the drugs, not all the introduction drugs, but in the case of heroin, what we know is that people actually need medicine in many cases because they can die from quitting or they can die from the process of trying to wean themselves off in their tolerance changing. And so I agree, we need more treatment. We also need, you know, medically assisted treatment in the form of replacement methadone or the other the other types of replacements that are available to make this a safer transition, because in this case, the transition off can be can be dangerous as well. So thank you to my colleague for pointing out the medical nature of this situation. And I think the second thing that resonates with me is Councilman Espinoza's point about one life. And so I think that there's, you know, several ways to think about data. And I think that a simple comparison of whether or not deaths are dropping or not is not an accurate scientific model. The way that you have to do this is you have to ask the question of bending the curve so it's not did fewer or more people die since supervised injection, but did fewer people die than would have died without it? And so you will know that from from the the potential reversals or from the community that's being served compared to a control group, for example, that's not being served. So there's a couple of different ways that I believe good, good professors and good researchers could could structure this, but it will never be a more or less situation because, again, it's one site. We can't put the expectation of eliminating addiction in a community on one site. So we have to have realistic evaluation methods. And so if we have those, I think we'll have a really informed discussion. So so with that, I feel like this is the right next step. I appreciate having our state leaders here and I imagine this will be an ongoing dialog with them. The one other thing I will say is the federal government, the appointees who serve in the federal government are not always right in the law. That has been proven numerous times, including cases that this very city has been engaged in regarding their interpretations of federal law where cities have prevailed. So while it's important for us to consider the federal legal landscape, it is not beyond this administration to overread or under read the law. And they have been corrected on numerous occasions. And so I think that it's important for us to do what is right to legally research and evaluate it and then to be bold enough to understand that we won't be threatened by our beds. Beds are not legal opinions from judges. They are the opinions of one individual in a newspaper. And so it's important that we be strong, thoughtful and not shy away from a good, important debate, even if it involves some legal questions down the road. So with that, I will strongly be supporting this tonight, and I wish our community luck with the process of considering this. Should we have the legislation we need at the state to move forward? Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will be. This tonight is, as you all heard, once the state takes action. Then our Board of Environmental Health will engage in this process to figure out, you know, are we looking at one or are we looking at more than one? What are the criteria? All of that stuff that would need to be put into place. And I know that will be a public that will include a very public process. So I'm very comfortable with with that sort of next step phase of where it goes. The one thing I do want to mention, having received a letter from an adjacent property owner to the existing site, there have been concerns expressed about some of the issues around the current site that are related to just safety is one of the things that is being expressed. They have an apartment building that has the highest vacancy rate because of its close proximity to this site. Now, he does mention that there is a homeless shelter close by as well and is indicating that it's just I don't know if it's the individuals that are hanging out outside of the facility and in this alley that they're concerned about. But how we do the operations at any location that is selected is going to be really important to being a good neighbor to the adjacent community, because with any of our operations, whether it's a liquor store or a marijuana facility, these are issues our neighborhoods scream at all of us about and want to make sure that we're helping ensure that we have a safe community for everybody. So we want it safe for the people who are utilizing the facility, for sure. But we also want to make sure it's a safe facility for the adjacent community, and that will all be part of that environmental health process when after the state legislature takes action and we are able to then move forward with the first ever safe injection site in the city of Denver. So I will be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. You know, the stigma that's associated with addiction treatment and recovery is really is very real. And by us taking a first step to start normalizing the conversation, I think is very important. And we need to make sure that we're protecting the safety of those who are struggling with addiction, their families, and also residents and business owners. And so my ask is, if this does pass tonight, that we have a plan in place to have a robust community engagement, education and dialog with our constituents and with the Denver community. So we make sure that any rulemaking that is undertaken by the Board of Public Health and Environment is informed by the community as well. And so that's my main ask, but also thank you to Councilman Brooks for including in the bill, language distribution of fentanyl testing strips as well. The only other piece that is a little concerning to me, but but I think we can get beyond it is that there won't be any report back or evaluation until after the 24 months that period. And I would ask that if the state legislature does act and pass into law some version that would allow this that we come back because we probably will then need to have bend amend this bill language that we include something that would update it that would have at least an annual report back to City Council Committee just so that we can continue the conversation so that it's not a one and done, but that where are we going and where are those additional treatment options that we're going to need in the city to address this? And I know that this is. It's a difficult barrier, honestly, for some community residents to get beyond. But when I look out at all of you and I look at my community, we're talking about sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents. We're we're talking about our Denver community. And so right now, we need to make that our first priority, their safety and reducing the harm that they're doing. And so with that, I will be supportive of this, wanting to make sure that we have a robust community engagement and education going forward. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Brooks, you want to. Say, you know what, Mr. President, I just wanted to just wrap up. I want to thank everybody for their comments. And clearly, you know, their engagement. I think a lot of the council members have been emailing me, emailing Lisa Revelle, emailing the administer the administration, Kirsten, who's helped us draft this. And I just really appreciate that you guys have gotten in there and you've educated yourself on this issue. Let me just bring up one more point that no one really talked about. And we 100% agree with the opioid plan that the mayor proposed. It talks about prevention, treatment and harm reduction. This is a clear piece that needs to be a part of it, of harm reduction. There are many people who don't understand the full scope of what we're talking about, so they would just focus on this small portion of a pilot. We believe in the entire scope of what we need to do in the city of Denver prevention, treatment and harm reduction. There are tremendous problems in treatment. There are tremendous barriers that we need to remove. But if when we're talking about this, please talk about it in the totality of the vision of what we're trying to accomplish in our city. The other thing, and I know Lisa Ravel from Harm Reduction will love that I'm mentioning this, that their organization received a Good Neighbor Award from the chair neighborhood. So I know that Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. You heard that. But, John, neighborhood does not give those things out lightly. And so these folks with Lisa's group have been in the community connecting with neighbors, picking up needles, really a great neighborhood partner. And so I just want to give you that little shout out with that. Mr. President, this is the first reading. We're going to come back next week for the second reading. But it sounds like we have a good super majority of our council folks support. And I'll also say I have added all of your suggestions into the bill, added the mayors suggestions into the Bears. So we will be receiving his support and signing this bill. And so if there are other conversations that you guys need to have, please let me know this week. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, thank you for taking the lead on this. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Flynn now. Black guy. CLARKE I'm sorry. BROOKS Hell, yeah. Aspirin. Espinosa. I. Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. I can h. Lopez All right. Ortega Hi. Assessment. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. Of a nice one day. 11 I as one nay council 1292 has passed. Just to clarify, has been ordered published next week will be passage. I do have a big favor to ask. There are a lot of you in here. If you all stand up right now and go for the exit and start talking to each other, we're not going be able to get to recess. We have about 2 minutes worth of possibly very boring things to do, but just 2 minutes if possible. If you could just hang tight and then at recess I'll get up and go. If you absolutely have to go, please hold your conversations. Even when you're in the hall, we can hear you and we just need to get through a few more things before we can get to recess so that we can get set up for the public hearings and the folks who are here for that today.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation by the City Manager’s Office on the status of recent initiatives by the Aquarium of the Pacific. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0147

Thank you. Let's take the next item please. Erm which I believe is the current presentation, I repeat the 1990. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a presentation by the City Manager's Office on the status of recent initiatives by the Aquarium of the Pacific Citywide. Good evening. Mayor and city council members. This is a presentation to from the aquarium of the Pacific. That facility is one of the city's most valued and recognized assets. It attracts millions of visitors to the city each year. And the city has maintained a strong partnership with the board of directors and the executive staff at the aquarium who operate and manage it on a day to day basis. Consistent with this partnership, the Aquarium team periodically provides an update on their program initiatives and their overall financial status to this body and to that tonight. That's the nature of this presentation. So I would like to introduce Peter Cava. He is the aquarium CEO and he will kick off this presentation. Thank you, Peter. Okay. Start again. I don't know. Mayor and vice mayor and distinguished councilmembers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Peter Cribb and I'm the CEO and president of the Aquarium of Pacific has it. With me this evening is Edgefield, the Aquarium of Pacifics board chair, and Anthony Brown, the aquarium's chief financial officer. We come before you to thank the city for its ongoing support. Your support uplifted our staff. Your support enabled us to not only survive the last two pandemic years, it allowed us to thrive. And so, in addition to thanking you, we want to share some of our new programs and we want to share our financial results. Next slide. Starting with the programs when the pandemic hit. Suddenly, there were no more yellow school busses parked outside the aquarium. Nonetheless, we found ways to connect with our youth. We developed online education programs that reached over 200,000 students who were stuck at home. We mastered that new short form of communication tik-tok and built a global following of 2.5 million. Yes, 2.5 million tik-tok followers. Learning about our otters, learning about our sharks, our penguins. And so much more. Next slide. This next new program is my personal favorite. And let's hear from Anthony Brown, as he describes it. Thank you, Peter. In 2020, we developed the idea of an African-American scholar program. After raising sourcing over $100,000 in early 2021, we awarded scholarships to ten college students with studies in the areas related to the field of aquarium. Each scholar received $10,000 and ongoing engagement with the aquarium. And I'm pleased to announce that our second cohort. Of 11 students. Have been identified. Our scholarship committee has identified these students and we will acknowledge them. As the newest class of scholars at our African American Festival on February 26. While the monetary award has certainly been meaningful to these scholars, these students have communicated that the community building, the networking, the support by the aquarium has been invaluable towards their future. Next slide. Picking up from Anthony. In the last few months, we have created an American Indian Fellowship. It may be one of the. Only once in the nation and a Hispanic fellowship program. These programs bring young people to the aquarium to participate in meaningful mission related work and to learn important professional skills. Finally, another new initiative we are introducing is the opportunity for students to gain transferable college credit courses in marine conservation and science from our facility. This is free to high school students and could be a gateway to STEM fields. Next slide. Then there is conservation. During the pandemic. Our specially trained staff have been out along the shoreline, rescuing and recovering our precious wildlife. You see some of them here in protective gear. Sea turtles, elegant terns and oiled seabirds. We are also developing a sea otter surrogacy program that will foster baby otters to release back into the wild. We are becoming a leader in California conservation. Next slide. And I now I'd like to turn it over to Anthony. Thank you again, Peter. So the aquarium, the Pacific, operates and runs its financials on a calendar fiscal year. And what I have here is an illustration of the last three years. In 2019 pre-pandemic, the aquarium enjoyed its best year ever with its major expansion, complete and total operating revenue reaching a historical high of 41 million. And of course, in 2020, with the pandemic and the aquarium was only fully open for 91 days. We were fully closed for more than two months and partially opened with outdoor only access for the majority of the year. We suffered tremendously. You can see a net loss of nearly 13 million and earnings. I'm pleased to report, though, in 2021, with pent up visitor demand and record level spending in retail and annual memberships, we achieved 43 million in total operating revenues. Operating expenses were offset significantly by a 10 million federal grant that the aquarium was able to switch to get awarded. And so favorable revenue and expenses resulted in a net earnings finishing at a historic high of 22 million. Next slide, please. This allowed the aquarium to focus on recovery and growth. We work together with city leaders in Treasury, Financial Management and the city manager's office to achieve the following results. We reestablished our operating and operating reserve account. We created with the city a financial model that uses the surplus that I talked about to secure rent obligation of 2.2 million per year that we pay for more than four years. And also, it allocates the same amount, 2.2 million a year for four plus years towards a capital account to improve the city's facility. During the pandemic, the city allowed the aquarium to pay off our $10 million loan early. This loan was granted in 2017 by the city to help the aquarium with the timing of construction payments versus the contribution for our capital campaign. And most notably, our our 2021 financial results were achieved without the need to exercise the option to use the two loans the City Council had previously approved. The $2.2 million in 2020 we thought we might need to fulfill our rent covenant. And then also in early 2021, we had our four or $5 million loan option to pay for rent and to cover operating expenses if we remained close. Never. We never needed to exercise those loans. And so the results that you saw on the earlier slide reflect the hard work and commitment of the staff here and now. I would like to introduce our newly elected board chair, MPO, who will conclude this presentation. Thank you, Anthony. Next slide, please. In closing, we thank the city for its support of the aquarium during the period of our shutdown. With the support of the city and that of our members and donors and the significant efforts of the aquarium staff, the aquarium has come into 2020 to an excellent financial condition. We believe the Aquarium of the Pacific is a wonderful resource for the students and citizens of Long Beach and adds to the reputation of the city as a leader in marine sciences. The staff and board of the aquarium value the continuing strong partnership with the city and look forward to future collaboration on important issues related to education, the environment and the city itself. Thank you. So that concludes the the presentation by the aquarium staff is available to answer any questions you might have. Let me go to Councilwoman Zendejas. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I motion to set this presentation. Thank you very much. I just want to say thank you to the aquarium for being such fantastic partners. I think it's amazing all of the things that you are doing for so many of us here in. Here in Long Beach. I fallen in love with the Aquarium of the Pacific since before it was built, which was a long, long, long time ago. And you have just come through over and over again. So I'm very, very thankful to have you. You're one of our true gems here in the city. Thank you for providing this presentation and thank you for truly highlighting the beauty of our amazing aquarium. It is mesmerizing to learn all about the work that you continue to do in our aquarium, even though times have been difficult. You still seem to push through and push forward and on to gain that many followers. That is that may seem to be an aquarium and actually you know be able to. Just to capture that big of an audience. I know. I love watching your take pass on the face again, you guys. That I mean I'll give you some details. You guys are pretty, pretty creative. So I just have to give you an applause for that. I also want to thank you for the opportunity that I had when you asked me and invited me to be a judge for your Tai Chi film festival, which was geared towards high school students all over that competed in this unique film festival where they were able to betray their relationship with the ocean, with the with the animals in the ocean through film. And that was just such a great experience to watch all of these. Fantastic. You've come forward with some amazing ideas and be able to showcase them and be able to have a red carpet event for them, which is what you had when you announced the winners. And I just was so honored to be part of this, along with Councilwoman Allen. And I just want to thank you for all the wonderful work that you do. And I just want to remind you what a valuable asset you are here to our city of Long Beach. And thank you for all you do for not only our community, but especially our children. You always have programs that focus on them. And I just want you to know that I will keep supporting in any way that I can. And also thank you again for also hosting the Human Ability Festival that happens every year. That was back this year. That is a very special event for me, very close to my heart. And it's super, super special to be to be having that big solarium. So, again, thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. I thank you, Mayor. And I agree with everything that Councilwoman De has just said. Thank you, Dr. Riva, for the wonderful presentation. You are absolutely a wonderful person and just such a great partner in our city and our region. I love hearing about all of your your tip top and just all of your engagement during COVID. I think you and your team, you guys are just, you know, innovative and resourceful. So congratulations on all of that success. I also love seeing the African American Scholar program, the American Indian Fellowship Program, the Expanded Fellowship Program, the Festival of Human Ability. And so I you know, equity is really equity and access is is very important to me. And and I know it's important to you, too, with all the conversations that I have had. So I just want you to know I can't wait until we have the the district two nights at the aquarium. And I just I just look forward to being able to figure out a date for that. So thank you for your presentation and all the great work that you do. Thank you. Councilwoman Sara. You Mayor. I just want to add to Councilmember Sunday has been Allen's comment that I'm so relieved and happy to hear that you have financially been able to not only exceeded what you were able to generate prior to the pandemic, because I knew that it was concerning when we had to consider how to provide a loan and knew that, you know, that everybody was struggling and so glad to see the creative steps you talk to, making sure that you figure out ways to keep people engaged. I would be honest online with my kids because we have a membership to the Aquarium of the Pacific. We go regularly. I think I'm due for a membership renewal. I'll make sure I do that to continue to support you all and the great work you do. So just really appreciate the team, the board members and all of their hard work and effort to ensure that there's just your you're making sure to reach just such a diverse audience, to engage everyone possible in marine biology and conservation and how to water conservation and all of that. So please keep up the great work and thank you so much for that great update and presentation. Councilwoman Mongo, please. Thank you, Councilman Toro. Thank you. I've been looking forward to this presentation for quite some time. I'm a big fan. My whole family is a big fan of the aquarium. And every time we have out-of-town guests, of course, it's one of our top priorities, the places we take people. It's an educational opportunity. And I love to see the interns that are so enthusiastic and the volunteers and. Just being at the aquarium is such a blessing to have you in our city is such a blessing. And I'm really proud of. The financial changes you've made. I'm excited about that and I look forward to following up. And learning more about. How we turn those Tik-Tok followers into lifetime supporters of the aquarium. Thanks so much. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to echo the comments of my colleagues, and thank you for the presentation, really, really positive presentation. Great to see that this city asset is thriving and continues to bounce back and in really impressive ways after the pandemic. So I really appreciate the presentation. I tell everyone that I talked to you about the aquarium, that the aquarium has a really special place in our family's heart because we were members when the kids were babies. I think our little one wasn't even lifting his head up yet. We had him and a baby and going to the aquarium. And that was just an activity that we really all enjoyed doing as a family. And now he's. Five foot 11 and much different than those days. But our very first fundraiser for the school was that we purchased tickets to a sleepover at the aquarium. So we took our sleeping bags and we spent the night in one of the exhibit rooms with a lot of other families, and it was just the coolest thing. So I always feel like we have a special connection to the aquarium because of that and always and rooting for its success and to do well. So thank you for the presentation and thank you for giving us something so positive to tell our guests and our friends and our our families about this wonderful city asset. It really does make us proud. And it's one of those city assets, I think that's worth the investment because of the work of the board to ensure that we're not taking risks that are not measured in regards to this specific city asset. And in fact, the investment that we're putting into this asset is is being rewarded in many ways back to us. So thank you very much. Thank you. I have actually that was all of the councilmembers. Do we have any public comment on this. At this time? If there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine. Our first speakers tie do. I, um, I just wanted to also second Councilwoman Van de Haas's comment about human abilities. I would ask that the museum consider joining the Museums and Zoos for all program, which provides a $3.3 admission price to those holding an ID card. I would like to remind the museum that it's probably the only museum in Long Beach that isn't a part of that program. And I'm certainly well aware that you have a disability day as well as a seniors day. So if you are unable to immediately join the Museum's for all program, I would ask that you at least provide a quarterly free day for those with disabilities. And those over 62 I think is currently what the ages and that is all. Thank you so much. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. And as we go to a vote, I just want to, of course, also just thank our aquarium team and great new leadership. One of the best things about our city, this incredible research institution, attraction sanctuary, uh, just so many different roles of different plays in our community and just grateful that it's there, it's expanding, and it welcomes so many amazing families, obviously, in person and and online as well. And so thank you for that presentation. And we're going to roll call Brooklyn's. District one. I district to. My. District three. My District four. I. District five i. District six i. District seven. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to adopt the Mayor's proposed budget recommendations, as amended, to the FY 15 Proposed Budget. (A-10)

LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0686

Okay. Council members from the block committee, we made a recommendation. It was a unanimous recommendation from the Budget Oversight Committee to adopt the mayor's proposed budget recommendations as amended to fiscal year 15 proposed budget. Councilmember one go. Once SEC. They won't get a chance to say it. But don't. It's my mistake. It is as recommended by the mayor. And. Version in a second. So this is to and I'm sorry for the confusion. This is true. Adopt the mayor's proposed budget recommendations to the fiscal year 15 proposed budget as proposed by the mayor. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on this item? Seeing none. Members cast your vote. This motion carries eight zero. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. I have a procedural question, Charlie, on the language access item, the budget oversight committees recommendation was received in file. Am I able to make an amendment to that.

On the message and order, referred on November 3, 2021, Docket #1146, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Dollars ($387,164.00) from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Division of Conservation Services for the Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities (PARC) Program grant, to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will help fund the acquisition of two parcels on the western shore of Sprague Pond at 0-4 Lakeside Avenue in Hyde Park as a permanently protected parkland to be known as the Sprague Pond Shoreline Reserve, the Committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_12082021_2021-1146

Docket 1146 The Committee on Environment, Resiliency and Parks, to which was referred on November three, 2021. Docket number 1146 message in order authorizing City of Boston to accept an expanding amount not to exceed $387,164 from the amass Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Division of Conservation Services for the Park Land Acquisition and Renovation for communities known as the Park Program Grant to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will help fund the acquisition of two parcels on the western shore of Sprague Pond at 024 Lakeside Avenue and Hyde Park. As a permanently protected parkland to be known as the Sprague Pond, Shoreline Reserve submits a report recommending that the order of £2. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Council tells the President. Email you have the floor. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On Friday, December 3rd, we chair to hear. I chaired a hearing on these two dockets. I wanted to thank councilors Braden, Arroyo, Flynn and Flaherty for their participation. I also wanted to note former councilor and current state representative Rob Consalvo also testified and offered his support. This is really exciting. These are two Park Fund program opportunities or funding fundraising opportunities. What is a $400,000 grant that will help allow for renovations at the Winthrop Park in Dorchester, Roxbury? Eldercare and Garran, the senior planner for Parks and Recreation, noted that the renovations for the playground will include a new basketball and multi-sport sport court, a splash pad and new exercise equipment with a paved exercise circuit, a refurbished lawn area for open play and new tables and benches. The renovations will also improve accessibility by meeting ADA compliance and would include new tree planting and plantings. There will be a net gain of eight new trees. The proposed completion date for this project is June of 2023. Docket 1146 is another park land acquisition grant in just under 400,385 $87,164, which will help fund acquisition of two parcels on the western shore of Sprague Pond at 024 Lakeside Avenue and Hyde Park as a permanently protected park land to be known as the Spragg Pond Shoreline Reserve. This is something that is really, really, really interesting. I think many of you know that this is the site of the encampment of the 54th Massachusetts Voluntary Volunteer Infantry Regiment. I believe it was the first regiment of black Americans who fought and fought in the Civil War. It's a place of incredible pride that it was in not only our city limits, but so close. And we will not only be protecting that space and really giving that space the reverence that it deserves, being almost like an outdoor educational classroom we firmly protect it from development, will make sure that we're able to get resources. And it's a really, really exciting not only environmental justice investment, but also historically historical investment. Joe Bagley, who is our city archeologist, offered testimony to support the historic, historical and archeological sensitivity for the site. This is without landmark designation, the city and state or federal protections. The city cannot enforce archeological preservation without acquiring the lands. One of the reasons why this is so, so important. So a vote on this would be a vote to accept the grant money which would then work towards an acquisition. We will not be voting to acquire the land at this moment. I am very hopeful that this will happen in very short order next year. But both of these dockets are incredibly important, incredibly transformative for our city. And again, I think we all I know everyone in this chamber is a fervent defender and lover of our outdoor space in our Boston parks. There's a renewed sense of importance after nearly whatever. What are we at now? 20, 22 months of pandemic to see how important it is for to protect and grow these outdoor spaces. It's not only an environmental justice issue, it's a public health issue, it's a public safety issue. It's obviously a huge environmental issue. And in this particular case, as it relates to Sprague Pond, it's also a vital part of our history that we need to protect and preserve. So I urge you all through you, Madam Chair, all colleagues, to please vote in support of both of these dockets. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor O'Malley. Anyone else wanting to speak on these dockets at this time? Councilor O'Malley, who's the chair of the Committee on Environmental Resiliency and Parks, seeks not suspension of the rule, seeks passage of docket 1145 and docket one one for six will take them separately. All those in favor of passage of docket one, one, four or five say any opposing nay. The ayes have it. Docket 1145 has been passed. All those in favor of passage of docket 1146. Say I. Any opposing. The ayes have it at 1146 has been passed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you very much, Councilor Campbell. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1210?

On the message and order, referred on March 30, 2022, Docket #0435, Petition for a Special Law re: An act authorizing the City of Boston to grant four additional licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the specified premises, the committee submitted a report recommending the petition ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the petition was passed in a new draft; yeas 13.

BostonCC_06292022_2022-0435

04350435 the committee in government operations, to which was referred on March 30th, 2020 to Duncan, number 0435 petition for a special law regarding an act authorizing the city of Boston to grant four additional license licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the specified premises, submits a report recommending that the home will petition to pass in a new draft. Thank you. The chair recognizes the chair recognizes council royal chair of Government Operations Council. Royal U of the floor. Thank you. And the Committee on Government Operations held a hearing on June 16, 2022, on docket number 465, a petition for special law relative to an act authorizing additional licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the premises in Boston, which was sponsored by Councilor Ruth C Lui Gen and Councilor Julie McKee. I'd like to thank my council colleagues for attending Council President Flynn, Councilor Lui, Jane Council Wirral, Councilor Baker, Councilor Maria, Councilor Coletta, Councilor Murphy and Councilor Clarity. I'd also like to thank members of the administration Kathleen Joyce, the Executive Directors of the Mayor's Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing, and Chairwoman of the Licensing Board for the City of Boston. Danny Green, Executive Secretary of the Licensing Board for the City of Boston. And Alisha Masina, Director of Small Business for the City of Boston and the advocates for their participation. During the hearing, we heard from the administration on the support for this home rule petition, as well as industry representatives on the value of liquor licenses to restaurants and its impact on profits. Passages of passage of this docket will allow the Licensing Board to grant five additional licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages for specified premises. Four of the licenses are for the bowling building. One of the licenses is for the Strand Theater. Both locations are in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston. All of these licenses are not transferable and are restricted to the specific location. Passage of this home rule petition and its amended draft will provide equity, improve the quality of life in the surrounding communities, and allow the entities to attract businesses and events. As Chair of Government Operations Committee, I recommend that this docket ought to pass in its new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor. I would anyone like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes Councilman here constantly on the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. For a moment there, I thought we were not going to be able to speak on anything because I had my light for the last one. So I'm up here for the last one. Just want to thank my colleagues for the passage of that. And I'm not going to hang up the mic because I know we have a lot of work to get through. But I'm just I'm buzzing up. I'm encouraging my colleagues to vote in favor so that we can get to business. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Here, the chair recognizes council's and constitution. Thank you. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you to Councilor Arroyo, a chair of government ops, for holding a hearing on this matter that was joined with another another Hormel petition sponsored by Council Oral and of course by myself about how do we get more liquor licenses into our neighborhoods, specifically Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan. These are targeted liquor licenses for football and building one for Strand Theater will all be about getting more business, spur more economy in our neighborhoods. We know that there's a lot of inequity baked into how liquor licenses are given out. The cost of them on the open market is exorbitant. And so with these four restricted liquor licenses, the bowling building, we're hoping to really help to spur economic activity in the Nubian Square area, anchored in a city owned building like the Strand Theater. So just asking my colleagues to support this one more petition and get this up to the state House so that we can get some really great businesses that have been looking for liquor licenses, that opportunity to really grow and develop their business in Nubian Square at the bowling building. Thank you very much. Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. And the chair recognizes counsel. Clarity. Counsel, clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to support. Obviously, this petition in the amended draft will provide equity, improve quality of life in the surrounding communities, and will allow the licensees to attract businesses and events which would be great for the community. I would just note obviously the importance that they are these are nontransferable. So that means that if the license is granted and if it's either canceled or revoked or no longer in use, the licenses shall be returned physically with all rights and privileges back to the city's licensing board. The licensing board then may grant that license to new applicants in the same location under the same conditions as the specified act. And that's a key component. So for those that are putting their best foot forward to obtain these licenses, making sure that they've got, you know, the front of the house in the back of the house in order, whether it's investment opportunities and or a particular cuisine or an event for them to, you know, the onus is on them, obviously, to have to perform in the event that they don't perform. The city has the ability to try to pull that back into granted to someone else. So it's a it's a privilege, I think, that we're granting on the nontransferable side. It's going to lend, particularly in the food desert side of the house. It will add tremendous value. But there is it's sort of a two way street cities granting these. But the entities also need to work with the community. They need to be responsive to the community. They need to add value to the community. They need to continue to be good neighbors or else the city has the ability to pull back on it. And I just think that's an important factor that needs to be mentioned, but I look forward to support it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Florida Constitution. English president. Has. This had a big impact on their lives. The Restaurant Association, the Black Hospitality Coalition in Your Grace marches, restaurants, United Prefects, accountants, offsite consulting. There are a lot of folks on this on this. When we when we held this hearing and a lot of them expressed it was unanimous support for these restricted place based liquor licenses that will stay with the BOLLING Building for the entirety of the existence of the Bowling Building and will stay with the Strand Theater for the entirety of the existence of the Strand Theater. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Johnson, for that clarification and the update as well. Castle Royal, the chair of the Committee on Government Operations, seeks acceptance of the committee report passage of Docket 0435 and a new draft. All those in favor say I don't know. Mr. Karp, would you please take a roll call? Vote, please. Roll call vote on docket 0435. Counsel Arroyo. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel the Baker Council. The Baker High Council. The Bar Council. The BLOCK Yes. Counselor Brain Counselor Brain Council IT Coletta. Counsel Coletta. Yes. Counsel for Ananda Sanderson. Yes. Counsel for Ananda Sanderson. Yes. Counsel Serving Yes. Counsel of Clarity Yes. Counsel Flynn. Yes. Counsel of Flynn. Yes. Counsel. Lara. Yes. Cancellara, yes. Cox. Allusion yes. Counsel. Region Yes. Counsel Let me hear. Yes. Counsel Let me hear you. Yes. Counsel to Murphy. Counsel Murphy Yes. And Counsel. World Yes. Counsel World Yes. Stuck in numbers 0435 has received a unanimous vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Corrupt Caucus 0435 has passed in a new draft. Mr. Carr, please read docket 05360537 in Dawkins 06708 Together Police.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach health orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0157

Next item is going to be 27. Report from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code related to Temporary Enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders regarding COVID 19 and declaring the urgency thereof. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Okay, I. I have a motion by Councilwoman Sara and a second by councilman today. Is there any public comment on this? If any members of the public wish to speak on this item, please press star nine or use the raise hand feature. If Shukla. Good evening. I support this item and this motion. It's an ugly thing that we've had done to us in this country. I think we all deep down know that if it was COVID 15, it would have been handled differently. We're going to have over a million people dead in this country just from Coban easily. But the true cost in lives. The total number of excess deaths. Because of the pandemic and the resultant. Economic recession and slow recovery. K-Shaped recovery. Um. That's going to be a drag. And it's going to be one internationally that, you know, people are going to compare this to the Kansas City flu and they're going to make a lot of conclusions about how far American society has or hasn't come since a lot of our. Creaky 19th century in origin institutions have kind of proven their limits, frankly. But moreover, I mean, I don't care if you like math, you don't like masks for vaccines, not for vaccines. I think we could all agree as Americans that. Yeah. It'd be great to end this pandemic and be allowed to do your job or get a better one. You know, I think we're we're all team like one country could get better after this and. I'm really looking forward personally to seeing. Not only positive vision for the future of our region and our city and our state lucky to be in the state of California, but really how we're going to pull people together out of this. Just coming out of this. Uh, I think you can lay every single excess death over the past two years at the feet of the past Republican administration. And I don't think that's a stain that just goes away. I don't care how often or how hard they have to lie to people. People go and every 17 to 41 year old in this country, you know, we can just walk. We don't have to put up with any of this. We can just move to Canada. Can you imagine the Republican Party trying to move towards fascism if we all just fucking voted with our feet? Remember that this is a democracy. Thank you. That concludes public. Comment. There's a motion and a second member. Three square and Castro votes. As a reminder, Mayor, this item does require two votes. The first vote Council. District one, high council. District two. I Council, District three. I Council District for. High. Council District six. I Council District seven. I. Council District eight. I. Council District nine. My motion is eight zero. And they will take the second vote, please. Ah the mover in the secondary or sirens in the house. Councilman So on. Councilwoman Didn't they have to? If I have councilman serum shoot up. Okay. Council District one. I. Council District two. I. Council District three. I. Counsel District four. I. Counsel District six. I counsel District seven. I counsel District eight. I counsel District nine. I motion carries eight zero. I think you know, I think we have our last item, which is item 23.

Recommendation to adopt a policy setting the maximum number of City Council sponsors an agenda item can have to three - one original sponsor and two cosponsors.

LongBeachCC_09142021_21-0982

The motion is. Carried. Out in 37. Adam, 37, is a communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Allen. Councilmember Oranga recommendation to adopt a policy setting the maximum number of City Council sponsor and agenda item can have to three sponsors. Oh, I shouldn't have heard this one, but that's okay. I was a staff item. But let me look over here. Bethany Richardson. Thanks to the attorney who spoke to it pretty well last week. Brown Act is important. There are additional steps that we can take here locally to make sure that we we sort of protect our and protect our city from inadvertently making mistakes. And so the importance of the Brown Act, obviously, we know it's about public, you know, ensuring that discussions are held in public. And so I wanted to carry forward the recommendation from the city attorney to add that additional provision so we don't step over the three into 4 to 5 by by establishing a council policy that sets the max number of offers on an item to three here in the city. And so, that said, I'm happy to make this motion. Councilman Allen. They can't. I don't have any comments. I support this. Item, Mr. Bernanke. Thank you. No. Is that good? All right. Thank you. If we're really trying to avoid browner interactions here, I'm going to make a substitute motion, and that is that we set a new policy that we have no one signing on to items other than the original maker of the motion, and that would avoid any gamesmanship or whatever, and it would absolutely eliminate any browner considerations. And this would be just a regular applied to just regular agenda items and not to supplemental supplementals. We would still use the old rules. Is there a second on that? Or is there a second on that? Of that in that second bit Councilmember Austin that that is the current substitute motion come to anyone go. Thank you. That's given me something to think about because I wasn't aware that there would be a substitute. I think that the first step is knowing and understanding the rules. And I know that we've been committees and different things. Different things have changed. And I think that staff having good intention is important. I'm open to either option. I guess I just want all of us to. Bring forward items. That support the community in a timely manner that supports making good work get done. Lots of different bodies have lots of different ways of doing it. I think that staff could bring back those for us because I'm open to. Whatever's best to get the people's work done. Okay. Thank you. Cancel or bust me, Richardson. Thanks. And I can appreciate the councilmembers Hooper knows of subs through motion. I think the distinction is there is a certain level of collaboration and that's okay. What we're doing is adding a protection ensure that we don't spill over to four and five. So encouraging council offices up to three to collaborate across district lines is a good thing. And I think removing one signer won't stifle that collaboration. So in the spirit of both adding, you know, this recommendation in alignment with the city attorney and preserving some level of collaboration. I support the main motion form. I'm going to vote no on the substitute motion to support the main motion. Councilman Austin. So I. Certainly the. Amendment just in the spirit of hearing hearing it out and I believe it, there's a merit here. This is the Brown Act is very, very delicate. And I think, again, we all in good faith try to do our very best to collaborate, also follow the law. And, you know, a week ago there were there were some procedural errors or that was brought to light. It may have not been the first time. It was the first time it had probably been brought to the light. And I do appreciate the city attorney for the correction and also my colleagues for that and thinking that that. That issue. Listen, the it's one thing, if things are a collaboration, you're damned if you do, but you're damned if you don't. And this is one area that I'd like to see a little bit more emphasis on this. The. Because we can go to other processes, we can go to other types of votes or both in the process and how we can pay for that. You have to get a majority of vote. You telling me that you don't talk to. Majority of people to get to that number of votes on that process. I think, you know, BROWN That is a slippery slope. And we as the council members have to talk to one another to get things done. And so I'm going to withdraw my second on that because I do think collaboration is very, very important. But I will tell you that moving forward, I will bring forth items on my own if necessary, in the spirit of trying to get things done. But at the same time, again, we try to work together and talk to our colleagues and engage folks and bring people on board. There's that that that uneasiness each and every one of us I think most of us have full time employment. Right. And if we're not here, we're not engaged. We're communicating through electronic devices and sometimes over the phone and through intermediaries. That is part of what it takes to move an agenda item and to move policy on the body. And so I want to be very clear that I like the idea of bringing an item of items forward on your own. But there's a risk that you do so that, you know, you might be out there on your own. And so the the city manager's recommendation of three refiners maximum is a safe safeguard. I'm going to vote for the policy, but I don't think we need a policy because war is allowable. That correct. Mr. Turnbull. Sorry. Yes. Council member. That is correct. For Islam. So quick question to the item before us. If someone were to violate the policy and speak to four people, what would be the consequence? The consequence is it is to exactly what you said. It's the policy of the council. And there have been other situations where the council has not followed their policy. The consequence could be a a decision by the council not to either hear the item or. But there is no legal consequence to that as long as it falls within the Brown Act. And I would like to make a suggestion if you pass this policy that you give it a clear direction not to accept items that have four people on it by accident so that its the rules are clear how you want us to handle that. If you submit an item that accidentally has four people on or rather than three. I appreciate that clarification. So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Captain America. Mayor. Sorry. May I just. Point of order. The second has been considered, so the second has been pulled. Is there another second? If there isn't another second, we go back to the main motion. Is that right? Should attorney. Think so? Okay. Country Ranga. Thank you. Simply stated, a city councilmember can always something. And I don't know that we're going back to the main motion. Okay, that's very Ranga. Yeah, like I said, a city councilmember can always have an item on his own at any time, regardless of whether we have Brown Act or not. The the. The motion on the floor is basically just. Is a cautionary, a cautionary item, too, to give us an indication that if we are looking at more than three people, that that will the city quick will be alerted to it and will let us know what you got for people. You may want to put it back to three. That's it. And it's a precautionary item to just give us notice that. We're on the edge of a brown at issue that we submitted before. That's all that is. It's not to say that we can't still violate the Brown Act by contacting Border Point councilmembers in our effort to get support for an item that is still going to be that still exists, that will always be there in regards to any item that a council member wants to put forward and making sure that no more than than. Or other members are aware of the outrage you're presenting. So on the end of it, at the end of the day, it's basically to separate us. Comment customers without comment is that we're always available to everyone. But one thing that that's important, I think, is the fact that our meeting here on the day is is about relationships . And our relationships are sometimes based on items that we present forward to ensure that we at least vet whatever item we're putting forward so that we know that the discussion is going to be taking place in a in a manner that is going to be either supportive or that brings up questions about why they are with you in the first place. And I think that's very important to our relationships. Other the days and I would say counsel that we share our thoughts. We share our ideas. We comment on them. And we think we will go forward either with three or four individuals. But the Senate would have no more than three. And I support the original motion for a couple among them. Thank you. Last week's discussion brought forward a lot of learning, and I guess one of my colleagues mentioned collaboration and how agenda items bring forward to collaboration. I appreciate the rule that we have put upon ourselves in the past, led by Council Member Super, not in the past. And I appreciate the restructuring of our committees that the mayor took part in earlier this year really facilitated for us. I mean, I would love to see more of that collaboration happen at the committee level. I really think that that's an opportunity where three people are supposed to. I'm really dove into the context of all the other policies that have similar subject to really grow and have the access to the staff members to help flesh out those ideas in a more casual discussion. I also got a call that I thought was a very interesting one where a member stated many years ago the State Assembly and State Senate were not made up of people who had moved from city council level up to. Or moved on to. I shouldn't say because it depends on what region you're in, but moves on to Assembly or Senate positions for the first time in several generations. There are more previously. Council members serving at the State Assembly than never before during our time on this Council, and that the laws related to Brown Act were written, from my understanding now by the State Assembly and Senate, who chose not to have those laws apply to themselves because they felt that. And I want to say how they felt, but there's a lot of discussion that was you can watch on television about the reasoning behind that. And so it's a very interesting topic. I think that we want to protect the public's ability to interact with and take part in those discussions. I think that we as a council have really worked hard to bring those items to the community in a community meeting forum. And I think that hearing those items in advance on committees really brings that back to the community. So I'm happy to support the item on the floor. I'm happy to support a substitute. I'm also happy to kind of align with what Councilmember Odinga said, which is sometimes there's a lot of value in getting that additional input from an additional colleague. And when they don't sign on to the item, it doesn't even give us the opportunity where if one of them signs off later that you know and understand who is a part of that. So I'm open to trying something new and I hope that the state will consider really the changes in technology and all the different factors that have changed since these laws were written and do some significant updating that really gives the public the best access to all the information so that they can really be involved. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. I just want to add some context. And in the spirit of what I brought forward, I'm not disagreeing with our city attorney. In fact, I commend him for bringing the idea forward as a as a method to improve honor system. I would just suggesting if we can do that, we can we can make it even better by eliminating a couple of more folks. The most recent part of this discussion is, you know, I made the I meant that in the best way transforming the. But what I'm hearing just in the last couple of comments is the value of people collaborating. But the city attorney's idea diminishes that. So we're taking away one person from that. So we're kind of working both sides of that argument there. But I'm not sure if I have a second now, but that was the spirit of it. I like the city attorney's idea. I was just looking to improve upon it a little bit. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. And they have. Q I just had a question, clarifying question. If we do have if this do we have another motion on the floor? No. This the main. Motion. Okay. And if we do pass the original motion and we do have only three people sign on, we I'm assuming I know this answer, but I'm not sure. And we still can consult with the fourth person. We just wouldn't be signing them onto the item. Correct. Without violating the. Without violating the ban. I guess the the intention of the Brown Act is that you're not trying to reach a consensus with the majority, so that would not be in a majority. So you could do that. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. As any public comment on item. Well, there's one more Councilman Price. Okay, so I just this is this is academic, but I just need to make sure this is on the record. So if there are four people on an item and one of the people on the item reaches out to you before the meeting. During the meeting to talk, that's a brown ass violation if you're not one of the four people. Yes. I mean, the issue is you're having a conversation about a subject matter coming before the body with a majority of the council. Yes, that's a serial meeting and it would be a Brownback violation. I agree. And that has been my interpretation. But in the past, I think I've had folks have maybe interpreted it differently and said unless it's at that behind the diocese, it's not really ripe for discussion. Blah, blah, blah. But anyway, if there's four people on an item, you can't talk to them. You can't. Try to come up with compromise positions, etc. If you weren't asked to sign on, you're not part of that conversation until it's at the door. That is correct. Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Council member, Vice Mayor Richardson. The motion is carried. All right. We're going to go to item 25, you.

Recommendation to approve renaming the Long Beach Fire Department Regional Training Center located at 2249 Argonne Avenue, the “Captain David Rosa Regional Training Center."

LongBeachCC_11202018_18-0800

Motion carries. Thank you. We have item 21, which is another naming vice mayor. Item 21 is communication from Vice Mayor Andrews, Chair of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to approve renaming the Long Beach Fire Department Regional Training Center. The Captain. David Rosa. Regional Training Center. Vice Mayor Andrew. Excuse me. Also, this is the same recommendation. You know, which was just read, you know, for Captain Rosa. And I'm very happy that this will go to the committee. And I'm looking forward to the ribbon cutting ceremony and much love for Station ten. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's a motion and a second councilmember. Austin. Thank you. Happy to motion. Happy to be on the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee that unanimously recommends this this item to to the Council for your full support. Obviously, Captain Rosa gave a lot and contributed a lot and paid the ultimate price for his public service to the city. And so I think it's only fitting that that we recognize him on at the fire training station for his contributions as a as a training firefighter as well. He did so much for for and trained so many of the existing department at the Fire Academy and so look forward to supporting this figure. Councilman, Councilmember Superdog. Thank you. Would like to echo the sentiments of Councilman Austin as a member of the committee, and we are very proud and honored to have this recognition at the training center in the fourth Council District. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any public comment on this scene? And please cast your votes. Motion carries a motion for the consent calendar, please. So much. Any public comment for the consent calendar? Say Nonmembers, please go and cast your votes.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating the Midtown Specific Plan (SP-1) to reflect a boundary change, read and adopted as read. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_02092021_21-0084

District nine. All right. Motion carries. Item 14 Report from Development Services Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating the Midtown Specific Plan to reflect a boundary change read and adopted as read District six. Give a motion like Councilwoman Taro. Can I get a second, please? Second rate Councilwoman Allen there. There's no public comment. Roll call vote. District one. By. District two. By District three. I. District for. High. District five. I District six and District seven. I. District eight. District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

A proclamation honoring Sandy Sardella, owner of PISMO Art Glass Galleries, on the occasion of her retirement. honoring Sandy

DenverCityCouncil_03022015_15-0102

President. Proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation one zero to Councilwoman Robb, will you please provide proclamation one or two? Thank you, Mr. President. I am very proud to read Proclamation 102 series of 2015 honoring Sandy Saadallah, owner of Pismo Art Glass Galleries on the occasion of her retirement. Whereas after 25 years in business, Sandy Saadallah, the owner of the three Pismo Fine Art Glass Galleries in Denver, Aspen and Vail, Colorado, is following the age old adage to quit while she is ahead. And. WHEREAS, this astute businesswoman retires this spring after completing the best year of her career in the business, closing the Denver Gallery on March 31st with closures following in Aspen and Vail after the ski season concludes and she holds her once in a lifetime sale. And. Whereas, Sandy represented Delta Hooley, world renowned glass artist for more than 20 years in his outstanding exhibition last year at the Denver Botanic Gardens brought increased recognition and an appreciation of his artistry to Denver, increased sales to her gallery near the gardens and according to Sandy, spiked appreciation for glass art in general among Denver rights, even those with little prior interest in glass art before experiencing the exhibit. And. WHEREAS, Sandy, a longtime Denver resident and wife of retired nine News anchorman Ed Saadallah, has a master's degree from the University of Denver, has put her heart and soul into into her galleries, resulting in international acclaim for their breadth and depth of their collection and will be sorely missed in the world of glass art. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver thanks and honor Sandy Saadallah for her contributions to Denver's creative economy and the evolution of Cherry Creek North is Denver's Premier Shopping District and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Sandy Saadallah. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Your motion to adopt. I move that council adopt proclamation one or 220 15/2. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. This is is surely an honor as a few of my colleagues may have heard me say once or twice. Cherry Creek is Denver's renowned shopping area with the largest collection of local and independent merchants and businesses in the region. And I want to stress 74% of those businesses are local, and this really makes us the best place for local and national shopping. And it's very sad to see Pismo Gallery leave, but it's the case of natural retirement. Some of us I won't say exactly who, but some of us who might be around the same age as Sandy Saadallah realize that when you leave a job you love, it's truly bittersweet. Some of us don't have as much choice about when to quit as others, but I will tell you, I was in the shop today to pick up these cherries that came all the way from Italy. And I want you all to have them as collector's items from Cherry Creek. They're a favorite item to purchase in the store, but that store was. So I expected it to see it half empty. I mean, we're starting the sale. It is so beautiful there still. So what? So much wonderful stuff in there, even some that you can afford that I would suggest right now they're slashing prices by 20 and 30%. And it's just an experience you ought to go in. If you've never been in, it will be your last chance to go in and look around the press release. Sandy puts out talks about how much she really appreciates her staff and the artists she works with. I in there today I saw the staff and there they are going strong, so excited about what's in the gallery that I feel sort of bad for them. But anyway, I'm very pleased to bring this and I want to wish Sandy and her husband Ed a good time in their retirement. They do have a home in Pismo Beach, California, where they will be spending part of their time, but they reside in Denver and planned to keep Denver as home. Thank you, Councilwoman Rob, Councilman Brown. Well, thank you, Mr. President. And Sandy and Ed, it's great to have you in our chamber tonight. I loved your store, Sandy. You know what? You don't have to go in to appreciate it. I love good art and windows and you always had a great window there. It was so inviting. Today we received a copy of Wingtips and if my colleagues have a copy, you might want to go to page six because 20 years ago this weekend, Ed Saadallah was at the CIA opening the airport. And there you are. You and Adel, what a small world. I'm going to miss you guys. But thank you for for 25 years of what you've done in Cherry Creek. You've really made it a first class area of the shop. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Lemon. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to take a moment to thank you not only for what I've done, but for the charity that you found for us. And thank Councilwoman Robb as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also thank you. This may seem like a simple piece of art, but it isn't. It takes a lot of craft and a lot of skill to do something like this. To work with glass is a very, very it's a technique that requires a lot of skill. I know this because when we had our in our schools a long time ago, you worked one of the things that we you were able to do and is is work with Glass. And one of the places that we went to to take a look at it was what you did to kind of expiries expire inspire us as students when i was younger in high school to give us ideas. So your impact is what they say. The apple doesn't fall far too far from the tree or the acorn doesn't know what it's going to be when it grows up. This little cherry is one of those things that could be used as well to look it with a very good analogy. But you will be missed. I know California's beautiful, but in Colorado you ain't. There's nothing like Colorado. And. And Ed, Mr. Saadallah, it's so good to see you. I grew up watching you. You know, I like Channel Seven as well, too. Oh, but. But I grew up watching you. Your voice. Your voice was in our household. Just as I hear your voice, my grandfather's voice and my grandmother's voice scold to me. So thank you for your service as well, too. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman. I just wanted to ask that my name be added. All right. Certainly, we will make sure that is done. Thank you. No names keep popping in about any other comments. All right. I think we're good seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob, I. Sheppard Susman. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. All right. Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. I. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and ask the results. 3939 is proclamation one or two has been adopted, Councilwoman Robb. So anyone you like to invite to the podium? Well, there certainly is. So I have to say, as I was making my comments, if they seemed impersonal, where I sit, I can barely see you. The television to the computer monitor at the podium blocks you. But Sandy, I would love to have you come up and say a few words about your career and Denver, whatever's on your mind. I just want to say thank you to all of you. It's been 25 wonderful years. I've been in Cherry Creek North the whole time. I'm in my fourth location in Cherry Creek North. So I've become a staple, I guess. I've enjoyed it very much. It's been a labor of love. I've worked with wonderful artists such as Truly. We've representative for 23 years his stay at the Earth Show at the Botanic Gardens. Last year was phenomenal for all of us, the whole city and especially Pismo. It gave us recognition that we hadn't had, even though we had been representing him. A lot of people didn't know what glass art was. So we're very appreciative of what the gardens did and what the city did. So thank you. And we'll be in business for the rest of the month through March 31st. We encourage you all to come out and shop. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Fantastic. All right. Moving on to resolutions, Madam Secretary, please read the resolution. From safety and well-being 120 resolution authorizing approving payments from Bacchus and Shaker LLC for payment satisfaction. All claims in case number 14 CV 02358 dash KMT nine States District Court for the District Colorado.

A bill for an ordinance making appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business for the year 2021 and for the purposes required by the Charter and by other law. Approves the 2021 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (Long Bill).

DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1216

All right. Thank you. Councilman Hines saying no other questions. We're going to go ahead and move on. The next item up is Council Bill 1216. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Bill 1216 on the floor for passage? I moved that bill. 20 deaths 1216 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. May get a second. I guess. All right. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just want to call this one out to go on record voting separately on this one again. It's the budget, and I am a no. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. We have Councilman Flynn. You're up. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to point out that under the charter, 7.2.1, this annual appropriations ordinance must be passed. It's our role here is similar to today, what we witnessed in Michigan with the state board of canvassers. This is the annual appropriation ordinance that fills in the budget that was passed last month. And there have been times when I have voted against the budget, but once it is passed, it has to be appropriated. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Yeah. I have two specific questions and I'm sorry I didn't give the agencies a head up. I wasn't planning to call this out, but then when I saw it was called out, I wanted to ask the questions. There are two items in the long bill. One is the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment is. Allocating. It's $1.6 million. And I was it's it's for the relocation of the medical examiner's office. And it wasn't that long ago that they relocated to a site that used to be on the Denver Health campus, and they're now just south of Sixth Avenue. And I wasn't aware that they were moving again. So can you talk a little bit, Will, about what's going on with the medical examiner's office? Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Here's. Here's what I'll say about about that office. I mean, you know, to be true. Just from seeing kind of monthly reports from Dr. Jim Caruso, the medical examiner, we you know, throughout the year, this year, we've seen an increase in, you know, all types of deaths and their their office because of the nature of the work, because of the medical certifications and the different folks that they're required to hire. They've had a hard time kind of attracting and, you know, and keeping the best folks. And they they do they do put a lot of effort into hiring the right people. So what I know is that what I know is that their office, not just this year but has seen a large increase in their work volume. And I. I am not aware of of the strategy and how that all played out. And I'll just tell you that candidly. But I can tell you honestly that. You know, even though my my colleagues from other divisions would would frown on me for saying this, that office is I won't say overworked, but they do they do a ton of really important stuff. And I know this doesn't address your your question directly as far as how that all came about. But what I can tell you is that there, you know, I've seen just recalling now I've seen pictures from inside of the facility, the kind of state of the art stuff that they have now. I don't know that they had some of the support that they always that that they needed and now they do if that makes sense. Yeah. So I guess my question is specific to the million $645,080 that is listed in the long bill that says it's for the Office of Medical Examiners relocation. So I don't know if that cost that applied towards that when it was relocated or if it if that's regarding a new relocation, because it wasn't that long ago they had a big grand opening. We all walked through the facility, got to see, you know, all of what this new facility. And it's much, much larger than the old one when they were in the basement down on Bannock Street on the Denver Health campus. So that's what I'm trying to understand here. And we can only have Stephanie Adams that we wanted to bring up into the conversation. That would be great here. And so we'll go ahead and. Get Stephanie into the queue to answer this question. And let me see. Stephanie. Yeah. Stephanie. If you could raise your hand in the attendees. Okay. There you go. Hi. Hi. Hi, everyone. So canceling our ticket, they are not relocating again. I think that that that is actually a capital a capital allocation. So let me talk I will talk to my friends and keep it. My hunch is that the annual cost of that, it's those costs of the relocation and we happened to name it that India should probably revisit that particular name. Okay. That's helpful clarification. Thank you for that. Of course, you may be want to stay on for my next question. And this one is regarding wastewater management came in under wastewater management, there is a cost of $300,000 for public restrooms. Why is water management paying for restrooms? Typically, that would be a public works cost. It would be a Parks and rec cost. It's not normal that that is a wastewater management cost and it's helpful to know where those are proposed to be as well. Certainly. So again, I believe that the capital cost is actually been on the books for the last two or three years. They've had an allocation associated with public restrooms and I know that they had worked with that was sort of that roaming restroom. You knew how they had the restroom that was going through the city that was actually paid for by wastewater. And I do know that they have been working with parks in particular to understand how they could leverage those dollars for additional restrooms or enhancing restrooms. And I'll find out exactly what the current plan is for 2021. But that actually has been a cost that that wastewater had ALEC has allocated for the last couple of years. Okay. And this is actually for the is that because they want to make sure that we don't keep stretching what we asked the Wastewater Enterprise Fund to cover if they're not allowable expenses. And given the bill that was on the ballot, you know, that was a statewide bill that dealt with the creation of a special. Special funds. Enterprise funds. I want to make sure that we continue to do everything we can to protect this. We all know that the need for restrooms is important. I don't want to minimize that by any means, but I want to make sure we protect that in a fund and not get ourselves in a situation where we jeopardize that. So that's why I brought it. Certainly council and I'm I'm very sure that we cleared that with the city attorney's office before we would have done that a couple of years ago. But I will I will follow up with that. And just to clarify as well, and actually, I did receive a text that that particular allotment is for the second downtown restroom. Okay. All right. Thank you. Of course. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman PANITCH. Yeah. I just wanted to chime in on this discussion. My colleague, Councilman Ortega, was having I was involved in this discussion with our former director, Jose Cornejo. And the reason for this source for the restroom funding is because when there is public urination and defecation, that those things end up in our inner storm water sewers and they end up in our rivers, and it ends up as part of a water quality issue. And so public restrooms are a mitigating factor to that, particularly, you know, risky environmental issue. And so so so that's the nexus with the fund and the reason why those dollars were dedicated quite some time ago as a partial cost, not for the entire I think it was at one point a 5050 cost sharing. So if that context is helpful to my colleague, just wanted to share that. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Kimmich. All right. Seen no other questions? Madam Secretary, roll call, please. No. Course I. When I. And I. Hi. I'm. Cashman. All right. Kenny. I. Ortega. I. In the bar. I. Sawyer. I. Black. I. For it, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. When they us. 12 Eyes Council Bill 1216 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent to block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and due process. In a BOC. For the following items. Series 20 1263. 1286 1288. 1289. 1290. 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299 1300 1301 1302 1306. 1309 1151 1153 1244 1266 1287. 1307 1082 1312 1229 1217 1218 12 1912, 2112 22 1224, 12, 25, 12, 26, 12, 2712 3012, 33, 1197 Trouble one. Trouble 203 trouble. For trouble five trouble 612 seven trouble eight trouble 912 1012, 11, 12, 23, 1231 and 1232. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black I. For. Sorry. This is out of order, Torres. I think about that. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. I. Cashman. I. To me. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I saw your. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close of Iranian announced results. 1313 ays the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1086, changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue, and 1443 Kalama Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1127, changing the zoning classifications for 26, 55 and 2659 Downing Street are required public hearing on Council Bill 1128 Changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place A 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 1138 approving the 2021 Denver Health and Hospital Authority Operating Agreement and a 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Resolution 1236, approving a proposed third and mandatory agreement between the city and County of Denver and Brother's Redevelopment Inc. to revise the scope and services and to revise the scope of services and budget, increase the maximum contract amount and extend the term for the temporary rent and Utility Assistance Program. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recesses of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and microphones and we will return at seven. 50 or excuse me. 6:53 p.m.. 653. We will return from recess. Thank you. All their names and cities and presidents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will flash and say, Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yield in of time. A translated translation is needed. You will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Sandoval Will you please put Council Bill 1086 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to approve the Relocation Plan for 6841-6845 Atlantic Avenue (Assessor Parcel Numbers 7116-019-029 and -036). (District 9)

LongBeachCC_11192019_19-1156

Council member Oranga. Bush and Kerry. You think the agenda is complete? We're going back to the last two items. It'll be 19 and 24. So we're going to go to 19/1, then 24. The new business. And I believe we've heard all other items say correct. Yeah. 19 and 24. So I a number 19. Item 19 is a report from Economic Development recommendation to approve the relocation plan for 684136845 Atlantic Avenue District nine. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Richards, do you want a staff report concerning no compensation? No. Okay. So most definitely do have. We do have some public comment on item 19. So. Marsha Durbin. Harold Durbin. Freddy McGowan. Art Figueroa, Darren Erin. Tina Soso if you could all please come up. Those first six speakers. And we have over ten speakers, so it'll go down to 130. I was like, We're going to use that report. Okay, well, I guess we're going to self-report. So if I can just have you guys take a seat, please. We're going to we are going to do a staff report first. Apologize for that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. John Geisler, our economic development director, has a staff report that we can prepare. Provide honorable mayor and members of the city council. Thank you so much. So this report actually pertains to what we call Atlantic Farms or 6841 through 68, 45 Atlantic Avenue. We recently purchased this property as part of a project to eventually build our homeless shelter. And I'm going to ask Mary Torres, our property services officer, to give you a breakdown of what the relocation requirements are for existing tenants in what we have for you to approve tonight. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council. The item before you, like John said, was is the adoption of a relocation plan. The city did acquire the property this past July. There are current. The current tenants occupying the site are Eddy's Liquor One Residential Tenant College of Instrument Technology. KBIA 6845. And there are nine individuals who park their semi-trucks occasionally. Of those tenants, Eddie's liquor and residential tenant. The residential tenant will be vacating January 5th of 2020. KB 86845 is not being able is not being required to relocate at this time. Of the nine individuals who park at the site, only one has come forward to submit a claim for relocation benefits. And the city is currently working with the College of Instrument Technology in the Water Department on a relocation site. Under California law. Prior to any displacement of tenants, a relocation plan must be prepared and submitted for approval by the local legislative body. The relocation plan outlines the needs and characteristics of the displaced population, the available relocation resources and the city's program to provide assistance to each affected displaced party as well as the benefits available to them . The relocation plan must be available for public review and comment for at least 30 days prior to consideration by the City Council for approval. On October 3rd, 2019, a notification letter was sent to all onsite occupants, indicating the relocation plan was available for public review. Comments were received during the three day review period, which ended November 31, 2019, and are included within the relocation plan for consideration and adoption. The recommendation before you is to adopt the relocation plan. This concludes my staff report. I'm available to answer any questions as well as the cities relocation consultant Overland Pacific and Color. Thank you. Is that it? That's fine. Could we have those speakers back up to the guys just place? Marcus Harrell. But he. You have a 90 seconds. You. How? How long? 90 seconds. They cut it in half because we. Have over ten speakers. Good evening. I'm sorry Mr. Mayor is not here, but Mr. Vice Mayor, city council members. My name is Marsha Durbin, and I serve in the city of Long Beach as the director of the College of Instrument Technology, also known as City. We are one of the affected displaced businesses business owners at 6841 Atlantic Avenue in Long Beach, where a small family run business. And we have been very successfully training Long Beach unemployed veterans and homeless residents for more than 30 years. We worked for the Long Beach Pacific Gateway and other workforce investment agencies to train and place participants in a heavy equipment truck driver or crane operator career. We have a success rate of 96% employment and a good jobs that pay them good enough that they can buy their own homes, cars and etc.. Many graduates come back and tell us how they were able to buy a house or a car for the first time in their lives. Many were homeless. Most were collecting unemployment. And I see my time's almost over. We need what we need from you. We need more money for relocation. And we need a place to go. We have to get approval from the Bureau of Postsecondary Education for the new location. We don't have a location confirmed yet, and we need that desperately. We need your help. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes. Harold, please. Yeah. We started at the College of Instrument Technology and a joint venture with Long Beach City College 35 years ago. And unfortunately, I made a big mistake. I left Long Beach City College after two years because their emphasis of what their thought education should be and mine was different. We started the joint venture to have people trained, so when we hired them, they could actually go to work. We wanted the only thing that we'd have to tell them was where to punch your timecard and where the bathrooms were. We wanted them trained to that level so they were productive. Day one For the last seven years, we've had over 93% people actually going to work and. The last three years is 96%. And that's not internships, apprenticeships or enterprise zones. Those are not real jobs. They don't have to keep them after they get that federal or state funding. 80% of our graduates make 80 to 120000 after 20 weeks of training. When we were in Long Beach City College, they wanted a lesson plan for every day that put everybody in the same package. We left there because that is not productive. If you're a businessman, you would never do it that way. You learn every person to go at their own speed and their success rate. Our results proved that I was right. Thank you very much. Then the next speaker. Very honorable counselor. My name is Freddy McGowan. I am a 2016 city veteran graduate. I'm one of the success stories. I served with the United States Marine Corps for nearly 21 years. I served around the globe as a staff NCO upon graduation. Prior to retiring, I didn't have a place to go. I was at the unemployment office and with my and I saw the city flier with my 80% disabilities, I didn't have the skills or the knowledge of where to go, where to be hirable. The so once I enrolled at City, City gave me the skills that I needed to succeed and society along with other fellow veterans that were homeless. And I am testifying on their behalf that they're not here because they're successful. Men and women out there serving again in this country are successful civilians. Thank you to city. I respectfully ask a long, long beach Long Beach City Council that enough relocation allocations be distributed so the city can remain successful in relocating. Also, US veterans are helping us all out. Thank you so. Much. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, I think we are. All right, guys. So I didn't go. Uh, thanks very much. Look. I think we have to figure out where. I work for college measurement technology. Oh, sorry. You guys have cerebral palsy. Excuse me, sir. Um, so Seattle has helped. Me painting with women. But that's not where it's gonna stay and help all kinds of people. From all facets of lives. From Long Beach City to the surrounding cities. They've helped. Tons of communities get jobs in the crane industry, heavy equipment industry. And if that's not for available for the people, it's just a humongous disservice. Not only. Sorry, guys. Not only for them, but for my colleagues that are all sitting around me right now. Citi's relocation is one of the best things you could put money towards. City has done great things for the community that have potential impact for generations. Thanks. Thank you very much, Darren and Tina. How are you doing? My name is Dan Roy Aaron, and I'm a graduate and I'm also a truck driving instructor for the school. After completing the program in 2015 at Harmony. As an instructor, I appreciate you. The city of Long Beach would help see it and finding a new location so that we can continue to serve our community. The majority of the people that I train are people from the military, people who have been incarcerated for many years, people who have people that have many problems finding employment and people that come to the school that are homeless. I was one of these people because the city hired me. Now I can also give back to our community and you know, thank you for your time. Thank you very much. In a place. Hi, my name is Tina Swasey. So I am my Cathy Workforce graduate. I worked for. A major alarm. Security company for 26 years and then administration. And then I was laid off knowing that I was how do I knowing that I needed to be retrained. And then another field I found information on Katie and I started the trucking program. I graduated and Katie. Offered me a position to train other students in trucking. So I've been working there for ten years. I'm an instructor. I prep the students for DMV on their brakes and future to get there as CDL. I am 59. Years old and the city has no place to be relocated. It will jeopardize my job as well as my coworkers. I respectfully ask the Long Beach community to ensure. That city receives sufficient. Funds for a relocation. Thank you. Thank you to the next speaker, Matt and Senior Principal Jacob. Hello. My name is Francine. I've been. Jabbed about Brexit. Since 2015. I started CRT when I was about 20 with little experience in the work. Field and. Said he gave me that chance to grow as an. Employee and most importantly. Help people find employment. It's been a privilege to have the experience. Experience over 90% plays a role in each of their programs. I really do hope that the City. Of Long Beach is able to find a relocation facility, not just for my job for for other students that are unemployed and the veterans returning home. Thank you. Thank you very much. Jacob here. Jacob. Jason. Oh, I said Jason. Excuse me. Yes. My name is Jason. I reside in the ninth district as as I have for nearly ten years now. I am a c i t graduate who graduated from the who was trained and certified at the location at 6041 Atlantic. They are what we call the Atlantic Yard. I had gone to school in Long Beach City College and graduated from there with the horticulture degree. I had had some problems in finding a steady job and so I decided to go to city. I was trained and certified there and the training that they provide is top notch when we go as to get our class a driver's license at the DMV, I was shocked at how many of the other trade schools had their students turning around and walking that walk of shame away from the DMV without even getting to go on the road. But City provides their students with the skills that they need to make sure that they are going to pass. And that is why their completion rate and job placement rate is astronomical. I mean, if you look at our community colleges, the graduation rate is barely 13, 18%, yet they are providing jobs, high quality paying jobs, which now actually work at Long Beach City College and have been employed there. And so I ask if you do go through it, I strongly oppose it. But if you do go through, please postpone it to allocate them proper funding. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next up is artist tutorial and an after party is Harry Durban and then Elizabeth Dawson. And then how to protect those folks in the lineup, please. Next up, artist guitarist Harry Durbin, Elizabeth Dawson and Howard Pratt. The police line up at the podium in that order right now. That would be great. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is art historian. I'm the assistant director at the College of Instrument Technology. I work directly with programs such as Pacific Gateway to receive referrals. And provide intake into our programs. I'm also the liaison with the California State Bureau of Postsecondary Private Postsecondary Education. In the event of relocation, I will ensure that we are compliant with BP during this critical move in transition. I'm also the liaison with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA. We started discussions with the VA already regarding our move, but we can't move forward with any type of review or. Approval. Until we have confirmed training site and also they require BPP approval first. So as you can see, the 90 day notification is very stressful at this point because we don't have a secured site. So we ask you to consider that when you do give notification, having sufficient relocation, time and support will enable us to hopefully make it through the period we want to be in. Compliance and to work with the city and with the city of Long Beach is help. We hope to secure a site immediately, make this transition smoothly so it does not affect our students and we can uphold our mission, which, as you've heard, is helping our veterans are unemployed or homeless or underemployed reenter the workforce with meaningful careers. I respectfully asked the Long Beach City Council to consider the timeframe and to receive sufficient relocation allocations. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Elizabeth Thorsen. I'm sorry. Eric Durbin, the mayor was with Belgium. Hello. Harry Durbin. I want to thank Mary Tours and Mr. Kaiser for working with us so closely as they have been to help us to find a new location. And since they've been working as closely as they have, we have found some spots that may work out, but nothing that's concrete. And that's what our major issue is, is that we need to be able to let the BPP know which you guys are familiar with. We have to let VA Veteran Affairs know where we're going to move to and they have to approve the site before we can do it. We can't just sit and say, Hey, we're going to move there tomorrow and go there. So it's like she said, a stressful. Process that we're very worried about because we want to be able to keep. And to continue providing the high level of service that we've been doing for so many years, thanks to my family and and the efforts that my dad saw way back when of a person needed to be able to be trained and then go directly to work in a short amount of time. Our course has run from 5000 to $30000 that it cost for people that come. It takes anywhere from eight weeks to 20 weeks and they go to work. I mean, they literally get jobs. I had a guy that took my eight week course level one, but we got his class license and his heavy equipment certification. He went day one and started off with the union, starting off at $52 an hour. So it works. It works over and over again. That's my slogan that I tell guys. It's not about what you want to do. It's about what you want to do on the weekend. And so you can make enough money to do what you want in your spare time. Thank you very. Much. Thank you so much. Elizabeth Dawson, please. And then Howard Pratt. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and City Council. The College of Internet Technology is a school that has been located at 6841 Atlantic Avenue. They have been paying the rent. They have been training folks that are underserved from the city of Long Beach. They have a longstanding contract with Pacific Gateway training. Long Beach residents. And they do it successfully. Our issue is the relocation plan that you all will be approving does not have sufficient funding allocated for the College of Instrument Technology to relocate $20,000. If you take a look at the items for the budget that were put there, an estimate of $150,000. This is a unique program. They have equipment that is more than 20 tons. It cannot just be stuck on the road and transported to that Long Beach water site. It cost an upwards of $20,000 to move all their equipment. We are asking the council and the mayor that we can work closely with Mr. Keisler and. In order for the proper relocation of the College of Consumer Technology. Thank you so much to you, Mr. Pratt. So Pratt here may know that we will close public comment and then go to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all, thank everybody for coming coming down and making your case. That's what city council and democratic process is for. You know, I was just at the site just this morning, and I'll probably go over there and, you know, look at different things, you know, probably once every few weeks just to take a look. And, you know, I have a few questions for staff based on, you know, what the issues that you've raised. So. Mr.. MODICA So tell me about, you know, what the process was to determine what the amount of relocation is that these the tenants of the site receive. Councilmember. Absolutely. So I'm going to actually have Mary talk a little bit about the process specifically for Katie that we're engaged in. And we also have our our consultant, OPC, Overland Pacific Cutler here to answer some technical questions if we need that. So I'll start with Mary. Thank you. The the relocation estimates that are included in the relocation plan are based on a general assessment of the current condition. Once a suitable replacement site is located, then OPC works with the tenant to actually identify the costs that need to be taken into account for relocation to a specific site. So the relocation plan, again, is just a general assessment based on sort of an ideal relocation site. But once if I shouldn't say if, but if we can come to an agreement with the water department and get them onto that site, then OPC will work and identify the benefits and the costs that are associated with their moving expenses and then that will be incorporated into their their benefits. Within this plan is the plan to help assist identifying a site and then identifying the relocation support to make sure that that transition happened, correct? Yes. Okay. I'd like to keep an eye on this. I like to keep an eye on this. I'd like to make sure that Mr. Geisler, we we communicate. We do a better job communicating the expectations with with the tenant so that we understand it. And just to you so first of all, you know, my family's been in the trucking business a long time. I know the way that trucking can transform lives. I know that, you know, there are you know, within the industry, it's very forgiving. You can have not the best record and go get a class A driver license and all that matters is a driving record after that. Right. And so, you know, I have folks in my in my you know, in my family involved in the business. I've been involved in the business, Reefers, Drive-In, you know, Sandbox, you name it. I pretty much know about the industry, so I get it. I understand if there's something we can do to help with this transition, and I understand that this is a bit uncomfortable. This is sort of a bigger picture issue that we have to address. And I know that this is difficult for a lot of people. So we want to make sure that we're fair about this process and that we're communicating and being clear about expectations. If there's something we can do, in my understanding, coming into tonight, that that there's potentially a site, there's anything we can do to make that happen. You have my support there. Thank you. I think there's a motion in a second member. Please go out and cast your votes. Bush and Kerry.

A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 20200961, Series of 2020, to extend the duration of an interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted uses in Former Chapter 59 zone districts due to the COVID-19 disaster emergency. Amends Ordinance 2020-0961 to extend the zoning administrator’s authorization to approve temporary unlisted uses on Former Chapter 59-zoned land through December 31, 2023. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-21.

DenverCityCouncil_06142021_21-0592

13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-057 to has been postponed to Monday, June 28. The next item up is Council Bill five nine to Council Member Ortega. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0592 on the floor for final passage? As I move that. Council Bill 20 1059 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sandoval, your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration and. And feel 21 if it's 20 1-0592 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, July 12, 2020. Thank you. We've got it's been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Council member Sandoval. Thank you, Council President. We need to postpone final consideration of this bill. It was not notified properly. So we have to go through the notification process again, which would put us to have the public hearing on Monday, July 12th. All right. Thank you. And not seen any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. Hi. Torres. I black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I can. I. Ortega I Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-059 to. With its public hearing will be has been postponed to Monday July 12. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or on to our block vote. Any bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration consideration and do passed in the block for the following items. 20 1-06 ten. Zero 611 zero 612 06806190578060706140552053305910530606. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second in there. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Hi, Clark. I. When I. Herndon. Hi. Hi. Hi. Cashman. I can change. Hi. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our previous pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-0421 changing the zoning classification for 2394 South Lincoln Street in Rosedale and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0443 Changing

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and take the actions necessary to adopt the Fiscal Year 2022 budget as listed in Attachment A; Approve the revised Long Beach Recovery Act program allocations and approve the Fiscal Year 2021 departmental and fund budget appropriation adjustments for the Long Beach Recovery Act in accordance with existing City Council Policy; and Set September 7, 2021 as the hearing date for a continued budget hearing to take the necessary actions to adopt the Fiscal Year 2022 Master Fees and Charges Schedule and establish the rates and charges for water and sewer service. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08242021_21-0851

David Sonata. And I'm speaking on behalf of the great eighth District, as well as partners of Parkes and the commission that I've been appointed to for Parks, Recreation and Marine. I wanted to come tonight to both thank you for the. Responsible decisions you've. Been making for our parks and with hopes that we continue to fund our parks, recreation, marine and Animal Care Department. We have learned quite a lot during this pandemic. Your department has stepped up to be a major part in the COVID situations that we've been addressing for the past year and a half. We hope that you consider. Part. Parks Recreation Marine. As part of your health, safety and quality of life here in the city. As we have stepped up, as did your police department and your fire department have during these troubled times. We hope that you will continue in budgeting in the years to come, especially in 2023. As we move forward, making these responsible decisions are is not easy. And we understand that it is a major task that you've you do each year in putting the budget together. Your time is concluded, sir. Thank you. Speaker. Good evening. It was my understanding I would have 3 minutes in my mistaken. With the number of speakers. The time has gone down to one and a half minutes. Okay. Well, Mayor, council members, I want to thank you for having me tonight. It's an honor to speak in front of you. I'm going to have to summarize this with the lack of time. But essentially it's a post I wrote on next door and I will email it to all of you. But there are four items I think we need to focus on with this budget. Number one is an increased police presence if the city of Long Beach is not willing to the city. Actually, everyone, please. Everyone gets a chance to give their comments. Thank you. If the city of Long Beach is not willing or not able to do anything about the homeless, we need an increased police presence so we feel safe in our community. I don't know about their districts, but in District five we would like more police. Number two, we need cleaner streets. I've spoken with the Public Works Department and we currently have 13 street sweeping employees. There's three that are going to be hired. They've been in the process for over almost a year. I don't know why it's taken so long, but we need not only those three, but we need an additional two to do the medians, the curbs of the medians, the left turn lanes. Right now it's in and by request only, which I think is ridiculous. They should be on a bi weekly or monthly schedule to have our medians swept. The city is turning. It's getting decrepit. It looks like a it doesn't look like what it used to be. Number three. I'm sorry. Your time has expired. All right. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say one last thing. Please do your job as you were hired to do, or we will replace you with somebody who will. Time is up. Hello. My name is Kimberly. Chavira and I am the communications manager for the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. I am speaking today on behalf of the Library Foundation's Board of Directors and Supporters. Our nonprofit sole mission is to raise funds for programs, technology and enhancements in our city's 12 public libraries. This is possible thanks to the hundreds of donors across Long Beach who send donations every year of all sizes to invest in these resources. We would like to thank our city leaders for proposing additional funds for libraries this year. The proposed $174,000 from Measure US will strengthen the library's STEM programs for youth and mental health services for teens as they get back on track following a year of distance learning. The $300,000 from the Long Beach Recovery Act to eliminate overdue fines for one year removes a major barrier. To resources. Without any cuts to the library's budget. More than 22,000 community members will benefit from this as Long Beach continues to recover from all we have faced in the last year. More investments in the library structural budget are needed. The Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative Report Youth and Emerging Adult Strategic Plan, Digital Inclusion Roadmap and Theater's Report on Library Services. All call. For more open hours. At the 12. Public libraries. We urge you to provide the library with the funding necessary to be open more hours as provide more funding for the library's materials budget. Thank you. Next speaker is Victor Sanchez, Reverend Sandy Richards, Reverend Dr. Michael Eagle and Burdette and Clayton Hurd. And Karen resigned. Please light up. Honorable mayor, vice mayor and City Council. My name is Victor Sanchez with the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community as part of the People's Budget Coalition on behalf of the working families that we advocate for. We're asking that you adopt the people's budget. And we also ask that you reform the budget process to allow deeper participation from working class, marginalized communities who are most. Impacted by budget. Decisions. Apart from the demands our coalition has shared with you in legislative meetings or an email, I ask that you in particular invest in care, not cops. By shifting funding from the $262 million earmarked for police in the General Fund to some housing priorities. In particular, the establishment of a rental housing division fully funding the Long Beach Right to Council program and a deeper commitment to community land trust. I also ask that you support Vice Mayor Richardson's request for $125,000 to find an additional housing navigator position and increasing the Measure US fund to $1 million with the expectation that 80% of that increase go to participatory budgeting and the rest to administrative costs. Tonight's vote is about. Undoing the historic disinvestment that has persisted here in Long Beach. Let's support. anti-Blackness by. Voting for the people's budget, which has the power to create a safe and healthy Long Beach for all. Thank you. Reverend Sandy Richards. Next is Reverend Dr. Michael Eagle. After that. Hello. Reverend Richards had to leave, but she gave me her letters out. All right if I read it. Okay. Greetings to you, Mayor Garcia and council members. I am the Reverend Sandi Richards, and I am the lead pastor at Los Altos United Methodist Church. I'm also here as part of Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice. We seek to have you address the funding inequities in our community. The Long Beach Police Department uses align shares of the city's resources, and we are asking that some of that share be repurposed for healing suffering communities. In order to lower crime in our city, we need to raise the bar on support for marginalized communities. We need to be an anti-racist city which requires sufficient financial resources to support the programs which will lead us in that direction. We need resources allocated to health opportunity, community building and justice. There's an old saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, rather than filling our civic toolkit with mostly hammers. We ask that to diversify the toolkit so that law enforcement is not the only justice available in Long Beach. Help the city to follow through with the structural changes that are needed in order to change things for the better for generations to come. Sincerely, Reverend Sandy Richards. Could it be mayor and council persons? And Reverend Dr. Michael W Eagle Path to Grant A.M.E. Church here. In the city of Long Beach, California. I didn't come to attack your budget process. Nor to berate your decision making. But I did want. To request that you show a little bit more sensitivity and caring and. Sharing to the people that you vowed to serve. People need to know. That somebody care at least is thinking about it and that's all that say. My name is Ann Burdette. I'm a member of Long Beach Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice, advocating for workers, families and the people's budget with respect and compassion for all of us, including myself, who have lost loved ones to COVID, please permit me to offer a painful metaphor. The city of Long Beach, along with the rest of the country, is in the air. The diagnosis is the pandemic of homelessness, housing insecurity, health inequity and systemic racism. Imagine that one of the primary responses being offered to us in the city budget is policing. But there are preventive measures, measures that can be taken today. We can provide the social distancing of adequate housing. We can provide with masks a clean air and open spaces for all. We can vaccinate with education, job training and economic investment in communities that have endured generations of de-funding. Imagine that we can prevent our city from going to the air by putting community safety first. Real safety that is attainable by real that reallocating our tax dollars to policing. From policing to protection. Adopt the people's budget to save lives. Next speaker, Clayton Hurd. Then Kern resigned. Joanna Diaz. Rose Mae. Caitlin. Carla Alvarado. All right. Hello again. My name is Clayton Hurd, and I'm speaking out as a member of First Congregational Church of Long Beach and with Clue urging you to support the Long Beach people's budget. I want Long Beach to be known as a city that cares about its renters, and we can do that by fully funding and staffing our rental housing division and attendant right to council program. I want other cities to follow our lead by fully implementing a Language Access Policy and Injustice Fund available to residents regardless of their immigration status. Long Beach can be the most youth and senior friendly city in the country in the state of California, if we want it to be. The decisions you made tonight require courage and imagination. And to quote the Center for Story based Strategy to win, we must exercise political imagination and stretch the terms of what is deemed politically realistic in the present moment. Imagination builds power because it opens the space for crafting stories that make just futures possible. You all have an incredible opportunity to demonstrate what a truly compassionate city can do to invest in black communities, communities of color, and other marginalized communities in a meaningful way. Please support the Long Beach People's Budget and continue to invest in people, care and community. Thank you. Hi, I'm Rose McLachlan and I'm a resident of District seven and I'm here in support of the people's budget. Language access is extremely important to me, my family. I slowly emigrated to Long Beach, the West Side, as early as the eighties and as recently as this year I've always had to be a communicator and translator for my family. I've had I've had to help with catfish applications, SSI benefits, DMV improvements and even finding places where they can get vaccinated. My grandpa lived through World War Two and martial law in the Philippines and he unfortunately had to stop his education at third grade. It's important to consider that that experience represent the background of all of a lot of Filipinos that have chosen to immigrate here as a child. I felt good about being able to help my family, but it definitely was a lot of responsibility and pressure put onto me. I'm not completely fluent and Tagalog and my family isn't completely fluent in English, and because of that, there's a disconnect between what is communicated and things often get lost in translation. The information that I pass on to my family members, those details as they pass the information over to their friends and families. I wish that they were able to get that support directly with language access. My family wouldn't have to be as dependent on me. I'm not as available to them as I was before. This resource would open up their world and I'm sure it wouldn't reach just my family. But the whole community. The whole city. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Carla and I'm here to demand the adoption of the people's budget language. Residents deserve a safe and healthy community. We can no longer just wait for this to happen, so we are all here to demand it. I want to remind you, council people that you all work for us. You guys are all tasked with representing the interests of Long Beach residents, not the interests of multi-million corporations, not the interests of Long Beach police departments, but the interests of Long Beach constituents. Who gave you that can't be seen up there. So tell me. Why. Year after year, our demands for safer, healthy communities keep getting ignored. These past couple of months, my coworkers and I have walked the streets of Long Beach talking and listening to community members, and not once as a community member ever ask for more cops. Do you know what they do? Ask for resources, rental assistance, food assistance, mental health assistance. You guys are also out of touch with community members that you all truly think that community members want more policing when in reality they are demanding the opposite. Each and every one of you up there has a choice. Do you continue on with the racist system that leaves so many communities broken and hurting? Or do you finally use that privilege to advocate for care, not cops? You really want to eliminate cops? Then stop ignoring the root of the problem and defund the police. Invest in black and brown in indigenous communities. Just to be clear, budgets reflect, reflect priorities and you and your choice to adopt or ignore the polices the people's budget will make your priorities crystal clear. Mm hmm. Amazing. Good evening, everyone. My name is John Ideas, and I'm here on behalf of the People's Budget Coalition as well as the Language Access Coalition. We have a need to uplift the necessity. For improvement in the city budget adoption process as it currently stands. This process has been open and accessible to your constituents who need to be heard the most. We need to create a genuine culture and structure of language justice by hiring in-house interpreters. The current system of only having meetings in person without virtual meetings or telephonic comments is not accessible to your constituents for a. Variety of. Reasons. On behalf of the Peoples Budget Coalition, we strongly support Vice Mayor Richardson's request for 120 500,000 to fund the additional housing navigator position and not. The feasible. Feasibility study. In addition, the People's Budget Coalition also strongly supports the Invest in Youth Campaign's push to increase measure US youth funds to $1 million of the two $1 million of those $1 million. 80% of the funds should go directly to community for citywide participatory budgeting process. The remaining 20% should go to support the Office of Youth and Development. Administrative Costs and Youth Internship positions. We are steadfast and determined to continue advocating for the Long Beach that we love. Show us who you love and where your heart lies. We must continue to work together. And genuinely. Have a dialog to move past. The current process. Thank you. And the following speakers please lineup Karen Reside Rosella Reyes Father William Connor City. Ben and Vickie Aguilera. Karen Reside, a resident of District one and a member of a proud member of the Gray Panthers. And we are supporters of the people's budget. I'm going to address senior issues, talk about safety, and I thank everybody for we have a fabulous health department. My building didn't have any COVID deaths, other senior buildings dead. For that, I'm eternally grateful. But we talk about safety. We have 113,000 seniors right now. We have one public health nurse for all, 113,000 seniors and one social worker. And we're about to lose a half time position if this budget stands as is from the Healthy Aging Office, which is Cynthia. How so? And that means that plans won't go forward and asking for a rental coordinator. I don't know if any of you've ever been to this multi-service center. There's no sidewalk. Seniors. Most seniors to get there have to take the bus, whether they're homeless or not. And there's no sidewalk. And you have to walk along the road. It's a dirt road. And the trucks that are going into the port to line up to receive their loads. Go past usually in about 25, 30 miles an hour. I'm almost hit gotten hit almost every time I go over there. Mr. Assad, your time has expired. So please do the right thing for the people's budget. Hi. My name is Hazardous Waste. I'm the direct services coordinator for the Filipino Migrant Center, which is part of the People's Budget Coalition and the Language Activist Coalition. I'm also a District one resident and someone is on the ground every day helping provide services to Filipinos. I've seen how much the pandemic has impacted the people of Long Beach. People are still facing burning issues around food insecurity, housing and employment. It's been left up to us as Tagalog speaking community organizers to help identify these issues. And we need to see more accountability from the city of Long Beach to meet the needs of the people. I'm only able to relate to CNA members because they can understand and speak the language. If the city wants to provide for its residents, including the 13,000 foreign born Filipinos who came, who are mostly in working class families in the west side of Long Beach, and it needs to have paid staff within the city who know how to speak Tagalog in a way that everyday Filipino speak. The people need permanent, in-house interpretation and translation services in Tagalog and Spanish and Kami for residents doing city council and charter commission meetings without having to make an advance request. We also need funding for community based organizations like ours and many others here tonight doing the on the ground work everyday. The residents of Long Beach are one community and we did hear and understand each other in order to empower each other. And language access is a tool to do that. If the city truly believes in equity and won't just use it as a token gesture buzz word, then it's time to back it up with action and ensure that language access is accessible for All Long Beach. I am Father William Connor. I live in District three. I am pastor emeritus of St Joseph Catholic Church in East Long Beach. I also represent hundreds of faith leaders connected through the South Coast Interfaith Council and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. I am a past president of. I see. I see. I am here to ask Mayor Garcia and the City Council to invest more funding in community resources by adopting the people's budget for the next fiscal year. One major need, namely is housing. Housing is a basic right, human right. Please invest more deeply in community land trusts to create permanently affordable housing while allowing low income residents to build generational wealth as home owners. This is an opportunity, the people's budget, for our city to lead with our values of equity and care for the community instead of fear and score and scarcity. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, and good evening, council members. My name is City Ben and I am with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition and I'm here to express to the Long Beach City Council and everyone why we need to adopt the people's budget care, not cops. Why do we say colonoscopies? Because that's what the people need. That's what the community needs. That's what we need. Care, not cops. We say you're not cops to save families, to save life, to keep the community healthy, we need to invest in it. The Long Beach Police Department right now is on track to receive about 42% of the total general fund, which comes to $262 million. We need to to pretty much divert 25% of it and give it to programs that will keep the community healthy by investing. 25% won't come up to $65 million. That's barely dipping into the bucket. It will hurt the police department to lose 25% of the budget, but it would definitely help the community. There are so many programs to invest in. So let us defund the police department. Use it for the police department. I mean, use it for the people budget. Use it to reinvest in the communities, the marginalized community, the communities of color. Thank you for listening and I hope you will take steps to support the community. The Long Beach City needs you and needs your assistance. Thank you. Next speaker is Vicky O'Hara and then Karina Rodriguez. Jennifer Benitez, Camilla, Betto, Lopez and Gabriella. Please come forward. Hello. My name is Vicky Aguilera and I am the rapid response coordinator with the Long. Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. Here as part of the People's Budget Long Beach Coalition. I've introduced myself before, but I'm doing so again because on the meeting on August 10th, I was not so sure if any of you were actually listening. I hope this time is different and that even if you don't listen to me, you at least listen to our community who has had to navigate transportation, language barriers, work schedules and childcare in order to give their public comments today. We demand. That you invest in care, not cops, by shifting. Funds from the $262. Million proposed for police and the general. Fund. To me, care, not cops, means safety. And we know that the police do not keep us safe. There's no training in the world that can prove that can reform violent policing, because policing in itself is violence. It is tied to the violences of white supremacy, the technologies that Long. Beach Police Department use against our communities, our violence. LAPD spends millions of dollars each year on invasive surveillance technologies, such as automated license plate recognition, cell phone surveillance and facial recognition technology. We now vpd our shared community members license plate data with ice. As recently as April of this year. We know facial recognition technologies are inherently racist. So I ask you, are these technologies really used to keep us safe or used to continue to criminalize black and brown communities? Policing cannot be reformed. Please stop calling for diversity, diversity and community inclusion until the system of violence does invest in the people's budget. Thank you. Karina Rodriguez, Jennifer Benitez, Camilla Battle Lopez and Gabriella. Please line up. I'm members of the council. My name is Karina, and I work with the I.R.S. and I'd like to express my. Disappointment in your. Behavior. During. The meeting on August 10th. There was very little eye contact or acknowledgment of people's experience. In fact. Some of you outright worshiped the police department. Some of you invalidated the experiences that people were telling you, people that you claim to represent. Let's blatantly call things out for what they are by you. Continuing to support and fund police with millions of dollars, you're supporting white supremacy and contributing to surveillance. Policing, brutal abuse and murder of people of color. You need to stop with the excuses. That crime is up. It's one of the oldest districts in the book to get people panicked and afraid of people of color. I ask you, where are the reports of violence and crimes perpetrated by police? It's no secret that there are white supremacist. Groups embedded within police departments everywhere, and your members of the council. Are supporting that. FBI policymakers in the legal system have historically criminalized, wrongfully accused, oppressed and killed. People of color. I know some of. You know. What I'm telling. You and still choose to do only what benefits you. Whether that's because you. Have higher political aspirations are white. Get money from police unions where a cop yourself gave it girl privilege or you were poor and made it out and forgot about truly dismantling the root causes that hurt people. And if any. Of this information is new to you, I. Suggest you take some time and educate yourself. Maybe start by adopting. The people's budget. Next speaker, please come forward. Jennifer Benitez. Camera. Bethel Lopez. Gabriela. The song. Oh, hello. My name is Jan and I'm with the Filipino Migrant Center and we're part of the language Axis Coalition. I want to ask the obvious question why? After a year of community advocating for the defunding of police and the reallocation of funds back into our communities where they belong. Is the City Council yet again proposing a disgustingly drastic increase? The police budget. Do our constant rallies and protests through our personal testimonies of police brutality and terrorism fall on deaf ears? We demand City Council fully implement the language access policy by providing quality interpretation and translation in Spanish, Tagalog and Carmen, and also provide an ongoing budget to organizations that serve these communities with the funds they need to be able to provide their services more easily and as a first gen child of immigrant working class parents. I know firsthand the labor we do for our non-English speaking families. We are. Legal aids, social workers, tech support, even city directories. Translating and interpreting on behalf of the city a service you should be providing. As taxpayers who fund your paychecks. By the way, we are demanding you pass the people's budget and defund the police. Good evening. My name is Camilla. I'm a resident of the sixth district. For the past few weeks, I've been coming to the city council meetings. I've listened to many reports. I've listened to the Health Department report on all the wonderful things they've been doing to help the community stay healthy and sheltered. Despite the shamefully underfunded budget they've been giving, been given, being forced to depend on uncertain grants. I listened to the report by Long Beach Center for Economic Inclusion and how they provided needed resources to feed our community and attempt to support a robust economy here in Long Beach. I listened to the fire department report talk about their accomplishments and programs. I listened to the reports and the tangible things that were accomplished on behalf of the community here in Long Beach. I could clearly understand the value that was added to our community by these departments and programs. I saw that they provide care and needed resources to the community. Not so with the police department report. The LAPD has not shown their value, and especially not at the expense of their budget that consumes nearly half of the general fund. So this budget go round. I urge you to listen to the community. We have told you what we needed. We've told you every year with the people's budget. We told you last summer, during and after the uprisings, after George Floyd's murder. We told you through our many complaints against the complaints against and challenges to all EPD processes. So this year I asked the City Council to do something different. Listen and act accordingly. Support the programs that care for our community and make it better. Stop over funding APD at the expense of the community needs. Just because that's what you've always. Done and your time expired. We don't know how many more police on the street. We don't need to provide police more money for their violent tools. They do more harm than. Thank you. Your time has expired. Better luck as Gabriella, Kevin Yoga, James Soso and Susan Wise. Hello, everybody. Hello, council members. Mayor My name's not the current project director of library and also a. Resident of District eight. Thank you all for coming out and doing the cleanup. It was nice to see you there. The People's Budget Coalition strongly supports the Vice Mayor Richardson's request for 125,000 to fund one additional housing navigator position, which would be in addition to the three housing navigators funded. By the Long Beach Recovery Act. These additional funds enough should fund a new position and reversibility study. We also would like for the City Council to support more funding for the Right to Council program to ensure Long Beach families receive legal representation during the eviction process. We cannot continue to give so much money to the police department and other communities elective. We must not continue to ignore the call of the people, invest in cities and bring actual affordable housing rather than cutting through loopholes that cost the city housing and dollars that could be used to house people. And we want real change. We must not we must not invest in those that criminalize us, but those who really care about us. Community has called upon you to make the decisions and fund resources that make our communities better. We cannot continue to have a city that has a 17 year gap of life expectancy depending on where you live. Thank you. Hi. Councilmembers. I'm Kevin, a district one resident with another reason to defund our PD. I couldn't believe that the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is unfunded in this budget. The budget documents say these plans are beyond the abilities of current city resources, but that's just an excuse hiding a political decision. We don't have a million for renewable energy, but we have 260 million for LAPD. I mean, it's ridiculous. And it's selling out our future. When are we going to fund the car? When are we going to stop drilling for oil? What are you waiting for? Do you think EPA is going to ask for less money next year? It's never going to be a convenient time. This budget is climate denialism. You say climate change is real, but then you deny that we can actually do anything about it. So we should start with funding the cap and ending fossil fuel extraction and making sure Long Beach residents have a habitable future and then recognize that LAPD's demands are beyond the ability of current city resources. The city needs to take climate change seriously, and that means defunding LAPD, stop selling out our future and invest in the people's budget. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is James Fossum, a resident of the third district and speaking tonight on behalf of Long Beach Forward and asking you to support and adopt the people's budget. Specifically, we want to commend the vice mayor, Vice Mayor Rex Richardson for supporting a number of investments, including 1 million specifically out of measure US dollars for the Children and Youth Fund. And we're particularly excited to see a participatory budgeting project where we can really, truly go start to get at transforming the city budget. Well, we talk about not just numbers and dollars and cents, but actual engagement within this process, which all of us who have been coming here to all of these meetings, engaging in all of these processes, have been speaking to for a number a number of times. And one of the things that really stands out to me is that despite all of us coming from different backgrounds, from different experiences, there's a hard truth and we're all facing and that we cannot police our way out of this pandemic. It's a painful truth. And tonight we're asking you to face that truth with us by doing right by our communities. And speaking of hard truths, this pandemic and its impacts aren't going away anytime soon. And neither of the people who have been here organizing, educating all of us about the real direct needs going on in the community and the need to defund the police, provide care, not cops, and actually transform our city budget for good. If not this budget. The next. And the next. And the next. Please about the people's budget. Thank you. Next speaker is Susan Rice and then may Lynne Kenny, Alan Seagram's and Pamela Fields. Good evening. Vice Mayor Eisner said. I think the mayor has left the diocese for a moment. And good evening, city council members. My name is Susan Wise and I am here in my capacity as chair of the Ethics Commission, which was put into place by Charter Amendment almost three years ago. I urge you I'm here also and accompanied by Vice. Chair Margot Morales. We are here to urge your adoption of additional. Funding for the Ethics Commission in order to allow us to have. An ethics officer. I believe this recommendation was approved in the Budget Oversight Committee earlier this afternoon. Where I think it was looked at. Perhaps a little more, more closely. It is essential to the work of the commission. Which has now identified. Numerous. Issues that need to be worked. On in order to bring a culture of ethics to our. City. It's something that has been endorsed. By the voters, and I urge you to provide the leadership and the funding to make this a reality. The Commission will support it, and I. Think that. And appreciate it. And I believe. That all the voters will appreciate it as well in in the fact that this measure had overwhelming support from the voters when it was adopted. I'm happy to answer any questions that you. Have about the Ethics Commission or. Our need for additional funding in order to make this work. Important work possible. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, everyone. When I was Gaby Hernandez, and I'm the executive director for the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, a member organization of the People's Budget. And said, There's last time, but I don't think. You heard me. The police, you all are spending $780,000 and in a day. Can you please just reflect on that a little bit? It's 782,000 a day. That's almost a million a day. Please think about that rather. Than focusing. On the root causes of the issues. We're thinking about giving more money to policing. We are giving more money to policing. We increased the budget this. Year for them. You know what community needs. You heard it here. Resources. Access to housing. Access to health care. We're not getting. That. You're hearing this time and time again, people. What do we want? When do we want it? What do we want? Why do we want to know? Thank you. Cubs did not keep us safe. We've thought we said that multiple times. Please listen. Look at us. When we're speaking to you all, we ask for respect. And we need to defund the police now. And we need to adopt the people's budget. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Marlon. I'm a resident of District Four, a card carrying member of DSA Long Beach. And also I'm an educator. I just had my first classes this week in my new position as an assistant professor of Asian-American studies at Cal State Long Beach College. So I strongly urge you to adopt the people's budget. We have been funding education, health, housing and youth development for far too long. Instead of putting more money in the police budget, surely we should be investing in the supports that enable all of us to thrive, especially the black, brown and immigrant communities who are most impacted by the deep histories and realities of disinvestment. Like many other educators, if I have a student in my class who has checked out or something's going on or maybe even causing conflicts, my impulse, like many others, is to reach. Out and to ask. What's going on in their lives and in their communities. One of the supports that they need to. Thrive and to succeed. In my class and beyond, because we need because we know that the answer, as the great professor in the department said clear, is the antidote to violence. And that is what we need more of in our communities. We need more support so that all of us can grow in our full abundance and what we're capable of as humans. And we know as a researcher also that there's abundance of studies that shows that that works. So I urge you, adopt the people's budget. Good evening, City Council. My name is Kenny Allen and I am a resident of the Second District. I'm here tonight to ask that you adopt the people's budget. Take a moment to soak in the diversity of the groups coming to ask for your support tonight. Walking into the new City Hall, I was reminded by the multiple languages posted in shiny metal letters on the wall that every time a coalition this broad has come to you, eventually we win. In fact, after we win, you enjoy presenting our demands to the community as your leadership. Thinking back on our fights for language access, Claudia's law, funding for the arts and so many more. You may delay us, but you cannot defeat us. I know that you will ignore us tonight, but Long Beach is listening to us. The vision of a world without policing, surveillance and prisons is spreading like never before. Our movement is growing. How could it not? While we talk about health, wellness and housing. You take our taxpayer money and invest further in violence workers. You may attempt to delay the forces of change with your vote tonight. But to borrow from Victor Hugo, no force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come, a time beyond police has come. The question in front of you tonight is simple. Whose side are you on? Resident of District six mayor. Earlier in this meeting, you brought up the greater public good and put a lot of emphasis on that. I think the greater public good requires you to divest in policing and punishment to abolish it. Think about it, Councilman. Councilwoman Ciro, I'm coming to you to demand that you take a stand to not dilute your voice among the loud corporate interests of your colleagues. Because I know you see us, the people of your district, the people of the city are demanding the disinvest the divestment of funds for the Long Beach Police Department , a corrupt and literally deadly department of the city's government that has murdered 27 people since 2013 and received 941 civilian complaints of police misconduct since 2016. And this body wants to give the BPD more money instead of investing in our schools, community programs and affordable housing. Councilman, Councilwoman Sara, I understand that some of your colleagues would not choose to vote to divest in Long Beach PD because they are ex-police themselves. They are brainwashed to believe that policing and punishment keep our community safe. But I'm here to beg you to open your eyes and see that policing and punishment only keep us in chains . There is not one study that shows that policing reduces crime. Not one time has expired. Adopt the people's budget. I'm speaking on behalf of Pamela fils, the mother of Donte Jordan, murdered by Long Beach Police Department November 2013. My name is Audrina Redmond co-founded a Black Lives Matter Long Beach chapter. I am certainly here to ask will not ask. And I'm not begging. I'm demanding that you defund the police. I'm absolutely demanding that you defund the police. I'm absolutely asking that you do what we know you know how to do, which is to make a plan and execute that plan. When I moved to this town 27 years ago, downtown Long Beach did not look like it did. The city made a concerted effort to invest in downtown, to build housing where we now have what did I hear last week from the fire department is equivalent to the city of Hawaii Gardens now in downtown Long Beach. You did that. You did that just like you did that. You can make a plan to reallocate funds from the murderous Long Beach Police Department and put it back into community services, put it back into health care, put it back into afterschool programs where kids are not being gaslit by police. There's something wrong with them and the police are there to save them. You can do that. You can do that. What you have to do is put your creative hats on, put your commitment hats on, and and stand with all of these people in this room who are here and ready to stand with you when you're ready to be the leaders that we require you to be. Next speaker is Rosario Ellis. Roll out Juana Francisco and Jonathan Gray. Please come forward. Rosario a Alice roll out. Juana Francisco. Jonathan Gray. When I started this I number. So you think, okay, when I start, as we know, Rosario. Good afternoon. My name is Rosario. This important element of mi familia, your personal situation. If you see. Unfortunately, me and my family, we went through a very difficult situation. No, no, not available in the policy. And in another. Where I didn't have the support from the police or anyone. I mean, that was the only one that was signing off until. My daughter went through some sexual harassment, child abuse. And I saw them what they had to do. We had a death threat and we were. By ourselves. Put forward your list, Peter Bergen, Muslim, that all of a sudden we meant that. So please, I beg you, I ask you to put more money into mental health. What have we done with that? And if and then we'll see if we can solve our muchos ninos workaholic style. Now, when your S.O.S. estamos solos estamos pasando put on us, it doesn't modifica muchos ninos. So you can associate Angela. In the zip code. 90 807 where we are on our own. Our children need your help. Our children need to be looked after. We look at different way to look for them. But we need your help to look for our children. For the child? No, sister, you can look better. Your son could perform. Those were far more well, says I'm fond of your soccer concerns, but in Valencia lost one those my heart. For the child. He's helping us, but they need more funding. I know that you can help us better by funding a little more. Or you can work on the policy, on the laws that are too zealous a little. Today I am here with the Coalition for Immigrant Rights of Lumbee. What about what else happened in Brazil yesterday? They were. Wrong. And please accept. The people's budget. But it doesn't so important. They also forget, as you say, yours among the information that I still see Sacramento. What can we then also truth. And so. Thank you to the council members on the street 14 and Sergio Romero because he's the one that gave us information and resources to us. To filter out our thoughts here. And I know that you worked for Mr. Roberto. Garcia, and so when you read let me see. He saved my life and my children's life. Forever balances of West Los Ninos are somewhat also six on the frontier of coupon mutual mostly metal. Please revise your budget and pay attention to the fact that children that go through sexual abuse need more help and they need your help. Los Predators could pass almost what is known as a system of them in settlement that. Parents that go through these. We also need help mental health. Sisters provision in this total work on information. Let me see get up almost any sensible policy. If you prevent this kind of. Situation through commercials and information, we may not even need the police. For our balances of reservoirs though. So please balance your. Budget in mutual crisis. And thank you very much. For listening to. Hi. My name is Alice Frio and I'm a resident of District One. I'm here with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition to demand that the City of Long Beach adopt the people's budget. Specifically, I ask that you correct the Long Beach Police Department's budget by at least 25% and reinvest those funds into communities of color. In case you all forgot. Thousands of Long Beach residents rose up in protest last year to demand that the city take action to dismantle structural racism. As many Bipoc organizers have repeatedly argued, a key component to protecting black and brown lives is by defunding the police who disproportionately kill and invoke harm on them. Yet the discourse coming out of the mayor's office recently has been concentrated on beefing up the LAPD to respond to spikes in crime. It is giving me a real sense of deja vu to the failed tough on crime policies of the 1980s and 1990. It's now vintage jeans you can buy on retro row are cool. Vintage policies that exacerbate the racist prison industrial complex are not. Rather than adding an additional $16 million to the LAPD's budget, I urge that the city invest in community led crisis response, violence reduction and crime prevention strategies that are not related to police. I also demand that you use budget cuts to the VPD in order to fund initiatives such as affordable housing, youth programs and investment in mental health. Implementation of the language access policy along with the other points outlined in the people's budget. Thank you. When I knock. Good evening. Well, I mean, normally it's quite a Francisca. Hello. My name is one of. The third party, the Coliseum, the immigrants, the Lumbee. I am a part of the. Coalition of immigrants of language. If I keep a reminder to consider the language, I think very persuasive person. I am asking here to the City Council to accept the people's budget. It is impossible I la policia. To defund the police. Yes, I party the many that they are key in Long Beach. I am part of this community here in Long Beach UK. La Policia. No chemist. You got me in trouble. The police never investigates it. They never do their job properly. It is criminally sanctioned with so many that. They criminalize our community. Is imperative based on ask innocent criminals. And they always catch the wrong criminals. In bad weather. Mosby narrows in La Policia. Instead of giving more money to the police. There, they're there in that. If it is if one law as to pay for their their power. You must give all that funding to the people and budget. They're interested in their own admission that even though the little kid in. The money should be given to a division that deals with it, penance, right. Grasp of the culture of good channels if better kept warming, roaming dormant, passive paranoia and with recommended. Thanks for listening and I hope you make the step, the right step to help our community. We take it as you very much. And the last speaker is Jonathan Gray. Thank you Council for taking the time to listen to my thoughts about especially specifically measure us. My name is Jonathan Gray. I'm the Associate Executive Director of the Commune Development YMCA on 19th and Long Beach Boulevard at the Spark in Midtown. And thank you for those you that came to our groundbreaking back in July. And I'm here to talk specifically around the measure of U.S. funding, because I really was I really feel that more money needs to be allocated to CBOs nonprofits working with youth and not going to the city specifically. When I was at the Youth Development Forum held at Houghton Park last Monday with Mary's and Dana's and Councilmember Richardson and Vice Mayor Richardson excuse me, the youth made their voices heard, and to me, their voice is clear. They want investment in themselves. They want investment in. Programs that will benefit them and investment in their communities. And by moving money into the city budget in the city coffers to help the city and not help the communities, I can really cast a wider net of youth within our city I really feel is a disservice to the youth number one that spoke on Zoom or the dozens of youth that spoke at that forum. But it's really a disservice to all the 107,000 voters that voted in favor of measure. You are. So please take the time. Invest more money into CBOs, invest more money into our youth. Because if we want the youth of Long Beach to stay in Long Beach, they need that investment. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and go into there's a series of items all related to the budget. So I want to go ahead and go through those if you're really briefly. And so I think as a the council knows there are a series of of votes that they're all different and relate to different parts of the budget and they're all starting in items. Item 22 And so it's 22, 22, one, 22, a two, 22, a three and so forth. And so I will each I will go through each item as we, as we go through. And different ones relate to different parts of the budget. So let me be let me begin through that process and each one needs a separate vote. And I know that the city attorney, if at any time that I need to take a different vote or skip one, just please let me know in the sequence. And then I know that towards the end, Mr. McKay, I know there's going to be a period of time where the staff will need to go and do some calculations, and then we'll have to reconvene or continue on the agenda and then reconvene the hearing. Is that correct me if you. Yes, potentially. So depending on how much changes are made, we'll need a little bit of time. It'll be if it's what's coming out of the Budget Oversight Committee, it'll be a little more truncated than that. Okay. Thank you. So let me let me go ahead and and start with the first item. The first item, which is a one. There is a motion in a second. It's just to receive and file and adopt the proposed recommendations as it relates to the mayor's message. Just as a reminder, this year's mayor's message did not have additional recommendations beyond the proposed budget. And so there are no changes there. There's a motion any second to that. To members, please cast your vote. Motion is here.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.52.2350 relating to the designation of the property located at 1005 Locust Avenue as a historic landmark, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_09012020_20-0840

Great. Next up. Next item, please. Item 24 A Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance designating the property located at 1005 Locust Avenue as a historic landmark. Read the first time and later for the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution establishing a historic resource designation for the property declared ordinance. Designating the property located at 141 and 143 East 10th Street as a historic landmark. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council Final Reading and adopt a resolution establishing a historic resources designation for the property. Can I get a motion, please? Most of my customers in their house and I get a second. Speaking about customary rang up roll call vote. Strict one. I. District two. I'm. District three. I. District four. I. District five. My District six. My District seven. I. District eight. High District nine. By. Motion carries.

A resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Grant Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concerning the “Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Carpio-Sanguinette Habitat Restoration” program and the funding therefor. Approves a grant agreement with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for $741,788 and through 4-01-23 for the improvements on for the Heron Pond/Carpio-Sanguinette Park project, including trails, interpretative signage, and vegetation enhancements in Council District 9 (202053192). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-1-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-28-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05112020_20-0385

Thank you, Councilmember. All right. That concludes the comes on this item. Madam Secretary, if you put Resolution 385 up on our screens and council member Ortega, go ahead with your comment. Thank you. I just wanted to express my appreciation to Parks and Rec and specifically sensory EADS, who is one of the parks planners who has done an amazing job continuing to find resources to keep the work that is so important and desperately needed to address some of the drainage issues but really create a beautiful park at Carpio Sanguinary. And I think any of you who have been over there, you know that we have Heron Pond and the Heller property all adjacent. And then wastewater funds were used a number of years ago to purchase an additional 20 acres. So it makes up almost 100 acres in that area, which is just an amazing assemblage of land that has an incredible. If the plans for it had a lot of community input and will have some amazing amenities that will serve the community. And I just wanted to do a shout out to Sensory for her amazing work in continuing to find the resources to keep this project on track. So thank you.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 34964 with Swinerton Builders, of Los Angeles, CA, for the construction of the Phase II Terminal Area Improvements at the Long Beach Airport, to increase the contract amount by $21,295,013, for a revised contract amount of $80,104,503, and increase the contingency amount by $5,565,675, for a revised contingency amount of $12,015,675, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $92,120,178; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 34964 with Swinerton Builders, of Los Angeles, CA, to allow for the execution of Construction Site Use Agreements with Swinerton Builders, in conjunction with the Phase II Terminal Area Improvements at the Long Beach Airport; Express intent to issue airport revenue bonds in an amount of up to $21,000,000 in principal to finance a portion of the construction costs for Phase II Terminal Area Improvements at the Long Beach Airport and the costs associated with issuing a bond; authorize

LongBeachCC_02112020_20-0131

I also I'm going to go back to the airport at a moment. I don't see any public comment parade for the second round. Correct. So we're going to call that. There's none for that. It will conclude that now we're gonna go to our last item of the evening and what I like to say the most exciting. So please, if we can have item number 12, which I think is a huge and important moment for our airport that we're moving forward on. So this is very exciting stuff, and I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Modica. That's a good presentation for us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We couldn't agree more. This is an incredibly exciting item that we really want to delve into a little bit on some detail. If if you remember, we did a very significant improvement to our airport a couple of years ago back in, I believe, 2012, which is really about the terminal and about the the flights and everything else. And it was controversial at the time. This really is the next phase of that, which is all about the customer experience. This has nothing to do with increasing flights but really making Long Beach Airport even better. We hear constantly how amazing our airport is, but there are definitely some things that we could improve. This is one of our eight by 28 Olympic projects to get ready for the Olympics. And we would like to walk you through the project as you understand what's being recommended and what phases and see all the really exciting progress that's going to happen at our airport very soon. So with that, I will turn it over to Cynthia Guidry and her team to walk us through the presentation. Oh, good evening, honorable mayor and members of the Council. As Tom Marica mentioned, this item is for a contract amendment to 2010 Builders for the Phase two improvements at Long Beach Airport. We have a very brief presentation to talk about the background current status as well as the next steps for the airports modernization program. Next. Next to me is Mr. Stefan LAMB, who is our senior civil engineer on the job. He is our program manager at the airport. So just as a quick recap for phase one as part of the airport model. 1/2, I've lost quorum, I think, as councilman here. Okay, good. And I'm not sure there's other customers in the back, but you guys can come back out. That would be great. Okay, let's continue. Just as a recap for for phase one of our airport modernization program that began several years back and was completed in 2012 and which was a $100 million program really designed to to address the customer experience and the improvements at the airport post security. It was a construction of a new concourse, a new parking structure, and several other improvements that have really led to the airport receiving numerous awards in the industry. And so we're all we're all proud of that moving forward. Phase two really focuses on pre security improvements. So this is everything before passengers arrived to the security screening checkpoint. It is a nine projects that are part of an incredible program. But this original concept, which you'll see on the screen, was really defined and placed in a way to improve functional flow for our passengers, as well as renovate aging facilities and install and construct new modern facilities for for the airport. One key thing that I would like to add is that it has no effect on airport capacity or that the phase two program improvements really, again, focus on the customer enhancement. How can we improve the customer experience and make Long Beach Airport an even better airport? So this was the original concept and and phase two background, just to give you a little bit more information, back in 2018, Council did approve the contract as one of ten builders. It was a $65 million design build construction job. And at that time, really the procurement of doing the design build allows the owner to have more control over the design, and that has allowed for several different improvements to materialize over the last year and a half. This is a project that is a play job which will sustain over 440 jobs in the industry. And the other item that I would like to add is that the federal environmental approval process, which did take a little bit longer than anticipated, just was completed in December of 2019. So moving forward and since that that design award a year and a half ago, staff has worked really intimately with many stakeholders at the Long Beach Airport to refine those improvements, figure out what is best needed pre security, and determine a great plan for the passenger experience. However, those improvements came at the cost, and we'll go over some of those changes in a second. And we also saw a difference in the market conditions in the construction industry. So what does that design? This is a rendering of the new refined design for Long Beach Airport. It has a bold, new modern architecture. We have several different buildings that that we're constructing that will be brand new. We have a new ticketing lobby, a new checked baggage, TSA screening facility, a new backplane building, as well as a new concession space. All of these improvements really have led to to a design that really reflects Long Beach. Long Beach as a whole in the sense that it's a very open and accessible layout. We have a new meter and greeter plaza that will allow passengers and their loved ones to welcome each other as they enter into the city. We also have a design that truly showcases our historic terminal and lends itself to opportunities for our historic terminal in the future to be used for our new rental car counters. The historic terminal will also, as part of this program, involve a seismic retrofit, retrofit and many other improvements to the historic terminal. So we're all excited about that. This is also a rendering of our new ticketing building, which includes various upgrades and finishes. We have common use counters. We have an improved baggage efficiency system in the back of the building. We also have self-service kiosks and additional other sustainable amenities that we've included into the program. This will be a new LEED Silver Certified Certified Building, and we're all definitely excited to see it move forward. So those market conditions nationwide, we've we've seen an increase in construction costs across the country. And it's it's on average about 12%. But here, more locally, we're seeing an increase of about 30 to 35%. And part of that is all the major construction that we have right here in the L.A. County area. And this is multibillion dollar programs with Metro eight by 28, 28 by 28 program. We have the L.A.X. $14 billion program, the NFL Stadium. All of these different programs have really just shown and reflected to us that the agencies are really competing for the same limited pool of construction resources. And for us, what our original estimates really, really were we're targeting was that we would have 6 to 7 bids portrayed. But in reality, we on average received two bids portray. And so we've experienced a high increased in cost over the program. And those are things that we have to take into consideration as we move forward. So based on those costs, based on the affordability, based on where we are in the program, those nine projects that I spoke of earlier, we're recommending that we move forward with six of those projects listed here, the remaining three, which really focuses on the area in front of the historic terminal. So this is the rental car ready return in the ground transportation improvements that we would do some additional planning on those areas and rebid those projects within the next two years. So the fiscal impact, one of the things that we're you know, as an airport and as a enterprise department, we're also responsible in ensuring that as we move forward with any of our program improvements, that we're doing it responsibly. And we've worked with our financial management department and their city Treasury bureau to develop a plan that allows for us to move forward with the improvements and the additional cost while maintaining conservative financial metrics for the airport. We do have exit ramps designed in the contract that allow us to, if there's any efforts and conditions to allow us to to stop work and pay a small penalty. Well, it's a 1.5% penalty on on the future work. And we also have identified other remediation efforts if the airport has difficulty in paying in some of the financing plans that we have moving forward. One of the great things is that we do have grant funds from TSA that that will help offset the cost. This this as as an enterprise fund. We don't have any funds that will impact the general fund. However, we do need to issue airport revenue bonds to help offset the cost for for the program. And so you'll see an item in in a month or so asking your approval for the airport to issue those airport revenue bonds. So what are the next step if if City Council approves, we would move forward really quickly on our check baggage inspection system as well as our ticketing building and back claim area. We will have those six projects that I mentioned earlier complete by May 2020 to late 2022. And we would rebid those projects that I mentioned earlier that were the ground transportation improvements within the next two years. So with that, I might say that the airport staff, we are extremely, extremely excited. Committed and ready to move forward on the Phase two program. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. May I make some comments? I have a couple of questions on the transport of Councilwoman Mongo. I think the two of us have been pretty involved in this project up to this point and have been strong supporters. And so I just want to begin by saying what a kind of home run vision I think this next phase is for the airport. The airport is absolutely one of the best things about our city. It is constantly winning awards. It is constantly being uplifted by so much of the country. And it's just a great it's a great airport. I think that we want to maintain its charm and its historic nature as well. I want to emphasize that I think the the design and the look that you're all going forward in this next phase, I think really fits with the historic nature of the actual site and the facility. So I really love that. I have a couple questions. The first is I want to just understand a little bit more the rental car piece that is going to be delayed or that's going to be pushed back. So I know that part of the I'm if you can explain to me from a visual perspective, I know that the long term plan was to have some of the rent a car kind of service. The counter service moved into the historic terminal. That is still part of phase of this first phase, correct? That is still part of the first phase. On this rendering, if you can see the there are curb improvements in front of the historic terminal where you see the red shuttle busses as well as taxis. That's the the area that we're referring to that we would rebid within the next two years. Okay. And so what so the the moving of the kind of purchasing of picking up a car will still be moved into that historic part of the terminal, as we saw that will, you'll be able to walk right through our punching out the the back wall and creating those doors. Is that correct? That's correct, Mayor. So so part of the improvements do include the rental car counters moving into the first floor as part of the entire program. We will restore that back entrance, if you will, to the back of the historic terminal. So passengers are able to flow right through to me to greet. And so will we be removing the current rental rent a car, kind of, you know, hodgepodge structures that we have out in the parking lot as part of the first phase? Yes. So the modular that's the answer I wanted to hear. Yes, we are. So so even though we are delaying the kind of a rent a car area that's being created separately, the actual old kind of trailers will be removed as part of this first phase. That is correct. Okay, that's great. The second question I had was, as it relates to some of the other projects that are that are that are tied into this, I know that the full baggage component is part and will be completed in the first week. That's what I hear mostly from travelers, is that they want that the baggage area is complete. That will all be done, correct? That is. Correct. Okay. And I just want to also say that some of the exciting projects that are currently happening right now that I'm excited about, I love obviously the new airport wing sign at the front that a lot of folks put in a lot of work on that. We love that the LED lights that we put up at the terminal, which can Mason is here and he's sick of me complaining about when they were going to get put in. But they're finally and so things can and when are we getting the big Long Beach sign that matches the 710 sign. On like a ballpark? Off the 710 and the one that we're going to put in over by the 22 and four or five in that whole thing. That is a project being managed by public works. Okay. So. Mr. MODICA. Yes. So we are actively working on that. We have seen some cost increase in that project and so we're looking at a couple of ways to get the costs back in line with the budget. But we do want to move forward with that this year. And so we're doing a quick value engineering effort to just see can we find a a spot to make it a little bit and a little bit less expensive, and then we'll move forward. Q So what does that what does that about from a timing perspective? I'm guessing probably two months, something like that, to have that analysis back about what we can do to keep those costs a little bit further down and then start. Councilman Mongo really wants us sign, and so do I. And then. And then the last. The last piece of my questions on those is the. I also I'm not a fan. I think is is, as Mr. Mason knows, of the some of the not historic signage at the terminal. That needs to be replaced. When is that going to happen? I'm talking about the signage says Long Beach Airport with the little. You know on the I'm actually on the story terminal. That sign will also be replaced as part of the Terminal Restoration Project. Oh, so that'll be all replaced as part of this, right. And it'll be restored back to its former look and esthetic of that. Back on the eyebrow. Okay, great. Listen, I just want to I want to thank you guys. I think that the airport campus is looking really spectacular. I love the lighting. I love the large new letters at the parking structures. I love the landscaping. It's looking really great. So thank you guys for all your hard work. Councilman Mongo. Finally, I don't have any questions. This is my third viewing of this excellent presentation. I want to thank you and your leadership, but. But mainly your team. Your team has always been so welcoming. There's not a day that I can't just pop by the airport and ask a myriad of questions that you're all ready and willing to look up and find out and answer and support. And I just appreciate you very much. I think that this is a light, bright and open plan that really is the real feel of what Long Beach is. And it will again keep us in the top five airports in America that I know we will move at the top . I would also say that it's smart, convenient and efficient. I know that there's not enough time in the short presentation to go into the details of how much this new TSA screening area will help reduce potential worker injuries because they won't have to pick up bags in the way that they do now will be more like the airports that have come a long way in allowing in line movement of baggage behind the scenes once you do your checked baggage. And I think that that that's really important because we want Long Beach Airport to also be the best place to work. And so I know she didn't go into it. And it's going to get me a dirty look from the city attorney because it's a scope adjacent comment. But people love to work at the Long Beach Airport. They love to work on projects like this. And our director is really pushing into workforce development and letting people know about what a great opportunity it is to work at this amazing place. So great work. Thank you for everything you do. And while this presentation was great, we could learn a thing or two from the airport staff because they really know how to use technology in their presentations in the director's office. Thank you. Q Councilman Price. Thank you. By the way, it's not a dirty look from the city attorney. They teach us that in law school, it's like to deter you from being creative and thinking outside the box. Thank you. Thank you to the city staff for putting this together and the entire airport team. I'm really, really proud to support this project. And I love our airport. I love flying in and out of the airport. It's just a fantastic testament to what an amazing city we are. So thank you very much. I'm looking forward to these improvements. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Zendaya's echoing what my colleagues have already said. I'm just super excited to see this. I wish I could see it now, but I know it takes patience. But thank you very much for all your work that you've put in it. Staff Airport Thank you, Cynthia, for being so flexible and available and accessible to us when we've had questions about this. And I'm just really excited. The airport continues to be something I'm very, very proud of to have in our city. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. Just wanted to chime in and say, you know, I'm a big fan of the Long Beach Airport. I love flying out of Long Beach Airport. I'll be flying out tomorrow morning from Long Beach Airport. You know, a lot of great stuff happened in there. You know, just a question. I love that you can valet. Your car and get your car wash for about 20 bucks. He's going to keep that program. We're looking at that, right? Okay. Just keep looking at it. Thanks a lot. Fantastic work. You know, you've you've hit the ground running. This is a great project. And I'm going to go brag to other cities about our Long Beach Airport. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Katherine Supernova. A thank you. And warning to the city attorney. I'm about to push the borders of the Brown Act here also. I just wanted to publicly thank Director Guidry for speaking at our last community meeting. We really appreciate that. And Staff Ron Reeves and Ken Mason, thank you also. Great project. Look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thank you, Councilmember Vice Mayor Andrews. Thank you, Mayor. I really thought, you know, this is the first time well, maybe a third or fourth time we've gone out this early, and I couldn't understand why all these individuals are sitting over here. But now I understand this is probably one our better presentation we've had all year. So I just want to thank you for coming forth and giving us that enlightening, you know, night, because we can go home tonight and think about, boy, one day I'll be able to go to Long Beach Airport and fly out of there. I'd like to fly today out to L.A. just to show them how good we are. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Mongo. Only to add on to Vice Mayor Andrew's comment about how great the presentation was. I commented to the director at our meeting on Monday that her presentation could really be side by side with a presentation we saw in closed session about a year ago that we determined was the best presentation the council had ever seen, but I just couldn't remember who gave it. So if Mr. Modica or Mr. Parking could remind me or her. It was a great presentation and you are in the big leagues and we really appreciate you doing such a thorough and excellent presentation. I hope my colleagues will support it with my vote. I see no public comment which for an airport item is really strange. So members, please go ahead and cast your vote. I think that says what a great director she is. She took all the comments in advance.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4400 North Fox Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4400 North Fox Street from I-B, UO-2 (industrial) to C-MX-12, UO-2, C-RX-12, UO-2, C-RX-8, UO-2 (urban center, residential mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-1-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0412

All right. Ten eyes, two nays. Counsel Bill 365 has been approved for translations. All right. We are moving on to our second public hearing for this evening. Councilman Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 412 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that council bill 18, dash 412 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for council bill 412 is open. We have the staff report. Kyle Dotson, welcome. Thank you, Mr. President, and good evening, members of council. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development here with this rezoning staff report. So Kat, in Council District nine, in the Globeville statistical neighborhood and it's a site of just over 30 acres, the request is from the property owners, Cendant Capital Partners, who are here tonight, as well as their representatives. It's currently zoned Iby you two, which is a general industrial district with the Billboard Use Overlay. They're proposing a number of different zone districts I'll go through in a minute. That's the site of the former Denver Post printing plant and surrounding lands around the former plant. And the property owners are requesting the rezoning in order to allow redevelopment of the site. Together with this rezoning application, the applicants also filed an application to repeal the 2570 General Development Plan. That application has been heard by the Denver Planning Board and has been approved by the Development Review Committee. The GDP is proposed to be replaced with an infrastructure master plan which will be implemented through a development agreement if approved by council following this rezoning bill. That's the next bill that you postponed to address topics that relate to transportation, open space, housing, and phasing in the number of staff from the departments involved in that. Here tonight, if you have questions about the development agreement or the third bill that accepts some money from the applicant to fund studies of transportation improvements in the area that are also a product of that development agreement. Okay. So regarding the actual the what I'm here for tonight, the rezoning bill, the applicant requested a series of three districts. The first is the CMCs 12 Zone District on the west and east sides of the property that stands for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context. That allows a wide variety of mix of uses up to 12 storeys in height in the north. Central part of the property is the S.R. 12 Zone District. Again, the urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use because it allows primarily only residential and lodging above the ground floor, although a variety of mixed uses on the ground floor. Again, up to 12 stories in height. And then in the southern central part of the property is the urban center, residential mixed use district, up to eight stories in height across all of the site. The applicant proposes to retain their current use overlay to which allows billboards subject to a number of different limitations and standards in the code. So here's a map of where those zone districts are located. Again, the C-Max 12 on the West, in the East, S.R. 12 in the North Central, and S.R. eight to the south. It's surrounded mostly by general industrial zoning, except for the portion to the south that the council rezone three years ago to CMCs 12, when this applicant brought that application for the land to the south. In terms of the current land use to set the stage for what's currently happening on the property. The assessor's office has a classified as commercial, of course. We know it's vacant, formerly industrial. It's surrounded mostly by industrial properties, other vacant land and right of way. Here's some pictures to illustrate the building form the scale of the site and the areas around it. So you see the this is the top photo is looking to the south towards downtown of the printing plant in the foreground and the vacant land around it . You see most of the areas around it are are currently older, industrial, one story or two story buildings with some new development that's occurred in the station area. And to the bottom right there, you see a photo of the pedestrian bridge and multi-modal bridge that was constructed over the railroad tracks in anticipation of the opening of the 41st and Fox Station, a couple a few blocks to the south of the site. Terms of the public process that leads us to tonight. The applicants first submitted this rezoning application in March of last year in 2017. At our recommendation, they voluntarily hosted a public meeting about both of this rezoning and the GDP repeal in the neighborhood and then revised their rezoning application in October last year. Planning Board held a public hearing on the application in November of last year, which they recommended approval of the application. This went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and all of the legal requirements for all the procedural requirements in the zoning code for a rezoning have been followed in terms of the posted notices and written notices of tonight's public hearing. That includes notice to the nine registered neighborhood organizations that are illustrated on the slide. One of them has submitted a letter of support from the President of the United Community Action Network, Inc., and Staff has received no other public comments on the rezoning application . There are five review criteria for a rezoning. A walk through our analysis of each of them. Briefly, there's further detail in your staff report. The first is the application must be consistent with adopted plans. The first, the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. Again, there's more detail in the staff report. We pulled out a few of the key strategies that we found that the application addresses and is consistent with including promoting infill development in Denver at sites where infrastructure and services are in place, where you can create mixed use communities near transit, and where we can encourage mixed use transit oriented development that makes best use of that transportation infrastructure. The second plan we analyzed as Blueprint Denver, which was adopted in 2000 to the citywide land use and transportation plan. The Blueprint Denver was amended and updated by the subsequent smaller plans I'll talk about in a minute. So it's essentially the same as the Globeville plan that was adopted a few years ago recommends the land use concept of urban residential, which calls for higher density, primarily residential, but with a mix of some complementary commercial uses high quality pedestrian scale facades and other pedestrian active elements of the building form. And we found that the proposed zoned districts do provide a range of housing options and commercial uses and implement the built form plan direction. So we found it consistent with those recommendations from Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver also designates the entire site as an area of change. These are areas in the city where the city wants to challenge or challenge channel growth and development opportunities. The plan calls for infill redevelopment of vacant underused properties in such a way that it remains compatible with new and existing development, takes advantage of transit service and addresses a number of different issues. We found that again, that this rezoning was consistent with encouraging growth in an area of change and is consistent with this element of blueprint. Denver Terms of street classifications. Blueprint Number did not identify most of the streets through this area because the streets have not been built and would be built as part of redevelopment to the South Fox Street as a mixed use collector. Mixed use streets are designated for areas that have anticipate a wide variety of high intensity, mixed use, commercial retail, residential uses along them. Other streets in the area are designated locals. Again, there aren't streets within the site designated in the plan, so we found it consistent with Blueprint Denver The third adopted plan here is the 41st and Fox station area plan. The general thrust of that plan is to develop the station area into an urban center through transitioning those industrial lands to a variety of light, industrial, commercial, residential or mixed uses with a variety of goals in the plan. The land use recommendations of this plan contemplated an unbuilt street network that included urban residential generally to the north and to the west of up to 12 stories a mix of open space in parks and plazas in the area, and urban residential 2 to 8 stories to the south. Now, the proposed rezoning does align with these in terms of allowing a mix of uses, including residential of up to 12 stories to the west, north and east, up to eight stories in the south. The open space parks and Plaza will be created through that development agreement, an infrastructure master plan that requires a portion of the site to be developed as open space or parks. So we found it consistent with the stationery plan. And then lastly is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which, as I mentioned, updated blueprint Denver it so it aligns with what I walked through earlier in terms of blueprint Denver's land use recommendations calls for a land use mix of an urban residential mix of up to 12 storeys for most of the site portion to the south of for up to eight stories where the applicant has proposed the crux eight zone district of up to eight stories. So looking at the application against that adopted plan, we found it consistent as well. So we found it consistent with the adopted plans. The zone districts as applied would be uniform in their application within the zone districts where they're mapped. So it's consistent with the second criterion. The third is that it further the public health, safety and general welfare, which we found the application would comply with, and furthering the consistency with adopted plans, enabling mixed use in a transit oriented area, and ensuring that the built form is better for pedestrians and more reflective of the vision for the area. The fourth review criterion is that there be justifying circumstances. In this case, there has been change or change conditions since the time of the adoption of this zoning that justify the rezoning. They include the introduction, the construction of the rail line and the soon introduction of service on that rail line, which have there has been service on the line, but service to the station expected later this year when RTD opens the D line. The multi-use path and pedestrian bridge have been built, which improve the multimodal connections to the site to the area. A number of rezonings have happened in the surrounding properties, a few of which have developed all pointing to changes in the area that serve to to justify the rezoning and consistent consistent with the adopted plans in the area . Finally, we evaluated it with consistency, with the neighborhood context description and the zone district purpose and intent statements as further detailed in your staff report I mentioned earlier. The plans call for this to be an urban center, and they've selected urban center neighborhood zone districts that the neighborhood, the zoned districts also enable a variety of mixed uses , residential uses that the zone districts call for. And in terms of their height allowances, they allow up to eight and 12 stories consistent with where the plans tell us that those heights are desired. So we found it consistent with the intent statements of the zone districts as well. And so having reviewed it against all five criteria, we we recommend approval of the rezoning application. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. Okay. We have let's see here. We have five speakers. Is that right, Madam Secretary? Yes. Okay, great. I'm going to call you guys up to the front. Zachary Kessler, Kathleen Folger, Graham Bennis, Chairman Sekou, and Elizabeth Zachary Kessler, your first. You all can come to the front here, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Can I have a seat right there? I'm just here to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. All right, great. Thank you, Mr. Kessler. Kathleen Fogler. Yes. I'm here on behalf of the applicant to answer questions. All right. Thank you, Ms.. Fogler Grant. Beneath. Thank you, Mr. President. Is Graham Dennis with the Center Capital Partners and I reside in the city of Denver. It's been ten years that we've run this property and been in front of you several times and met with you several times. And my wife prefers this as our third child. And throughout that time we've been working with the city and staff and you all in the community trying to find the right vision for this property. There was a, you know, as Councilman Flynn, well, where's that Denver Post printing facility? And it's almost become a historic use. But, you know, we always had a vision for for something much grander than heavy industrial, which it's currently zoned. We you know, we we've had some our ups and downs with the economic cycles and as well as, you know, coming under the auspices of RTD and eminent domain and, you know , ending up giving up four acres of land so that the vast tracts property tax project could go on through our through our project. And about three years ago, the city council voted to support a rezoning of our southernmost ten acres, as well as approving through a planning board, approved the general development plan for the site. Subject to that time and based on feedback we received at that meeting from council and staff, we agreed that more visioning was needed for this site in order to create the right outcome for the city and the neighborhood. Especially the current zoning on the 31 acres does not allow for, you know, full implementation of the station area plan and specifically does not allow for the density that that plan contemplates. It's also the current GDP also does not allow for the the retained edge of the at the current site the existing building past two weeks has two years, I should say. We've we've been having weekly work sessions with the city and it's gone to a a weekly meeting for the past 18 months. And we appreciate the city staff for taking that time to meet with us, to work with to work towards a increased density and to maximize the public improvements at the site . The development agreement specifically provides a path to making this project more accessible, and the details, the transportation network and build out will be identified. A next step study that will be funding 50% of. We feel that accessibility lays the groundwork for implementing the City Station Area Plan, and the vision for the site is a mix of office and residential served by transit, with an emphasis on limiting single occupancy vehicles and includes a required transportation management plan for the site. We want this place to be a true neighborhood with lower land prices. Community services can afford to locate here daycare, fresh food and grocery store restaurants. Yes. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. We are available for questions. Also great terms. They call. You have 6 minutes. Terms they could bless no action movement for self-defense. Long term resident sitting count in Denver is five points to Parkview. Sitting here thinking. I. Had a thought. And. Cancer folks who have understand the history here. You know, I was one. If I want to. Davis was in this body right now and sitting in that chair. Which way you think he'd go with this? And this was his district knowing that it's massively being gentrified, knowing that there is little or no participation of black workers on any of these sites, whether it's on the east side or the West Side or the North Side or the south side. And then, as he would sit wondering how he could form allies among this Mississippi cycle. Please talk about the bill for 12. If you give me an opportunity, I will do that and you constantly interrupt me. I wish you wouldn't do that as you allow other people to do that. I guess on film is being reviewed, so don't do that. I got to keep it focused. Good taking up my time and don't do that. Kind of keep focus. Don't do it. Kind of keep yourself disrespected. And I'm asking for additional time because you continue to do that. I want additional 2 minutes to finish my comments. I ask for a suspension of the rules so the Council can do some justice here with your own representative who's misrepresenting the pluses to supposed to happen. This is public hearing for the public. Your job is to listen, not interrupt a conversation. So as I will continue. What do we do now? What we do now. We continue on the same old same. Mention the names of predecessors that we have no courage to do the work that they did and occupy these chairs. I work with Hiawatha Davis. He's the godfather of my daughter. And I'm telling you right now, he's rolling over in his grave. Yeah. Because the terms have been flipped instead of enhancement. This whole mess has turned into an ethnic cleansing of the people he represented. Can you talk about the bill for 12? So when we get to this bill. Which is no more than the continuation of the ethnic cleansing of our neighborhood. And talking about creating residential housing for whom at what cost and under what percentage of a man who is this poor and who needs it the most? The middle class or the poor? And as we combat poverty, we need ownership of our property, not result. And so we stay poor systematically because of the rules and regulations that people enhance in here. And then you walk through here with your heads up with any kind of integrity, taking the money from developer to run to real , like to continue to do this. Ah. You know what to do. Know what to do and you do it anyway. So what are we supposed to do? Why do we even come? What? What's the purpose say? What's the purpose? And that's the way most revolutions develop, because the people in power don't listen to the oppressed. And then when the whole situation blows up, all of a sudden we get some attention. Yeah. So what we got to do? We got to blow up. We got to do. We got to tear down. We got to burn it down. Cause we got nowhere to go. So why should you have anywhere to go? Oh, like we suffer. Washington's with us. Just we're equal in this for 12. So when we talk about 412, let's talk about 1812 and the Revolutionary War that happened when the British was overthrown and they threw the tea off the boat. Because of this exact same thing. No response to the taxpayers. Taxation without representation and no hope in the process. And then everything is supposed to be okay because we're going to only get this thing done in one unit at a time. So we'll get 20 poor people in. But it's 20,000 outside. And consider that progress for real. That's the best you can do. But real. Truth and justice requires more and more success. Because I'm exasperated, too. But after 12 years of coming down here with the same message. I do. You all get paid. I get my attendance records better. Something I didn't take coming down. Not even having enough to do a. For real. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Such mediocre efforts deserved. Absolutely no God, no respect. And I close with this. It's time to get it all ready for the revolution. All right. And Elizabeth, last speaker. Thank you. Council President Brooks. And the city council for having this public hearing. I mean, Elizabeth, I have a studio at 888 East 50th Avenue in the Global Riverfront Art Center. And I've been in Globeville. For approximately ten. Years. I had the opportunity to city to participate in some of the first conversations regarding this project when the some of the folks connected to it were invited into the homes of some folks that have lived in Globeville for a couple of generations. There are very serious concerns about being vigilant on a project of this scope, nature, and that changes the landscape of that particular area, specifically through the height increases. I know of one couple in Elyria that owns a business about two blocks away, and it's definitely going to help them thrive. I'd like to really ask the City Council to recognize this project in the context, in the context of all the urgent needs and attentions that still need to materialize in the global learning Swansea area. Regarding somehow working a synergistic prosperity with the existing businesses that are family owned, that aren't getting the attention to possibly prosper, with mechanisms that are typically more available to the more experienced and fluid and flexible and larger developers. I hope that this the design considerations that some of which look really exciting in terms of keeping it as an urban friendly neighborhood asset can be can be spotlighted more and brought forward. I think there's a lot of conversations that I think would be great to have continuing with the developer. There are there's terminology being used behind the scenes, sort of as the subconscious of the of the city. That concerns me when I hear officials using terms like there's we're working on this island development in Fox Point or Fox Street. These are our neighbors. These are Globeville neighbors. These are folks that we within the neighborhood that are involved in in the conversations for us all feel like we're in it together. We want to have that cultural, personal, economic relationship. If we're going to put height up, it needs to be attractive. This conversations about who can afford to live there is critical. It's also the case that we need to really strengthen the first and last mile access to folks within the neighborhoods, being able to access the full advantages of the economic opportunities for work around the cities . How do we do this seamlessly? How do we recognize that this is an asset? How do we make this an asset both esthetically, economically and culturally for the historic statistic? To Statistical Globeville neighborhood. I want to end this by saying the historic statistical Globeville neighborhood. I wish that the Planning Department would always add historic and not just statistical. There are 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver and many more historical neighborhoods, and I hope this project will help reflect that. Thank you, Ms.. And Elizabeth. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of Council Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Mr. President. I think my first question is probably for someone from the ascendant team. I wanted to ask about the total acreage of the your proposed development, broader than just this stationary plan and the total potential number of units. There's a couple of references to the potential in the developer agreement, but if one of you could just summarize that for me, please. Acreage and total potential number of residential units that are being discussed. There's a reference in a document. If someone wants to just read it, that's okay to. Hi. So the total property is 41.5. Acres and. The. Current developed developable acreage totals about. 30 acres. We're looking per the IAP at. 2800 residential units in. Total for the site. Great. And can you just. Do you know what percentage of the total area is represented in this rezoning? We've re zoned several other portions. So I just wanted to have you what is it, about 50% initial rezoning. There's 12 acres of the 41 that have been resound. So I think we're. 30% as kind of represented. That's a rough estimate here on the on the stand by, about 30%, 30% has been risen. 60% were were asking for a rezoning. And can you clarify, this is the last rezoning for this this proposed area. Yes, for this for this full 41 A.C.P.O. And then if someone from the city staff could answer the next questions, please. There is a pending bill footing the bill for 43. I believe it is the developer agreement. And I wanted to ask about the legal relationship between this zoning and the pending bill. Where is staff? Sorry. Hello, Councilman. Jill Jennings goal at Community Planning and Development. I just want to make sure I understood the question. Are you asking about the legal sort of tie between the rezoning and the development agreement? Yes. So I have Brad back with me. The city attorney's office who may be better able to answer. I'm Brad, back with the city attorney's office. And I'm I'm not quite sure what you're asking. So if this rezoning is approved, is it contingent in any way, shape or form on the developer agreement that is pending and not before us tonight? I think we're presenting all of these at the same time for that particular reason. Number 443 is not. We don't have a pair. So. So the order in which. No, no, no. So the question is, is if 422 fails, is it contingent on the others for 43 in the other things that are in a block here, are they are. Could could this developer redevelop this if this zoning is approved? Could they redevelop under this zoning even if they had developer agreement fails? No. I think if the if the. If the rezoning is not approved, we would withdraw opposite question. Sorry, I'll start over. Yeah. If anyone else wants to jump in. So this zoning, let's imagine it's approved tonight. Okay. And let's imagine that the developer agreement is not approved. Can they build? It's my understanding, as it was presented to me, that there are certain land use rights in the developer agreement that are not unlocked. And so those those other terms are met. So what I want to understand is what is the relationship between the two, between the zoning and the developer agreement? We have a presentation that focused on just one thing, but there is a much bigger package that we're in. And so you're going to find, I think, in the question, answer that to the extent that we have shared this with the world as to linked pieces of legislation, we need to talk about them as two linked pieces of legislation. So I'm looking for someone who can help describe that, particularly for our community. I, I feel like I understand it, but I want to make sure that I'm hearing and you guys are putting it in your words, how the two the two pieces relate to each other. The approval of the second. Rezoning is a condition precedent to sentence obligation under the development agreement. So if you don't if you don't approve it, then the development agreement doesn't spring. But. Sorry. This is Jill again. But I do believe if you were to approve the rezoning and not approve the development agreement, yes. That you would have changed their zoning and they would not be bound to the terms under the development agreement. There would still be an infrastructure master plan in place for the property guiding the overall infrastructure and guiding that element of the property. Okay. I think that gets to the answer. Thank you very much. Can you please can someone please describe to me what the terms of the development agreement state with regard to affordable housing? Mr. President, Councilwoman Connie Chung, Doug Salbi, housing manager with the Office of Economic Development. The development agreement currently extracts from the developer in any affordable housing build as chosen as a build alternative plan in alignment with the ordinance on the linkage fee that 25% more of the units will be extracted on any vertical development for units on the site. If there is a choice of paying the linkage fee instead, then 25% more of the linkage fee will be paid. And does anything in the agreement require the building of a single unit of affordable housing? Or could they fulfill the agreement solely by paying money? They could. To answer your first question, there is no requirement to actually build affordable housing or build any type of hotels or any of the commercial developments that may be proposed on the site. And there is there is the choice that they could pay the fee. And then in history. Can you recall, have there been other large redevelopment agreements where the department has negotiated agreements that required the building of affordable housing as part of those developments? Such an agreement is is legally possible, is the question I'm asking. Under the previous ordinance, which called for units under the IATO ordinance, there were the allowance of affordable housing plans for large scale developments as part of that ordinance, in which case there was specific affordable housing requirements put in. Currently, we operate under the linkage fee ordinance, which calls to be paid by the developer, or they can choose a build alternative plan for whatever build is going on industrial, commercial or residential. Does that answer your question? Well, it does, but I don't think it's complete. The linkage fee ordinance also includes an option for otherwise negotiated plans. Correct? Correct. If you are exempt from the ordinance, if you are under an otherwise negotiated, affordable housing plan. Yes. If you're under an otherwise negotiated affordable housing plan, you are exempt from the linkage fee. So I just want to close the loop. It would have been legally possible to require the construction of affordable housing on this site as a term of an agreement. If there was a negotiated agreement where both parties signed it, that that would have satisfied they could have legally satisfied the ordinance. I just want to clarify. It could in past plans that has been negotiated with a subsidy of funding from the OED. Thank you. My last question is for the planning department. You've mentioned several adopted plans, the Globeville plan. In the 41st and Fox plan, there's approximately 13 mentions of affordable housing in the first, 41st and FOX Plan. There's also a number of them in the Globeville plan. In your analysis of the conformance of this zoning with adopted plans, did the Planning Department specifically analyze the language in these plans related to affordable housing as it relates to the development agreement that was negotiated? So was the analyst. Did you all do a point by point analysis of the language in the plan and the development agreement that was negotiated with regard to affordable housing? Jill Jennings. Gorelick We acknowledge that the plan discussed the importance of affordable housing and felt that that was an incredibly important need, which is why we had the developer engage with the Office of Economic Development to have conversations around affordable housing for this site. Is it your recollection, I guess, that any of those plan references related the payment of fees? Did you guys is that your recollection? I don't believe that was the case because both of the plans were adopted prior to the change in practice related to the linkage fee. So what would you describe the gist of the language plan about the importance of affordable housing? What were what was the plan talking about when it when it brought up affordable housing? What what did it value? And what was it pointing to? So generally speaking, obviously, this is next to a transit corridor and we want to ensure that there is a mix of housing for different incomes and different populations at our transit stations. And did you do any analysis about how the payment of fees that would not result in units might impact that that goal language terms of conformance with the plan. I believe that already looked a bit at some of the fee numbers on their site and what that might generate. So I might. Turn it over. But the plan doesn't relate to money. The plan relates to right there. The plan talks generally about the provision for affordable housing, but does not put a requirement for a certain number of units. I just want to clarify that the plan we agree at least that the plan does not talk about funding. It talks about mixed income housing. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for Graham. Then if you can come to the microphone. So my my first question is about. Whether you're looking at master planning the site or are you looking to develop any of the actual structures yourself, or are you just looking at building the infrastructure that then attracts other developers to come to the site to build on it? Yes, Councilman Ortega, this is what really is the next step that really lays out the infrastructure for this site, the roads it has streets section. So it's much more detailed than what we had gone through before with the GDP. This ownership groups desire is not is not going to be to develop vertically. So this group is mainly laying the foundation for others to come and either master plan the site in terms of going vertical, the plans that we have in place pretty much lay the foundation so they there's not too much they can bury in terms of street grids. So that is the plan is to have somebody come in and do the master development and vertical development. And in doing so, then you would sell the land to those developers that would build on. Correct. And are you looking for one master builder or are you looking at multiple selling off multiple sites? One one developer, one purchase here would obviously be the the most, most the best path forward versus multiple developers. Okay. Let me see if we have another question for you. Yes. One of my questions about the the acreage, let me go to Chris Nevitt. Chris, if you can come forward, I want to ask some questions about the infrastructure master plan, which I'm not clear. Is that the same as the next step study or are those completely different? Hi. Chris Nevitt, the city's top manager. Councilwoman, I'm not the expert in the infrastructure masterplan. I may call on my colleagues from CPD on that, but then the next step study is focused on figuring out how we can get to a more precise configuration of the particularly the transportation infrastructure that's necessary to serve the area, get to some concept level pricing, and also figure out a plan of finance so that we can actually construct all those components. So the infrastructure master plan lays out a lot of stuff with respect to the street grid inside the area, particularly with respect to the the parks in the area. There's a big contribution to regional parks. It's specific to the site that we're rezoning tonight. The infrastructure master plan. And does that include the other 12 acres? Yes. Okay. So the next step study is outside the boundaries. So let me ask a couple questions about that. You keep talking about transportation, although we know there is a serious drainage problem in this area. So number one is this within the Utah Junction Outfall area? Boy, you are stumping me if you're asking me for the name of it. But there is a a a drainage master planning process that is focusing on all of the basins that drain into the Platte River there, and particularly go through Globeville. Because as you know better than anybody, there are serious flooding and inundation issues in the Globeville area. And so this master planning study, the the drainage study for Globeville is focusing on all the sources of water that that that converge there. Okay. So we know that there is one road into the site, which is Foch Street. Oh, that's not true. There's two roads from downtown. We're not counting that. We do not want to see traffic go through Globeville to get to this site. That community is going to be inundated with traffic for the next five years, dealing with the construction of I-70 and National, Western and Washington Street and a ton of other private development. So to say that we're going to put traffic on 45th Avenue and put that traffic through, we're trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood right now because right now trucks are routing through that street. Yes, ma'am. Let me answer when we correct. Yeah, let's get to it. Let's get to the question because we've got a long list behind. So. So. Is there expectation that Fox Street becomes a four lane roadway? No, ma'am. Because it's a white street. But it's it's one street into this site that 2800 units is a part of many other developments that have already been approved by this council. Two, to funnel into this what you refer to as Fox Island because of the limited access to this area. And so how do we expect to move traffic in there? And until we fix the first mile, last mile that and Elizabeth talked about, people are still going to drive their cars in this city. And we know there's a RTD corridor there. But so you're saying. The plan talks about or the rezoning talks about addressing the bike and pedestrian connections. But we're going to bring all that traffic in on two lanes, one in and one out to the site unless we see the next step. Study out a new road. Right. Which has been talked about. So can you just speak to that? Yes, ma'am. So just to go backwards for a moment, with respect to the 45th Avenue connection, we've made it very clear all the way along that we have no anticipation of 45th Avenue and the connection through the main street of Globeville being any different. Well, better, nicer than it is today, but not carrying more traffic. We're not going to reconstruct that road to carry more traffic. That road will be reconstructed to be a nicer roadway for that community. With respect to Foch Street, the anticipation is not that Foch Street will become, you know, a four lane superhighway, as it was. Through the major collector. That's why I'm asking the question. Correct. But but that's not our anticipation reconstructing. And these are all subjects that the next step study will address, reconstructing the very suboptimal interchange of Park Avenue, 38th Avenue, Foch Street, and the on and off ramps for I-25. That's a key important move. And another key important move that the next step study will address, as you pointed out, is creating a third connection to the area on the northwest, and that is memorialized in the infrastructure master plan currently and will be explored in more detail in the next step study. But I think I just want to add a gloss. If we do everything business as usual in this area, we will not be able to accommodate the traffic that might ordinarily be associated with this kind of development. It's a mess. Today. We will not. Daily basis. Do business as usual. Yeah. Understood. Okay. I have one more question. And this is I'm not sure who can probably someone from the planning department. Kyle, do you know if there are any court setbacks that address shading because 12 storeys is going to be allowed on the north end and you've got I-70. So if we have 12 story buildings, you're going to have a lot of shading. And so when it snows, you're going to have more ice on the highway. So can you just address that issue? Yeah. I don't believe there are serious setbacks for buildings. Okay. And do we have setbacks at all from the edges, from our 12 story buildings? Just nonexistent. I'll let him answer. Jeff Brazel With any plan in development, the ANP envisions a road that parallels the interstate. Okay, so the road is, I believe, is about 65 to 67 feet of total right away. And then there's a buffer on top of that. Right up against the right up against the seatbelt right away. So while the underlying zoning would allow zero LA line development, there's an actual wide roadway right there. So that would address that concern for. Okay. Just one last one. And this is for. I'm sorry. I thought I had. This is for Mr. Dennis. Do you have any intention of requesting tax increment financing for the site? At this time, we do not have any plans to request tax increment financing for this. But it's not totally. No, I mean it just yeah. That's that's that's a next step that, you know, a developer could could definitely take that path. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. Mr. Venizelos. Come back. You might not stay in that for a while. I just want to follow up on him. Councilwoman Cain answers questions about the development agreement. Does the development agreement require you to build affordable housing? I want to just clarify that in my own mind. It does not require us to build affordable housing on the site. You plan on building affordable housing in this project? We're not the vertical developer. But what we've said all along is we are very committed to seeing that affordable housing comes to the site. When we when we undertook our last rezoning, you know, we were under the dijo. And since that time, you all passed linkage fees. So we want to go above and beyond linkage fees. We went to OSD and said, we see we don't want to be an unaffordable city. That's bad for business. So we went to OPD and said, we want to do more. They said, Well, you can pay more in. Money's great. So we've agreed to pay more. And the bigger picture is economics. We've talked to every single affordable housing developer in town and. We have such a better opportunity to have affordable housing at our site in this neighborhood than any other place in the city. So we're not looking to cap it by saying we're going to build 80 units of affordable housing. We look at this as this is the the basement. And we have. Unlimited opportunity for workforce housing at this site based upon the economics of our land value, nobody else in the city is going to have the land value that we have had the opportunity to create as much affordable, attainable, diverse housing businesses, fresh food markets, businesses, so other neighborhoods don't have that opportunity. Well. It sounds like it'd be easy to commit to affordable housing. With that kind of description. You're easily I don't know, one of the developer agreement didn't address this. And why? Why there's. Not a commitment more of a commitment to affordable. Housing. We don't want to tie up the future developers. We're not the experts on vertical affordable housing. So we didn't want to restrict another developer coming in and said they're going to do X times more than what's required. Well, okay. Okay. Doug, what about you? I mean, as Doug said, always. Thank you. Doug, what about any requirement at all for affordable housing about this project other than buying out of it? What's the question? I'm sorry. Is there going to be any requirement for affordable housing to be built with this project? Or is it just going to be a fee, additional fee that's going. To be bought out for the development agreement? There can be the additional fee paid in the linkage fee that goes directly to support affordable housing, you know, through our investments. Or if there is a build alternative plan chosen, then there will be 25% more units extracted from the actual build alternative that's proposed. And this does not preclude any future investment. If only affordable housing development is proposed on the site. The OED would be looking at that as we do our projects to invest in those directly and extract the units directly, contractually. Maybe outside of this project. But. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. You know. You know, let me just follow up just because you've mentioned percentages. What is the actual payout? So don't mention and don't mention a percentage. Tell me, what per square foot will they be paying out? So it's very clear. To the public. It depends on what's built on the site in. Okay. So there's 2800 units can be realized here. What if there's just. 13 to 1500 to 20, 300? I would say if it was a full build out under the. Let's go with the 1500 number. What per square foot are we looking at? Probably about under that. Maybe I was looking at the numbers more in the improved mobility plan of an. Adventure for folks who are listening, folks who are even here in. If they were doing it under the affordable housing link it free plan would be a buck 50 a foot. So what would they be paying for? Regular residential? Well for the improved mobility plan. Should those go through, it would be $6.9 million. Okay. Of the total development of the site was projected. Okay. 6.9 million for transportation and then for affordable. So the linkage fee today, the fee does go up. It's adjusted annually starting July one. But currently, any multifamily residential development that's built under the international building code pays a dollar 60 per square foot. Okay, so we're paying 25% more. They would be paying $2 per square foot. Okay. That's what that's what I wanted to say. So everybody gets that. So two bucks a square foot for residential. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, could you tell us what was the reason for the single dissenting vote at the planning board? It's not meant. It's mentioned in the staff report, but not the reason. Sure. Thanks, Councilman. So there was one dissenting vote and it was the same vote that dissented on the the rezoning three years ago on the southern part of the site. That person, that planning board member disagreed with the retention of the you oh two billboard use overlay and thought there wasn't a justifying circumstance to retain the allowance for future billboards. That was it. Okay, that's not at all what I expected, but thank you, Graham. Can I ask you a question I think I've asked you before. You're probably wishing that RTD had bought you out by this point, right? You wouldn't. You wouldn't do that. Right. And I think I brought this up before with your team. This was part of this site. The northern part of the site was part of the Argo smelter site. And I'm just wondering if there has been any analysis of the soil. The heart of the Argo smelter is right where I-70 goes through. But there were buildings on the Denver Post site and there are buildings north of I-70 that were part of the smelter operation. I'm just wondering if there's been any analysis of what might have been left behind. Yeah, we've done extensive analysis because you accounted for the brought this up since we bought the site. You know, we're fortunately not affected by the Argo smelter. Our biggest environmental issues were from the railroad track that used to run through the southern part of the site for the old Denver brick and pipe. Right. You know, arsenic containing railroad ties. So all those areas we've you know, we've come across through the various construction of fast tracks. We've come across, you know, unmarked underground storage tanks that we've remediated. So we have a little bit of everything on site, but nothing that requires stopping. I mean, clean up. Yep. So it's all fine for residential. And but we have had an extensive study, as you know, based upon your comments and and others. I'm glad I could cost you the money. Did the Denver Post leave anything dirty behind? Never mind. You know, as you know, ink is water soluble, so there is nothing dirty. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I've always said this to everybody. Don't entertain them. He'll keep going. Councilman Espinosa. Kyle got a question for you. And it might be like Councilman Flynn was a little bit surprised. We have three recent plans, all within the last six years that say urban, residential, urban, residential, urban residential, nearly 100%. The only exception being open space. So help me out again with that, the sort of introduction of commercial and why that is consistent with adopted plans and why we haven't considered an OSA or SB sort of zoning in in is part of this entire package because to my counsel, my colleague, Councilwoman CNOOC's point is once this is free zone, they have entitlement. And and so we will have gone against not just the urban residential components of these plans, but also the open space component of these plans. Sure. So let me take this one at a time. So first, regarding the urban residents of land use designation, we took a close look at the language of the plans as well as the language in the neighborhood or in sorry, in the zone district intent statements for the various districts that the applicant applied for. And in each of them, it indicated to us that while residential was the primary character of the area, they all called for as well some complimentary serving commercial uses that would serve those future residences and act as a transition between an entirely commercial or industrial area and an entirely residential area. And so what when we took a look at those plans and the language behind what urban residential means, we found that those land uses and the mix of uses and the building forms that would be allowed in the districts that are proposed by the applicant, we found that it could be found consistent with those plan recommendations. So that's where we were. And Planning Board concurred with that analysis. Regarding the open space zoning, when you take those one at a time. So first with the OSA zoning that can only be applied to lands owned or operated by Denver Park. So in the future, as this area develops and if parts of the park go to Denver parks, I think you will maybe see Denver Parks bring you an OSA application or something like that. But this is a private owned, so OSA isn't even an option for them. You have a fair point, though, about what? About open space? Generally, what we find is that applicants who are at this stage of development don't zone to open space because they're, you know, still to the boundaries of what ultimately become the parcel lines will change a little bit over time as phases develop. This is a large site will develop in phases. And so what we find is that typically folks are going to ask for zone districts that allow open space but don't only allow open space so that that open space can be provided for, but with the flexibility over time for the definition of those boundaries. So in order to compel the open space you've heard about the infrastructure master plan and the development agreement will ensure that we get the open space that is new, that is will be enabled through the zoning in the rezoning bill. Yeah. I'm going to have to follow up with you to sort of better understand how we sort of articulate zone lots and things like that because they seem very specific in the developer agreement down to the hundreds of Yeah. Down to the hundredths of a of an acre on what, how much open space will be provided. So it seems like they have a pretty developed idea about where that is and what that is that I almost wish we were capturing it, you know, other than through a private party agreement. That is not part of this council's consideration, although it sort of weirdly is. But yeah, sure. I do want to just note the development agreement to Kyle's point about OCA that it can't be applied until it's actually sitting on land. The development agreement does call for the largest parcel to be called right now anyway, Fox Park of 2.52 acres that once it's developed and through the warranty period and then transfer to the city , we would designated as OSA at that point. But again that's. Through private. Party action. The. How big is this going to come? More questions. Yes, for more. These are all quick. How many square feet is the printing facility? The Denver Post. And since we're. I think the existing funding facility is about. 227,000 square feet. Okay. The linkage fee is 25% more. The examples are residential. But I think Doug alluded to this. If if if it's commercially developed square footage, it will be subject to the commercial linkage fee. Is that correct? Okay. But it has to be new construction. So the 227,000 square feet of the printing facility would not be eligible for a linkage fee. Is that correct? It doesn't have to be new construction. So per Jill Jennings calling again, per the linkage fee ordinance, it does not apply to existing buildings. So I'm asking that because because Doug made it sound well. In his response. Does that mean that that that sort of square footage and the potential for that to be the commercial. Property. Which would be subject to the highest linkage fee sort of. You could surround that by urban residential and be consistent with the plans and really not get a 20 net 25% linkage fee for the totality of the site because that's a huge amount of money that is wrapped up in the considerable footage that would not be eligible . And so I just one is, you know, without knowing what the total development potential is. Yeah, I mean, yes, that's true. But it applies citywide today. Right. Okay. And then Chris Nevitt. Where is the next step? Studies. Can you give me an update on that? Sure. The next step study. The scope was approved after going through the mill with various agencies. It's now on the street and so we expect to get proposals from consultant teams in a couple of weeks and then we'll be assessing who has the best proposal and moving forward. And what is council's involvement going to be with that. Will be letting the contract. Just the contract. But when they go out and start doing public outreach, are we having a dedicated. Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, we'll be consulting with you guys with respect to all of the the public communication and participation from the community. But the the the contract, actually, it's a pretty small contract. It's $380,000, I think. So it may not come here, but. If you make us, we will. Okay. Yeah, that's why I just wrote down. Asked for a briefing. Okay. Then the last question is. Yeah. You know, this is. This is a heavy lift for council, but it's an easy lift for a member of the administration. In your past life, you were a very strong labor advocate. One thing that I was always looking for is, you know, could we introduce project labor agreements? Did that ever? You know, when you're negotiating all these sorts of things in terms about about affordable housing, about transit. Did you were you able to have that conversation about the delivery of these construction projects? Because that, too, is one way we could address affordability. Wow. You put me on the spot there, councilman. I'm that's that's not really in my current job description, so I haven't beaten that drum very hard. But I will say that constructing things is a job creator. And the I-70 project, the National Western Project, these are all projects that have a big apprenticeship and training component to them . And my hope would be that that would bleed over into other big construction projects in this area as well. It's all part of the same neighborhood. Understand that we're not at a construction project yet. We have to do the next step study to figure out what we're going to build. And then we have to figure out how to raise the money to pay for it. And then we're going to get to construction. But I think there's plenty of room for conversations between now and then. Don't stick your neck out too far. But but you're on that side. We're on this side. You still have advocates and support on this side of this. Yes. So by all means, feel free to approach that. Thanks. Okay, Councilman, I take you back up. Thank you. Do you want Councilman Cashman to go first? He said he was right. His question is answered. Okay. We talked to two quick questions. The first is. And I'm looking at you, Mr. Harrigan. If. Tax increment finance is requested. Typically, that gives us a second bite at the apple, if you will, to look at extracting more affordability in the housing. Can you speak to whether or not the housing plan set some guidance for because those get negotiated by Durham, not necessarily by OSD, unless they check in and weigh in with you on that, which I'm not sure what that practice is. But did the housing plan set some guidelines for Durham on how that gets done so that we have a floor to work from, if you will? Yes, that's a very good question. So we do engage with Dora, with Tracey Huggins and have regular meetings. If there is tax increment, finance. And public dollars are being utilized. It is. A. Different discussion. It's individually negotiated and we are going through that right now. And some discussions in this case as we had discussed this potentially being tiff and then not being TIFF and had other discussions. As I understand, we have an opportunity to reopen discussions and address this topic again. And it's a really good question because as we evaluated this and there's a lot of discussion over one times the linkage fee, which are developments and the city is required to pay versus 1.25 you have here today. And then as we look at the 30th and Blake overlay district and the four times fee, we see that as having public subsidy in the form of that density bonus. So you have different. Different types of negotiating depending on the circumstance in the case so that the tax increment finance, should it be one times linkage, three or four times the linkage fee? I think that's a negotiation and discussion in this case with the Metro District being on the table here and not taking city taxpayer dollars. You know, I think this is a very fair deal to get 25% above and beyond. We really, as Department Office of Economic Development, we really want to provide a sense of market stability. And right now, there is not a policy to say for metro districts it should be 2x3x4x. And I think that's something our department needs to really look into going forward, especially as we reopen or reassess the linkage fee next year. Okay. I'll save the other part for my comments. But my next question. Did Chris know through your. Chris, I just wanted to to sort of push a little further on the next step study because I keep hearing that it's focus is on transportation. And I want to know how drainage plays into the next step study because we know that the the global storm drainage study is underway. How much does that shape what falls into the next step study in addressing both drainage? Because if we only address transportation and we don't do anything with drainage and we have flooding, 38th Avenue is going to create further gridlock at that intersection of 38th box I-25. And. What's the other one? Park. Park Avenue. Park Avenue. So we won't be doing any justice to the collective work we're trying to do if we don't truly address that intersection problem and the drainage there. So just help me understand, is it just transportation or is it transportation? And drainage is part of what that next step study is addressing. And then the next piece of that is how do we anticipate that all of the property owners in this area, not just this particular site, because we've got a number of that have been rezone, but they haven't built yet and we've got some high densities that have been approved in this area. So how will they all then contribute towards addressing the infrastructure challenges that we have in this area? Got it. Yeah, that's a great question. So the next step study is primarily focused on transportation, but I think this is a good example of all the pieces and parts in the city working closely together and working in harmony. So the Globeville stormwater study that's been sort of up and moving forward for about a year, and the group that's working on the next step study for this project met with the project manager and principals in that project and tried to figure out exactly because we didn't want to waste money by doing redundant work. I agree with that. We wanted our work to be complementary and so we've worked very closely with them. What's the work that they're doing? How can the their drainage work inform the transportation infrastructure that we will be focusing on? And also, how will the transportation infrastructure that we're working on inform their drainage work? And I'll give you in fact, the 38th Avenue Canal is a great example. If one of the big moves is the reconstruction of that 38th Park Fox 25 interchange and how it interacts with the 38th Avenue underpass. If the drainage study is talking about moving or building new drainage infrastructure there, the transportation project would be the perfect opportunity to execute on that. So that's how we're going to be working closely together so that they they complement each other. Your question about the funding is, is right on the money, if you'll excuse the pun, and we don't have the answer to that yet. And this next step study is going to be very different than a next step study, the next step studies that we've done in the past in that it will focus explicitly. One of the scope elements is to focus explicitly on all the different ways in which money can be raised to meet the the the need that's identified in the study. Usually the study identifies the projects and comes up with a concept price and then kind of leaves it at that. This study will also begin to answer the question How can that be paid for? Who pays and how much? So in that, is there an expectation that the developers in this area will contribute towards that so that it's not expected that we just build it to max capacity? Yes, ma'am. And the taxpayers end up dealing with trying to solve the problem. Yes, indeed. So in the development agreement, that is the companion to this rezoning and that also gives legal teeth to the infrastructure master plan in the development agreement is a limited to a couple of things. There's a limit to the amount of development that this project that these developers or the vertical developers that that that follow. There's a limit to the amount that they can develop based on the capacity for traffic in the neighborhood. So they cannot you know, you refer to while there's this entitlement and they could build to their full entitlement and that's going to blow up the infrastructure. We won't let that happen. They can't build beyond that capacity, number one. And number two. The development agreement actually anticipates it. We don't have the answer yet, so we couldn't really memorialize it. But the development agreement anticipates a more comprehensive mobility solution to which this property owner and other property owners in the neighborhood will contribute. So that just raises one quick question for the city attorney, and I just want to make sure that by. Approving the rezone with the density allowable on the site, that we're not putting the city in a situation where we're going to be in a legal entanglement because there's a perception that they could build to the approved height limits, but yet we're putting this cap on. I get the question you're asking. And Brad Beck's coming up here. You're asking if we say here's your entitlement and then they try to execute on that and we say, no, no, wait a minute, how do we deal with that? Yeah, and I understand you've put some language in in the agreement, but there's some. Brad Becker, the city attorney's office. There's a chip count mechanism built into the development agreement so that we can meter that out. And the city always has its health and safety hammer if it needed to if it needed to exercise it. Okay. Thank you very much. Who counts on us. When I was you, you became a city attorney. Needs to stick around. I just wanted to know what established the capacity of the neighborhood. That's. That's a new one. You know, I get why you're saying that. But what sort of documented or scientific evidence do we have that there is a capacity to a neighborhood. From an infrastructure. Infrastructure perspective. However, your. Staff might have to. It's probably a better answer by. Chris, now that or perhaps. Because we're talking. The traffic studies that have been. Because we're talking trip count. Are you just talking peak hour because you've got a 24 seven day and you're essentially saying that only transit would only occur? Or are you saying that that this new capacity of a neighborhood is an F intersection on both routes? 24 seven. You know, what is this? So we worked Jill Jennings school like we worked very closely with our friends in public works and unfortunately Eric Osmonds and couldn't join us tonight. And looking at traffic studies done in this area, traffic studies prepared by the developer in this case, we were able and recent traffic counts to come up with a number related to how many trips are already out in this area. And then based on current roadway and intersection design today, how many trips that can handle before essentially there is failure and no one can move safely through the intersection. So that's how we came up with the. Number at peak hour or how many hours during actually actually, don't worry about it. If you could just get me that and have a look. I want to have a better understanding because there are other neighborhoods that basically feel like they're at capacity and we can't get that sort of scrutiny. And what we've learned is that the threshold for pain is very, very high. And in part of me thinks that if we develop this, if we plan this area and developed it in a way that was more holistic, where the services and everything were there, you could actually reduce trip counts and and and actually hitting capacity might actually spur that sort of growth within the boundaries rather than encouraging migration out. So, so there are a couple of things with this development in particular as the development agreement requires that with a site development plan, they submit a transportation demand management plan to look at sort of how are they dealing with trips and reducing trips overall? Because we know that is an issue here. That is something I think we're starting to have conversations about citywide. I think we've done it and a couple other developments through development agreement in the past. And then to just add on to what Chris was talking about, the framework in this development agreement, we are working and have already started drafting rules and regulations that would apply to this entire area, 184 acres, if memory serves, to set this trip capacity in place for all development coming forward. So we are going to be piggybacking on the parking maximum conversation that we have started with in community planning and development for this area. Again, aimed at how do we reduce trips and ensure that there is enough capacity for existing and new redevelopment. Have you considered to to my colleague's question related to that about this developer versus prior rezonings that we've already approved, have you considered that the potential for the TDM component in some of these transit components being an overlay so that it's not just applicable to this and everybody going forward, but that we could sort of retroactively apply it. So the rules and regulations will require any time someone within this development comes in with a site development plan, they would have to provide a transportation demand management plan, assuming the rules are adopted. But that's what we are diligently working to do. So whether it's been zoned or not. Oh, great. Thank you. All right. That closes the you make sure questions and also the people here before 12 are going into comments by members of council. Representing this district. I'll I'll go first. Couple of things that I'll start off with, number one. I think every rezoning in this area for the last. Three years. There's been one to maybe three people talking about a mobility and transportation plan for the zone. And this is the first rezoning where there's a plan and there's actually a dollar amount that is committed to it. So I just want to say, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time. You know, those of us who know this area, I just walked this area on Friday. I don't I don't think people understand the existing condition of this area. And if you haven't been there, you need to go. And so I appreciate the investment now that we've tied a dollar amount. And I appreciate my former colleague from president of City Council, Chris Nevitt, working so hard on this along with all the CPD and all the folks. So thank you for that. Speaking to the existing condition, we talk a lot about, you know, do it, do it yourself. Artists, nonprofits. Do you know where those people exist right now? They exist in this area, and not a lot of people know that. And so I want to thank you all from a for for helping folks at Taco Fest. There's going to be thousands of people there this weekend and there are a lot of artists I went and visited last week. And I know a lot of people think this area is going to get developed very quickly and it's going to be a while. And I hope that we don't displace those folks who are currently in all of these buildings that are in there. So so that as far as the zoning goes, I mean, as I look at their criteria, as I look at the consistency with the adopted plans that just got approved in 2014, uniform uniformity with district regulations will hold on. Number three to further the public health and safety and welfare, justifying circumstances, consistency with neighborhood context that the rezoning actually applies. And the public health and safety to me goes directly with the community benefit agreements. I should say the development agreement agreements that benefit the community and you know, totally on board what's going on with the transportation mobility plan. Loved the maximums parking maximums when you be doing that all over the city, especially near transit. You know, I feel like on the, you know, councilwoman and each and I have talked about this a lot and I feel like her questions were right on point at the beginning of this. And we've kind of debated this issue. I know. Which what didn't get shared during the comment the question period. I know that the developer came with a plot of land to dedicate as affordable housing. That plot of land was on the north. West, northeast side of the property. That particular location to OED and others didn't feel like that was the best location. And so they negotiated a one point, whatever you guys call it. We'll just say two bucks a square foot, 11.2 times the linkage fee. Now, the question here is, should OED have negotiated a better deal for the land? Because I agree with councilman Councilwoman Kenney. We do need to get land. But when? How long are we willing to wait to that land gets developed for affordable housing? Or do we take the cash and begin immediately to put it into a fund and begin getting getting affordable units now? So that is kind of the consideration around the affordable housing that I have been wrestling. Two things. One, if we could if we have the authority to negotiate, we probably would have pushed a development to see if we could get more of that Southern property, knowing that we would get that development much faster, knowing that you could get utilities there much faster. I feel like that northern property you will not get utilities to and you will not see those unit realized as fast as you as we could see them to. If we do get the cash, can OED direct those dollars to the first developer who steps there and buy down affordable units, much like we've done on Welton? And so those are some considerations that we need to begin to look at. I am, you know, mostly appreciative of the efforts going on. I feel like we could have done a little bit harder job on the development agreement regarding affordable housing. I'm going to support this. I'm going to be watching this. I'm going to be working with with Eric Harada and working with OED to make sure that those dollars get invested right back into the site. I do agree with my council members that in the plan, all it talked about was affordable housing around this station, and we have to make sure that we build those units. But the negotiation wasn't as easy, I think, as sometimes we talk about. Right. There's a lot of there is a lot of difficulty in this. And so this is part of the tough constraints of being the council, the legislative body, trying to step into the executive body that makes the agreements. And so I'm going to support this, and I'm excited to hear what my colleagues have to say. Councilman Espinosa. So this one, this one's frustrating for me. You know, traditionally, I you know, I spoke out on a few of these exile in Arizona, and they spoke out about the need for infrastructure and some of the things we were overlooking. And and then at some point, I just was like, well, I guess we'll will meet this problem when it finally manifests itself and and continued to support subsequent rezonings without speaking up. And then this comes through and it's like, oh, we expect this developer to sort of now start to finally address all of the concerns that some of us have been articulating from day one on Fox Island. And I get frustrated by this because to me this is not enough density. And I've said that privately and now I'm saying it publicly because the developer has made that move and made that proposal to retain the Denver Post building on an area that was mapped 12 storey. It's a huge cut in the amount of developable development potential there. And rather than sort of squeeze it back onto the available development footprint to increase density and help support this station area, we just said, nope, you're capped for some arbitrary thing that we're creating when all of those plans were developed around those existing roadways with a planned connection to alleviate this concern. And so rather than do all the infrastructure things that we need to do, which I've been articulating since day one on this council and asked for for funding in the Geo Bond to ask, we have said no, we're going to depress the scale here. Which when we do that, we depress the potential to do land value capture and work with developers to deliver affordable housing. And instead we're paying for it. But at. A. Trickle of the of the need and. And so. I continue to watch this area. Flounder through some sort of vision without a real vision. It will be successful eventually, but I wish next steps had occurred when I got elected. When this council was articulating this concern and that we had land value capture in a meaningful way. You know, and what I mean by meaningful way is the thing that I have been throwing down constantly for about two months now. And I want you to hear this, Erica Raga, because you're the one person that I need to talk to that I haven't walked through this area with this proposal. But I think there is a way to do revenue neutral development to the city and largely to the developer and deliver units with each project that gets constructed. Through this land value captured and incent this so that we're not just because we are not going to subsidize our way out of this problem, we have to construct. And provide I mean, have these housing units available. And I know it can be successful in a mixed income environment and it will be healthy to develop around our transit stations. And so if we thought about this and we did this, and I would I will sit down with you and other developers in this room. Tim Santos, you're a very savvy, housing savvy individual as well. Let's talk about this plan. So the question of where. I mean, will there be housing and where will affordable housing be in projects? Will should never come up anymore. We know in our Todd areas we will get them as a product, a byproduct of any development. And the only reason you wouldn't get it is because nobody's building. But as soon as somebody is building residential, there's going to be an affordable component. And yeah, we can't mandate it, but we can incentivize and we can do it in a way that is far more productive than anything we have approached thus far, because a four exit at 38th and Blake is really a2x, it's just doubling the linkage fee when you do all the math and massing of those projects. And here. 1.25. It's just it's a drop. It's a it's the word pathetic is going to come out of my mouth. And the response from a developer when they say we want to do more is should never be. You can pay more. Money is great because I say homes are better. I've already said it. We will not subsidize our way out of this. We must build inclusively and we can do it so that it is revenue neutral for the city. And will benefit the developer at the same time. So regardless, I will follow the the this is not the reason I have laid out a much bigger problem. It is not the function of this particular reasoning to capture and resolve these issues. These are city issues. These are matters for council and the administration to do a better job in addressing. And I'm just saying that what this is does not do a better job at addressing, but it is consistent and better than anything we have put forward on Fox Island to date. So with that, I will continue to to support these rezonings. But I ask, there are still tons of opportunity. I mentioned this last week on the Evans rezoning and another Todd area where we have massive industrial land and we have several others like that that are opportunities waiting to happen. But we have to lay down new provisions, new regulations to address these concerns in real time things. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for those remarks. I agree with him and I adopt them. And I'm going to support this rezoning because I believe it meets all of the criterion criteria that are required. And not only that, I think that this is a project that that is necessary up there. That's why we're building transit. I think we dodged a big bullet, Grandma, when RTD wanted to build a commuter rail maintenance facility there. Imagine if a massive part of this station area had been taken up with a rail yard and a maintenance facility that RTD ended up building on the north side of the highway instead. In fact, I remember Carl Marcello, the late Carl Marcella, when he told us that Mayor Hickenlooper called him into the office. Graham I don't know if you were there, but Mike Shanahan was in the room and Mayor Hickenlooper said that Carl Marcello, who was the head of RTD, you will not build your maintenance facility on this on this property. And I think that's a very fortunate thing that happened, because this is exactly where we want to build. We want to build this diversity of housing, this density of housing with its access to the regional rail network. And so I'm very happy to support and I think it's a legacy of Denver's old industrial areas, we reasoned, one last week as well. And we keep taking areas that used to be rail yard. We're talking about now the old rice yards last week where we where we approved the new downtown area plan amendment that will possibly convert that area into an urban neighborhood. And now we're looking again at the old Argo smelter and even the one we just approved earlier over in Park Hill and Harley Street is right next to the site of the original Lowry Field. And it just shows how the city continues to evolve and it continues to change. And these are necessary changes to accommodate a growing population with a diversity of housing options. So I'm very happy to support this, Mr. President. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. For almost 15 years now, I have been engaged in most of the conversations around big redevelopments in this city and have studied closely the ones that preceded my time. And I have been a defender of area planning, even though it takes an enormous amount of community resources and times. And Elizabeth knows this. It's a lot of meetings, it's a lot of input. And residents are always skeptical and they say, can we trust what you put in this plan? Can we believe you when you say the things in this plan? And I have defended the value of those plans because I have believed they set a guideline that I believe in most cases we strive to achieve. But today I can't say that that's true. So I have two things that we need to lay out for the record here. The one is, does the zoning conform to the plans of the city? The language of those plans. And then the second question, because I think it's important. Would it have been possible would it have been fair to have this project conform to those plans? I think you've got to answer both those questions. So let me just lay down some record. Transit oriented development strategic plan of 2014 include a range of housing types and affordability, with mixed use development at or near stations. Housing an inclusive Denver Action Plan. Prioritize the building of creative creation of affordable housing in vulnerable areas, including areas vulnerable to displacement and neighborhoods that have strong amenities such as transit. OED housing investment priorities already prioritizes development of affordable housing that includes services or is located near fixed rail transit and high frequency bus lines. Globeville neighborhood plan. It means having access to a vibrant system, including quality jobs, affordable and diverse housing options. Global development plan also states, and it specifically calls out that this site should be considered for use for a community land trust because there is a risk that the recommended development intensity creates exceeding existing conditions on the ground that could result in displacement. 41st and Fox Plan. I mentioned already 12 or 13 mentions, including a requirement to develop an affordable housing strategy from CPD and OED. Working together for this station area, including mixed income housing, requires this area to follow the recommendations in the TOD plan. So just for the lawyers in the room, the tiered strategic plan is probably not an adopted plan except the 41st and FOX Plan is adopted and it says that we are going to follow the recommendations of the two D strategic plan. It mentioned specifically on page 36. And I just want to read this because this is what we're talking about. While the home prices remain affordable to existing residents, the presence of the station may increase property values and overall desirability of the area. This will create a new develop. This will require a new need for new development to provide housing types for diverse income levels. We got it right as a city in these plans, we said we know that there's going to be an impact. We know we need to have a plan for it. And we need to build diverse, mixed income housing on this site. Not a single mention of paying for it to build somewhere else. So we clearly do not have a zoning paired with this agreement that conform to the language of our adopted plans. So the question is, could we have done it? Could we have come up with the zoning and or associated agreements that conformed? Well, first of all, I just want to be really clear. My exchange was with the Office of Economic Development. I helped write the bill for the linkage fee with my colleague in the administration. We clearly left a path for affordable housing negotiated plans in the ordinance. Why did we do that? The linkage fee was never designed to be an affordable housing planning tool. I agree with one of the speakers tonight. It was a floor where there's nothing else. This applies. Linkage fees are designed for buildings. There's nothing in that ordinance that states that it's intended to be a planning tool or that it's intended to determine what neighborhoods need for housing. That's just not what it was designed for. And we made sure there was a path so that where we had large, important redevelopments, we could continue to to make sure we had all the robust planning processes necessary. So has anyone else done it before? Has anyone else? In a big, complicated, multi-phased area committed to building affordable housing on site? Well, they have. And they haven't just done it in tive projects. The Central Valley did not get to if it was a metropolitan district and they committed to on site housing. And guess what? They had environmental contamination. They had railroads to deal with. They had many barriers, lack of infrastructure. They had no street grid. Now, they may not have been quite as isolated, but I don't think anyone can say that it was not a tough site and they committed ahead of time. As master developers to pass on the obligation to their verticals. And they figured it out. And by the way, we did not subsidize it. They built it without subsidy. So I want that record to be clear. Others have done it and they've done it in many different ways, which is important when we think about the question came up. Well, there's no policy. Well, there's no policy in part because every site's different. And I think that that has worked, right. So at ninth in Colorado, they built slightly off site one just on the other side of the street because it worked. And they actually built it early. They built it before the rest of the housing St Anthony's. They dedicated some land to DHS. They built some mixed use on site. Gates, had a totally different approach where they're going to sprinkle the units throughout every one of these projects got the benefit of thinking creatively and solving for housing. They committed ahead of time in some cases without knowing where it would go, in other cases, dedicating it. So the absence of a policy created a lot of flexibility for developers, and it created a lot of flexibility for the city to be creative. Sometimes we bring additional subsidies, sometimes we don't. But make no mistake, large, complicated redevelopment sites can absolutely commit to affordable housing and they can deliver it, and they have done it in the city's history. So should it be done? I think that answer I mean, we don't even need to debate that. We have a dire need and land is very scarce and it's needed. And this neighborhood at every turn has said to us, Where are you on preventing displacement? And we talked about this last time. Displacement isn't just when you're removing the houses on your site, it's the ripple effects that are going to happen from property values and change outside your site. So even though not a single housing unit is going to be lost on this site, it's going to have the potential to displace and our plans recognize that. So we have a situation where it was hard. The first land offered wasn't the right land. And I respect the decision that that wasn't the right approach. But we had every plan obligation to stay at the table, to figure it out, to be more creative and use the institutional history of this city. There are really well-intentioned folks here, but we don't have affordable housing planning as a as a as a as a job description. And we didn't use, I don't think, any of the history of these plans and the institute. We have newer staff, maybe some folks weren't around when we did Central Park Valley, I'm not sure, but we missed the opportunity. And so because it was in the plans and because it was possible and it is not in this final thing, this does not meet the criteria for any of adopted plans. So the question I just want to close with is what do we do from here? Right. I can't vote for this. I won't vote for this because of of it failing to meet these legal requirements and failing to meet my moral requirements for meeting all of these things that we've helped to create, all these expectations we've created for our community. So what do we do going forward? Well, one, we need to break down the silos. We can't have one department doing big planning and visioning and then do it without. And community dialog. I didn't even quote all the places where the community meetings from Globeville residents. I got a call today from a global resident asking about this. So so we can't have one department that's not at the public meetings negotiating the affordable housing plan separate from the department that wrote the plans. That can't happen. Anymore. We need to give the department the staff capacity and expertize. You need. Administering an ordinance and approving a funding agreement for affordable housing is very different than planning a 50 acre site. It's a different skill set. We need to give you the talent and the capacity you need to do that. And frankly, we as a council need to have a conversation now about policy, because I've had a lot of trust for a lot of years that these things would get figured out, that people would come check back with us as council. We had a conversation about this. I pulled the record as early as 2016 about this site. I think my first meeting with the developer was in Philly. So every piece of indication was there and all the systems failed. So it's time. Let's talk about policy. Let's talk about written policy. So we I going to bring this to the housing and homelessness workgroup. And, you know, maybe it's time to end the flexibility. It's time to say, here's what happens when you want a big catalytic site with a lot of these considerations. Let's create rules and there's no more no more negotiating. Or let's put the council as the approving party of affordable housing approaches so that there's no more disconnect where no one comes and talks to us about what's being negotiated until they have a signed agreement. Right. So there's a lot of paths. Let's do some research. Let's see how other cities are doing this. But the trust the trust method, it didn't it failed us. And 2800 housing units might be built without any affordability. 2800. I can't live with that. And if that's a risk of ever happening again, we need a new approach. So I'd love to hear council feedback after this meeting about whether you're interested in that conversation, the Housing and Homelessness Workgroup. And I thank you for your time today. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Cannick Cashman. Well, we should be close to each other. I can understand the confusion. I'm tempted to say what she said. We can we can assume. Based on intent and promises. I don't know how long Mr. Bennis is going to be. Involved with that property. It reminds me of when I first heard about rezoning for liquor licenses that you need to be careful when you create a new license for this great guy who stands before you. Because the next guy, unless he's an out and out felon. May not have the same intent for your community. I agree with the councilwoman. I interpret the are plans to give emphasis to the creation of affordable housing, but for me even more strongly is the third criteria that talks about concern excuse me, concern for the public health and welfare, my office and hears on a daily basis. The two greatest concerns in the city are about traffic and about affordable housing. Now, I do believe we may be on an infrastructure path with this parcel that that takes a serious look at how to control trips. But for affordable housing, it's just another. Buyout. Opportunity. I mean, we zoned. I was the lone. No vote. On zoning, I believe 100 acres of Arapahoe Square because there was no affordable. Housing component. And here again. We're looking at something that approaches half of that size and again, with tremendous connectivity to to rail and mass transit options and again. With no. Affordable housing component and are. It is my personal belief that our linkage fee anyway is embarrassingly low. But there's only so much you can do with cash when we keep. Giving our land away. You know, we we are. Landlocked. And the number of units that we need to create, we can't keep giving these large parcels away. Again, based on intent and promises, it needs to be. It just needs to be a deeper part of our ethos. I mean, we spent so long. On. Our recent housing plan that talks over and over about the crisis we're in and the import of of of affordable housing. So. Yeah. I'm, um. I think we've got a great developer, but I'm going to have to vote against this plan tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So let me first start by saying I live in this area. I drive this route routinely and the infrastructure is not sufficient even for today's traffic, with all the new development that has already occurred in Sunnyside, in Highlands. You know, you've got a tremendous amount of traffic that comes off of Park Avenue trying to get into North Denver. And then, you know, as you add the development to this area. We're going to be challenged on how to get people in and out. And yes, some will take the train, but a lot of people will still drive their cars because not everybody is going straight downtown. Our train system doesn't get everybody where you're trying to go and our bus connections don't link to our train to get everybody to that first and last mile. So addressing the infrastructure issues, both transportation and drainage in this area are critical to anything that's going to happen there, because if we don't do that, guess what? We're already gridlocked at that intersection. So we have to address that. Now, is affordable housing important? Absolutely. I've been a huge advocate of affordable housing. Been on the board of a nonprofit housing group for over 30 years. It's a priority for us to address in this city. But. I just have to go back to the work we did on our housing plan. We gave up our inclusionary housing ordinance. If these guys proposed to build any for sale housing, they would have to include 10% of their units. But we gave that up. I argued we shouldn't do that because that was one more tool in our toolbox that gave us at least something to have our housing developers contribute towards our affordability of housing. Yeah, it's up for sale, but and we think we've overcome that with the changes that we brought forward a couple of years ago to address the construction defect issue. So we're starting to see, you know, some developers build for sale housing in the city, but we gave that up. I don't think we should have. Does that mean we shouldn't be seeing affordability on the rental side here? No, that's not what I'm saying. I mean, we'd love to see that. But I think, you know, a couple of things here. As we continue to rezone large parcels. When it comes time to try to get affordability on there, the the person rezoning it can now sell it for higher and better use. So that challenges us being able to get affordability in those developments. And I get, you know, trying to masterplan the site and address the infrastructure needs for the site. But we need to change our policy so that we as much as we have the legal authority and we were able to do this with construction defects, even though we were told the state legislature has control. We adopted our own legislation here on how to do that. So we should be able to figure out how we do that on the affordability side for rental and for sale housing in this city. And I'm committed to working with the housing group Housing and Homeless Group to figure out what are the policy changes that we need to make so that we have the tool, we have the hook to include affordability in all of our development. We should not be letting people buy out where we want to see units constructed. We keep letting that happen. And guess what? We're not getting the units. We're getting the money. And then we're saying, Oh, you can go build over there or you can go build over there. But in the areas where we want to see a mix of income levels, guess what? It's not happening. We need to figure out how to make that happen. But we got to do that with our policy changes because to say, you know, you followed the rules, but we want you to do this, it's not fair. We need to change the policy that gives us the right to extract what we need and want to see happen. In all the developments in this city and especially the large developments where we're seeing, boom, massive development coming in to our city and what does that do? It's going to have that continued push out effect to the adjacent neighborhoods because people like coming into the area because there's just fun stuff to do in these areas. But guess what? Now they're going to look at Globeville. They're going to look at houses in in the adjacent neighborhoods that haven't already been turned over. And we have tried to look at including density at our TOD sites where that's where we want that. That's where we want the height. We want all of that at. Todd. And not have that then, you know, take over our adjacent residential neighborhoods. You know, Jefferson Park is an example where boom, nothing, nothing even looks the same in that neighborhood. It's been completely redeveloped for the most part. So, you know, I. I appreciate the work that the city has done and that this developer has done in addressing the infrastructure issues, which, again, to see anything new and different happen in this area which has already been designated as a TOD area. The neighborhood wants to see the development there and not in the neighborhood. So I'm inclined to support this tonight, even though it doesn't have the strong commitment to affordable housing. And my hope is that this applicant sees and hears this message loud and clear and figures out a way to ensure that affordability is front and center in everything that is done helps. Ensure that those units are on the site and not just contribute the funding to it and see those units go elsewhere, because I think that's a critical part. I don't believe we're going to see 2800 units built on the site as long as the commitment is to keep that building on the site , which I think is an incredible building. And we've talked about, you know, a potential use for that site that I think would make that whole location even far more attractive than what you guys are looking at or thinking about at this point in time. But. I just think that. The fact that we have the development agreement that links back to the project and ensures that we're also looking at the trip count. And you know, that is also a cap, if you will, on the site. So it ensures that we do this next step, study and address all of that upfront as part of of all of this. Otherwise, then not just this developer, but the others who will then come in through their development agreements will be required to, you know, to try to ensure that they're there addressing that cap as well. So I think those safeguards are in place. I'm anxious to see the outcome of the next step study and would just respectfully ask that that be brought to the appropriate committee so that we can be updated on where that's at in the process. You know, once the contractor selected and they move through the process to at least give us an update of where that's moving. The last thing I'll say, and this is too, a comment made by SACU, is that. This whole process changed when the 2010 zoning was adopted. City Council used to see a lot more detail in terms of number of units, number of parking spaces, traffic studies. You know, it's a whole different way that this body looks at the applications from the body that I served with. And so, again, if we want to see some changes, we need to look at the policy changes that we have to make. And we are the legislative branch that can do that so that we address those upfront and be able to look at the things that we want to see happen. And obviously, we don't do that in a vacuum, just like when we created the original IATO. It was done in collaboration with the development partners in this city. So with that, I will be supporting this tonight and am committed to working with Councilwoman Kim Inches Committee to change our policy so that we have a way to ensure that with these large developments, we're getting affordability in these projects. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. This concludes the comment portion of city council. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye Clark by Espinosa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon High Fashion. No carnage. Lopez No new, huh? Ortega Mr. President. I. Please. I think we're missing somebody. Okay. Yeah. Explosive ordinance results. Nine eyes, three nays. 93 nays for 12 passes. Onto the third public hearing for tonight. Councilman Flynn, will you please put counsel before.

Recommendation to request City Manager to communicate the City of Long Beach’s opposition to Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 to the Governor and urge his veto of these bills.

LongBeachCC_09142021_21-0921

I think we're on 22 now. No. 34. Looks like 34. Sorry. Item 34 is communication from Councilman Austin. Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Mango. Recommendation two requires City Manager to communicate the City of Long Beach opposition to Senate Bill nine and Senate Bill ten to the Governor and urge his veto. Of this bills. Thank you. Councilman Austin, thank you so much. So we're going to try this again. So in July, city council unanimously approved the motion for the city staff to review potential impacts of nine and ten in Long Beach and report back to the state led committee. The state led committee met on August 25th and received the staff report. However, the item was agenda item that received the file on the report so the committee could not even consider taking a motion on the bill or position on the bill, despite all three committee members voicing opposition to the bills during the committee meeting. We now have time to wait for a formal committee recommendation on these bills. The board's 49 items have now passed the legislature and are on the governor's desk and he can act on these two bills within the next few weeks. Any day now. I believe that we should urge the governor to veto both of these bills because they are bad loans. We've worked hard to create more affordable and workforce housing in our community. We've had an extensive community engagement as we work to adopt new land use element and housing policy policies like student. Earlier this evening, we discussed the enhanced density bonus. Provide an additional tool in our city to incentivize. To build more affordable housing along transit corridors in many areas that are already given for multifamily housing. The policy was buried in the Planning Commission and through the community outreach process for the housing element update. However, roughly nine in ten. Applies a one size fits all approach to the entire state without the benefit of community input and extensive work that we put in at the local level to address our housing crisis. The legislation requires that by right approval, this new housing for completing the important local government review process that includes extensive public engagement without any requirement that the new housing development. The affordable housing. As we all know, it takes time for new housing to be built. We're seeing new housing opportunities, including affordable housing, in many parts of our city today. We're seeing more reuse built throughout the city. But at the same time, we've work to preserve the integrity and distinct character of our many great neighborhoods in our city. This legislation is opposed by a broad coalition of hundreds of local government. League of California Cities. Social justice advocate. Affordable housing group. Neighborhood Council. And many others. So tonight I'm asking my colleagues to join me in urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto these bills and instead let our city continue to work to meet our housing needs with our local community input and policies and zoning that take into account our own local needs. The Long Beach Way. Thank you. I asked my colleagues, do you think you can form Mongo? Thank you. I. Brought the initial item forward. I think that there has been a lot that we've learned through the years on how much a bill can change during the process. And I think that it's important for committees to be active and hear what the bill says and where it stands and then to advocate for those. And I've appreciated each committee's opportunity to do that. In hearing that, a majority of the members on the committee were supportive of opposing Senate Bill nine and ten. I had hoped that the committee would bring it to the full council in a similar way that we were just discussing another item that came to the full council because it had an unanimous committee support. So with that, I'm very supportive of this item. I appreciate council member Austin taking the leadership to bring it out of committee, even if it was a solely slated item. I think we've all learned a lot on Brownout because of the way that it came to the table. I appreciate that. And the advice and guidance of our city attorney and the changes we've made as the council. And I hope my colleagues will support this item. Thank you. Councilman, your anger to comes from our mongo. That is precisely the point that did not come out to the committee. It came out through to the city council directly. We did have a robust discussion at the state level committee about these two items. It was a receive a final item that we voted on. And despite the feelings of the other members that were there still was a receipt, a final item that should have gone to the state committee for a vote. If we're going to come to the council and which had been brought separately, it was not. It came directly here. And that that's my issue with the with this item at this point, which I will not be supporting because of the procedural effort on that, just that we've had before in other committees. And we just had a discussion right now about the committee structure and what it does that we're supposed to do and we're supposed to work together. We are. But when we had and, you know, many of us have been here for a number of years now. So we know the process and we know what we our expectations are. And we need to work together on trying to bring things forward. Now, in these two areas right now, I think that this letter to the governor is. More symbolic than anything else. The governor is going to sign it all the it's passed both legislature, the legislature and the House. I mean, the assembly and the legislature. It's a it's a done deal. Now, there's other ways I understand from my participation other in other organizations, committees, that there is a. Growing effort in the community to bring a vote to the people of California. There's there's petitions being circulated that will address both SB nine and every ten. That'll be, of course, later on down the line. I'll wait for that to see what the result of that is. But right now, I think my vote for this would be a symbolic vote. And I don't do symbolic vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Arthur. So the symbolic vote was the receiver filed in committee? That was the symbolic vote. And you, Mr. Raja, respectfully had the ability to determine whether that was a receiving vote or if that was a straight up and down vote for a recommendation to come before this committee. Thank you. Excuse me. I'm not done. No, I actually didn't realize. I let everybody speak once. I didn't realize we had public comment. So I'm an invite to public comment if you want to queue up and speak right after that, I want to finish my point. You go you get this final point that we're going to public. Okay. So the point is that, yes, you spoke in committee and you said that you were opposed to both SB nine and ten. There was it was unanimous all three members and so. During the committee, I said, Well, why aren't we bringing this to the floor and let's bring it to the floor. So I brought it to the floor and I gave you, Mr. Chair, as well as our vice mayor, who was also on the committee, the opportunity to serve on the bill. And both of you declined to sign on the bill. One on item two, to oppose this legislation here on the floor as a body, as a city council, and to send that message to the legislature and the governor. And so I just have to call it what it is. You said the process, I think is disingenuous. And I think to members of the public here. Dietrich Geiger and Janet Foster, if you can come forward, the Dietrich here. Okay. Dietrich first and then Janet. I'm a resident of district shares in the island district and I am coming today to urge you guys to support those SB ten and to not oppose it. I come today with the perspective of a real estate agent who works primarily with first time homebuyers. Those are renters. A lot of them are Long Beach residents. And it really sucks because a lot of the times I have to tell them, most of the time they cannot buy a house and they are not poor. They are not low income. They are not $100,000 income earners either. To tell them that if they want to buy, they either have to get a small little condo over here in downtown or they have to be back to the desert. They don't want to do either. They do not want to be super commuters. They want to own a home. They want to build equity. They want to have something they can pass on to their kids or that they can have something as a back up for themselves. Please support SB nine and SB ten and increase the housing that we have here in our city. And an all star for you. Thank you. Thank you. Next identified the. Good evening. Thank you for this chance to speak to you. I am I am a resident of District two and also I am a co-leader of the Long Beach chapter of Yimby. And I'm asking this Council to support SB nine and SB ten. I enjoyed a lot of the spirited conversation tonight, particularly with Councilmember Mongeau stating that Long Beach is doing as much as we can in terms of dense housing related to transit. There's still another thing that Long Beach can participate with and also the cities that are mentioned where they're not doing as much as Long Beach. A lot of times one of the key components of SB nine and SB ten deals with the single family lot, and that, unfortunately, in California as a whole has been weaponized a lot. Whether it's based on equal access, opportunity to purchase, or whether it's from working and middle class earners as well as it has a history. And we all know that history of how single family lots were leveraged in the 1950s and this is the last vestige of this. And I asked this council to not ask the governor to veto SB nine and SB ten. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So I'm going to offer my my comments on this on this item. I don't see any other council comments here. So I want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this forward, I think. What I want to say is that I think we've we've been very clear time and time again and throughout the years about the issue of local control. Long Beach protect local control in our state legislative agenda. It's been there. It's not new. We advocate in support of protecting local control already as a part of the legislative agenda. We've submitted amendments on nine and ten, many of which have been accepted. I and and I personally opposed a number of these bills. And my role as president is guard and other roles. And it wasn't because I don't doubt. I don't deny the housing crisis that we have. In fact, and I've been a champion on a number of things and had very difficult conversations around the green and other things . And so I think the issue is that I personally believe that we should try to maintain land use decisions as local. Also been clear. Even recently I expressed my opposition to these bills at the state level committee. I met with the governor's office who? Just two weeks ago. Talking about this bill and the prospects of the future of the bill. I met with them just to just two weeks ago in my capacity as the immediate past president of Sky. So the city's position, my own position on the city council have been very public about their position on local control. So that's that's not an issue here. I think I think there's also a reality that we should acknowledge that that Janet brought up and nice to meet again that Janet brought up is that single family housing in general in a number of cities. And I notice of our regional high single family housing has been used as a means to block any growth from taking place. And the ultimate result of the, you know, the abuse of single family housing is that housing and the burden. The burden of density gets pushed on things like Long Beach because other cities have not done their part. And so and in that from that standpoint, the state has attempted to take action to fix the issue of the squeeze down in one area and push everybody out of one community popped up in the other, and it exacerbates the homelessness crisis. And so from the state standpoint, I actually understand why five or six members of our local delegation voted to address this, and the state has taken action. You've got you know, in the last week or so, the legislature approved a bill with 28 to 6 vote in the Senate. 45 to 19 in the Assembly. Now, I wish this hadn't been the case. But the reality is that's the case. This is an issue statewide. We advocated for protections for us here in Long Beach. Many of those have been included. And that's the hard reality, is that although we wish that hadn't happened, the state has taken that action. And so I think. Personally with overwhelming support in the legislature. I think the things that are you know, in the conversation with the governor's office, I think the reality is that this thing is going to be fine. This is the law. The state is taking action. This is about to happen. And thinking about that, I think, what's this? This vote is going to have very little impact on the actual trajectory of the bill. So what are we doing tonight? I think we have to really think about, you know, we're already on the record. We're already in one place. What action are we taking tonight? Are we taking an action to shift the course of this process? I don't believe that that's possible at this point. From a process standpoint, I think it's time to be honest with residents, that it's time to be honest with the residents and and it's time to move on from this issue. And so tonight, for that reason and for many reasons, I don't think that this is the action the city lobby should take tonight. And moving to ask the governor to veto this, it is not likely to happen. And we need to move on from this issue and be honest about the reality of this legislative session and what we need to prioritize in the future. So that's it. I think we have one more Councilwoman Margo. I honestly just don't know. You'd stated that we are already on the record with our position on these items. Dr. Hurley Had we sent our position on these items to the delegation or. What was our position formally? The city is neutral on the bill currently. And why are we neutral when the state legislative agenda states that we are against removing local control? Well, in terms of SB nine, one of the main things that have changed since last year, this is the bill that was closest to SB 50, which the city opposed last year and this year. The bill basically is the definition of local control in the sense that city would have to make an effort to take an action in order to avail ourselves of the streamlining that allowed in the bill. So in terms of SB ten, that's one of the core changes over the last year and a half or so. And on the SB nine, I think as the Vice Mayor was referring to, one of the items we added to the state legend of this year was in response to some of the conversations that council has had recently actually for the development of single family homes into multi-unit properties. We included a new item to allow for more advocacy around reasonable requirements on those developments. So one of the things that we did try to incorporate in 39, how much is around affordability requirements as well as owner occupancy options for local agencies to impose? And that is one of the things that did get amended into SB nine this year. Now there is a requirement for property owners to subdivide using SB nine to sign an affidavit that says that they will live in one of their residences for at least three years. I'm very supportive of those things. I guess my just misunderstanding is. We currently have more control than we would have if this bill passes. That could. That's what I thought. Our former presentation stated. That is correct. Okay. So this takes away some of our local control and we as a council have advocated for more local control. And I appreciate, Dr. Crowley, that you got a lot of the things in there for us. And I know that as a councilmember who was very engaged in consistently working with Chris and Oscar and all the crew over there, we were consistently working to improve the bill. Before figuring out now that it's out of state where it probably will be. My agenda item was to refer it to committee at that time, but I think it's important, even if we are okay with some things. My understanding is that local control is still what we believe is. The strikes. And so for those reasons, it is. What would you say we have as an official position? You said no position. So I guess I'm confused by the vice mayor's comments when he says that we are already on the record on this item. Could you help me understand how we're on there? I just don't know. We have not sent any formal on the record of our opinion of these bills or have we. Not on behalf of the city. Okay. So. I appreciate Councilmember Austin for inviting me to be a part of this, because I do think it's important that we take an official position on requesting the governor veto these two bills. We'll see what happens. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kirby, for all the hard work you've done through this session. And to everyone who's engaged, we know this is important to everyone. And thank you and also for continue to focus on this issue. Members, please cast your vote. Emotion fail. Right. So I think we're that satisfies the agenda. We're now at closing public comment. I don't have a list. Vice-Chair We have item 39 and also item 29 being withdrawn. So we have two more. Okay. Left here 39 and 29. 39.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on the appeal filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club (Appellants), in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507; and adopt resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners' environmental determinations made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement for the Pier G dry bulk facility in the Port of Long Beach and for the Oxbow Energy Solutions LLC Lease of the Pier G Coal Shed (Coal Shed).

LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0613

over to the clerk. Thank you, Mayor. It's a recommendation to receive supporting and documentation and record and conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal of the Earth of Earth Justice on behalf of the communities for better environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. And to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations relative to the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement involving the Port of Long Beach and Oxbow Energy Solutions. Thank you. Mr. Clarke, will you also administer the oath? Yes, please. If those intending to testify on this matter being heard by this council, would you please stand? That would include staff as well. Thank you. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this. Cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Now, I'm going to turn this over before we begin the the hearing and and kind of have our hearing and the and those that are involved in it speak, we're going to turn first turn this over to the city attorney who will kind of go over the hearing, the process of the hearing for the counsel. And if there's any questions. He'll be happy to answer those from the counsel right now about the process of the hearing. Mr. City Attorney. Thank you. Mayor Garcia. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This appeal from a determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners is somewhat unique in the experience of the City Council. So I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about the background of the actual approvals that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made. The scope of the appeal as it is before the City Council, the legal standard that the City Council would apply in making its determination on this appeal. The two options that are basically available to the Council when they're considering this matter and finally, the process that is allocating the time for both the Board of harbor commissioners and the appellants in this case to make their case. So as far as background, on June 9th of this year, the Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted two separate ordinances. And it's typical, unlike the way the city does it for the Board of Harbor Commissioners, to actually adopt an ordinance when they approve certain types of agreements. So in this case, the adopted ordinance number HD 2188 for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company, otherwise known as Metro Operating Agreement for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility in the port. They also. Adopted ordinance number HD. 21 to 87 for the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease of the coal shed, also located at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility as part of approving both of those agreements. The Board of Harbor Commissioners was required to make a second determination, and basically the determination in this case was made that for both of the agreements, they were both what is referred to as categorically exempt from the requirements of sequel. And with respect to the coal shared approval, they made an additional determination and an alternate determination that since there had previously been a negative declaration adopted in connection with the approval of the construction of the that coal shed, that there was no additional environmental review required . So subsequent to those approvals and within the ten day appeal period on June 23rd, 2014, Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the NRDC and the Sierra Club appealed the second determination to the City Council. So that's the background and the scope of the appeal. And this is really the one of the important things I have to say. The scope of this appeal is really quite narrow, and it only involves whether or not the secret approvals were appropriately made by the port. The city's charter gives the port the absolute authority to make a determination as to whether or not the agreements in this case the operating agreement in the lease were appropriate. So those two items and what those leases contain or the operating agreements contain really are not before the city council tonight. It's only the issue of whether or not the sequel determination was appropriate. And as you're listening to all of the testimony tonight and ultimately when you take it behind the rail for deliberation, the legal standard that you apply, you make what's called a de novo determination, which means you are hearing this as if the board of Harbor Commissioners had not heard it. You are judging this on the facts as you hear them, and you're not required to give deference to the determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The options available to the City Council after you've received all the evidence, are basically to, one, deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determinations made by the board and making findings. And in that case, if you take that course of action, you will also be adopting a resolution in support of your determination in the findings. The second option available for the Council is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with appropriate sequel review before the Harbor Department reconsiders the two agreements that we've been discussing. And now for the process, both the parties, the Board of Harbor Commissioners, and the appellants in this case have previously been advised that they have each been allocated 20 minutes to make their presentation, and they can choose to reserve any portion of their 20 minute time period for rebuttal. But neither side will get more than 20 minutes. At the conclusion of the Board of Harbor Commissioners presentation and the appellants presentation, of course, it will be appropriate to take public comment and ultimately bring it behind the rail for your determination. I would like to introduce here at the table, as you can see, the city manager is not sitting with us tonight. To my right is Barbara McTighe, who is an attorney in the city attorney's office assigned to handle port matters for us. Behind me is Cathy Jensen, who is one of the outside counsel that the Board of Harbor Commissioners sometimes engages to provide secure advice to the Board of Harbor Commissioners. And Heather Tom Lee, who will be making the presentation on behalf of the Board of Harbor Commissioners tonight. All right. And so that said, as I indicated, we've allocated 20 minutes for each side to make their presentation. And I'd ask Miss Tomlin since she is making her presentation on behalf of the board. How much time, if any, you would like to reserve in rebuttal out of your 20 minutes? My presentation is approximately 12 minutes, so I'd like to reserve 8 minutes for rebuttal. Okay. So I'll ask the clerk if he would mind setting the clock at 12 minutes for the initial presentation. Okay. So with that, I think we've all will briefly see no questions from from counsel to the city attorney. We will open this hearing up and begin with the presentation from the Port of Long Beach. Mr. Singer. Mayor Garcia and council members, thank. You very much for the opportunity to address you. This evening. I am John Slinger, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach. My staff and I are here before you to confirm and defend. The environmental determinations that have been made for agreements with two established tenets Metropolitan. Stevedore Company and OCS for Oxbow Energy Solutions. Who operate a. Leading export facility. I would now like to turn it over to to Heather Tom Lee, our director of environmental planning, who will present our harbor department staff report. Thank you, John. And thank you, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. As John indicated, the harbor department is before you this evening to respond to an appeal that has been filed not against our lease agreements, but against. Related environmental determinations that were made by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. On June 9th, the Board of Harbor Commissioners approved two real estate agreements for the use and operation of existing port facilities on Pier G. The two agreements that were approved are an operating agreement with Metropolitan Stevedore for operations at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility and a lease with Oxbow Energy Solutions for the Pier G Coal Shed. Today, both Metro and Oxbow are operating on Pier G. The two agreements approved by the Harbor Commission on June 9th allow for the continuation of these operations. The Pier G Marine Terminal is used for the storage and loading of dry bulk commodities such as petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur and soda ash. Dry bulk goods are delivered to the facility by truck or train and then transferred to covered storage facilities for later loading onto vessels for shipments worldwide. Metro has been under contract for years with the port to provide terminal operation services for all of the dry bulk materials entering or exiting the pier facility. This includes responsibility for unloading dry bulk materials from trucks and railcars and loading vessels under their existing agreement. Metro also controls the Pier G coal shed, which they currently sub assigned to Oxbow. Under the terms of the new agreement. The port would take back control of the coal shed from metro so that the port can lease it directly to Oxbow, thereby maximizing the revenues that can be collected by the port. In addition, Metro will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance, including some repaving, which will bring the facility up to standards and improve worker safety. Metro has also agreed to green port programs to reduce environmental impacts, including assistance with an app birth and mission control technology, demonstration on vessels, installation of energy efficient lighting and the replacement of terminal terminal vehicles with zero emission vehicles. Oxbow is an exporter of dry bulk products and currently leases five storage sheds on the Pier G facility directly from the port and one through the SAB assignment agreement with Metro. Under the new lease, Oxbow will no longer hold its interest in the Pier G coal shed through Metro, but instead will have a direct lease with the port. In addition, Oxbow has agreed to Greenport provisions to reduce environmental impacts. Oxbow has agreed that its vessels will participate in the green flag and green ship programs and Oxbow will install low energy lighting for the coal shed, purchase greenhouse gas offsets for electricity use and participate in a vessel at birth emission control technology demonstration. Now let me discuss the secret requirements under the new agreements. There will be no changes to the capacity of the existing facilities. The operations at the facility are the same today under the current agreements as they will be tomorrow under the new agreements. As a part of the approval of the agreements with Metro and Oxbow, the Harbor Commission found the two agreements to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or Secure Secret identifies various actions that require environmental analysis, but secret also defines the actions or classes that don't require further environmental analysis because they are not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. Actions that fall into these classes, those that don't require further environmental analysis are identified as categorically exempt. A Class one exemption applies to repairs, maintenance and leasing of existing facilities when there is essentially no change from current conditions. And a class two exemption applies to the replacement of existing structures and facilities in the same place and for the same use. Since the agreements include leasing of existing facilities with maintenance work, including some repaving, they fit into these exemption classes. Therefore, the harbor department determined that the agreements were categorically exempt and thus did not require any further environmental analysis. Furthermore, the surgical shed was previously studied under a negative declaration that was adopted in 1992. Since a previous secret document was prepared for the coal shed and there has been no substantial changes and no new impacts and identified since the adoption of that negative declaration. The Harbor Commission also found that the approval of the new lease for the coal shed did not trigger the need for further environmental review beyond the previously adopted negative declaration. Now let me address a few of the specific points that were raised in the appeal. First is our requirement of a guaranteed minimum throughput or GMT. The new lease with Oxbow includes a GMT at 1.7 million metric tons of coal per year. I want to be clear on the purpose of a GMT. A GMT ensures that the port gets a fair financial return on the use of our facilities to move cargo. So the calculation for a GMT payment is based upon the actual commodity moving across the dock. In this case, the metric tons of coal. The intent is to secure a fair minimum dollar payment, a return for our investment on the wharf, and cargo handling equipment like conveyor belts and ship loaders. So despite the name, it's not a minimum performance or a minimum throughput requirement. The GMT requires that Oxbow make an annual payment to the port based on our tariff charge for shipping 1.7 million metric tons of coal. The guarantee does not require Oxbow to ship any particular amount of coal through the coal shed. In other words, if Oxbow didn't ship any coal at all through the facility, it would not be in default of its lease. Oxbow would simply pay the port the tariff charge as if they had shipped 1.7 million metric tons of coal. Most of our leases are structured in a similar way. GMT is are not new for the coal shed. In fact, when the coal shed first came online in 1994, the GMT for the coal shed through the Metro Agreement was over 2.4 million metric tons of coal per year, which was in alignment with the peak throughput at the facility that occurred in 1996 and is consistent with the working capacity for the coal shed, which is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. It's important to understand that the GMT and the new agreement is not an increase beyond what has been exported historically through the coal shed or what Oxbow can export through the pure coal shed today under their current agreement. Finally, Oxbow is on track to handle 1.7 million metric tons of coal through the shed this year based upon market demand. Therefore, the GMT and the new agreement has been set at a level that is equivalent to the current throughput and will provide the port with a fair market return considering what is being shipped today. An additional item that was raised in the IPO is the repaving work that will be required in the operating agreement with Metro. A class to categorical exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities. The replacement of over 126,000 square feet of the same type of asphalt, concrete, pavement, pavement and the exact same location at the facility clearly falls within the Class two exemption. This work is being required to ensure the structural integrity of the facility and to improve drainage to effectively capture stormwater runoff. It should be noted that the cout that Caltrans commonly uses class two exemptions for the in-kind replacement of millions of square feet of pavement, much larger than the work that's being done at the pier facility. I also want to point out that a letter from the appellants was received today at 1:20 p.m.. We haven't had a lot of time to review the materials, and but it doesn't appear that there is any new factual or legal arguments that are presented that would change our recommendation . The letter states several times that there has never been any analysis of the impacts of shipping millions of tonnes of coal out of perigee, but that's incorrect. As part of the additional reference documents, we supplied the 1982 negative declaration that specifically assessed increasing the coal throughput at Pier G from 2.1 million metric tonnes per year to 5 million metric tonnes. The facility is still operating well within that envelope. The 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed did not change that level of throughput at G. The closure did not increase the throughput, but rather changed how the coal was stored and closing it to help to reduce the emissions and help to make the train arrivals less sporadic. The train activity is well within what was projected. If anyone had objection with the 1992 negative declaration or the scope of its analysis, the time to challenge it was when that was adopted. The previous NEG decks cleared the way for the current operations that exist today. Today's submittal also repeatedly states that the port intends to expand the coal export operations beyond what is disclosed in the challenge agreement. The port has no plans to make any physical changes to the Pier Dry Bulk facility and there are no applications pending by any tenants to make expansions. The port is not looking at expanding the coal handling capacity beyond what now exists out there and is not considering any applications. The transit steam study was just an operating study and there is no plan to take action as a result of that study today. In conclusion, let me summarize the two agreements the Harbor Commission approved on June nine allow existing operations to continue and don't increase capacity. They will more fully realize the value of the port's facilities by directly leasing with Oxbow and they secure a structured maintenance and repair program. The Board of Harbor Commissioners found the agreements to be categorically exempt from secret and that no additional environmental review is required. The Harbor Department respectfully request that the City Council receive the supporting documentation into the record and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners determinations. This concludes the Harbor Department's presentation, and we'll reserve our remaining time for rebuttal. And we're happy to address any questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to have the appellant come forward. And also just want to make sure I just a note that as we go through these presentations and the comments, that we'll be respectful of each other. And so let's as you know, let's have a good hearing that respectful of everyone's opposing views, you know, and make sure that we introduce ourselves before we before we begin. Okay. Great. Please. I'm just waiting for the presentation to come out. No problem. I'll just start the introductions. We could clear a mr. Mayor, if we could please clarify the time set for presentation, as well as reserved for rebuttal. What. What amount of time are you keeping for rebuttal at the end? We're going to reserve 6 minutes for rebuttal. Okay. Bigot. Okay. Or they're going to. Are they going to put up the presentation? Perfect. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and members of the council. My name is Adrian Martinez and I'm an attorney for Earthjustice representing Communities for Better Environment in Sierra Club. My colleague from our Justice Elizabeth Sites are also here. Also with me, we have Morgan Wian representing NRDC. And then also, Jessica, you're now a lawyer representing Sierra Club. And finally, Megan Krasno, representing Communities for a Better Environment. We're very well represented as appellants. Tonight, I'm going to give an overview on June 23rd, 2014, Sierra Club Committee for a Better Environment and the Natural Resources Defense Council appealed a decision by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners related to two new agreements that you've heard a little bit about today. The main contention is that the Harbor Commission violated California's bedrock environmental law. The California Environmental Quality Act would improve the two new agreements without any environmental analysis. These are organizations and other supporters from other organizations, and residents will be asking the city council to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. This presentation, I'm going to go over three main issues. First, I will start with an overview of the concerns about coal and petcoke and the shipments of these products. Second, I'll shift to a little bit more information about the agreements and clarify, I think, some of the points of contention. And then finally, I'll go over the legal applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act. As his counsel is intimately aware, climate change is a serious issue and an immense challenge that we must take seriously. Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The combustion of fossil fuels is a primary culprit in climate change. Fuels such as coal and petroleum coke are very carbon intensive, and as a result, there has been a major push to end the reliance on this fuel for energy generation in the United States. As this has happened, coal use for power generation has has reduced, and tenants and coal companies have sought to export more of this product abroad. In addition to the global global consequences of carbon from coal and petcoke, there are local consequences throughout this process. Several environmental groups and other interested stakeholders have presented information. For example, we presented information about the consequences of coal dust that is shipped mainly when these cars come from the mines to the ports, they are transported in uncovered trail rail cars. Tests show that coal dust contains arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, selenium and other toxic heavy metals. In addition, coal dust presents several safety concerns. We presented various arguments and evidence about the impacts that coal dust can have on train derailments and other accidents. In addition to this, the ships, trucks and trains that help move this equipment emit significant quantities of air pollution. This counsel is intimately aware with of the air pollution impacts faced by its residents and Port of Long Beach is a contributor to a lot of that air pollution. The other thing is fossil fuel infrastructure poses cumulative impacts. This is a map from a an air that the Port of Long Beach did for the Thai grain terminal expansion. It shows other related projects in the project area. It identifies 79 projects, including several related to fossil fuel infrastructure, including about a dozen or more related to fossil fuels. This indicates the cumulative impacts of this project in addition to these many projects that will impact residents throughout Long Beach and also residents in the greater area. Now that we've gone over some of the information that's been presented, I want to provide a little bit of context so people can visually see what is taking place down at Pier G. This is a picture of coal cars. As you can see, they're uncovered the coal gums above the top of the railcar. This provides another context where you can see into a little bit higher. And then finally, this gives us a sense of how long these trains are assembled. So as you can see, there's a significant amount of cars that are filled with coal. In addition, we've provided evidence about how much coal dust is lost along the way. And that was in all the submissions we provided. Now I want to go over overview of the agreement in a couple issues. First, the the agreement creates a guaranteed minimum of coal. There has never been an agreement for this port that specific specifies the product as coal being the guaranteed minimum. This is in stark difference to the prior agreements and anyone we've seen it was generally a guaranteed minimum of any bulk commodity. Here they're locking in coal second in year six through 15, the executive director of the port and his sole discretion may increase any of the commodities. So right now there's £100,000 per year cap on petcoke that could be increased in year six through 315. Third, I want to address some contention that people have been arguing that the guaranteed minimum doesn't really do anything. A couple thoughts we have on that. One is generally you don't enter into contract terms that don't mean anything. And then second, an article submitted by the Port from Port Technology International States that these guaranteed minimums are designed to ensure tenants will use their leased facilities at ports to maximum possible potential. So the arguments that it doesn't really have an impact on operations are directly rebutted by the port's own technology journal that it submitted. Now I want to shift into some of the legal issues. And at the outset, I want to remind the council that courts have interpreted California Environmental Quality Act in the legislature as directed it to be interpreted in a manner that's where the foremost principle that you should interpret the act to protect the environment to the fullest possible manner. So your job tonight is to have that in the background as you're making this decision. There are categorical exemptions where sequel analysis is not required. These don't apply here. The various groups provided several evidence showing that the various categorical exemptions don't apply. And then the other important thing is that when there's a reasonable possibility that an activity will have a significant impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, exemptions don't apply. Now I'm going to go over why the exemptions don't apply. The first exemption the port relies on is a class one exemption related to a lease renewable, where importantly there is no or negligible increase in use. We provided several pieces of information about the increase in use and the desire to increase the use of this terminal. In addition, we remind that it has a specific amount of coal that's required to be shipped, which indicates an increase in use. Now I want to go over there's been a lot of talk about the historical trends of coal through the port. Using the port's data that it submitted in its submission from Tuesday of last week, we charted out the levels. You hear a lot of talk about the 1996, which is the peak in that chart. The 1.7 million metric tonnes is the red line. As you can see, for the majority of years there has never been 1.7 million metric tonnes of products shipped through this facility. So what you're having is cherry picking specific dates to make an argument about the lack of a significant impact. In addition, the port hired trans systems to explore how it can increase coal. The port is what it is it talks about how can they increase the shipment of this coal and allow for other bulk commodities to be shipped as well. And in addition, we provided in the record evidence from Metropolitan Stevedoring Company for Port of Oakland Application, where it talked about dramatic increases at the Port of Long Beach. The port is also claiming it falls under Class two exemption. I just want to remind a couple of things. This is a large construction project. It's a pretty large facility. There'll be significant emissions from construction equipment as this is done. And the other issue is that doesn't cover the agreements. I think the port is only claiming the class two exemption for the various maintenance. If the City Council determines that these exemptions apply. Sequel allows for exceptions to exemptions due to unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts generally. For unusual circumstances to apply must differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and those circumstances result in an environmental risk. There's environmental risks to shipping this material. You have train emissions, safety issues, ship emissions, and also the issues of coal and petcoke getting into our water and our lungs. The this also differs from prior examples. The port provided examples of putting utility boxes in San Francisco, a case this is different. This is major industrial operations. It also provided an example of case law, talking about a 9000 square foot lease renewal in Pasadena. What we're talking about here is a 144,000 square foot coal barn and lots of major operations with trains, ships, trucks , lots of emissions and lots of impacts. Now I want to talk about the negative declaration. There's been a lot of discussion about how this was adequate to address the significant new information about climate change and the seriousness of that threat that coal dust and coal's impact on climate change. The 1992 declaration is a 23 page, bare boned checklist document. It solely looked at the construction impacts from the building, the coal barn. What it didn't look at is identified in this chart. And there's a lot of important information that was not looked at in the 1992 document. These are important issues for people who came out to support this appeal, but also should be for the city council. Ten. I just want to note the issues discussed in this pile are complicated. It's a very complicated record. There's a large amount of information that was filed within the last week. If you have any doubts here, the safest approach is to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. That way they can lay out all the information and have a period when all experts, residents and other stakeholders can weigh in on the impacts of this decision in a transparent manner. This process has been anything but that. I'll save. I have 6 minutes for rebuttal, but that's all we have right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we will have we will go back to the the first rebuttal. And I believe, Mr. Clark, they have 8 minutes, is that correct? Up to 8 minutes. Not to use the whole 8 minutes. Mr. Cook. What was it? 8 minutes is up. Okay. Please begin. Okay. One of the issues that was addressed by the appellant has to do with policy issues related to the exports of coal and the effects on on global climate change and whether or not it's appropriate for the United States to be involved with exporting coal. And while I understand that there are important policy discussions to be had on this issue, the matter that's in front of the city council today has to do with the secret determination for the approval of the agreements that the Harbor Commission made. And the evidence that was presented by the Harbor Commission by the Harbor staff clearly indicates that CECA was conducted appropriately. The renewal of the agreements simply continues in existing use. There is no change in the use of what's happening out there from what they can do today under the current agreements to what they'll be able to do tomorrow under the new agreements. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with the approval of those agreements. Renewal of agreements is listed as a class that's categorically exempt from Sequa. In addition, the repaving work falls into a class two exemption and is is commonly used for that type of action. In addition, there was the 1992 negative declaration that was approved for the coal shed specifically and helped to establish the existing operation that's out there today. For any sequel analysis, what you need to look at is what will happen in the future as a result of the action that was taken. And compare that to what's happening today. Today establishes the baseline conditions. These operations are currently in place today, and these agreements simply continue that existing use in the same capacity going forward into the future. There will be no change as a result of the approval of these agreements to the impacts associated with the operations. I also wanted to identify the issue related to coal dust from the uncovered railcars. That, again, is something that's being done today and I think as clearly was shown in the presentation. Coal arrives at the facility today and uncovered railcars that will not result in any changes going forward in the new agreements. There will be no changes to how that's done and no new impacts to how that's done going forward under the new agreements that were approved. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with that action. In addition, the operations at the facility are subject to Air Quality Management District Rule 1158 requirements, which do require that the railcars be in in enclosed areas when they're doing unloading operations. There are water sprayers to help control dust and all of the operations at the facility are subject to that. AQ OMD Rule 1158 Oversight in order to make sure that the dust from from the coal is controlled to the maximum extent possible. The guaranteed minimum. There's been a lot of discussion about that today. The guaranteed minimum throughput is not a performance requirement. It's a financial term that establishes a minimum level of payment that guarantees that Oxbow, despite how much throughput they have at the facility, at a minimum, they will provide a payment that's equivalent to 1.7 million metric tons . And and there there is no requirement that increases the amount of throughput that they must have out there, that they they must meet a certain throughput. It's simply a financial term that establishes a minimum payment to the port so that the port can realize the maximum financial return on our assets. Go ahead. In addition, from a legal perspective, I'd like to just make a couple comments. There was a statement that to the effect that the port has suggested that the guaranteed minimum is meaningless. Obviously, we never have suggested that it's very meaningful to the port, but its meaning is financial rather than forced throughput. There was a reference made to the article that the port has submitted that talks about how common the GM 18 type terms are. And there was a reference made that those types of terms in facilitate the efficient use of port facilities. That's certainly appropriate. The port is supposed to make sure that its facilities are efficiently used. That's one of the mandates of the California Coastal Act to ensure that the need for additional port properties is not a result of inefficient use of port property plus. In addition, as trustees of trust assets, the Port the Board of Harbor Commissioners has an obligation to make sure that the assets are being efficiently used and are producing a adequate return. There was a reference to the cherry picking of dates to try to have higher throughput. We couldn't have cherry picked less on this because we actually provided information about the year this exact year, 2014, that in that year, in 2014, the throughput will exceed the minimum requirement by by some amount, but it's more than the minimum and specifically when you're looking at capacity. The Class one and Class two specifically refer to looking at the time the lead agency makes its determination here. That's 2014 is the time when the harbor board made its determination. So 2014 is an appropriate year to look at averaging years as they do in the chart that have multiple years when there was absolutely no coal transport makes no sense whatsoever. Finally, there was a point made relating to the 1992 NEG DAC negative declaration not being adequate. The time to challenge the 1992 negative declaration if there was an inadequacy was in 1992 when it was certified. Secure presumes not only a protection of the environment, but there is a closure. It allows reliance on documents that have been approved so that you're not repeating the process over and over and over. With each renewal for an existing facility so secure opens the door for new projects when new facilities are being constructed. But once they're approved and the secret compliance is completed, that process is over and secure. Does not envision re-opening it unless there is a specific guideline that requires it. Thank you. Time is up. And now the appellant's rebuttal, please. The timer is set at 6 minutes. Thank you. At first, I want to address the issue of claiming that we're raising policy issues. And I just want to be clear. The California Environmental Quality Act deals with policy issues. And what it does is it ensures that before an entity makes a decision to lock in 215 years of exporting coal as a policy matter, it has all the relevant information about the environmental consequences of that action before it. This is an important time for this discussion. If you allow this to go forward, this issue will not be before you for a long time. The port's own submissions talk about the next lease renewal for a petcoke facility. Oxbow is 2019. We're talking about issues of climate change, air pollution that are that require action sooner than that. The other there has been some reference that the project can't be changed and there's one part of sequel that hasn't been discussed tonight. We talked a lot about looking at the environmental impacts, but the other part of or the other kind of core principle is mitigation and what mitigation is. It helps protect residents when there's an environmental impact. It allows for you to change operations to ensure that the air is not polluted, the water is not polluted, and that you protect the environment and people from harmful port and other operations. So we contend that there were several mitigation measures raised that could have been considered for this project, including covering railcars and other kind of mitigation measures to reduce the coal dust. The port has a greenhouse gas mitigation fund that is used for other projects, but by not doing the analysis, the port has failed to look at the required mitigation. And while there are some commitments to explore projects that may or may not happen in the appendix, there's no requirement for enforceable mitigation that California Environmental Quality Act requires . Then there was a discussion of the California Coastal Act and saying that the California Coastal Act requires that they enter into this agreement. I could not I could disagree. I will disagree vigorously with that. There's no part of the California Coastal Act that requires you to pick winners and losers and pick coal as a winner. The California Coastal Act doesn't require this, and it's certainly wouldn't because it's counterintuitive. The port is going to be impacted by climate change. Their previous environmental review documents have conceded that it's near the sea. Sea level rise, they're going to be impacted. Residents in Long Beach are going to be impacted by climate change. So I think to argue that the California Coastal Act requires actions that harm the public, I don't agree. Now I want to talk about projected throughput. There's been a lot of discussion about 2014 being the appropriate year. First thing I want to point out that we don't have 2014 data. The port projected out to the end of the year. These are months that haven't happened. So this is based on, you know, kind of myth. The other thing is the California Supreme Court has been pretty clear that when you have issues that fluctuate, you average not pick outliers. Here's what's happened is they've picked outliers and they've used that to inflate the numbers. And finally, I just to end and I'll end a couple minutes early, save us some time, because I know there's a lot more on the agenda. But a lot of people have come out tonight to support sending this back to the port. This is an important decision. And I want the folks who are supporting clean air to stand up to supporting, sending this back to the port. As you can see by the attendance in the room, there are a lot of people standing up. This is an issue of significant import for the residents of Long Beach and the residents of the region. So we're asking that you respectfully send us back to the port for an environmental analysis so that all the information can be vetted in an appropriate venue. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to be opening it up to public comment. I just want to remind you to please come forward to the mic. You must identify yourself for the record. And also just as a reminder that this and all public comment must be on the issue of the secret determination. That's what the public comment must be on. And the city attorney. What if we start getting off course on that topic? We will weigh in and the city attorney will weigh in on that. So please make sure you you stick to what is before the council and make sure that you also identify yourself. For the record. And because of. We're going to begin we're going to begin the process. And if we start continue to hear the same information, we begin with 3 minutes. We may then limited to two, depending on how the flow of the hearing goes. So we're beginning off with 3 minutes for speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council Members James Callahan, Chairman, President, CEO, Nautilus International Holding Corporation, which holds Metropolitan Stevedoring Company 72 East Street, Wilmington. I was born and raised in Long Beach is fifth District. And over the years, I've lived in the seventh and eighth districts. I currently reside in the third district. After being in Wilmington, a district of the city of Los Angeles for 91 years. Nautilus has sold its headquarters building. Just yesterday, we executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relocate the corporation to the exciting Douglas Park development near the Long Beach Airport, where we will construct 40,000 square feet of office space. We believe in Long Beach, its present and its future. We also reach out to our local community. Just one example is Metropolitans Cancer Risk and Prevention Program at the Memorial Care Cancer Institute in Long Beach Memorial. I appear before you tonight to urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination made in accordance with secure for the Metropolitan Stevedoring Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility. Metro started operations in the Port of Long Beach over 90 years ago, and we have operated the port's dry bulk terminal on Pier G for more than 50 years. During that time, the City of Long Beach has wisely balanced environmental considerations with economic vitality to carry forth its mandate as one of the world's great ports. The matter before you this evening appropriately allows the continuation of a long existing operation that is vital to the local economy. Total payroll and benefits exceed $20 million annually for Metro's administrative staff. Longshore labor through the ILWU and Mechanics. Labor through the IAM by providing over 250000 hours of work for our labor pool. There is a direct economic impact to the local economy. Beyond the operations at this terminal, as there is a link to the entire logistics chain, including those who develop or refine export products like petroleum, coke and sulfur and soda ash and those employees use to transport the commodities to the terminal. We have Metro Salute the city of Long Beach in its continuation of participating effectively in the global global economy to the direct benefit of the residents, both of our city and the local region who earn their livings and who support their families by their hard work. Go Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm executive director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment or an environmental justice organization headquartered here in the harbor with many members here in Long Beach. I'm also speaking as a impacted member of the harbor community and all sorts of Sierra Club member. You have heard and you've seen the fact that the negative deck was prepared in 1992 and it was 32 pages long. It would never meet today's standards in the state of California. You saw that the train cars are. Uncovered that would never be allowed. Today. When they can be covered. Ship emissions. Can also be captured. The Advanced Maritime Emissions Control Systems Technology is a proven technology. It's been tested on over 40 ships, bulk loading ships, oil tanker ships and container ships. It's been a complete success and they've been operating here at the Port of Long Beach. But we have a situation here where you need to use common sense. And that common sense is that prior to 2000, the truth of the matter is there wasn't that much of an educated public that know too much about environmental law, environmental requirements under sequa about port of Long Beach operations. But that has completely changed since 2000. There are thousands of Long Beach residents, more thousands of residents in the harbor area who do no school. Law school requirements have studied the Port of Long Beach and its past year and its historical record. And our organization has always committed and about 80% plus about Port of Long Beach projects. But we have always proposed that there be an environmental assessment and we support the fact that there should be an environmental assessment done on this project. There will be and continue to be emissions from the cars carrying the coal. Coal dust will be coming out, both blown out and falling out since coal has been recently mined. It still be it will still be having VLCCs coming out of it, so it will be arriving and impacting all around the routes. We have members in over 25 cities in L.A. County who will be impacted by the future and continue operations of this company and its failure to incorporate new technologies. So in that environmental impact, it needs to assess all the emissions, not only from the train locomotive engines, but from all the PPM, dust and the VOCs coming out of the product as well as the ships. You need to do a health impact assessment to determine what has been the health impact to the public and to the residents. That has never been performed here. It was never even recommended in the past. But a health impact assessment has now been proven. That is a superior public health assessment tool. And so we ask that you include that document. There is also what's an assessment of the noise? Trains make noise. They also vibrate. So an air should include the noise, vibrate and vibration as well. There will also be decreasing in property values for all residents that live. Near a railroad track. Thank you for your time, this opportunity. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. My name is Jesse Equity. I'm the board president for Future Ports. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and express future reports. Of support of the lease extensions at and associated with the dry bulk operations at Pier G. Future Ports members represent a broad range of goods movement, industry businesses. That operate throughout the Southern California region. Future Ports embraces the philosophy that businesses and supply chain supply chain serving the port of Long Beach, the green ports must grow cleanly. These concepts are not mutually exclusive and must be adopted simultaneously in order to sustain the long term economic vitality and health of the region. Future ports remains committed to working to find common ground on important issues facing our industry and local economy and values. The partnership we have left with the stakeholders, with stakeholders in the public sector, business and labor are united on this issue, and I urge you to support the Harbor Commission's decision on the approval and extensions of these leases. Thank you very much and have a good evening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Maya Golden Krassner. I'm a staff attorney at Communities for a Better Environment. We have we're an environmental justice organization with members in the harbor area and southeast L.A. The Port of Long Beach describes itself as the green port. And the city of Long Beach wants to see be seen as a green, sustainable city. Yet, as my colleague Mr. Martinez described, the port has never conducted an analysis of the greenhouse gas impacts and other impacts of shipping millions of tons of. Coal out of perigee. Despite the fact that we have new information that we now know about climate change and air pollution, these issues really were not contemplated in 1982 because then we were really busy trying to save the ozone layer. Second community for a better environment. Our members near the port and elsewhere in southeast Los Angeles are concerned about coal dust from the train's greenhouse gas and other air pollution impacts of mining, producing and burning coal and petcoke, and the potential. For coal dust to spill into the harbor. In the bay. Third, despite the copious amounts of documents we. Just received last week. There is. Still a lot. We don't know about this project. For example, any air would describe where the coal and petcoke comes from. Does the petcoke come from Wilmington refineries? If so, CBS members in Wilmington have the right to know that before these lease agreements are approved. The project also includes. Replacing an asphalt area the size of two football fields. What are the impacts of these. This construction that also has to be discussed in the air, along with mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. Fourth, since the 1982 Nag Doc in Shirley, since the 1982 NAG Deck, there has been significant new information on the impacts of petcoke. We now know, for example, that California refineries are increasingly switching to dirtier crude, which means in resulting in increased greenhouse gas and other air emissions from both processing the crude to create coke and from burning the petcoke. I have comments submitted by our staff scientists in 2011 regarding the low carbon fuel standard that discusses this issue that I plan to submit. In sum. A city that wants to be environmentally sustainable should not fast track the export of products. Like coal. And petcoke, and should instead require the port to conduct a. Thorough environmental review before moving forward. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Clayton Headley. I'm the vice president for our exposed West Coast business, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. While we prefer to humbly go about the day to day work of running our business and doing things right. We also like to talk about ourselves. So I'm going to try to keep my comments as quick as possible. First and foremost, you should know that the facilities on Pier G are world class operations that set the. Bar for environmental excellence. In our industries. We are very proud of what we do here with the port, with Metropolitan and with Labor. The assets and operations developed by the Port of Long Beach, Oxbow and Metro are known throughout the world as examples of how things ought to be. Oxbow has been a partner and a customer of the Port of Long Beach for 43 years. And like the port, we take environmental our environmental stewardship seriously. We're pleased to receive the Port's Green Ship Award for 2012 and 2013. This award is given to companies having the greatest positive impact on California's Southern California's air quality. In addition, we received the Environmental Achievement Award, which is based on compliance with both the port's green flag program and green ship program. In terms of local jobs and revenue. We employ 48 people, including 31 union members. Our business in Long Beach supports local truckers, lab companies, surveyors, ILWU employees and countless other local businesses. In cooperation with our workforce, we've operated over 1.3 million working hours without a lost time accident, while generating more than $16 million in revenues for the city and the port of Long Beach. We're proud to be an active participant in the city and supporters and many community groups with particular emphasis on youth organizations. We sponsor the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, the Long Beach. Ronald McDonald House. Children Today Itep and the International Seafarers Center. Further to our community support. Oxbow recently bought brought William Hickok C Scout Cup to Long Beach. This International Youth Regatta teaches character, leadership and life skills to youth, and we are proud to be part of the organization. Oxbow intends to bring this event back to Long Beach in 2016 and we look forward to the city's continued support of this program. With regard to the specific issues before you tonight. After two years of negotiations, our lease was approved by a unanimous vote of the Harbor Commission on June 9th. We believe the Harbor Commission properly applied secure. This agreement would simply transfer a lease of a bulk storage facility from Metro to Oxbow and create greater revenues to the city and and the port of Long Beach. The physical operation of this business will remain unchanged over the term of the lease. Revenues to the city and port of Long Beach will be approximately $130 million, which is an increase of more than 50 million annually. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Talk to your new. Good evening. Council Mayor Ann Cantrell. I'm a member of the Sierra Club and the NRDC and I support this appeal. You are being asked to send these leases back to the harbor commissioners for adequate environmental review. The port is relying on a negative declaration, which was just a check off list saying no study was needed. It was done in 1992, long before most of us started worrying about the burning of fossil fuels adding to the greenhouse gases and global warming. It was also before former then councilman now Congressman Alan Lowenthal became concerned about the transporting of coal into the port and the particulate matter involved. Some of you may remember that Dr. Lowenthal authored laws which required the covering of coal carrying trucks into the port, along with the covering of coal storage areas and conveyor belts. Unfortunately, railroad cars were not included in these laws. A complete environmental impact port needs to be done addressing the impact of millions of metric tons of dirty coal going through our community every year on railroad cars, which can lose up to 15% of their cargo along the way. Can this coal dust end up in the air, in the waterways, in the lungs of children and adults? Is there evidence that moving coal and coke can damage the lungs of port workers? A scientifically done air can answer these questions. It appears the port's only consideration in this matter is dollars. They're willing to sell the health of their workers, the community and the earth for what has been referred to by Scientific American as, quote, dark money, unquote, occupied America. Recently posted this on Facebook. This is Senator Ted Cruz, a Coke puppet. He was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would sell America's national forests, parks and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging. Spread the shame. I would like to add the Long Beach Port and Harbor Commissioners to this Hall of shame and suggest that they change their logo of green port to cock coke pile. Pardon me. Goose pile because Oxbow Bo is owned by one of the Koch brothers. This city council has the opportunity tonight to do the morally, legally and environmentally correct thing. Thank you. Please just say no to the Koch brothers and uphold the city. Next speaker, please. Before we begin, let's please let's try to look if we can just have the speakers go one after the other that way I would appreciate that. And let's be respectful of everybody. Thank you very much, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Sue in Schoenmaker and I'm here this evening on behalf of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach. The mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs is to enable all young people, especially the disadvantaged and underrepresented, to have representatives of our community to realize their full potential as caring, responsible and productive citizens. Our programs benefit over 4700 kids in Long Beach area, and our programs could not exist without the support of our community. Partners and local businesses such as Oxbow Expo has been a longtime supporter of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, and we are very thankful to have them to be one of our partners. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Felicia Bander. The city of Long Beach has sometimes been known for its poor air quality. In the past few years, the port has received recognition for its pollution control improvements. Which of these two legacies do. You want to be known for? The port commissioners have recently voted to approve new 15 year leases guaranteeing the shipment of coal and petcoke to India and China. Coal arrives at the port in uncovered railcars known to lose about a pound of coal per mile traveled. Coal dust causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, including lung cancer. Scientists tell us that world wide fossil fuel emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 in order to prevent heating this planet beyond livable levels. Air pollution in China and India is our pollution. Global warming affects the entire planet. The world has become a small place. Technology exists to allow us to transition to 100% renewable energy. We need to understand the seriousness of our predicament. We need to move away from business as usual and embrace the new energy frontier with everything we've got, all our investment. All our focus. Renewable energy will provide local jobs and boost local economies. Do not allow these lease agreements to go through and take us back to the days of dirty air. We need your forward thinking leadership now. Thank you. Your next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members. I'm Norman Houser. Interim president metropolitan stewart, a company 720 east east street to Wilmington, California. This evening, I ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations after sequa from the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the actual Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Drydock Facility. My remarks tonight are referred to Metropolitan Stevedore Company simply by the name of which we're best known Metro. There's been a constant evolution of the Pier G Dry Bulk facility. It's been my honor and privilege to lead, coordinate and witness during the more than 29 years I've been employed in the marine terminal industry . Metro has constantly engaged in effective partnering with the port to establish a terminal that is an excellent reflection of the Port of Long Beach as a green port through coverage, storage, water reclamation and closed conveyance systems. As a result, I say with pride and I mean significant pride that the dry bulk facility is truly world class. It is dedicated to. Shipping dry bulk cargoes efficiently, safely and in full compliance with environmental standards. In addition to the terminal enhancements discussed above, Metro has taken a variety of additional steps to protect our environment. Long Beach and we have replaced locomotives with the second off the assembly line brand new ultra low emission model. Metropolitan Operation Perugia was the beta site for the development of the Advanced. Maritime. Emissions Control System, mentioned earlier by Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. In addition, Metro provided intellectual capital to the development project. We even brought in a consult at our expense to assist in the design of the system. Metro's replace various diesel or gas powered equipment with propane, liquid natural gas or electric powered equipment, and star metro takes its environmental responsibility very seriously. Our first priority has always been to protect our employees safety, and we do this in concert with protecting the environment for the citizens of. The city of Long Beach. I do support clean air. I breathe the. Same air you do every day and are very proud of what we've accomplished. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. I am Henry Noonan, terminal superintendent of Metropolitan Stevedore Company at the Pier G facility. I appear before you tonight, ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the environmental determination following suit that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G facility. I am employed at the Long Beach Dry Bulk Terminal by Metro. In my capacity there, I manage the flow of traffic that brings multiple cargoes to the terminal for export. We handle all sorts of cargoes petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur, two sodas. I know that Metro has operated that terminal faithfully for over 50 years. I, in turn of loyalty, worked there at the dry bulk facility for over 20 years. This is how. I earn my living. This is how I provide for my family. Over my two decades there. I've watched with great pride as the Port and Metro have worked together to establish, maintain and operate a truly world class facility, one that is the envy in many in the world. Indeed, as part of my capacity, I have personally provided tours to delegations. From ports around the world that have been very. Impressed with our accomplishments in creating a state of the art. Marine terminal that's. Dedicated to the dry bulk products export. My father earned his living on the waterfront. So do I, along with countless associates and colleagues who dedicate themselves to operating the terminal for the city and port of Long Beach. I ask for your vote to continue this long existing operation and to ensure the livelihoods of those like me who depend on the dry bulk terminal. As the source of their income and security. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. And as we move forward, I just want to I just want to remind all the speakers that per the city attorney's earlier note there was try to stick to the speaker determination that is the issue before the city council for both sides. Sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Honorable City Council. Mr. Mayor, my name is Linton Johnson. I'm vice chair of ABC Long Beach. I'm also organizer at East Air Communities for Environmental Justice. Right. So sticking sticking to the issue at hand, the secure determination, the decision to continue, you know, to sign on for decade. It's more of exporting of a known toxic substance, right. Without doing an analysis on what the impacts are going to be in our communities. It's a you know, it's in my opinion, in my humble opinion, it's a bit irresponsible. The argument that I heard earlier was we didn't do it before, so why should we do it now? That isn't that. I just don't I don't understand. You know, there's a couple a couple of weeks ago, as there's a turn over to a new city council, there is an article. Mr. Mayor, you're actually quoted in saying that, you know, the port, the port and the city are strengthening relations and we are dedicated to smart growth. Wouldn't it be smart to know the impacts of of exporting coal and petcoke on our communities? I mean, we saw the pictures of these trains being go that go through our communities piled high with the coal and they're not covered. I mean, I spoke to I spoke to some youth who have actually seen these trains pass through their neighborhoods and they see the dust coming off. Right. This is this is not I mean, the argument that we haven't done it before so we shouldn't do it now is is shameful. We we call our port the green port. Right. Last week I was here and the director was here is talking about was very it was bragging. We're going to have one of the greenest terminals in the world. Well, what does that mean? We have one terminal is super green and another terminal is super dirty operating like you know, of offer. Our grandfather's technologies, then it kind of negates itself. Right. We need to stand behind what we say. And, you know, I'm a proud citizen of Long Beach and Long Beach native. And we go around and you see on busses in a bus stop the green port. Well, it's time to start acting like the green part. B, we have the responsibility not only to the residents of Long Beach, but, you know, here we are. We have residents from Wilmington, Carson. We have folks that have come down all the way as far as East L.A. because this the decision that the city of Long Beach has made to export coal not only affects us locally , but as a region and also internationally. Thank you for your time. I hope you make a decision. Thank you. Next week, a police. Hello. My name is Toby Gantt. I live in District eight and I would like to just encourage you to. Consider the human aspect of all of this. We've heard some great facts and figures today, but it comes down. To people, it comes down to health, it comes down to. The environment. A nice woman mentioned the money that's been given to the Boys and Girls Clubs by the energy industry. That's great. But what kind of future are we. Giving to those children? We want to give them a future that's healthy and green and clean, truly green and clean. And the very minimum. You all have the opportunity here tonight to take a stand courageously and say, at a minimum, we're going to require the port to do an environmental impact review. That takes very little courage on your part, but it is a courageous step. It is not saying that you stand for or. Against whether or not courts continue to be export from our port here. But it does show that you care enough to say, hey, we want to do what's right. For our children or for our future. I want you to think about those kids in the Boys and Girls Club, and I want you to think about your own children. What are we going to leave for them? The argument that we would be losing jobs. If a thorough environmental. Review was conducted and it was found that it is not viable. To continue, these lease agreements. Would not destroy jobs. That's ludicrous. More jobs. Would be created that don't. Necessarily depend on exporting dirty coal to other parts of the world where it is burned without any or little to no emissions regulations. We have one planet, one environment, one atmosphere. We share that with China, Japan and other places where this coal is burned. So please do what's courageous and just require a review. That's all we're asking. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Jasmine Vargas and this is my I love clean air sign. I take it everywhere. I'm with the Sierra Club's Beyond Poll campaign, and I've been working tirelessly in the Southern California area to build a climate movement that could answer and face the biggest problem that our generation has has faced, and that is climate change and global warming. But more than that, we're here to fight for justice. This is about environmental justice, and this is about putting pollution and on the backs of the poorest and most underrepresented people in this community, working in Long Beach and Wilmington and Carson in L.A., it's all the same. It's poor brown people, people of color facing the brunt of the pollution. And guess where that pollution comes from? We just heard about it, Ray. We just heard from the vice president and the president and everybody that makes lots of money from exporting coal. And what we heard from then is viable business. Great job. Right? But what we know is that it's not a viable business because they're creating an unlivable, unviable planet. And I'm not saying that people that work, people that are part of the system, people that are part of the fossil fuel industry are bad people. I'm not saying that the union workers that are getting jobs right now don't deserve a fair and just transition into a clean energy economy. And I'm not saying right now that you guys should kill this coal port or more or stop all coal exports, period. What I'm saying is for I want to see leadership, I want to see leadership from this council and I want to see you all stand up and say the bare minimum we can do is an environmental impact review for the people that voted us into this office. In the end of the day, if you vote against this deck, this environmental review, you're basically giving a blank check to the coal companies. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Louise Fleming. I live in Long Beach and District four. I'm opposed to the agreement to extend exporting coal from Pier G coal shed. The agreement did not take into consideration the future environmental impact due to the proper environmental analysis because of the exemption from this analysis. Furthermore, the agreement demands that a minimum amount of coal be exported to satisfy port fee requirements over an extended time. I believe at this stage the port should not be in the business of supporting coal. Interestingly, just today, Oregon's Department of State Lands denied permission to build a new loading dock to ship Powder River Basin Coal down the Columbia River to which would be exported to Asia. Similar to the model that is being proposed here. The Port of Long Beach is commendable for already having made tremendous strides in reducing port pollution with its innovative technologies and procedural changes, which is why it should not go completely blind into approving this agreement and undermine its own progress towards the theme of going green. There are no controls proposed to cover the huge piles of coal to contain the dust it would generate and would negate much of the pollution reduction benefits of the port benefits the port has recently achieved. Climate change is real. On September 21st, there will be a climate march, a climate change march in New York City that will focus attention on this critical issue. There is expected to be hundreds of thousands of people there and political leaders. It's a big deal. And, you know, it's going to draw attention to the demand action towards non-fossil fuel energy solutions. The clear direction of the United States as a world leader is to downsize coal while expanding alternative energy technologies. The Port of Long Beach would be going against this trend and send conflicting messages to the community and its own stakeholders. I urge the Council and the Long Beach port leadership to at the very least follow the school laws and conduct the proper environmental assessment on the coal export deal. But the best case and the big picture scenario here is that the council will make wise choices and think green port deny these future cold coal shipments for the environmental benefits and for benefiting from the green economic trends that is happening in our country. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And before but before we begin, we have if everyone in the line speaks with still over an hour of public comment, I know there's others that are not in line. She will limit public comment out of 2 minutes, beginning with the speaker moving forward without objection from the council. Please begin. Good evening. My name is Amy Turnbull and I am a. Resident who supports the appeal that we do an air on this matter before us. I'm concerned that extending. The extension of the lease agreements for the transportation, storage and exploitation of coal in and. Around Long Beach without conducting. State mandated environmental impact reports, is out of compliance and will set a precedent for special interest groups. Companies like Metro and Oxbow have interpreted the law. For their own benefit without regard for the health and safety and welfare of our community. Oh wait I forgot. Oxbow supports Ronald. McDonald House and for h transporting, transporting, storing and exporting coal goes against all policies of the Long Beach Green Port Program by allowing 1.7 million and more in the future. Tons of polluting coal annually through our streets, through our neighborhoods and our ports. Shame on the shame on the Long Beach Port. And for the people who support the Coal. Initiative for pretending that this project is exempt from Sequa analysis. The Seek the California Environmental Act guidelines define the impacts of projects. Replacing 126,000. Tons of asphalt as a significant expansion, requiring. Cycle analysis. Minimum tonnage and minimum. Shipments is a new language. Requiring sequel analysis. New data. On coal and its significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly requires discussion under Sequoia. I urge Long Beach. City Council to comply with the California Environmental. Quality Act and to analyze. With input from the. Community the many. Significant and negative impacts. Thank you very much. Of transporting and exporting coal. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller. I have lived in Belmont Shaw for 31 years. This is my first opportunity to speak to you since the recent elections. So I'll take a moment and congratulate you on your recent election. And I am happy to see all of you here tonight. And I welcome you to this chamber. I assume when you ran for office, you knew there would be nights like this. We had a couple of speakers who spoke about the economic benefits of this agreement and touted their community involvement as well. And they sort of implied what I heard was that 40 or 50 years of operating the way they have is is reason enough to allow them to continue doing what they are because of these benefits. The implication I was hearing was that these benefits will go away if they have to do the right thing. And I know we don't believe that if if railcars have to be covered, for example, they're not going to shut down operations. They're just going to be a little cleaner. I listened carefully to the arguments of the appellant. I found them believable, compelling and valid. And so I support the appeal. And I know that if you think about the details and what's being asked, you will, too. We're not asking that these operators necessarily leave the port. They're not going to do that. So please support that. And finally, on a personal note, every day I find a nice little film of black dust on my patio table outdoors. All of you live in Long Beach, so I know your table must look the same. And we breathe that dust. And now I don't know how much of that is attributable to the port operations or to this specific operation, but shouldn't we find out? That's what an environmental impact report will tell us. Please do that. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, repeat. And if we can also have the speakers just come forward that are in line so that we can create some room there in the back so we get an accurate count here. Please move forward. Please begin. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I just want to say that if we're going to continue with business as usual. Excuse me, ma'am. Can you. State your name. For the record. And serve Gail if we're going to continue with business as usual, these open called train cars spewing coal dust through highly populated areas of Long Beach, Wilmington and San Pedro. And for anyone who lives along the Alameda corridor or along the various highways where the petcoke is coming. Well, I've been doing train of do a lot of extensive research and we can make this into a workable solution so that everybody could be safe, healthy and still make money by selling coal and petcoke to third world countries. The way we can do this is issuing all the homes along these transit ways with a HEPA air filter and a HEPA vacuum cleaner and a respirator. This way people can stay safe and, you know, be able to breathe outside. Also, the most important thing I thought was to issue everybody a hazmat suit. They come in different sizes. They come in different colors. And they also are available for men, for women. They make respirators, smaller ones for children. And but most shockingly, to me, they even make them for pets. So, you know, for those of us who live, you know, near these transport areas, we can be covered and safe. Also, the industry people might think about this and, you know, get into these businesses of air filters and hazmat suits. But but I really want to say is we're America. We're not a third world country. And we can learn to live with coal dust if we have the means to do this. We can all get our hazmat suits every time you watch CNN and you see that all these unhappy people in China walking around and talking about their coal and how they can't breathe. Well, if we are well covered and we have respirators, we have American ingenuity and we don't have to be victims of very much. Time's up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And can we can we please? I have I once again, I must remind us we need to stick. This is a hearing on the secret termination. So for both sides, it's a hearing on the secret determination. Please keep your comments to that. Per the city attorney's instructions at the beginning of the hearing, please. My name is Alisa Rivera. I'm a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, and I work with my work in Wilmington, nearby. And I would appreciate I know that it's getting a little late in day. You've been hearing from several people, but please don't. Be so sure. Thank both for the attention because we have. Prepare. For 3 minutes, so I'd appreciate to get my time. So I am going to focus on the. Effect of greenhouse gases. Things. That is what is involved with these two agreements of these very polluting material. I'm certain that you are. Aware that greenhouse gases have. Warm up the planet to very risky levels. Already the greenhouse gases are causing all the extreme weather events that we are seeing here in this country and worldwide. I started to realize the effects of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere when the tsunami in Indonesia happened in 2004. Do you remember that? I still. Remember it because it. Was after Christmas and I woke up to the horrendous photos on the newspapers and I realized that. The power of the sea was. Tremendous and that it could destroy anything suddenly and at any moment. What about the tsunami. In Japan more. Recently? What about Katrina in Sandy? And then we in the US and all this stolen hurricanes and freezing temperatures that have been paralyzed in different states in this country. Climate change is not recognizing whether the country is developed or not. Chad, look at the cases of the typhoon in the Philippines. And the record heat waves in Australia. Right now. These events are springing up everywhere in the world. The effects of greenhouse. Gases are being felt in the whole planet. That is why it is so imperative to cut down on activities that cause. More greenhouse gases. Coal and petticoat are two. Well-Known emitters of this greenhouse gas, and it is necessary to start cutting down on its use everywhere. Here in California, they are hardly used anymore. I think it is. Imperative that we take leadership and we say no to more. Polluting fossil fuels. Thank you very much for the appeal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Members of the council staff. My name is Joe Guiliani. I am the organizer of the South Bay 350 Climate Action Group and I will speak specifically. To the sequel issue. Here I am here to to ask that the appellate be upheld and that a sequel review be held. The primary justification that I have heard this evening from our friends at the port for not holding a sequel review is that nothing has changed. I heard that numerous times. I heard it in their original proposal presentation and then I heard it in their rebuttal. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Well, the climate has changed. And what has really drastically changed in terms of CECA and our need for this review are the impacts that we suffer right here in Long Beach, in the South Bay, in Southern California. Our snowpack is gone. We have a drought, although many scientists consider this the new normal. This is the water we have to work with from now on. We don't have a wildfire season anymore because it's year round. We don't have an ocean that isn't acidified. Because it is acidified. You don't have a port that you can plan not to have sea level rise. You're having to deal with sea level rise. I could go down this list for you, but each of these impacts impact us here in this community, and each of these impacts are directly related to this operation at the port . You can call it bulk. You can call it dry goods. I notice that most of the people that work in this industry don't want to admit to calling it coal or petroleum products or fossil fuels. But I will say one thing to my friends who I admire and respect that work at the port. But there is one edict that I think we all must agree on. If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from it. Whether you are making your living from it, whether you're getting your nonprofit funding from it, if it is wrong to wreck the climate. We have a responsibility not to do that and we have a moral obligation not to profit from that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is David Trovato. I'm a Long Beach resident, and I love Long Beach and I love clean air. My background is that I came here seven years ago from West L.A. and before I came here and bought a house for the first time, I really did some research, and in my house that I ultimately did buy is a mile from the 710 Freeway. It's in the flight path. And just across the park from where I live there, there's a diesel train that goes by. Not exactly the cleanest air. But at that time. I did a little research and found out the. City council and the ports seem to be moving in the right direction to rectify that, or at least mitigate it. Make it better. And I was. Very and I was convinced to move here. And since then, I've been very. Proud of the city and the direction it's. Been going in terms of the environment. Having said that, I want to speak to directly to the Sea World. I do support the appeal. And the reason is basically that from what I hear, what I understand is that. There what they're saying is that there has been very there's no change. But to me, that's a very narrow definition of change, to be just that their operations are not changing. There are a lot of changes that are happening. So many people have already spoken about it. The environment has changed the product. My understanding that the product that they're moving has changed. And also the my understanding is that the quantities are changing. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there's a loophole in there that over the years, at some point they can change the quantity of what the amount of coal that comes into the port. I ask you, I urge you to look at all aspects, all angles of this to find out any way that you can justify having. The report done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Thelma Golden. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I live at 3549 Fashion Avenue. I'm a long term resident here in Long Beach. I've been here almost 50 years. I'm here to support the repeal because it directly affects me. I live in what the port has designated as Area One, the most impacted area in Long Beach. These leases do. Not minimize the amount. Of coal that can come through the port. It only minimized what they can get paid for the total output. The way I understand the port's presentation is that it can go up to 5 million tons a year. The 1.7 is the. Minimum they have to go through, and that's the minimum that business members have to pay. But it nacht particulates which coal dust is directly impacts the children and the welfare of the residents of this city. And that is my most important recommendation for you guys to vote to send this back for school review. And I want to thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Joel Weinstein, 4000 Linden Avenue. I'm here to support the appeal. If you look at the requirements of sequel, no further environmental impact analysis was required unless. Unless. There were substantial changes or there were changes in circumstances or significant new information available. Now, this was not 1992. There's been tremendous new information available. Part of that information, in fact, is what drove the impetus to have a green port. The new information available is of the entire area where we've been concerned with climate change. So I must ask those people who think we're setting a wonderful example for our young boys and girls. Do you think it's a great example for the port to be setting scofflaw example for doing the possible minimum instead of responding to the challenge of producing information in. In my career, I am always suspicious of arguments that we need less information or that we don't have to produce information even when the law encourages us to do so. I think you had better line up on the side of the wall and of providing information. You have had to do this to the point your predecessors had to do this to the port at least once. And I forget what the deal was, Pier J expansion or something. I think you'll have to do it again until they learn. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is. Barbara Brown. I'm a registered nurse at Community Hospital of Long Beach, and my name is Ellen Malkovich. I'm also a registered nurse at Longridge Community Hospital. I work in the intensive care unit. I've been a nurse for 31 years and I've spent all of it at Community Hospital of Long Beach, except for the ten months that we were closed. I'm also a proud member of the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and we support sending this back for the appeal. Some people sometimes ask, why is the nurses union involved with the issues of dirty fossil fuels and climate change? And the answer is simple. When a child who lives or studies near refineries or export terminals comes to us with asthma, nosebleeds, headaches, nausea or worse, we care for that patient and we think this didn't have to happen. When a worker is injured in yet another well explosion, we care for that patient. And we think this didn't have to happen. When a train carrying toxic carbon materials derails and sickens an entire town, we care for the patients and we say this didn't have to happen. Our nurses union has deployed registered nurses to the disasters that were previously talked about. Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the typhoon that ravaged the Philippines. The nurses cared for those patients in the devastated places. More and more evidence links those and other weather catastrophes to climate change. We as nurses are very concerned about dirty, deadly energy sources and climate change because we see the tragic results up close. And we want our kids to have a good future. Also, the children living near our port areas already suffer asthma at double the national rate, and that will continue to climb. And coal dust escapes from uncovered rail cars and into our lungs and water. It is my commitment to patient advocacy that brings me here, and it is the same for all the nurses. My time is up and I thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, wherever you are. And I'm city council members. Oh. The vice mayor here. Oh, say hello. And just to let everyone know when we go into the lounge, we have all of this piped in there. We can even hear it in the restrooms, even in the restroom. Since since the majority of the. People who have already spoken have presented practically all the important data and information that you need. Not to mention the fact that I have emailed you all. Like several times. I'm just going to say that I really can't believe that all of us have to come here and practically beg you for a secure review. The city of Oakland, which is a city who is probably in a lot more dire straits economically than we are. Their city council, their mayor, their port commissioners and the entire city. Okay, said no to Cole along with all the ports along the West Coast, up north in Seattle and Portland. They're all saying, no, they're fighting it tooth and nail. I just I must have been asleep at the wheel thinking that my elected officials were watching over us. My fault. Okay. But now I'm not asleep anymore. Okay. I'm your constituent. I voted for a couple of you already. I, I am saying that those of us who put you in office, you're there to serve and protect us and the city. And you have a responsibility. I'm a human being and I live in this city. I've been here all my life. I live on 35, 65 Linden Avenue, right where the 710 of the 710 of the four five come together. We're already breathing in massive amounts of diesel. Okay. We don't need. I want you to do the math here. They mentioned the 1.7 million. Ah, yeah. Trick. That's a trick question there. Do the math. 35 plus million tons over 15 years. That's what you're looking at. Excuse me, ma'am. I don't think you stated your name before you spoke. Catherine Castro. Thank you, Castro. Eddie, my name is Joe Ribicoff. I'm resident of Long Beach. I'm a neighbor of this mango. I live in the fifth district. Pleasure to meet you. And I see. Mayor Garcia has has changed a little bit. I'm here to speak in favor of the appeal. The Bible teaches us the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children. In other words. The time to challenge the 1992 declaration is not long passed. In 1992 is today. We can't be bound by mistakes of 1992 that will project us another 15 years hence. If there is significant mistakes there, we should reexamine this today and not wait another 15 years. There has been change, change that merits this appeal, and the change may not be. The amount of coal that is supplied or the amount of. Repaving that needs may be required. The change is in the context, in the circumstances, as you've heard already. We're facing global warming. We've already experiencing the effects of global warming. What's changed is we're living in a much hotter planet. The pollution from this material is cumulative. We now live in an age where the accumulation is much beyond what it was back in 1992. Those reasons I urge you to grant this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Gabriel Weeks, resident of Long Beach. I am the volunteer chair of the Sierra Club for this city, the ones in the surrounding areas here. I came down here mostly to say happy birthday to Rex, but for those of you who aren't having a birthday, we could talk about Sequoia. Oh, I've been working with Morgan and Adrian talking to various port staff for a long time, and there seems to be a genuine difference of opinion between the attorneys of whether or not we have to do a sequel document. Do we have to? Oh, we'd have to go to court to find that out, which way a judge would find. But maybe it would be prudent to do so even if we aren't legally obligated just to be safe. I get in the car. I don't think I'm going to have a traffic accident. I'm not planning on being hit by someone. But I put on this safety belt just in case we got in trouble in the city. Joe Weinstein was remembering, I believe it was Middle Harbor, something where we got in trouble for not doing the full secret document when there was the development. And second and PCH, the Home Depot Expo design, the attorney, the judge slapped that down because we didn't have a squad document. We hadn't done squat. So just to protect ourselves, we need to do that as a city and sequel. Do going through that process will give us a lot of information because I know I've met with a bunch of you guys individually. Patrick had some good questions. How much would it cost to cover the cool cars if that were done voluntarily by the Cole companies? Would the litigants drop any proceedings? I didn't know the answer to that because we we that's the kind of stuff you'd find out through doing a sequel process, the cost of some things that would make our lives and our our air cleaner for all of our families. So please send this back, have the port, just take another look at it, be a little more thorough so we all know what it is we're getting into with these contracts. Thank you, Gabrielle. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Ruben Garcia. I am the president of Advanced Cleanup Technologies and also the managing member of Advanced Environmental Group. We are a technology based company based in Carson, California. I'm here tonight to speak to you and to give you a very brief story. And on behalf of Metro, I'm here to support Metro Knoxville. And I just would like to share something very, very briefly. We started developing this technology in 2004. This technology is in emission control technology to capture emissions from ships and locomotives. It wasn't well-received in 2004. And so we were able to partner with Union Pacific Railroad, several of the air regulators and some of the environmental justice community groups. The idea was to capture emissions from these moving locomotives in Roseville after a successful demonstration at the end of 2006. The idea was to move this technology down to the port of Long Beach or Los Angeles and continue the testing on ships. So the idea is to capture emissions from non stationary sources. After looking around for several partners in several shipping companies and terminal operators that would help us, we found none. There's only one company that stood up and stood up to the to the idea that this may be a good technology in the fight for clean air. So Metro has been a true partner. Not only did they let us test this technology on their dock, but they organized several vessels. To date, we've tested on over 50 ships and continue to do our testing. We're just about ready to be CARB approved. This will not happen without the support of metro ports in their forward thinking with respect to the environment. I urge you tonight to consider this and to support Metro. I also want to note that Oxbow has been a leader and has been helpful to us and also providing the leadership and other facilities, not just this one. Also, I want to note that it took me ten years to get this certification done. So I will note that the city and the port of Long Beach does not take these matters lightly. And if you can get approved in the port of Long Beach and the great work that the environmental staff has done under their leadership , I can tell you that you will. Your technology works. Thank you very. Much. Thank you, Robin. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Honorable City Council members. My name is Peter Santillan, business manager of Labors Local 1309 and tonight I'm here in support of my brothers and sisters from the IOW. And I am I hear the community. I hear the concerns. I also heard the report from staff. And while I'm here, strongly urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal of holding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination. I want to ask that staff continue to work with the community, find ways of possibly addressing the issues. But nevertheless, I'll make it short and to the point I urge you to adopt a resolution and approve the leases. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Morgan Wian. I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the appellants this evening. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to speak on a few issues. First, I want to just note that we cannot look at this in a vacuum. Just by opening up the newspaper. We can see the coal industry wants to increase export of coal from U.S. ports. There is no doubt that we will see an increase from Oxbow in others at perigee and desired increase of along ports across the coast. Because the port entered this agreement that locked us in for 15 more years of coal. We will not have another chance to even consider this issue to consider coal exports. Now is the time. Second, on the issue of the appropriate baseline, determining the proper baseline is a complicated legal question. There are countless court cases only about the issue of what is the proper baseline. The fact that we are having a debate about this is just another example of why you should send this back to the port for a proper sequence analysis. In my view, we cannot use the ports projections for the next several months as a baseline in a cycle analysis. Third, on the guaranteed minimum issue, whether it was written merely as a financial mechanism doesn't really matter. What matters here is the functional result of this part of the contract and the functional result. The result is that we can expect at least 1.7 million metric tons of coal, which is more colvin the port has exported for the past several years. 1.7 million tons is an increase. Fourth. Aside from the baseline question, a key question here is whether this is the kind of thing that was meant to be exempt from CEQA . It's a very simple question and the answer is no. This is just too big of a deal. Coal dust, greenhouse gases, we know we know a lot more about this than we did when I was just a little kid in 19. I was just born 82. And in 1992, we know a lot more. The port, the port locked us in the 15 more years of coal, and they did it blindly with basically no information of the consequences. You should send it back to make an informed decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. And and before we before we speak, I'm going to close the speakers list and there's someone else is going to that's getting in line that is not in line. That speaker is going to be closed with the last person. So please get in line because I am going to close the speaker list right now. So the line doubles again. Okay. And okay. So I don't know the person that in the last person in line with Alex Charron will be the last speaker. And the speaker's office is closed after Alex Stern is the last speaker. Okay, great. My name is this was Rosemont. I'm one of the 31 union employees at Oxbow. I could be an employee for 18 years. I worked there for 12 hours. So 18 years of experience. I've seen a lot of changes there. Everything's been for the better. They have a great track record. They have a strong workforce, an experienced workforce. Most of Oxbow employees have been there for ten plus years. I worked 12 hours a day. I have a clean bill of health. I don't have asthma. I'm not diabetic. And I work 12 hours a day. Oxbow held to a higher standard that we can. We keep our facilities clean. We have a high. What we see are a community drive by piece of mind. Because I know our facilities are always clean, spotless. And I'm here to say, please allow me to be the sole provider for my family for 15 more years. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Please. No, no yelling out in the audience, please. I've asked for us to be respectful of our speakers, regardless of who side they're on. Please, sir. Good evening, Mayor. And city council members. My name is Steve Cannon. I'm also in play for Oxbow. I've been working there for 14 years. The environmental cleanliness has increased drastically since my employment in the last 14 years. I heard one of the persons say that getting rid of the coal would not lose any jobs. It's going to lose my job and my coworkers jobs and makes me upset. You know, I have to fight. Pay my employer for my wages when I'm negotiating. And I had to fight environmental people to leave my job alone. And I wanted. I want you to deny the request for the sequel. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council members. My name is Bobby Olvera Jr. I'm a proud resident of downtown Long Beach, 1200 East Ocean, and I'm currently the president of the ILWU Local 13. Five months ago. I'm an advocate for a minute. Five months ago, I wasn't in a tie in a suit. I'm not really comfortable in it tonight. But five months ago I was working in the tunnels down to the cocaine. I was shoveling coke off the rails. And 40 years ago, I watched as my father came home from working at the Coke docks. The improvements that have been made, the improvements that are included in this appeal or this this lease, they're doing this for the betterment of the community. The workforce down there in the union have worked hand in hand with the employer to mitigate any types of air quality problems. We put in higher sprinklers. They require cars to be hosed off before you exit the terminal. So what we're doing here tonight is we're not here to talk about social issues because there's a lot of social issues and it becomes a myriad of hypocrites. What we're here to do tonight is to deal with the lease of the existing operation and to lay some new concrete in an existing spot. Nothing new, nothing more. We all know that there's problems around the world. That's not what you're here tonight to do. Brothers and sisters of the board and Mr. Mayor, you're here tonight to consider this lease, which has been thought out, work through by the Port and the Harbor Commission through counsel, not to minimize the worries of the environmentalists or my fellow residents in Long Beach, for those of you that are residents of Long Beach. But what you have here is the cleanest terminal. We've got a terminal on Stockton, California, that has open bars, that uses bulldozers outside. That's not clean. And they're working on that. They're making improvements. But here in Long Beach, it is growing. And I've issued each one of the city council members and yourself, Mr. Mayor, a detailed letter. I didn't want to regurgitate it to you tonight, but I was working there five months ago. My son, my house. I look outside my back patio every morning and I can see the coal burn. I can see the big blue barn. And I take my son outside and we play. And I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable knowing that I'm putting these brothers and sisters to work up there and that even with companies that I don't agree with, like Savage, I'm putting those brothers and sisters to work. So please uphold this lease and deny the appeal in front of you tonight. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sam Snook. It's Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, I want to thank you first for your patience. I saw some of the stuff that was going around on around measure and your cents. And it's to your patience and to your foresight on this that I appeal to and folks have talked about 1992 is a long time. I don't believe at that point I was three. So we have literally a generation between the negative declaration, the conversation we're having this evening. With that in mind, AB32 wasn't on the books a generation ago. The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports wasn't working on trucks a generation ago. Measure and wasn't law. A living wage for hotel workers wasn't law in Long Beach a generation ago. And it's to your foresight, foresight, the foresight of people like you and the foresight of yourselves that these things came to pass. And I appeal then to that foresight. And so that patience to kind of just push this back the cycle which exists to make sure these things work. And when it does and I'm sure it will, because as folks have said, Long Beach, it has a world class reputation for for being committed to zero emissions and to clean energy. And so community responsibility. One, this does come back and is approved. Then we'll talk about it again. Again, I appeal to your patience, which I've seen in good measure and to your foresight in making sure that Long Beach remains committed to being the cleanest and greenest port on the West Coast. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Mark Lopez. I'm with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, also a resident of East L.A. And in 1992, I was seven years old, playing soccer and baseball at the park by my house. Right. The same park that my daughters are going to play, soccer and baseball. And, you know, when I was sitting there, I wasn't even going to testify, but just hearing a lot of information, I had to come up here. So I was thinking about my daughter, who was about two and a half years old. And so she's a toddler. She asks a ton of questions. Right. Her probably favorite question is, what's that? Right. She hears her baby sister crying. What's that? She hears her mom walking in another room. What's that? Right. The TV makes a sound. What's that? Right. I also live about five homes away from the Union Pacific rail line that comes through East L.A. and the City of Commerce. And multiple times a day, the train comes roaring by. Right. We hear the engines. Sometimes you can feel the engines, right? You can hear the hundreds of cars that pass by, if not thousands, by my house every day. Right. They sound like this, right? Multiple times a day. 1 a.m., 3 a.m. all day. My daughter never asked, What's that? She never asks. What's that? She's become accustomed to it. Right. And the point of my story is, just because we become accustomed to something doesn't mean that it should continue to be acceptable. A standard from 1992 shouldn't be acceptable today. Now we can all live here, write and communicate with the rest of Long Beach, the rest of the region, the rest of the state, and so on. And we can communicate that you are here requested for more information on the impacts of this project so you can make a smart decision. Or we can go into everyone you didn't want to know. Right. That's. That's really the decision that's here. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Complete. I don't support the appeal. First, it's an attack on the transportation of coal. Well, how are we supposed to get it? If I transport it to the coal is dirty. Well, so is the gasoline we put in our cars to go to our jobs. Three coal feeds industry. It builds. It's positive. And we have a lot of restraints on it now. Four We don't need more regulations. We're overregulated enough. It stifles industry. Six It's good enough for me to hear the environmental agency give out an award to those responsible. Thank you next week. Good evening, Mayor. Council staff. My name is Jeremy Harris, senior vice president at Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce here tonight to speak on behalf of the chamber and urge you to support the staff recommended position to deny the appeal and uphold the Board of our Commissioner's environmental determinations. An interest of time. I'll keep my comments short, as we've already heard a lot tonight. As you're aware, Metro and Oxbow have been operating the port for decades. Their agreements were approved by the Board of Harbor Commissioners simply to extend their current operations and improve that financial arrangement with the port in order to keep business moving at the port. This is much needed in order to keep those high paying wage jobs and the economy moving down there. So in the interest of time, I ask you to support the staff recommended position allow you for our comments in tonight's record. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Al Sattler. I first would like to say I received an email from John Moreland and he said he had submitted it, but he wasn't sure it was going to be in the record. So I would like to hand this off a hard copy. And he did specifically say that he believed the Harvard Department did not adequately analyze the new environmental impact of the new agreement, and it did not address impacts not analyzing previous environmental documents for the facility. And he has a number of pages here also like to show you, for those who haven't been down to look, this is another look at what coal trains can look at the various coal cars heading off into the distance, probably 100 cars in that in that train. The air if if there is no environmental review of this project, see no evil, hear no evil, speak to evil. It's it's not good. And I also would like to point out to you the most recent issue of Nature magazine just came August 14th. There is an editorial in here from a scientist from China who is saying China should aim for a total cap on emissions. And he is pointing with concern to the possibility for up to 100 million tons of coal per year from the Pacific Coast. We should not be part of that. Thank you. Thank you. Please, if if the line can move forward. And just as a reminder, the speaker's list is closed. There are no more public public speakers after. I believe it's Mr. Chairman in the back. Please, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Hans Relman. I'm a member of the Sierra Club. The coal business is a worldwide business. And the Port of Long Beach is part of that business. And whether you're mining or shipping or burning coal, you're involved in a environmentally very dangerous process. So the city of Long Beach should have its eyes wide open when it makes a decision to continue. What what's been been going on for a long time. So I am very much in favor. Of an environmental review. Thank you. Thank you. It's bigger. Hello, I'm Jeannie Williams from the eighth District. I'm also secretary. They lost Cerritos Neighborhood Association and we represent 1000 homes just like you were and elected officials of our group. And we. Made a motion. To. Be in favor of doing this. So you're in favor of the appeal. A second thing I want to. Bring up that. Oh, did I say we represent like 1000 homes, you know, so that could be. Yeah. Three, 4000 people. L cne so. Second thing I want to bring up to you real quick is that I've been working with Adriana and work and I. Am incredibly impressed with her knowledge of the law, how articulate they are. And how they have cooperated for years with the port already. You know all that. Well, let's get to the sequel, though. Oh, well, what we have. Discussed, the reason I came at the end and what I won't discuss. I think we've already reached the conclusions that the port is green, that the stevedore docks were pro-environment. And I have to say that when they're forced to be by law, that the city council overwhelmingly over the years is going to the direction of being pro-environment . And that sequel will not eliminate jobs. Let's talk about secure. As far as I've learned, the people that do the environmental report are support. Am I incorrect? Like, if if it gets approved and you have to do a secure the port does it. So then you've got to say, okay, three points here I want to bring up just really quick to you. Why would they not want to do it? You have one cost. Okay. So cost equals how many babies, how many children with asthma, you know, should die? How does that equal anything? Second thing is, something's hiding. You know, this would bring transparency to all of us and put us all at rest. The third thing is that the Koch brothers, all of them are known are known for hating regulations of the federal government. One point the final point, here you go. Last sentence and I get this from the press telegram today. I'm plagiarize a little bit and I'm paraphrasing a little bit is that if you show favoritism and you circumvent the law talked about this, you make the laws laughable. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name's T.L. Garrett. I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. I'm here to support the staff's determination that the category one in the Category two categorical exemptions or the appropriate level of psychoanalysis for this project. I believe that's the case, and I believe you should deny the appeal. The only issue I have that I would also like to raise is the potential precedence that this action could raise. If every time a lease is opened that it's a do over. Situation, it will create tremendous uncertainty within the business community. And will result in chaos. So I urge you to deny this appeal. Please. I know I've said it many times, but let's be respectful of both sides of the people that are at the comment. They're here to give. They get their 2 minutes, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Jessica Yard. All Laurie. I'm an attorney for and a member of the Sierra Club. I want to address a couple of quick issues in addition to my my wonderful co-counsel from Earthjustice, NRDC and City. This issue is one about transparency and simply conducting a requisite and required study under. See what the legal review does not shut down the facility. It does not stop exporting any of these commodities. It is simply a study to figure out who is impacted and what the impacts might potentially be. In addition, you know, if if this decision stands, it stands with the port turning a blind eye to the myriad of impacts folks have talked about here this evening. I also want to talk about the context in which this is occurring and give you a snapshot of what's happening on the West Coast. The port, if it upholds and requires Sequoia for this decision, stands in very good company. The Oregon Department of State Lands actually just rejected a permit for the export of coal. Just yesterday in Oregon, the Port of Oakland rejected flat out a new coal export facility in Oakland as well. The Oakland City Council has also expressed severe concerns with the transportation of coal and other fossil fuels. More importantly, on the issue of environmental analysis in Washington, there are two large coal export facilities currently undergoing a joint NEPA and CPO, which is the Sequoia equivalent in Washington Review. It's simply a study. These studies, if you do them right and you do them in depth, they do take some time. This one actually is a fairly easy thing for for the city council to require just going back and doing an initial analysis that's not much. In addition, I believe the gentleman before me just said, well, what about the precedent this sets? What does this do for other commodities? The answer is coal and fossil fuels are unique. I mean, there is a unique impact here and one that has to do with climate change, coal dust, air pollution and a number of issues that the folks that our community all along the rail line, from the mine to the port, the port to the plant in China, that need to be analyzed. We can't simply turn a blind eye to all of these things. So I urge the Long Beach City Council to stand with with the other city councils along the West Coast to require this analysis. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and City Council. I'm speaking to you tonight in support. Of this appeal. I'm a 13 year resident and business owner in District one, the Linden Historic District. Excuse me, ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? I beg your pardon, Pamela Kelly. At the end of June or the beginning of July, I started noticing that I had shortness of breath and that the air was dirtier than usual. A little while later, maybe around July the seventh, on a monday night, when I was driving home from teaching at UCLA Extension, I was stopped at the red light at PCH and Long Beach Boulevard. I wasn't thinking about anything in particular. I just gazed out the window and I looked at the street light and I noticed what looked like a shimmering blanket suspended in the air. I'd never noticed it before, and I was startled by it. It was eerie looking. I shared that with my husband when I returned home and later with my city councilwoman Gonzalez at a neighborhood meeting on July the 18th. That meeting also happened to be out of doors, and I started feeling the shortness of breath during that meeting as well. I bought three air purifiers, which help, but they don't dust my furniture, which is constantly dusty. And again, I'm here and supported this appeal. And I thank you for your generous listening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Excuse me. Honorable Mayor. City and mayor. City Council, city staff, simple citizen. I support this appeal. Please give your name for the. I'm sorry. Excuse me. My name is Peter Rosenwald. I support this appeal. During the rebuttal by the city attorney. I believe she said that there was no change, nothing was different in terms of use. Well, I just want to say, I believe that there is something different. I think that this is these are pictures which I believe all of you have seen of the work of the operation near the port. And when I gave these to the city clerk so that he can send them around to you. I had a conversation earlier today with Mr. Art Wang, the assistant director of communications for the port. And my question was, what happens to all the water that they use that they washed down the trucks with the area that has called dust? And the answer he gave me is there's $1,000,000 catch basin, a million gallon catch basin, a pure G to stop rainwater or any other water from running into the ocean. Metro stevedore who uses the water in its catch basin to suppress dust and keep the terminal clean. Have you actually looked in to see where this water goes, where it'll be used, where it's ultimately recycled? I think that that those are very important questions. I did call the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and I wasn't able, because of the lateness of this, to get an answer from them. But I think that this decision, if you don't support the appeal, that you will put this off so that more investigation can be done about the environmental effects. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. And our final speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Alex Charron, and although I represent Metro Ports, I'm here tonight in my capacity as a lifelong resident of the city of Long Beach and as a father of two children living proudly in the seventh District. The very first question you were asked tonight in public comment was who believes in clean air? Well, here's my scorecard. Metro Ports. Metro Ports believes in clean air at a time when the active system couldn't find a home and the saw kind of stack technology had no investors, metro ports stepped up. It wasn't easy financially or operationally, but they did because Metro believes in clean air. The Port of Long Beach believes in clean air. I know of no other agency, public or private, that has invested as much capital in cleaner technologies and been. Recognized for it as the Port of. Long Beach. But they did it because they believe in clean air. The Harbor Trucking Association, who I represent, who eight years ago because the port asked them to invest in 1 billion with a B $1 billion of their own money in clean trucks. It wasn't easy, but they did it because they believe in clean air and they support these leases. Lastly, the ILWU. With all due respect to all the other public speakers tonight, nobody else is on the front lines. Nobody else knows the impacts, good and bad, of the terminal operations more than the men and women of the ILWU . And they support these leases. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With that, we are going to continue the hearing and we are going to now open it up for council deliberation and action. And just as a reminder, the city council has two options in considering the appeal. Option one is to deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determination. An up or option two is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with with appropriate seek a review before the harbor department reconsiders the agreement. So as stated by the city attorney earlier, that was the the two options available to the city council. So bring this back and I'll start with Councilmember Price. I had a question for Mr. Mayes before we started this process. You talked about the narrowness of the issue before us. Can you please restate the issue before us? You're basically it's a matter of jurisdiction and the city charter vests in the board of Harbor Commissioners, the responsibility to make certain determinations regarding what activities can and should take place in the port. So it's within the port's purview to determine whether or not it's appropriate to either enter into leases, extend leases, modify leases, those sorts of things by state law and by secure regulations. It's within the city council's purview to handle any and all appeals of the six determinations. So the narrow issue before the Council is strictly deals with whether or not the port applied the appropriate sequence standard when they determined that both the lease and the operating agreement were categorically exempt from further sequent review. So it's that narrow issue. Thank you. Councilmember Price. See you back up. Wrong button. Okay. Any other questions? Customer Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, first of all, I want to thank the many members of the community who came out today. I want to thank the port. I mean, this has been back and forth. And this is not going to be an easy call for the city council in any way. I did have a few questions as I am deliberating my decision here tonight. And I wanted to specifically address the the the issue of capacity at the pier. And maybe somebody here can match from Metro or Oxbow can can answer my questions or the port. Probably appropriate for this time for someone from the port to begin to answer the questions. And if they determine that one of the other companies can step in, that would be fine. So as I understand it, there are at least four different commodities that are that are shipped out of the out of Pier G, export it. First and foremost, what percentage of of a business in a port is exports? Somebody. Anybody. Of our total volume of containers and bulk products, 30% of our business. Is bulk products. Okay. Thank you. And I understand that there are four different commodities that we heard about, the pet coke. We heard about the obviously the coal. I know there to be there's sulfur as well as sort of ash. These are the major or main commodities that are shipped there. I just want to tell you, I had opportunity. I've met with the the the in our DC and the coalition, Sierra Club Coalition that came in and had a great conversation a few weeks ago on the 14th floor. And I made a commitment to, to meet with all of the stakeholders. I met with the Port of Long Beach. I met with Metro, with Oxbow. I met with Congressmember Alan Lowenthal. I tried to do my due diligence to get my hand around this, my head around this issue. And I also went on a tour of pirogue. I got to tell you, I was a health and safety representative in the aerospace industry at Boeing for a number of years. I have a trained eye for for engineering and health and safety standards. I found that facility to be top class personal protective equipment was utilized. It was, in plain view, easily accessible. Everybody had on their hardhats, their stilettos, boots, hearing and breathing apparatus. They were they were dressed appropriately. I got an opportunity to witness the operations. I saw a coal train station. I saw where it it where the the the the the shower, so to speak, hits the train as it comes in. I actually saw the the the the apparatus that actually takes in the the train closes it it showers the coal and flips it and it sends it underground to a conveyor belt that then moves the coal to a to a capsule that that pushes it into the the the the shed, the coal shed in question. There was a not not a whole lot of exposure, particularly at the port. And so for that, I think the port operations is world class. What we don't have a handle on is the shipping of the coal, the trains from from across the country. They coal. They they they they mine in Utah and Colorado. And in talking to my congressman, he said, you know, and I talked to them. I said, you know, you you dealt with this issue early on as a as a state assembly member, as one of your first acts as a state assembly member. And it was major legislation because I lived in Long Beach a long time. I can recall, you know, the black dust. Yes, we still have it. And it's questionable where that's from. You know, it could be from our freeways and all kinds of other particulate matter that's in the air. But in terms of regulating the the the the shipment of coal along railroads, I don't think that's personally in the purview of this this council. The second question I had is regarding the fact that I know when I was out there, I observed several other operators in the port and it pure gee, not just the operators in question, obviously metro there. But my question is, are there other exporters of coal in the empire? Gee. And I wasn't exactly sure of that. Is there any other organization doing that? Our company. There are none other for export. Okay. To the Indian. All right. I have no other questions for right now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Thank you. And I, too, appreciate the work of both sides. You did a good job of outreaching and educating us on your perspectives. And this is interesting. I really think this comes down to and maybe you, Mr. City attorney, you can help me a legal question opposed to a policy question. The policy side is, should we be digging up coal? Should we be moving coal? Should we be selling coal? But the legal question before us is, I think you've kind of laid out is pertains to the school provisions. Is that accurate? That's correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Turn back to you, Mr. Councilmember Durango. First of all, I want to thank everyone, especially those in the seventh District, who came down here tonight and speaking on behalf of what's taking place. Obviously, the seventh District is one of the most affected districts when it comes to decisions impacting the port. But I do have a few questions related to the presentations that were made. In terms of the Class one series of categorical exemptions. We're talking about a facility that holds well, that the minimum is 1.7 metric tons. Correct. That's correct. The current the estimated throughput for 2014 is 1.7 million metric. Tons, but the capacity of the facility. Is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. Okay. You answered my question and that one in 1992, there's been a lot of reference about the 1992 study and how that was not also a negative declaration in regards to that. At that time, the negative declaration was obviously a different era. I heard some some young, young people say they were, what, five and six and seven when they were 92 or three when 92 was around. So it's a different world, different time. Has there since then been any move or any any any consideration for doing an environmental impact study on those and also on that on the transportation and storage of coal? At all. Has there been any any discussion about that? The the Sigma analysis is required at the time that there's a new action that's associated with the with the facility. The 1992 negative declaration was for the construction of the coal shed. And since then, operations have been continuing consistent with what was approved when the 1992 negative declaration moved forward. The action in front of the council tonight is related to the agreements that have just been adopted. That was a new action that the board considered. Those agreements are for the continuation of the existing operations as they're currently being done, consistent with the evaluation that was analyzed by the 1992 negative declaration. Which came in the category in a class to cat category to appeal for for the for the exemption here. There is a talk about the replacement of reconstruction that's going to be taking place with asphalt. Is that is it normal for any agency that's going to do that larger replacement to go through a sequel or in the air. Class to you? Exemptions are are provided for doing repair work replacement work in-kind in the same place. And so it the the asphalt repaving work that's being proposed. Is is. Consistent with a class two exemption. Class two exemptions are commonly used for repaving work by agencies such as Caltrans for repaving work that. They. Do on highway systems of much greater quantities than what's being considered here at the pier facility. For example, the 710 repayment was that with that trigger, something that. The. 710 project. Is is a. Different level of project. It's a it's there's a. Lot of different reconstruction that's being provided with. That. If they were to do repaving in kind on the 710 currently a class two exemption could apply to that. But the entire. I 710 modernization redevelopment. Project is. Is a different classification. Okay. Now I take it that the water Long Beach is not burning coal or pickle keep the same. That's correct. So so if there are so what are the local impacts on the air and water in the storage of the coal in this facility, if any? And if there are, are there any efforts to minimize those impacts? AQ m d Rule 1158 was associated with minimizing the. Dust. And potential nuisance issues related. With the. The movement of these dry bulk products through the facility, including coal. Petcoke. Another other products. The requirements that are established through that rule are being. Applied at the facility to minimize impacts. That includes covering all of the storage areas and closing all of the loading and unloading operations, including water sprayers and closing all of the conveyor belts and the ship loader and all of that. That work and all of the facility improvements out. At the. Facility are consistent with the requirements of a rule and 58. You know, if I heard correctly, there's another 79 or so leases or projects that are in the pipeline for evaluation and negotiation. And I guess in along with that, would those projects also be subject to this type of evaluation? They review. The the list. Of projects. That was identified by the appellants was from the EIA for the high green facility that was recently approved. It was. A list of all of the potential projects. In the area. Of. The port, and each of those would be subject to their own environmental secure analysis. To be handled independently. That would all be independent. That's correct. So just to summarize into, there would be no president if we were to say. To accept the appeal, and it would not affect all the other projects. It would not it would not be president, certainly to have all those other projects also in part. Go through an appeal. Process automatically. The list of projects that are in that Thai air are projects that are undergoing environmental review through year at this present time. And the there there kind of an apples and oranges type situations because they don't they involve changes to projects or brand new projects as opposed to projects for existing facilities where there are no changes being proposed. So it's kind of a different situation in terms of precedent setting. The you know, the granting of the appeal could potentially set a precedent of bringing all the lease renewals forward for new environmental review. That would be the precedent. Okay. So I understand. So this is dealing with a renewal, not necessarily the new project. It is essentially a renewal of a lease and a new lease, changing the structure of the lease so that there is a direct contractual relationship between the city and the lessee. Oxbow As opposed to Oxbow being a sub tenant of Metro. New York, which is. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay. Thank you all for being here and thank you for all the information. I just have a couple of questions. And, you know, we certainly understand the overall scope of this, but what we're presented here with is is very narrow. And so I just want to make sure I'm getting everything clear. First question, is the port director, he cannot just unilaterally increase the tonnage, is that correct? I just want to make sure of that. I mean, that's been a question that. That's correct. There. There is that the capacity of the facility is fixed. Nothing in the action and nothing in the agreement modifies the capacity that is to estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. There is a provision in. The lease that identifies that there is a. A limit on the amount of. Petcoke. That can go through the coal shed through the first five years of the of the facility. The executive director or chief executive can consider modifying that limitation on petcoke through the facility, but the overall throughput at the facility would never be able to go beyond the physical limits of the. Capacity of the facility. Okay. And then as far as a Q IMT and is it called a health impact reporter, what would it be called? The report that AQ, M.D. provides and how often is that reported? You know, it's two. Any impacts. I know you'd mention that briefly. Right. I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't think there was a reference to Akhmed requiring a report. I think there are there is certain equipment out there that Akhmed does provide permitting for, and they have prepared environmental impact reports for various actions that they've taken, including the rule adoption of 1158. So they have studied the issue and taken action on their own. But in terms of the a reference to a report that Akhmed has prepared, there has been no reference to that. Okay. So there's not again, there's just not regular reporting. I just wanted to get that cleared. That's. That's correct. That's our understanding. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Price. Okay. Well, first of all, thanks to all those who came out tonight to talk to us and express our concerns about this particular item and also educate us on some of the broader environmental considerations in terms of coal. I just wanted to clarify a few things with the staff before we conclude or go through our deliberation process. As I understand it, the issue before this body is as follows and that the scope is very narrow. And the only determination for this Council is whether the court decision regarding the second determination was justified based on the law and within the scope of the port's powers. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So the question really before us is whether the changes to this list fall outside of the categorical exemptions, thereby triggering the need for secure evaluation. Is that correct? Yes. In terms of that, specifically, these questions would probably go to the port. We've heard and like Council member Austin, I too have met with all the stakeholders and attempted to educate myself on the issues. And I did meet with NRDC, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club and followed up on specific questions that they had. I think, however, that there's still some a lack of clarity, at least in the minds of some, regarding two major points. The first and I'd ask the port staff to confirm this if I if my understanding is correct. My understanding, based on the documents that you've provided to us to review in preparation for tonight, is that there will, in fact, not be an increased capacity or throughput of coal. Is that correct? That's correct. That the GMT is not a coal throughput requirement. However, it is a financial term utilized in the contract. Is that correct? That's correct. It's a requirement for payment, not a minimum throughput or performance requirement. And that there is no expectation on the part of the port or the city that there will be an increase in the export of coal beyond what has been exported in the past or that is currently being exported. Is that correct? The at the facility, the current capacity is up. To an estimated 2.3 million metric tons. There's nothing in the agreement that changes that. The the facility could be operated in a way up to the limits of the physical capacity today. And they can be operated up to the limits of the physical capacity tomorrow under the new agreements. Nothing in the agreements will change that. Okay. Finally, in regards to the categorical exemptions, the fact that the port is relying on, is it accurate to conclude that the improvements on the property, the improvements that have been discussed, do not rise to the level requiring further environmental analysis because they include the same type of concrete pavement, same location and done for maintenance and structural integrity . That's correct. Of the maintenance and repair work that's identified in the agreements are replacements in kind for safety improvements and to restore structural integrity. And because of those two points, that's where the categorical exemptions serve to not require psychoanalysis. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. So. So would someone help me understand the connection here between uncovered trains and whether the sequel was whether we're required to do a report? The question would be whether or not that's a new condition or a change in condition. The analysis that was previously done for the operation assumed uncovered. It has been uncovered, but. And in addition, putting aside the previous analysis, you're looking at a existing facility. And I do want to clarify that we've had a lot of reference to the 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed. There's also the earlier analysis that was done for the expansion of the throughput for the facility, all of which was coming by uncovered railcar. But it is important to note that the categorical exemptions are separate and apart from those previous analyzes. And the question there is whether or not it's an existing facility operating within its capacity or if the capacity is changing and that that is connected to the components that feed into that facility, such as the rail lines and their operation. So the real test is whether or not there's a change that is in capacity or from what exists now in order to apply those categorical exemptions. So so the trigger is is there a change? Is there a change as a change in capacity is a key issue? Yes. Okay. And there from what I hear tonight, there's no evidence of a change. Now, help me help me understand the the pavement aspect. Does that present any change to the operation? Repaving the two football fields worth of asphalt? It does not result in any changes to the operation. What it is, is a replacement in kind in the same location. Okay. When I repave it, when we repave a street, do we do an environmental? Because I'm sure the streets that we've repaved in the ninth District are more square footage than this? Or is there ever a moment where we have to do an air on those sorts of projects because we do those like all the time? Is there a difference there? No, there's not. Let me ask that. I thank the community for coming out on both sides. And someone said that this was this is a human element here. And I see humans that are impacted by this on both sides. And it's not an easy issue. And although it seems like the question that's put before us is a very narrow question. A couple of things did come up that really concern me. I just think it's inappropriately placed here, you know, this uncover train circumstance that passes through all of our communities. I'm really concerned about that. So my question is, what agency has the jurisdictional authority to actually do something about that? The Surface Transportation Board. Its federal agency. Is a federal agency. That's correct. So has the city of Long Beach ever engaged this agency? Have we added it to our federal legislative agenda? Have we ever engaged on this issue? Not to my understanding. However, I'm not I'm not sure a city staff would need to advise. Is anyone here? Okay. So. So, I mean, if it seems like when there was concern with the coal piles, we were able to work with our state legislators to to find a fix for that. And it seemed like here, if we really want to do something about uncover Coltrane's the appropriate place might be to amend our Fed Legenda or to send it to our federal or federal legislation committee to take a good look at it. Because, I mean, the question here is really narrow, but these are really juicy issues to to talk about. So, you know, at some point, I just want to say that maybe this is more appropriate there at Fed Ledge. And I I'd be willing to entertain that conversation as the chair of our village committee. And then the last question I have is how many leases do we renew, like on an annual basis of the port? How often do we go through this? Just a new lease with similar no change. How how often does this happen? Renewals. It's a common practice. It happens a handful of times each year. A handful of times a year. Do we go through this with with all of those? What's the difference between that one, those that we go through and this one? Is it the nature that this one is coal or what's the difference? Just help me understand. Break it down for me. It's our understanding is the concerns that are raised, raised with this issue are specific to the export of coal. Have there been any appeals on any of the other licenses we had in the last three years? Maybe. Not to my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Andrews? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know. I really I applaud everyone who's coming out tonight and the patient that you've shown us. And I've also had a chance to speak with the stakeholders. But, you know, I truly believe, you know, the documents to put it these cases, you know, I'm not a sick or environmental expert, but I do know that our port commissioners and port staff, city attorneys approved the documentation. And I think we're going to have to, like I say, give them time and know we I believe in it and I believe that it will work. So with all of that and I know his time is very limited here. You guys and I would like to sit up and make. A motion with that to deny the appeal. And affirm the. Decisions of the Harbor Commission. Second. Okay, there's been a motion and. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Does that emotion include adoption of the resolution and findings that support the staff's or the Port of Harbor Commissioner's determination? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So there is a motion and a second on the floor by Councilmember Andrews. Next is council. Well, I'll speak to the second and then Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Mongo. I want to thank the so many people who took the time to email and dialog with us and come into our office on both sides. It's a great privilege and responsibility to represent people in this city and to have the opportunity to go to the facilities and see firsthand what the employees are facing on a daily basis . What a clean and well-run facility. I was actually significantly surprised at the level of cleanliness. It it matches some restaurant kitchens in cities I've been to in the region. And I'm very proud of the work that you do here in our city. I support Councilmember Richardson in bringing this up in our Fed Pledge Committee. It sounds like there are some very. Thin requirements on what we are even able to consider at this time, and that we should be having a policy discussion about our role on the national stage. So with that, I really appreciate the continued education because this needs to be a continued dialog. It cannot be held in just one night. We need to have this over the next several months and continue this dialog for for years to come. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, wanted to thank everyone that's communicated with each of us here at the council. We like the other council members. I've had the opportunity to either speak with or meet in person with the different stakeholders. Regarding this item and the project, and your tireless effort to advocate your position is something I'm very thankful for. This Council doesn't come to these decisions lightly. We don't come to any one issue knowing more than any one of you. And so each of your expertize and passion in this area is something that I'd like to thank you for sharing with us. Your generosity of knowledge allows this body to do its job much better than we could if we did not have access to that. And the time you spend is tremendous. The second District, as most of you know, is straddled with a lot of the issues that have been raised today. Many of my predecessors, including Congressman Alan Lowenthal, has dealt with the issues and has dealt with issues on how to resolve the impact of port activity here, not only for the second District but truly for the city of Long Beach. There are always environmental issues that somehow seem to emanate from the second District, whether it's from the port or the coast, that both the second and third district share. We are dealing with air quality issues, water quality issues. To that point, I wanted to thank the Port of Long Beach for its commitment to improving our air and water quality. I know that our harbor department is a partner not only with the city of Long Beach and its many departments, but really all its residents as well . And we have seen appreciable differences. And while that might have nothing to do with the issue at hand today, I do want to point that out that this is a long narrative. We didn't come to this point overnight, but it is a multi-decade narrative that I think we're going in the right direction. As Councilmember Price very articulately highlighted, the issue here can be separated into two concerns. I won't go over the points that she made. I think she made them quite well. And our attorneys and staff responded to them. This item today, there's. It is between two concerns. And I think all of us struggle with where we end up, depending on what we believe is the question before us. Is there a legal basis compelling the port of Long Beach and thus this city council, this body, to perform a square review of impacts from Metro Oxbow agreement, which requires them to carry out certain repairs, maintenance and replacement or materials and equipment in their terminal. I think the attorneys have answered that question as well as the staff has and through Councilmember Price's more textured questions under that, I think we have the answer to that. But for possible future discussion, I'd like to be able to buy for Kate the philosophical question, the environmental question. I don't believe there's a single council member here that does not regard him or herself as an environmentalist, as someone with regard for our environment, each of us. We all have children. We all have concerns for all our residents. But we have a personal investment here. So for possible future discussion, as Councilmember Richardson indicated, we could take up the issue of whether the port and really the city of Long Beach. The larger question whether we contribute to the global use of coal dust for energy, which has been identified as a contributor to air pollution and climate change. And we have to be able to separate that question. And I think that is a question that each of us wants to take up and can take up. As a separate matter, though, there may be a practical connection between exporting coal dust and contract renewal. In my opinion, there does not appear to be a legal connection using the vehicle of an appeal of Sequoia, and not my opinion alone, but one that I feel has been adequately defended by our staff and city attorney. The improvements being made to the existing terminal do not rise to the level of significant changes as described by Mr. Mays, and the agreement does not result in any increase in the amount of coal dust being exported. However, I do think the points that you've made are valid ones when it comes to the quality of life, when it comes to our sharing with our global community, a common environmental identity. And for that reason, I believe that this item should go to the Federal Legislative Committee, as well as the city's environmental committee, and can be duly addressed. And this council can determine if it would like to make a resolution to that. And going forward and with that, I'll be supporting the motion at hand. Okay. So with that, there is no no more council comment. So there is a motion on the floor. And Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. With that, we're going to take a five minute recess before we begin the budget hearing to allow the staff to prepare for that. Wow. Wow. Now. How many? Say. I am. I. Gay Jazz. 88.1. Let me tell you how I really feel about this one. Oh, I love it. I love it. I love it. Yellowjackets Taking Care of the Bears. Magnolia The name of that particular tune. From the album. Timeline. Before that fascinating rhythm complements of the. Definitive Vince Guaraldi Trio. Okay, Jazz got into that with McCoy Tyner Caravan. And of course, we topped off the last to the hour with Duke Ellington and The. Mooch as. We turn it over to Grover Washington. Junior. Okay, Jazz, 88.1. So when? I want to bring us back from recess if we can get the members to take their seats. Okay. We have a we have a quorum. Back with that, we're going to go into our hearing. Number two, Mr. Clerk.

Recommendation to receive a report and confirm the proposed citywide Strategic Plan for Youth and Emerging Adults. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02092021_21-0109

Thank you. Next, we have item 11 and then we'll have general public comment and then the rest of the agenda. So let's do item 11 is next. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine and Health and Human Services recommendation to receive a report and confirm the proposed citywide strategic plan for youth and Emerging Adults citywide. Thank you. I'll turn this over to staff for their report. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you members of the city council. We're excited to be here tonight, the culmination of a lot of engagement and planning. And we've got a presentation from Brant Dennis, our director of Parks Rec and Marine, and Kelly Colby, our director of Health and Human Services. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. Thank symbolic of the close working relationship between the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department and our Health and Human Services Partners. I'm honored to present the Long Beach Strategic Plan for youth and emerging adults. This plan was completed in the midst of two significant health crises the global COVID 19 pandemic and the country's reckoning with racial injustice. Shelter in place and stay at home. Orders, combined with social distancing measures introduced nearly a year ago in March 2020, sparked a definite shift in community conversations uplifting the social, emotional and economic impact on youth of color in Long Beach. Kelly will start our presentation by recalling how the plan before you this evening began. The plan began through a community effort led by Career Girls in Action and the Advancement Project to develop the Invest in Youth Campaign Report. Kelly. So. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for this opportunity to share the city's new strategic plan. This plan comes from the youth of our community and reflects voices from all of our communities in the city. The groundwork was led by the Invest in Youth campaign. This was a partnership of the coming Girls in Action, building healthy communities and other community apartment partners. The Advancement Project in Cal State, Long Beach. The partnership surveyed more than 700 people and engaged many others in the community. What it found was that Long Beach residents were willing to support greater investment in youth in the community, and that at this time the city spends more of its resources on youth suppression than it does on youth development. Utilizing these findings. The Youth from Invest in Youth Campaign presented their report to the City Council in June 2018. Youth leaders spoke to the multiple challenges they face and their vision for youth in the city to live their best lives now. In 2019, the City Council authorized $200,000 to develop a plan that would serve as the guiding vision and a framework for responding to the needs of the city's youth and their families over a three year, 3 to 5 year period. Parks and Parks. Recreation and Marine and the Health Department a partner to develop this plan with youth and consultants. Our youth ambassadors were really an important element in the development of the plan. We had nearly. 20 ambassadors in the fall of 2019 an application and. The Youth ambassadors were really an integral part in the development of this plan. We had nearly 20 youth ambassadors, ages 16 to 24, that were selected in the fall of 2019 through an application and interview process. Two ambassadors representing each of the nine council districts were joined by several other youth ambassadors that were nominated at large by the greater community. Ambassadors participated in several strategic planning trainings, facilitated all seven community forums, co-designed the online and key and format, survey instruments and outreach, and engaged to ensure the survey data was collected from throughout the city. I think very much reflective of the motivation and the energy shared by all of our youth ambassadors. The quote that's included by Alexa King is most appropriate. And she she said, quote, I believe that young people deserve to be involved in the institutions that govern them. The best way to represent the youth of our community is to hear from them directly. This is why I was so eager to get involved with the youth strategic plan, unquote. Just a quick glance at our planned development timeline. The project began back in early portions of 2018, and as the timeline indicates, several important steps led us to this evening. We will be presenting to you this plan for review and release to our city council leadership. The beginning of the planning process, we engaged the youth in conversations about their possibility, the possibility at home, in community, in school and their future. They described what it would look like when all was going well and when Long Beach was supporting them to be their authentic selves. They began the process of establishing the vision and their statement of possibility, and then refined it based on information they received from the community engagement process and then refined it even further through their experience of the COVID pandemic and the uprisings of last summer. The vision for youth is that all youth and emerging adults between the ages of 8 to 24 are healthy and empowered through the necessary resources to develop into their true, authentic selves. Their statement of possibility is that youth are valued and empowered as decision makers in the city of Long Beach to lead long term change and solutions for the betterment of youth now and future generations. When we look at youth in our city, we realize that we have approximately 130,000 youth between the ages of 5 to 24 across the city. The data show that our younger generation is much more diverse than our older generation, where 55% of those over the age of 65 are white. More than half of our youth, 56% are Latino. 16% are white, 14% are black, and 11% are Asian. The data also show that a majority of our youth are ages 5 to 17 in the city live in central, north and west Long Beach areas that also have the highest percentage of low income households. Nearly one quarter of our youth under the age of 18 lives below the poverty line. This impacts access to health, mental health and wellness, educational outcomes, future income housing, and opportunities for successful futures. Community engagement was significant and extensive. Led primarily by our 19 youth ambassadors. There were 71 key stakeholder interviews. Forums were attended by over 200 people. Residents completed surveys that totaled nearly 790, and there were three. My brother's keepers, Long Beach town halls that had nearly 14,900 viewers. Thematically, there were five challenges identified that faced our youth. The challenges included access to mental health, economic and educational opportunities, stable and affordable housing, safe spaces to belong and connect and stable and affordable transportation. From these challenges faced by our youth, six specific goals were established. The plan, as Brenda said, has six primary goals that are aligned with the themes. The first goal is around youth development and to ensure that youth ages 18 to 24 have robust, sustainable and accessible services within the city. Throughout Long Beach, there are services for youth in our schools. Our neighborhoods are employers and are community based organizations. Yet the services are not coordinated, can be difficult to find and are not sufficient to meet the needs of our youth. The first step is to establish an Office of Youth Development, to lead increasing access to services, coordination of available services, funding and support for youth in the city. The office will be focused on positive youth development, which recognizes, utilizes, enhances young people's strengths and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships, and furnishing the support needed to build on their leadership strengths. The office will be housed in the Health and Human Services Department with the funding appropriated to the Health Department and the FBI 21 budget. The focus will be on leveraging existing funding opportunities such as measure US and identifying new structural funding to support youth efforts. The Office will also focus on building coordination and collaboration with partners, tracking data to show impacts of the efforts across the city and building additional supports and services for our youth. The second goal is around physical health, mental health and emotional wellness for both physical health and mental health. It's not just the absence of disease, but includes emotional, psychological and social well-being, as well as the ability to navigate challenging life circumstances, adapt to change, and have fulfilling relationships to realize full potential. Parents and youth across the city identified mental health as a key concern based on the demands of schooling, employment, family and so much more . There are many efforts underway to increase physical and mental health, including school based efforts. Healthy, active Long Beach parks activities, healthy market place conversions and teen programs. However, many youth say accessing mental health services is either very hard or somewhat hard. This goal focuses on increasing access through partnerships, funding, coordination with the County Department of Mental Health and local providers, and then making that access easier. It's also important to continue to create safe and open spaces for physical activity, connection and families through connected through increased programing of park sites, drawing user agreement with Long Beach Unified and other organizations, and creating a virtual connection to build relationship. Bill number three focuses on planning for the future. You should have career pathways to ensure economic stability and mobility. This can be done through the establishment of partnerships to increase access to pathways that expand economic and social capital for our youth. Also to increase private sector engagement. And a commitment to support youth development. And then thirdly, to increase access to technology and resources to support innovation and ensure that all youth have an equal opportunity to succeed. And then moving on to go for the focus is upon community care and social connectedness. The youth should have inclusive spaces that foster a caring environment to grow and develop. The creation of open spaces that reflect the needs of young people is essential. Also, the creation and the sustainability of youth led platforms that promote inclusive spaces and equity was was pointed out. And then thirdly, to increase and sustain programing that promotes pro-social engagement for youth that are system impacted. The Community Care section also includes a prevention and intervention section. This goal focuses on eliminating justice, touchpoints with youth and expanding enhancing availability of community based alternatives to youth incarceration and supervision that are trauma informed and promote healing. Community members and youth ambassadors expressed concern during the My Brother's Keeper Long Beach town halls about youth, sense of safety and the effects that current policing and public safety strategies have on youth growth and development. Information from the town halls led to conversations around alternative interventions and violence prevention strategies that reduce youth interaction with law enforcement. Within the Health Department, efforts to reduce violence in the city as well as alternative interventions are aligned to support these efforts for youth. Existing efforts at the Long Beach Unified School District have begun to promote positive alternatives to school discipline trainings, training school for faculty and staff on the use of restorative justice approaches that reintegrate students into the classroom through mediated conversations. This approach to justice focuses on repairing harm done to individuals and the community. The goal also focuses on building a multidisciplinary response system that advocates for individual youth needs, responds to mental health crises and school related incidents, invest in community resources and services, and integrates alternative non-law enforcement intervention specialists. This will help minimize the criminalization of youth behaviors and will help youth live in their communities with the adequate trauma informed support they need to thrive in their transition to adulthood. Well, five is a housing youth, that youth have safe, affordable and accessible housing options. Safe housing is a core basic need and is the foundation of wellness to have safe and affordable and accessible housing options for youth as they live with their families and as they grow and then when they leave home, is essential for those exiting out of foster care. The justice system are experiencing homelessness. Accessing this housing can be a much more difficult. Many efforts are underway through the Health Department, Development Services and other providers. However, there remains a need to focus closely on ensuring our youth have homes in which they are safe. Our sixth and final goal focuses on transportation that youth have safe, affordable and accessible transportation options. In that area to see the creation and sustainability of reduced and or no fair for youth policy. And also to increase access to safe transportation from the six goals. Kelly will share with you where things will be headed in early implementation and governance. Our early implementation is focused on bringing resources to the Office of Youth Development through the Racial Equity and Reconciliation funding to hire two people to lead this work for the city. Additional funding of $170,000 in CARES ACT funding was distributed through RFP to ten community based organizations to support their work with youth. Also, the measure, US ballot measure passed last fall with youth as a focus area for future investment. All of these funding streams are important to expand opportunity and oversight for youth across the city. The overall governance structure for youth development in the city is three fold. The Office of Youth Development, the Youth and Family Commission and the coordination with existing city led youth advisory and leadership groups in the community. The plan's goals indicate a restructuring of the Youth and Family Commission to align with the Office of Youth Development. This would be a partnership with parks and a commune and community members. With this, I turn it back to Britain. Thank you, Kelly. In closing, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge our 19 youth ambassadors. I'm sure they're all patched in listening tonight. But also, I'd like to acknowledge the work of Ana Lopez, who's our health department's community impact division officer, and also our CARES Act consultant, Eli Romero, who did a great job. I also thought it was appropriate the youth selected, although she's quite famous now. Amanda Gordon An excerpt of one of her poems. And again, I'll try to do it justice. Quote Let every dawn find us courageous. Brought closer, heeding the light before the fight is over. When this ends, we'll smile sweetly. Finally seeing in testing times, we became the best of beings, unquote. Amanda Gordon So with that, we thank you for your attention. We're available to answer any questions. Thank you to the staff. Really great presentation. I do have a vice mayor Richardson, I think has a motion to approve, but I have also a public comment by somewhere. Did you want to make some comments or you want me go to public comment first. Before the public comment? All right. Let me go, Madam Clerk. Let's do public comment, please. Our first speaker is Alexa King. Alexis Garcia and city council members. Hello. Yes. Please continue. American City Council members. My name is Alexa King. My parents are she hers. And I'm representing Council District number five and 19 years old. And I go to Cal State Fullerton and I'm also the founder of the nonprofit The Exceptional Day of Play. And for the past year or so, I have also had the privilege of being a youth ambassador. And I'm so thrilled to share this plan that we've worked so hard on with all of you today. I urge you to approve this recommendation, to receive this report and confirm the proposed citywide strategic plan for youth and emerging adults . And my time as youth ambassadors. I have been so lucky to have spoken with so many different people of all ages, from every background. But I can take away from the entire experience is that young people have voices that demand to be heard. This plan is a direct result of the collaboration from the youth of Long Beach and their shared experiences and opinions, all of which deserve to be recognized. It is no secret that our generation has inherited a planet in need of healing, and the young people who will one day be sitting where you sit in positions of power deserve to be part of the decision making. As you reflect on the recommendations here today, I urge you to think of the Long Beach youth who dedicated themselves to the adopting of this report and what it would mean for their futures to confirm the proposed citywide strategic plan for youth and emerging adults. Our futures depend on the decisions you make today, so please consider the feedback and recommendations shared from Long Beach youth and ensure the voices of young people are validated and represented. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brianna Mendez Padilla. Hello? Yes, please begin. Hi there, Mayor Garcia, Long Beach councilmembers. My name is my pronouns are she her and I'm representing Council District one and 19 and a freshman at Cal State Long Beach. Over the past two years, I have been involved with my community as a youth reporter for local news Media Hub VOICE We have been given a platform to uplift voices by sharing their stories. I am a youth ambassador for the same reason we have worked strenuously on this plan. I am thrilled to share it with you all. I urge you to approve this recommendation, to receive this report and confirm the proposed citywide strategic plan for youth and emerging adults. My main goal is that you can be ambassador has been to ensure that you have access to resources and opportunities that possibly support your leadership and growth. This is a way to ensure that. I want to emphasize two main points. Firstly, this plan has been youth led from the start. It is for youth by youth, and that must continue with implementation. Black and consumers, youth of color of all genders, entities have been systemically disrupted by policing. Poverty and racism must remain key for justice decisionmakers. Those most impacted by systems of harm should be leading the solution. Secondly, the vital to ensure that funding for positive use of violence in the city is never threatened by budget cuts. The mayor and council members need to ensure that there is an established one with children and youth and in this year's implementation process, again are here to approve and support the feedback share today with all these using. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Cesar Armendariz. Hello. My name is Cesar Armendariz and I live in the third city council district. zipCode 90804. I want to express my support for the specificity, taking and recognizing the need to bring young people as partners to the decision making table. I feel very proud of the young people of our city and their allies who worked hard to put this plan together. This is progress because young people in our society are often excluded from the decisions that end up directly impacting their lives. The creation of the Youth of the Office of Youth Development is a cause for celebration because it implements a common sense solution to the issue of public health and public safety. Investing in the mental health of our youth and connecting them to resources and access to capital is a preventative and cost effective upstream policy. This plan gives us an alternative to the policies that inflict discriminatory and often lethal violence in our communities in the name of public safety. This plan gets us one step closer to building a community where public health and public safety is not measured by how many men with badges and guns patrol our streets. I urge city council members to increase funding to the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Office of Equity and will oversee the Office of Youth Development, a well-funded health department prioritized through the city budget as the alternative to a healthier and safer Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dave. Now. I'm sorry. Dan can. And now. Yes. Thank you. Dan Knapp, your contribution call Armitage. Good evening, Honorable Mayor City Council again. Dan Knapp. At the core, we applaud the city for developing a citywide, comprehensive plan for youth and emerging adults. You know, the Conservation Corps, which has been serving Long Beach in the community, has been a community resource for over 30 years. Our mission to develop young people to reach their full potential through work service, conservation, education is our our stalwart of the corps. That being said, I'd like to say that we're first and foremost a youth development organization. We utilize a project work such as urban forestry, recycling, resource conservation, greenspace and park development as a means to help develop the young people of the Conservation Corps. Most young people come to our doors looking for paid work. What they find and what keeps them here is our holistic approach to job training, skills development, opportunities for new experiences in environment, case management, transition, support and opportunity to serve the community, and of course, a passionate and caring staff and board. The opportunity to an ability to serve cannot be understated. We cannot be more proud of our young people, especially during this past year, whether it was helping the city establish testing in health care facilities to support the city's pandemic efforts, or helping clean up downtown, uptown and Midtown. Today, after the Conservation Corps, Corps members and staff marched in support of Black Lives. Think your next speaker is Gabe Sanders. Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Gabe Sanders. I'm a freshman history major, attended the University of Wisconsin virtually from Long Beach, where I've lived my entire life, and I represented District three as a youth ambassador. Long Beach has cultivated within me a commitment to public service and a profound passion for advocacy, both of which I carry with me today. As I implore this Council not only to respond to this long overdue plan with words of affirmation, but to implement our recommendations with a sense of urgency. It must be noted that as as this is the first plan of its kind, not every important issue could be fully addressed. For this reason, I would also urge the Council to look beyond the language of this report to local and global youth led effort against climate change, one of the most enduring and existential crises of our time. In the wake of a pandemic, it would be easy to turn a blind eye to seemingly less imminent threats of carbon emissions and rising tides. However, the issue of environmental justice should be of paramount importance to a city that hosts the second largest port in the country, a port that happens to sit in the backyard of our indigent communities of color. Last year, I participated in the city run program Youth Leadership Long Beach, which provided me and 29 other high school students with an opportunity to learn how we might integrate environmental sustainability into our lives. I was given a phenomenal experience, however, in a city with nearly half a million people. 130 person youth program is not enough. Whether expanding this effort to educate and activate youth means allotting funding for a similar program in every district, or bringing the curriculum to middle and high school campuses. Young people must be at the forefront, and the time must be now. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Hing. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. Hi. Mayor Garcia and Long Beach Councilmember. My name is Jen and the lead organizer with Clean Girls in Action. Two things I want to list on this agenda item. First, you said your plan emerged because leaders of the Investing Youth Campaign envision a more equitable world where young people are valued and included in our city's budget and in decisions that impact their lives. Before the pandemic, close to 30% of our city's youth population, ages 19 and under, were already living in poverty. Districts one, two, four, six, eight and nine hold 90% of youth poverty in our city. With the release of the planet Earth, the Mayor and Council to respond to crises and support positive interventions like establishing and prioritizing along these Children and Youth Fund with a dedicated funding source in 2021. This has been young people's asses before this plan. Secondly, I want to uplift goal number four, specifically prevention and intervention proposed activities on behalf of our community. I strongly recommend that OPD use their own budget to assess youth and police relations, to inform policing practices and not to serve, and that a survey to inform community care to not be facilitated by the Long Beach Police Department in our survey, which was received and filed as official city data. 80% believe the best way to make our community safer and invest in community based youth development programs. Furthermore, additional data shows black indigenous youth of color in District six, seven and nine live in heavily police neighborhoods, which specifically lead to more fear and mistrust moving towards a new generation of hope and COVID 19 recovery means creating a process of community. I think your next speakers, Mac Harris. Good evening, Murcia Beach Council members. My name is Mac Harris. My pronouns are they them? And I'm representing Council District six. I am 22 years old. I'm also currently one of the youth ambassadors of the Institute, a plan that we are presenting here today. I am so excited to share this plan that we worked so hard on with you all, and I urge you to approve the recommendation to receive this and report and confirm the proposed citywide plan for youth and emerging adults. I grew up in the city. Went to high school in the city. Like myself. And then one more way back to myself. With the help of the community in the city, I wouldn't be where I am today without the community I found. That's what uplifting the voices do or reminding a young person of what their power looks like. This plan is a way for the city to listen and be accountable to the youth reside within it. I want to bring that to the attention of the Council today. The Need for Youth Fund. Young people need infrastructure to support city wise, positive youth development and dedicated funding to ensure there is equal access and resources and opportunities. It is finally time I start our city side by youth and invest in our future. Lastly, it is vital to this plan that young people in Long Beach have an equitable opportunity to continue shaping the implementation of this plan. We deserve a voice at the table. Prior to this, there is no end to institutionalized practice that brings young people to the table to talk about needs and priorities that will shape our city budget and policies. Many spaces are adult led to the release of this plan shows what can and should be done differently. Please consider this feedback. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan Wynn. Hi there. This is Jordan Win District two resident and representative for the everyone in Mommy's campaign. I just want to speak to the great support of this wonderful Strategic Youth Initiative that has been in the works for quite some time. At this point, all the wonderful people at many of the nonprofits, including Kaga, who have been very close to creating this this really successful looking program. I just want to emphasize the need for affordable housing. As someone who was recently a youth and someone who has siblings who are growing up, you know, born and raised through the wonderful Lumbee public schooling system, we have a very stark housing affordability crisis in front of myself. I am getting by, but as the years go on, rents continue to rise and our affordable housing needs also continue to rise. We need close to 11,000 new affordable units, according to our regional housing needs assessment. So when we think about affordable housing, we need to think about investing in our youth, the people who have grown here in Long Beach. You know, I went to poly and the slogan is Enter to learn, go forth to serve. And I love to serve my city here so long as it's not breaking the bank. So I thank you for bringing this presentation forward, and I look forward to all the good that will come from it. Thank you very much. Thank your next speaker is Mina Marder. Good evening, magazine Long Beach Councilmembers. My name is Mina. My pronouns are she her. I'm 18 and I'm currently a freshman at UC Santa Barbara, majoring in history of public policy and law. I graduated last year as a valedictorian from Wilson High School, where my involvement in clubs and student run organizations fostered in me a passion for community and youth activism. I am honored to be in front of you today as a youth ambassador representing District five. This plan is incredibly important to me and I'm so excited that we get to share it with you. I urge you to receive this report and confirm the proposed citywide strategic plan for youth and emerging adults. As someone who lived in Long Beach my entire life, I feel very close to these issues and I'm so grateful to have been a part of this process. Like many youth in America, I've struggled with mental health issues and experienced many barriers when trying to access support. This is an opportunity to attack this issue head on, especially since it has intensified because of the pandemic. The city needs to play a more active role in bringing mental health resources to students. It could look like prioritizing funding for on campus counseling, creating safe spaces for students who don't feel safe, talking about their emotions at home, or even educating families in the best way to support their children. Your people will allow us to secure the futures that we envision for ourselves and ensure the mental well-being of Long Beach youth for years to come. Although this plan is the first of its kind, it must not be the last. The strategic plan itself speaks to just how capable the youth are when they are empowered and valued in society. Youth have been at the forefront of several movements, especially in the past year. Our collective initiative has shown that there is no. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sharon Sinegal. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Sharon Sinegal and I'm the executive director of Rodney's house. We appreciate the dedication and hard work of the city staff and the youth ambassadors and the entire team, including Arnold Lopez and Eli, for their dedication to this youth initiative. This past week, Ronnie's House and Success and Challenges host the 35 Team and Creative Leadership Program that integrated mental health, mentorship and podcast training. Thanks to the CARES Act funding, we asked teens to answer a survey to tell us where their priorities were. And in this order, number one was opening up a business. Number two were career opportunities. Three, Tutoring and mental health teams are hungry for the knowledge and the programing and mentorship, and we owe them. And we have an obligation to them to ensure that they receive that support. If we are committed as a city to public safety, stopping gun violence, eliminating poverty and building an equitable Long Beach. We must invest in our youth through leadership programs, spaces for recreation and creativity, and we must connect them with the proper mentorship and mental health resources. We can leverage our city owned properties and work with our local businesses. We can also invest some of the money that is put into our police department, expand our CARES Act funding and move some of our cannabis dollars into our youth. Considering that the cannabis industry has hurt many communities with the war on drugs. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you very much for that. I'm going to turn this over to Vice Mayor Richardson, but I just wanted to just say something real briefly, because I've been listening to all the comment, and I just want to just I just have to start us off by just saying how impressive everyone that spoke is. And it just I'm sure for everyone that's going to speak from the council, it just gives, like me just so much hope to hear all of our young people and the future of our city speak so forcefully about the issues that they care about and about putting this plan together. And, you know, just the testament to even those that have gone on to the next phase of their education but are still involved and still back and promoting this plan. It just speaks to, I think, the integrity of everyone that was involved in this. And, I mean, it just brings me back to all the great memories of of being in a classroom and just seeing students succeed. And you guys are awesome. So just thank you for all those amazing comments that some of the best stuff I've heard and at a council meeting in a very long time and I just want to thank you all for really uplifting the rest of us. So excellent, excellent work and comments. So with that, Vice Mayor Richardson. I couldn't agree. I couldn't agree more, Mayor. I think first, the timing couldn't be better. All the things taking place in our community to hear such passion and vinegar from our young people, it's really exciting. And to see that they know what they're talking about, how they've contributed this report to standing up and endorsing this report, that means a lot. I want to acknowledge the youth ambassadors and everybody who participated, Jillian Mack, everyone who contributed to this. You did an incredible job on the Invest in Youth Coalition. I remember when this was just a twinkle in your eye in the beginning. You know, that request was for youth that you have to move away from, that you want to youth hear you loud and clear out. We pivoted and mayor, thank you. It was your budget that allocated $100,000 to start the conversation on Youth Fund. And the youth said, hey, let's use that on a strategic plan. So I'm great. I'm glad to see the progress that we have we've made. I remember there was a discussion at my field office three years ago, you know, of numerous youth, our planning, strategic planning, you know, to bring this to front of the city council. So it looks it looks good. I think the goal is it was it was a lot of things. I like the goal. I think that to create the best youth development system in America, it's holistic and intersectional. And we have great institutions already, but we need to work together with one strategic plan. I love the term Live Our Best Lives. Kelly said that a few times. I wrote that now for our youth to live their best lives that we want for our children want them to live their best lives. I love the statement of possibility that was incredible that the youth prepared. I think the challenges faced by youth that were outlined really align with the challenges faced by the broader community. They brought out mental health. They brought up transportation to transit. And that's that's really insightful. I think equity really comes across here. And and framing our youth is assets and that's really a youth development to me is about reframing the conversation from youth, having a bit of insurmountable odds to changing those ads for making sure the system promotes and develops harmony. I think that's important to know. I'm inspired by these youth. I was 26 when I started working at City Hall. I'm you've all talked about 16 to 24 the adolescent, right? You guys can change the world. You can change the city to make it better. You have the opportunity to do that more specifically, just a few things. I think some critical next steps are important. You know, you strategic plan was one step in the reconciliation. We created the office youth development manager you see past there's all of those things create alignment I believe people know I'm always talking about plan plan this plan that. But then after you have the plan, you work the plan. That's where we need to go. Next one, a couple of things. One, I'm going to introduce the motion on Tuesday to begin the process. Now that measure us is adopted, create the process of structuring a youth fund for the community, for the community, as well as the youth that talked about we should leverage our measure us. But also look at L.A. County Measure J. That's important. Secondly, we got to think about integrating youth into our all of our planning process. We're already doing that. But I think the way we can appropriately do that is think about a civic engagement element in our general plan, our youth, to actually submit themselves and their voice into the future. The last thing I'll say is there was a discussion during My Brother's Keeper and all of this about creating a youth council within the city of our youth at Youth and Adults, the Youth Council of Youth. That's something I want to see that we pursue. Now, I'm not sure what the timeline would be. That's certainly something I think we need to have. Thank you to staff. Thank you to everyone who contributed this. I think this landed in a great. And I'm really eager. The timing is incredible to see what we can do to grow this clan and to make sure that we work this plan with our new offices. Development and measure U.S. Opportunity Manager Jack. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Price. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank staff for that amazing presentation. I love that it was done in partnership between health and parks, because I think that programing and providing opportunities and activities that are subsidized by the city for youth throughout the city to be involved in is such an important piece of this. And so I want to thank staff for the presentation. I want to thank Gabe Sanders, who was one of the youth that I recommended, and Mina motta, who spoke tonight, and Ali Khan, who did not speak tonight, but who were all people I recommended and served on this committee. I'm just so impressed by you guys. Mina motta was involved in our youth participatory budgeting plan that we did many years ago, and there's not a day that I don't walk through Marina Vista Park and look at the Luke Johnson Sport Court and think of the work that that youth did to honor a third district youth who passed away as a result of cancer. But what they did was engage that park and activate it. And that's been really positive. And I really want to talk about just Gabe's comments regarding climate change. There was a study that I read about recently in The New York Times regarding how climate change is affecting the youth in terms of allergies and how much longer they're staying sick. And these are climate change impacts that sometimes we don't think about, especially for a councilmember who represents the coast. We're often thinking about sea level rise and other major climate impacts, but we're not thinking about how these climate impacts are affecting our youth and their ability to succeed and thrive. I love the part of the strategic plan that talks about housing and transportation. I know that for my mother and I, we struggled quite a bit to find our footing in America when we came. And, you know, my own personal experience has dictated to me that if you don't have a safe structure from with from which to build your future, have that solid foundation, it's really the odds are against you. And so anything that we can do as a city to help build that strong structure in terms of housing and transportation is critical. We can't expect people to to thrive if they're set up for failure. And so I think that that's really important that that's in there. And then I just want to talk a lot about mental health and substance abuse. I staff one of the collaborative courts in my daily job, and I see people whose lives have been completely devastated as a result of substance abuse that started when they were in this age group. And specifically, what concerns me the most is opiate use. And I just worry that sometimes the pressures in life get really hard for all of our youth, regardless of what part of the city they live in. And if they don't have the support and the infrastructure in place, then they can easily go down the wrong path. And once you get on that wrong path, it's it's so difficult to get back out and be able to to make something great of your life. And so I just want to encourage our health department and our Parks and Rec department to think about mental health in terms of our youth. We should be offering programing in every corner of this city for our youth to have the support of infrastructure in place, to route their anxieties, their fears and their concerns in a healthy way. That, to me, is the number one issue that we should be focused on once we establish a strong foundation of housing and transportation and get people in a place where they can actually think about the type of support they need and utilize those opportunities. So I want to thank the youth that served on this committee, those of whom I I'm aware of, those who have never met. Thank you for your leadership, because you guys are the future of the city. And I'm really grateful for your participation in this process. Thank you. The next step we have. And by the way, I think the motion was made by Vice Mayor Richardson and there was a second by Councilman Rice. Is that right? Right. Okay. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Then we have. Next up is Councilman Mongo. Thank you. What a great presentation. This is amazing. I want to thank all the ambassadors and the hard work that you put in. You spoke so eloquently about the item and your passion that you put into it. Thank you so much for your contributions. As I've been saying a lot with our listening sessions, it's really we as the elected officials that are here to represent your ideas and your opinions and make sure that the things that are important to you and allow you to grow, thrive and be prosperous are available. And so thank you for bringing forward this roadmap. I look forward to investing in it, and I really appreciate everyone who contributed to this report. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Zoro, please. Thank you, Mayor. So I want to thank my girls in action for their leadership, as well as our youth ambassadors, our, you know, the youth that participated Project Teen Advisory Committee part and all the partners. And just so much went into completing this, especially during a pandemic. And I just want to thank Ms.. Collopy and Mr. Dennis for his presentation and all the staff were working on this item. You know, as the former executive director of My Girls in Action from 2006 to 2011, I'm just so proud of our young people's leadership to see it as item and that it proposes a citywide strategic plan for young youth and emerging adults. You know, at that time, when I was that age, it was a vision, a dream that all of us doing the youth development and leadership work had something like this an office for Youth Development and to create an integrated system for young people, to have a seat at the table, to have their voice heard, and to make decisions impacting their lives. So I believe it's just so critical, crucial that we invest in young people's success by investing in programs and process, that it prevents the social health, social health, public health and educational disparities and inequities. So I've been I've always been deeply and fiercely passionate about developing and supporting our young people to organize and fight for a system that works for them. And I still do. And this is just a great example of how we can better support young people to grow and thrive and be engaged in a civic process and a systemic beginning process for systemic change. And I support keeping the Office of Youth Development and the Health and Human Services Department and of course, to supporting the strategic plans implementation. And I enthusiastically support this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, too, want to just leave my congratulations and applaud all of those involved in creating this plan, especially the youth ambassadors who participated. Our staff and the many community partners and advisors who were engaged in this is a very impressive document. I think it's a it's a great guideline and a good start for continue or improving engagement of our youth. I think looking at this, you know, understanding that positive youth development is the framework or a baseline for us to to develop this plan. I would say it would be lost on us, not to to mention that the most positive youth development is good parenting. And so I salute the parents out there who are nurturing and doing the right thing in terms of developing their kids and allowing them to build the confidence and allowing them to dream and be there, achieve their best lives. I do like that this plan emphasizes safe communities and stable communities as a as a as something necessary for it, for youth to be developed in the way that that provides a positive outcome for them. And I think that includes, you know, livable communities, walkable communities. We have to continue our investment in neighborhood libraries and in parks and recreation programs that really go a long way to to create a positive, a good experience for our youth in our city. And also, I would like to to just make a suggestion that, you know, we we continue to engage. I didn't see it much in the plan, but we continue to engage. You know, outlets like. Youth sports and the coaches related to those still sport programs as as strong strategic partners for the city and in developing. Hopefully this will will be done through the Office of Youth Development. The mentoring the many mentoring programs in the city as well as coordinating the internships that are so important in terms of developing our youth. But this is this is a great, great plan. I want to applaud the staff. I want to applaud the youth who were involved in this. I look forward to good things coming out of this Office of Youth Development. And I'm glad that this is that we now have an umbrella kind of organization or piece of our organization that will help us focus more on youth development in the city. So again, thank you. I'm happy to support this and I was delighted to see this before this evening. Thank you. Councilman Ringa. Thank you. And I think the comments have been made by my colleague is spot on. They're all exit comments and I couldn't be more proud of our youth in the public comment period when they came forward and spoke of their experience and their wishes for the future. We're doing a good job here at Long Beach. As I go, we'll close to 40 years of working with the city and the city, not only as an employee, but also as a member of the Community College Board of Trustees and City Council. And this is a proud moment for me as a city council member because we've tried this before. I want to be the stick in the mud. But we've had youth commissions before. We've had strategic, strategic plans dealing with youth and getting them to a level that we want. But this is the most comprehensive report and plan that I have that I've seen anywhere, and I think that it's an excellent one to reach out to both our directors of Parks, Recreation, Marine and Health and Human Services for the detail that they've done. And of course, they don't do it without the support of their staff. I think everyone did a great job with this. But as you all agree, the old village proverb goes It takes a village to do everything and to do anything to be successful. And by the way, if I didn't see it last week, I would say right now that Happy Black History Month, when it comes to these types of projects and these kinds of commitments, what I say, it takes a village. It takes all the stakeholders that we have in the city to get involved from employers to our boards of education, community colleges, universities. And we have in place the college promise that I think we can use and benefit from and get it more engaged in terms of what's going on with our youth and in our future. We have the city college, we have the district, we have the university, and then we have that fourth cog that are which was the of law, which involved which creates the full loop of education, internships and opportunity and employment. And where we put all that together, we have a successful and great city. So I am looking forward to the implementation of this program. There's a lot of different elements to it that we need to work on, but I think it won't be. It won't work unless we get everybody involved. And that's where we have been successful in the past, is that there hasn't really been that connection, that that opportunity to get all the stakeholders involved and engaged in what we're trying to do here. So I'm looking forward to working with our colleagues on the College Board and the school board at the university to strengthen our educational system. To strengthen the opportunities that we have for our youth to go into the programs, not only in terms of the community, college and university would be a doctor, programs and high paying jobs here in the city and elsewhere. So that that's my comment today and had really like I say, it's a proud moment for me being on the city council adopting this plan. Thank you very much. Thank you for that, councilwoman in Dallas. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say a big, big thank you for Director Denis and Ms.. Collopy for this very impressive presentation. And even bigger, thank you to our ambassadors who obviously did put in so much work into into this plan. And I'm so excited. I couldn't be more thrilled with what's supporting this item. And as we all know it, it makes a huge difference when we have programs set in place for our youth. They could mean the difference between going down the wrong path or creating and achieving their dreams and being successful and really productive members of society. So I'm just super thrilled to be able to support these efforts that have been made. And I know it's been a long time coming and I know that it's been worked on for years, but the end result is a really great result and I look forward to in the near future supporting a fund for our children and youth. I think that that's going to be very important and that we need to move in that direction. So thank you very much for everyone that worked on this. And I'm very, very happy, any group to support this item tonight. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. Just what a great presentation. And thank you, Director Colletti, and thank you, Director Dennis, for all of your hard work on this report. I also want to give a big shout out to all the 19 youth ambassadors and the staff who work so hard on all the forums and all the town halls. And like the mayor said earlier in his comments, I was just so impressed and and just really moved by all the the speakers tonight. I'm just so proud of the youth in our city, I believe, and the youth in our city. And I, too, want them to live and fulfill their best lives. And I look forward to supporting this office and making sure that we're able to find all of the elements of this plan. And as a young person who grew up in this city, I'm just so proud of our progress. Just great work, everyone. Thank you. Next up is Councilwoman Mango. Thank you. I was so excited to thank everyone and the youth and so impressed by all the things they said. I forgot that I had one question. Mr. Modica or Ms.. Cappelli, perhaps one of the slides discussed the transportation for youth and the desire to have complimentary transportation available. I know that we have a program in my district that we're piloting with the Transit Authority. Is that project. I mean, it was before COVID and obviously it was it was initiated and provided through Millikan High School. And so I'm not sure where we are with programs like that. Is that something that we could get an update on either via email or two from Ford just so we know that they know that providing free transportation to our youth is a a critical service. Councilmember Enter the objective one under goal six the current activity and say we're supporting a discount of bus passes for eligible students and increasing awareness at the city colleges. No cost, strong beach bus pass. So there are some free options right now. And then the intent would be to expand that. So I'm not as aware of the one that you're referring to, but we'd love to learn more. On how wonderful it was to the Long Beach Transit director way before that. And that program rolled out its best to potentially move citywide. And with COVID, I guess students weren't technically moving to and from school, but we can do during COVID to help facilitate getting those transportation options into their hands. I imagine that they're just as important now as when they're in school. Thank you so much. And with the staff and the community and the participants and the ambassadors, great presentation. Thank you. That concludes council comment and I just want to circle back and just thank everyone on the team. And I think folks have been really, really active at all levels at the city and it's just been really wonderful to see. And so thank you to the Health Department, to our Parks Department, all the especially the youth and the different groups that also were involved in the creation. And so great work, really great plan. I look forward to being able to implement it here at the city and and continue to engage youth as actively as this process did . So thank you. And a roll call vote, please. District one. I. District two. I. District three. Councilwoman. Is that an eye? It was an I. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. District four. District five. I. District six. Office. District seven. II. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes the two big items we had tonight. Most of the public comment. So we're going to go back to open public comment. And Madam Karp, you can go ahead and go through those and then we'll go back to the agenda.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 5.54.010.F and 5.54.030.B, relating to Hotel Worker Safety Precautions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04092019_19-0323

Item 19, please. Item 19 Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to hotel workers safety precautions. Read the first time and leader to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Is any public comment inside this? Gonzalez to. No. You're to. I would like to speak on it. I had one question for the city attorney. Could we include a private right of enforcement for hotel workers in this? The answer is yes. We couldn't do it tonight and pass it for first reading so we could. You have two options. I think you could either amend the motion to send us back and to revise these ordinance to add the private right. Or you could adopt this this evening as first reading and second reading, and we could amend it and bring it back at a future, adding that also. Yes. Is there a reason why we didn't include it? It wasn't requested at the time that this was amended. There was no private right of action requested to be amended to add it to it. I don't think we need long dialog on this, but I think it's smart to have a private right of action in this. And my bad. If in the past I wasn't clear and specific on wanting that. I really do appreciate the work that you, your team did on drafting this. So whatever we have to do to include that. And we can meet with your office to make sure we we can that. One line that that's in. And in essence, it really I mean, it doesn't technically have to be in there. A person could bring this right of action right now. You want it to be expressed in there. I understand that. And it makes it obviously makes it clear. But someone could bring it today without that. Yes. Okay, then let's vote on this thing and keep going. Thank you for your clarity. Any public comment on this item? Not, please. Okay. Price. Excuse me. The question I had is when this. Ordnance is available. Is it going to be translated in all of the languages for language, access policy in terms of outreach and education and all of that? I think the answer to that is, yes, we would we would distribute it and the clerk would we would work with the clerk to distribute it as we do any and all other ordinances. And I think that it is required to be in the five languages. It is not the it doesn't have the exact same language as Measure WWE did regarding that. Right. Okay. I just want to make sure that whatever we do, it's easy for employers to communicate to employees and that any outreach materials that we produce as a city and I think we should should be in all those languages. Is that? That sounds like it. So if this. Passes, then we would. Create an outreach strategy and figure. Out how to make sure everyone's aware, especially this is a limited group of hotels. That we can reach out to relatively easily. Great. I think this is the group that will need the most outreach. Please cast your vote. Councilmember, which is in motion carries. Fine. Thank you. Now we have time for public comment on non agenda items. With this request, please come forward. The speaker will have up to 3 minutes. Not agenda items. And you would like to speak. Now is the time. Okay. Going. What I'm saying is. Come on. You have 3 minutes. Okay. So you and I can say you were talking in regards to in the six how you know, you're concerned about the pharmacies. Yes. And the pharmacies being impacted by any kind of amending of the ordinance in relation to drive thrus.

Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the realignment of Shoreline Drive as part of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project; and

LongBeachCC_05112021_21-0417

Item 16 Report from Development Services Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit in connection with the realignment of Shoreline Drive as part of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project and adopt a resolution granting city manager the authority to initiate consolidated coastal development permits districts two and three. Thank you. I know that we are going to move as a gene firm. If I can get a motion in a second for you on this. There's a motion by account from your ranga. Can I get a second? Can I get a second, please? Second account on Sunday has moved to the June 1st meeting. Roll Call vote. District one. I. District two. I. A district. By. District for. Hi. District five. District five. I. Again, I. Thank you. District six. By. District seven. I. District eight. Councilmember us. Okay. That's an I from council district eight and Council District nine. All. Thank you. Motion carries.

A proclamation honoring Peter Baertlein for 35 Years of service to the people of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_01242022_22-0114

New Council member Cashman and seen no other hands raised. We're going to go ahead and move along in our agenda. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. We have two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Flynn, would you please read Proclamation 20 2-011 for please? Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 20 2-011 for honoring Peter Bart line for 35 years of service to the people of Denver. Whereas the city and county of Denver and its Department of Transportation and Infrastructure have been privileged to have the leadership and dedication of principal project manager Peter Bartley, who is also known as the city's walking history book. For more than 35 years. Whereas Peter Bart Line has been a dedicated steward of the city's vertical and horizontal infrastructure, including planning, design and building. And. WHEREAS, Peter Bart line has celebrated the completion of dozens of critical infrastructure projects that have improved safety, travel, safety and reliability, increased mobility, reduced flood risks, and made Denver more sustainable and resilient. And. Whereas, Peter Bart Line has been dedicated to mentoring staff and coworkers. And. WHEREAS, some of the highlights of Peter Bart Line's career include managing city activities related to the construction of Coors Field, being a key member of the negotiation team charged with the redevelopment of the 4000 acre former Stapleton Airport site, spearheading interdepartmental initiatives and obtaining a $1 million technology loan to create the city's geographic information system. And being a key member of the negotiation team that created the tax increment finance district, metropolitan district and Development Agreement for a $200 million redevelopment of the Gates site. And. WHEREAS, Peter Bart Line served as city liaison to the Regional Transportation District Leadership, representing the city's interest in the implementation of the $2.1 billion fast tracked commuter rail expansion within the city's corporate boundary. And. Whereas, Peter Bart line provided direction and oversight as the city lead on the project management team for the $500 million redevelopment of the Denver Union Station Transit Terminal now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver's Section one. But the Council of the City and County of Denver hereby recognizes and honors Peter Bart line for his over 35 years of outstanding service to the people of Denver, his coworkers and his community. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Peter Bart line. And Q Councilmember Flynn, your motion to adopt. Thank you. I move the proclamation 20 2-0114 be adopted. Okay. Thank you. We've got the motion. And I believe Councilmember Hines had the second there comments by members of Council Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I think the rush to second that just shows how respected Peter is or actually more respects the the continuing competition between Katzmann and earned in the second things. Some of us on the Zoom call can see Peter waiting after the adoption, after the vote on this to make remarks. And I think you can see that he's obviously much too young to retire. He probably started with the city when he was ten years old, it looks like. Madam President and colleagues, I had the honor of getting I got to know Peter when I was working at RTD. After the newspaper closed and I had covered the fast track initiatives, I was hired on at RTD to be the communications manager for the Eagle Project, which built the $2.1 billion commuter rail project. That's the line that goes out to the airport, which we now call the A-line. It's the G line that goes out to Arvada, West Road, Wheat Ridge, and the the B line that goes up to Westminster. All three of those originate at Union Station. And I got to know Peter up in the fast track project office, the Eagle Project Office. And I can tell you from personal experience, having been on the other side and representing Artie's interests, that Peter was a very effective and knowledgeable and strident representative for Denver City and County's interest in all of those projects, much to our chagrin at times, I'm sure. But he and he's also, by the way, a very valued constituent in that council district, too. I believe he's still living down here. I haven't I haven't visited him lately, but I've been over to his house a few years ago. But such dedication, Madam President, and colleagues, really does need to be recognized as people have spent their careers doing fantastic work for the city. And you can see you can see Peter's work every time you go around through the Central Park neighborhood, the infrastructure there at Denver Union Station, the transit project there, and the A-line out to the airport, the G and the B lines up through North Denver. It's very evident that Peter gave his heart and soul to this city, and I'm very happy to sponsor this and very sorry to say goodbye to a valued city employee. I see that there are other BART lines in our attendees and he obviously has some family members here to wish him well. Madam President, I ask about my colleagues all unanimously join me in congratulating and honoring Peter. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilman Flint for bringing this forward, and I don't want to repeat what he has already stated, but I want to share that I had the pleasure of working and interfacing with Peter on a number of those projects that were spelled out in the proclamation. He was always the ultimate professional in the way that he worked with all of us on council and with community as well. And, you know, as Councilman Flynn said, those projects will will live on. And I just really appreciate his dedication to our city. And I want to thank him and his family because, you know, they they always sort of play that back seat when they have to attend evening meetings and and just always be on when, you know, they're expected to do this work for the city. So, Peter, I just want to say thank you for all your years of dedication to the city of Denver. And I wish you the best of luck. Sorry to see you leaving. Whoever steps into your position has some very big shoes to fill. So, again, I'm happy to support the proclamation tonight and and really appreciate all your hard work over these years. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, we have Councilmember Cashman. You're up next. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I will be brief. I'm pleased to support this proclamation. I'm pleased for Peter that he's taking the opportunity to perhaps walk into a little bit easier time of life. But I'm never pleased watching someone retire that I've enjoyed working with and have so much respect for I. The main issue that I ran into Peter about was the Water Waterways study a couple of years ago that was looking at the Platte River Weir Gulch and Harvard Gulch. And we had a a public meeting over at the Harvard Gulch Rec Center. And you had, you know, dozens of families worried that their home might be taken or their property disturbed. And I was just couldn't have been more impressed at the way Peter handled the situation and explain was able to explain what was going on, calm some ruffled feathers and just present the city appropriately with compassion for the homeowners . So congratulations on retirement. Okay, have a great time. And yeah, there'll be big shoes to fill. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And not seen in the other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in here. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for reaching out about this proclamation. In District 11, we have a lot of metro districts and we've got a lot of those agreements. And Peter has really been the person in the city that has been responsible for making sure that what needed to get done got implemented. And I'm proud that we worked together. Peter, on the District 11 medians all the way from the Montebello community out to the edge of Picadilly Road, and that that's an ongoing project. But really appreciate your partnership and making sure that we have the safety measures in as well. And so happy to support this proclamation this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Flynn. I. Herndon. I have. I cannot. I can. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clarke. All right. Madam President. I. And I'm secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 2-0114 has been adopted and Councilmember Flynn will start the five minute timer. But do you want to go ahead and introduce Peter for us this evening or we can just 11 and let him say his remarks. Certainly, Peter is here and I know some of his families and in the Zoom meeting as well and but it's my pleasure to call on him. Peter, the only thing I can say is that I wish that we were meeting in person in the chamber so that I could shake your hand and others could congratulate you in person. But congratulations on a career well done and accomplished. And we look forward to to your remarks and any advice you could give us. Thank you. Go ahead. Madam President and members of council. I can't believe this day has come. Well, Denver has just been you know, being with you all has just been part of what I've been doing for 37 years. And it's like a hand-in-glove fit and a celebration to celebrate my career. Like, this is really a capstone on my career and I just can't thank you enough for gone words tonight. And Councilman Flynn, any time you're out pounding the pavement, knocking on door, you can stop by for a coke up. You're always welcome. I really miss being there in person. If. If we were there tonight, I would be pointing to my beautiful wife, Ann, and my children, Brandi, Sarah and Phillip. And I know they're on the call tonight. I know some of my brothers are on the call and friends and my sister and just everyone. You're all amazing. And I'm truly blessed, you know, to to have a career at the city, to have such a loving family around me. For those of you who know me, I am a German engineer and a builder. So no need to set the five minute timer. I can I can certainly cut that by at least 3 minutes. What makes my time so memorable is that I'm not only doing what I love to do, but I'm doing it in the city . I love to live it and to do it well. I may be leaving the building behind, but an and I will be Denver residents for many years to come. Denver will always be our home. I tell folks, if you need any advice, I will dispense it gladly for free. So, you know, just look me up and I'll provide a phone number. I do want to do a shout out to Dottie. I mean, I've been a public works guy and a Dottie for my entire career. We've undergone so many changes. I mean, what the city was 37 years ago, in 1985 and what it is now, it's just day and night, the level of complexity of everything and and how we look to our citizens and listen and have concern for them. It makes us all better. And so thank you to you. Thank you to our citizens. Thank you to the to the folks at Dottie for giving me a home and a family to be a part of for all these years. So thank you very much. God bless you all. APPLAUSE for you, Peter. We really appreciate that. And you have been a stellar city employee, so dedicated, and we look forward to you getting to spend some of that important quality time with your family as you move into retirement. And so thank you very much for a job well done, sir. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you again, Councilman Flynn, for bringing that proclamation forward. We're going to go ahead and move on here, our second proclamation this evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0115, please allow me to do so.

Councilor Fernandes Anderson called Docket #0486, message and order, referred on April 13, 2022 Docket #0486, approving an appropriation One Hundred Thirty Eight Million Five Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($138,535,000.00) for the acquisition of interests in land or the acquisition of assets, or the landscaping, alteration, remediation, rehabilitation, or improvement of public land, the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, alteration, remodeling, enlargement, demolition, removal or extraordinary repairs of public buildings, facilities, assets, works or infrastructure; for the cost of feasibility studies or engineering or architectural services for plans and specifications; for the development, design, purchase and installation of computer hardware or software and computer-assisted integrated financial management and accounting systems; and any and all cost incidental or related to the above described projects; for the purposes of the Boston Public Schools, from the Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing no objection, the matter was before the body. On mot

BostonCC_04132022_2022-0486

Docket number 0486 message on order approving an appropriation of $138,535,000 for the acquisition of interest in land or the acquisition of assets or the landscaping, alteration, remediation, rehabilitation and improvement of public land. The Construction Reconstruction. Rehabilitation Improvement Alteration. Remodeling, Enlargement, Demolition Removal or extra ordinary repairs of public buildings, facilities, assets, works, or infrastructure for the cost of feasibility studies or engineering or architectural services for plans and specifications for the development, design, purchase and installation of computer hardware or software and computer assisted integrated financial management and accounting systems and any and all costs incidental related to the above described projects for the purposes of the Boston Public Schools. Filed in the Office of the City Clerk on April 11, 2022. Docket number 0487 message in order authorizing a limit for the Boston Public Schools Revolving Fund for fiscal year 2023 to support the maintenance and repair of Boston Public School facilities, including custodial and utility costs

Recommendation to request City Attorney to work with the Development Services Department to amend location requirements in the Long Beach Municipal Code 5.92.420 - Location requirements.

LongBeachCC_05052020_20-0385

Me thinking that I will do a final item. Just 24. Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to request city attorney to work with development services to amend location requirements and the municipal code for retail adult use cannabis. Thank you. I think that council member Janine Pearce is going to recuse herself. Yes, I'm going to recuse myself from this item from my previous work with from the Earth Cannabis. Thanks so much. Thank you. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you. Yes. First and foremost, I just wanted to say that I'm really excited to just see this business coming into our paying street, especially now. I know that there is going to be. A lot of stress on rebuilding the economy right now. And so I know that I was working on this item before, you know, COVID 19 hit us. But now that COVID 19 has hit us, it's even more desirable to bring businesses in and help them survive, especially in the downtown area. With that being said, one of the things that we're trying to to establish here is a small change in the ordinance, the location of where cannabis can be distributed or sold. Retail wise. But before I go on, I would like to ask city staff if they could clarify some things for me. I feel like there's been a little miscommunication or I just feel like maybe by me asking this, you know, it'll help me and everybody else who's listening, you know, add some clarification to this item. First of all, the business that is applying at 240, 3433 Pine Avenue, and where are they in the process to getting their medical cannabis license? Councilwoman Zendejas. And this is Jay Callery from the city manager's office. We we do have a business that has applied for a change of location to Pine Avenue. The address that you're referring to, and my understanding is the business that has applied for that location has submitted a business license or a change of location application to the city. They've been approved at that location for a medical dispensary business license. They've submitted architectural drawings to the city, and they're midway through that process to receive permits and initiate construction. Thank you, Angie. And I know we've talked about this before, but I also wanted it to be clear to everyone as well. Another question that I had is, well, how? Do you see that there might be any obstacles from them actually getting the license, the medical license to do business there at this hospital? Not from the city's end. Once a business is approved for a location, it's really at their discretion how quickly they move through the process, how quickly they can submit plans to the city that are up to code. If they initiate construction, how long it takes them to build the facility and complete inspections and obtain a license. So from from the city's end, there is no reason why a business would be held up in the process. Okay. And another another question, AJ, is when they're going through the check, hindsight, you know, for lack of a better term, what is it that a medical marijuana licensing business is inquiring as far as like smell for, you know, a cannabis business? During the application process. Cannabis businesses are aware that if your question is about odor, that ultimately when they receive a license, they're prohibited from having any odor detected from outside of of the facility. But our our building bureau staff have told us on multiple occasions that that is something that's very difficult to inspect for during the planning check process. And so that the odor control issue is one that we deal with after a license has been issued and the business is operating. And if we receive a complaint about odor, that's something that we enforce through our health department. Okay. And one of the things that I know and maybe Councilwoman Price, you can you can chime in on this, but I know that we have a business like this business that's coming into to Pine Street. I know that. Have you gotten a lot of complaints as far as having a you know, it's in such close proximity to other businesses. I know that they share well walls with other businesses. I don't know. Councilmember Price, might you be able to answer that? Sure. So this particular business that's the subject of the agenda item tonight happens to be the owner and operator of the business that it's in my district on Second Street. I have I have a couple in my district, but this one particularly is on a business corridor that has close proximity to residences. I will say that he has perhaps presented an operating model that might not be realistic, because I'm not sure that most owners and operators would be as responsible as he is. So, you know, the biggest concerns I have is what happens when he's not the owner operator. But in regards to what's happened on Seventh Street is we've worked very closely with the owner operator, which is the same one as this agenda item in regards to any odors or practices that we've received complaints about. Honestly, I think I can count on one hand the number of complaints we've received regarding the specific business of this specific operation. What's the subject matter of the business and the general anxiety along with the business type? We've had a lot of those, but they're not unique to this particular business. We've had very, very little concerns from the public about it. And to the extent that there have been concerns, the business owner has worked with us very closely to make sure that. Things such as odor or you know, I always like to use the example of the security guards outside and how they're dressed. You know, I always like the security guards at all of our marijuana dispensaries in the third district to look more like greeters than police officers. And he's done a really good job of doing that. So they blend very well into the street and into the culture of that particular neighborhood. So I don't know if that answers your question, but the owner of this specific owner operator has been very responsible in regards to those issues. Thank you, Councilmember, for that. Yes. And then just answer my question. How long have they been there? That's one of the things they don't know. You know. Wow. That's a good question. I would say two years, that may not be exactly on point, but I would say about two years. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that's one of the things that I just wanted to clarify and for others that this this medical medical business, medical cannabis business is coming to Pine Street. Now, one of the things that we're trying to do with this ordinance is be able for them to have adult use and to be able to sell adult use cannabis as well. And that was the whole meaning of this motion and trying to see if we could do something like that. So I kind of wanted to hear from my colleagues and I'm hoping that they'll be supportive of this item. I know there's some miscommunications and stuff like that, so I wanted to kind of air it out and be able to come out with it, you know, with something good going forward because we really need it. One of the things that excites me about this business, this one, it would be the first one in our downtown Long Beach to to to be, you know, in the mix of downtown would be amazing for me to see that in our district, in the area, it would be bring foot traffic to a much, much needed corridor, business corridor right there, especially right now and then need a businesses flourishing. We really need that help right there. And, you know, I just want to make sure that we are open to helping businesses succeed. And just not too long ago, I had a business that was really, really trying to make something really spectacular in my district but was not able to stay. And we had to what I had to painfully watch them leave and and not become a business that would really would have changed my district for the positive. And so I can foresee that I have a vision for this business, you know, in the First District. And I want to see, you know, I want to see it come and enhance our our business corridor right there. Yes. This owner is very responsible. He is very, very willing to work with the community and has reached out, you know. And so I think that that if this was a huge, huge problem, I think I'd have a lot of residents that would be opposed to this. But I'm not getting a lot of that. So and that's probably because we've been, you know, trying to reach out and stuff and, you know, we want to make sure that we're moving forward together on this item. And I do understand that this would be a city wide change, and I do understand that. But I also understand that it's mostly affected in the first and second District by and the reason I say that is that it's here we have the most mixed use buildings with resident and commercial, and it seems that that's going to be the trend going forward. So just, you know, that's those are my thoughts and I'm looking forward to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you. That's why Richardson. No, thank you. I'm supportive of the motion I think they will make. That is the consideration that councilwoman they have mentioned about seeing if the ordinance can be amended for the downtown planning district, PD 29 or whatever it was. That way, you know, that that obviously the downtown is different than everywhere else in the city and it allows for the planning commission and the planners and city staff to sort of treat the downtown Pine Avenue experience differently than you might treat, let's say, Atlantic Avenue in Bixby Knolls or some other corridor, you know, across the city . So I would say I think that makes sense and I'm supportive of it. Thanks. Mayor, Councilmember Richardson, that you the item that you just discussed is not reflective of what the agenda item says is that as an amendment to the motion by. Uh, councilmembers. I'm sorry. I thought it was an amendment. Was not. So I think I think what what what the city attorney is asking is, is that was not Mary's motion. And so is is Mary accepting that change that we were asking Charlie? Yes. I'm not sure on that motion. On on what if I understood Councilmember Richardson correctly? You talked about possibly limiting this to PD 30, I believe is the area it's in. And that is not what this motion asks us to do. I'm listening. But I thought. I thought that she closed her comments. Oh, no. Maybe I was too misunderstood. Think I was saying a lot, but. But that's something that I can and that I will consider. But I really would like to hear from all of our colleagues on this matter first. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. City Councilman Price. Yes. My and the seconder on the motion. No shall. No. No. Okay. Sorry. You're just calling on me because I cued up. Yes. I think that Councilman Richardson just added the amendment that I was going to ask about. So I so can I just get some clarification on that? Is that part of the motion that Councilwoman Zendejas is bringing? Because because I would feel much more comfortable with this if there was that amendment. That's something I'm highly considering. Okay. It just. Just for the record. I like. That. Well, if it makes it easier, I. I would like to accept that amendment. Okay. I'm. Yes. Okay. So the amendment is is limited to PD 30. Is that what the amendment is? Yes. Okay. So I think I was about to say that your initial motion didn't have a second yet. So I think with this change, it does have a second. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Let me go back. Councilman Pryce, do you have anything else? You work very much. And thank you, Councilwoman Cindy Hess. Yes, thank you. Councilman Mongo. Yes. Are there any limits to the number of these that could pop up in PD 30? In the agenda item. Um, there, there are a location requirements for dispensaries. Dispensaries cannot locate within 1000 feet of one another. So that would, in theory, limit the number of dispensaries. Unfortunately, I don't know how many that would be. It really depends on the number of of areas in PD 30 where they can locate where various other buffers are, and how far apart the different dispensaries could locate. So all comment. This particular business owner also owns a business in my district and he's been great to work with. Not all dispensary owners are great to work with and not all dispensaries treat the community well. And so I have bigger concerns that one this could be. Taking over areas. I mean, a thousand feet is not very much. It's literally across the street. People in our district thought that a thousand feet was much more significant than it was. They voted yes on an item before them on the ballot and then just the community uproar. But they were across the street from a school, literally across the street just caused massive panic and pandemonium because people don't realize. Across the major street is is it? And so the kids were crossing the street right there, and it was just not great. So councilman's in the house, I would consider. I would urge you to consider that we've had extensive years, years of council discussion about dispensaries, and we're very fortunate to have Elliott as a business owner in this community. But as we've seen in the last hundred and 20 days, things can change dramatically. And Elliott might not be the owner of this business 60 days from now. And so I would strongly encourage a see you process. I know CEO fees are not required currently in our ordinance, but residential uses of these in residential districts are also not allowed. We require copies for restaurants and liquor stores and other high traffic. Huh? Businesses that you are going to want to protect yourself and future councilmembers from other potential owners that. Honey undocumented aliens we. Come from other things that could pop up. So I would request a friendly amendment to require a city to allow this business. Councilwoman Sun has. And I would like to wait in here for the other council members to chime in, please. Okay. Right on. There's no other accounts numbers cued up, but I do have some comments and maybe some questions as well. So I've shared I've shared some of my my thoughts also with Councilman Zendejas previously, I wanted to ask staff that they think that Councilman Price and Councilmember Mongo are correct, that the that the operator has is actually actually running some really good operations as they relate to cannabis in the city. So that that's, I think, a really good sign there. Is there a requirement as far as the ability of. Of the operator to switch out to a different operator at any time. Yes. Mayor Garcia, like all cannabis license holders, can sell their business. We have a transfer of ownership process. It's a matter of filling out a form and submitting that form to the city with signatures. And we will accept that and transfer allow for the transfer to take place. Okay. So I have a I have a different perspective than in the motion. It's currently in print. So this is I wanted to share for the record some of my concerns. I have actually no comment or issues with the cannabis dispensary as it relates to the original motion that Councilman is putting forward. But I looking more broadly now that this motion has changed, which is not what I was expecting or, you know, initially to go to PD 30 only my assumption would be when we had this discussion in the past, Mr.. MODICA Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing PD 30 only would actually bring a large number of the same type of business to PD 30 because of how much PD 30 is is actually this designation, is that correct or am I wrong? So I'm going to I'm going to have a J take a crack at that. As I understand it, you know, most of your mixed views are going to be within PD 30, but it's hard to predict how many would come or not come because you also are going to be buffering each other out. So it's hard to say that would equal six or seven or one. It really depends on the location. So AJ, can you talk to that? I mean, and the only reason why I ask is because not that, it's not that it's actually a good or bad thing to have one. Q Or more. I think the issue is that when we've done these kind of speed specific maps in the past, it's taken us many months to actually analyze the data as to how many a certain type of business. Right. And this is and I'm going back this is really not a cannabis issue. This is a it's a me planning issue. When we put together the downtown plan, how we are very carefully mapped out where and how, what type of it is this would go where. And so I just want to make sure AJ as we move forward because I, I can, I have no issue with that with, with this business. I want to make sure from a planning perspective that we're not just quickly making a planning mistake here and not thinking about what the consequence of it is. That's my main question. And this and this is just coming up since this is a change of motion is happening. There, this is linear. So AJ can get the response from city staff. This is Linda Tatum Development Services. And I just wanted to weigh in on a couple of the the comments that have been made regarding this from a land use perspective. And Mayor, thank you for your perspective. I I've heard several comments about mixed use and it being limited to the down to downtown or into the PD 30 area. But that's actually not at all true. I think if you drive down any quarter in the city, you will see a number of properties that had a residential use on top with a ground floor business, and that while most of the newer mixed use projects that I think everybody thinks about when we think about mixed use are located in the downtown area. There is mixed use throughout the city. And the one comment about the PD 30 is that everybody mentioned or several people mentioned the 1000 foot radius between cannabis dispensaries, but there are other criteria for the location and those include being 1000 feet away from a school, one 1000 feet away from a public beach, 600 feet away from a. Park, a library. Or daycare center. So consideration of all of those buffering criteria would go into any location where they're located, including PD 30. And just the final comment about it from the land use perspective. I think while this may sound. Like a simple change of wording to allow these a mixed use building and and put a couple on it, I think given the extensive research in the thought to the mayor's point about how much went into creating the maps and all of the criteria, changing that wording would require some assessment of the compatibility issues. And it's not a simple matter of just saying, yes, let's look at it in PD 30, but if you consider the city wide staff would just like to make sure we have. Ample opportunity. To assess those compatibility concerns, odors, potential nuisance, potential noise, the security and all of those kinds of considerations, and come back with a reasonable recommendation inclusive of whether it should be a conditional use permit or something that can address all all of those potential compatibility issues on a on a project by project basis. So again, we're just that's my feedback. And I just hope that. If this motion passes. We have ample time because we are we do have some short staffing issues right now. So I would hope that we have ample time to to do a full assessment of this proposal and bring something back to council in line with the direction that I'm that I'm, I'm assuming will come out of this discussion tonight. Thank you. I appreciate that, Lynda. And I would agree with with all your points, I think that that any time we make a a project specific grade, a specific zone change, that is a huge, huge decision. And so I just want to make sure that if this, as the motion is is being read it contravenes and they have said Councilman Sun has would consider really a review with the planning department that's that's very thorough as it relates to PD 30 with recommendations. And I only say that because the the creation of the PD 30 map I know is very complicated. And so I just want to make sure that that's part of the discussion. But I appreciate all the conversation with I just wanted to raise those issues with with staff. So those are my. Comments. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Linda Tatum. One of the questions I have is, is there a way to put a cap on how many businesses like that could come to. To downtown Long Beach. Like, I know we have a cap in the city already and I think we're. That's another question. Are we already asked the cap or dispensaries throughout the city? Council members in dales is Charlie Morgan. There is the ordinance was established by a vote of the people. So to change the cap, you would need a vote of the people. Okay to change the cap only in the downtown area. In the. To change the cap at all on dispensaries. Okay. And what is the cap right now on on dispensaries? And are we close to that or have we reached that cap already? And the there's a cap of 32 dispensaries citywide at this time, I believe we've issued 21 licenses to dispensaries. However, we have 11 more in the pipeline. And so we will eventually have 32 licensed dispensaries out. Okay. So we don't have to worry too much about it. Okay. Sounds good. I think that. This is. A. I'm on the. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think and talk at the same time. One of the things I think that the best thing would be to do right now is. You know, one one of the things, though, wouldn't we be able to kind of fast track some of the thought that's going into the cannabis because we already are giving this business a medical license and they're already going to be a business there. So it wouldn't be too much to ask because they're already going to be addressing. Right, the odor issues, security issue. One of the things that I wanted, you know, that I've been discussing with the business owner is the fact that we I would like to see something, like I said before, that's going to come into this neighborhood, into this business improvement district and really enhance it and give back to the community and and not stand out in a way that that's going to attract people that, you know, that might. Not be the kind of people we want to have on Pine Street. So. That's why I'm having you. Because I have my own vision for this for this business. And what am I correct in saying that, that, you know, they are already going to be having to adhere to your control? One of the things that I that I think is very good in this business is that all of the product that's coming into the business is now is has to be prepackaged. So they don't have anything there that's really going to be, you know, letting out extra orders. So that's one of the things that was very important to me when when learning about the business is that everything that's coming in is already prepackaged. And I know that, you know, they're working on, you know, the way they're building it out is that they are putting in different different things that will prevent odor from going outside of the building. And the you know, it brings me great comfort to know that this is a business owner that has been doing this for a while and not a business owner, that this is taking the first shot at trying to bring a business to this. So I think that that's also very important. So I just wanted to ask that before I make a decision. Thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas, for that question. This is Lynda Tatum. Again, let me speak to that from the perspective that the review process for the medical cannabis is, the question that you're asking is that whether or not it could be fast tracked for the medical, that may be a possibility. However, the broader question and the item that that you have on the agenda tonight is speaking to changing the code to accommodate this in any building. And that's really the question. So it's not really tailored to this particular business because the reality is that this particular business could go into PD 30 right now, today at a different location that was not in a mixed use building. That opportunity exists today. It will exist tomorrow and in the future. What you're raising is the bigger issue of mixed use. The ground floor or the commercial component of a mixed use building, not just in this area, but citywide. And that's the area because when the ordinance was initially constructed, it did not contemplate allowing these uses in mixed use buildings. And because it didn't contemplate that. The challenge for us right now is staff has to go back in to fully assess that use in a mixed use building and look at those compatibility. And that's what I was referring to earlier, is that we would be looking that on at staff at council's direction, whether it's citywide or whether it's in PD 30. But those are the kinds of things we would be looking at. And I don't know that those actual requirements would be substantially different. But what I would suggest that the the comment about a C, p is a very likely outcome. Should we move forward with that? And that would allow us to look at the businesses on a project by project basis to determine the appropriate building improvements to address odors, security improvements to address security of those operations, and any other potential impacts that might come out of having a cannabis use in the same building with a a residential occupancy. I hope that answered your question. It was kind of roundabout, but I just wanted to be clear. Yeah, it's a bigger issue than just this particular business. It's looking at this type of business and any mixed use building in the city or MPD 30. And I just got a note also from, from just, just from staff perspective and I agree. I just want to remind us also that, you know, we can't be really talking about specific addresses because really this is a land use question. And so we're not really supposed to be talking about a location. So we really should be talking about land use, right? And so we is really the better. And that's why I think the PD 30 question is really important because if we're saying we're going to make a change to PD 30, then what we're saying is that any regardless of this specific location, but any location, PD 30, that fits within the regulatory scheme that we have created, it would be considered, right, not just this location, really any location. And so I just want to make sure that that. Mr. MODICA Is that is that correct? Because I'm just trying to remember all of our planning conversations about PD 30. This is a it's a broader has there been any analysis done on PD 30 as it relates to cannabis in this and in mixed use? So this is Tom. I'll let Linda talk about that actual last question. But for the first part, yes, that when the when the council and the city deals with land use, you really should be talking about the uses within that category and really not specific to a specific business. So you're setting the rules and the framework for all businesses that would have the ability to to locate there under certain guidelines. And so that really, you know, when you start picking an individual business and you do things like a cap of one or whatever, the meaning of that is that that is really where we get into trouble from like a spot zoning perspective. So I'll let Linda talk a little bit more, but really we would like the council, if you're going to go this direction to talk about some overarching framework of how and where you'd want to allow these. And then we would come back with what the rules are. Thank you. Linda goes because at least my recommendation would be that would make me comfortable is. If we're going to move forward tonight, that it's really a conversation and that there's some type of analysis on what a PD 30 only layover would mean to our planning documents. That that's just my thought. I'll leave it there. But. Ms.. Tatum. Mayor. I don't have a whole lot to. Add other than just to elaborate, to say that you're absolutely right that we would be looking really carefully at PD 30. And I think an option if councilwoman desire in Sunday House is open to it is that we can certainly look at it citywide, but we could also look at it within PD 30 with a very specific lens, because you're absolutely right. Our PD 30 has a very unique characteristic because of the specific densities and the intensity of land uses and the mix of land uses that we allow. And downtown, it has a very unique function and role in the development of the entire city. So we would certainly want. To look at that carefully with. The objective to ensure that. This new. Use, if it were to go. Forward, would make sure that we're protecting the integrity of the PD 30 use, as well as addressing any of the compatibility issues that would be associated with allowing these businesses in. PD 30. MM Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Thank you, Mayor. As as we all know, today is very different from tomorrow. And so with that being said, you know, we we have so much on our hands right now with COVID 19 and trying to get businesses back into reopening Long Beach and trying to find ways to help businesses not only reopen their doors, but actually thrive and most importantly, survive. With that being said, I just I think I also feel more comfortable with amending my my motion to to asking staff to come back with a report on options on how we could do go about making these changes and being able to have. Businesses go into mixed use and I'm sorry, businesses. Conduct their business, cannabis business and makes use of properties or buildings which include residential and commercial. I think that is fun. If I can get a second on that, that would be great. And I would. And I know that that we you know, I would prefer it the quicker the better. And and but I know that they need some time. And so I would recommend that we come. I was hoping in 30 days that we could do something like that, but 30 days may not be feasible. So I would like to see what we can do in 60 days and then move from there. May I weigh in, Councilwoman Cindy Haas? I think staff can certainly do that, but I would ask that you clarify that the intent of your motion is regarding cannabis adult use cannabis dispensaries, because opening up the to mixed use for the other types of cannabis uses I think would be more impractical. And I'm thinking of uses like manufacturing, research and testing. So if if it is adult use cannabis dispensaries, that certainly helps clarify it. And the other point I would make is that right now you've you've mentioned about the COVID. We are stretched really thin on our staff that would need to do this analysis and this assessment. And we have other really critical time sensitive projects on our plate right now. So I would ask for a consideration of 3 to 6 months. I'd say we would need a minimum of three months, but ideally at least six months given some of the other the shortages of staff dealing with the COVID issue as well as other projects that have a more time sensitive priority. So that would be staff's request of. The regarding this consideration. Yes, I can. I can do that. First, yes, let's make clear that it's for dispensaries, adult use and dispensaries. And thank you for that, Linda. Also, let's let's do that. Three months, 90 days. That would be good if we get close and we don't you know, we don't see how, Chris, maybe we can talk about it then again. But I think this I feel more comfortable doing that. And I feel like there's still a lot of. Of uncertainty out there, not only on this item, but just in the economy as a whole. And I think said, you know, this might be the best thing to do moving forward. Like You can't remember this. We'll do our best to do the. The three months. Yes. Thank you. I wasn't actually say the same thing. I want to think councilman's in there. First of all, there's a there's a second to that motion by Councilman Mongo. So thank you, Councilmember. I just want to add. Thank you, Councilwoman. I think that's a good one. Just to clarify, Tom. In no way does this slow down the current operators opportunity to continue moving forward in that space with the current license they have. And that's correct, right? That's correct. For medical, they can still move ahead. Okay, great. And then and then secondly, I would I would agree just to support customers. And they have said that the sooner we can get this clarified, I think, you know, obviously, we should be looking at not just what that what the mixed use piece is, but if you were only you know, if we come back to this council and it ends up being a change that only happens in PD 30, what that would look like as well, because there might be interest for that, you know, depending where this council lands. So I think looking at both of those quick, you know, as fast as possible, I think would be great to have for for for the councilwoman and for the business. I do support that. And so just want to think the flexibility of everyone on that issue as well. Let me just go through really quick cuz Councilmember your are you still on this list or is an old one. So no, I was in Mexico City. Councilman Mongo. Do you have any additional comments? Sorry about that. No, I appreciate Councilman Van de Hoss taking a step to consider all the the potential ramifications. I think it's really important for us to know how many are possible in downtown. He talks about O.J., talks about 11 in the pipeline, but those 11 could easily choose other locations that are more profitable. And so I think that it's important. I've talked to another councilmember who talked about another downtown that had them speckled around and it was great. But I've also been to places that it's taken over corridors and that's not great. So I think it's prudent for her to look out for the interest of her district. And the COP option is what really gives the councilmember the opportunity to look on a case by case basis. So I look forward to hearing staff's recommendations when they come back. I think in council, I think they have everyone. I think that's everyone. Any final comments? Anyone else from Zendaya's? Yes. One final comment. Just refer to to clarify. I did want to include a separate option with ACP in there, as well as other options which don't include ACP, just to make sure that that's in that motion that I made. Mr. Monica, did you get that? Yes. Staff received that. And that is we can certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's a motion and a second. Madam Curtis, read the rule. District one. District two. District three. May I? District four. By. District five. I think District six. I'm one of District seven. I picked eight. District nine. District nine. I was muted, I. Motion carries.

Recommendation to, subject to review and consideration by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.065, confirm Charter Commission appointments pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code; or in the alternative, if for some reason the Personnel and Civil Service Committee does not meet prior to or on October 8, 2019, waive the requirement for consideration and recommendation by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee in accordance with Section 2.03.065, and confirm Charter Commission appointments pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_10082019_19-1008

Ocean carries. Great. Thank you. We'll do our commission items next. We're going to do item 19/1 and then item 18. Thank you all very much. Madam Court, can you read item number 19. Item 19 communication for Mayor Garcia Recommendation to confirm charter commission appointments. Thanks, Mary Andrews. Yes, thank you very much. We had the meeting today with I item 20. That was item 21, I think 19. And so I'm going to pass that on to the mayor for the nomination for this item. Thank you very much. I'm going to thank you very much. Let me go ahead and move on to these items here. If I can ask all of our guests to just quietly exit as we continue. Thank you so much. I did. 19 is a recommendation from the Civil Service Committee for an appointment to the Ethics Commission, and it is a new appointment, and that is for Margo Morales. And Margo is a seventh District resident who currently serves on the Long Beach City Parks and Recreation Commission. She has also been an employee of L.A. County for almost 25 years, and in her work at L.A. County, does ethics and compliance work as well as part of her her responsibilities? Margo has a former member of the Pacific Gateway Workforce Development Board, the Fair Housing Foundation, the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California, and on the Cal State University Alumni Council. And she is retired actually from L.A. County as well. And so we want to thank her for her willingness to serve. And there is a motion and a second. So some of Councilmember Pierce anything. Councilor Marie Ringo. Thank you, Barry. And I want to thank Margo for stepping up and wanting to serve on this new commission. She'll be in the inaugural body for this commission. And I want to thank you for your service on the Parks and Recreation Commission in the past. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I want to thank Margo for stepping up to this important role. I can personally attest to her character and her leadership. I've worked with her hand in hand in multiple departments that she worked in. I remember the first time I met her back when she was with the Office of Public Safety. She has a breadth of experience that will really be critical to an organization such as this in a commission such as this, that needs the background and understanding of local government and the requirements. And she brings that to the table. So I'm really pleased with this appointment and strongly encourage my colleagues to support. And Margot, we're very excited to have you on board. We think you're going to be you've shown a excellence in the work you do with the Parks Commission, and we know you'll do the same here. So thank you. With that members, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. And. And think I'll give Margo a round of applause. And if Margo, you can hang out for a minute. We're going to take a picture in a second and we're going to hear the second commission item, which is item 18.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, 3815 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for accessory dwelling units), located at 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, and 3815 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0855

12 eyes. Council bills 20 1-864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and eight six, eight have passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication, please? I moved that council bill 855 be ordered publish published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend. Yes, Madam President, I would like to amend Council Bill 20 10855 with the following particulars online seven Strike Street and replace with Avenue. All right. Very good. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Council member Herndon. Yes, ma'am. Friend And this is the correction that Councilman Ortega. So thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We're going to correct this typographical error again. Yes. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for pointing that out so that we could get it taken care of on introduction, not seeing anyone else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Cashman. Ortega. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Can each. Sandoval, i. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I see the i. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-855 has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication as amended? I move that council bill eight by five be ordered published as amended. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 855. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 855, please. Cashman. I. I didn't hear my name, but I'm going to say I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. Herndon High. I cannot I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-855 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published except for Council Bill 21, Dash 908, which will be voted on after its courtesy public hearing this evening. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Vote for the following items. 97087689389487189589688488586887875888889890891833860. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. Ortega. I. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye Clerk. Eye for an. Eye. Herndon on. Hindsight. Can it? I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight our previous recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 723 changing the zoning classification for 420 East 11th Avenue in Capital Hill.

Recommendation to consider amendments to, and a potential State legislative position on, SB 827 (Wiener), legislation to increase housing density along high-quality transit corridors and at major transit stops, and forward the State Legislation Committee's recommendation to the City Council for adoption.

LongBeachCC_02132018_18-0137

Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 20. Communication from Councilwoman Mango Council Member Super Now Councilman Austin. Recommendation to require City Manager to formally communicate the city's opposition for Senate Bill 827. Thank you to her mother. Thank you. I think that our message has been heard as we received a call from Senator Reno earlier today and he has agreed to make changes. I do not know what those changes will be yet. He has not opened the door on that yet. But I at least appreciate that the work has been communicated, and I think that that is a step in the right direction. I'd love to hear from my colleagues before deciding what we should do related to waiting to hear the amendments and or making a firm disapproval today with the option to. Reconsider at a future date should the amendments be appropriate. Thank you. Come to Austin. Thank you. And I we have a letter before us also before from Senator Wiener requesting that we hold off our decision until he can make appropriate amendments. He is anticipating, making and introducing significant amendments to his bill in late February. And so I would think we should, in good faith, allow him that opportunity to make those amendments and then bring this this item back before or refer this issue to the state large committee as well. We could also refer it to state alleged for further deliberations, since the author is asking for more time. I just think it is it's a good faith effort. I appreciate the fact that he did reach out. I spoke to him personally just before the meeting and he was pretty emphatic that, you know, he's heard from not only the city of Long Beach and understanding that we're postured to oppose his bill, but other many other cities throughout the state as well. And so I think he's heard some of the outcry from from local government. And he understands, hopefully, that that local control is something that we are extremely interested in. And so I would just like to recommend. Madam Chair, I mean, not Madam Chair, but the maker of the motion hold over this item until a later time. Thank you. Customer reviews. Yes. I also really appreciate that he's reached out. I think sending it to committee is a great idea. On my first glance at this, after a couple of conversations outside of just local control, which is what you guys have listed as one of the reasons for not supporting it, I think the impact on affordable housing and the lack of community benefits in this bill are really lacking. And so I would hope that we would, as a city, take some more time to put forward some recommendations. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sabina, I think it is clear that this doesn't minimize our opposition to the bill as it was written. And here's an actual copy of the letter from Senator Scott Wiener. And so if I guess we'll remain to see if the maker of the motion which direction she wants to take it. But I just want to make it very clear that this does not affect our opposition to the original bill. Thank you, Councilman Austin. And I was with Mr.. I want to just thank Councilmember Mongo for actually bringing this item forward. This is obviously something that I've heard from constituents about. I think many of us also have as well. This is a hot topic in the city of Long Beach and by bye bye showing our our, I think, interest in opposing this bill by bringing this forward, it is certainly going to help the dialog and put us in a better place when talking about this legislation in Sacramento. So thanks again Councilmember Mongo and we will we will operate at your pleasure on on moving forward. Thank you as any public comment on this item. Simon Councilmember Mongo. I think that I think that this shows that Long Beach is a player in the state and that the things that we do at council matter. This has only been agenda raised for the minimum amount, which is the 72 hours because we had some back and forth on the language of the motion. And I think that this has served us well. I think that this letter I will send it out to the community in my newsletter when it comes out next so that the community can see that we're being heard. And I would like to bring this back once the amendments have been submitted for our consideration and if at that time Chair of the State Committee would like to have a meeting that same evening, I'm open to that as well. And of course we can agenda is that without a recommendation of the council. So we want to just send it to the committee. I'm open to sending it to committee if you're able to agenda as the meeting before or after it. But before, we would have to stand up and really. Work to do that. We'll do that with anything. Mr. PARKIN. If I understand then, is the motion amended then to refer. It to committee, or is it received and file and take it up by the committee? What's your refer to? Committee referred to committee. Committee. With a requirement that it must be back before this committee if the committee is unable to meet by March, let's say mid-March. Your committee before it comes to committee. Great. All right, members, please cast your vote.

A proclamation recognizing October as Dyslexia Awareness Month and Declaring October 26th, 2020 as AdvocacyDenver Day.

DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1196

Will you please read proclamation 1196 for us? Thank you, Madam President. Whereas October is recognized as Worldwide Dyslexia Awareness Month. And. Whereas, Dyslexia is a learning disorder that affects the language centers of the brain in a manner that leads to difficulties in reading due to challenges in recognizing words and or word sounds. And. Whereas, individuals with dyslexia are problem solvers that thrive in decoding some of the most complicated academic and societal challenges. And. WHEREAS, students with dyslexia are entitled to a supportive, inclusive environment that promotes educational progress with evidence based, multifaceted interventions in order for them to attain their full potential. And. Whereas, individuals with dyslexia have gone on to become some of the most successful entrepreneurs, scientists, artists and engineers in our community. And. Whereas, advocacy. Denver was established in 1954 by parents as the arc of Denver to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education and formally changed its name to advocacy. Denver in 2009. And. Whereas Advocacy, Denver is a nonprofit civil rights advocacy organization that is dedicated to the protection of the human rights of people with disabilities, including dyslexia. And. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City and County of Denver support the demands of advocacy Denver. That the public school system complete culturally and linguistically appropriate evaluations and implement evidence based strategies where practice where a practices designed which are practices designed to meet the individual needs of the student in order for them to meet their potential. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver recognizes the month of October as Dyslexia Awareness Month and October 26, 2020 as advocacy Denver Day in Section two that the clerk in the city and that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to Pamela Buscaglia, executive director of Advocacy Denver. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, your motion to adopt. I move that proclamation 20 dash 1196 be adopted. I don't think it has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you. Madam President, every October, dyslexia and forms of dyslexia, including two scrappier, are recognized during Dyslexia Awareness Month. Tonight, members of Council wear red to raise awareness about dyslexia, which is a learning disorder affecting up to 20% of the world's population. Despite the challenges that dyslexics face, they are out of the box thinkers and creative problem solvers. So it's no surprise that famous and inspirational dyslexics include people like Lippi, Whoopi Goldberg, Magic Johnson, Stephen Spielberg, and our very own Senator Michael Bennet. Dyslexia awareness is especially important to our office, and we'd like to recognize two wonderful and brilliant members of the District five family who have dyslexia. One who prefers to remain anonymous. And the other one, my daughter, Olivia. You are both amazing humans who we love very much. We watch you not just overcome your disability, but thrive and you inspire us every single day. This proclamation also declares that today, October 26th, is advocacy. Denver Day Advocacy. Denver was one of the first our chapters and was established in 1954 by parents to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education. So advocacy. Denver's mission is to promote and protect human rights of people with disabilities and support their full inclusion and participation in our community. Advocacy. Denver is an advocacy organization for children with a range of disabilities, including to dyslexia and to scrappier in public and private schools, including DPS. So this proclamation, specifically States Council's support of students with disabilities, the right to an inclusive education, the right to assessments, the right to accommodations, the right to evidence based interventions, and an environment that allows them to thrive and meet their fullest potential. Because our students deserve nothing less. So I want to thank advocacy Denver for 66 years of service to our community so that every single person with a disability has the right to live equally and freely and with dignity and respect. It's because of organizations like Advocacy Denver that kids like mine. Can. Learn and thrive in the city and county of Denver. So for all of you out there who are the parent of a child who have special needs of any kind, you understand the depth of my gratitude when I say thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this proclamation . Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I'll quickly share. Both of my daughters have dyslexia, too. One was diagnosed when she was in fifth grade, which you can only imagine how her elementary years went. She could never pass a spelling test and so spend a lot of time sitting on the wall. And then our youngest daughter, she was diagnosed when she was in kindergarten. And the supports and advocacy and resources are amazing the earlier that you can detect and get those supports. And so thank you, Pamela, for your organization and council member Sawyer for your advocacy and. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Sawyer. I. Torres. I black. Eye. I see the bucket. I. Clark. I. When I. Herndon. I. Hi. I am. Cashmere High. Can h I ask Ortega Sandoval. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Proclamation 1196 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for proclamation acceptance. Council member Sawyer will start the five minute timer if you'd like to introduce. Who will accept the proclamation? Thank you, Madam President. Tonight we have Pamela, bachelor and Pamela. I think I messed up your name earlier. Apologies. She's the executive director of Advocacy Denver, and she is joining us to accept the proclamation. So, Pamela, thank you so much for being here and take it away. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer and Denver City Council members for this proclamation and for recognizing the work of the advocacy Denver team and board advocacy. Denver's programs serve people with disabilities from ages, birth through lives. Individual advocacy is the cornerstone of our organization and staff maintains skills and knowledge about the different systems, both public and private, and the protections of individuals with disabilities through its programs and services. Advocacy. Denver addresses and advocates to eliminate the barriers for clients in accessing education and other community systems. Each year, between 304 hundred parents of children with disabilities enjoy one on one assistance with one of our advocates to address issues they are facing and to provide the education and skills to empower them to make informed decisions. We work with a large community of parents whose child is diagnosed with dyslexia and are eligible for specially designed instruction and accommodations. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, when provided appropriate services and interventions, we know that these students can participate and excel in the general education curriculum, graduate from high school, participate in post-secondary education, become gainfully employed and grow and enjoy the same privileges as typical peers. We know that everything is possible when children with disabilities are provided educational programing designed to help them meet their individual potential. Thank you very much. Thank you. We really appreciate you being here as well. Pamela. All right. Moving on in the agenda, Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.

A bill for an ordinance to rescind and reappropriate in the Capital Improvement program and make an appropriation from capital improvement fund contingency. (GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Rescinds and reappropriates $1,423,932 in unused capital improvement funds from the 2014 Capital Improvement Program budget and appropriates $250,000 from capital improvement fund contingency for the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Choice Planning Local Match. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-6-14.

DenverCityCouncil_03242014_14-0145

All right. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Layman, will you read the motions this evening? I will. Will you please put Council Bill 145 on the floor? I move that council. Be 14, dash 145, be put on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved in. Seconded comments. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank Skye Stewart for providing us additional information on this. This is a rescission and appropriation of funding. And I also want to thank Parks and Recreation for providing additional information on this as well. This is so my concern is about one particular aspect of this, which is the bio retention for the Hinsdale Park site. And I also want to thank Councilwoman Lehman for taking time to talk with me about this issue as well. And part of my reason for bringing this out is if you all remember when the land swap on this property came up, I asked lots of questions and I brought some of the materials from those questions that I asked related to the drainage. So there were two issues related to drainage on this property. One was that the city of Denver made a commitment to spend $3.4 million to take an open channel and to pipe that. And that was not part of the costs of the land swap. And then the other issue was there was a retention pond on the site that was utilized for drainage that comes off of Havana Street. And in looking at this particular project for this bio retention area, which I understand would be an amenity for young people, particularly the children that will go to that school. Also, from my conversations with Parks and Recreation, it could be utilized by any other youth group. And I think that is a really positive thing that could happen for the for young people and for the citizens of our city. My issue is with the cost and the fact that this bio retention was not discussed as part of the additional cost of doing this project at that site. And I ask questions about the the retention pond that was on site that was going to be impacted as a result of the school going in there. And in going through this process. I remember asking questions about whether or not the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was going to have to sign off on things because that retention pond was going to be affected as a result of this project moving forward. And. I just I have heartburn with Denver spending an additional $400,000. And so DPS will contribute 203,000 and the city of Denver will spend $406,500 to make this retention fund happen. And I understand that it is in part a regional retention where others can, I guess, get credits towards contributing towards this plan. I don't really understand exactly how that works. I know that initially the site that was being looked at to be the retention, the regional retention pond was at Heron Pond or in that general vicinity. And for some reason that site just didn't work. I'm assuming maybe it had something to do with some of the contamination from Asarco that's in those soils. But my heartburn is with the cost and the fact that when this project came forward, it was never part of the original big picture that we were asked to vote on. And so unfortunately, that means I have to vote in a way that would impact the other projects that are part of this package. But I have heartburn voting in support of putting more money into something that we already spent 4.3. $4 million on to to address drainage. And to be asked to spend another $400,000. I just don't think it makes sense. It should have been part of the big picture at the time that this project was brought forward. So for those reasons, I will not be voting for this bill tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. Since Councilwoman Shepard pulled this out last week, I have gone through some of the same process as Councilwoman Ortega looking at this, because, like Councilwoman Ortega, I had not supported the swap out there, although I admit that was a really difficult decision that all of us faced. And I was concerned about the additional costs. But what is key to me, because we are always investing in our parks at some level. And if it has been determined that DPS in the city are working together on this, what was crucial to me in the cost was that DPS was bearing its fair share and we were bearing our fair share. I would like in and I'm really comfortable with it if it's all on Denver land, and that's a question I've been asking. So I'd like to ask Scott Gilmore to come up to the microphone and talk about the land and how these dollars are different from just the degree that the detention pond and the stormwater project that Councilwoman Ortega referred to it, 3.4 million. Thank you, Counsel and Rob, Mr. Gilmore. So I brought I brought the map of the area so I could show you guys. Exactly. It's popping up. So when we transferred the land and you see if I can make it a little smaller for you guys. That's good. And I think he's going to bring around a picture. So if you can look at the image, this area, this is Cherry Creek. This area over here is a banner on the right side of the picture up there. The right side is Havana, and down at the bottom is Geraghty, all the way at the bottom. So right now, the way the land is situated, everything toward the top of the picture, on the on the top side of the red is actually parkland. And so the red is actually part of the land that was transferred to DPS for the school site. That will be where the detention, the bio retention area is built. And and that is actually where the the outdoor education amphitheater that the kids could utilize and, you know, nonprofits and and just people can go down and enjoy being by the creek and sit down and enjoy the red areas where DPS actually they own that at this park at this time. Once this area is built and this is all done, they will actually transfer this land back to us and we won't have to pay for it. So we're actually going to get a half an acre back. The reason we're doing that is because I know Parks and Rec is going to be committed to making sure that this area is managed properly, that the plants are taken care, that the area is growing well, and that we we care for this area as part of this will actually become part of Hensel Park. All the land on the upper part of the the map is now part of designated Hensel Park. This will actually added an additional half acre to that park. So this will be theme park parts land. Scott, I didn't let you get to how, how this cast is different from the other. But while we're on the land, is there an IMO you or some guarantee that DPS is willing to transfer that land to us? We haven't done a MRU yet, but we've been we've been talking to them and they actually want to transfer the land to us because they know we'll take care of it at least this half acre, because if they don't transfer it to us, they'll be responsible for caring for this. And well, I mean, it's part of the park park part of the bio retention area. So it makes more sense for us just to go ahead and take over management of the whole area. One other thing I wanted to show you. There's a little on the toward the bottom of the map. There's a little rectangular box right on the edge of the bio retention pond that is actually underground vault. That is something that Parks and Rec actually asked public works and DPS that we want at this underground vault. It's a very progressive type thing, but there should have been a four bay. They had a four bay plan to put be put in here, four bays just catch trash. And so it would have just been catching a lot of trash and it would have been a nightmare to maintain and just keep clean. And so what we did was actually have them put into the plan underground vault, which is a big part of the cost of making this work. Right. So I think that was a big thing that Parks and Rec actually requested and that we've got them to buy off on. So. Okay. So if I have this right, DPS is of contributing 200,000 plus a little bit to the project, about a third of the cost plus they're contributing half an acre. We're doing the maintenance. I do wish that were spelled out. But can you also address the difference what we're getting in addition to the bio retention or we have another picture and on disk and you might as well show the public. There you go. So what what we're getting traditionally, what what would have happened in a in a bio retention area or detention pond? As you just dig it out, you make sure it just drains out or it seeps out or drops into the creek. We really want it somewhere where people could get down to the river and actually do scientific exploration. Getting kids down there with microscopes and getting them down there with, you know, with bug catching nets and actually exploring the river. You could do so many interesting things along this river, along Cherry Creek. You could talk about history. You can talk about gold panning that was done on these creeks. You can do science, scientific stuff about riparian zones and all the wildlife that uses these corridors. So we wanted to build an area that worked really well for. For school groups and nonprofits to be able to get down in there and just really do some hands on learning. So that's what you're seeing in this picture that actually represent us, represents a school group down there right on the creek in this outdoor education area . So. Okay, Madam President, that that's the end of my questions. I will just comment that I gave this a lot of thought. It's a good project. I think it's going to be a real addition to the area. But like Councilwoman Ortega, I really want the public to know what we're doing here. Like no screens over this. So when I saw it pop up in it, it sort of missed my radar. I wanted to be sure we talked about it tonight. I also wanted to be sure we talked about it because in an ideal world, and I know we all know through city processes that they don't all follow in the order we would like sometimes. But in the ideal world, we would have a commitment from DPS on the transfer of this land, on their commitment to actually do environmental education if we're building and maintaining this. So but I think just by having that public discussion, that commitment now is on record. And I know Councilwoman Layman won't let up on it. Thank you, Councilwoman. Right, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Madam President. I think most of my questions have been answered. But, Mr. Gilmore, if you can answer just one more. So for me, I did end up supporting this project, but it was a very close call and I had a very hard time because of my concerns about the habitat impact. When you shrink a space, you just necessarily impact its integrity as habitat in a urban environment, particularly where there's so many threats. And so one of the things that I had asked questions about was the investment in other habitat enhancements. So if we're going to shrink the space, what do we do to increase the integrity of what's remaining? And so we talked a lot about plantings and restoration of native plants, etc., which I have been told I believe is actually still separately being funded. This is not intended to satisfy that commitment that is still coming and that is still a commitment of the cities in terms of the remaining habitat. Is that right? Yes. So the the dollars our request is for the bio retention area that will include all the plantations and all the revegetation around the bio retention area in the park where we actually were clearing some areas and there was some degraded property. We actually are in the process of right now treating some of the non noxious weeds that were there. We're actually going to start scraping some of the areas and and revegetated that is on the plan and we'll be doing that this spring. And with the weather the way it's been, it's been it should go really well. Great. Thank you. And I guess then I just want to just close the loop on this by saying it's my understanding that this investment, you know, we see in this picture the really beautiful steps, you know, for for poor people to learn. But there are, in fact, habitat improvements related to this investment in terms of the water, in terms of the plants and in terms of wildlife and or the enjoyment of, you know, those who want to experience a more natural setting. This is not simply just education space. There's actual biological investment occurring here. That's a great point, Councilwoman. This actually the pond could have just been dug out and it could have seeped just straight into the creek pretty quickly or they could have just ran the pipe to the creek. This actually is improving water quality and it will really help in the long run having that underground vault, that trash will not end up in Cherry Creek. So I think this is a good project for the city, for DPS, for the city, and for just the residents that will be walking along this creek and actually can walk down and get by the river and just enjoy a nice place to sit. Well, thank you. That's the end of my questions. And so I just I share with my colleagues the desire that our arrangements be contractually put to paper and that DPS is similarly are contractually put to paper. But I consider this a positive that above and beyond the investment that you all committed to when I voted for the project, that this is additional improvements to the biological habitat. And for that, I think it's actually a good thing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kennish. Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank Scott for all the time and all the support and really doing a fine job of answering questions from council from. My constituents, sometimes from the teachers at DPS. He was just in and did an incredible job for this project and he deserves much. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Lyman. And then I just want to say that I'm very excited about this project. And for southeast Denver as well as the city, I think it adds anything to an incredible outdoor education opportunity for everyone. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Leah and Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President, I, I was the one that did pull this out last week for questions. And I'm so glad that, you know, everyone else did, too, and that we got a lot of good information. And I do appreciate all that. I had a long talk with Scott and Laureate Laura today in my office just about our capital improvement program, the funding for it, the sources for it, and sort of how much, if you will, gets allocated across the city and across the districts for various projects throughout the year. And I did not vote for the Central Park land swap. But I will admit when the when Scott talked to me today about this amenity that will be created not just for the student education, but, you know, looking at it in the context of the river and presuming that the eventual product looks like this lovely conceptual image , you know, I think it's a great amenity for all users of the trail. And in the summer I bike quite frequently through Confluence Park, and there's that one step area on the west side of the Confluence, and it's full with people sitting there enjoying the river. So I do think, you know, that the the disbursement of 400,000, you know, for this project is money well spent. But what came up for me was more of an understanding about was how our capital improvement program works. And I learned that, you know, we only get 50 million annually across the city to address everything, especially in public works and parks that needs to be maintained and or added to. And I just doing a little quick math in my head and thinking about the fact that we have just over 600,000 residents and that works out to about $83 per capita annually for all of these various capital maintenance and potential additional projects, both in public works in our parks and then moving further. There's about 8 to 10 million annually that sort of filters down, if you will, at the district level to the various council people who can advocate for specific projects in their district that that may be addressed, you know, quickly or may be put in the queue for a longer term addressing of needs in the longer term. And what that boils down to is about $17 per capita annually. That is discretionary at the city council district level. So my reason for bringing all this up, and I'm sure that some of you out there are wondering where I'm going with out with all this is the fact that $1.4 million is a lot of money, if you think about it, at the district level. So that's and a large percentage of that $1.4 million is actually going to match funding for planning for the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So while I think it's important absolutely to leverage those funds as much as possible, that means less in the pot left over that gets distributed to the rest of the city for all of the various projects that we have to do. We are an old city with a tremendous amount of aging infrastructure. And as I sit here and I think about this and every time I ask for a ten or $20,000 improvement in a park or something, you know, it gets on a list and it doesn't get addressed until two or three years out. And it's I find it difficult and challenging to be responsive to the needs of my constituents when we're dealing with such, you know, great demands, such aging infrastructure, which is quite visible. So this is all a very long way of saying that I'm very concerned about this. And it's something that I want to let my colleagues know that I'd like to talk about at our upcoming city council budget retreat, because I just don't feel the you know, certainly the way that this is being allocated on an annual basis is enough to address the maintenance and all of the deferred maintenance that has happened during the recession over the last several years. So, you know, and then saving it all up for these large bond requests every ten years leads to more additional deferred maintenance. And I just find that we're getting farther and farther behind the eight ball. And that's what my concern is. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. So I will be voting yes for this tonight. But I am asking for a bigger conversation about this issue and about how. Take better care of our capital investments, because I think that they can greatly enhance the quality of life for our residents. And if they're not being properly taken care of, I think that really chips away at our quality of life. So thank you very much for listening to my abstract conversation. I will be voting yes for the bill, but I do. I'm asking for a bigger conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Shepherd. Pertinent to that, I said on the urban drainage flood control district with my colleagues, Councilwoman Lyman and and Councilman Lopez, who's the chair of that group. And I was just asking him, had we seen this camp, detention pond, retention pond remain? I always think flood control. But a bio retention pond is something very different. So but I'm wondering if urban drainage, is it also going to help out in the maintenance of this as they do? Because, of course, it is going to provide a little bit maybe cleaner, healthier water for sharing. So that we make. A case for that. We could try. But we're we're committed to making sure that we maintain it and take care of the parks. Okay. So they wouldn't they don't have any responsibility towards us. We're holding them to the ones we can. All right. So. All right. Thank you. I was just checking on that. All right. Looks like all the questions and comments are finished. I guess it's time for a roll call on come on, Council 145. Or take a bow. Rob Shepherd Brooks Hi Brown. I thought I heard two. I can reach Laming. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. I never I Madam President. Hi, Mr. Secretary. Close the voting announce the results. 12 eyes when they. Go eyes one nay counts Bill 145 does pass. Okay, that is all of the ones that were called out. So I think we're ready for the block votes count from Lehman. Would you let me first say that all other bills for introduction are ordered, published and Councilwoman Lehman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for

Recommendation to receive and file an update on the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192016_16-0336

Thank you for that. Madam Clerk, let's go straight to item 20, as we had announced. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive and file an update on the proactive rental housing inspection program citywide. Mr. Modica. Was this an item that was going to be postponed? Correct. I believe Councilmember Gonzales wanted to make a motion to postpone. Okay. Councilman Gonzales? Yes, if I could, I'd like to ask the council that we postpone this for a future date. I believe the first date in May, as we would have the majority of our council, all of our council member colleagues here. So that's that would be my motion. Is there any member of the public that there's been a motion and a second to postpone it? Does anyone want to address the Council on the motion specifically to postpone this item? Very good. You click as the address as long as you're postponing it. I would offer this amendment that we also add to that postponing until the same period of time. Item number three on this council agenda, giving the Council an opportunity to review the credentials of the consultant the city is hiring. If you read it as extraordinarily important issue. But on the agenda, it shows nothing about what the credentials are of the individual that will be responsible for advising the city on such a seminal project relative to the wetlands around the third district. So I week certainly is not going to rock the boat. Nothing's going to happen or two weeks. So I would suggest you somebody make a motion to add that to that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodhue. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Council on item 20? Please come forward. And this is just to post. We're postponing it so we're not taking it up. Okay. Thank you. All right, members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Do you have, Councilman Austin? Yes. Councilman Austin's here. All right, motion passes. And item 27. Report from Public Works recommendation to enter into a cooperative implementation funding agreement between the City of Long Beach and the California Department of Transportation for the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Recycle Facility Project City Wide.

Approve an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). (HEALTH SAFETY EDUCATION AND SERVICES) Approves an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on ???. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-14.

DenverCityCouncil_02032014_13-1004

We are. This particular ordinance is asking that we allow yet another million dollars to be spent on. It's not I've got not a city money, but we're just allowing that money to be spent on construction so that we're allowing that contract to go up and we're allowing the mortgage to go up by 750,000. Regardless of how you feel about affordable housing, why do you think that the city amount of money which came through federal funds is excessive, which it actually is? It's a lower amount than usual. You still have a lot of government money in this. And from my perspective, I want government money spent extremely frugally. I want the most number of people. Possible to get benefit, and I do not want what I consider to be an extravagant project. So I'll be voting against this. Thank you, Councilwoman. But Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. I mentioned last week that myself and a couple other colleagues had done inquiries to the Denver Housing Authority to get a sense of how the cost per unit in this project actually compared to others that are being built very frugally by the Housing Authority. And I will be sending this to my colleagues with a quick clarification that I sent to the department. But the answer was, when you include the costs of land and you include the design costs and the construction costs for the recent projects in the LA, All My Neighborhood, I think, which had overwhelming support from this council because of the importance of diversifying the neighborhood. The per unit cost there for 93 units was 241,000 a unit. The per unit cost for the 87 unit complex in phase three was 265,000 per unit and the cost that's coming up in phase four will be 255,000. So the costs that are involved in this project are actually very much in line with what is going on in other redevelopment areas because and this is a good thing, the value of land in our city is up, as are the costs of construction. When people are back at work and there's more demand, it affects the prices of both the materials and the workers. So. So what we're seeing in this project is very much in line with other publicly supported projects that are being done by the Housing Authority, one of the most nationally recognized housing authorities we have in the country . So I think that although it's unfortunate and frustrating when you see costs go up, for me personally, these costs are not out of line with those. And I hope that my colleagues once again support this bill tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks? Yes. Tell someone can you just touch on. I just wanted to mention this, but number one, I'm the chair for the Health Education Services Services Education Services Committee. And I just wanted to let folks know this came through. Our committee passed unanimously because we got a chance to get into the weeds a little bit and understand that this we're not adding any new money to this. The what they're asking to do is to add some money. And we will be, you know, the subordinate loan and we'll also be fully collateralized when this construction project is complete. And so that's just something important to continue to think about. And Councilwoman Kenneth touched on it, but I wanted to reiterated that construction costs are rising all over the city. And anyone who is developing any kind of unit or the project is going to be dipping into their contingency and talking to banks for a little bit more leverage. And so it's important that we get this through council so that we can be in a better position and we can have a better project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Brooks. Councilwoman Rob. Thank you, Madam President. I didn't address this last week, but and I, too, was concerned with the initial comments I had heard and after after I had missed the first time this came up at council and did some research. But when I really look at this site, I think it is a fantastic location. Is it an expensive site? Yes, it's very close to downtown. It's basically over the highway just at Federal Boulevard into the center of our city. And we are talking about a site where there will be child care and library services available without transportation. Many of us know that transportation you do think transportation costs can greatly reduce your housing costs. And so, to me, these units, when they are rented, will be more affordable than your average affordable unit. It's also a great catalyst for the entire neighborhood. The city is already investing in a great facility there. The library, which to be honest, did have increased costs because of some of the land issues there that this project has also faced, which is probably the reason that there had to be a little more money borrowed from the bank. So I just want to say that I am wholeheartedly behind this in our efforts to develop affordable housing. This is the way to do it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Shephard. Thank you, Madam President. I actually spoke about this at great length last week. And I don't see the need to, you know, rehash all of that. Some of the very same sentiments have been mentioned by my colleagues this evening. But I do just want to highlight with what Councilwoman Robb said about transportation costs. The average family spends 17% of their budget on transportation. It is the second highest expense for most families after a. Mortgage or rent being the highest. So the fact that it is on the busiest bus line in the entire city, that being the West Colfax line, and also just blocks from the new light rail that has just gone into the south in the gulch is makes this exactly an excellent location for connecting folks to job centers such as downtown in the federal center and to the other services that they need. So I am very supportive of this and highly encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Ortega. I just have to make my disclaimer. Notice that I serve as the board chair of this organization and will be abstaining from the vote. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Looks like we're ready for the roll call, Madam Secretary. But no, her din can eat lemon. Hi. Montero. Ortega Abstain. LOPEZ Oh, sorry. NEVITT Hi. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Madam President. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. Tonight. One nay, one abstention. Ten eyes, one nay, one abstention. The bill passes. Actually, that was on final consideration. Right? All right. All other bills for introduction are ordered, published, and we are ready for the black vote. Councilman Kennish, will you please put the resolutions on the floor?

A bill for an ordinance amending the weapons and missiles division of the offenses chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and the parks and recreation chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit firearms in city-owned or leased buildings and city parks. Amends Chapters 38 & 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit concealed carry within city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the city. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-22.

DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0401

12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-424 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember CdeBaca, would you please go ahead with your comments on 20 2-401, please. Again, just a notice on record that you all have an amendment in your inbox to remove the parks, public parks from Bill 22, Dash 0401. This would be more aligned with how other people have implemented bans in city owned spaces. They often identify public facilities, physical buildings, and not necessarily the outdoors. And so this will be on your desk as well for next week. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I also look forward to next week. I'll vote yes to advance this to publication, but I remain very skeptical that this bill actually does anything. We've not yet been presented any evidence that it will result in any positive outcome, that there's a problem that needs to be solved by this. And I share Councilwoman Celia Barker's concerns that she's expressed in committee over where this where this bill's weaknesses are and where its unintended consequences might be. So I do look forward to receiving any any data that shows this would actually address a problem, rather than simply be a performative piece of legislation that sends messages, but that results

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Office of Equity to establish a policy requiring a health equity lens statement on all staff reports related to COVID-19 impacts and response. Further, request the Office of Equity to train the Joint Information Center on utilization of the Long Beach Equity Toolkit.

LongBeachCC_04212020_20-0350

Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you for that. We're going to have a had a request to move item 28. So we'll go ahead and move item 28. Adam Court. Communication from Council Member Richardson. Vice Mayor Andrew's Council member Urunga Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request city manager to work with the Office of Equity to establish a policy requiring a health equity lens. Statement on all staff reports related to COVID 19. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to. I'm going to turn this over to Governor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so I wanted to start off just thanking the Coal Agenda's vice mayor Andrews, Councilman Austin Austin Councilmen Ranga for signing on to this proposal. The idea here that this COVID 19 crisis has really impacted cities across the country and here in Long Beach, we're noticing, you know, based on the data that we see, that the demographic data really shows that there's disproportionately impacts on African-American AAPI communities. And we also know that we've learned a lot over the last few years about making clear that we understand this concept of equity and undertaking need into account in how we respond. I think that's that, for the most part has done a good job of thinking about the concept of equity. I saw when we are you know, I really want to applaud the memo when we talked about the demographic data, which, you know, the city council asked for it. There was really a lot of context put there. And in my opinion, that really showed how much growth the city has really taken on in becoming a leader, in really understanding this concept of equity. Well, all of that comes from a number of practices we've taken on. You know, we've made a commitment to join the Governance Alliance and Racial Equity. We've participated in the National League of Cities, a real conference that's reached equity and leadership, where, you know, our deputy city manager attended trainings in New Orleans and we've traveled the country and learned from what other cities are doing. And we also took an important, important step. We're one of just a handful of cities around the country that has actually established an Office of Equity to ensure that we understand what this equity concept is, and that is baked into the decisions that we make and that sprinkled on top. I think, given what's taking place with this, with the COVID 19 emergency, I think we should look at best practices of what's happening around the country. And we see that many jurisdictions place an equity impact statement on agenda item. And now is an opportunity, I think, for us to really demonstrate that we are thinking about all communities and and that is a central driver of our response, not an afterthought. This activist, you know, this action is take effect. People are doing this all around the country California, Texas, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin. And it's widely supported in our own communities. You'll find letters of support from a number of community organizations from the Advancement Project, the Filipino Migrant Center and Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization Lobbies Forward Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs, Healthy Communities, Mangrove Action, a nonprofit partnership. So it's this is a practice that has brought support within the community. I think our staff has taken steps to be prepared for this. And I think now is the moment that we really demonstrate that we understand the concept of equity and we're going to play to how we respond. Actually, I've I've talked through this with Carmen on how you receive it, how you handle it, and you have a good understanding of what the expectation is. Staff Report The memos related to the COVID 19 response should have a statement related to, you know, how this impacts equity or helps us to close gaps or takes need into consideration. We have an equity toolkit in the city and it really helps staff that's out, I believe, seven, seven or nine questions. And there's really questions to consider as you make decisions. And those are the types of things you would consider in when you issue this statement. Another thing I'd say is, you know, when you add statement agenda items, it it does it triggers it's good practice for all of us to really think about certain impacts. I remember back in, I believe it was 2011 when then council member James Johnson initially made the motion to include fiscal impact statements on agenda items. And it was a bit controversial that initially happened. Folks thought it would be an additional step, additional thinking. But now that process is well, it's refined. It's it's really been it's really been a good process that we've seen that's really been embraced by both the city council and staff and the community. And I envision that this is this you know, this is something that we can do today to make sure that we place this equity lens on our decision making. So that's it. I'll conclude my comment and this is my motion, and thank you for your support. Thank you both, Mr. Andrews. You know. I want to thank our special counsel in Richardson, you know, for bringing it to hate and blow it. You know, just last week, this is the day we've done the days of speaking about mental illness. And today we're talking about health equity. Every one of these issues boil down to continue to be an exclusive, supportive city for all residents. There's no secret that the community with a large concentration of minorities and people of color and it's not a light. It's you know, it's a it's an expensive project. But, you know, with this pandemic, we showed that once again, the African-American community is affected at a large scale. Yeah, I'm looking forward really to use. Now these have equities, you know, lithium, you know, statements on staff report and how the GC team implement that equity toolkit and really recalibrate in the way that we look at things and implement strategies for this. Because I think this is something that we really, really should take a serious look at and think you when we for bringing this to the. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Next up, I have with your Councilwoman Van Day. Thank you. I also want to thank Councilmember Richardson and Cosigners and council vice mayor and Councilmember Austin. And I think that this is very important. It is becoming more and more clear that the impacts of this pandemic are spread evenly among our community. What is to come from the people of color living or being hospitalized in Long Beach? I hope the. Next step. That is just to make sure that we are aware and mindful of the issues in our conversations about COVID 19 and supportive of this item. And I think it will lead to more equitable and just policies as we respond to this president's crisis. Thank you. And I fully support this item. Thank you, country ranga. Thank you. I want to thank all the comments that have been made thus far from our less colorful colleagues. This is a this is a growing pattern in our country. And we need to identify the fact that we are a diverse country and that where they were sitting and this action would make it a lot stronger and much more informed as to how our policies were affected our communities. So thank you for bringing this forward, and I hope that I get that we get the support of the full council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Upton. Thank you. Happy to support this open season and take a whole other side when I was in school to cosign this because this is obviously an important issue with a diverse city, with a diversity of language, it's important that we understand, analyze and understand the data so we can make smart decisions to deliver services, but also protect our residents. And, you know, looking at the data from last week, it's clear that 55% of those who were hospitalized due to COVID 19 were African-American or Latino. But that was the same disparity, to be my understanding, that we can be smarter with our resources in terms of targeting. We're testing test methods. Are education campaigns well, in other words, to just be a high functioning city that serves everybody. So I'm happy to support these items and kudos for bringing it through. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes a couple of comments. So, one, we're going to do a roll call vote. And I'm. District one. By. District two. I District three. District three. District four. I am District five. District five. District six. I went. Yes. Yes. Thank you. By District seven. By District eight, by district nine. I. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. I've also had a request to move up item 27. So, Madam Quirk, please read that item.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to accept an easement deed from Long Beach Unified School District, the owner of the property located at 4840 Lemon Avenue, for the installation of public utilities; and accept Long Beach Unified School District’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new early childhood learning center at Barton Elementary School. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_02062018_18-0057

Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item is we're going to do item 12. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to accept an easement deed from Long Beach Unified School District located at 4840 Lemon Avenue for installation of public utilities and except Long Beach Unified School District's initial study and mitigated negative declaration for a new Early Childhood Learning Center, District eight. Nothing at all. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to get a staff report from Public Works. Yes, Councilman. There are Austin members. City Council. This item was brought before you at the last council meeting and it was asked to be held over to give staff an opportunity to review the secret document, the mitigated negative declaration, and some of the traffic analysis done as part of that process. After you've had a chance to go into. That in more detail and understand what. Some of the mitigation measures staff has reached out to the Lumbee Unified School District and propose an alternative at this location. It's adjacent to Barton Elementary School, which is essentially a at the Alamo. And LEMON That intersection does not currently have a traffic signal. However, it was rated one of our more challenging intersections in the city, and it is deemed to be included on a future traffic signal list. So the city staff is working with Long Beach Unified School District staff to share in those costs so we can advance when that traffic signal would come forward. That isn't specific to the easement. The easement is a different matter. It is for utilities. But we do feel that we have positive momentum. In. Addressing bringing. A traffic signal to the line one. LEMON And that concludes. My staff report. Thank you. There's a motion and a second on this. Councilman Austin thank. You. Excellent report. This is a this EDUCARE facility with the Long Beach Unified School District is going to be an excellent addition to our district. Prior to the aged care facility actually coming online and being actually a vision of the school, Barton Elementary School and many of the residents in the area requested a traffic signal at Limon and Del Amo because of a high volume of accidents. The educator will add another 200 students plus another 50 staff. And so I think it merits a greater conversation. And I'm glad that our public works department and Lomas Unified are actually talking about that. And I'm very encouraged. So I support this item and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. This sounds like a great partnership. I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just chime in and say this is a really exciting project, some very high quality child care and sort of preschool early learning facility in North Long Beach. This is going to be one of the one of the most spectacular child care facilities in the region taking place in North Long Beach, excited to partner with school district, excited to partner with Councilman Austin. I just think I'm just really excited about this project. Councilman Andrews. Yes, excellent job, Councilman. Awesome. Because the fact that that's where our future starts, it's a good place where we'll be starting. Thank you again. We thank you for any public comment on this item saying nonmembers, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Technology & Innovation Department, and all other appropriate departments to work together, research, and report back within 180 days on the potential costs, benefits, partnerships, and challenges of a City of Long Beach-issued identification card.

LongBeachCC_10012019_19-0967

Motion carry. Annexes. Item number 28. Item 28 is a communication from Councilwoman Mango Councilwoman Price Council Member Muranga Councilman Austin Recommendation to require City Manager to work with Technology and Innovation Department and report back within 180 days on the potential cost, benefits, partnerships and challenges of a city of Long Beach issued ID card. As a member. Mungo Thank. You. I know earlier this year a member of the community stated that they don't always know what the council agenda item is by the verbiage that's on the screen. So I'm going to read you the subject line of the agenda item. The Long Beach one card streamlining, resident connectivity and access to city services. I brought this item as a continuation of making sure that we're putting forward best practices to ensure that our residents have the capability to easily engage and access the things that matter most to them, whether it's providing department or policy feedback, reporting a pothole, finding a library program, looking for a free, family friendly event, or renting a park space for a birthday. All of those activities could be streamlined into one easy place for residents to access. Currently, a resident might have up to nine different accounts in the city. They might have their library card number, their gas card number, their gas account number. They might make reservations at Parks and Rec. And each and every time they have a identity that is not necessarily known to the other departments. And so through the CRM system that was approved in the previous item, we are implementing functionality that will better able us to manage our communication systems with residents with the Long Beach One card. We would also be giving the residents a portal for easy engagement and connectivity in their hands. This could connect a citywide calendar. When we talk about equity and access, a lot of that conversation falsely gives a representation of a barrier fence in which a tall person can see over the fence. And we have to let the shorter people stand on boxes to see over. I'm saying let's remove the fence. Let's take down the fence. It's the 21st century, and it's time we seek innovative, technology based solutions to make sure all people have equal opportunity for access, not those that know their council offices phone number, not those who know that public works is the one who handles that versus Parks and Rec , whether it's language, access, identification, qualifications, or needed services of housing, public transportation, parking, access to citywide parking lots, access to our our regional park health and senior programing, access to our C one and C two meal programs for seniors, arts and cultural institutions as we. As well as we have the capability to connect everything with banking and payment functions. There should be that same functionality that allows our residents connect easily with us. That's why I'm proposing the Long Beach one card as a solution. As a city, we should strive to get everyone connected. And so with that, I hope that I'll have my colleagues support in finding the next step. Right now, we have several different apps. You have an app to review, a police report, you have an app to do Long Beach Transit. And within Long Beach Transit, you can enroll and reserve your seat to get to and from events. And we should be able to have that same connectivity across our library programs, our park programs. Individuals call my office and say I registered for summer day camp with these deposits and now I have to go somewhere to do something to get my kid enrolled. To be able to move from six weeks of care to seven weeks of care should be easy and convenient for the senior mom, single mom. And so with this, I ask for my colleagues support. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo. I'll remember. Richard. I'm sorry, Your Honor. Thank you. Acting mayor. Normally I'm opposed to any kind of additional ID cards that are going to be given to people to identify themselves where they're at. But I sound down on this and because I think that it's a discussion worth worth having only to so that we could get more information about some of the technology that that we are in the 20th and 21st century. We are looking at more technology as we move forward, and I think that we need to be on top of it. So I'm doing this with a bit of trepidation in thinking this, that I want to see what comes out of it. So before I vote against it, I'm voting for it, but not that I'm going to vote against it at the end. But just giving a preview that in case it comes out to where I'm not totally sure that I want to support something like this. I just want to put it out there that there is some concerns that I might have with this card as it moves forward, especially as it relates to identifying people, residents who perhaps are not fully documented to be here. What would be the requirements to get the card? What types of ID and proof of residency they would have to show? Those types of things. So like I say, I'm checking this with a bit of trepidation, but let's move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Well, if there's no objection, I want to go to public comment and then bring it back line. Will. I would love that. Would I be able to make one comment to council member? Would your comment hold you hold your comment. All right. Well, you got me. First, I'd like to call Leslie, then Jessica Quintana. Hi. I just wasn't really clear that we actually needed an ID card. I mean, I would think just a password and a name should do it for most things. The other thing that concerned me about this one is that it kind of smacks of Big Brother and a watchful eye of the city that, you know, they're going to keep track of every single thing that you do. And I think that makes people fearful. Um. I wouldn't want to inhibit their participation in anything by them being paranoid that their participation is being tracked. So that's it. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Quintana, please. Good evening. Jessica Quintana, executive director of Central Asia. As you know, we're a nonprofit organization in the city of Long Beach. And time and time again, we hear from our residents and families and youth that, you know, they need to reduce the amount of paperwork and IDs that they need to go get services within the community. You know, I think this is very innovative. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Mango, for bringing this forward. I think it needs work, you know? Definitely needs to have a good discussion in regards to the community, you know, not being fearing that their identity or their whereabouts are being tracked. We're trying to make this, you know, system very easily for our families and residents to get park recreation services, to be able to go get go to a food bank, to be able to get transportation. So I think there needs to be more thought into this initiative because there's definitely needs to be benefits for a lot of our low income families to be able to access services citywide. So not just in one eastern area, but also on the west side of area in north and south of of Long Beach. And so I think that if we can come up with a system that benefits our community residents to be able to access, you know, things for their families, education services, for the children to go to the library, to be involved in baseball, soccer. You know, one idea that shows that they're qualified, that they're eligible and they can participate. And so I think that that would reduce a lot of, you know, challenges for parents to access, you know, city services, whether that be the arts, culture, you know, recreation, you know, food banks, anything for the city. But I'm telling you at this point, this is very, very infant stage of this. And there needs to be a lot more discussion. I know up in Denver, Colorado, where I'm from, where I was born, because I grew up in Long Beach my whole life. They also have a one ID card. And so folks are able to access the bus system, you know, get library services, get recreation services, go to their local museums for free. So, you know, that's the kind of opportunities that we want to be able to provide our families. So I'm sorry. Thank you so much. I think the clerk gave you a little bit more extra time. Thank you, Mr. Clark. With that back Councilmember Mongo, you did want. To thank you. Yes. So Rusty is the most progressive cities across the country are the ones that are on the cutting edge of this. Oakland, Denver, San Francisco. I did feel that this was in its infancy, though. I have gone out and met with Jessica and one Benitez and others at Liberty City College and Lobby, Unified School District and Long Beach Transit. And I've done a lot of the initial meetings to get feedback on the initial item. I provided 180 days a six month period because I do believe that there is a greater discussion that really needs to be had. We are finding that passwords are actually causing more risk to people's identities than face ID or a thumbprint or something. Especially our senior communities are most vulnerable when they have multiple logins and passwords or a password that has to change. And so we feel as though I'm sorry, the experts have stated that it is better to have like a digital ID card on your phone of some sort that only you have access to with two two factor authentication. With that, it would also be opt in. And to to Jessica's point, a lot of the discussion of why I didn't bring this three months ago, even though it was prepared and we had these meetings so long ago, was because of the fear and discussion around the census. And we just didn't feel it was an appropriate time until that matter was handled. And then we felt like a six month opening to have that dialog would be appropriate so that we can really talk about moving forward in a more collaborative and collective way. I think also six months from now, we'll have made significant progress on the CRM. Significant progress. I see them all in the back. And so once that significant progress has been made, will really be able to better understand the utilization of this. That really is possible. I think of things like discounted swim lessons to be able to say click. Did you know your kid can go to a safety class today to learn how to swim before drownings? To be able to have that kind of push notification and access to individuals who opt in would be great. It also is great when something is going to happen in your community. We spend a considerable amount of money notifying people by mail that they don't open that something near their home is going to change and oftentimes they're not notified till too late. You'd be able to opt in to that. And so the possibilities are endless. And I really appreciate the openness and both by Councilmember Suranga, even with his trepidation and the support of his canton. I thank you. Thank you. Member Richardson. Thank you, Councilman. So supportive of the item. I think giving 180 80 days to evaluate it makes a lot of sense. Couple of things. So I think over the course of so, in most of those cities where they move forward with municipal I.D., there was a process of sort of engaging with communities. And so I want to make sure that that we call out specifically the undocumented community. Latino population, like the leadership, is engaged about making sure that this is something they're seen as a benefit, not a barrier to services. Also, sort of, you know, municipal I.D. has a lot of benefits and opportunities. I think one of the one of the greatest sort of trends is is the full integration of transit. And, you know, like we had a discussion most recently at Skegg about how we make decisions about what vehicle to take. Right now, you can grab you know, you might be able to grab an app, Uber or Lyft, and see how long it takes to, you know, to get from point A to point B or you might grab Lyft at a Lime app and see a scooter or a bike once in the area. Which one takes the most or at least time looks right now is how do we integrate all of that? Right. If you have municipal services and it may include Long Beach Transit, how do you integrate your app? Right. To say, do I prefer to walk? Do I prefer to scooter? I prefer to ride a bike or catch a lift to get where we're going. That's where things are heading. So I think when we think about municipal ID, I think our innovation department should be thinking about more than just identification, but integration of services that makes us helps us to make smarter decisions about emissions, smarter decisions about transportation and more efficient choices. So I'm certainly you know, I'm certainly going to track and sort of engage here. But I just want to be clear that, you know, there will be apprehension on this issue. And so I want to make sure that that is fully vetted out before it returns in 180 days. And I want to make sure that we we really put some real emphasis on transit. I know about tap car, you know, Los Angeles, but here in Long Beach, we're not we're not online in the same way. Even if we get tap cart, our transit agency, our bike share, our mobile, our scooters are all three separate sort of functions led by three different policy agencies, all in the train. Right, three policy agencies. If we want to make a decision about rates, you have to have three different conversations with three different agencies. If you want to talk about efficiencies, senior discounts, youth access, equity, how to distribute around town, right now it's three conversations with three agencies. We should at minimum, as we explore this, be thinking about a JPA or some joint committee among transit agencies to explore this conversation. So there's just a lot of thoughts here. A plan engage. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I look forward to see where this goes. Thank you. Member Pearce. Yes, thank you. I did have a lot of conversations before coming to council tonight on this issue. I think in an ideal world, all of us have talked about wanting to have integration. I think it's wonderful that we have the CRM conversation happening right now, so I'd want to have a couple of questions answered. First, I'd like to understand how it would interface with our CRM system. I'd like to understand what the cost are. I'd like to understand how our other agencies not only I know that there's some issues where we wouldn't be able to have library cards because there's certain information that's privileged information that can't integrate. So really understanding where can we align different areas. There are a couple communities that are vulnerable communities. I know that the council members is saying it's an opt in. I have issues with creating a system that might be privilege for some that other communities fear getting involved with. So I would ask the staff in exploring this, sit down and meet not only with Jessica's organization, but the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. The Cambodian community is another population and then our senior population. So we have our senior advisory committee commission. I would want to make sure that how are we making sure that our seniors feel comfortable with this? And I think in an ideal world, it sounds great. Recognizing that it's going to take a lot of work to get there and being realistic with that. I see. I think that that's it in our school board. You know, I know that I spoke with our school board member. The represents my area and I know that they had a lot of concerns. And so let's just make sure that as we go through this, we do it kind of slow and with engagement from all stakeholders. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of my colleague. And I'll also add, and I alluded to this a few weeks ago when we were hearing the discussions at the state level related to banking changes and local banks. And so I think that I mean. We talk about some of our Section eight renters, and they don't even have a bank account sometimes. And they they live at cash advance check facilities that cash their checks and pay those amounts. I mean, long term, it could be even bigger than that. And I'm not I'm not going to add the banking in today, but I think that it's important to have the conversations with that in mind in providing that kind of financial access to some of our low income and most in need communities. Thank you very much. Hearing no more comment from the behind the wheel. Thank you for the very innovative and thoughtful item this evening and I'm sure we'll be having plenty of discussion on this in the future. Members, please cast your votes. Ocean carrying.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding title 22 (UPLAN Zoning Code) which adds new zoning districts and regulations to implement the 2019 long beach general plan land use element update and adoption, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1109

Okay. Item 60. Communication from city attorney recommendation declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Title 22 read and adopted as read citywide. Can I get a motion in a second, please? I got emotional accounts from Roxanne. Can I get a second, please? Take away Councilman Price. Any public comment? No public comment on this item. Okay. We'll Congress. District one. I am. District two. I District three. I. District four. District five. District five. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.

DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0261

And both that committee and the task force met many times to discuss short term rentals. We also had a staff working group throughout this period composed of representatives from multiple departments, including the Mayor's Office, Community Planning and Development, Excise and Licenses, as well as the City Attorney's Office. And we spoke with registered neighbor neighborhood organizations throughout the process, including AMC and Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. Also this year, the Department of Excise and Licenses hosted four town hall meetings in different quadrants of the city that were very well attended. We had quite a few residents and other stakeholders come to talk to us about short term rentals during those town hall meetings. As you as you know this. Discussion resulted in the current proposals that are before you tonight, which come in in two pieces. There's the first piece is a proposed change to the zoning code to allow short term rentals as an accessory use. The second piece is a companion licensing ordinance that will create a business licensing system for short term rentals. The criteria for adoption of the two pieces is a little bit different, so I'll be talking primarily about the zoning code text amendment component, and then I'll turn it over to Nathan Batchelder to talk about the licensing component of the system. The Zoning Code Text Amendment component began the legislative process with the planning board hearing in March, and its purpose. The purpose of the text amendment is to recognize the growing popularity of short term rentals while still providing protections for neighborhoods, residents, short term rental guests and hosts, operators of traditional lodging accommodations that hotels and bed and breakfasts . It's also intended to support that companion licensing ordinance that I talked about. And the bill, the the tax amendment is sponsored by Councilmember Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman from District five. So just to bring us onto the same page about the status of short term rentals in the city, now they are not allowed in most residential districts. Well, they're not allowed in any districts that are that are purely residential. And that prohibition is enforced by a complaint by neighborhood inspection services at this time. Short term rentals may be allowed in mixed use commercial districts, not called short term rentals. That term doesn't appear anywhere in the zoning code, but as lodging accommodations. So if you're in a district where a hotel is permitted, there is technically the possibility of getting a zone use permit to change the use to lodging accommodations and then getting a business license for lodging accommodations subject to building code and parking requirements. The proposed text amendment allows short term rentals as accessory to a primary residential use, and short term rentals would be permitted as an accessory use with limitations where residential uses are currently allowed throughout the city. And I just want to acknowledge that clearly the demand for short term rentals varies across the city. If you go on any of the hosting platforms and look at the sites, the short term rentals on offer are concentrated towards the center of Denver. Not surprisingly, however, there are short term rentals all over the city, just fewer numbers away from the center. And, you know, as we've had this discussion about short term rentals, I think we haven't really seen why short term rentals, the potential benefits and impacts would be substantially different from one single family neighborhood to another single family neighborhood. Say, regardless of whether there are lots of short term rentals there now or very few short term rentals, they're now based on the market. So that's why we're proposing this citywide approach, which is quite consistent with what all of our peer cities have done. No zoning permit would be required to conduct short term rentals. That's because we've talked to quite a few other cities. Nathan has talked to a lot of cities about their experience with regulation of short term rentals, and it's very clear that they feel that the streamline approach is the way to get a higher level of compliance. And so in this proposed approach, we place more short term, more requirements, most requirements for short term rentals in the business licensing component of the approach. So you're required to get a business license, which is why we decided that a requirement to get a zoning permit would be duplicative. And so I will acknowledge that most other home based businesses that are permitted now, if you have a home beauty parlor or a or a home office, are classified as home occupations, which is a category of home based business, and those do require a zoning permit. However, they don't require a business license. And so we actually are are making a lot of the same requirements. We're just doing it on the business license side where we think we can have better enforcement. And so the proposed text amendment would permit short term rentals that are conducted by the person using the dwelling unit as their primary place of residence. And that could be the owner or the renter living there. And I just want to emphasize that rental of a whole house or dwelling unit is permitted. The resident could be offsite, fulfilling National Guard duty. They could be on vacation. And so this isn't necessarily sharing a room with the person that lives there. We would expect that there always will be a number of whole houses available to host short term rentals while the owners are are away. They would be permitted in a primary structure or an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit. However, they could not be you couldn't have multiple guests at one time on different contracts. Unlike a hotel which rents rooms out to different parties, this would be just one party at a time, whether they were staying in the detached accessory structure or the primary structure. But both of those would be permitted, but only one set of guests, and it also would not include rental for special events such as weddings or parties. And of course, the inverse of the primary resident requirement is that if you don't live there, you would not be able to conduct a short term rental in the dwelling unit. That requirement, the primary residence requirement, is intended to help preserve the fabric of residential neighborhoods. So in this framework, the primary use remains residential, long term residential living, with short term rentals permitted as accessory to that primary residential use. And that recognizes decades of experience that that we have in the city of Denver with home based businesses. And that indicates that there are fewer concerns when there's a primary resident present. Denver's current regulations allow those home occupations, home based businesses, as I mentioned before. And those are businesses that are conducted by the person that lives there. That beauty salon is a beauty salon that you, as the resident are running. You're not renting out your house to to be a beauty salon that somebody else is running. And this approach, this primary resident approach, also allows us to continue evaluation of potential impacts on housing stock. There are a lot of questions, you know, what does this mean for affordability and the change of. Units from long term rentals, say, to short term rental. And we don't know for sure. And some of the studies that have been done in other cities are not completely conclusive. But with this approach, we're taking a first step towards regulation of short term rentals. That leaves future options open. If we opened everything up now and then tried to go back, that would be more difficult, I think, than taking a cautious approach now and then. Revisiting through the advisory committee that Nathan will tell you about whether additional flexibility is appropriate in some areas. We've received a lot of public comment through letters and emails as well as at those town hall meetings. I'll just summarize a little bit of what we've heard through this through 3:00 today. So we've received 224 letters and emails. And of those 224 letters, about 32% specifically mentioned something about supporting that primary residence requirement. About 46% specifically mentioned opposition to that primary residence requirement. And then the nearly half of the emails and letters that we've received have expressed some sort of support for short term rentals in general as well, saying that they offer benefits to two residents and two neighborhoods potentially. However, about 20% have expressed opposition to short term rentals in general. And those numbers that have Asterix next to them, that's just indicating that in some cases we received a bunch of emails that were kind of on a forwarded email template in those categories. And the position statements that we've received from registered neighborhood organizations and other organizations were included in those numbers I showed you on the previous slide. But just to dial in a little bit more to what we've heard from them, nearly all of them have expressed support for the text amendment as drafted. And those letters that we've received from organizations that didn't specifically say we support the text amendment have drafted. As drafted, they said we support the primary residence requirement. Specifically, there is one letter which we received from an organization, the Vacation Rental Managers Association, that does express opposition to the primary resident requirement and support for short term rentals in general. And there were a few RINO's, the Pinehurst Nature Way, University Park and West Wash Park. They do say that they really have concerns about short term rentals and aren't sure whether they should be allowed, but indicate that if they are going to be allowed, it's very important that that primary resident component be left in the requirements. So I'll tell you about. The review criteria for the text amendment, and that is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations. And we need to find that the text amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of the city. Looking at that first category, there are two citywide adopted plans that are applicable here. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2000. It talks about a city of neighborhoods, and that includes modifying land use regulations for flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyles. It's a comprehensive plan. 2000 does anticipate that we will need to look at the zoning code and make revisions to accommodate changing trends and lifestyles. It also talks about allowing or encouraging a diverse mix of things, including home based businesses. And it talks about promoting a zoning ordinance that's flexible and accommodating of current and future land use needs, such as home based businesses and accessory flats. And it talks about preserving and modernize Denver, modernizing Denver's existing housing stock and established neighborhoods, as well as making an economic objective that we should promote quality accommodations for visitors. So staff feels that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the objectives of comprehensive plan 2000. Blueprint Denver talks about maintaining the character of areas of stability while accommodating some level of redevelopment. And it talks about new and revitalized neighborhoods centers, which is something that's been part of the discussion how short term rental gas may contribute to the vitality of neighborhood centers by shopping and entertaining themselves locally. It makes recommendations that zoning concentrate more on building design than on use. And it specifically says that under unenforceable standards should not be included in zoning. And that's something that's really been on our minds throughout the process. Let's not include requirements that we really don't think we can enforce. So staff feels that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Blueprint Denver goals and recommendations. We also find that the proposed text amendment includes reasonable neighborhood protections that will further the public health, safety and welfare, and that it applies uniformly to all zone districts where residential uses are permitted, which promotes uniformity of district regulations. Planning Board on March 16, voted 7 to 2 to recommend approval of the Text Amendment before you tonight, finding that all applicable review criteria have been met. I'll note that the two no votes from Planning Board both express support for short term rentals and in general, one of the no votes sought more flexibility for non primary resident rentals. The other no vote. They expressed interest in having a more nuanced or geography based approach that treated some parts of the city differently than others. So consistent with planning boards. Recommendation staff recommends that Denver's zoning code text amendment number eight be approved, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. So I'll now turn it over to Nathan Batchelder to tell you about the licensing component. Good evening, council president, members of Council Nathan Batchelder, a legislative analyst with Excise and Licenses. And I'm here tonight to walk you through the very basic proposals of the short term rental business license. So when we look at the general short term and all licensing requirements, first, the licensee has to be a legal resident of the United States that's applicable to all of our licenses. If the licensee is not a property owner, the licensee must have the permission from the landlord or the property owner to operate the short term rental. The short term rental unit must be the licensee's primary residence or what we're referring to an ordinance is that place of normal return, and that can be demonstrated by the proof of voters registration, driver's license, tax document, utility bills or any other relevant documentation that's determined sufficient by the director of excise and licenses. The short term rental has to be located in the zone district that allows residential use and the licensee must possess a valid Denver Lodgers tax and any other applicable tax account numbers, including occupational privilege tax. If you go to the additional licensing rules and regulations, the licensee has to provide the unit address and personal contact information to the department when they apply. Also, the licensee has to provide what we're calling a guest rental packet with all the applicable city rules and regulations that pertain to the safety information to the guest upon each booking. So that can include no rules and restrictions regarding on street parking. All the city applicable noise regulations, trash collection, schedule, etc.. It'll also include the unit safety information, including the egress and the ingress rounds, any fire evacuations or any other safety features. We'll also require the licensee to have a local emergency contact information in those cases of emergencies. Licensee has to maintain general liability insurance to protect against property damage and bodily injury. The licensee will have to maintain an operable smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector and fire extinguisher in the unit at all times. And importantly, the licensee has to list the units short term terminal license number on any online print or other advertisements. And what's exciting about this proposal is that as we watch and monitor other municipalities adopting regulations, we we actually see that Denver might be the first in the nation to offer an online short term rental license. And as Ed mentioned before, making sure we have that easy, streamlined application process is paramount to us so that we can gain as high rate of compliance as possible. Right here is just the basic steps where people will certify under penalty of perjury online that they meet the requirements. Once they do certify that they meet the requirements, put in their tax license ID number and pay the $25 application fee, their license, as well as their corresponding license number will be sent to them essentially where they can print that license out and then have their license number to start advertising their units. And when you talk about the sorts of moral enforcement, it's important to understand the current enforcement of short term rentals as it exists in the current zoning code. So the current zoning code is oftentimes been typically burdensome and onerous for neighborhood inspection services inspectors to actually demonstrate or adjust or prove that someone is offering a short term rental license with the corresponding tax amendment. We'll still have regulations and rules that nice inspectors will still be able to enforce. But we're adding an additional level of business licensing requirements, and these business licensing requirements will be enforced by the new short term rental division within Excise and Licenses, which is a dedicated team of inspectors within our department that will have both a complaint based enforcement operation and also be proactive with compliance monitoring among the licensees. So you can see here our various enforcement tools under the business licensing rule is something that we're used to any short term and all licensee or any responsible party can be subject to these various licensing tools for compliance and suspension and show cause hearings. For example, we could issue a simple notice to comply for operating without a license. We can issue a license suspension for not having a rental package or having insurance. We can have a general violation or essentially a fine for up to $999 per incidents of advertising without a license number. And we can also trigger, show cause hearings for that license revocation. If we determine that you violated that primary residency requirement. So we feel that the in addition to the zoning code regulations that are being adjusted and modified for short term rentals, we'll have this new layer of business in licensing standards that licensees will now have to live up to once their license with the department. And continue with the short term rental enforcement. We really envision the short term rental division partnering with our other city agencies to not only enforce the requirements of the ordinance, but make sure that the short term rental division is aware of any sort of common neighborhood complaints that might come from short term rentals. So for example, the short term rental division, which lives out of excise and licenses, we can receive the complaints and investigate about licensed and unlicensed short term rentals. We can monitor and track advertisements for licensed and unlicensed short term rentals and make sure that someone's license number is in their advertisement. We can inspect and investigate any other violations of the requirements, including insurance, rental packages, safety features, etc.. And then our department will be able to issue those general violations. Suspensions in show cause hearings on the actual license itself. And we envision partnering with our city agencies, including the APD, Neighborhood Inspection Services, 311 Environmental Health. So what we'll be able to do is track the what we're calling the common complaints that come in on not only just short term rental properties, but but but of all the licenses in our in our system as well. So we'll be able to know if there is a disturbing the peace call on a particular licensee. Any complaints about trash or violating really any sort of local ordinance? Excise and licenses will then be able to take action on that license. What's also great about our proposal here is that we have a we're proposing a six month soft enforcement window. And the reason behind this is that we want to make sure people are aware of our short term rental license and what it what it means to come in where they need to get licensed through which department. And this is really to encourage as high rate of compliance and educate the House as much as possible on what they need to do to become a responsible host. Some of our soft enforcement tools are really intended to educate hosts about our new tools, rules and requirements. We can send reminder notices to host and property owners throughout this six month period to make sure they're aware of our licensing requirements and where they can come in and get licensed. We're also anticipating what we're calling now the host with the most marketing and education campaign. We're a separate marketing and advertising launch will come from excise and licenses to encourage hosts to get licenses and show them where they can get their licenses. We'll also use the short term rental advisory committee and the short term rental, you know, distribution list and other resources we have available to make sure that we spread the word and make sure people get licensed after the December 31st. 26th date is when that strict enforcement of the short term rental ordinance would begin. And finally, we've talked a little bit about the proposed short term rental advisory committee. And the reason for this advisory committee is to know that we want to make sure this license continues to get honed and sharpened. And and it makes sure we have the appropriate tools going forward so we can actually work with the neighbors and with our community partners to research, study and do analysis of the local short term rental industry. We can have this dialog where we analyze our complaints and the violations and the enforcement efforts and the coordination between the two, between the separate departments and the short term rental advisory can also provide recommendations and reports to excise and licenses. And one of the things that we found during our town halls is that there was a lot of sentiment and concern about having a non primary residency option. And I think we understand that and we recognize those concerns. And what we'd like to do is use this short term rental advisory committee to really study the feasibility of what that non primary residency option would be and bring that recommendation back to the city council, have it go through the same community dialog, the same community process that this particular proposal went through. Finally, the short term rental advisory committee can recommend further rules, regulations and other procedures that can be promulgated by the department, including fines, schedules, enforcement procedures and those other administrative operations. Outside of the ordinance, the committee can meet as long as necessary and work in perpetuity as long as the license exists. And in terms of that composition of the short term advisory committee really have a more the merrier philosophy. We want to have a wide range of views and provide a really robust objective of policy discussions within that advisory committee. So potential members can include neighborhood and R.A. representatives, agency representatives, short term rental licensees and hosts, short term rental guests, short term rental industry representatives, hospitality representatives, partnering city agencies, excise and licenses, city council members and their staff. And then outside experts. Economists. Academics. Real estate experts and housing experts. So with that, we conclude our presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. We have 64 speakers signed up for short term rentals. And for those of you that this is your first time to counsel. Get comfortable. The conversations, the comments are broken out. Pro four or neither. And staff chooses the order and we alternate pro for and neutral until one is exhausted. And I'm going to call up the first five speakers. I would ask that you sit in this front pew to expedite the processes and I'll call out each individual name. You can come out and begin your remarks. I will apologize in advance for any names that I mispronounce. First five have. We are Cheri and I, and I'm pleased if we could keep the applause to a minimum. It just simply extends the public hearing. So if we could keep that hold on that that would be really appreciate it. Sherry Wei, Mark Lance, Margie Valdez, Rhonda Beard and Shays Brady. Those are the first five speakers Sherry Wei, Mark Lance, Margaret Valdez, Rhonda Beard and Shays Brady. So Miss Way, you can begin your remarks when you are ready. Thank you. It looks like I'm. Up and you have 6 minutes. You have 6 minutes. Very good counsel. President Herndon Council members thank you for having this hearing tonight and for asking us to speak and allowing us the permission to do so. Councilman, as Councilman Clarke knows, I have been involved in the short term rental issue for at least the last two years, starting with Mary Beth first meetings on this issue. But frankly, even longer than that, I was the ad hoc committee chairman for Denver, for West Washington Park, and in the process of adopting Blueprint Denver and considering that the implications of that planning initiative for our neighborhood, we considered issues like short term rentals and what would be an appropriate length of a rental for our neighborhood. At that time, we did extensive outreach for residents in West Washington Park, and Carluke concluded that 30 days was the minimum rental that would be appropriate for our neighborhood, and we did that for many reasons. First, we thought, Can you hear me? First, we thought that short term rentals and and short term guests in our neighborhoods was really more of a business use and not a residential use in a residential neighborhood. And as city as city planning has indicated tonight, short term rentals are already permitted inappropriate commercial districts and in this mixed use district. So we found, frankly, there was no need for this type of use in our residential districts. Secondly, we were very concerned about the nature of of the use. It undercuts, in our estimation, the fabric of the residential use of the neighborhood. Why does it do that? Well, short term rental guests, although they may not be troublesome, they may be very good people. They don't send their children to our schools. They don't support our schools that way. They don't take care of elderly neighbors. They don't shop for elderly neighbors. They don't shovel the works for someone. They don't pick up the mail for a vacationing neighbor. They don't walk the dog for a vacationing neighbor. So it's a little bit hard to conclude that a short term rental guest is really a residential occupant. When short term rentals were first proposed, we were induced to consider short term rentals on the basis of a living element alleviating financial distress. This came up initially, as I recall, in 2008, 2009, and the economics in Denver were quite different at that time. So we were induced to think about this to enable people who might be suffering hardships to remain in their homes. We heard that. We also heard the requirement that it might enable people who needed a caregiver to remain in their homes. We also understand that. So to the point of whether or not this promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community, perhaps for those limited basis, I could see that it would do that. However, that can very easily be done with a primary use requirement. We strongly encourage you to adopt this text amendment if you are going to approve short term rentals without eliminating the primary residence requirement. To Nathan Batchelder comment, you can also look at you can look at this as you go along. We have some experience under our belts. I don't think this will happen. But if it does go so swimmingly and everyone says, Gee, why do we have this primary residence requirement, we can always let that go later. We cannot tread back and impose it if we don't do it. Now, another point I'd like to make with my my 6 minutes and president. Or did I hope you'll let me know if I go over to the point of short term rentals being a problem because they're already here and we can't close the barn door after the cow. To that I say, sure we can. Being a business lawyer in the city for 25 years, I have to tell you, I would never recommend to my client that they engage in a business use without checking the code, and if they do, they do it at their own risk. That is the same exact thing that's happening here with people engaging in short term rental businesses without properly evaluating whether they're permitted or not. So in summary, I ask you to consider carefully whether you really believe that short term rentals are consistent with residential uses in residential zones. Many of us in West Washington Park, as you've heard, do not believe that they are. However, if you are inclined to adopt this, we strongly encourage you to do so and adopt the amendment, as Councilwoman Sussman has proposed it, and without eliminating the primary residence requirement. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Way. Next, we have Mark Lance. So, um, so I lived downtown. In a 23 storey high rise by 160 or so units, about half of it. It's all privately owned, but about half of them are rental units. And right now at our window, there's about 13 cranes building a brand new apartments, brand new construction, beautiful stuff. And, you know, some of us who have multiple units would like to be able to use short term rentals to combat the competition that's going on down there. So we could use that as a weapon to to fight against that. This is a major revenue stream for the city that comes almost entirely from out of state. And this new sharing technology empowers homeowners on an individual basis. You know, we're talking about empowering thousands of people overnight by allowing them to do this. So this helps us combat skyrocketing costs of health care, skyrocketing cost of tuition, helps us put money away for retirement and to help our families. So I'm just limiting it to primary residents, really puts a major cap on that. We understand that you can't have people taking over these neighborhoods, buying up all the homes and depleting the inventory. But we're hoping that whether it's tonight or some day down the road, that we can come to some sort of moderate solution where we can we can have, you know, two, three, four, whatever extra residences to to rent out on our own. It allows us to have dual uses for guest houses, for family and friends to come in from out of town. And then in the meantime, we can supplement our income with the short term rentals. It's it's really a wonderful thing. So. So that's our thanks for your time. Thank you, sir. Could you say your name for the record? Mark Le Varnish. I have terrible handwriting, so. Oh. Thank you. Next, we have Margie Valdez. Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Margie Valdez. My address is 28 East 12th Avenue. I am the chair of the RNC Zoning. And Planning Committee, also known as AB. Approximately two years. A subcommittee of SAP was organized for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts of short term rentals in Denver. The subcommittee held many meetings and a public forum for citizens of Denver. Over 100 residents attended the public forum. Councilwoman Sussman attended all the. Meetings and indeed organized and held town. Meetings as well. The ZAP committee. And ANC delegates voted overwhelmingly to support the proposed ordinance. Provided the primary residency requirement, whereas retained in the ordinance. Our position has not changed. The primary residence requirement is essential for our members. Indeed, this was a compromise. For our members. Residents value the intimate quality of the quiet local streets with single family homes. Denver's neighboring neighborhoods should not be for sale. Residents who purchased their property could not have anticipated that the house next door would turn into a motel and present issues which were not conducive to family oriented neighborhood environment. We thank Councilman Sussman, who worked hard during the past two years to model an ordinance which respects the property rights. Of the many thousand residents in. Denver. It achieves the goal of preserving our residential neighborhoods for families and ensures properties will not be converted to short term rentals based on financial considerations. But instead, those rentals will be available. For those who work in Denver. I urge council to pass this ordinance with a. Primary residency requirement. Thank you. AMOS That as Brenda Beard. Good evening. Thank you for having us. So I'm here tonight to talk a bit about tax revenue on vacation rentals, both primary resident and non primary residents. The tax revenue that it brings to our city and our state. Denver is known to be one of the top business meeting destinations, as well as one of the hottest vacation spots for many worldwide travelers. So in 2015, there was over 15 million visitors and nearly $5 billion came in and nearly 100 million in state and local revenues. So all that money went to the restaurants, attractions, transportation, businesses and supporting people. Over 51,000 people in their jobs. So Denver charges the 10.75% tax on the sale of lodging. And in the first eight months of 2014, I found that Denver raised over $51 million through the lodgers tax, and that was an increase of over 22% from the prior year. And I just think this number will continue to become much greater with all vacation rentals contributing to this tax. And I think if we limit this to only primary residence rentals, we're actually doing a disservice to all the people who would like to visit Denver. It's important that Denver provides lodging to accommodate all desires of our tourists. One of the top reasons people pick a vacation rental home is because they like the privacy and the space and the affordability. We strongly feel that all primary resident and non primary resident vacation rentals should be allowed in Denver and should be required to collect that lodgers tax. We need to encourage tourism in our city and if we outlaw vacation rentals where the landlords have to be there, I think it's detrimental. So please eliminate the primary residence requirement as all short term rentals are a benefit to our economy. Thank you. Amos Behar. Next, we have Shays Brady. And as Shays comes up, I'm gonna call the next speakers, Grant Swanson. Betsy chuckles Bill Marks and John Noble. You four can make your way up to the pew. You can begin your remarks. And I'm going to correct my name is Shane Brady. Jim Brady. I'm. And I must say, I'm going to date. Myself, but I haven't been before city council since Mayor Hancock was on city council. So that was a while back. Good evening. I'm Shane Brady and I live in 9.4 St Paul's Street in Congress Park neighborhood and represented by councilman knew. I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. We're a registered neighborhood organization here in Denver. We've been around for 45 years. We are a board of 37 residents made up of those that own home. And. Those that rent homes. Our age groups anywhere from late twenties on up, sitting on our board. So over the past two years, while Councilwoman Sussman had the meetings, we did follow them and listen to our delegates coming from in C over the past two years to learn more about the short term rentals, we also had city council representatives come to our zoning land use transportation license committee meeting and tell us more about this proposed ordinance. We did have a vote at our zoning committee and we did favor that. The city passed the short term rental with conditions. We also went before our board and our board voted to. In support of the ordinance to change the current zoning regulations to permit short term rentals. Provided that those are restricted to owner occupied properties. And that was a big discussion among our homeowners and renters. We also asked that. Our city also include the requirement of registration and licensing of short. Term rentals by the city. Thank you. Thank you. Grant Swanson. Good evening. My name is Grant Swanson. I live in the Sunnyside neighborhood in North Denver and I own a short term rental property in the Berkeley neighborhood, also in North Denver. My short term rental is not my primary residence, so if the proposals before council pass in their current form, I will be shutting down my short term rental. I would prefer not to do that. One of the reasons that I would prefer not to do it is that I, as a citizen in North Denver, feel really good about the positive economic impact that my little rental house has on my neighborhood. I use a cleaning service to get the house ready. As guests come and go and the cleaning service is owned and run by a woman who has lived in my neighborhood her whole life. She employs several of her family members. They're an awesome team. They can sweep in and get my house ready in an hour. I when when I was closing my books on 2015, I did the math and I saw that I paid her $5,000 in calendar 2015 for her services. And I felt really good about that for two reasons. First of all, she does a great job. I mean, that's sort of the most important thing. But it also felt really good because those $5,000 stayed right in my neighborhood. My rental property is located two blocks from the intersection of 44th and law. If you spent time in North Denver, you know, that's a really busy intersection. At last count, there are five restaurants arrayed around that intersection. One of the restaurants I've been going in for years and also owned by a neighbor of mine, not a next door neighbor, but a north Denver neighbor of mine. And her restaurant is at the top of the list of the restaurants that I recommend my guests visit. Whether it's a cleaning service or it's a restaurant, having great local businesses in all of our neighborhoods is critical for the health and vitality of our neighborhoods. And my short term rental is a small way to help support my neighborhood's economy. I would encourage the Council to consider an amendment to allow non primary residences to be used as short term rentals so that we can continue to have the impact that we're having on our neighborhoods economies. Thank you. Thank you. Bessie, Chaka and Mamie have 6 minutes. Good evening, council members. My name is Bessie Charges and. I live in the Alma facility neighborhood in my family has owned investment properties for 51 years in Denver. We own Southeast Denver, Denver Country Club, Cherry Creek and in the Highlands also. As an investor whose family has been doing this for 51 years, I can tell you right now I'm really embarrassed about how investors are acting in the state of Colorado right now. They've really changed a lot of things that have been going on in Denver. They don't care about neighborhoods. All they care about is their bottom dollars. And that is not exactly the reason why my family's withstood the test of time over all these years for the good years and bad years. And now the reputation that we do around conserving also our properties that we own in Denver Country Club. But there is no way that any of those people in those neighborhoods would allow an Airbnb to go on in that neighborhood. Trust me, I look like this because I had to go most of my land in between the rain and stuff today. So excuse me, but even when I work on my own properties and the newbies that move into Denver Country Club, look at me like, what is she doing here? And I'm like, We actually on this for a long time. So it's really interesting to see how investors are handling the properties today in Colorado. They make more money than running. Right now, I went on to Airbnb and pulled up 1010 listings that were up there and 30% of them. So three out of the ten, of course, were investors that had their properties up. Right now, my family probably makes about a good $50,000 a month clear. If I did R&B, Airbnb right now, I'd probably make about a half a million a month. Doesn't. I don't care about the money. It's all about how we are and how we represent ourselves and neighborhoods. Money is not the object when you've been running as long as my family has. It's about who we are. And people know us. I grew up in country club, I was born there. And so riding up and down those streets, especially on Lafayette where I was born, I remember all the neighbors coming out and handing me cookies or whatever and making sure that I didn't, you know. Well, at least the sidewalks were in a lot better condition back then than they are now. But I know that families, these investors are not considering families. People that are coming in with young kids want to be able to know their neighbors and make sure that, you know, everyone watches out for their kids. Investors don't care about that. They just care about their bottom line. The number one thing that all these investors don't understand is that it actually does lower your property values. Nobody wants to live next door to a motel. I know that. I don't want to live next door to a motel. And a lot of these investors don't care about their properties. So they turn into like a motel six. I'm proud of the man that has made that has spent, you know, $5,000. And that's great. But nobody wants to live next door to a Motel six when you're trying to raise your family and you want to be part of your neighborhood. There's a lot of different things that happen in property values is the number one thing that's going to go down. And if your neighborhood gets known as an area that there's a lot of Airbnb going on there, you will see the difference and people will start noticing that kind of stuff. So I propose that you keep the way this amendment is that you guys have going on right now, do not allow investors to use their their properties as, as Airbnbs. And like I said, as somebody who's been an investor for decades and decades and decades in Denver, it just makes us look worse than we are today because we are definitely not shining through right now in the state of Colorado. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Bill Marks. Hi there. Good evening. My name is Bill Marx. I live over in the Five Points area and I've been a VR bio AR on VR bio for two years and since I've been able to have my home is a VR bio home, I've actually been able to help the neighborhood in regards the esthetics of the neighborhood, the way the neighborhood looks . My renters that come and rent from me are anyone from doctors, lawyers, people coming to visit sick people in hospitals, parents coming to visit children in school as well as grandparents also coming to visit other children that might be having babies. So my property has helped within that aspect of being able to bring or bringing that neighborhood feel. My renters also go down and use all the local businesses that are close to me. Coffee at the point is also one of them that's near my property. The owners love the fact that I have people come down and support local businesses, which has been very nice. The thing that concerns me a little bit is that the city council is basically infringing on my property rights as a property owner. I don't like the fact that someone can tell me what I can and can't do with my home. And it it I feel it's un-American, it's unconstitutional. And what's next? Are they going to be able to tell me that I can't have an American flag in front of my home? And I would hope that you don't do that to us because I don't want to lose my property rights as a taxpaying citizen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Next, we have Joel Noble. And as Joel comes up on the call, the next four speakers George Maile, John Weekley, Clover Stein, Mary Lou thought that I got that wrong job. Rumors. Mr. Council President. Do I have 6 minutes and. You have 6 minutes? Yes, sir. Thank you so much. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street and I'm here tonight speaking only for myself. I've been watching this issue for the past couple of years, slightly from the outside. And it was fascinating how it began. It couldn't have been more fractious. The first meetings held with Councilman Sussman and see people who are doing short term rentals. People couldn't be further apart. Those who wanted anything to go, just let's make it legal to those who were saying this is going to be the end of things, that the Denver Post, you know, pretty rightfully summarized as page after page of unrelenting alarm. That's where we started. And with the leadership of Councilwoman Susman and a lot of hard work from I.N.S. and neighbors and people all over the city, it's come together to a pretty good compromise. It's not a compromise that everybody's happy with. But I am proud of Denver. When I see a topic that's given enough time that I can start off with so much animosity and find a pretty good compromise. Now, Denver had a leg up in this. Unlike recreational marijuana, we weren't the first. We didn't have to invent this from whole cloth and wonder what would happen. We could look at what other cities have done and what other cities have done is pretty much what we're doing here. We're just trying to do it a little bit better. We learned that in order to regulate short term rentals, you need to make it easy. You need to make it inexpensive. And we're going further by making it totally online. We learned from other cities that that registration number is vital to compliance. So we're doing that. We learned that you don't add a lot of costs for inspections. You inspect as needed. And the key thing that we learned is an emerging consensus across cities, and it's the primary residence requirement. Other cities have chosen this. Some cities have not chosen this and then reverse themselves and move towards it, including Austin, Texas, which is actually the home of HomeAway, the parent company of VR bio, as they learned that primary residence is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? Neighborhoods will tell you they're concerned about not knowing who lives there. So if there are issues, noise issues, trash issues, etc., they wouldn't know who to talk to. And that's a pretty good concern. But those who are lucky enough to own multiple properties say, Well, I'm concerned that I won't have another way to make money off my properties. I mean, that's a pretty good concern. But I think the key concern is for you to consider as to why the primary residence requirement is important. Came up in this meeting before you even went on break, and it came up more than once. It's the crisis of unaffordability, of housing. This is a crisis in Denver. Redfin just came out with another report today about price escalation in Denver being higher than San Francisco. We're number one. All right. And the primary residence requirement means that we're not creating an incentive for people to take long term rental units off the market in order to put them to use the short term rentals. If it wasn't for the primary residence requirement, we would be creating that incentive and understand that there were earlier alternate ideas and may even be presented later as amendments that people could say, Well, you could have a short term rental at your primary residence, or if you didn't, you could have one more somewhere else. Beware of that, please, because you'd be creating an incentive for those who have the means to have a secondary house to purchase one . Take it off the market and whether it was owner occupied previously or long term rent occupied and put it to use for short term rental and exacerbate the housing crisis by reducing the supply. So I looked around after this, came to the planning board because I did try to keep my distance on this topic and just watch it play out until Planning Board had had considered it. And I found this paper from the Sustainable Economies Law Center regulating short term rentals, a guidebook for Equitable Policy. I'm glad that a barge is very familiar with this paper as well, and it summarizes what's going on around the country in different policies. And there's a lot to this. But they said if affordable housing is a concern in your community, you want a primary residence requirement and then go further and say if affordable housing is a really big concern, you want a primary residence requirement and capped the number of days. It can be used. Because if you cap the number of days it can be used, you might change the economics. Someone might be willing to have a long term renter in their ADU or in their house, in their basement apartment. And if it makes sense for them to do so, they will have a long term renter. But if short term rents are so much more lucrative, they'll do that. So you might cap the days. Now, the city proposal doesn't include a cap on days. It is, as this paper discusses, hard to enforce. Who's going to account for those days? And understand why we didn't go that far. It paper's very fair, though. It does say there is a case where you might not want to consider primary residents. And that's where you want to encourage tourism. And housing is an abundant supply. Someday we should have that problem of abundant supply of housing and falling rents. But we don't have that now. Please honor all the work that's gone in the last couple of years from all the many parties and honor the compromise by accepting this as this in front of you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble. I may. I skipped over. Name the next is Brian Egan. Did I say Brian Higgins name? I apologize for that, Brian. And then we're going to go George, John Clover and Mary Lou. So, yes, Mr. Reagan, you. Can begin remarks. Thank you very much. My name is Brian Egan. I live at 606 Lafayette. Most of the co-founder and CEO of a company called Evolve Vacation Rental Network, we're headquartered here in Denver, proudly employ about 100 people. That's a number that's up about four X in the last 18 months. And the number that we anticipate will double within the next 18 months. Our company acts as a effectively a virtual property manager helping second homeowners around North America. To rent out their homes. So we have a lot of experience in this market operating in communities throughout North America, throughout the US. We have about 2000 owners who are in our network. We've conducted about 55,000 bookings across from them or on their behalf, rather for over 275,000 nights. So it's based on that experience that I'm here to address the primary residence restriction that's in this bill and to offer our strong opposition to it. Essentially, as we look at all of the markets that we've operated within and all those 55,000 bookings, there is a very clear pattern that emerges of what works on regulation. There are five drivers. There's owner behavior. There's traveler behavior. There's a community impact. There's revenue impact. And then ultimately, there's enforceability. Across. None of those five drivers is a primary residence restriction versus a non primary resident or a primary resident host versus a non primary resident. An effective or reliable proxy to separate good outcomes from bad outcomes or good actors from bad actors. If you look at each of those five drivers, owners who are a second home owner are no more likely to want their home to be used as a party den, or no more likely to want the erosion of equity value in their neighborhood where they own this home than a primary resident. Guests on the very few occasions, on a percentage basis where guests cause problems, they are completely indifferent as to whether they are causing problems for an owner of a primary residence or a non primary residence. When it comes to a community impact, yes, there are things we need to be mindful of as we approach this for the first time. But again, the permitting process is the best lever and the best mechanism to watch out for communities and nuisance nuisance issues. Enforceability of nuisance laws shouldn't be discriminated between primary non primary on a revenue basis. Primary owners will book more, make more money, will pay their taxes on time, and are far more likely to be compliant. That is true throughout every market in North America that we've studied. And then lastly, when it comes to enforceability, I would just say this. It is very difficult for us to understand how you would know the difference between me at 606 Lafayette renting my house three months a year and living in a nine months a year, and then the following year to vice versa, living in a three months a year and registering again. I'm sorry your 3 minutes are up. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. George Mayo. Good evening, council members. My name is George Male. I'm retired CWA three United States Army Officer, Master, Army Aviator, Combat Pilot. And I am a neighborhood advocate. So let's start real from the beginning. I've been involved with short term rentals since May, since 2010, when I took two bad players in Corey, Merrill and Stokes Place to Board of Adjustments hearing because for a year and a half it took about to shut them down from the wild parties the noise, the trash, the parking. This went on and it was a year and a half before we finally got this stopped. I know a bad player. I've been involved with this for six years. So let's just say it's kind of funny when people come up and talk about it. But, you know, in the book, in the codes, what part of tenancy is arranged on a month to month or longer basis? This is the law of Denver. And what part of. This law did none of these people understand? Did you not know this? That it's against the law and it is now. Not once in all of our meetings. Mary Beth, and thank you very much for what you're doing. Have any of these people stood up and said, I apologize for breaking the law. I apologize to my neighbors for being a bad player. I know that this has been illegal, but I still continue to do it. And I apologize. I've never heard one of them say. I think I'll. Cease and desist until the city council changes the rules. I've never heard that from anybody. I'm kind of ashamed about that. But anyway, that's my perception. You know, it's when I think about it, you have to go back 250 years. And I went back to the Federalist Papers of James Madison. And it probably holds true. Here, as it did. Then, when he stated how to guard. Against factions or groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Think about that. That does apply with a lot of online. If whatever you call them now, short term rental people. So anyway, in conclusion, primary resident. Primary resident, I can't stress how important it is that you go back to your neighborhood and the peace and contentment that you have knowing who your neighbors are. Residential neighborhoods are not commercial enterprise zones. They were never meant to be. This is why we have ordinances against less than month to month at the present time. So with that in mind. I think the free passes are over with. It's time to end free passes. Thank you, Chief. Next, Jon Weekly. Thank you, council members. My name is John Weekley. I live in University Hills. These are the facts. Short term rentals are good for Denver. They empower individuals, encourage creativity. Add to the versatility of our progressive city. And they make our neighborhoods better, kept updated and more beautiful than our reactionary neighbors. They create jobs. Imagine Mr. Weekly. Mr.. Mr. Weekly. Jobs. Mr. Weekly, if you could please address the Council. Yeah. Simple jobs like lawn care, house cleaning being created by you and me. That's good for everyone. And to think some of you are still scared of something that does not exist in this industry. Corporations and big investors. This fear is not information to base our decisions on. This fear is not what we build public policy on. We don't make decisions based on what might happen. Let's be clear. If you support the primary residence restriction, you oppose short term rentals. You cannot say you are in support of short term rentals. And at the same time say, but I support a primary residence restriction that doesn't work to be operated correctly. Homeowners generally will need to have another residence. Why? It's pretty simple, actually. Where is the primary residence supposed to go when their primary residence is rented? Well, I'll state the obvious. They would go to their second home. Which would make their second home their first home. Or would it? Now, therein lies the confusion. For the sake of simple functional legislature, drop the primary residence restriction to support primary residents. You're not in favor of improving Denver. You're not in favor of saying to the rest of the state, the country in the world that we are progressive and that we're willing to accept and regulate change in technology. You are not saying I accept versatility and smart growth. You are saying I don't want stars. You are saying I don't want to improve anything. There is no in between. The primary residence restriction is not a compromise. It's a sabotage. To be clear, to support it means you are intentionally swayed by the fear, not the reality, of major operators taking over your neighborhood. The reality is this is not happening and won't happen because it is simply too laborious and time consuming to be profitable for a larger business. There are much easier ways to make a dime, and these rentals are labors of love, more so than profit machines that interest corporations. Please support stars as the majority in the know do by voting down the primary residence clause and moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weekly. And audience member I would please ask that speakers address the council. And we, we admire the passion on both sides. We asked if we would be respectful of the speakers and keep our comments to ourselves. Please. Next we have Clovis time. Hi, I'm Clovis Stein. I live in Breckenridge, Colorado. I have two properties in the Sunnyside neighborhood. One of them is a short term rental apartment. I would just like to say that I agree with the last speaker in saying that. If you. Move forward with a primary residence requirement. It is like saying that you don't want short term rentals. I keep hearing a lot of people say that having short term rentals in our neighborhoods is like having a hotel in our neighborhoods. And I'd like to address that idea as I feel it's not in any way an accurate depiction of what short term rentals are. They are not hotels. Hotels are high density, mass occupancy, commercial buildings that do not look anything like the surrounding homes. Once a hotel is built, it will always be a hotel. It will accommodate many different groups of people at a time. The guests are welcome for as little as one night, as long as they have a credit card. There is zero discrimination. Short term rentals are duplexes or single family homes that look just like all of the surrounding homes. They accommodate one group at a time. The majority of these rental properties have at least a three night minimum stay. Guests are prescreened by owners who have a vested interest in keeping their properties in good condition and in keeping a strong standing within their community. Short term rentals are fluid. A hotel will always be a hotel, but a short term rental could one day be a long term rental or a primary residence as needs dictate. We are fortunate to live in a country where home ownership allows us the right to use our property as our needs fluctuate. Currently, our home is a second home for us. It is a short term rental. One day it will be a long term rental. One day it will be a primary residence. One of our recent guests wrote, We were a party of three small children, barely outnumbered by four adults a mom, a dad and grandparents. We're in Denver for the wedding of our son, our brother, our brother in law. And we could not imagine spending five days in a hotel. This home was the perfect solution. They went on to detail the amenities that they appreciated. Sitting on the front porch with the kids while the others slept in, cooking in the backyard with their family from within the neighborhood, using the grill and the patio, the backyard which was fenced in. Our guests are the sons and daughters the brothers, the sisters, the grandparents, the parents of people who lived in these neighborhoods. They are threads in the fabric of these neighborhoods. They are not random strangers. They spend their money here at all the neighborhood restaurants and businesses. They enhance the character of the neighborhood. They do not take away from it. If non primary residents, if non primary residency rentals are banned, visitors to the city will be forced to stay in expensive hotels far from their families, or rent out a spare room in the primary residence of a stranger, or stay in a home that is full of somebody else's primary residence sort of things which is uncomfortable for everyone. This time, your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Next, we have Mary Lou Fanelli. And as I finally comes up, I'm going to call the next four speakers Craig Ellsworth, Michael C Becker, Aaron Streets, who has 6 minutes. And John. Mary Lou, you can begin on your mark. Good evening. I'm Mary Lou Fanelli. I support limiting short term rentals to primary residences only. I have lived in the 800 block of Steel Street in Congress Park for 29 years. This single family neighborhood facilitates connections, relationships, commitment, and stronger neighborhoods. We know each other, talk with each other, socialize with each other, help each other, care for each other. We are the village that participates in raising children, attending christenings, bar mitzvahs, graduations and weddings. Buying Girl Scout cookies and Boy Scout popcorn. We are baby child, pet and house sitters. Helping hands supporters through family crises. We are the kind of neighborhood that makes Denver a wonderful place for families of all kinds to live. My neighbors and I discovered this spring that the two story Craftsman bungalow at the end of the block was an star advertised on Airbnb as the Steele Street estate, although that listing has been reviewed and removed. 800 Steal Street appears on VR below same content no fancy title described as great for groups. Sleep 16. It is house groups of 1114 1516 800. Steele Street is not anyone's primary residence. Would you like this house on your block? 800 Steel Street was owned for 23 years by a couple who raised four children to adulthood. Their home hosted many neighborhood events. Very loud parties and music emanate from 800 Steel Street during the day and into the night. Numerous nonresident cars park on steel and Adams streets, diminishing parking for residents and their families and friends. Bags of garbage and overstuffed recycle bins are visible from our front porches. Residents occasionally have loud parties, but we know each other and must continue to live with each other. We can ask a neighbor to tone it down, take it inside, or cut it off at a particular time and have that request respected. Strangers have no such allegiance to those who live here. Commercial entities such as 800 steel st limit the property rights of the surrounding homeowners as we are being deprived of the privacy and quiet enjoyment of our primary residences and having our property values diminished. Today's Denver Post reports 2000 staffers in Denver, how those could help alleviate the city's shortage of housing stock. Investors who bought and renovated these properties knew that staffers were illegal. They chose to take this risk. Profit making, not community service, motivated them. The future sale of larger homes and single family neighborhoods. Your time is up. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Craig. Craig Elsworth. 3 minutes. Good evening. My name is Craig Ellsworth. I'm a Denver resident and owner of a short term rental property. I'm also a member of the Capitol Hill United Neighborhood Association. When I applied for my. And it and obtained my business license and lodgers tax ID. I told the city exactly what I was doing operating a short term rental. I support the proposed ordinances with the exception of the primary residence requirement, which I believe will effectively hand Airbnb a monopoly in Denver short. Term middle market. And deprive Denver's visitors of the choice to rent a private home for their stay. These council bills. Proclaim to create, quote, a fair operating environment for all persons in the business of lodging, end quote. In reality, the primary residence requirement unfairly favors Airbnb over competing platforms such as HomeAway and VR Bio, which, by the way, was founded here in Colorado, unfairly favors hosts who rent a portion of their home over those who rent their entire home and unfairly forces hundreds of Denver property owners like myself out of the short term rental market. Over 900 people have signed an online petition calling on Denver City Council to enact regulations that do not limit short term rentals to primary residences. Here's what a few of them have to say. Pam. Arizona's governor clearly realizes that creating a monopoly for Airbnb and forcing visitors to stay in owner occupied homes is bad for the state. Anthony I prefer a short term rental because it connects me with neighborhoods and communities. It gives me an opportunity. To experience places in a way that I would not be able to do if I were forced to stay in a hotel. Brian My family travels to Denver every year and we stay at short term rentals. We have a daughter with special needs, and staying at a hotel is simply not a good fit for our family. When people visit Denver, their transportation choices are virtually unlimited. Visitors can get around by rail, bus, shuttle, bike. Taxi, rental car, cardigan. Zipcar, Uber, Lyft, and even by horse and carriage. Why then, would you restrict their choice of accommodations? I urge you to do the right thing. Please do not hand Airbnb a monopoly. Do not force us out of the short term rental market. And do not deprive visitors the choice of renting a private home for their stay in Denver. Thank you. The industry elsewhere. Michael C Becker. Hi. I'm Michael Schumacher. I'm a law professor and a political science scientist at DU. And what I'm here to do is advocate that the council adopt the perhaps the most flexible rules governing short term rentals to preserve the very robust market. What I'm not going to do is lecture you about. The law unless you want to go to sleep really quickly. I can do that. But what I'd like to do is just share some anecdotal experiences that help you understand how families like mine find it absolutely essential to have a vibrant market for short term rentals. So the first reason is, but for our short term rentals, my family simply would not be able to travel. My husband and I have three small children. Two of them have special needs. We have tried the hotel route and it is simply impossible. There are very few hotels that have three adjoining rooms. They cannot be adequately supervised. They need to be in a home environment just like ours where routine is very important. And we have dinner together. The children make their beds. They cook with us and they clean. Something that is stable. And that is what many families prefer and need. Mrs. Teabagger, could you please speak in the microphone. Before and then me put it down a little bit? So, for instance. When there was a calamity at our house here in Denver, we had to move out for a month. We had to stay in two different short term rentals and could not find a hotel that would accommodate our family. But we did live in. Homes that were available to us. And there's not a huge market. Right now, actually, for homes that are accommodating of my family. I think we need a more robust market than less. And when we visit my mother, who's 85 in Wisconsin, we cannot visit her unless there is a home that we can live in for a short period of time. There are no hotels available where she lives. When we take my other in-laws with us. On vacation, which we just into San Diego. One of my in-laws is battling cancer. She cannot stay in a hotel. Adequately supervised by the rest of us. We have to stay in one family unit in a house together. So that's one reason we can't. Travel, but for this opportunity for short term housing. The second is it really allows us to live in a healthy community environment. We choose to live in areas where we can walk the streets, participate in the community. Go get ice cream at the neighborhood ice cream shop. We're not interested as a family and living next to the airport in a convention hotel. Finally, I think it actually promotes responsibility. We are not the partiers and I don't think there are many. There may be some, but I think the vast majority of folks who do this are interested and respecting the owners of the property. Just like you would respect your own home. One of the people from whom I rented right here is now one of my very good friends. People who had rented from me when I previously had a very low property. Have become my very good friends, stayed at my rental property for ten years in a row at Thanksgiving and actually became such good friends. She's out here visiting. Right now for my husband's retirement party, which I'm starting. To. I apologize. 3 minutes are up. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Aaron Street. Erin Streets. She left. Okay. Next, John Neiman. Let's look at Europe. Hello and good evening. My name is John Joseph Newman. Everyone calls me JJ. I live at 2786 South Wolfe Street. I come here as a resident, but I also come here as the president of the Denver in our neighborhood cooperation. Also a board member of the Harvey Park Improvement Association. We have done, as I am, see a lot of research and worked very closely with council to understand the different, finer points of this short term rental discussion and feel. Bear with me on an allegory. Another one of these floods happens and Denver right goes up into the mountains and is going along our rivers and seas. Thousands of rainbow trout have been washed up on the shores and he sees one person there on the shore picking up the rainbow trout one by one and throwing them back into the river. And he goes up to this young man and he says, Why are you doing this? There's thousands of fish along this riverbed. There's no way that you could save them all. And he grabs one fish and he looks at him. He says, Yeah, but at least I saved this one and threw it into the river. Now, I'm not saying we have all the answers to what and short term rentals are going to be. But I do know that our neighborhoods are vital. They don't need to be revitalized. We don't need an even more business investment in our neighborhoods. What we need is a way for these sharing economies to help build and protect neighborhoods. We have over 2600 or 266,000 households that fall within the registered neighborhood. Organizations that are members of Denver agency. And most of them have the opportunity to be able to participate in this in the process. And over the last two years, we've heard from so many of those residents. And what we are consistently hearing is that short term rentals are illegal for a reason and that a lot of the residents would like to see them stay illegal. But through our work and through that, we have seen that having this restriction is a compromise. It's a compromise that allows neighborhoods to take charge and be in charge of how their homes are relating to business use around around their homes. As Kevin Flynn talked about in my neighborhood, there was one property where someone lived there and then moved away and proceeded to rent it out to a bunch of short term rental people that did not respect that neighborhood. And it took more than a year even with an HRA covenant for that neighborhood to be able to stand up for the kind of community that they wanted. I think the rule that we're trying to pass today. Is a good one and it'll allow the neighborhoods to continue to have input into how their neighborhoods are organized. I look forward to working with Stacey Luke as we find more ways to. Regulate and without the primary restriction, I just I don't see how the neighborhood. Could support this measure. Thank you. James Neiman. All right, I'm gonna call the next five speakers. Michael Guggenheim. Michael Guggenheim, Lance Musselman, John Ludvig, Cris S and Gina D'Ambrosio. So Mr. Guggenheim, you can begin your remarks and the other for you can go ahead and take a seat at the front pew. Thank you. I'm Michael Guggenheim and I live in the Bunny Brain neighborhood and have lived in Denver since 1981. I've been a long term property owner, a long term rental property owner, and a short term property rental owner. So I have covered the gamut. I have had in on the same block and I've had after I've had two short term rental properties at one time. Now we have one and we're soon to have zero by the end of the year. But I have a strong interest in in there not being a primary residence provision. There is also a member of the Denver short term rental alliance, which is there's a group of a group of us that have that we obviously oppose the primary residence provision. And and I'd like to speak to the issue of of enforcement and compliance as a builder in Denver as well, I'm very familiar with enforcement and compliance and the necessity of it. We are a group that is interested in regulation. We are interested in enforcement, we are interested in compliance. And and in all of those things can contribute, if done correctly, to short term rentals that that that contribute to the to the fabric of the neighborhood. I would invite Councilman Cashman, who's whose neighborhood I meant to come, take a look at the properties that they have. They are beautiful. We have had zero complaints from neighbors. My neighbors are aware of what I'm doing and they all have a way to get a hold of me if if there were to be any issues which there have not been. And and I think that's important for anybody who is doing short term rentals to have that communication with their neighbors, whether long term or short term. We have paid tens of thousands of dollars in and in in in lodging tax in Denver. And it is at this point, I think that if there were to be a primary residence provision, as has been mentioned by others previously here this evening, it would be a death sentence for for short term rentals. I would never go to a place where where somebody has all of their their their belongings at the home. It wouldn't feel comfortable there. We have had we've had families that have been in town for for a number of reasons. Professor C Becker, who spoke earlier, was a guest of ours. And we wonderful friends now and his family was was was fabulous. And we have many guys like that. And we promote and and support short term rentals without the short without the primary residence provision. Thank you. Thank you. Lance Musselman. Good evening, council members. My name is Lance Muslim and I live in Washington, part of Washington Park East. I've been there for over 30 years, raised a family there. I've been involved in community affairs and I'm invested in the community. I'm here to support the amendment that restricts staffers to single to primary dwellings. I also support the companion bill, the excise and licensing on implementing that. I believe it's well thought out. I believe it can work. I do believe I have cautions about going beyond the primary residence. This legislation is going to introduce an endless stream of legal transients into every neighborhood. These people are not invested in our neighborhood. They don't know us. What stays in Vegas or what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? Well, maybe what happens in Denver stays in Denver. This is a grand social experiment endorsed by public policy. I believe it's incumbent upon the the council to proceed cautiously. You have the time to do it right to make sure you take your problems, take care of problems as they come up. I urge you to do that and not rush into this precipitously and expand it to the point where we have thousands of these basically legalized neighborhood hotels everywhere in Denver. Thank you. Thank you, John Ludvig. Good evening, council members. My name is John Ludwig and I advocate for. Short term rentals. I was a teacher and. Principal in Denver. Public Schools and that honor of. Working with many children in the city. And the one thing I taught them, I hope I taught them that they took with them was to eradicate fear through knowledge. And when you know people and you meet people and you see different cultures walk in your world, it opens your eyes. And I'd like to speak primarily to that. I have some individuals I have being a teacher, I'm big on show and tell. So I brought my friends with me. But there's a gentleman here from France, from Bordeaux. France mowed my lawn today. I bet I'm the only one in the room who got that done. There's a gentleman over there that is Airbnb host for my wife, who travels extensively. I married a genius for the sake of the children. So off she goes. And she works in hospitals. And she was going from Hilton to this hotel. To that hotel. And no, sir, we don't know where she is because room three or two is an answering. Now, my friend Stephane calls me and says, Jan had a hard day at work. What can we do? I said, Try Scotch first and butter pecan ice cream secondly. And he went out and bought the ice cream for her. That's what because what we have in this Airbnb relationship, my next door neighbor went to the hospital with a bellyache, came back with stage four ovarian cancer. We're all devastated. Blew us out of the water. Every one of us. These gentlemen are French cooks. They went across the street and they shared recipes for 2 hours. For 2 hours, she was cancer free. I think that's important. I think that's what we've got to deal with. You've got to open your eyes and look at the rest of the world and they're coming to Denver. Boy howdy. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Chris. S. Good evening, counsel crisps and I'm relatively new to the Denver area. I just kind of want to point out that since 2015, the amount of complaints related to the short term rental market as investigated by the city of Denver. One, two. 345646. Total complaints in relationship to short term rentals in the city of Denver that were investigated for our last council meetings. Think it's a little overzealous and a little rushed to consider this kind of statistic against several thousands of these short term rentals that we've been stating and some of the debates we've had that, you know, we go to shut down something that is showing such great community, you know, building and also opportunities for someone like me to be in Denver and enjoy, you know, what you. Guys got here and then work up. To be a primary resident in this fine state so or city. And I'm also currently living in downtown and I'm in a very healthy community where there are short term rentals. And I want to say that the neighbors and the neighborhood is better off with it. And those people that I interact with daily tend to be some of the highlights and a really good part of my time here in Denver. Thank you. Gina and Ambrosia. Is Gina in the chambers? She left. Okay. I will call the next five speakers. They are John Beck, Chris Benton Lane Bates, James Slaughter and Jeff Macko. So you five can make your way up. And Mr. Beck. John Beck. You can begin your remarks. That's me. So my name is Mr. Beck. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Denver Show Terminal Alliance. I own a single family home located in the Lower Highland neighborhood of Denver. I've owned this property for about three years, during which time it's been operated entirely as a short term rental. I don't live on the property. I have some prepared remarks, but I think most everything has been spoken and I'd like to kind of go off my prepared remarks, make a few other comments. I think Mr. Eagan said it best that there is there is a disconnect between the issues that people think that we're solving with these proposed ordinances requiring primary residency and the the real issues that are out there and the evolve people. He's the CEO of that particular company. They've been able to really narrow in on the things that do impact bad performers and bad tenants and bad owners. And I don't believe it's necessarily a primary residency requirement. So I think we should be very careful because there's an opportunity here to legislate or two to create an ordinance that doesn't actually do what we want it to do, but it will kill an industry. We know that. I think it's been pretty I think it's been said that there's a lot of people that are going to go out of business. I would be one I was going to go through the statistics of how much money that I've made that has stayed here in the Denver area over the last three years that I've owned my property. It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, housekeepers, restaurants, and that's a lot of people. And to say a little bit about the people that staying in these PRB O's and these these short term rentals, I have a family of five and I exclusively stay. Everywhere I go, we travel all around the country. It's always a home. It's always in a residential neighborhood. You know, we are impeccable and determining that we were going to keep that house as perfect as it was when we found it there. All impeccably maintained. The house that I have, I've spent $100,000 in maintaining it over the last three years. It's perfect. It's better than all of my neighbors houses. I have to do that in order to continue to attract people. It's a beautiful place. And so that will go away. And when you look at across the board, that's a lot of money going out of the local economy. And I don't believe you're going to get what you think you're going to get with this ordinance. You are going to lose it. You are going to lose the industry. And I think, you know, it's fighting against the trend that in its inevitable anyway those are just my comments. I you I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I urge you to consider removing this restriction. Thank you, Mr. Beck. Chris Benton. Chris Benton no longer in chambers. Okay, next we have Lane Bates. Good evening, counsel. My name is Lane Bates. I live downtown. I do own another property in the Curtis Park neighborhood. Just a couple of blocks from Coffey on the point. A little bit about the demographics of people that come and stay at my property. Most of them are the tourists slash visitors are families that are traveling as a family. 700 square feet, the average visitors approximately 50 plus in age and is traveling with their children or grandchildren. They rent SD cards to attend graduations, weddings, baby births. A lot of a lot of the older couples rent it to come visit their grown children that live here in Denver. They ran stars so they can stay as a family and a home without incurring high costs associated with purchasing a suite at a hotel. It's not to say hotels aren't bad. I stay in hotels myself sometimes. SDR is used in this capacity must be pristinely maintained there reviewed after every stay the they must be maintained interior and exterior. As such lawns are maintained. Property owners continue to invest in home improvements to attract tourists to their homes. It's competitive, thus increasing the property value of the neighborhood. Two additional points. Number one, the effect of the regulation. We know how many because we can go on the website, how many Airbnbs and how many home away's are here in the city of Denver ? What we do not know, and if we pass this regulation, we do not know how many of those are primary occupancy. So we could, as a last speaker noted, completely wipe out this industry. We just don't know. And I don't think there's any data out there that I have seen that shows the number of listings, their primary occupancy. The other thing that has been noted is this. This does favor one platform over another platform. And finally, hotels have a place in this business in tourism. Stars have a place in in tourism. The one thing I'll note is that when you build a hotel, it's built. It will always be a hotel. When you have a residence that is an STR, it can go to a long term rental. It can become a residence. You can sell it on the open market, or it can go back to a short term rental. It's scalable. As the market expands, as it contracts with the number of tourists that come into town, it can go from long term. Short term. And then you can sell it. To somebody else. Once you build a hotel, it's built. I am strongly opposed to this primary residency requirement. Thank you for your time tonight. Vigorous debate. James Slaughter. I respectfully. Ask. Okay. Thank you, sir. Jeff, make. Jeff Nichols, not in chambers. All right, then we are moving right along. The next speakers are Nick Magno, Janelle, Janelle Kenny, Andrea Phillips, Charles Charles Busch and Robert Cotton. So. Is Nick in the building? Nick Magno. But these are okay so does not seem Nick is in chambers next is Janelle Kinney. I'm Janelle Kenny. I live in the Overland's neighborhood. I want to highlight the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the primary versus non primary requirement. I'm actually a primary resident and am a constant advocate for allowing the nine non primary residents because the primary occupancy requirement is absolutely unshaded. There is no data that supports the claim that absentee owners are less responsive to neighbors needs and concerns, or that they generate any more or less complaints making non primary residency rentals illegal. But legalizing primary occupancy residents is discriminatory and is inconsistent with other Denver rental legislation. Long term rentals are not held to the same requirement. They do not have to have an owner living on the property to be in compliance with city zoning. To illustrate the ineffectiveness of this requirement in 2015, I quit my job and went on a six month round the world travel adventure. I continued to rent my house out on VRBO and hired a friend to arrange all bookings, manage the cleanings and act as the primary point of contact. I was far removed from. The daily operations. In contrast, I have friends who, upon the birth of a child, upgraded their home less than a mile away. They decided to keep their first home and rent it out on VRBO. They manage all bookings themselves, arrange for their cleanings and maintenance, and personally go and visit the house between guests. In both scenarios, the house is well-maintained, cared for and the consideration of the neighbors and neighborhood is high. The irony is that the first scenario mine is completely legal because I am the primary resident, even though I wasn't even on the same continent. In the second scenario, where the owners visit the house on a regular basis and are the direct contact with the guest. That is illegal because they are not the primary residence of their second home. There are hundreds of families in Denver, much like my friends, who treat their short term rental not only as their asset but as their home because it is their home. Please consider voting no to the legislation as it's written and instead work to pass regulate regulations that are fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory. Thank you. Thank you. Andrea Phillips. Andrea Phillips. All right, next, Charlie Bush. Hi. My name is Charlie Bush and I live at 715 South Sherman, two blocks within the I-25 and Broadway light rail station. I have two staffers within a half a block of my home, one Airbnb and one VR bell. They both started out the same way. Somebody's bottom is flips. Then they tried to sell them for more than $200,000 over the market rate. Now they're both stars. Let me share with you what it's like living this close to two stars where Swatch Park has older homes. We have a very green way for air conditioning. We open our windows at night and turn on the fans. However, every Friday and Saturday and sometimes during the week. We have parties. The VR Beyond Lincoln seems to favor the Texas frat boys that invite 30 to 70 of their closest friends that they've never met for an all night party. The police are repeatedly called the. The renters don't care. They leave in the morning. Mothers of small children have called me at 3:00 in the morning in tears, begging me for help with the party next door. I have complied only to wake up to multiple broken beer bottles on my front lawn. I didn't call the cops because I knew these guys were already at the airport. We have lost two young families with children on our street in the last year alone because of the threat of stars. The stars have turn r friendly. Everybody else has everybody's back hamlet into an organizing bunch of vigilantes. Let me repeat that. Our nice little neighborhood is turning into vigilantes, and we despise it. But we're not going to stop because there's no laws and the police can't stop what's going on. I had to throw two gentlemen off my porch that were shaken up three cans and say, no, no, no. You know, property damage is not the answer. We do have a number of long term rentals, too. To be honest, you know, those owners do not contribute to the neighborhood, but their renters do. They have learned how to have good renters. And we as neighbors turn them into better renters. It can take some time to have them shovel their walks and mow their lawns. But they get there and they enthusiastically watch our backs and watch the street. And especially when we have our front porch parties, we are able to achieve this because somebody lives in the property for more than two days in a row. Primary residency. If you throw out the primary residency, then throw out the zoning code and throw out the money you're going to spend spend on. Blueprint Denver. Because the difference between residential and commercial will no longer exist. Our residential neighborhoods are for Denver residents, not for Denver tourists, and not for Denver commercial stock. Rent residential does not mean hotel on every block or every other house. Residential means long term community. If it's good enough for the other cities, it's good enough for Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Robert Cotton. Good evening. My name is Robert Cotton. I'm resident northwest Denver. I'm a software engineer by trade. And in my line of work, we build our business on data. We collect a lot of data and we make lots of decisions on data. And in the places that we don't have data, we have blind spots in our decision making process. And we work very hard to eliminate those blind spots because it impacts the type of decisions that we make, because we are not making those decisions based on data. By having the primary residence restriction in this in this provision, we will be eliminating half of the data that is available to us in studying and studying short term rentals as we go forward. By having only primary resident rentals, we will eliminate non primary resident rentals and will not be able to understand how it is that those rentals will behave. Those rentals are happening today. Short term rentals are happening in houses, they are happening in primary residents and non primary residents. So it is, as Nathan was pointing out, is this feasible today? It is feasible, but we don't have any data. I've been attending the town halls and it's not surprising because it is in fact illegal that there is a lack of data that provides information as to how it is to drive this this decision making process. By having a short term resident restriction, we will be eliminating that data. The the short term rental market is lucrative, and there will be bad actors that will happen and will operate outside the bounds of the law. We won't have any visibility into them, into that sort of into that activity. Compliance will be much higher if we have short term non primary resident short term rentals available as an option for for Denver residents to be able to do this. We will not know the number of resident of houses that are being used for this purpose. Today it's less than 1/10 of 1% or less than a 10th of a percent of of housing in Denver. We all know the behavior of those of those operators, both the tenants and the owners of those houses. We all understand the tax revenue of those of those houses. Most importantly, we all understand the compliance. The easier it will be to comply, the easier it will be to bring those people in to the fold and have compliance. Thank you very much. Thank Mr.. Can you call the next five speakers Tim O'Byrne, Nurse Abdurahman, Jill Bishop, Damien Hertz and Charlotte Wins and Berg. Those are the next five. First one is Tim. So you can begin your remarks. My name is Tim O'Byrne. I live at 508 South Clarkson. I've been living in Denver for about 59 years now. I grew up in Park Hill. We had the smallest family on the block. We only had six kids. People across the street at ten people two doors down had 13. So we had big families. And we were all very close. Everyone knew each other pretty well. And surprisingly, a lot of these people are still my friends. I'm very excited with what the changes I've seen in Denver over the past few years. It's a little scary with so much going on now for us old farts that have been here, but it's it's really exciting to see the change is going on. Transportation, different things like that. But I do feel one of the key ingredients to Denver to making it this great city to live in is the neighborhoods. And I sincerely believe that the short term rentals will not work. That will not help that. Just this past, about a month ago, I woke up early on a Friday morning and I could hear babies crying in our neighborhood. And the families are moving back into Denver now for so long people are moving to the suburbs. And I sincerely believe that with the short term rentals, if we are going to have on what it looks like we are, that we do need the primary resident as a concern. I was talking earlier about some of the things in Denver that excite me. There was something this week about the Denver prepares final smart city challenge pitched to win 50 million for transportation. That's pretty cool, but I don't think we can use the term smart city if we don't regulate these short term rentals. Thank you. Thank you. Nessa Abdurrahman. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Abdul Rahman. I live in downtown. Denver. And own a couple of properties there. I do not currently do short term rentals. However, I would like the opportunity to do that in the future. I can see that as council members, you have a very daunting task. There's impassioned pleas. From both sides of the argument here. And I'll keep my comments very, very short. I do understand the dilemma keeping affordable housing affordable, affordable, while at the same time respecting and encouraging the rights of contributing members of society to earn a living, either through supplementing or that. Might be their. Sole source of income. I do also understand we don't want corporate takeover of our rental market. By the same token, I do understand we don't want actors that are not part of the community that are going to cause a disturbance. My experience is solely from friends of mine that have done short term rentals, and my understanding is the vast majority of the people to stay in their units are very responsible professionals, lawyers, doctors, performing actors and so forth. So to keep it short, what I would like to say is I think a fair compromise. Would be. Not have carte blanche on private non primary residents, but at the same time not to restrict to primary residents, only to have a fair balance. Maybe just a couple of units that residents own could be allowed for short term rentals. I think that would be a fair compromise. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jill Bishop. Hi. Thank you for the snacks, Ralph, even though he's not here. My name is Jill Bishop, and I live in Park Hill at 25th and Monaco, and I'm a Denver native, and I have a lot of pride about Denver. I like to spend my tax money in Denver and so on. I've been an Airbnb host probably longer than anybody who has spoken. I signed up before the DNC in 2008. I've had well over a thousand guests, but it's in my home where I live too, and I'm single and I've never had one bit of fear or safety issue. Thanks in part to all the safety features built into Airbnb, I get to choose exactly who comes to stay in my house and even before they come they are not random strangers. There's absolutely nothing scary about any of this. The only thing that scares me is having to put my license number published for all to see in case anybody really wanted to find out who I was and where I lived. They could only, thanks to that regulation that you're going to impose that I support. I totally support Mary Beth's proposal and hope that you will vote for it. People come for every reason imaginable. And it's some people say it's not sharing, but I totally share my home and I share meals and I share experiences. And because of that, I was a host first. But that's the only way I like to travel. When I was in Paris last November and I was staying in an Airbnb apartment with with the hosts there, and the attacks happened. And we stayed up all night watching the TV and talking and stuff. And when I left, he said, Oh, I enjoyed having you so much. And I especially was glad you were here the night of the attacks. And I felt the same way that I was so glad I wasn't alone in a hotel room the night of the attacks in Paris. People are wonderful. The guests who come are absolutely wonderful. I've had well over a thousand and I can only say I've had two that I wouldn't want back, but there was nothing like really bad about them. I just, you know, didn't care for them that much. And, you know, everything about the economy. And if the Kirkland Museum gave out awards for people who send people there, I would be number one. I'm sure I've sent to their close now, but I'm sure I've sent 150 people to the Kirkland Museum. And one thing Airbnb has done for me is it's made me I think I retired from teaching about a year earlier because of my Airbnb income and my daughter lives in the Brooklyn neighborhood and does Airbnb. And I think she would be on welfare if she didn't have that income. And she and her boyfriend friend are artsy fartsy types. And even though he plays and wears the light for the time. It's actually right there and it just turned red. I'm sorry you had you had 3 minutes. Exactly. Mr.. I'll then. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Damien Hirst. Is Damien in chambers now? Charlotte Winsberg. Hello, everybody. My name is Charlotte Winston and I live at 590 South Sherman. And I come to speak in support. Support of the ordinance regulating short term rentals. For two years, I've served on the ad hoc committee of I and see that address has been addressing short term rentals and. I have three points that I really want to emphasize with you. Number one, the ordinance before you reflects the work of council staff and the citizens of Denver. Its most important element is the restriction allowing only primary occupants of homes to obtain licenses for short term rentals. Any relaxation of this requirement really voids the whole purpose of the ordinance. You might as well just forget it because. What we need is we're trying to do here is protect the nature of residential zoning. And I think it's unfortunate that many of these operators of this short term rentals don't really understand what zoning is for. And residential. Zoning is. Very important. There probably aren't a lot of people behind me who have looked at the use tables in ours. The articles of our zone that describe exactly what uses can be added if we add properties that are not primary resident, we are putting a pure commercial use into a residential zone and that in itself doesn't seem like such a big deal, but it weakens the whole nature of the code. And what's going to be next will be, oh, what it will be next. There'll be other commercial enterprises coming in are saying, well, you let, you let the motels come in down the block, why can't I do something else? Put my restaurant here or my body shop there? It's it's that first chink in. The in the dike. And it's really important to keep commerce commercial areas, commercial zoning and residential zoning definitely and separated. Secondly, we've got a severe housing shortage here. I don't know. And we need to preserve residential uses as much as we possibly can, rather allowing conversion to commercial use. Number three, that was number two. Some people contend that being a landlord of a long term rental is just fraught with terrible, nightmarish experiences, and they conclude that this experience is so bad, city council should let them just use those properties this short term rentals. Well, my husband and I have been landlords in Denver for 40 years. Long term. Got to go fast. Long term tenants. No big problems. Never had an eviction. And Williamsburg indictments are up. Thank you. Just thank you. Mary Beth. I didn't get a chance to say that. I'm going to call the next five speakers. We are over halfway done. Carolyn Shaw, Maureen Wood, Norman Wilson, Alex Dodd and Jacob Lill. So you five can make your way up. Carolyn Shaw. You can begin your remarks. Is Caroline Shaw in the building? No. Caroline Shaw. Okay. Next is Maureen Wood. Hi. My name is Maureen Wood and I live at 4392 Wenonah in the Berkeley neighborhood. First, I'd like to thank all of you for letting us all speak and listening. I know it's a long night. I have lived in the Berkeley neighborhood for two years, and when my husband and I bought our house, we were fortunate enough to be able to find a house with an accessory dwelling so that our parents could visit and our family members could visit and stay close to us. We don't have a hotel in our area that's that's close by where our family can spend time with us when they come to visit. Well, those are only, you know, a few weeks out of the year. And we've also been fortunate enough to be able to open up that accessory dwelling to our neighbors families when our families aren't staying in our accessory dwelling. I've really enjoyed meeting my neighbors families. I've met so many grandparents and aunts and uncles and as well as business travelers and people who are are trying to move to the area and work for Regis. I've really enjoyed the amount of socialization and meeting neighbors that our short term rental has brought to my life. And I really, you know this I don't see the downside from us. I think that if nothing else, it has brought something. Positive to our neighborhood. So I would ask for. You guys to vote for the ordinance today and support short term rentals. Thank you. Thank you. Norman Wilson. Thank you. And I'm Norman Wilson. I'm a Denver resident. And I'd like to quantify just a little bit. I think what we're really talking about is about a problem that is 1% of a 1% of all residences in Denver. And so it reduces down to maybe 1001 out of a thousand. That is the problem. Very simply, I take. Issue with. The matter of this being this proposed legislation requiring primary residence. I don't think that's really addressing the issue. It's a rather blunt instrument. It's rather too simple for a nuanced, more nuanced problem. I think maybe the council and Flynn would understand this. And the. Sitting zoning, for instance. Offers many gradations. But the gradations are not entertained in this. Rather either or proposal. We're moving toward more density. And there's more mobility. Again, I'm not sure that this is really addressed. It's again, either or. And the stars sometimes the stars are rather small properties. Rather large. Lots. That would be another way of looking. At the. Problem. Some even. Not occupying 10%. Of the lot itself. And the issues brought up with problem with. Regard to problems typically. Could be covered by code issues, noise, excessive drinking. Whatnot. We have code. That covers this. And so it seems to. Me that is an issue. That could be put aside. Neighborhood groups are very. Useful and. It's hard to be representative. You probably understand that best of all. And the neighborhood groups sometimes are not terribly. Representative. And they sometimes have a rather near horizon and they don't take a long range view. With regard to primary residents. Travelers typically don't expect to have an. Owner or primary. Resident in the. Property. And so to go back to the Airbnb issue. That is a model which could be. Troubling because it creates a kind of a density that maybe we don't want a kind of. Short, very short term and. Very dividing up the properties. We really ought to keep the property whole so it can return back to a residence. Maybe makes better sense. That would eliminate. And that. Argues for eliminating the. Primary residence. And I would say. That what we. Might want to do. Is, unfortunately, despite all the staff. Work. Despite all the town hall meetings, maybe go back and take a. More nuanced approach to this legislation. Mr. Wilson, you're throwing everything mantra. Thank you, Alex Dodd. Good evening, city council. Men and women, thanks for taking the time to be here. Thanks, Concerned Citizens for being here too. It's great to see such an engaged community. I really appreciate the sharing economy. Task Force led by Councilwoman Susman is effort and pledges re legislating short term rentals in other aspects of the sharing economy. I feel it's a valiant and well-intended, although severely misguided legislation and its current verbiage. In particular, the primary residence restriction has numerous economic repercussions, consequences that I don't think has been addressed by city council or many citizens here. This housing shortage that many refer to. I don't understand that the fact that vacancies in Denver's rental market that's arguably very saturated have been increasing month over month. Since January of this year, many large apartment rental companies are turning to services such as stay off grid large out-of-state conglomerates that manage dozens of short term, if not more short term rental properties in Denver. To quell the increasing vacancies in Denver's rental market, short term rentals are an effective way to increase the vibrancy of our city, to increase tourism to our city, and allow our city not to be constrained by limited hotel and lodging inventory. Amidst some of the most insurmountable amount of tourist demand that we've seen across the city is up year over year, season over season, and it shows no sign of stopping. Similarly, the number of short term rental listings increase and they also show no sign of stopping. If the primary residency restriction were to continue to be in place, it effectively it would it would contribute greatly to the economic collapse of our rental market here and would have significant ramifications. Not to mention it would also prohibit hosts that have relied on this income stream to sustain themselves and contribute to our community to continue hosting and allow this commute and allow this income stream. I can speak personally for the over $100,000 of lodging tax that I could have personally collected remitted to the city last year but had no structure to do so. Only large operators that were given special treatment by the city have the opportunity to remit this lodging tax last year , and by eliminating the ability of hosts to have additional residences other than their primary to rent out on a short term basis, the city will be leaving millions of dollars of additional tax revenue on the table. Where am I getting these numbers from? Well, simply extending a macro out of what I know are is the current vacation rental economy. In fact, there's been no economic feasibility study or impact study that's been presented by by Excel nor D nor community planning and development. And I think it's incredibly shortsighted to be allowing the few vocal, xenophobic members of our community to guide this legislation. Those with the most time on their hands should be the ones that should be dictating this. It should be those that are contributing to the greatness in the city and contributing to the tourism market in our in our town, too, as a fifth generation native member of the resident of the ninth District for five years and Concerned City and concerned Denver future Denver resident, I implore the city to table the legislation as is, or at least consider amendment allowing for non primary residences to be read to be read it. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Jacob Lew. And as Jacob comes up, I call the next four Keith Brian, Andrea, Andrea Phillips, Thad, Texar and George Burleson. Go ahead, Mr. Bell. Good evening. My name is Jacob. Lill and I live in the Harvard Gulch neighborhood. So I want to share a little bit of my experience with Airbnb and short term rentals. So several years ago, I had never heard of Airbnb before. I had my aunt who was very sick with cancer in California, and I packed up my family. I packed up the dogs and we went out there not knowing how long we were going to have to stay. But she was on her deathbed. There wasn't a hotel near to where she was staying and receiving treatment. The closest hotel was over 45 minutes away. Excuse me. We were able to find an Airbnb less than 5 minutes away to where my family could stay, too, where our pets were allowed, where we could cook meals for our families. And, you know, it was a really hard time in my family's life. But without that Airbnb at that time, it would have been a lot worse. That's how I came to know of short term rentals in Airbnb's and VR boats. Years later, I was presented the opportunity to work for a company that manages short term rentals. I've been doing this for a little over a year now, and I've seen all types of guests. I've seen all types of property owners. I've seen all types of arrangements. I've seen rentals with primary residence, with non primary residence and everything in between. And I'll tell you, a few of the guests that I see the most in our line of work are traveling professionals coming to Denver for any number of reasons doctors, lawyers, nurses, businessmen and women. More than anything, I see families, though. I see families visiting their children, visiting their parents, visiting new grandchildren. We see all types. We've see roughly 2000 guests per month. And in our entire time of being in business, we've had maybe a handful of issues. Nothing ever too serious. The guests we see are great. Our property owners, they're great. One issue we've run into with our non primaries residents, property owners are all the things in their house and they're not able to manage a successful rental the way we like to do it and provide the best guest experience possible. I asked the city council to reconsider the primary residence restriction because I think it's cheating the guests. I think it's cheating the city. And I think it's cheating the short term rental industry from maturing into the industry that I know it could become. And I don't think it's right. Thank you for your time. Think it, Lou. Keith Pryor. Good evening, Mr. President. And thanks so much for hearing us and allowing us to have this opportunity to speak. A couple of things. One, I definitely applaud the process. Thank you, Mary Sussman, for leading this and the, you know, bringing together the people to work through this. And I definitely am in very much support of having a framework in which to work short term rentals, which is desperately needed to regulate this. I do not support that it be a primary resident. If you listen to a lot of the comments tonight, a lot of them really center around, well, it needs to be stable for our neighborhood. People need to send their children. This does not allow for neighborhood cohesiveness. These people would not allow a long term rental. Most long term rental leases, 30 days, 60 days or a year. Really do not send their kids to those schools. And we allow long term rentals throughout our city. And have most of the people that have spoke against this ordinance and having that short term rental be a primary residence would not really want to have long term residents, be long term rentals even be allowed in their neighborhoods. So I want you to kind of think about that, because even with long term rentals, you still have the same issues that a lot of people have brought up throughout this evening. In regards to those concerns from the neighborhoods. I would like to see something of an amendment brought forth when we did the rezoning for the entire neighborhood, for the entire city. We brought forth the 80 you again huge opposition from neighborhoods that would not allow a to use in their neighborhoods. Now that we've had that passed. Neighborhoods are coming forth and saying, wow, I really want that. I have an elderly parent. I have somebody that I need to bring in to my family situation. I would like to have an Adu. My neighborhood doesn't allow that. I want zoning to rewrite this, to allow an overlay district for my neighborhood to have an ADU. And so now that we've had them and now that you're seeing this come into place, you're really seeing people look to that as like, oh, I'd like to augment my income by having enough to you and having that additional income stream by having an additional rental property on my lot, which we do not allow in the city unless you're in certain districts. And it's also helped with our housing crisis as a way to look at our housing crisis is to allow ADU use to occur. So these same neighborhoods that did not want to allow 80 years did not want to allow for a three storey building in your neighborhood where there was an existing church on Colored Boulevard and Monaco. That was a great transit corridor and they are in a lawsuit about that. So these same neighbors who are complaining about 80 years about a housing crisis are also complaining about density in which to solve our actual housing crisis. Mr. Prior, you're three months or so. Could you say your name for the record to what you say your name for the record? Oh, sure. Keith Pryor. So thank you. I support this, but not the primary residence. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. Andrea Phillips. Andrea Phillips is not here. That Texan. Thad, Texas. Members of Council. Amazingly, some people actually think of me as disrespectful. But I'll tell you what real disrespect is. It's people who violate our laws, who don't care about their neighbors, who come in front of you and testify openly of that and then say, sanction my behavior. It would be one thing if these people said, I think short term rentals are a good idea. Let's talk about it. I'd engage in that discussion. They don't do that. Let me tell you, what you do tonight isn't going to make any difference to these people at all. I guarantee you they're going to keep doing what they're doing. They talk about how much they contribute to their neighborhood. Has one of them, as Councilman Flynn's amendment would have suggested, gone around to their neighbors and said, is it okay if I do this? And if one of them said, no, say, okay, I care about you as a no, they don't. They only care about their own profit and they're going to keep doing what they're doing. And you know what? As much as I disrespect them, I'm more disappointed in you because it's your job to uphold the law. But you turn a blind eye. You know the enforcement mechanisms that are in this new thing. I don't know whether they're a farce, a joke, or a fantasy. And you know it, too. Nothing's going to change. You people have no problem enforcing the law against the homeless. You people have no problem enforcing the law in fighting against poor minority group members who can't afford property. These people testify over and over to the break in the law and you hold up your hands and say it's unenforceable. We can't do it. You know what you ought to do? You ought to do what you do best. Do nothing. Leave things exactly the way they are. Let it continue to be illegal. They're going to continue doing exactly what they're doing. But at least the upstanding residents of this city, when there are bad actors, could call and file a complaint. The only thing you're doing is giving these selfish, self minded people a legal defense to do what they're going to be doing anyway. Next we have George Burrows and George Burleson. George Brosnan, be this person I hear. Okay. I will call the next five cab. I'm sorry. George Burrows. And I'm sorry about that. George Burleson. Thank you for that correction. Next, Kevin Dickson. Cindy says Stretch, Clare Kelly, Steve Ramsey and Sarah McCarthy. So Kevin, is Kevin Dickson in the building? We have. No, no. Kevin Dickson. Okay. Next is Cindy Sestak. Good evening. I would like to start out. Oh, I'm Cindy Sastry from the Cheesman Park West End neighborhood. And I would like to start out thanking Mary Beth Sussman. Councilwoman Sussman, she had a very long and proper public process. Everyone got to talk. And I think we all understand both sides of the issue. I think we understand the neighborhoods as well as the people who need to make profit for various reasons. I do appreciate that the amendments that were put forth before we got here tonight didn't go through the public process and they didn't come forth . I think there's time to do that at a later time. Um, my. My neighbors in Cheesman Park West realize that we live in a very popular neighborhood. Everybody wants to live there. And by talking to all of them, the thing that they wanted me to most pronounce is that they want to live near their work. They don't want the housing stock, separate apartments, separate houses to be used by people who don't work and live in Denver. If you want to be a primary resident and rent out a part of your house, you are able to do that. So we all support the primary resident, but we do not like it when full units are used and people are not committed to this city. Those units should be safe for people so that we can reduce the environmental impact and all the other issues that happen with people who have to live outside of the city or far from their jobs. The residential zoning is the other part. This ordinance does keep residential zoning as residential and commercial is commercial. I also, when I travel, use short term rental platforms, VR, bio I have used for the most part. And recently when I was in Toronto, they did not have a primary residence regulation and they saw the repercussions of that, that they have venture capitalists that have 16 plus units and it's taking away and creating a shortage of housing. They are in the process of changing that right now. So we're starting out at a very good point. We don't have to deal with deleting and then regulation in the licensing. I think this is good. I would like to see very effective enforcement and the money put forth towards that necessitates. Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Clare Kelly. Good evening, president and city council members. It's about nine 4845. I'm sure you all would much rather be at home. Thank you so much for staying late and listening to all of us. My name is Clare Kelly. I'm a Denver resident. I live at 1267 Josephine Street. And I am here to request that you consider a little bit of a fine tuning on this regulation. I support the bill that is in front of you all with the exception of the primary residency clause. I support short term rental of residential investment property within more densely populated neighborhood corridors that are currently zoned R three or greater or equivalent. And I believe that's the old zoning code. I absolutely believe that owners of a s t r business should be required to pay applicable hospitality, tax, meet or exceed safety requirements and hold applicable insurance. Short term rentals offer a unique product that differs from traditional hotels and motels. They offer a direct and closer connection to the community that people are visiting and to the cities, to the city's culture. They are a more affordable way to travel. And they they are a component of the sharing economy that is present world wide. As a third generation Denver native Verbio customer and residential, an investment property owner, I support a thoughtful rollout of the allowance of short term rentals beyond primary residences to encourage tourism. FOSTER The foster entrepreneurs on the entrepreneurs I've spoken to hear their businesspeople. They're entrepreneurs. They're not they're not evil. Am I evil? I don't think so. To place the primary residency clause with thoughtful restrictions that mirror the existing zoning regulations. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you, Steve Ramsay. Hello. I'll keep this short. I just wanted to bring a little personal perspective to this. I want to thank the City Council for taking the time and much effort to study these issues. I also particularly want to thank Mary Beth for getting the ball rolling. I'm Steve Ramsey, and I'm a Platt Park resident. I've been a Plat Park resident since 1987. I'm very pleased to be represented by John Clarke. Also grateful for both Mary Beth and Paul Cashman for taking time to discuss these issues with me over the time that this has. Been in play. So just very briefly, personally. I'm a small business man. I'm a self-employed commercial photographer. I have been for 30 years, and I strongly support the ordinance being proposed tonight. I've been an Airbnb host for about three years, and during that time, particularly being self-employed, the income that I received from that helped greatly in the last four or five years with the financial situation, which probably has affected just about everyone on some level. I can also tell you that income helps smooth out the financial ups and downs of being self-employed. And lastly, it's enabled me to spend some much needed time with my parents who are both in their late eighties. So it's been very much of a positive for me and the people that I have encountered being a host. And the whole process has been surprisingly enjoyable from top to bottom. So in closing, I just want to. Say the sharing economy is here to stay. Short term rentals are a part of that. And I believe common sense regulation makes that a positive part of any city, large and small worldwide, and particularly particularly in the amazing city of Denver, Colorado. I support the proposed legislation for licensing and regulating. Short term rentals. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Mr. Ramsey. Sarah McCarthy. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time and attention, and thank you to all the people who are here, both on this issue and a later issue that you still have to get to. Councilwoman Sussman, I think one sign of a good piece of legislation is that nobody likes it. And I think that's what is here tonight. Nobody really likes this. And I am one of those. And I have two concerns in particular that have been mentioned briefly, but I want to focus a little bit. One, I really think is the question of public policy in terms of what really do we mean by a residential neighborhood . And I think that allowing even the primary resident to have an STR in an R one zone is opening Pandora's box. And it's it's duplicitous on our part as a group to say this is a residential neighborhood. I noticed an advertisement not long ago that said that a a house was for sale and that you could earn $25,000 as a short term rental. I sure hope that that property is not paying residential property taxes because to me that's a commercial enterprise and should not be allowed in a residential zone. Change the zone if that's what you want, but not to mix as we are proposing to do tonight. My second area of concern has to do with enforcement. The enforcement that's proposed here is what is called permissive. This is what they can do in excise and license or in neighborhood inspection services. But there is nothing in that ordinance that I saw that. A short term rental owner shall do or there's nothing there that says that the city shall enforce. And I think Denver has an enforcement issue. And when I brought it up in years past, it is mentioned as a budget issue. But we're now putting together an ordinance that has a $25 licensing fee that will bring with it enforcement issues. And Denver isn't enforcing the ordinances it already has on the books, including short term rentals. No cease and desist orders have been issued yet. There's 2000 advertisements saying I intend to violate the ordinance. And the city says, I can't do anything about it. I disagree. The city can. Lots of ordinance like the night sky. Off street parking. Many different ordinances are not enforced. And I'm fearful this won't be enforced either. And I wish you luck in moving this forward. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you, Miss McCarthy. Call the next five. Enrique, your last name got cut off. Marquesa, Mike, Social, Maine. Benedict and Billy Martin. Stacy near. So you five can make your way up to the front. And Enrique, you can begin your remarks. Hi. Good afternoon. Good evening. I think short term rentals are a great idea. Let's talk about it first. Neighborhoods are not owned by people. I hear a lot of people are getting up here and talking about. Their neighborhood and trying to protect their neighborhood. Their home is what they own. And if you own your home, you should be able to do what you want inside of that home. I don't use a home as a short term rental property, but I see the benefits of what it does to the community by people opening up their doors, sharing their environment. I do have businesses here, retail businesses. People on average spend $3 to every $1 when they travel. If you just have people staying in hotels in downtown Denver, then all you're doing is supporting national chains where everybody just goes outside of their hotel and goes to the Cheesecake Factory and the Olive Garden and all of those types of places. I want to try to spend my time developing business opportunities and businesses and employing, by the end of this year should be over 100 people in residential neighborhoods. And the guests that come from short term rentals in those residential neighborhoods are the people that are going to go to the businesses that I go and handcraft and make and take pride in. So everyone can have an opportunity to use them and to benefit from them. And I don't support the primary residence. I think it's too restrictive. And it also discourages people from coming in to Denver and bringing money in from other places. I do travel using Airbnb and VR bio and I think it enhances my experiences tremendously. And I would not go and rent a home for three or four days when the owner of the property was in the home. It just wouldn't make sense to me personally. Thank you very much for all of your time and I hope you make good decisions. Thank you. And sir, can you say your name for the record? Enrique Margulies. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Mike Social. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. My name is Mike Socha. I live in beautiful Green Valley Ranch, so I'm part of Stacey Gilmore's district. And I, my husband, Matthew and I have. Been hosts for Airbnb for over two years now. And I have to say that we're pretty much exactly what you guys are proposing. We have a primary residence and we rent out the basement. We have been. Very happy with what we've done. And I just want to say that we think that it's really brought a sense of community with the type of person that we've brought into our home. We do live kind of out in the suburbs, and we've had a lot of people that have been moving to the city of Denver and they wanted some advice and they wanted to talk to people that have lived here that know the neighborhoods, etc., and kind of bounce off us what they wanted and what they were looking for. And we were we've been there to be able to talk. To them, talk them through things. We've also hosted people that have come from another country, and they won the green card lottery, which I didn't. Even know was a thing, honestly. And they came and they moved from Spain into our home for a. Large amount of time, and we got to help them, to help Americanize them to things. We got to have them try root beer floats for the first time. We got to try to go on the light rail for the first time. So we were really able to help them to get acquainted. They took care of our house as though it was their own. They absolutely adored our dog. They helped us a little bit by letting the dog out, etc. We were working late, so I want to say that we are very pro this legislation. We would eventually maybe like to sit on. The board that's going to be looking at additional legislation maybe for second secondary homes. But I think we need to start somewhere. I think there's a good place to start, and I think that we can kind of see how it goes from there because again, like everybody else said, we're not sure what this is going to actually do to the inventory. So once we have make that assessment, I think that we should take another look at it and maybe make amendments and and hopefully. Go from there. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Main Benedict. Members of council. Thank you very much for. The opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Marie Benedict's and I. Live in Denver. City in Council County. Sorry. So I have some serious concerns with the bill that's in front of you. Primarily, I am concerned that it will creates an economic incentive to remove properties from the market that would otherwise have been available as residential homes. And I think we all agree that affordable housing and housing. In general is a problem. For Denver. So to reduce supply and drive up pricing for the supply that's there, I think should cause some great concern. Certainly the primary resident requirement would be a minimum, I feel, in terms of safeguarding that. That doesn't happen to a greater. Extent that we can live with. And I would I would challenge you to see if there aren't other things that can be done to further reduce the impact on the available housing for actual residents. Some other people have spoken powerfully to the economic incentives here tonight for converting residences to rentals. Bessey did so, Joel as well. My other concern relates to enforcement and regulation. I am not convinced that the bill before you tonight has sufficient protections for neighbors and property owners. And I would again ask you to look carefully about what can be done to make sure that problems can be sorted out, that there are sufficient resources and sufficient rules in place that can be enforced in order to deal with bad actors. We heard a couple of people speak here tonight, I believe. Mr. May, I didn't catch his first name, spoke about it taking a year and a half to get a bad actor close down. Is this what neighbors are going to have to go through? Secondly, Charlie also spoke to neighbors becoming vigilantes. That's certainly not the life we want to lead. I feel as if what's before you tonight is a pretty fundamental decision. And I think we've heard sort of voices for both sides. Should neighborhoods be used to maximize profits and also to fill the city's coffers? What an exciting, positive argument. Or should neighborhoods be available as housing for our many residents who need to live in Denver close to work, close to where their families are, and be available to folks of all income levels. So I urge you to think very carefully about that tonight and see what you can do to make the neighborhood protect protections even stronger. And I leave you with the words from the gentleman from CPD who quoted from Blueprint Denver and said, an enforceable standards should not be clear to be included in the zoning code. So thank you for your time and please be thoughtful tonight. And did I. Say that my name is Marie Benedict's? I did. Otherwise you would ask me. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Amberly Martin. Hi. I'm Emily Martin, and I live in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Denver. I actually just recently moved to this neighborhood and previously lived in central business district. Just a little bit about my background. Many of you have actually heard my husband's side of the story, and unfortunately he couldn't be here today because he is actually out for National Guard duty. So I'm here to tell you about my side of the story and why I think we should vote for this amendment. So a little bit about me. I'm also a veteran of the Colorado National Guard, and now I get to serve as a military spouse when he's gone. During this time, it's really hard for us to supplement our income when he's getting paid by the military. And so we've used Airbnb to do that for us. Like he has gone this week. I was able to have somebody come into my home and stay with me and get to enjoy their company and have somebody there that I can share dinner with and really get to know. It's been pretty wonderful having the guests that we do and having the opportunities that we've been given by doing Airbnb. I know there are some concerns brought up about short term rentals, even with primary residents, with our kids in our neighborhoods. And I want to tell you about what I do because of this supplemental income that I get. I get time to volunteer during the day in my local schools. So I get to go in and read to kids in my neighborhood. There's a school across the street from me that I get to go in and get to know my my neighborhood children. And I'm really excited about being able to, in the future, have my kids attend Denver public schools. I think they're it's a wonderful school district. And I want to be able to stay in the neighborhood where I am so that my family can grow there, too. And that wouldn't be possible without this supplemental income that we get from Airbnb. Another part of it is that we also do travel quite a bit and it's been wonderful that we can rent out our full home at this time while we travel. So we actually do have people that come whole, families that will come and stay at our home while we're gone and we all. And then we rent out our second bedroom when we are home. A few of our guests that we have had. Like I said, we have somebody that's staying with us right now. Also a military veteran, a West Point grad who is moving to Denver and he's checking out neighborhoods and trying them out. We've had a park ranger from England and we've had a wicked Elphaba. Stay with us. When Wicked was in town. So if anybody is a musical fan, she was with us, too. So I just want to tell you about all of our great guests that we've had and what it does for us as a military family in the Denver community. Thank you, Stacy Near. Stacey near and chambers. All right. We'll go to the next five. Sheila Hibbert, Michael Leventhal, Gary Mason, Ling McPhail and Alison Ott. Good evening. My name is Shallow Habits and I founded the Denver Short Term Rental Alliance over a year ago to give non primary residency homeowners, local businesses and citizens a voice within the last year. We have provided the following evidence and facts to the City Council, a due study provided by three esteemed professors, which estimates $2 million in tax revenue and $21 million in ancillary spending from short term rental renters per year. These figures are based solely on non primary residency rentals. We attended all four community town halls where proponents of eliminating the primary residency requirement outnumbered opponents 3 to 1. We conducted a Denver specific poll which showed that 70% of residents support regulating both primary and nine non primary residency residency rentals. We provided a legal document outlining the potential property rights infringements. If the bill is approved as it stands. We have sent hundreds of letters to the city council. We have dispel the myth that non primary residency rentals impact affordable housing. Non primary residency rentals represent 0.1% of residential homes in Denver. They are not impacting affordable housing. And just today we delivered a petition with 894 signatures urging that the city council regulate all short term rentals. The Denver Short Term Rental Alliance is extremely disappointed that despite the facts and evidence, the proposed short term rental regulation remains unchanged. The current regulation is based on a vocal, fear based minority, most of whom have not been negatively impacted by short term rentals. The city will set a dangerous precedent if they ignore the facts in favor of appeasing an unknown the unsubstantiated fears of a few. We once again urge that the Denver City Council examine the facts and apply them to the regulations and offer a compromise amendment which fairly regulates all short term rentals in Denver. Thank you. Thank you. And we thank you, Michael Leventhal. Michael Leventhal not in the building. Gary Mason. Hi. I'm Gary Mason. I live in the Highlands neighborhood at near the intersection of Perry and 29th Street. I'm up here just to really share why I think Airbnb is a boon to Denver and my neighborhood. I just wanted to point out that what makes Airbnb special? Many people have talked about the economic benefits, and they're certainly there, I think, not only for the city but also for the homeowner. I've since doing Airbnb for about a year. I've had the resources to make a number of considerable improvements to my home. But more importantly, what I really wanted to. Share about. Is the. Human experience, which actually surprised. Me. I'd had a long term tenant stay in my place. I was looking to get someone else and someone said, Well, try Airbnb. And I thought it was going to be strange having guests in my into my house. But what I discovered was just a. Dramatic shift. In the quality of human experience in relating to people and dealing with. People. First of all, the quality of people I have staying at my place are exceptionally quite varied. Not simply millennials, as some people seem to imply. I've had people from 20 up to 80 years of age. I've had biotech entrepreneurs, young married couples, professors, nurses, lots of parents visiting their sons or daughters who live nearby, often with grandkids, artists, a fire chief financial managers. State director for. Steinway Pianos, medevac military pilots, retired engineers. People moving to. Denver and needing a place as a base camp before they move. And but what is truly special about what it is that represents a. New. Way of socializing? I was surprised how many of these people have become personal friends of mine. I've been to their houses for meals. They've been to mine. I've had them over to parties. Cocktail parties were not only have they met each other, new people who are moving to town, but they've met friends of mine. Many of them have asked me to, you know, stay. I have a couple in Amsterdam. They want me to come stay with them. This is part of an. Emerging way of socializing. That I think is different. From what our neighborhoods have been in. The past. In other words, part of what. I'm getting at is when people come stay at these short term rentals, they are, but they are. Distinctly not hotel. Experiences, nothing like that at all. It's completely something very different. I think people have experienced that one to some extent. When they have Uber, drivers ride an Uber. It's a little bit of a different experience from being with a cab driver. It's even much more so that when you have somebody stay at your house, when you have them share with you about their experiences during the day, I might say that their experience in the neighborhood is not that of some somebody simply as a hotel guest. They're walking through the neighborhood relating to my neighbors. They say hello to them as as neighbors. And so, all in all, I think it's a human experience. It's not simply an option to make more money. It is part of the new way we'll be relating to people in the future. Mr.. You sound a lot of barriers, so. Your 3 minutes are up. I see. Thanks. Thank you. Lane McPhail. Good evening. Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to everybody. I am my husband and my name is Ling MacPhail and my husband and I live at 1530 Locust Street. We're permanent residents there and we rent our basement out as an Airbnb. We have i. I, my son joined the Air Force in a couple of years back and we the same day I lost my job. So we ended up having to figure out what we were going to do with our economy. My husband is a forklift operator and I am an artist. So we we we decided to try Airbnb. It helped us save our our, you know, we were able to stay in our house and and we were also able to then rent that same house out or rent that same house out, which helped us pay our mortgage . But we also were able to keep my son lodgings when he came home on leave. We also did some. We also tried out Airbnb before we decided to do it. We thought, Well, let's just take a look. So we actually flew to San Antonio to watch him graduate from boot camp and we stayed in an Airbnb. And I want to just say that we take very much pride in our and our lodging, and we are not partiers and we don't enjoy people who like to party staying with us. And we put that in our lot in our listing. We're very. We've never had any guests that were disrespectful. I mean, there were always we have house rules. And we were very adamant about certain things, and nobody's ever argued with us about that. In fact, we've had people come from Paris and like this one lady came from Paris with her, her niece. She didn't speak any English. We use Google Translate to communicate. She was delightful. And we she ended up but after she left, we met her cousin, who is a neighbor who lives about five blocks away. I never would have met that man, but now we greet each other in the supermarket. And that same lady had sent us Christmas cards, a sweater, a coffee mug, you know, just really sweet thing. I would never in these broken English letters that we just adore. So those are the kinds of gifts that we have had that we've totally enjoyed. We've had lots of guests. I make apparently I make mean scones. People like my scones. They write about them on my reviews. And it's actually made me think about maybe I should start a cottage, cottage industry selling scones. It's not impossible. I have to look into it. But I mean, so there's not Steve wasn't the act, but I'm definitely starting to think about other ideas that are, you know, that are that could be important and helpful in any way. Our our lives are better because of Airbnb. It's opened our minds and it's open and we're really glad that we've opened our doors things. Thank you. Alison Alt. Hi. Thank you. My name is Allison Ault and I own in the low, high neighborhood. I moved out of my small 750 square foot, one bedroom, one bathroom home, because as a single woman at the time, I lost my job and I could not afford the mortgage. I rented the home to full time renters for two years. In between, renters spent thousands of dollars and weeks of my time to get the home back into pristine condition. Frustrated, I saw Airbnb as a solution. I took it alone to furnish the house with new furniture and made improvements like an exposed brick wall and landscaping. I'm not just a host. I'm a super host. And in six months, I have garnered over 65 star reviews. And my property has been featured in a New York magazine as one of the best Airbnbs in Denver. I'm passionate about operating my short term rental, and I'm personable with my guests as well as my neighbors. I live ten blocks away from the property and I'm and am available should there be an issue. In contrast, I have friends who are also my neighbors who own a new Bell townhome five blocks away. They have been living in California for a year and renting to gas through Airbnb. The six person property has hosted rappers, bachelor parties and hosted fun overnighters. My guests are nurses, doctors, families, visiting other family members, business people, and couples celebrating their anniversary. I don't understand how the primary residence rule protects my neighborhood by putting me a passionate and available host out of business. My local property is part of my retirement portfolio. I can rent it to full time renters and make a little bit of money to fix it up between tenants and pay the rising taxes. But with the opportunity I have with Airbnb, my cute little home, one of the best in Denver is my retirement. I support the bill being discussed today, but not the primary residence rule. Please consider the impact this blanket rule will actually have. I don't doubt that there are irresponsible hosts as six complaints and a few vocal people have presented. But please don't punish people like me who improve the street and add to the richness of my neighborhood and local businesses. The primary residence rule does not fit the perceived fears or does not fix the perceived fears of short term rentals. Also on another note, a few people have argued about the inventory and a couple of years ago the Denver Post published something on the construction defect law. And before that was passed, the condo market made up 25% of all housing in Denver and by 2014 dwindled down to 3.5%. Our primary non primary residents, short term rentals are less than 1% and so I feel like the council's efforts would make a bigger impact elsewhere. Thinking of salt, I am calling the last three speakers up and Elizabeth Gurley Grant and Kim Knight's. And I see Miss Elizabeth. Coming up. Is Gerty Grant, and you know she's okay. You could take her. Hi, I'm an Elizabeth Global and I appreciate the opportunity to address the council. I would like first of all to ask the council to suspend the statistical. Let's just agree that there's lots of people that have anecdotally documented the benefits, the shortcomings, the dangers, etc., and make this decision as comprehensive as understanding a city is an organism . And managing economic diversification is an important thing to do to help the net income of families increase, especially in neighborhoods where people need to hang on to their property as the cost of living goes up for some of the right reasons, some of the less caring reasons, I'd like us to be in a world class city where everyone matters. But I'd like to add the word equally to that. As a city, I would like for the people that, bless your hearts, have worked hard and do great Airbnbs too. I should tell you I'm supporting this, but with the home, with. With the principal residence. Just so you're clear where I'm coming from, folks who who have had the benefit of, you know, maybe doing a great job, I'm sorry, but enforcement is an important thing. And I think there are three classifications primary residence stars, absentee return on invest in return on investment centric investors, which are the danger and the neighborhood proximity entrepreneurs that have been in sort of a grace period. And I appreciate the this country was started because somebody broke some laws and that's sometimes how innovation comes. But we need to have some kind of regulation that honors the sovereign wealth of the property owner, but also doesn't open the gateway for people that are also owners that could come in before we understand what the full potential of the inventory of our diverse housing needs and and creative use of our spaces can be as we solve problems. I would like OED and human resources and social the humane social services to enter into this to offer subsidies to folks that have short term rentals to help with transitional housing and provide even even power up instead of an advisory committee. I'd love it to the short term rental advisory committee. Let's call it the Commission on Short Term Policy, Housing, Housing, Enterprise, Ethics and enhance its authority. Let's be holistic about this. I feel fine about giving folks an opportunity to use their property as they see fit. But civilization is not is a combination of private rights of all types, as well as a common good and a vision. An economic vision can be well served by using the gray areas in a way where you do it with equity. If we're going to tax, I believe in taxes when there's an infrastructure of a city that needs to be supported. But let's give tax breaks here relative to a constructive relationship between individual economy and helping mentor people out of dark economies into a diverse economy in their homes. These and one last thing. Don't call me xenophobe. Don't call me reactionary. I'm thoughtful president and we know how to do those labels. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Gerty Grant. Good evening, counsel. My name is Gertrude Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado. And I want to thank Mary Beth Susman for her diligent efforts in crafting this ordinance. With the help of a lot of involved people, I reluctantly support Council Bill 261 as it stands reluctant because the current situation is untenable and unenforceable . I would like to make two points. I am a landlady of four property and I'm not much of a lady, but I do on some property. Four properties, including an apartment in the house where I live. I hear people saying that because having long term rentals is fraught with bad experience, that they should be allowed to turn those properties into short term rentals. As the landlord of 35 years, I suggest that you need to develop skills in order to be a successful land owner. I offer well-maintained, good value homes that attract many applicants, allowing me to select responsible tenants who are likely to stay in place for multiple years and be good neighbors. My current five tenants have been with me for from 3 to 20 years and it is a pleasure to have them in my neighborhood. My second point is and concern is that short term rentals have already turned houses in my residential neighborhood in the weekend. Destination resorts. Why? Because of our beautiful city, our wonderful climate and increasingly robust entertainment district like South Broadway and the limitations on where marijuana can be smoked. I just want you to see what was on the cover of The New York Times Sunday Travel Magazine three weekends ago. It says Colorado, the promised land of pot, the mile high state. In our neighborhood. We had one property that was only one of. Four owned by a Florida investor who advertised it as cannabis friendly. The neighbors reported it as a disruptive, smelly, short term rental. That. Finally was shut down by the Board of Adjustment Zoning. There are other properties in our neighborhood that Charlie Bush has testified. To that have become weekend party. Houses. Well, any long term neighbor can be a weekend party person. One has a chance to work out respectful relationships over time, get law enforcement and zoning involved if. Necessary, but with different tenants every weekend. And nonresident dissident landowners solving their differences in lifestyles is not impossible. I urge you to pass the current ordinance with the primary residents intact. But I also would ask you to please. Please, when you're developing. The next budget, Mr.. Miss Grant. Adequate personnel to enforce it. Thank you. Thank you. And. And. Our last speaker is Kim Knight. Hello, I'm Kim Titus and I live at 1013 East 26th Avenue and this is in the five points area and I'm brand. New to the Airbnb. I just have my first visitor right now this week. And so I'm surprised to hear that this has been a conversation for two years. And I guess what I'm hoping is, is that we can vote on this and pass the ordinance for primary residents. I also would like to, in the future be able to approve maybe a second home. But at the in the meantime, I think having the ability to make a decision today would be in the best interest for the city of Denver. I think that is going to improve the economy as far as local economy in the neighborhood, for the local coffee shops, the restaurants, the breweries. My tenant that's here for the week is here for a wedding. And next week my second tenant will be here for the Bob Dylan concert. So I'm going to have a variety of people here visiting. And I also am supporting the cleaning ladies or men, whoever, as far as local economy and helping pay individuals in the city. And last but not least, I think it allows for homeowners to be able to subsidize their income. And I hope you approve the audience. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. We will now go to questions of members of council and I will ring first. Joel Noble. Angel we had I think he had two or three points. You were ninth and I was writing down and you said not knowing who lives there. Housing crisis. Did you have a third point or was it just those two? Well, during during that part of my comments, I was contrasting the points that I expected to be made from neighbors who are motivated by not knowing who's there. So if there were noise concerns or trash concerns, they wouldn't know how to talk, who to talk to. And while those are valid, they're sort of limited, because if codes are being broken, there's ways to address that. On the other hand, people who own multiple houses have interests as well. And while you can understand those interests, in the end, I think the point that needs to be looked at most strongly in making this decision has to do with the affordability crisis. Yeah. Thank you. And so I wanted to allow you the opportunity for those who said that the .01 percent is such a minimal impact. I wanted and I know you brought up the affordable housing piece. I wanted to allow you the opportunity to just to speak to that briefly. Oh, certainly. I'm not aware of good analytic studies, and I've not presenting myself as an expert on this. What I've read is fairly persuasive about areas that have allowed short term rentals without any limitations. Those portions of those cities accelerating in rent prices far beyond other parts of the cities. And it's intuitive, although anecdotal. We've heard about places in Denver where our investors, whether they're local investors or outside investors, have taken formerly regular long term rentals and turned them into short term rentals. So from a from a supply perspective, reducing the supply of housing is the last thing we should be doing when we're in this housing crisis. Great. Thank you. Shane Brady. Shane still here? Did she leave? She left. Margie. Margie mendez. And Margie, are you coming up? I'll go ahead and ask a question just for the sake of time. You know, you're on the zoning and planning and you were talking about how obviously you represent many voices and how there was a strong support of the primary resident peace. And I was wondering if you just could briefly expound on why you feel so many different neighborhoods feel that is so important. Like what is if you could if you could some. Like, what's what's the main reason for that? Yes. If you could just I couldn't hear you when I was walking up, but if. Sure. Yeah. If you can just once again, just you mentioned in your comments how the primary residence was like a huge sticking point for the people in support of this for Zapp. And I was just wanting if you could just kind of give expound a little bit why that primary residence piece you feel is so important in this audience? We felt that the primary residency requirement was without that, it turns the residential neighborhoods into commercialized areas. And we had a very many of our members. Tell us about the horror stories that you've heard, some of which tonight. And we felt that with the primary residency requirement, at least there would be someone in the property that a neighbor could go knock on the door and say, okay, you know, you're having a party over here, it's got to cease. And so the the issue was and another thing that we had I'm sorry. Another thing that we had is all of the complaints that the zoning and planning committee has heard has all been from out of the area owners, multiple properties or those kind of things. So we felt that with the primary residency requirement that would protect the neighborhoods and also allow a owner to have someone in their home. Great. Thank you. If I can just paraphrase the ability for neighbors to know who they can hold accountable. If there's an issue with the short term rent on, if they no need to know who they can go to, I go knock on the door. I need to go to talk to this individual about that. That's correct. Perfect. Thank you. Nate. Nathan, you want to come up? I just want to afford you the opportunity to talk about the enforcement piece. There was a I'll use a house of Cards reference that it's if you could just quickly speak to that, I want to give you just a time to talk about that enforcement approach. And I don't I don't know if it's possible to put up our slide here again, but I think we've heard a lot of concerns about the the existing framework of enforcement and a lot of short term rentals have taken years, months to be enforced through the existing zoning code. It's our hope and it's our intent that our business licensing enforcement framework will make that much more effective, efficient and robust. So these tools right here are all the tools that we have at our disposal from a business licensing perspective to gain compliance. It can be anywhere from just a simple notice to comply. We can do licensee audits of their information. We can do licenses, spot checks, which includes both web monitoring and in-person inspections and investigations. We can also suspend a short term roll license. We can issue general violations or fines of up to $990 per incident. And finally, we can do a show cause hearing to revoke that license. None of this exists in the current zoning code today. And by taking the licensees and putting them to a business licensing standard, we have all these tools at our disposal to enforce the network. Great. Thank you. And last question that I have, Nathan, for you. The the short term rental task force that you should this partial implement timeline wise. And certainly I'm not holding you this, but ballpark, if you all felt any type of amendments to this would be required after some. What's the time period you're looking at reviewing before taking another look at it and maybe we could change this? I mean, what's that time period? You know, I. Don't think I have a firm timeline at this point. I think that's really a discussion for that advisory committee to a timeline that makes sense to them. We're hoping that we can get this short term rental advisory committee up and running off the ground late this summer, early this fall. And really the work that's put into this advisory committee through community members, through neighbors, through licensees and host, that'll sort of dictate that that timeline, what that looks at. So I don't think I have a firm timeline for you right now, but we are committed to get that end of that advisory committee up and running as soon as possible. Great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Is Mike Socha still here? Sucka? No. And Ling McPhail. She's still here. Do you want her scones? That was. That was about. You. Okay. Both wing. Actually, I looked up her listing here on Airbnb while she was talking, and Mike Socha both talked about renting out their basements. And I was trying to find out. What I wanted to find out is whether these basements are in the way of an accessory dwelling unit, which is illegal in a single family zone, at least where they operate. And I brought this on first reading. I brought this up as well. So I wanted to know if they had a kitchen in there, which would but they do have locked entrances and I don't know if they have fire egress windows. So no. Does anyone else here who testified it ran out their basement. Sir. Okay. Can I ask you to come up? Is there a kitchen in there as well? Is there outside entrance and blocked entrance? No, it is simply a master bedroom suite. My guests use my kitchen. Okay. And the stairs can't get into my. Okay. Thank you. That would be legal. Other than the fact. Other than the fact that short term running isn't currently legal. Thank you, Mr. Brown. As you know, I have a concern about hosts taking it upon themselves to do these renovations. Nathan. How? Let me see. Where do I have you? How do you how will you verify through an online application process? How do you plan to verify primary residency? Yeah, that's a really good question. I think that there was a comment that came up in terms of one scenario potentially being legal or another scenario not being legal in terms of their primary residence circumstance. So for example, in our ordinance, under our definitions section, we have a primary residence means a residence which is the usual place of return for housing, as documented by at least these several documents here, but that we're not limited by just those documents that are spelled in ordinance. The director has the authority to investigate further on whether there's evidence or testimony that that place is not the normal or usual place of return. We can still enforce that. Is she going to do that personally for every every. Applicant. Except when she's on maternity leave? I remember the difficult time that the city had enforcing the residency rule when we required city workers to live in the city. And it was it was a nightmare to try to look into that. So how I'm not asking how are they going to demonstrate that they're a primary residence, but how will we know that? How will we know that that's truthful. So just by going in and obtaining a license through our online licensing system, you will certify that the unit you're offering out is your primary residence. If we find that you falsified that information or it's not, your primary residence will then take it. But we're not going to check it. We're not going to check documents up front. And the reason for this is we want to make sure we have as high rate as a compliance. We want to have as much of the population in the pools per se. So I would I would point out that that's not compliant, though. If they're not a primary resident, how will we find out whether any of these short term rental units are accessory dwelling units that have been constructed outside of our building and fire codes? And I might call Ann Arbor's our planner to help us with that response there. Thank you, Councilman. So that would also be upon investigation. And so you will certify in the licensing process that you meet all applicable city regulations, which means you're certifying that your ADU is legal, if that's what. Your Honor system. You're using. The honor system kind of like kind of like fare checking on light rail. When when a complaint comes in, there's the follow up investigation. Nathan. For this new and robust enforcement division where the short term rental division, the unfortunately nicknamed EST heard how many additional staff people are we going to hire for for this new robust enforcement. Right. So the way we're thinking of this is that our access and licenses department has six inspectors, will dedicate 2 to 3 inspectors that will prioritize on short term rental enforcement. But at the same time, this agency can actually partner with all the resources that we have today with our partner agencies. And so that's why we're able to actually work and coordinate with the current amount of nice inspectors, environmental health inspectors, DPD 301 to really have that robust network of resources to enforce the not only our licensing ordinance, but as well as those common neighborhood complaints that people make. On being so nice. That's part of CPD. That's not part of exercises license. Correct. But we can work with them. So when I'm looking at the toolbox here in the Slide on Enforcement Partnership. Most of this seems reactive. We are not actually going to verify that any of this is accurate. But we can absolutely do proactive compliance monitoring. So our short term rental inspectors can monitor websites, monitor the ads, make sure you have that license number in your advertisements. We can also audit the information provided by the licensees. We can audit we can do spot checks in spot check. Right. Right. So so no actual enforcement at the or checking at the time of application. Again, the application process is that certification under penalty of perjury similar to how you renew your driver's license online today, you're certifying that you meet these particular legal requirements. If we find that you falsified that information, we'll take action on your license. Thank you, Abe. On slide three, one of the purpose of of the text amendment on slide three was it said, recognize the growing popularity of short term rentals while providing protections for neighborhoods. Can you tell me how this protects neighborhoods? Because I've been trying to amend this endlessly for a couple of months to protect neighborhoods and been turned down. Sure. Well, yeah. You've heard a lot tonight about the growing popularity of short term rentals and and why residents are choosing to conduct short term rentals. And so that's what we're we're trying to acknowledge. On the other hand, the providing protections. That is this whole framework that we're that we're talking about tonight, that we have a better tracking and enforcement system. And I think, you know, Nathan mentioned this briefly, but one thing I really want to emphasize is that you'll see in the licensing ordinance that provision regarding the fact that it shall be illegal to advertise a short term rental without a license. That's something we can't enforce on now. It's not illegal to advertise, only to do it. Which means we're investigating. Mm hmm. In the future, if this ordinance were enacted. We have the ability to sit at the computer and see which ones are not licensed, send them a warning. Ultimately begin to find them without even necessarily visiting the property. Will you check the numbers, the license number, the registration number to see if it's a valid number and that I haven't just made up a number that mimics an actual number. We will do. That. Yeah. Okay. So that's how we're protecting residents, big neighbor. And then, of course, you know, we want the streamlined process to get registered, as Nathan has described, that includes the self-certification, but that then brings that short term rental into the system. And then when the police receive noise complaints, other things happen. We can share that information. We've got that short term rental license number attached to a property. That information is now attached to that short term rental for purposes of license renewal or other sanctions against the short term rental. Okay. We we're not going require a zoning permit for this. We're going to have a business license. We have a host of home occupations in our zoning code, including rooming house, which this seems to be except for less than 30 days. If the streamlined approach promotes greater compliance. Why don't we drop the requirement for all home occupations and streamline it for them as well? Well, as I mentioned in my earlier presentation that other home occupations, with the exception of like a large childcare center. Or food preparation. Food preparation, also. Requiring a business license. Mm hmm. Right. So. But most do not. Like, if you're operating a home office, you don't have to go to Stacie to get a to get a business license. And we discuss this at council committee at the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. And. There was a you know, there's a lot of discussion of like, why are we making you go to two different departments to get legal? That's just a recipe for low compliance. Let's focus on one part of the system. And in this case, it's the business licensing to encourage compliance. The requirements that apply to short term rentals include many similar limitations that exist for home occupations. Now, in terms of like not showing external evidence of the use and, you know, only having a very limited allowance for signage and that sort of thing. And finally, we have some some other home occupations in residential areas that are not uniform across all residential districts. Sometimes I find that we want uniformity when that's the outcome we want. But when we talk about the uniqueness of each neighborhood, when we want to emphasize the differences among our neighborhoods. So cottage food sales is not a permitted home occupation or use in some residential zones. Did we ever look at not making short term renting allowable in all residential districts? But maybe, for instance, I noticed that the map, the map that I want to show later where it shows all the listings as of January. Where they don't exist, for instance, in my district. Those are the zones that are suburban context. Did we ever look at the task force or the group ever look at having short term rentals in those residential districts that are urban edge or whatever and not in suburban yards where they don't seem to be very popular anyway? Right. So you mentioned zone districts where some home occupations are not permitted. There are a couple of specialized zone districts in the suburban context and exist in very few parts of the city. Primarily, it's right southwest Denver. And so we did think about that because there is a precedent for treating at least those limited areas a little bit differently. And we thought about the context system, which gives us the ability to say, treat all of the suburban neighborhood context zone districts differently. However, throughout the process, we didn't specifically hear people saying that the impacts of short term rentals would be greater in those contacts than in, say, the contexts where they're concentrated towards the center of the city. Maybe if there have been a town hall meeting closer than South High School, you might have heard that. Do you think? Well, yeah. Okay. I've heard we've spoken before that. That you feel that we didn't go as far afield as we should have with the outreach. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I have. A question. Is Marc still here? Who was spoke first about an apartment in a high rise downtown? Yes. He is not here. He's not here. Yeah. And Craig Ellsworth, um, uh, they began ask you this. Did did you say, Craig, that you had a place that had a business license and a tax license? Yes. As a short term rental. When I contacted the city about getting a business license. I said I was operating. A short term rental and I inquired about getting a lodgers tax I.D. and I indicated that it would also be a short term rental. Even asked. Tax and license if I needed to. Collect taxes on all. Of the amount or just the rental amount, the other amounts being cleaning and booking fees and all further out that my business name and email include, among other things, we are below. It's very clear what I'm doing. So even the city doesn't know that. This is illegal. Except that you could possibly be in a zone that is called a mixed use zone that does allow for short term rentals if you get a lodging license and a tax license. And in fact, that's why I wanted to call you up and wanted to call markup down downtown areas and some other mixed use zone areas. You can do this. You can already do a short term rental in certain mixed use zones if you get a lodgers license and a tax license. So it might very well be that you're doing it legally. I doubt. That. I get that very much based on where I live. Yeah, that's right. I live I live on East 10th Avenue in Downey. It is a residential neighborhood. So I am sure that what I am doing now is illegal. Hmm. We'd have to take it. We'd have to take a look at that. But that's very interesting. Thank you very much. I just want to let people know that there were some zones in the city where it's legal. If you have someone had mentioned stay Alfred to and and what they they they get lodging license and things. The other question. Oh, the other no comment. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman and I, we had a good meeting with Natan. And who else? I think everybody on Friday. You talked about it, and and Councilman Cash and I were trying to propose amendment to specify an increased staffing for this programing. And Mr. Rodwell cautioned us that we were stepping on sacred executive ground and so we had to back off and we had a good discussion about rules and regs and that's where you convinced us that the rules and regs are going to be, what's going to really enforce this program, come up and talk about rules and regs and how you're going to strengthen this enforcement process with those rules and regs. Correct. So just like any other city department, access licenses has the ability to promulgate additional rules and regulations as it pertains to the ordinance. What we're really excited about is having a a more of a community based conversation with the short term rental advisory committee to look at our enforcement efforts, to look at our enforcement tools, to look at our fines, schedules in the cooperation with the city agencies, and potentially promulgate those additional rules through a similar public hearing process through our department, which is consistent with any other departments, with their promulgation of rules to continue to hone and sharpen and improve our enforcement network. So the ordinance before you today really gives us that barebones framework and we'll be able to move forward with community input on how we can continue to enforce the sharp in our framework as well. So we don't really give specifics like like we really want. Let's talk about two examples tonight. Is Mary Lou still here, merely described to your situation on enforcement, whether on Steel Street there and the difficulty we've had with that situation? I made a written. Complaint to Neighborhood Inspection Services about 800 Steel Street and specified that it was on Airbnb and then sends in a mandatory complaint to specify that it was also on fee or below. I was told an inspector would go out to the house. It's my understanding that an inspector did go out of the house and left some kind of a notice. I don't know anything more about that, but I have heard nothing since and they continue to have crowds going through that house. Let's take this example and let's talk about rules and regular houses going to hell, Mary Lou, and how is this going to address this problem? Absolutely. So I think the frustration that you may have witnessed now is because our existing zoning code doesn't have necessarily these business licensing tools. So take this example of this residential house in this area. One of the first things we would do to see is if they're licensed. So we would look up the location, see if I have a license for that. Look at the advertisement and see if there's a license number in that advertisement. Let's say there's not an advertisement in that license number where you could use a series of tracking the the advertisement in combination with Google Maps, in combination with the Denver Assessor's records to identify who that property owner is. And then go ahead and cite the property owner for not having a license or operating without a license. If they do have a license and they have that license number on their advertisement. We would then investigate whether or not it's their primary residence. We would ask for documentation or really investigate that that place of a usual return to make sure it really is their primary residence. And then we can also investigate further it to make sure that they have the the appropriate insurance, the appropriate rental package, the appropriate safety features, and do a really complete audit of that actual unit to make sure it's in compliance. What about what about the 16 people? Okay. Say it is primary residence and they get 16 people stay in there. How is the word is going to address that? Right. And I made a for a a little bit of fun on this. But essentially, if there's if there if a licensee or of a unit is in violation of any local building code or any local ordinances, we could still take action on the license. And I don't know if you wanted to talk a little more about. But the audit says you can only rent one room. Right. The ordinance states that you can rent just simply your primary residence. So it can be the primary structure, it can be the accessory dwelling unit. It could be both, but only limited to one contract or one party at a time. If you have five bedrooms, you can rent off bedrooms to a family. As long as it's under one rental. One contract. Okay, let's talk about Charlie and you and I had to. But let's talk about Charlie's example, about her situation over there on Lincoln Street where you got two properties like that. What's what how are you going to help with Ms.. Bush's example there? The first thing we would do is look at the DVD logs. So we would look at the calls that are coming in and we would look at any disturbing the peace calls that came in with with DVD. And we could absolutely take action on the license if there was that egregious party calls that come in and disturbing the peace calls that come in, we can we can start taking action on the license. Additionally, we would make sure that they are licensed. We would make sure it's their primary residence and that they fulfilled all the requirements of the audience. And if they don't if they don't have a license and they're not primary residence, are you going to take immediate action to to take care of that situation? Yeah, I think a lot of it does depend on a case by case basis. So we have a lot of tools, whether not be just a notice to comply. But we have that flexibility. We have that authority for those really egregious hosts to start issuing those dual violation fines up to $909 per incident. So that includes just a day of advertising unit online. Well, I think everyone here is just encouraging you to be to enforce the law if we're going to pass a law and because the police don't decide which laws they're going to enforce and building department and decide which permits are going to give out. And, you know, we you know, we expect, you know, the excise in license to go ahead and manage this very well and make sure lawfully handled so. Absolutely. And like I said earlier, thankfully, the the business license tools that we have, these are tools that we've been employing for decades. And it's something that we're very used to and we'll apply these same standards to these licensees. So say district and I've probably got this many rental apartments and as anybody else and tell me how you're going to enforce the rental units there. That's the big issue that I'm concerned to correct. The the multifamily join units may be a challenge. And I think in these certain circumstances, each of these property management companies, neighbors, residents are really going to be our best allies to give us the information. And especially if it's complaint based, we can actually work with these property managers, work with these agencies and work with these residents in these multifamily buildings to enforce the same law. And so we really feel that neighbors and residents in these multifamily drawings are our best allies or best partners. So if neighborhoods are always gave you a list of the approved apartments that are eligible for rent, and that would help you out from. Any information that is. And property management companies can give us as it relates to licensed or unlicensed short term rentals will always be helpful to the department. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I need to take a little bit of issue with my brother down at the end. Councilman new in that I don't think either one of us were convinced by our discussion the other day. My memory of it is you asked very strongly for rules from specification on rules and regulations, and I'm not here in that. And I asked very specifically for a change in language on my concern about games being played with the primary residence, which as I read it says very specifically as documented by these particular listings. Now, Nathan, you told me earlier today that our city attorney says that the language in the ordinance gives us all the protection we need, so that if somebody comes to us, sends us a driver's license that says indicates its primary residence, but it's not that we can go further. So I'm going to ask Mr. City attorney, if you can give me clarification on this. Thank you, Matt. Madam City Attorney, please. Our definition of primary residence is broad enough to include miss loves the opportunity to go in further and delving further into what actually provides evidence for a primary residence. So it's not just the documents that we listed, but also your usual place of return. And so the director does have the opportunity to go in further and to figure out what a usual place of return is. What gives us that specifically? Because as I read the ordinance being proposed. And I am not an attorney and I'm not trying to be rude, but I think this is important. So as I read the bill, it says primary residents as documented by. And I think in our initial application, those documents support the primary residency, but it doesn't end the analysis there and the director does have the power. To go in. And where is the definition, the definition being regular place of return or. That's correct. So that's what a short term renter or property owner needs to prove. That their primary residence is their usual place of return. Okay, so. I'm not really sure why we're asking for documents. But I think that's an easy tool for us to look at at least two documents that provide proof of that. But if we need to go further, if we need to investigate, okay, we have the ability to do that. Okay. Could you thank you for that. I'm sorry. Could you say your name for the record, please? Collymore. Thank you. Thank you. So if Nathan compare for me a bit more, why the complexity in our current situation where these illegal businesses are difficult to put out of business? Because all we have going for us is the zoning code in. If we pass this ordinance, what makes it feasible for us to begin enforcement is that they're now licensed businesses. So go into a little bit more detail on why Mr. Maile, whom I think is maybe out for a snack or home to bed, had to wait 18 months. Correct. Because the reason why it may have taken so long in that particular instance is that in I guess, inspectors were purely enforcing the limitations with the zoning code as it relates to renting or leasing property for less than 30 days. There was there was nothing that spelled out that it shall be unlawful to advertise the short term rental. Without a license number, it shall be unlawful to operate the short term rental, not as a primary residence. Everything fall within the existing zoning code and then asked inspectors to simply had to enforce that leasing provision. So. And what is that process exactly? So a step backwards and my thought to CPD on this a little bit there is that typically when I asked inspectors would have to go in person to the unit, they'd have to knock on the door and hope someone answers. If someone answered, they would have to hope that person admitted that they were operating a short term rental. If they did not admit that they were operating a short term rental. They'd have to go into more investigatory procedures, such as staking out the property quite literally to determine if vehicles were going in and out or if there were out of state licenses. They had to provide some sort of justification other than just what was on line to justify that this person was leasing their property for less than 30 days. The the fines and the notice to comply I don't know those numbers right off the top of my head, but they're much less than are general violations scheduled, which can be up to $999 per incident. Additionally, they could just simply appeal and take that case to the Board of Adjustment and go through that board of adjustment process with our new business licensing tools. We can suspend licenses, we can find licenses and we can show cause licenses to take that business away. So our tools, we feel, are much more efficient and effective than the current zoning code tools that are employed. Okay. So if we pass this law and you take me through. Violations and how they would be handled. How could we shut a problem house down quickly? Right. So what's really important to this is the license number is being placed in the advertisement. So if we find a property owner or a responsible property that continually just advertises their their unit online, we could find them potentially up to $999 per incident of having their license mean. Without a license. Or a correct with advertising without a license. Okay. So they've got a license there. They're legal from that standpoint. So noise complaints, any variety of things. What's the process? Absolutely. So noise complaints that come in disturbing the peace calls come in. We have the authority to work with the director and our inspectors to determine if it really has reached a level where we can show cause that. So we don't necessarily want to say something to the effect of three disturbing the peace violations and you could lose your license. We want to have the flexibility to potentially take action on a license with one disturbing the peace call, quite frankly. So we want to have all of these tools available to us to take action on the licenses. It really is a case by case basis. We can be working with really egregious hosts who flaunt the rules, and we can also be working with hosts who want to comply and who want to be come into compliance. So this wide range of tools not only can help address those egregious hosts that will try to simply flaunt the rules, but it also gives an ability for those hosts to come in and be compliant. Ms.. Loucks, if you don't mind. So as director. Talk about that as far as. Shutting someone down quickly. In the ordinance against the structure of the Department of Excise licenses with some very wise city attorneys that included in the ordinance language the ability to immediately suspend a license. So what that does is I have the ability if there's something where one of these egregious situations happens, we have the ability to immediately suspend the license and basically suspend the due process while we investigate further. So that gives us a little bit of time and flexibility to go in and look at that license and the interim is suspended and then go through the due process if we so choose to pursue a full show course. Okay. Thank you. So how about. People who don't get a license. It's. I'm still a little shaky on how it's more how we can more quickly shut them down. If you're operating without a license, probably the strongest enforcement tool is that general violation per incident. So if we go in every day and go to a web platform and see that this place is listed in five consecutive days, we can just continue to issue these general violations for operating without a license. And they have a maximum fine of up to $999 per incident. So we think that's probably the most immediate tool we can do for operating without a business license. You know, of course, we've talked about it before. We're doing this six month informational kind of soft enforcement by January 1st, because the idea is that's where the strong enforcement starts, where if you're operating without a license at that time, we can go to a general violation. Okay. So this is either for you or Nathan or anyone else who wants to answer it. You seem extremely reluctant to agree to commit to a substantial spot check program. I would suggest it would make huge sense to spot check on primary residence and do spot check on safety violations. What's the heartburn? I know heartburn on any of the safety infractions. I think that is part of our plan is to do this like basically kind of going back to some of the questions from Councilman Flynn is to audit and have a percentage, whether that percentage upfront is 100% of applications that are coming in that we verify primary residency. But we get to a point much like how we do much of our other enforcement, whether it's liquor enforcement, where we rely on an audit based system to get into compliance. And part of that, I think, honestly, we're just using our short term rental advisory committee to help advise us having the community give us that feedback or . Asking us to pass a bill. And telling us that the most important parts of enforcement will be decided down the road. And we don't know what it is. Yeah. And like I said, we're completely open. And like I said, I assume we'll be doing a pretty strong upfront primary residency check just to make sure we're getting into compliance. I don't know that you're going to get a positive vote tonight without more substantial guarantees of enforcement. I really don't. I'm needing that. I'm needing something here. But again, I don't want to I don't know for implying that we're going into not the soft enforcement pieces again, as the rollout, the education piece. But come January 1st, I think we have absolutely every intention for a strong enforcement strategy for combing through the scans. We've we're dedicating our resources and our inspectors. We're dedicating up to 2 to 3 primary inspectors every day to look at these ads, to go out and to respond to neighborhood complaints. I think it's a pretty actually unprecedented allocation of resources that will be going to the enforcement of as come January. If Councilman Cashman, any more questions? I may. And I think just one thing that we wanted to reiterate is that this is sort of a untraditional industry. This is an industry that lives online. It's it's had its success online. So, quite frankly, traditional enforcement tools we need to look at outside the box, enforcement tools we need to look at how we can also leverage that same technology, leverage some sort of digital tools to actually supplement and complement our existing resources. So just how this industry has sort of come online and sort of thrived online as regulators, we want to be able to leverage that same technology in addition to our existing resources that we have. I support that 1,000%, but I don't see why after the lengthy I've been begging for enforcement for months and you can't come to me and say, Well, we'll audit 20%. I don't see what would make that unwise or difficult or expensive. But you're giving me and maybe we're not sure. I'm not. That's all. I think we can put in a number on that like 20%. We can do less than that. We can do more than that. We have all the tools at our disposal to utilize whatever we need. So as this industry evolves, our enforcement, our auditing in our work with the tools that we have will also continue to evolve . But I think we're really on the same page in that we too want a high compliance rate. We too want to make sure that hosts are in compliance with all the regulations, and we're going to use every tool at our disposal and every resource available to accomplish that. I'm not feeling that. And one last question. So if we vote this down, what is the plans for enforcing our current ordinance? Well, just to switch things up A I'll return. I think it you know, it puts us back where we are now in that we only have the existing tools we have now is enforcement. And it's a real challenge. As you heard with the case on Steel Street, you know, there's a cease and desist order is is issued, but it keeps on happening. The new inspectors have to stake the place out to determine that it is still happening. They see the ads online, which is very frustrating to them, but that they can't take action based on the ads online. So, you know, as we said when when we spoke the other day, when we talked to them and I asked inspectors about that, a provision in the ordinance that says it shall be unlawful to advertise without the license number. They were so excited and just thought that was going to make all the difference in terms of enforcement. That's all I've got. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. We have audience members, please. I know it's getting late and I'm trying to, as president, move these procedures through laughing and stomping. That doesn't help. So and we have another public hearing that I want to get to as soon as possible for those people that have been respectively respectfully waiting. So, Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Nathan, I have a question I want to understand a little bit more about the the addus. So they're on someone's property. They're an accessory dwelling unit. They're essentially an entirely separate structure. But those are okay within the ordinance, the way that it's currently written. Correct. And they're actually identified in the text amendment. So I'll allow Abe to come talk about the text amendment. Sure. So as we discussed earlier. Accessory dwelling units are not allowed everywhere. They are allowed in some single unit zone districts, but but not all. And those are dwelling units that could be in the primary structure but have a separate kitchen. It's it really is a separate unit. Or they could be in a detached accessory structure, which is the more granny flat situation. So assuming you had a legal one, you could use it to host short term rentals if you were a licensed short term rental host. Okay. So thank you. So to that, so to that. How do you propose, if it is a separate structure, assuming that it's in someone's backyard, how will Niasse enforce if that's being utilized as a short term rental or something? I mean, they're basically going to have to ask the neighbor possibly to get into their backyard to look over the fence or get in somehow. So how how is that going to be enforced? Well. So in the in the new if we're talking about the new framework, the primary enforcement mechanism will actually be on licensing. So when calls come in, they go there first. If they mention short term rentals. And, you know, the first thing that will happen is looking at the online advertising. So we start with we can probably with a little bit of research figure out which online advertisement is for that unit, even if it's an accessory dwelling unit. And if it's licensed now, it may be licensed and in good standing, but we then have the ability to relate whatever complaint is coming in from wherever to to that unit. And so it creates again, the advertisement really creates a tool that makes it possible for us to do things without going out into the field and getting in someone's backyard to figure out what's going on back there, basically. So so my question to that, again, it's all online enforcement. We are already within, especially my district have, you know, enforcement issues. I mean, I can send as many photographs of weeds in someone's front yard. And it still takes weeks sometimes to have and I come out and, you know, find the property owner and or if they're renters, to then locate the owner, which a lot of times the owners are outside of the state. And so to track that down. And so how large is your team that's going to be checking these online licenses? I guess this would be to to Nathan. Okay. The problem isn't going to be. Just before turning it back to him and just mentioned that, you know, he's conducted research and talked to a lot of other cities. And that 2 to 3 number that he mentioned of inspectors that are are mostly dedicated to short term rentals is actually more dedicated inspectors than most of our peer cities have dedicated that have regulated short term rentals. San Francisco is a bit of a big exception. They have almost ten, but they've had very low compliance. And I think that just tells you something about streamlining because they have very complicated regulations. But let me let Nathan come up and elaborate more because there actually would be site enforcement as well as the online . Correct. And I think this is a classic example where we could actually partner with an IRS on this enforcement framework. So, you know, I ask you potentially receive those complaints and investigate in the field. We could also investigated in the field a lot of this this issue may be actually complaint driven as well, especially if there are complaints coming from the residence. So we would take the evidence that's given to the licensing department and from our interested inspectors and then utilize these existing tools we have. The way we're proposing this now is that about 2 to 3 excise license inspectors would be dedicated, prioritized towards short term rental enforcement. So these inspectors come in to work at 9 a.m. They go through the ads, they start looking at the complaints that came in to other agencies like nice like environmental health. It's disturbing that these calls, etc., and then our inspection team could then take action on the licenses and issue a suspension. A general violation, if it's egregious enough, will lead to that show cause replication the hearing. Okay, my last question and I'm not sure if this is for CPD or excise and licensing, but the the question that Councilwoman Sussman asked the gentleman about, if you're licensed and it's currently zoned, I mean, there there are gaps then that in certain areas of the city and county of Denver with zoning, someone could have an LLC and not have their primary residence. It would be actually a secondary or I mean, how many could they have? I think the missing piece of information within that conversation is that in order for us, in order for someone to obtain a lodging license from our department, they first need to obtain a zone use permit from community planning and development. So they would go through the zone use permit process, make sure that that the building codes, that the code, the parking requirements there, the ADA is there. You have a fire inspection of environmental health inspection. So there's a series of steps that you need to do to first get your zoning permit. Then you would be eligible to come in and get a lodging license, which is that lodging license is typically oriented towards motels, hotels. But at the same time, if you're able to get that zone use permit through CPD, if you're in a zone district, it allows lodging use. You are still eligible to come and apply for our lodging license, if that makes sense. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. So this is for Nathan or Stacey. I'm interested in a gentleman who said in his comments and he was talking about Our Lady. She was talking about. Toronto, where a company is actually owning units. And I'm wondering, this is this is my question. Series of questions anyway. Can a company or an LLC who owns a property have an Airbnb? The only way that a person can obtain a short term rental license is if that person is a primary residence and they can only have one primary residence. In theory, an LLC or a company could have a property, but a. A a. Essentially, a person would need to be there who can certify that it is their primary residence that they live there. So essentially a long term tenant that lives in a place that is owned by a property owner or or another entity of that nature could still be a licensee under this framework as long as they certify its their place of usual return and it's their primary residence. And the reason why I asked that and I think you know, where I'm getting to, I'm, I'm trying to figure out what defines an individual or a person. And if if these corporate entities are people too, like Citizens United. And so I just want to make sure that a person is a person, that a primary resident is a resident and can't be some kind of real estate company or I mean, a network of companies that's just trying to find a back door person. And in our licensing application, there will be a field where you input your name and your address, as well as your driver's license or your state ID card. So we actually do know you're a person. Okay. I think a lot of other questions have been answered. So that was my only and primary concern right at the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilmember Sussman and Flanders. Okay. If I leapfrog you to get to Councilman Espinosa, he hasn't had a chance to ask questions. Related to that. Okay, Councilman Espinosa, you're all right. Thanks. I'm going to rattle off a bunch of names here for some brief questions, if any. I suspect that a lot of them have left, and then after that, I'll go right into new and need name while these guys are coming up. So if the following individuals are here. Sherri Way Betsy chuckles Chuck. Chuck Good. Joel Noble. George Mayo. Mary Lou Fanelli. Craig Ellsworth Waiting. No, never mind. Craig, your question has already been asked. J.J. Neiman, Alex, Dodd, and Sheila habits are shallow. Sorry. So in these questions for you, Nate and and Abe, so sorry these came up because of the line of questions here. So I might as well stay on them while we're talking about them. So how many calls a day are we getting on existing short term rentals? You know, we we went through the 311 data earlier this year. And what we tried to do is go through the 301 data since May of 2015. That's the data the 311 had since approximately May of last year. Up until March of this year, we had approximately 135 calls or inquiries in 2311 regarding short term rentals. So 311 was essentially able to code them as a short term rental call. But what we tried to do further was drill a drill down a little deeper and distill those numbers and really try and categorize them. Of those 135 calls, we found that nearly half or about 40% potentially came from one, maybe two individual sources that sort of comb the Internet sites and complained about the use of that short term rental. And that in their neighborhood, about 57 inquiries or about 52 or 42% were specific to the legality of the use. In other words, these were primarily calls that two, three, one one asking whether or not this was legal in their neighborhood. Eight inquiries were related to just the actual ordinance proposal. But my concern is that we're talking about 2 to 3 staff to handle 135 calls a year. So, I mean, with an estimated 2000 of these units, so we thought about how long it would take 2 to 3 individuals working full time, 2000 hours a year each. So 4000, 160 hours to actually go through the website in and look at every single one of these advertisements. In the way we are able to receive calls. One, we have three more one today, and we're able to closely coordinate with 3 to 1 about short term rental calls that come in. So we're able to utilize the existing three year on resources for those calls that come in. At the same time, we can also take complaints. We take complaints and concerns of all of our licenses and licenses that we issued today. So we do have that complaint process. Where these dedicated staff are not dedicated staff. These are these are dedicated staff where they're prioritized, they come in to work and they will do short term rental enforcement. Okay. What is the definition of egregious in enforcement terms? I think a lot of this is sort of the flexibility of the director. So that's what concerns me, is we keep talking about how are we going to find up to $99, $999 for this egregious actor and that we're really going to react to those, but we don't have any definition of what that is. Yeah. I think a lot of this is it's important for the department to have that flexibility on a case by case basis. So we may simply be able to take a host who had violated a part of the requirement. They just simply didn't know it. We may not want to issue a $999 general violation to that. Host. So is there something about a primary resident that only a primary mean, only non primary resident owners are somehow have a tendency to be egregious owners and those that live there are not. I mean, how did we make this distinction? Wouldn't the that litmus test of egregious ness apply to any operator? Yeah. So let's take an example of any of our licenses, right? So we have licenses today that have the run a gamut in terms of complaints or concerns that are levied on to them. You could have one particular license that really has only had two or three complaints, or you have another license in your neighborhood that a city council person may know about, the neighbors know about. They know about this one particular issue that's been causing them grief. We have the flexibility to not only take care of this, of the incidents that may have had just a few complaints, but we also have the flexibility to take care of that complaint that had a lot of complaints. So why not create the tool to deal with complaints and the enforcement component but divorce it of the from sort of the sort of semantics of ownership and whatnot, because this is not a new industry. This has been here for decades. Yet somehow there has been some sort of it's sensationalizing of of this as somehow being now every single operator is now an egregious operator when in fact that's what we need tools for and have always needed tools for is those egregious situations because we've heard about the situations that have been year long battles to deal with. But it doesn't have anything to do with ownership necessarily. But everything to do with egregious owners operating a business that is that is a detriment to a neighborhood. In our license tools, our business license tools have that ability to take care and give relief to those egregious situations that were presented here tonight. But now we're blanketly taking a whole class of owners and saying you're we're treating you even worse than egregious. We're not even giving you the right to even do what you've been doing historically. Yes, sir. Just came up just to just to talk about it. We're going from enforcement into does the primary resident requirement make sense? And I think, you know, others have said said it much more directly and elegantly than I can. But clearly not all non primary resident rentals are bad rentals. Sometimes the properties are very well fixed up. Maybe they're the nicest house on the block. The concerns that we've heard, though, from the residents in many neighborhoods is that that still has an impact on the residential fabric. The concern has always been the lack of enforcement, the lack of enforcement. And I think if we got better at enforcement in dealing with the egregious and even those that are borderline egregious, we would do would go a long way for our neighborhoods to actually maintain that quality of life. And it has nothing to do with who owns it and who doesn't own it. There is some sort of sense that there's pride in ownership. But I you're going to see in one of my questions about I'm going to question that. But you know what? If your your stakeholder group comes back and their very first recommendation is that we need to expand this to all in order to capture the maximum number of businesses and use it, utilize our streamlined process. We need to open this to all residents, I mean, all operators and owners in the city and county of Denver. Are we changing this council? That's certainly their prerogative. That's what the group is for. And if that's what they recommend, will pursue that. There's certainly a public process that needs to go into that. But that public process has gone ongoing in this process. We have not shifted from this four year. I just think in terms of public process, when you say that non primary resident rentals will be allowed, there's a lot of nuances to that potentially. Are they all allowed? Is it just one who gets to have it? Do they have to be a Denver resident? Can they live in Breckenridge? It's just working through all of that is what we would do if we got that recommendation. So to slide 20, and this is the last question and then I got two points on slide 28, you quote said, none of this exist. You know, we have the general violations today. And we have the ability to sort of do a cease and desist. So I think it's sort of false to imply that we're creating all these enforcement tools. When we actually have these enforcement tools, we just. We have these enforcement wars today. We do not have the authority to apply these enforcement tools without this ordinance. Don't have the authority to do a cease and desist for for doing operating a non-conforming and non permitted use. So in our in our licensing code, we don't write. In our licensing coban, our zoning code and our is not asking to do this or is or is excising license or both. Both. Exactly. Well, so. We could be doing this three. And is we so in I guess does not have authority to enforce what's in the lodging license, which is, you know, Morey, our city attorney, give us a little more details of where the language falls within the zoning code and who has authority. And you are right. We do have the general violation tools that we can use to enforce people who are violating the zoning code. But then we run into the same issues that A was discussing earlier about in in as not really having any tools to go out and verify without extensive investigation, staking out neighborhood houses, having neighbors turn on each other. And only then are we issuing general violations to go to those general session courtrooms and have up to. So again, my goal would be actually good, strong enforcement tools, which could actually have been in place. And in dealing with this thing historically, especially for the last two years, that people have been grappling with this rather than sort of now starting to carve this niche where we're not going to get full compliance. You know, I would rather have good, strong, a lot of a lot of latitude, a lot of streamlining to get maximum compliance throughout the entire spectrum of the industry. But with strong enforcement, clear enforcement. I mean, we keep talking about general violations up to 1999, but in in I yes, we have a very graduated system of warning , then 150 and then like 500 than a thousand. I mean, what are what are we doing here? And again, I think the problem is, is that any and I can't enforce it as easily as excise and licensing can when we have businesses that would actually have licenses or not be license that we can check up on further. Any time you have a violation of state, federal or municipal ordinance that triggers the ability for excise and licensing to look into your license and look at what kind of actor y'all are, and then take enforcement action on that license. So it is additional enforcement tools that go beyond what NASA is currently not able to enforce. But the language that we have now. When in the next six months are we going to know what those general violation structure is? So when they go into a General Sessions courtroom, it's a criminal violation that would be subject to a plea agreement. So they would have the opportunity to talk to a city attorney, to hire a defense attorney. So there's no street check. I mean, a ticket that's issued for an amount that starts that process. The charge is what's on the ticket. Right? So whatever we're going to charge, the maximum penalties are $999 fine and potentially probation. Okay. So we keep throwing out that it's up to 999, but no one can tell me what it's going to be day one on January 1st. I think can we can work out plea agreements or plea guidelines, but you never want to restrict and not have that flexibility. If you got a ticket in this realm and were 100% great after all of the time, never had a violation. And then the one time you had a bad guest who got to disturbing the peace case or something similar, you would want the opportunity to go into court to show your merit, to show, look, this was a one off. This wasn't me as a bad actor and have the ability for someone in that situation to look at you, take you as a business owner and give you a penalty that fits what happened in that. Great. So that's what I really wanted my colleagues in public to know, and my colleagues probably already understand it better than I do that, you know, we keep talking about these maximums, but getting there is a process. Right. And I think Nathan's really spoke to the ability for excise and licensing to utilize all those tools to either do the order to comply, to give people the opportunity to get on board before throwing the hammer at them and say. Okay. So I want to point out one other sort of point of fact, which is there was an operator, Mr. Craig Ellsworth, who who we sort of implied that mixed use, if he had been in a mixed use zone district, that this would be sort of perfectly legal. That is not true after the text amendment is passed, because we are now creating this short term category in the mixed use zone districts with the exact same requirements as in any other zone district. Is that correct? So no, the the text amendment actually doesn't change anything about the legality or illegality of lodging accommodations. So if lodging accommodations is a permitted use in your own district and you've obtained a zoning permit and gone through the licensing process for that and you're conducting it legally, that won't change if you enact this ordinance. So but what I'm saying is that if you're a owner, you can go in to zoning, say, I want to do a short term rental and go through that process. But if you're a non owner, you have an out and you're in a mixed use district, you now have to go through that other licensee lodging accommodations process because that's the only way you can operate legally as a non primary resident owner. But a primary resident owner would have the exact same provision as a short term rental use. The right, if you're the non primary resident operator in the mixed use district, you have to go through the lodging accommodations process. If you're the primary resident operator, then you have this more streamlined short term rental process in the future, which right now say I. Don't want to. So it's sort of weird. I don't want the idea to be that somehow it's now okay and in mixed use the way we're talking about, because again, it's still because the text amendment, it is still only available in that capacity mean only available to primary residents as a short term rental. The text amendment doesn't make it any easier to operate a non primary resident car rental in a mixed use district, if that's where you're going. Yes. All right. Now, the three questions is Sherry way here? Was Betsy here? No. Joel. Her? Um. Do you want to read and want me to read verbatim what I wrote? You're going to get a laugh. I said, you're a stickler for rules. So does this zoning text amendment do anything to mitigate the current situation? The zoning text amendment is just zoning separated from licensing. Correct. Oh, I wouldn't I these have to be considered as a package. Okay, good. I want I wanted us to sort of make that clear that you can't the zoning, the change in zoning has to have the licensing component in order to be at all effective. So. Is it so the existing homes that would go. So how many existing homes would go on to the market as a result of this legislation? Speaking to the sort of concern about the lack of affordable housing. So we make this rule and now all non owner occupied non non primary residence. I mean units are now illegal. So how many? What sort of impact will that have on the housing market? Well, I think. You. It's not that if this passes, they've become illegal. They're illegal now. Right. Right. So I think it's terribly hard to estimate what people would do, given that you're talking about people that are willing to operate a short term rental today illegally. It's both hard to say what they would do if this passed and it remained illegal, but there was a brighter light about it being illegal because their listings would be lacking the required license number and it would be more obvious that they're operating illegally and the fines have gone up. But at the same time, if we went the other way and we, you know, you all amended the proposal such that you can do something more than just your primary residence. You could do another one instead of your primary residence. There's really not a good way in what we know has gone on in Denver to estimate how many normal rentals, regular long term rentals would come off the market because you can't look at how many people are doing it illegally and estimate how many people would do it should it become illegal or should have become legal. And that's really my concern. It's not some gift of new housing units that's going to appear. People who have enough resources to have more than one house today have a lot of options in what they do. They can rent it long term. They could you know, they could sell it off. They could keep it as something just for guests. You know, I don't want to estimate that. What I'm what I'm afraid of is if a council member tonight proposed and it passed, it became part of part of the final bill that it was more than just primary residency. I think there's ample evidence from other cities that we could rapidly lose housing units at a multiple of the rate of affordable housing units. We add to the market every year, and not that all of them that we lose would be affordable units. But we'd be adding tremendous pressure to, you know, housing market that's kind of already out of control. Yeah, I mean, and that's where it is. I'm having this conversation with you because this is a conversation that we can have here that I wish we sort of would have had in the run up to this, which is that that, you know, I look at the home as one of our greatest wealth building tools that we have as individuals. And this essentially would double that capacity if you sort of limited to one owner, one property, one STR sort of ascribe to a Social Security number, not a tax I.D. or something like that. So there was one definitive way of saying, okay, that's your limit. You get your one STR, whether you're living in it or not living in it. And that would give you the capacity to either supplement your income or increase your wealth through that mechanism. But we also need to couple that with not allowing renters to then sublet their they're non owned unit on the STR market. And this goes back to the last meeting where I was. I was leaning in heavily on the fact that we do not notify owners. This is a streamlined process where it's just click, click, click, click, click and you're, you're, you're in business with the license. So I just speak to that so too. So we're doing a couple of things that sort of both exacerbate the problem because now we've legalized it for all primary residents. So we could in fact take viable bedrooms out of the affordable housing market. And we are getting away from. Actually maximizing sort of compliance. And it's it's an interesting thought experiment. In housing markets, they're even tighter than ours in San Francisco. They were extremely worried about long term bedrooms coming off the market, not just entire housing units. So they tried a very complicated set of regulations that that had to do with primary residents versus not and and essentially limits to the number of days you could do. And they had some pretty bad unintended consequences because if you gamed it outright, you realized that people had all kinds of incentive. If they were already if they already had a tenant in their house, if it was just a bedroom, it was a border type arrangement. They had every incentive to evict that tenant and do and do short term rental instead. I think we're a different market than that. I think that while, yes, some people invite, you know, third parties that they're not in any other relationship with to be boarders. We don't have a tremendous amount of that in Denver. And so I'm not particularly worried myself about people evicting someone from a bedroom that they're sharing in order to long term in order to do. Short term, it could happen at the margins. What I'm really hopeful about, if we get the incentives right on this, you know, imagine all the people in the in the audience tonight who have multiple homes, maybe they have a second home and they're renting it out short term. And, you know, that's not legal now, but the lights become brighter and they become uncomfortable doing that. They stop doing that. And whatever they do with that second house is their business. It's a really good market to sell it into if they wanted to. But they say, you know, I really liked having that income. What else can I do? I can build an accessory dwelling unit so it meets the requirement for primary residence because it's on your site. It could be a finished basement and an attached accessory dwelling unit or a detached accessory dwelling unit in the backyard. And although their their immediate incentive might be to have that be short term rental. What they've done is create a housing unit. They created a housing unit that didn't exist before. I'm a big fan of accessory dwelling units. I wish we had them available everywhere in the city and a streamlined process for neighborhoods that don't have them now to get them. And I think if we do this right with a package that's in front of you now, people who have the means to build an accessory dwelling, you didn't start getting income from short term rentals , could really incentivize that to get built. And rather than decreasing the availability of housing, we actually increase it. So I'm going to have you take a stab at somebody else's question. That person talked about how they set this, what was right for their community at 30 days. What happens between day 28 and day 30? Like, what if you're renting for seven days or you have four different people renting for a week versus that 30th day? I couldn't possibly speculate. You might have to ask that person. Yeah, that person isn't here. That's that that's that's too bad. So. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. Councilman, you're at 23 minutes. I mean, you continue to ask questions, but I do hope we can get to a point where we can get to the comment periods or. What about? Let me see. 800 Steel Street. Coulson, we can come back to you. We have two other people in the queue if you want to. Get your thoughts together. Well, one question for JJ if he's still here. Oh, great, JJ. What? And then a real quick question for Shayla. So you entrenched in that year long process to sort of deal with a star. What is it about this legislation that would somehow make that process not? I mean, more what would expedite that? Yeah. So. JJ And even with the Denver, I can see some of the way I understood what happened in my neighborhood was that was an owner that wasn't present in the state of Colorado. So this legislation would do is it would make it would give us a chance to know the owners and it would only be legal . There would only be a it would only be legal if. If that owner actually resided in that residence. The biggest problem we have is the biggest problem in my neighborhood has is that there was no accountability. There was no person who had a stake in the neighborhood. And what this legislation that we're bringing forth, this text amendment, is going to require that short term rental owners have a stake in the neighborhood that they're involved in. And I think that stake is going to end. And the kind of enforcement that I have heard, I do believe that the enforcement that we have heard through and seeing the enforcement that we are promised will come in the future will will be sufficient for us to be able to hold these owners accountable. And what I hear tonight is that there are many owners that want to be accountable. And I think that this legislation brings that accountability and allows them to come within compliance. Okay. I my concern is, is that it isn't this is the first night we've been hearing about how swift this action will be. But everything that I've seen and heard thus far about our actual process is actually a long process of due process, you know, to sort of prove that all these problems are happening in order to sort of pull back and, you know, to affect the license. And so I just want you and others to understand that you got a you got a problem. You know, it might be cut and dry to you that it's it is a it is a an issue that should be rectified. It might not be as swift as one might hope. And I wish that's what I wish we were doing somehow, is legislating in such a way that a bad actor and somebody who's not operating under license is out of the system right now. If you don't mind me commenting on that. Yeah. What I would say is that's why we really appreciate Mary Beth bringing this up, because I think what we did is we started shining light on a very dark part of a business in our neighborhoods. And the process that we've gone through over the last two years has shown a lot of light. We've seen a lot, we've worked out a lot of these issues. And we do have confidence that we're going to continue to work out issues as we go forward. I do like hearing that there's going to be a committee and a so this is a deep process and a process that obviously has taken a long time. And I would say that continuing it today and having this this step be part of the conversation is is going to make all of the work we've put in valuable because there is a lot of light already being shown just by the process that we've gone through. All right. Thank you, Sheila. The $21 million, is that an annual number or a. So we could fund our entire affordable housing permanent affordable housing fund just by taxing this one industry. Charlie, we're going to need you to come to the podium. The yeah, the 21 million is the ancillary spending per year. And so yes, the tax revenue would be substantial. And all along we've proposed, although we know that affordable housing is not impacted by non primary residency homes, all along we have proposed the idea of funding affordable housing through taxation. Any sense of how did that study look at what if the Denver Lodgers tax were directly applied to this industry? What it would generate? It looked at it in terms of just the non primary residency homes, which estimated $2 million in taxation. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Council members, eight of us have talked for just about half the amount of time as 56 speakers. So we're we're on round two. Council members. I just want to be recognized that if we could keep our comments questions a little bit shorter. Councilwoman Sussman, you're here. I'm in the spirit of getting along with us. Hold my questions. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flint, you're up. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. I'll take your time, then. Actually, I only have three questions. And they came up because of the questions subsequent to my speaking. The city attorney. Oh, we we are making it illegal. And I read it in the ordinance. It would be an illegal act to post a short term rental, advertise it anywhere without a license number. Correct. How can we enforce that? Can we actually I mean, because we've not been able to enforce the ones that are advertising illegal. They're all illegal now in their advertising. Right. So they're advertising to do an illegal act. So how does can we actually fine someone because they don't have a number on their ad? Or do we not have to go in and prove that they are actually conducting the business that they advertised? Because that has been the problem with enforcement in my district. Yeah, I heard somebody say we only had six complaints citywide. I had six complaints just on this one house. Sure. And that's exactly right. I think the enforcement issues is proving that someone is actually using their house as opposed to just advertising them for an Airbnb. With the licensing number, we can look online, see that it's posted and it's listed, and if there's not a license number, we can issue a citation based on that violation alone . Would that hold up and how would that hold up? Don't we have to demonstrate that they're actually engaging in that in the activity of renting it? The unlawful act is licensing or advertising without a license? Not really. Can we do that for political ads? But. Okay. Got it. The three, Nathan, the three staff members, two or three staff members that we're going to shift over to work on stars. What are they doing now? And who will pick up their workload. With the third director on that one? I hate to make you get up. Stacey. Oh, my. God. Oh, thank you. This is kind of labor of love. The two or three staff members, we have an enforcement division, as Nathan talked about earlier, excise licenses for all of our licenses of six enforcement agents. We're moving with a solid to an online inspector application right now. Our inspectors come into our office in the morning, work on what they're going to get for the day, for this type of thing, and then in the afternoon, typically go out and do their inspections because of the technology. Enhancements are going to be made available to us in the next couple of weeks. They're going online. They're going to have iPads in the field, they have printers in the field. So they no longer have that required time that we've been doing using a page. So we're going to get more productivity out of the same number of people and that's how we're going to do this. Added Enforcement. Okay. Is there some is there someone here from Nice? There is no. There's there's not. Has there ever been someone here from Nice? And I seems to have a lot of scope of work here and enforcement. And from my information, they've been involved in very few meetings on this over the two years. Why is there no one here from Nice when this is one of our biggest concerns? How are they going to pick up the workload? So Nice has has been participating in the process and we have been meeting with them. And, you know, they're they're aware of this proposal. They they haven't been coming to most of the public events for this. As we've discussed, the current proposal takes enforcement and puts it into this new framework that will primarily be an exercise in licensing. Primarily. Well, that's a spot on, though. We're talking about the problems out in the neighborhoods that they're having, like with the the house in our district that J.J. was on, by the way, the owner of that was out of state. And my understanding is he's moved back and he's moving into that house and that will be his primary residence. But I don't know how often he'll actually live there. We'll see. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other questions to 61 C? None. Public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, thank you all for being sitting in those hard benches for such a long time and for coming out and talking to us. Just want to make a couple of comments. One, in the discussions about enforcement, don't forget that things like noise and loud parties is a police matter. And we can bring to bear all the enforcement that the police can do and that the police would be the people who would enforce that in its enforces things like weeds and fences and the way the property looks in a nice can and will and and will continue to do so with when they try to enforce the less than 30 day rental, that's when they have they they don't have as much ability to do it very quickly. The fact the fact that we are adding a whole department to the enforcement of this is is pretty large to me. It's pretty huge that we have a whole nother body in in addition to the police, in addition to Nice, we now have exercise and license to apply the enforcement. And I really liked what one of the gentleman said, that we don't have data we are going to use. What we learn in this process. We are lucky that we weren't the first to do this. Like we were with marijuana. And we do have some experience with other cities and we have the group that's going to watch and see how we're how we're doing. And I, I feel really confident that we're going to have a better get our arms around this thing better than we would have if we did not do it. If we did not do it, we'd be right where we are, right we are today. And have so many people doing this with it with with not enough enforcement opportunity. I want to thank all the people that helped us do this. You know, the neighbors were some the neighbors who were thanked. We thank. I want to thank you. I think in the two years that we did this and talked about it, we we we came up with a lot of different things. And some of the questions that you're hearing from the council tonight, they were a part of those discussions. Sometimes you realize what we've talked about that we went through that and we tried to figure that out. And I just want to thank you all for for the engagement and and not just the neighbors who aren't hosts, but the neighbors who our hosts who also engaged with us about what the industry was about. This just wasn't easy. And I want to thank, you know, Charlotte and starting the short term alliance during this process so that she could find some way to organize the group that had different points of view. And I think that was very helpful. Thank the hotel industry, the tourist industry and the departments. I'm sorry. I feel like it on like Oscar night or something. And I think all the people that we did this, the the CPD, we had the CPD with, we had regular meetings with CPD and Excise and License and the city attorney and communications and an AC. And I was there all the time too. And we talked through all of these things, but particularly I want to thank Abe and Nathan for just dogging this thing like crazy. And I feel like we have probably what will be considered a model for looking at primary rez, looking at short term rentals at at least at the beginning about how it happened and the fact that we're going to put it all online. And we're we're I feel like we're quite organized about it. I understand my councilman and my fellow council people ask a lot of questions. It's a very complex subject and this isn't going to be the last of it. The whole sharing economy is quite different and is sort of turning things on its head. And and we've got some old laws that don't even have the words short term rentals in them. And it was even difficult to find out that it was illegal. I mean, it wasn't it's that clear right away. It was it was you know, we had to have interpretive nets of words that because we didn't have words like this. Well, this is going to help us put some more modern language into the text to minimize modern language and to excise and license. And it's I feel like it's a it's a really good beginning. And it it didn't get here just all by itself. I would say there were hundreds of people who helped us think this one through. And I thank you for that. In addition to sitting in those hard seats all night, and I urge my fellow council people to vote I on this on both bills. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Neal. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Councilwoman Sussman for all the work she did on this and and all the neighborhoods, how they worked closely with her to come up with a compromise that that's going to make this work. And the industry to understand we've got some issues. I think you heard it and I, I will be supporting this bill tonight, but I have a real bad taste in my mouth from all this enforcement discussion, you know, and I just want to encourage you to be proactive. I hate crisis management. You know, Lisa, Brad Buchanan, you saw what happened earlier tonight. They didn't have enough staff and they came in for a supplemental of $1.3 million because they didn't have enough staff to to do the building permits. Don't get into that situation. Use peak performance. We got a great peak performance. Help them let them help you quantify how much manpower you need and go into this budget process because, you know, we're all going to be looking at that budget process. You heard it tonight. We're going to be yelling and screaming about staffing. And so use them to help quantify what you need and start off. But don't get into crisis management. This is the worst situation to be in. So I just want to encourage you to do do well and thank everyone for promoting this. And thank you, Mr. Rose. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I speak as a rank hypocrite because I realize that when I lived 35, 40 years ago in New Jersey, in South Jersey, I used short term renting down the Jersey shore. So I understand the concept, but I also understand that when we rented a place on the beach in Sea Isle, that in the town of Wood. Behind just across the bay. They didn't have this and I checked Airbnb. There are no Airbnbs in Woodbine right now. They're all in Sea Isle. There are places where this is appropriate and there are places where it clearly isn't. And I've been asking for a long time for some kind of voice for the neighborhoods. And I think this is a compromise that not many people are happy with. The folks who spoke from West Wash Park and some of the other neighborhoods said they are only reluctantly supporting this because they see they've been convinced that we can't stop it anyway. So we might as well do what we can to build to build a wall. Sorry. And I'm not going to say what comes after that to prevent the secondary homes. Right. And the folks who want to operate the secondary homes are not happy at all because they're going to continue to be illegal and probably be crack down on it. Yet it is. I've come to I want to thank the industry, by the way, for educating me on this, because I've come to believe that it is those secondary units that actually are very, very useful, not just for my family down at the Jersey Shore back in the seventies, but for folks coming in with their families for weddings or their kids are having treatments at National Jewish, etc., etc.. I've come to see the utility of this and I could support that if neighborhoods had a say on whether they're in their neighborhood or not. Through what I had proposed earlier, the use overlay, which didn't get any traction or through some other mechanisms such as home occupation, zoning permit with informational notice where people could check in. But right now, the neighborhoods have no voice in this, no voice at all as to how commercialized they become. So I'm very disappointed about that. I think we've left out a crucial, crucial step in the process. I think this cried out for a more tailored approach that we have not been able to achieve. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to consider voting no until we get this right and not pick not pick a winner. I think right now, Airbnb's chairman is the only person entirely happy with this. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I've saved my 25 minutes for now. So hold tight, everyone. No, just kidding. Thank you for being here for five and a half hours. Really, really great comments. And I appreciate the passion on all sides. The arguments both for and against a primary residence rule are very compelling. I am not opposed to VR, Bio and HomeAway. I've used them myself and I support private property rights. But now tonight I will be supporting the bill as is with the primary residency rule for four reasons. The first is, I think we need to honor the two year process that Councilwoman Sussman, her staff excise and license and CPD engaged in. And as Joel Noble eloquently, so eloquently said, the process began with animosity and has concluded with a compromise and a compromise that leaves unhappy parties on both sides. Lawmaking does require compromise, but I do think this engagement process needs to be respected. I've heard from my own constituents some of them oppose short term rentals altogether. Those who are supportive have overwhelmingly expressed support for the primary residence rule. The third thing is Denver is undergoing dramatic and sometimes traumatic changes. The new industry is just one of the dis they one of the things disrupting life as we know it here in Denver. So I think we need to ease into this and see how it goes. I'm really pleased that we're going to have an advisory group, and I think we should let them do their work and monitor the industry and we can adjust as we go along. My fourth point is that our experience with legislating marijuana has taught me that it's better to open the door slowly to a new industry because once the floodgates are open, it's nearly impossible to close them. So I am supporting the bill, but I strongly support the work of the advisory group and the possibility of adjusting the regulations in the future and the future future opening up of the industry. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you. I want to add my thanks to everyone who came out to speak tonight to make your voice heard and stuck with us for so long. During the public meeting, Lucky District seven almost had the first word with Cherry Way and the last word with Dirty Grant being one away from the final and so many in between, because this is such an important issue to the people that I represent. I think that the process is really important here, and this was a long process, a very involved process, as you as so many of you have heard and been a part of. I honestly never thought when I was running for office that I would ever see ANC and West Wash Park Neighborhood Association out largely to support any kind of legalization. Anything that brings Charlotte and Tim and Gerda and Cheri and Charlie to the table in any kind of support means that it was a significant compromise. And another one of my constituents there, McCarthy said. Sometimes a good piece of legislation looks that way because nobody is really happy with it. It means that all sides had to give something and were willing to give something to come to the table. So I believe that this is just the beginning, and I think for this to be successful, we absolutely must show that we can enforce and we can enforce well. And I hope that that is something that that that all staff is hearing and hearing loud and clear. I totally second Councilman Hughes statement that I will be looking in the during the budget process as to where it is that we as a council can throw our weight behind throwing more people to this and enforcement of this so that we can show that this can work in all the ways where it has not been working . So far, I think that this is a great first step. As Councilwoman Black said, opening the door slowly. I really look forward to the short term rental advisory group and really having that group really look at this and letting us know where we got it right and where we missed the mark. I will be supporting this and I hope that it passes so that we can start moving down that path. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I fortunately had some wise people in my life. Told me to not always say the things you feel like you want to say on the moment, but to think about them a little bit. I'm not going to burn this down because enforcement is critical to this situation. And I'm convinced that this ordinance has within it the enforcement teeth that we don't have by doing nothing as far as the. Discriminating by. Picking a winner when I'm picking any winners. The whole ball of wax is illegal right now where we're trying to craft a situation that makes sense for our community. I really hope. Somebody competes and competes well with Airbnb, because while I have great respect for a lot of the hosts I've talked to, I find that company extremely difficult to deal with. I don't think they care a whit about community. So I'd like to see the industry get a bit more of a social conscience. The. Yeah, I just. Oh. Conscience would be good. No, nobody else has been. There's been one person in the room that's been laughing at other people and one person only. So I'll leave that at that. I think it's important. My main motivation, I do. There's a gentleman here earlier and a couple of people have said they don't believe short term rentals affect affordable housing. Everything that I've read from all over the country disagrees with that. I think affordable housing is the most important issue we face as a city. I understand bringing tourists in and making it easier for them to visit. I think that's important. But our firefighters and our police officers are looking at other jurisdictions because they can't find housing. Our teachers are looking at other jurisdictions because they can't find housing. My daughter is moving out of the city because she and her husband can't find affordable housing. They want to raise a family and they can get twice the house per square foot than they can get in Denver. So with that. I believe it's clear that this council is adamant on an enforcement arm. I think there'll be a lot of eyes on it, and I believe that that staff is serious about it. Though I would have liked more detail early on. So I will be supporting this as too much good work has gone in. And the main thing is, like I said, I think if I thought by doing nothing we would get enforcement. Then I'd vote this down. But I don't believe that to be the case. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I. What to me, what makes sense when we do this and it is not unlike marijuana laws when we we take a first crack. Well, I agree with the notion that we open the door slowly. It's the how and what these laws should do is ensure maximum compliance, not be satisfied with 20, 30, 40, 50% of the industry, but do make create a law that's going to capture as close to 100% of that industry with strong, streamlined enforcement, not streamlined, just the compliant I mean, the licensing side for a fraction of the industry, they capture that entire industry but have strong, streamlined enforcement. And this law does neither while allowing limited use in every single zone district that nearly every single zone district in the new zoning code city wide. I agree with my colleague Councilman Flynn that this should be not a limited but is open so that it's a notification process at least 15 days so that people know that this is going to happen on any single parcel that adjoin adjoining them. So and it's really unfortunate because by not capturing the entire bandwidth of the industry, we are giving the large, largely silent operator that has been operating here essentially for the last 20 years. We're kicking them out of the process. And that's just seems really, really strange because we're reacting. We're shooting from the hip and reacting to an app that that is not doing what we're trying to do, which is actually get good compliance and enforcement. So we're creating this thing. Hopefully we can do it with that task force later on. But I think we should have come out of the gate with those rules, and I think we had time. What I didn't see over this two year, and I take real exception to that and I wasn't going to go there, but I will. Two years of so-called negotiating on this, I'm calling bulk. You know, what happened was a shared economy task force where they were looking at everything. We haven't seen any ordinance come across on vehicles, Lyft, Uber, anything else that was part of that original discussion. What we have is this, and that has not changed and has not moved one inch since. Well, maybe an inch, but not much since I showed up July 20th. And so for the better part of one of those two years, it has been essentially this way with language that I was not able to see until the filing deadline. That is just not how we operate in an open and transparent government. So we got what we got and good, good on those guys that made it happen. But I can't support that sort of behavior or or this sort of bill things. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for everybody who's in here. You guys look so tired. And I want to thank you for paying for parking. Maybe it didn't. And sitting in these hard seats for so long and for the folks who had to go home. Appreciate you. I got a pretty different perspective on this. And I just tried to listen and stay open tonight, but I had a front row seat into this experience the last eight months because my neighbor two doors down went to Bali, Bali for eight months and just have, you know, been doing their short term rental the entire time. And me and my wife and three kids are next to this facility home and they have people going in and out. And there wasn't one complaint on my block and I even asked every. One on the block. And so, you know, it's interesting that there's a lot of focus on, you know, enforcement and things like that. And I appreciate that. I know it's different in different neighborhoods, but I just thought that was an interesting observation. I understand the two year conversation. I was with. Counsel and. Councilwoman Sussman on those two years, and I get it. But in two years as well, I think you learn information that will, you know, may give you another give you new information to to change your mind. And and my mind changed in that two years. There is not enough support on this council for what? How my mind has changed. My mind has changed to the point of saying you can either use your primary or another residence, but you only get one. Because I realize the affordable housing conversation, you don't get two, you get one. And you you get to choose. Not enough support on this council for that. I will be supporting this bill because I do feel like progressive cities have to deal with an onslaught of new ideas and innovation. And so I believe I want to honor this process. I believe it was I disagree with Councilman Flynn. I do believe there's a lot of neighborhood leaders in here at 11 p.m. that don't need to be here and they are here to testify in favor of this. And so this has been an inclusive community process. And I want to thank everybody at the table who came on board for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to respect the two year process that Councilwoman Susman brought folks through, and knowing that not doing anything does not get us closer to a solution. And so by regulating an industry, it will help us protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. The primary residency, I understand both sides very well. I think I've been very honest that, you know, my husband and I own a house in Montebello. If we wanted to move into a ranch style house, because going up and down stairs, sometimes about 430 in the morning, I think, wow, I'm going to need a ranch style house someday. And I have children. I would like that house if they would like that, you know, to be gifted to them someday. But understanding, you know, Joel's comments as well around looking beyond this conversation and hopefully this conversation and voting on this ordinance will spur a much bigger conversation that we need to have around density in our neighborhoods. And 80 years, I mean, when we were in Brooklyn, you know, I stayed in the Red Hook suburb or the area of Brooklyn. I mean, you walked two streets over. It was one of the largest, you know, housing tenements in the city. And when we would tell our cabdriver we need to go to Red Hook, they would be like, What for? Why are you going there? And two blocks over, you saw density that you needed to have and and really encouraging that growth in a neighborhood where it was difficult, but understanding that, you know, 80 years are possibly our next step in the city and county of Denver. And, you know, I've got a big backyard in Montebello, and if my 19 year old, it's going to take him 15 years to save up money to buy a home. There's another answer and there's different ways to think about it. And so I do want to thank all the folks that are here, and I will be voting yes on this to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President, I. I'm very, very supportive of this. This question in front of us today, this ordinance that regulates an industry that is unregulated. And even before there was Airbnb, there was folks renting their rooms. Since I can remember, it's always been in Denver, whether it's been legal or not. And now we have an opportunity to identify that universe, to regulate it, to permit it, and to put it on the radar. And that's going to be the case with a lot of new industries, especially in the sharing economy. And no neighborhood is immune from it. Not one is more important than the other or anything like that. In this city we do have a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis, if that. And we need to find other alternatives to how to how do we address that now? I love the idea that, you know, we could possibly tax the industry to pay for affordable housing. I think it's a brilliant idea. I love to revisit that. Uh huh. I'm a tax happy Democrat. I like that. Oh, no laughing here, right. I really believe that in the future, ideas are the answer. Not just for a use like this, but for affordable housing. Um. It is in a very important. Now we look at those kind of alternatives and those kind of tools that exist or silent tools that are right there in plain view in our zoning code that we can utilize. And in 2010, when we did the citywide rezoning, I was a council member then and in District three, in Westwood, in Barnham and in Villa Park, some parts scattered throughout. In some of these other areas, you see adus areas that are eligible for aid to use where before we didn't have it. And that's what's going to help not just this industry and this sharing economy, but also our affordable housing crimes crisis. I would love one day, uh, knowing that neighbors are taking care of family members and their ideas, being able to have that independence. And I don't want to call it a grandma mother in law flat or a grandma flat because I know some I know some grandpa that could use that as well, too. So starting with this guy right here. But no, I'm super I'm very supportive of this. You know, I think we do need to revisit the conversation in terms of how this industry looks in the future. But with that, I, um, I am a yes vote for this. I do want to see this move forward. Yes, we need the appropriate enforcement, but we also need enforcement for regular, nice issues. It's very hard. And those folks are very overworked. We need inspectors all across the board in this city. And so I hope that's something that, you know, and I and here's the thing. I think we have as a city council, as the legislative branch of government, is the one that actually holds the wallet in the city. We have ourselves to look out for that, not budget cycles coming around. And that's something that we can program in the budget. So it's not necessarily ask looking at the department for the answer, it's also providing the apartment or the apartment, the department with the tools and funding necessary to be able to enforce this. So thank you, Mr. President. With that a yes, vote for it. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Um, well, everyone has talked, so I will just briefly chime in. One, I appreciate all your comments. I you can't read this and if you zoomed in, you still can read it. But my, my notes for each one of you in what you were writing and I appreciate all the value added comments. It's disappointing when we have such a serious topic. We have individuals that choose to make lie and laugh and joke at individuals that only have a 3 minutes to speak. And I want to apologize for them for doing that because I believe that's extremely disrespectful because we offered them that opportunity when they speak, but they don't give you that same respect back. You know, it's interesting, even if we didn't pass this law, we had the conversation, we could not we don't have the the right enforcement mechanisms to stop short term rentals. That's why it takes as long as it does in this current process. So even if we just want to fix the problem, we need to pass some law so that we have better enforcement tools because we know right now that we don't even have those. And Elizabeth, I love your quote. I'm paraphrasing how you said sometimes you have to break the law for transformative things to happen. I thought that was absolutely brilliant when you said that, because I think that's very fitting. Governments always behind you. Think about Uber and Lyft, which is regulated at the state, by the way, not the city. But can you imagine if that wasn't around? I mean, that's something everybody uses now, and yet the state had to catch up on that one. So for Councilwoman Sussman and their team to have the vision two years ago to realize we need to catch up with that, I think that's remarkable. I asked the question about the primary residences, because this is what I think the issue is. And Mr. Ludwig has said, Ludvig, I was given my German accent, made the comment, eradicate fear through knowledge. And I think there's just this fear about what happens if we don't do this. And so when I ask the question, is it about knowing who to hold accountable? And I believe we could have gotten that with an with a non primary resident piece. I think about Ms. Ault who lives and who has a property and her property is five blocks away. Well, you know, she's we know who she is. So if her non. The primary resident had an issue. We could go directly to Ms.. Ault and say, We have an issue, let's fix that. And I feel as if that was kind of a middle ground we could have met without having a primary residence to make those neighborhoods have that need, like we know who to hold accountable. And my amendment would have been Denver resident one Short term rental, whether you live there or not. Denver Resident I think that would've been a great starting point. It wasn't a support. That's the way our that's the way that our democracy works. So but to to not have anything I think is the certainly wrong way to go. And I at some saving grace I have to know this the short term rental advisory group has the capability to look down the road and say, you know what is not as bad as we think it is, let's make these tweaks. So I, I would hope that we can move forward with this bill, get that group in place to see how we can better these regulations. Because I, I think we certainly are moving in the right direction. Certainly could be better. But in essence, do I want to kill the whole bill? Because I don't I think we could have gone further. I'm not sure how wise that is. So, you know, other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN High Black Eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa No. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Catherine Hi. Lopez I. Knew. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting after results. 92 days. 1961 to 61 has been placed on final consideration and do pass. All right. We've got to 62 that we delayed. So let's get that on the floor. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill to 62 on the floor for final passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments on to 62? Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Assessment. By Black Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. No. Gilmore. I can. I can. Each. New. Uh, Espinosa? No. Lopez. Lopez. I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results. 9829992 days. 262 is then placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are on to the next one. Council Bill 306, Councilwoman Gilmore. And for those of you choosing not to stick around, I could ask if you could just please keep quiet as well. Moving on to their second public hearing. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill three on six, three or six on the floor for final consideration and do pass? Happy to do so. Mr. President, I move that council bill 306 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Council. I need a second on the screen. It has been moved and seconded. We're going to have to waive transition for those given the staff report to come on up to the front and if they could. Mr. DELANEY, I'm not sure who's giving the staff report, but. Here is. Tim. I heard a big announcement before that. And colleagues, remember, we have to have seven on the dais to move forward. So if I want to make sure we keep seven up here on the dais for this. All right. We're we're still getting that first. Okay. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill three, a one hour courtesy public hearing for accountability ethics is now open. May we have the staff report? And Mr. Delaney, are you starting to do that report? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. We're here to proposing your bill 306, which is to raise the sanitary and storm sewer rates within the Wastewater Enterprise Fund here within the Department of Public Works. The Wastewater Enterprise Fund is a government owned utility. It's made up of storm sewers, sanitary sewers, storm handles the water that falls from the sky, the irrigation water runoff, that sort of thing. Sanitary handles the water that comes out of our homes from our dishwashers, our showers, etc. Storm billing is based on impervious surfaces within your property and is billed annually. Sanitary is based upon your water consumption and February. And it's billed monthly on the bottom of your Denver water bill. The storm system has about 750 linear miles of sewer and is about 40 years old. On average, the sanitary system is twice as large, nearly 1500 miles and is 60 years old. We do not treat our own sanitary sewage. We it's treated by the Metropolitan Reclamation District, which is a special district that treats the sewage for 60 municipalities and counties within the metropolitan area. Why do we need. Why are we asking for a rate increase, first of all, to protect people and property who are currently living in hazardous flooding areas. Second of all, to maintain and replace aging infrastructure. Third of all, to improve water quality in the water that we discharge into the Platte River. And fourth, to keep up with the service demands in a city that is growing by almost 1500 people a month, storm rates are driven primarily by two things construction where we want to go from an average annual investment of $20 million to $30 million a year under the next for the next five years. And water quality, which would be spending over $20 million on water quality over the next five years. The sanitary system is driven primarily by paying for the treatment of our sewage by the reclamation district, and that rate is going up at a rate of about 8% per year. The other driver of sanitary is the construction. We want to go from two and a half million a year investment in the infrastructure to 8 million. And that will do two things that will both replace and repair our current system. But it is also building additional adequacy or additional service adequacy into our system because we have many areas that are growing that don't have adequate sanitary sewer lines. The rate increases we're asking for for storm starting in July seven, 2016, is 11% and 11% and 17 11% and 18 10%, 19, 10% and 20. That's an average of 10.6% rate increase per year over the next five years. 6.4% of that will go to construction. 4.2% of that will go to operating costs. Sanitary. We're asking for 5% in 2016. 5% and 17. 4% in 18. 4% in 94% in 20. Which for a total average annual increase in sanitary of 4.4%. Half for construction. Half for treatment. This will be cost the average rate payer within the city and county. Denver $23 per year for both set increase for both sanitary and storm. A little less than $2 a month. The combined bill will go from $320 per year in 2015 to $426, an increase of $116 from 2016 to 2020 . In terms of the rate, we have a staff here tonight who are here to answer your questions. And we will be we'll wait till your get to that portion of the of the meeting tonight. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. So we have 36 people signed up as this is a one hour courtesy public hearing. Only if each of the first 20 uses their entire 3 minutes, we will not have the opportunity to get to all speakers, which I would say if you can certainly make your points in less than 3 minutes, I'm sure the people behind you would be appreciative of that. We tend to alternate pros and cons in this instance. There are certainly more people against the fees than those that are in favor. So there is a slight. As I look at the order that the staff there might be some more we have to speak people speaking against versus four but all those speaking for will have the opportunity speak those against it. We'll just see how the conversation goes. The one hour goes from the beginning of the first speaker on my timer, and once the one hour is up, the courtesy public hearing ends. I will call the first five. And the quicker we make it up to the to the power to speak the transition, that would be great and certainly involved with the clapping. I would hope we can keep that to a. So we can get as many speakers as possible. First five speakers up are and Andy sent Trina Moya, Jeff Shoemaker, Theresa M now and Ben Shannon. So you five can make your way up and Andy since you can begin your remarks when you're ready and each speaker gets 3 minutes. Thank you, council members for the opportunity to weigh in. My name is Andy, since I currently serve as a co-chair of the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. And while my comments here are my own, I'd like to say that my position in that capacity has given me a lot of a lot of contact with the city staff and engineers associated with that Park Hill, as well as the opportunity to attend several meetings that just focused on the concerns of specific people who oppose the project. So I feel that I have a good understanding of of what we're trying to do here. I support the stormwater fee increase. I know you've heard from many people who have been persuaded that the project is not a good idea by the very compelling videos and messaging produced by organizers of the opposition. While much of that feedback is predicated on legitimate concerns, I'm skeptical whether all the people you've heard from are basing their objections on accurate information. For example, my next door neighbor believed because of an article that she read in the Greater Park Hill News and other Facebook post, that this project would literally destroy the golf course and pave it over with some kind of concrete water basin. This is obviously not accurate, and she was frustrated to learn she'd been misinformed. Multiple postings on social media recently have indicated that stormwater fee increase will all, quote, all go towards the Platts Park Hill project. This is not accurate. Opponents have claimed that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for thousands of dollars in additional stormwater fees. This is not accurate. Last week on Mr. Evans Facebook page, somebody posted a picture of a concrete lined L.A. River as a representation of what the open channel and call will look like. This is not accurate. People claim that Platt's Park Hill puts Globeville in a floodplain. Since the weakness in the levee occurs upstream from where stormwater will enter the South Platte and was discovered as part of a completely separate project being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is not accurate. Opponents continue to refer to the golf course detention as a sump or a cesspool. This is not accurate. The newest video that featured a link to a petition claims that Platt's Park Hill will do nothing for flooding in the neighborhoods, according to the engineers who designed the system. This is simply not accurate. Opponents of this plan have been very good at painting a picture of a community unified in their opposition. But at no point did they ever reach out to the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. People can say what they'd like to about our NAC, but we are composed of delegates from each of the RINO's adjacent to the park. R.A. selected their own delegates to our committee. We meet every month and our meetings have been attended by numerous leaders of the opposition to this project. But at no point did any of them ever engage us to get a sense of where our communities are. They certainly would have heard some support for their opposition. East neighbors and CP fan have been very strong and clear in their objections to the project, but opponents would not have heard a unified neighborhood voice. I also find it instructive that now that we're close to killing, platypus to kill, and literally nobody is afraid that that means the end of Scott's preferred alternative. Maybe the connection between these two projects is not as nefarious as it's been made out to be. It seems clear to me. Your 3 minutes are up, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Trina moya. Hello. My name is Trina Moy. I'm a coal resident. I'm not opposed to an increase in fees per se. I realize they've not been increased for several years and we've had we have a need for improved infrastructure for our sewage and stormwater system. However, I am concerned about the nearly doubling in fees over five years. What is now a relatively affordable expense will no longer be so in a few years, and many of my neighbors who have a fixed or lower income will be hit the hardest. I am guessing that a less severe increase would be needed if the plat to Park Hill project were not considered. I'm a resident of coal and I first learned about the Platte Park Hill project from one of my neighbors who took it upon herself to go door to door to spread the word as much as possible. Project leaders have patting themselves on the back for holding so many public meetings, yet we wouldn't have even known about them if it weren't for her. This is just one example of the lack of transparency around this plan. I'm amazed that project management continued to deny deny that it is tied to I-70 and claim that they are implementing it because it's vital to our safety. The neighborhoods in the Montclair Park Hill Basin's have been flooding during heavy storms for many years. Yet nothing was done. There was no concern until it was time to start work on I-70. The plan will do little to nothing for those areas that see the greatest flooding. It will, however, provide flood mitigation for I-70, the national western complex and many new developments about to begin around the 30th, 38th and Blake Station. I do not believe the residents of Denver should be saddled with the financial burden for the drainage system needed for city and private development projects. I've read quotes from experienced engineers indicating that our current flooding issues could be resolved with much less drastic plans. We already have a sewage and stormwater drainage plan that was approved in 2014 and would relieve much of the current flooding issues. I ask you to continue with this plan and Dump Platte plant to Park Hill. I received a flier in the mail last week talking up the benefits of the PDP plan. I would like to know if this increase in fees and the PDP project have not yet been approved. Why are we already receiving this flier as though it's a done deal, a work in progress? Just how much of this has already been approved behind closed doors? We hear government officials talk about transparency all the time. But it's things like this that cause citizens to suspect underhanded methods and doubt that our representatives are speaking the truth or looking out for our best interests. This whole experience has left me feeling suspicious, marginalized and unheard.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.101, relating to tenant harassment; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11022020_20-1053

Item one is recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.101 relating to tenant harassment and declaring the urgency thereof. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. I thank you. I know we do have some public comment. I do have a motion and the seconder, and I'm not sure if Mr. or if attorney of our attorney, Mr. Anthony, had any comments. Mr.. Anthony, before. Did you make any comments before we went to public comment on this? Sure. I'll be real. Quick. Can you hear me, Mayor? Yes. This is Rich Anthony, deputy city attorney, as instructed about two weeks ago. I guess it was 13 days ago. As everyone will recall, there were. The motion included some additive elements. It included some elements. Delete this, remove that, if you find it, that it might be illegal. What I'm proposing before you is almost verbatim. I think I captured all those in the motion and it's just about verbatim what we were instructed to do two weeks ago. So hopefully it's pretty straightforward. I look forward to public comment and any questions from the council members. Thanks. Thank you. And before we go to public comment, I do have a motion by Vice Mayor Andrews and a second by Councilmember Ranga Banks. Mr. Andrews, do you have any comments before I go to public comment or should you do public comment first? I would love to do a public comment first. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Then I will turn this over to the city clerk for public comment. Our first speaker is Andrew. Do you know? Honorable Mayor and city council members. My name is Angela Darnell, and I'm a community organizer with the Lumbee Tenants Union in Long Beach, Florida. On behalf of the dozens of low income black and brown tenants and families, we organize across the city. We truly thank you for your leadership in bringing forth this anti-harassment ordinance. Special thanks to Vice Mayor De Andrews and Councilman Roberto Ortega for championing this issue. Also, thank you to Deputy City Attorney Rich Anthony for bringing this ordinance back so quickly. Imagine in the middle of the COVID 19 pandemic, on top of the many stresses you're already dealing with, you also have to endure water leaks, black mold and a rat infestation in your own home. You've asked your landlord to fix these problems, but instead the landlord illegally doubles the rent and threatens you with eviction and other lawsuits if you don't pay. This exact scenario has been playing out for months between vulnerable tenants and slumlords across the city. As a housing rights organizer, I know firsthand of countless families experiencing ruthless harassment from their that their landlords, including unlawful eviction attempts and lockouts, verbal and physical intimidation and threats, failure to make timely repairs, entering into homes without notice, and intentional distribution of false information about COVID 19 emergency housing policies. When a tenant behaves badly or violates their lease, the landlord can evict or take other legal action. But when a landlord behaves badly, in Harris's opinion, the tenant can't do anything about it because they'll just be handed an eviction notice or be told, If you don't like it here, you can leave. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Matheson. Brian Matheson. We'll come back to him. Our next speaker is David Clement. So my turn to talk? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. This is David Clement, and I oppose the proposed tenant harassment ordinance. We believe that harassment of any sort is already illegal. And we, as good housing providers, do not do not condone tenant harassment. And tenants are already protected under California tenant protection laws. This creates a lot of problems that adds more bureaucracy to our city. We should all work together to solve these issues. However, this is not. This is not a good path to take. If if this does become an ordinance, I recommend that we add some language, some bad faith verbiage to this ordinance. But we we definitely oppose this ordinance, as there are already California protections for tenants. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Matheson. Brian Matheson. Please limit yourself. We'll try again. We'll go to Elaine Hutchinson. Good morning. Mayor and City Council. My name is Elaine Hutchison and I want to register and oppose on this ordinance, potential ordinance, as it is now stated. I have been a responsible and caring rental property owner and manager for many years. More than I would like to probably say right now. If this proposed ordinance language remains the same without any changes. My company. Myself and all other owners in this city will be harmed harmed going forward. I am asking respectfully that you insert bad faith language into the ordinance to give all the providers a balanced approach. Thank you very kindly for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Fred Sutton. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin on the mayor and City Council. My name is Fred Sutton, speaking on behalf of the California Apartment Association. The political and rush nature of this important item is wrong. Vice Mayor Andrews, as the maker of this motion, I urge you to allow a modification. There is no intent or bad faith clause. Like other jurisdictions, there should be a right to cure a violation like emergency ordinance. The language requirements should be based on the language the lease was negotiated in as it's presently written. It should be struck. It should be struck in from the ordinance. Posting them notices and items in common areas is an absolute control of the property owner. The aspects related to this are likely illegal and need to be reviewed further. All guests should be invited. Anyone can invite guests, but there should be no allowance of someone. Just come in and saying, Hey, we're here on behalf of somebody if someone's invited. That makes total sense. But this needs reform in that section. There are other major issues, but we only have 90 seconds. There was zero outreach to housing providers prior to this has written. This ordinance is unacceptable and I urge changes immediately before this moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Howard. My name is Jesse Howard. Mayor and Councilmember can hear me. Yes, we can. I would just like to state that I also oppose this ordinance. And, you know, as a landlord here in Long Beach, we already have harassment clauses in laws. We don't need another ordinance created by local city officials and council members. Ordinance only creates more problems between the tenants and landlords. We already have housing problems and this is not going to help or solve what we need to get done. At the very least, I recommend and encourage Mr. De Andreas to consider bad faith language. You know, as I read it right now, it's totally unacceptable. And I just urge to modify. The ordinance moving forward. I think that a balanced approach is kind of the key approach. Landlords and tenants really need to work together. This only kind of creates additional problems and we got to look at the legality of the situation before we move forward. So I request everybody to take a second look and. Hopefully get a better understanding of legally how this is supposed to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joshua Christian. Yeah. Good morning, counsel. This is Joshua Christian, the eviction defense attorney for the Legal Aid Foundation or Long Beach Office. I cannot stress enough that Wendy and Jesse and good landlords have nothing to worry about here. The people who do are serious, egregious offenders, and they know that a blanket bad faith requirement protects them. It's not just counterproductive, it's unnecessary. The ordinance provides appropriate local penalties for violating already established civil and criminal law. Their provisions were bad. Faith is already an element, or where bad faith has been added in recognition of landlords concerns and provisions that address the most common and egregious forms of harassment like abuse of the right of access , like lying about tenants. Right. And these are the most serious issues that are driving tenants from their homes, particularly in communities of color, driving them from their homes while the pandemic is surging right now. So this ordinance was proposed last spring. It was 12 months ago, and we cannot afford to wait until November 17th to bring it back. Please, please pass it as friends. So thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff. I appreciate it. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Mitchinson. In here. Can you hear me? Please begin. Good morning, Mayor and council members. These comments are directed specifically to Vice Mayor Andrews. You have a chance to help out landlords. 7500 of them that are here in Long Beach. Many of them that you've known for years. They're responsible and caring. Landlords have never had any harassment complaints. Contrary to the legal representation that said bad faith was in their bad faith is not in the language. You have three extremely liberal cities in California, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley that have harassment policies. All three of them have bad language in there. You need to do right by these people and put the bad faith language in there. These these this not having that is going to be paramount to impacting landlords financially for years to come. 7500 landlords are doing right by their tenants. Just because one or two don't don't do it the right way doesn't mean you do a citywide policy. They're going to do it and put in the bad faith language. I am asking you to do that to help out landlords. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ray Mailer. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Okay. Yes. My name is Ray Mailer. I'm a small business housing provider of five units in Long Beach, as well as a resident of Long Beach. I oppose the proposed investment ordinance. I understand this issue concerns a single landlord. If you believe this ordinance must be considered, please and bad faith language. This has been included in similar legislation in other jurisdictions. As a housing provider since 1988, my wife and I have conducted ourselves in good faith. By the way, I'm not seeing a minute and a half here, so please reset my clock. My wife and I have conducted ourselves in good faith with all of our tenants. Given the infrequent situation of tenants who have acted in bad faith. We have always been fair to the people who choose our residences being consistently upfront, prompt, with responsive and timely, and resolving repairs and bothersome neighbors. Being a small business housing provider is a personal business, and it is easier on the conscience and simply good business to conduct ourselves in good faith, even in the face of a tenant's bad faith. We've conducted ourselves in good faith and will certainly continue to do so. Vice Mayor Andrews request that you add language requiring that a tenant intended to deceive the tenant the bad faith language. Thank you. And that is all over. Finish my comments. Thank you. Our next speaker is Wendy Henning. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. My name is Wendy Henning. I oppose the change and the adding of any harassment, additional harassment, personal policies. I want to say sincerely, for over 40 years, my husband and I have been. Property providers, housing providers for the Long Beach area. It's been a very pleasurable experience and I would like everyone to know that we've never had a difficulty at all. In fact, just the opposite. We've tried to nurture relationships with Kevin, being that we're fairly intelligent people. We don't want change of tenancy for obvious reasons. We have never had conflicts with any tenant. And like I'd like to say, like anyone accused of any wrongdoing, I think it's only fair that the accuser can prove in court any type of accusation. That's basically all I want to say. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mayor and Vice. Mayor and Council. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Matheson. This is why Matheson. Please begin. Your report. Okay. Thank you. Your proposal states the city has a responsibility to protect renters from unwarranted harassment. What is your responsibility to protect property owners from tenant harassment? Are you naive enough to think that some tenants don't yell and scream or otherwise harass owners, especially in a time when they know they cannot be evicted? Where is our equal protection under the law? The proposed anti-harassment law will also duplicate laws already in place. In fact, your proposed ordinance even references the current codes and it overlaps the responsibility for resolving complaints on habitability. Most importantly, the ordinance does nothing for parity, bad states complaints or obtain justice, since the state and federal government laws are already in place for harassment. Why not consider mediation as a requirement for a resolution prior to starting a lawsuit or passing this ordinance? Working towards dispute resolution to mediation can improve understanding between tenants and owners and provide an alternative to costly, time consuming legal procedures. The California Association of Realtors requires mediation on all of the purchased contracts because the mediation can be a workable and fair alternative to traditional civil litigation and reduction in frivolous complaints. Please forget this ordinance duplicating current laws and concentrate on real help with a program for mediation. Thank you. Thank you. Your next speaker is Keith Kennedy. This is Keith Kennedy, and I'm president of the Small Property Owners Alliance. And we oppose this ordinance as written. As written and it excludes bad faith. Language does not apply to both tenants and landlords. It's being passed as an emergency bill with little to no community outreach or study to determine the need and does not appear to require that the agreements and notices be written in English. The vast majority of landlords in this city are responsible landlords and are aware that harassment of any kind from either party is wrong and unnecessary. At the very least, we encourage Vice Mayor Andrews to recommend the inclusion of the bad faith language, among other critical items mentioned that were uncovered during our conversations with Pacific Legal Foundation. Regarding this particular ordinance, we respectfully ask that you reconsider this ordinance. And includes some of those languages if you're going to pass the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tanya Jimenez. Good morning, Mayor and Council. I'm not with you to make any concessions and say that if landlords are good landlords, they will have nothing to worry about if this ordinance is adopted. And this isn't to disparage the previous speaker Familia, or your foundation. This is directly to the so-called good landlords that spoke earlier and will likely speak after me. The landlord tenant relationship is inherently parasitic and rife with power differentials, whereas landlords and property owners do housing as a commodity. It is a human right. I stooping on mongo. We all know where you stand. You are, which is to leave tenants unprotected and at the mercy of greedy, exploitative landlords. Then adopt an ordinance you perceive is unfair for whatever reason. B It comes with wording. The applicable state regulations exists or other reasons. Folks have been coming to you for some time now, demanding increased protections, demonstrating that current regulations are not sufficient, and that when given the opportunity, landlords and property owners will prioritize profit and property over people. Counsel. I urge you all to keep watching these families in their homes and vote to adopt the proposed entertainment professional ordinance, ensuring that it is appropriately enforceable and be adopted with urgency. So the ordinance goes into effect immediately. Thank you. Thank you. Can that conclude public comment? I think we have. One more speaker. Go ahead, please. Thank. Good morning. This is Bruce Mackey. Please begin. Do we have? Is there. Is there a speaker? This is Bruce McGee. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Hi, this is Bruce Mackey. I'm an attorney here in Long Beach, and I represent a number of property owners, most of whom are very small property owners. The concern of my clients, frankly, is that there is no emergency and are a bit concerned about this matter being rushed through. They are also concerned about a lack of a notice period and opportunity to cure. Prior to being held responsible for any perceived misdeeds. And there's also lacking in the proposed ordinance a bad faith recommend requirement. And this, in my experience, is very likely to lead to unnecessary litigation. And we've got enough litigation that we don't need any more. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes. Thank you, man. You know, I've listened to all the speakers and every point and I realize the situation we're under. But I want to thank my colleagues and the media for being here today. I know it's a busy time for a lot of us. But with my God's in my prayers that this type of situation will there be an I tell it myself and I see that one of those individuals spoke about, you know, bad faith. You know, I know if anybody you are good landlord. You don't have to worry about this anyway. And I would like to move to approve this item because I want to see once again and thank the Orange Avenue tenants. And it's a banner for this Lewis Avenue for reaching out and bringing these issues to my attention. And I'm hoping by today we will be able to have those bad tenants, you know, landlords, you know, to stop this tenant harassment, because this is not even necessary. We know the good ones, and I hope we will find out the bad ones so they will pay attention to these individuals. And thank you very much. Thank you. I have a motion in a second by Andrew's customary ranga. Do I need to vote on this, Mr. Anthony, or just one? Yes, that's right. Just like the emergency vote today. To to vote. Okay. So a roll call, please, on the first emergency vote. Has a district one by district two. District three. District four, District five, District six, Fire District seven, District eight, District nine. All right. Motion case. Thank you. And then we'll take the second vote, please. I have a motion by Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilman your ranga. District one. All District two I just three. District four. District five. District six. All right. District seven by district eight. District nine. Hi. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our meeting as we close comes from a range of safety remarks as we close the meeting as well. So thank you very much. And of course, from your income. Thank you, Mary.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the 2017-2019 Memorandum of Understanding with the Long Beach Lifeguard Association. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0170

Item 20. Item 30. Item. There is a report from Human Resources. Recommendation to Adobe resolution approving the 2017 through 2019 MRU with the Long Beach Lifeguard Association TDY. Thank you. There's a motion to seek any public comment. Councilwoman Price I just want to thank our lifeguards who stayed for the whole meeting to be here. Thank you for everything that you do. And and we appreciate it very much. You're very much a big part of the public safety continuum. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Anything to add to this? No, we're just excited to bring it to conclusion. Craig, we're now we're at 1010 of our 11 for 11. Now, this is the right. This would be 11 for 11. Congratulations to you guys, actually. So very excited about that. And thank you. Graduation to our lifeguards. And please cast your votes. Councilwoman Price. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of (1) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Elevate Denver Bonds” for the purpose of financing and defraying the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing and improving various civic facilities; and (2) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Better Denver Refunding Bonds” for the purpose of refunding, paying, and discharging all or a portion of the City’s outstanding Taxable General Obligation Better Denver Bonds (Direct Pay Build America Bonds), Series 2010B; providing for the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of and interest on such Bonds; and making other provisions relating thereto. Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A-B in a principal amount not to exceed $465 million for the purpose of funding approximately $170 million of Elevate Denver bond projects approved by Denver voters in November 2017, to refund existing Series 2010B Better Denver General Obligation Bonds, and to pay associated costs of issuance. Th

DenverCityCouncil_11022020_20-1106

No items have been called out. The first item up is Bill 1106. Council members say to Barca, Will you please put Council Bill 1106 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 1106 be placed upon final consideration and do pass again. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. Madam President, we spoke about this one at length last time. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but definitely want to go on record as a no. I don't want to accelerate our debt issuance at a time like this. And I will be a no tonight. Thank you. So thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call. Think about that? No. Park. All right. So when. I. Herman. Hi. Hi. Hi. Cashier I. Can meet. I. Ortega. I said no. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. Hi, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May 12 hours. One May 12 Eyes Council Bill 1106 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out all bills for introduction or ordered published council members. Please remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember CdeBaca, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Madam President, I am having a challenge opening the SharePoint with the list of them. Is it if you open up the script and scroll down? I believe they've been placed in the script. They are not. It is referring me to the SharePoint and so I can dig this up. But if the clerk has it available, I think it would be a little bit faster if she could read them. Okay. Sounds good. Counsel Secretary, would you like to read them or would you prefer me? I can go ahead and read them. We will place the resolutions for adoption both on final consideration, on final consideration and do pass for 2012, 20, 2011, 35, 2011, 36, 2011, 37, 2011, 39, 2011, 4020 0962, 2011, 2020 1142, 2011, 69. 2010, 83. 2011, 25, 2011, 45, 2011, 85, 2011, 86, 2011, ten, 2010, 70, 2010, 90, 2010, 91, 2010, 92, 2010, 93, 2010, 94, 2010, 95, 2010, 96, 2010, 97, 2010, 98, 2010, 99, 2011 120 1101 20 1102 20 1103 20 1104 20 1105 2011 1620 0855 and 20 1078. And I move that those listed resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration, placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following. And those were the ones listed by the clerk. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. It has been moved. Get a second. Second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call, please. Black. I see. The. I mean. Like I said. When. I heard it, I. Hi. Hi. Catherine. Hi. Can each. I am Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I thought it. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939. Is the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 965, changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill eight excuse me. 983 Changing the zoning classification for 1790 South Humboldt Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 984, changing the zoning classification for 2520 South Marion Street. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council Members, please remember to turn off your cameras and your microphones and we will return at 7:42 p.m..

A MOTION approving the extension of the executive's appointment of Dennis Worsham as acting director of the King County department of public health.

KingCountyCC_04062022_2022-0154

Okay. Thank you. So, charcoal wells. We have no one here to provide dollar, but thank you very much. Then we will not delay public comment and we will go directly to number five on our agenda, the consent agenda and that is item five is related to extending the acceptance appointment of Dennis motion as the acting director of the King County Department of Public Health. This is pro forma. We've done this already, and this motion would extend his contract through June 23rd. We do have, as Sam Shearer, two groups. If there is need for that, does anybody have any questions? Okay. We will. Go ahead. I'd like to. A motion to move the consent agenda. So move, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms.. Good. And we're going to have to call the roll on the Senate agenda, which is to approve proposed motion 2020 20154. Thank you for your call, Wells. Councilmember Dejean. Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Councilman Perry. I. Council member at the. High. Council member Andre Bauer. Councilmember Sala. I. Charcoal wells. Hi. We got set. Seven eyes, no nose. And Councilmember Balducci and Councilmember Bond. Excuse. Sorry to hear what I have that we have approved. Proposed motion 2020 20154 and will send this motion with the due pass recommendation by the consent agenda to the comment to councilman. We will now turn to item number six on our agenda.

Rezones property at 2298 Clay Street from G-MU-3 UO-3 to U-MX-2x, in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones property at 2298 Clay Street from G-MU-3 UO-3 to U-MX-2x, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-15-14.

DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0813

Audience Members Please understand that council members to use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us would be assured that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearing. Councilman Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 813 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 813 be placed upon the floor for final consideration and do pass. The public hearing for council bill 813 is now open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, members of Council. I'm Steven Chester with Community Planning and Development. Here to present the staff report for rezoning application for 2298 Cle Street from GMU 3u032umx2x. The subject property is within Council District One Councilwoman Sheppard's district directly across the street from Jefferson Park at the intersection of 23rd Avenue, Clay Street and River Drive. Currently zoned GMU three you oh three it is about a 3000 square foot parcel that is a single storey commercial building and a two storey residential structure kind of conjoined through the years. It's about a hundred year old structure. The property owners are requesting a rezoning to allow for an eating and drinking establishment for the entire building. So the rezoning application is for a duplex to zoned district. You notice that the you oh three has gone away. The use overlay three allows for a small list of commercial uses in residential zoned districts and since will be rezoning to a mixed use zoned district. It's redundant to no longer necessary as a nonresidential building currently in a residential zoned district primary, nine nonresidential and accessory use is allowed in the next two ex are permitted so there as it currently exists. All the uses under MBS two x are currently allowed for the commercial portions of the building. So this rezoning will allow for commercial uses for the entire structure under the use list allowed in you annex two x. So we will be rezoning to the urban neighborhood. Context mixed use two storey annex zone district with the ex at the end signifying a a list of uses that is less intense. And just. Um. To. The existing context for zoning. There's primarily multi-unit and two unit residential zoning to the north and east of the site with some higher density residential to the south. And Jefferson Park zoned OSA to the west. Land use is an area of primarily single-family multifamily residential to the north and east with some higher density multifamily to the south and some commercial uses along the ground story of these higher density buildings. A lot of the vacant parcels you see in this map are now rapidly going through redevelopment. The surrounding building forms are a mixture of one and two storey residential structures, and you see there at the bottom a six storey residential building. There's some higher density residential residential buildings surrounding the park. So we went to planning board and on September 17th I received a 9 to 0 approval, a recommendation for approval of the zoning application. Five speakers spoke in support of the rezoning with conditions primarily associated with parking, traffic, noise and odors. A lot of these have been addressed or all of these have been addressed in a good neighbor. Good neighbor agreement that the applicant is here that can answer any questions. The details of that agreement. Our Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the rezoning application out of committee on October 15th in preparation for a public hearing tonight at City Council. The Jefferson Park United neighbors submitted a letter in support with conditions similar to those that were mentioned at the public hearing at Planning Borden. They support the rezoning application with some conditions that have been met in the Good Neighbor Agreement. The applicant has also provided a list of over 100 neighbors in support of the rezoning and notification of both public hearings has been posted per the Denver Zoning Code. I'll now walk through the criteria in the Denver zoning code for rezoning application, starting with consistency with adopted plans, comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan or the applicable adopted city plans for the subject site. Starting with Comprehensive Plan 2000. There's a number of strategies that support this rezoning application, typically having to do with promoting infill development, creating neighborhoods where residents can live, work and play within close proximity to each other, along with some sustainability strategies focused around re-use of existing buildings and promoting infill development. Blueprint Denver designates the subject site as single family duplex. These are four moderately dense areas of the city that are primarily residential, however, with some complementary small scale commercial uses. The plan also designated the site as an area of change. Areas of change is where we like to channel growth in order to improve access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. 23rd Avenue and Clay Street are both designated as residential collectors and River Drive as a undesignated local street. The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan provides a number of strategies which support this rezoning application, primarily in the Land Use Urban Forum and zoning section of the plan. Some of the strategies include maintaining enhancing the character and identity of the neighborhood, bringing zoning into closer conformance with the existing land use and land use vision and enhancing residents ability to workshop and recruit within the neighborhood. The plan also has a number of sub areas. This subject site falls within the park face sub area and a number of strategies within this section of the plan. Further support this rezoning application, such as preserving the views of downtown Denver from the west side of Jefferson Park. It's important to note that this rezoning is actually lowering the maximum height for the person from three stories to two stories, thus implementing this plan vision of preserving those views. The Park Face Area also discusses increasing the safety and activity in the Jefferson Park. We feel as though providing a mix of uses surrounding the park will provide more eyes on the park throughout the day, along with increasing the overall activity of the park and increasing its overall safety. So we find that the adopted city plans are consistent with this rezoning application. Further, the rezoning application through the adoption are through the implementation of our adopted city plans, provides a uniformity of district regulations and furthers the public health, safety and welfare. The just as justified circumstances for this rezoning application is that the land or its surrounding environs have changed or is changing to a degree that is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area, to recognize the change character of the area. We find that this criterion is met due to the Blueprint Denver designation of an area of change, along with the impressive amount of redevelopment occurring within the Jefferson Park neighborhood. In terms of consistency with the neighborhood context zone district purpose and intent really the you AMCs to zone district. I was just actually talking with the applicant before the presentation that it's really the perfect zone district for this type of development. It recognizes our embedded small commercial sites within existing residential neighborhoods, typically one or two parcels and limited to low scale building farms and low intensity uses. We find this criterion is met based on the plan, recommendations for this area and existing and desired character for the neighborhood. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding of review criteria have been met. Thank you. We also have the applicant is here with some brief slides detailing their proposal. All right. Thank you. We have the applicant on speak now or is that going to be during the three minute? I'm sure that between three and 3 minutes. Okay. You kind of threw me a curveball at the very end. Oh, sorry. Thank you for that. All right. We have we have six speakers, and I'm going to go ahead and say all six names and I apologize for have any mispronunciations. David Bertrand, Andre Colby on that text, Christopher Schooler, Kent Dawson and Celina Jandreau. So, Mr. Bird Burton, if you want to come up, you can go ahead and begin. I just press spacebar. Hello. My name is David Burton. I'm the applicant. My address is 2899, North Spear Boulevard, Denver, you know, two, one, one. And I just want to present our project that we're proposing tonight, which is rezoning the existing 100 year old commercial building to, um, x2x zoning. This building is, was, was originally built the turn of the century. It's been used for commercial uses over the past hundred years. It's been a restaurant, it's been a bar. It's gone to the Board of Adjustment three or four times over its lifespan. I was asked by by CPD to rezone this instead of taking it to the board. Again, 80% of the building has been commercial and 20% was residential. It's not a great picture, but you can see it's a commercial storefront corner. There is a six story building right next door. We're proposing to renovate the existing building and make it completely commercial. You can see there's a small little gable roof that was embedded in this building. Our proposal is to renovate the existing building and to bring it up to today's standards. It'll be a complete renovation. Over the past year, we've met with Jefferson Park. We've met with many different neighborhood groups in the area and garnered their support to do this project. So here's an existing model of the existing building and here is the proposed look. We so we're really keeping about the same square footage, but we are proposing a roof deck that will meet the criteria of the, um, x2x Zone District, again, the existing building around the corner of River Drive. And then here is the renovated building. So that being said, again, it's been a commercial building for over 100 years. We really are trying to correct an inconsistent zoning to make the zoning consistent with the building type. The um, x to x is the proper zoning for it as it's an embedded commercial building on a corner of a residential district. The parcel really is only 3000 square feet. The building is about 3400 square feet existing, and we're not planning on expanding it beyond what we're showing here as well. So if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Andre Cuvier. Hi. My name is. Andre Cory, and I'm also here on, uh, on behalf of the development team. I don't have a lot to add to what my boss said. The one thing that I would add is just to reiterate the fact that we're not looking for up zoning. We're actually lowering the maximum number of stories and we're not looking for any new uses. The GMU three, which it is currently zoned, is the same use as the um x2x, which is what we're asking for. Really, all we're looking to do is, as he said, CPD wants us to take the one bedroom apartment that is part of this and combine it into the rest of the into the rest of the commercial parcel. Thank you. Thank you. That's a. That. That's a 4535 Julian Street, Denver. In presenting this project, this staff member spoke of the changing character of this neighborhood. Of course, since the camping ban you passed, part of that changing character is more people sleeping in Jefferson Park and the other parks around the city as you enjoy your Thanksgiving. I hope you'll think of the people who are going to spend their days in our parks, along our rivers, and under our bridges. And I hope that you join me in hoping that the weather improves enough that they all survive. Thank you, Mr. Texa. Christopher Schooler. Good evening. Christopher Schooler I am a resident of Jefferson Park and neighbor at 25, 22, 23rd Avenue. I live just about eight. Shops down from the proposed site. And I'm merely here to say that I think this is a great project. The neighborhood has gone, undergone tremendous change over the years. I've lived there for nearly 12 years, and it's fantastic to see this site potentially becoming available to the public and providing an amenity to our community and even giving some identity to our community. So thank you for your time. I do support this project. Thank you, Mr. Schooler. Kent Dawson. Good evening. My name is Katon Dawson and I'm the proposed tenant for for this property. And we're very excited about the opportunity to to have this establishment in Jefferson Park given given the growth. I've been working with Mr. Burton for several months now. We've had some some very productive frequent meetings with the neighborhood association during the General Assembly and with their land use committee. We were able to sign a good neighbor agreement that we all felt very good about that makes this truly a neighborhood friendly, walk up kid friendly establishment, too, to really help, you know, give the neighborhood a place where they can be comfortable and ride their bike, walk up to. So I appreciate you're here with us tonight and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Selena Jandreau. Hello. I'm Selena Gaudreau and I live at 2620 West 23rd Avenue and I am actually three houses down from the proposed redevelopment. So I'm excited about it because I think that the building needs a facelift and it will be a great structure and area for us to walk to and not have to get into our car. We don't have many of those places in Jefferson Park, so I'm excited and I'm for the the proposal. Thank you, Mr. Woodrow. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega? Well, I would like to ask probably the applicant, if you could talk about or might be the the tenant what the Good Neighbor agreement entails. Just so we know how issues of parking and traffic, I mean, it sounds like it's the kind of amenity that the neighborhood is looking for. And oftentimes when they're really good establishments, it draws in traffic from outside. And I know we've got some of these circumstances in other areas where we have existing buildings that might have a use change that draws more traffic to the neighborhood. So can you just speak to how those issues, number one, what they are and then what the solution is? Sure. Can. David Burton So two of the issues that came up during the Good Neighborhood Agreement was parking and was smells of the proposed use. We're proposing to do a brewpub in this establishment. So those were really the two issues that neighbors were adamant that we addressed. So we went through a few different requirements in that agreement and a few different rounds regarding smells and health department requirements of what may be a toxic or noxious odor. And we kind of came to a resolution that if there's multiple complaints that we would address them and we set up a process and a good neighborhood agreement to address them. Parking was also an issue. Fortunately, we are on a corner where right across the street is Jefferson Park and there's on street parking on too long. It's too long streets. In reality, we also agreed with the neighbors that we would provide some offsite parking for tenants for employees of the restaurant. Where are you doing that? So we have we've have a parking available at a property across 23rd Avenue, across the highway on 23rd Avenue. And I can't remember the exact name of. The street from the old Tsingtao Brewery. Yes, exactly. Okay. So actually next to the old brewery, not across the street. So in the parking lot that's owned by that building. So we have ten spots that we are planning on leasing for them. Did the issue of noise and outdoor music come up is a concern and how is that being dealt with? It did in the um x two zone district there are specific requirements for outdoor eating to be closed at a certain time. And it's and it's a fairly early time and that's actually part of the code. And it was really we talked about changing that. But they, the neighbors pretty much agreed that the timing that the code said was adequate for establishment. Okay. I have one more question, if I may, and this one's for the city attorney. So. If the property changes hands. The conditions that are in place, as I understand, are with the current owner and operator of the property. So what would happen to those conditions if the property does change hands? You have any? Not about this. You're talking about the conditions attached to the zoning. I'm sorry, david broadwell, assistant city attorney, that the good neighbor agreement. Of a good neighbor agreement. It's not as I understand, it's not a condition of the zoning. But if the property changes hands and you've got a different operator that comes in because a lot of times if there's a liquor license, it transfers with the property. And, you know, I just want to make sure the conditions. Since the since the city is not party to the good neighbor agreement, we haven't had occasion in our office to inspector to be able to answer that question. The answer to that question depends on exactly what got negotiated and whether it's a covenant runs with the land, who knows? But I would invite the applicant to answer that question as best I can. Sure. So the good neighborhood agreement really is specific for this use on this building. So at a later date, if this tenant goes away and it becomes a a sewing shop or dress shop, which it was before, that good neighborhood agreement is essentially would be renegotiated. So the parking per. Use stays the same. Stays the same. The ownership changes. Right? The tent, both the tenant and the ownership have signed the agreement with the neighborhood and there is a provision in there to Andrew may be able to answer this a little bit better than I to negotiate or just been negotiated points in that agreement for that parameter. So if you do, I'm going to let Andre have. Yeah, I think the I think that the issue that you're you're addressing here is covered in the Good Neighbor Agreement, which we did submit. But but the basics are that the as long as the use stays the same, the good neighbor agreement goes with the the use, it'll stay with it regardless of who the owner is. And as, as Dave said, it was signed by the tenant as well. So. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega and Councilwoman Shepherd. Actually, my questions were addressed. By Debbie's. Questions. All right. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilwoman Lemon. Mine were. Two. Well, there we go. Congratulations. Good job, Councilwoman. I tell you. All right. Do we have any other questions from members of council and seen none. The public hearing on 813 is not closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, everyone, for coming out this evening. The week of Thanksgiving. I know a lot of folks. His thoughts are elsewhere this week. I am definitely in support of this this evening. And I know that there was a bit of consternation and concern when the idea was first introduced, you know, especially with some members of the neighborhood in the River Clay Building, particularly, which is immediately adjacent and is one of the nearest residences that will be dealing with the impacts. But, you know, I really want to hand it to the development team for sitting down with the neighbors and hashing out the good neighbor agreement and, you know, working very well together to address some of those concerns because the use is a good use, the proposed use is a good use and makes sense. Is a good fit. For that corner. You know, legitimizes a building that has functioned as a commercial building for over 100 years now and perhaps brings and I think brings a broader a more a use that is able to be enjoyed by more people because certainly not everyone is shopping for a wedding dress. So, you know, but there's, you know, definitely a few people out there that would like to enjoy a beer. So I think it adds to the walkability of the neighborhood and, you know, gives us a chance to have a nice local business. I live very, very close to this site, so I pass it constantly. I'm familiar with, you know, the issues. And I know I said this to the tenant when we were talking, but, you know, I really would, you know, encourage you to figure out ways to incentivize people to come to the restaurant in a way other than a car. You know, and I remember at that time I suggested to you perhaps, you know, a 10% discount if someone is walked or biked, you know, or is a local or something like that. 23rd Avenue is absolutely the busiest, probably the busiest East-West bike corridor in northwest Denver. I bike it a lot myself. When I'm at the intersection, you know, at the red light, I say to the bikers next to me, So, hey, where are you from? And I regularly meet people that have bike that are biking from Aurora to gold and back. So, you know, there's a lot of opportunities to attract a lot of business there that don't involve people driving to that location. And parking is a big crunch there. This neighborhood is undergoing absolutely the biggest surge of urban infill and redevelopment more than any other neighborhood in northwest Denver. So, you know, I would very much appreciate any and all efforts to attract customers to the store in ways that. Don't involve them driving their own car in parking. So just with that little editorial comment, once again, I will say I am in full support and would urge my colleagues to vote yes as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Are there any other comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary? Roll Call. Sheppard. I. Susman. I. But I. Can each layman. I. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Right. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. 813 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. There are no prior German announcements other than to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving this week and seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.

A bill for an ordinance exempting a children’s neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements. Exempts a children’s neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-29-18.

DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0951

Council Bill 951 Exempting a children's neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements under pending. No items have been called out to miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilman Herndon, you want to go ahead with your comment on Constable 951 thing? Mr. President, as our president talked about. 951 the more formal title is Exempting a children's memory neighborhood beverage Stand for Licensing Requirements is more affectionately known as the Lemonade Stand Law. I wanted to recognize Ben, William and Jonathan, ages six, four and two, who are here and are the catalysts behind that. I wanted to let you guys know this will be the last time you have to come here because this is on final consideration. So I know this is really exciting as the father of a three and a half year old, but I'm sure there are so many other places you'd rather be on a monday night. But I wanted to thank you all for your entrepreneurial spirit, for wanting to raise funds for Compassion International and helping us recognize that we had an issue with one of our licensing requirements. And we're going to remedy that tonight. So I want to thank you for that. I want to thank their mother, Jennifer, for being here and has her parents are here as well. And I want to thank my colleague on council, Councilman Cashman, who is also with me in moving this forward. So I want to thank you all for that. And I've been waiting for this. I should have got ice on it, but I wanted to say cheers to you all for that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon and Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilman Herndon for allowing me to join in this fun celebration. I have endless memories as a kid of waking up on a Sunday morning. And, Mom, can we go sell some lemonade and going out on the front lawn and, you know, raising a couple of pennies for whatever we wanted to spend it on? So, uh, William, Ben and Jonathan, you. You have a good time, and I hope you enjoy your burgeoning careers. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks. I just want to say the lemonade was so good. It's gone. But you put the right amount of sugar in this. It's tough to find some good entrepreneurs who put the right amount. Sure. So good job, kids. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. That concludes the items to be called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Flynn, we put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I know that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2018. 964. 955. 961. 929. Nine. 6963. 965. 951. 927. 943. 394 872 9069079 11 935 767 and 798. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa, i. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, i. Katherine Can each. Lopez All right. Ortega, I. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. I Madam Secretary, please cause voting announced results. 1212. Hours. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on council vote 885 approving the service plan for the creation of the Denver Rock Drill Metropolitan District.

A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0863

Council member Torres has called out Council Bill 20 1-843 for comments under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council bill 863 on the floor for publication. I move the council bill 20 10863 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Council members say the Barca. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we get to vote on this separately, that one of the pieces of this ordinance proposal is allowing for issuance and enforcement of a special event permit. And given that our. District. Is the host of many of the special events that we have in our city, we deal often with a lot of the people who are applying for those special event permits. And what we have found is that the process needs to be streamlined more effectively. And that's not part of this proposal. This proposal adds a layer that I think complicates. What we're trying to do. And I would. Have liked to have seen this proposal come to us when we were at a place where we were ready to streamline our processes to make it easier on the constituents and the people hosting special. Events to get. Their event permitted. Currently it doesn't do that, and so I wanted to go on record as a no. I don't think that this portion is ready yet. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council member Sayed Abarca. Next up, we had Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe enough work's been done to think through some of the blindspots in codifying this office and implementing a new fee, timelines and likely barriers for our nonprofits and community based organizations. A B.A. tonight and next week. All right. Thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres. Next up, we have Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have similar concerns to Councilman CdeBaca and Councilman Torres, so I will be a note tonight as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Seeing no other hands raised, Madam Secretary. Oh, I was going to give it a second there, Councilmember Kimmich. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. I do think it would be helpful if someone from the agency is here. I mean, if we're going to have some some no votes, it might be helpful for the public to understand what the concerns response is. So I appreciate my colleagues raising their concerns with someone from the department like to comment on the nonprofit impact. I believe we do have a representative here from the proposed office. So if you want to go ahead and come up and introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what the bill accomplishes, and then we'll go ahead and have the roll call vote. Thank you, Kate. Easter, senior director for the Office of Special Events. Thank you for having me tonight. So if you could reiterate how I can address the question and specifically, that would be great. I think if you can just explain for the public, since we're going to have council members voting no on this tonight, exactly what Bill 21, Dash 863 is hoping to accomplish. So folks understand what council members are perhaps voting no on. Okay. So what we are trying to do right now is we are trying to create some accountability in the Office of Special Events. Currently, we have no enforcement capabilities for the requirements that exist in the city of Denver. Our office is a coordinating and communicating entity. And what we want to be able to do is to be able to ensure compliance of all city requirements. And right now, we have a hard time in our agency enforcing that compliance. The agencies we help support, the agencies that have special event requirements. But there are some agencies that do not have enforcement power. And so what we are trying to do is fill in a number of gaps to make sure that all events that are happening on public property have all of their compliance needs with the city met and by the city by our agency issuing a special event permit, then we have that ability to ensure that all the city requirements have been met and we can bring together all the parties to ensure that the communication is there, that the event knows what the requirements are, that the agencies are in communication, and that an event doesn't happen on public property without its proper requirements. Permits met. I don't know if that addresses it right. Questions, I think that's fine. There's a couple more members that have gotten into the queue. I fully accept my earlier colleague's comments on why they're going to vote no. I think they described that very well, but we'll go ahead and move on. Councilmember, did you have anything additional that you had questions about or wanted to chime in to. Ask you to address the particular concern about unintended consequences on nonprofits in particular, and how you are trying to mitigate those in the permit that you described? Absolutely. Thank you. So there is a communication channel that we are going to need to clarify when it comes to nonprofits. A lot of nonprofits that are happening, I don't know, a ratio per se, but they aren't necessarily categorized as special events where our office is concerned. Our office addresses events that are happening on public property that use more than that, utilize one more than one city agency. There are definitely a number of nonprofit events that just happen in a park or that just that aren't even on public property. So I think there is a communication channel that we're going to need to address to ensure that some of the nonprofits that you may be speaking of or that that may be stuck in in a communication gap, is is clarifying when our office is actually being utilized. And just to clarify, it's events on public property that are temporary in nature and that utilize more than one city agency as we are a coordinating agency. It is more than one city agency. There's a number of events that just happen in a park. When that happens, we're not involved at all in those events. So we certainly have had conversations. And Councilwoman Torres brought to light some some questions that we are now ready to to look into and try and identify where those gaps are. If there are nonprofits that are challenged with either knowing that we even exist, that we can help them, or if there is a gap where they may not be able to afford it, we have we've made the the application fee extremely low comparatively from a from a nationwide standpoint of $25 for the smallest events. And we did an analysis of the different permits that an event, a small event would pull, and it's 0.6% .0. 6% of what their total budget would be. And that's on average. So we it was very important to the mayor that this application fee would in no way be a detriment to an event from happening. And if that ever were to become a case, this the executive director certainly has the right to waive those fees. We have been working with the Office of Social Equity and Inclusion. They have given us guidelines. We have gone back and forth over the last four months with the office and propose a number of ideas and they've come back. So we'd love to create a criteria. We are not, actually. Charging the application fee until the year 2023. So we have given we wanted to give the events this two year time period so that they a year of education in 21, another year of education in 22 before they would actually be paying for their event in 23. So because we had not finalized what that criteria would be for nonprofits or for any entity that may be struggling with the cost of an application fee, that we know that we still have time and every intention to continue working with the Office of Inclusion and Equity and Inclusion. So it's it's by no means a complete process. And it is something that is important to us as it is to the mayor. And we are currently working on it, but we believe we do have some time to get that figured out before they would be charged. All right. Great. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Councilmember Black. Hi, Katie. Hi. I have experience before being on council. Of hosting a. Special event, and I earlier mentioned an event. I'm having a Bible Park this coming week and I know how challenging it is from the coordination standpoint, having to get a permit from parks and something from public work or from daddy and dealing with the waste and excise and licenses and all those different agencies. And I know it's really hard for people. And so when when you all came to committee and I think I had a briefing with you, we. Kind of talked how you all will help the coordinators navigate all those different city agencies. So can you tell us a little bit more about how you're going to help. The people who are hosting the events? Absolutely. So our the goal of our office and the product of our office is service. We have been doing that for six years. Where it is, we are a relatively decentralized city in that there is different permits and different agencies and it is hard and it is challenging. And our agency was set up as a coordinating agencies so that that maze of agencies and requirements that an event organizer would be faced with, that we could help them through that it can be a puzzle. There's every agency has different timelines, different deadlines, different permit fees, different inspections. It is very confusing. Our office was set up after all of these other agencies were. So we have had to kind of cobble together and create a workflow where our agencies, our agency are our liaisons are event specialists, know a tremendous about 21 different agencies. And it's their job to help these event organizers, whether they're brand new organizers, whether they've been doing it for 30 years, which we've had too many of those also, is that it's we are helping them to navigate the city process so that they can be on time, so that they can get all their requirements met. We often are able to answer many of the questions. We take the burden off the response. We take the burden from the agencies themselves so that they can focus on their main objectives of their agencies. And we're able to take a lot of those questions. So it really is. Customer service at its best. And I think she wants to say something. Hi Julius. I'm the Communications and community engagement officer with the Office of Special Events, and I just wanted to add something to Katie's points that one of the very special things that we do is we work really closely with the communities and the local businesses that are impacted by events. And one thing that our office oversees is the community notification effort. So when we before our office was instituted, we had lots of community complaints about different things trash, noise, traffic, parking. We still have those complaints, but there is much, much fewer of those. And we try to mitigate those issues before they become a serious issues and work very closely with the event organizers to make sure that your officers are aware of the events that are coming up and the impacts they will have, as well as all the different residents and businesses as well. So that's a special service that our office provides as well that I think is really important to your offices and your constituents. So I just want to mention that. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Are you good? All right. Thank you. Up next, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Katie, I have a couple of questions for you. And I'm sorry, I was I did not have the benefit of hearing the conversation at committee. But let me just start with asking how many staff you have? We have six, including myself. Okay. Will any of this result in an increase in the cost either to the office or to the applicants? Other than the $25 you mentioned, and I'm not clear what constitutes a small versus a large event, so can you. I know that's a lot of questions. I'm thrown at you, but. I think I got it. I think I have it. So we did create a range. So it's $25 for the smallest event, up to $250 to the largest events. And the ratio of that cost is similarly. 0.6% and 0.5% for the largest. So for both the small to the large. Okay. And. Okay. In. You talked about doing this. So that gives your agency the power to deal with enforcement. So can any of that be done without codifying the existence of your agency? So we need to codify the agency in order to give it a permit. We do not. We need to be an ordinance in order to issue a permit. And in doing so, how does that give you power? To oversee issues that are violations with exercising license, with Doddy, with any of the other agencies that may be involved, including Parks and Rec. Now, because it sounds like your expectation is for events that will be in parks, that it falls that all under the same umbrella. So first of all, we will be creating some of our own requirements that right now we don't have the ability to to mandate. One of them, as Jill just spoke about, was the community notification. Right now, all we can do is ask event organizers to please notify their communities. We do not have the ability to say you must provide a notification for all of your events. So by having a permit that allows us to ensure that they have conducted this community notification, another requirement from our agency is the Office of Emergency Management, which is not an enforcement agency, has a has has asked us to help with their requirement, which is essentially an emergency management plan. And so this is a new requirement, which we have not been able to mandate of event organizers that ensures that every single event on public property has an emergency management plan, which is anywhere from, you know, a hailstorm and how people are evacuated to a drive by shooting or any of the above that. Right now, that's not required. We we can ask event organizers to provide an emergency action plan, but right now, we can't require it. So that's those are two really important requirements that we that are certainly a gap in the city that we want to be able to require. In regards to your questions about the other city agencies. We don't have authority over their permits by any stretch of the imagination, and we don't want it and we're not asking for it. It really is coordination between them. If there is an event that excuse me that is falling behind the job of our agency and our special event permitting experts is to stay with that event and to make sure that they're meeting all the deadlines. Parks has thousands and thousands of permits they're issuing, and they don't have time to sit on top of these events to make sure they're meeting all their deadlines. So what our agency does is we send out notifications and reminders and we're working with them. So it's not about overriding the authority of another agency, but it's it's helping that it's helping to ensure that all of the events are meeting the requirements of the other agencies. So if you're going to be doing that, are you expecting to make any budget requests for an increase in staffing. At this point? It may it may come about, but it's not something that we have. It's not something that we have at this point. We our agency definitely is working far more hours than than 40 hours a week as it stands right now, certainly with something like the MLB All-Star Game and the large events that are coming into town put a big demand on us. So it is it is a possibility. And will you just remind us how many events we have a year? Sure. We have over 700, between 700 and 750 event days throughout the year. Okay. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, thank you. Member Ortega. And we've got two more council members up in the queue. And quick reminder, we've got four, three required hearings this evening and one one hour courtesy, public hearing. And so we're going to have a late night. And so I just want to remind folks of that. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to commend you guys for your amazing work. So Councilman Herndon and I sit on the committee, the Special Events Committee, and we work with you all the time and you are amazing. What you do is incredible. The fact that you were able to pull off the All-Star Game events the way you did it was extraordinary in the timing. It was amazing. So I understand my council, fellow council members concerns over some of the language in the in the bill. But I think if you had the experience of sitting in these meetings like Councilman harder than I do, you would 100% supports creating this this what do we call you guys now office this office into an actual agency because it's something that our city needs. And the work that is done by this team is extraordinary. So I just want to commend you and thank you. And I will be absolutely supporting you tonight and appreciating that, you know, there are some things that maybe need to be worked out and they can be done in now in the policies and procedures rulemaking part. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for you, Katie. So on top of C, we would have a fee, a permit for this special event. Correct. And then they would still have to pay their park permit fee. They would still have to pay their daddy fee. They'd still have to pay their excise and license fee. So on top of the fees that they're already paying there, we're adding an additional fee for your office. Correct. And then in Parks and Rec, you know, there's the ability for city council to be sponsors and then the fees are waived. Are do you have that built into your regs, rules and regulations? That is something that we are still continuing to work on and that would be in the rules and regulations. There's some agencies that have that established already. We don't have the authority to tell Dotty what they would or wouldn't waive. I know Parks has has waivers. So in terms of our costs, I think that's a conversation that we still can have and put in our rules and regs at this point. Yeah. Yeah. It's not written in at this point. Do your rules and regulations come back to city council? Do they come back? No. No. So you have the ability to make your rules and regulations with no input from us once this gets voted on. So. Okay. Good evening. Members of Council Nathan Sarah, Assistant City Attorney. Can you ask the question again, Councilwoman? Yeah. Thank you, Nate. So once the rules. So if this were to pass the rules and regulations that the Office of Special Events creates, they don't have to come back to for city council for any input or we don't vote on them. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I just want to say, I absolutely support creating this agency. I just don't like adding all of the bureaucracy on top of it. So I have worked with your office numerous times, and I think it's helpful when we do have these events. I just don't like the added fee on top of everything because we already have to have a lot of fees. So even if your fee doesn't match up with the nation's fee, our other fees, such as they just updated their fees to actually match what's happening around the nation and they can be pretty expensive depending on the street classification to close the street. So I support creating this agency to codify it. I think it's smart. I don't support the fees and I don't support the fact that city council can get waivers. I use those waivers only in particular cases where it is a strain on the community to have those events. And I also don't support the fact that these rules and regulations never come back to city council. So we're asking being asked to create the agency. And then from there on it, I think you said the mayor's name like four times. I'm not privy to what the mayor wants. I have to respect what my constituents want. And my constituents don't want added bureaucracy into it already, like a lot of political red tape. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I will I will be brief. I just wanted to to speak to the the rules and procedures. I'm not aware of any. Rules and procedures from. Any agency that comes to council for approval once we. Approve an ordinance. So that is one and two, as my colleague also said. Councilman Sawyer and I sit with on the Office of Special Events Committee. So have colleagues feel they couldn't directly connect with Katie and Katie. I know they could, but you could talk to two. Council members who sit on this committee with you who will be a part of these conversations. So I just don't feel that that's an accurate depiction. That Council will have no input on that, and I am certainly in support of this. And as Councilman Sawyer says, thank you for all that you do with your small but mighty team. Thank you, my. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. All right. We might just have everybody chime in now. Councilman Cashman, go ahead. Well, I couldn't miss this opportunity, Madam President. I'm supportive of the creation of this office as a means to not only improve things for the promoters and make their life easier, but in turn make life better for the residents of the city and county of Denver. And I'm just hoping the administration will see the same wisdom in creating an Office of Community Engagement that this council has found as a value and would also lead towards the improvement of life in Denver for all its residents. So thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. All right. I think we're good. We can go ahead and have you take a seat, Katie, and thank you and your team. All right. We are going to go ahead and go forward with the vote. Madam Secretary, roll call Hines I. CdeBaca. No. Clark I. Swim. All right. Herndon, I. Cashman. I can h i Ortega. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. I. Torres. No black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. Three Days ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-863 has been ordered published. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Torres, go ahead with your question or your comments. Excuse me, on Council Bill eight for three, please. Thank you so much, Madam President. I just wanted to thank community advocates, advocacy organizations, council members here on the dais, and those who have left city council who have been working for many years to continue to strengthen the Office of the Independent Monitor.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer’s recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, Inc., dba Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_10182016_16-0940

Great. And so as the order of these things go, we have our hearings first, then we go on to public comment and then the agenda on the council. So we'll begin we have two hearings tonight and will begin with the I guess we're doing hearing to first, from what I understand. So we'll go ahead and Madam Clerk. Report from financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace-Lorraine Fine Pastries located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue District eight Oath is required. Thank you. I think we're doing the oath. Okay. Everyone is going to testify. Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Okay with that, I'm gonna introduce. I'm sorry, sir. I'll call up speakers in just a minute. That's fine. Thank you, sir. I'm here on behalf. Of all Sis Lorraine. Okay, we'll have. We'll have you up and just. Just a seat right here in the front, sir. We'll call you right up. So first up is going to be our presentation from city staff. So with that, I'm going introduce Mr. tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report for city staff will be given by Brett Jaquez, our business services officer, for this item. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you a recommendation to uphold the hearing officer's decision to deny the business license application for all Lorain Fine Pastries Inc doing business as all six Lorain Fine Pastries located at 433 four Atlantic Avenue. Applying as a bakery in Council District eight on August 9th, 2016, the City Council referred the appeal of the business license application denial to a hearing officer. The appeal hearing was held on September seven, 2016, and the hearing officer submitted their written recommendation to the City Clerk's office on September 9th, 2016. The basis for the denial is due to the property owner not having the required commercial industrial rental license to lease any of the addresses on their parcel. The answer address is contained on the property owners. Pass parcel of land included. 433224336 Atlantic Avenue. The property owner previously had their license revoked on April 19, 2012, due to the operation of an illegal marijuana dispensary at 4332 Atlantic Avenue. To this point, the city is unable to reinstate the commercial industrial rental license to the property owner due to the substantial amount of outstanding fines, penalties and liens attached to the property and owed to the city of Long Beach resulting from the operation of the illegal dispensary. Nonetheless, all city slurring Fine Pastries Inc has been operating on the parcel for approximately two years without a business license. Therefore, staff request the City Council uphold the recommendation by the hearing officer and deny the business license application for all. Six Loraine Fine Pastries Inc. I as well as the City Attorney's Office, stand ready to answer any questions council may have. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you. With that, we're going to allow the attorney who's here to represent I'll see Lorraine make comments. There's I know there's a reasonable amount of time, period. So if it's 10 minutes okay for you, sir. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate the council's time and in permitting me to speak to this issue. I think it's interesting that I follow a proclamation that the city of Long Beach is in the running for being the most business friendly city in the state of California. I think this situation and the what it presents to the city council gives the opportunity to put its money where its mouth is and demonstrate that it is, in fact a business friendly city. I represent all six Lorraine's Fine Pastries Inc. They run a bakery that they have. They purchased that bakery, and they have run it lawfully ever since. They have a current health permit from the city of Long Beach that has been renewed. They have never had it suspended for any reason whatsoever. The very thing that one would be concerned about with regard to a bakery, namely that it provides products that are safe to consume, has never been in question, as was indicated by in the testimony of the a person on behalf of the city. The only reason why Alsace-Lorraine Spine Pastries Inc has not been granted a a license to operate, and it wants to have a license to operate. It wants to pay taxes. It wants to be the corporate citizen it's already behaving as. And it's being prevented because of something involving its landlord. A historical problem that its landlord has, and I understand continues to have with the city of Long Beach over some unpaid fines from a period of time 2 to 3 years ago, plus on a different piece of property. Not all cease Lorraine's pastry, but the adjacent property, a dispensary that used to run that was in violation of 5.89 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. That dispensary has since been closed for approaching two years now. Yet for some reason, this denial of this license for all sales continues to be a vestige of a left over issue that doesn't even involve all case, but rather involves the landlord for the building that all six rents. All the owners of all six fine pastries were unaware of this issue. They are not they did not even come to own the business, nor come to rent the property until long after the dispensary was removed. Yet here they find themselves being unable to get a piece of paper from the from the city council that says you're allowed to operate and and participate as a member of the of the corporate community. The business itself, though the current owners have only owned the property, have only been owners for a couple of years. But excuse me, I believe about a year and a half now that all says bakery has been at that location for decades. I would venture to say that probably many people in this in this room have been to that pastry store. It's right on. It's right on Atlantic Avenue, a major thoroughfare. And I believe that it falls within District eight, Mr. Alston's district, and has had no issues whatsoever with this operation. It's never been cited for anything. It's never been shut down. It's never been closed. It's never had anything other than a exemplary grade for its for the quality of its products and the fact that there is an existing dispute between the landlord of the building and the city where the landlord is, as we understand it, unable to legally rent or at least doesn't have a license to rent because he's certainly renting and he's certainly receiving rents from the city, from the from all, say, Lorraine's fine pastries ultimately. You have a business that's there. It's running. It's running pursuant to a health health license that the county's given it. And all it wants is it is its license to operate its business. We have had to file litigation, in fact, on the on the city council's agenda meeting for a closed and closed session item number four on that agenda all says Lorain Fine Pastries Inc versus City of Long Beach. Is that lawsuit. That lawsuit goes away. If this body grants all say, salary and find pastries, it's license to operate its bakery. You get rid of one of those lawsuits just by doing that and will and will waive attorney's fees and will waive everything else. If you just give them back their it just give them their license and let them operate. As it stands right now, unless the city council does that, my client has no choice but to continue that litigation and continue to keep the city of Long Beach involved. I am asking the City Council to use common sense here and not allow a dispute that exists between its land, the landlord of this building and the city to affect the ability of one of its tenants to be able to do business, pay taxes and be a good corporate citizen in the city of Long Beach, as that business has been for well over 50 years. I'm open. Any questions? If the city council has any? Okay. Thank you, sir. We're going to turn this over to the council and then if there are questions, I'll let you know, sir. So certainly. Thank you. Okay. With that, I'm to turn this over to Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank our city staff for their diligence and hard work on this matter over the years. This is a very. Unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in. I do have a couple of clarifying questions before I make my motion and recommendation, and that is to staff regarding the what has been represented by the business in question, their attorney representing them. What? Was there a nexus between the property owner and the business in question? Is there a nexus? The property owner was the former owner of the bakery, also offering pastries or not clearing features, but of also exploring the property. And his name was Mr. Know. He was also the owner of the bakery at one point in time before it was sold. Okay. So when was the transaction to sell the property? We received the application or the first notice that we were aware, and a new operator was looking to operate that bakery on July six, 2016. Okay. And the the fines on the property permits win. And up until what point? The fines on the property. Sorry. The fines on the property started on March 13, 2012 and ended on August 9th, 2014. And so the the property owner missed their no, I believe his name is was the owner of I'll say Lorraine during that period of time. That's correct. And then the property turn switched ownership. The property owner is still the same person, but the bakery business. A new application was received for the bakery. Okay, so the what's before us is a recommendation to deny the business license and application submitted by the the the business all, says Lorraine Fine pastries. That's correct. Okay. Has there been any has missed? Has the property owner reached out to the city in any way during this period of time to discuss any sort of settlement agreement? No, he is not. That's a mistake. Well, hold on. Actually, sir, that that's not the way it works. So I think there has been outreaches by the city to the property owner to resolve the the leans. As of January 5th, June 15th, there are eight liens against the property of $604,000 with penalties and interest is currently over $1.1 million and there's been no substantial offer or issued to resolve those. I think. Did you say that the city has made offers? No. The city has indicated a willingness to discuss it, but we have not received any kind of offer to resolve those lines. Okay. Well, I'm a little bit challenged by that. I will just say that I am I'm aware of this this property, this location. It is definitely created a great deal of consternation in my district for during a period of time in question here, where the property owner was fined. On several occasions, I've had no opportunity to to meet the property owner or to be in any conversation whatsoever with him about this matter. I'm concerned that there, um, there hasn't been a willingness of the property owner, at least what has been represented to us here today to enter into some sort of settlement negotiations. But, you know, I think in in good faith, in spirit, because this is this is a very, very serious decision before the city council. I would recommend and I'd like to make a motion that we continue this item for 30 days and allow such a conversation to be had, or at least open the door for that and come back and see where we are on this. So that's my emotion. Okay. There's there's a motion any second on the floor with that. Let me go ahead and add any public comment on the hearing separate of those that did the oath. Okay. So close public comments on the hearing. And let me go back to the council for any other comments or discussions. Sir, this is not that. I used to counsel. No, I also. I'm sorry. You're not city council. I guess I. No problem. No problem. Yes, different one. So is there any other. No other city council comments? Mr. Gringa, on your second year of anything? No. I think that Councilmember also has it correct that we should offer an opportunity for a last chance opportunity, if you will, to settle this. Okay. There's a motion in a second to I believe it was 30 days. Is that right, Mr. Austin? Okay. Members, please go and cast your vote. Moshe Karis. Okay, thank you. Moving on to hearing number one, please. No. Actually, we're going to wait for hearing, number one for some folks to get here for that idea. We're going to be on the public comment. So I'm going to have the once I call your name, please line up in this order.

A proclamation opposing Amendment 74, an attempt to amend the Colorado Constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulation at a high cost to taxpayers.

DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0957

Proclamations like this by the city of Denver. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We have two other proclamations this evening, Councilman Ortega. Do you want to read Proclamation 957, please? Yes, I'd be happy to. Proclamation number 957, opposing amendment 74 and attempt to amend the Colorado Constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulation at a high cost to taxpayers. Whereas local government services are essential to the citizens of the city and county of Denver. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 has been written by certain corporate interests to change the text of the Colorado Constitution, Article two, Section 15, which dates back to 1876. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 declares that any state or local government law or regulation that reduces the fair market value of a private parcel is subject to just compensation. And. WHEREAS, while Amendment 74 has simple language, it has far reaching and complicated impacts. And. Whereas, under the current Colorado Constitution, a property owner already has the right to seek compensation from state or local governments. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would expand this well-established concept by requiring the government, i.e. the taxpayers, to compensate private property owners for virtually any decrease whatsoever in fair market value of their property, traceable to any government law or regulation. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would create uncertainty because it is not clear what the language actually means and how it can be applied. And. WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would severely limit the ability of Colorado, state and local governments to do anything that might indirectly, unintentionally or minimally affect the fair market value of any private property. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would drastically diminish the ability of our state and local governments to adopt reasonable regulations, limitations and restrictions upon private property. And. WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would directly impact zoning density limitations and planned development. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would make inherently dangerous or environmentally damaging activities prohibitively costly to attempt to limit or regulate even the interest of the public. And. Whereas, any arguable impact upon fair market value, however reasonable or justified or minimal or incidental or temporary resulting from state or local government action could trigger a claim for the taxpayers to pay. And. Whereas, governments would be vulnerable to lawsuits for almost every decision to regulate or not to regulate, making regular government function prohibitively expensive for the taxpayers. And. Whereas, similar efforts have been attempted and defeated in other states, such as the states of Washington and Oregon. And. Whereas, the fiscal impact for similar language in Washington State was estimated at $2 billion for state agencies and 1.5 billion for local governments over the six years. And. Whereas, there were $4 billion in claims in Oregon before the residents repealed the initiative two years after its passage. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Denver City Council oppose Amendment 74 and strongly urges a no. This November, Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation. Thank you, councilman. Are taking your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 957. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Mr. President, this was initially brought to my attention asking if I knew anything about what initiative went away, as it was referred to before. It was given an initiative number by the Secretary and amendment number by the Secretary of State's office. And at that point in time, I had not really looked at this particular initiative that will be on the November ballot. They did get the signatures. And as I started to look at it and talk with people like the Colorado Municipal League, we actually had them come and speak to our Finance and Government Committee to share their concerns also about the broad reaching and indeed significant implications this could have on really gridlock in the day to day work that local and state government does. And so I thought it was important, number one, to bring it forward so that it's another way to educate the public. We did get very clear direction from our city attorney that on amendments such as this, we do have the authority or the ability to take a position. And I just want to strongly encourage my colleagues to to vote for this proclamation tonight, encouraging the voters to vote no when they see it on the ballot in November. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. This this initiative, this measure is a killer for the communities ability to regulate land use in their own backyards. The. Determination of fair market value is not really a science so much as an art. And so actually sometimes it feels like a dart game throwing darts at the dartboard. I recall when Land was being acquired for Denver International Airport back in the late eighties early nineties, there were wild, wild estimates of what constituted fair market value, the largest parcel box elder farms that the city had offered about $30 million. The owners wanted 90 million and they were eventually awarded 56 million. And I believe that that might have been later reduced in an appeal. So fair market value chain changes from day to day, from hour to hour sometimes. I would look at this a little differently. If the owners of private property who are pursuing this were just as willing to give back to the public the gains and fair market value they receive from government regulations and laws. When we take an action that improves and enhances the fair market value of property, there's no mechanism for us to recapture that. And nor should there be a mechanism for the taxpayers to be on the hook for a perceived decline in a fair market value. We could take an action, and every action that we do take is subject than to litigation, because someone is going to claim that we diminished their fair market value if we imposed a height restriction or a view plane ordinance, suddenly we have taken away from all the property under that ceiling. We've taken away some of the density they could otherwise have built. We are subject to litigation for that. On the other hand, if we don't adopt tight restrictions and we allow people to build up as high as they wanted. Then we'd be liable for litigation from people across the street who've lost their view of the Rocky Mountains and we've diminished their fair market value. This is just a horrible, horrible attempt to solve a perceived problem totally unrelated to most of what we do. And I encourage everybody to take a good, hard look at this and ask yourself, do you really want your checkbook? After all, it's not our checkbook. It's yours. It's the public checkbook. Do you want that opened for blank checks to every property owner who says when you pass that law or regulation, you affected my fair market value ? We need to urge people to vote no on this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. Sussman Black Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. Hi. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announced results. 12. Days 12 hours proclamation 957 has been adopted. Councilwoman Ortega, do you have anybody you'd like to comment?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted. If said traffic control device is deemed appropriate at this location, authorize the expenditure of $175,000 in 9th District Discretionary Infrastructure Funds and an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general fund money for construction of the traffic control device.

LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1035

Item 38 is a report from Councilmember Councilmember Richardson recommendation to authorize city manager to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose for the purchase of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted. Okay, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to first thank our residents for hanging out this late. We have represented representatives from the Ramona Park neighborhood and the St Francis and Andy Street neighborhoods. So the Downey Avenue and 64th Street intersection has been a common problem and complaint in the ninth District for a number of years. The most common complaint is the speeding along Downey Avenue due to due to no traffic signals along the no slow, you know, traffic measures between Artesia and South Street, which is a long stretch. And so another complaint is the inability to turn onto Downey from 64th due to low visibility on the street. And again, the need to pick up speed very quickly due to the speed of oncoming traffic. And while the area on the on one side of the street is Downey is the city of Bellflower. On the other side of the street is in Long Beach, and its residents of Long Beach are where, you know, they heavily use this intersection. So this isn't this isn't new or unique to our district. Our district borders, Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, Compton, Rancho Dominguez. We board are five agencies, and we commonly have issues across across boundaries and borders of those agencies. For example, when El Camino College, Compton Center, when they went to construction, it impacted our residents because on the other side of the border was a college. It was no residents there. So we came to the we were nimble enough to bring it to city council, create a new ordinance, a temporary construction related preferential parking ordinance to mitigate those impacts. And there are examples across all different corners of our our our borders when sometimes, you know, the cities don't get along so well and the cities may not communicate very well, such as this experience. The city has tried unsuccessfully to work with the City of Bellflower for coming up on maybe a year now to address the issues of speeding. So now we're at a point where we've asked our city manager to speak out and to engage the residents and the city manager in Bellflower and the City of Bellflower about a study. And so they've they've brought us to a point where we have to we have to bring it to city council to make sure that we give them we prepare the the city manager with the ability and authority to go in, negotiate a traffic study. Now, I'm going to ask the city manager to chime in on some of these discussions with the City of Bellflower. But my it's my understanding that City of Bellflower has outright said if the study will allow the study, but if the study comes back that indeed you need a traffic signal, we're not going to put anything we're going to require the city of Long Beach to pay every dollar of this. So that said, that prompted a couple of questions for me before I place this on the city council agenda. The first question it prompted, which is, was, have we ever engaged in signal agreements with other agencies, other border cities? And the answer was yes. We're engaged in a number of signal discussions, signal agreements with a number of bordering cities. Secondly, what's the cost to install such a signal? So that's been vetted out and it could be a range between 175000 to 250000. The last thing the last thing I would want to do is bring in a recommendation, the city council that was unfunded. So we've identified $275,000 from our District nine infrastructure funds to in case a signal is warranted. We can fund that if it is on the higher end up to 250,000. I would imagine that this is going to come back during the budget cycle so we can identify additional funds to make sure that this is funded in FY16. Given that it's going to take us a while to finish the study and we're going to be well into the budget discussion then. So that said, my motion is to accept the motion as written, but where it says funds fund an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general, fund money for construction of the traffic control device. I want to make sure that I clarify that we're willing to pay 175,000 from District nine infrastructure funds and requesting that if there's additional funds are needed, that those be considered within the 516 funds, traffic CIP funds available. So that would be my motion. But there's a motion and a second. Oh, and I want to hear from city manager, too. There's been emotion and a second. Mr. West, do you want to comment on Councilor Richardson's comments? Mayor Councilmembers I just want to. Reiterate what the councilman said. The City of Bellflower has indeed said. That they. Will allow a traffic study to be made. And if that traffic study shows that there's a need for a traffic signal, they will require us to build a traffic signal. They will split some of the costs in maintaining the traffic signal. And there's certainly you know, it's up to the city attorney to advise us on what a liability issue would be. We haven't had time to look at that. Okay. Any member do we want to take members of the public first or come from Boston to join in? Because two members of the public, if you want to come speak on this, please come down and identify yourself for the record. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Phil, so I'm here. 35, 18 lira. I live next to Downey Avenue. Downey Avenue. Between the two signals. That Councilman Richardson's talking about is. Approximately, I'd say, in regular city blocks, probably about ten, 12 blocks. Long. So there's quite a distance and. Both the city of Long Beach and the city of Bellflower. Often the police departments got to the point where they have radar stops on that particular street because of the the speeding on that particular street. It's I've lived there for a number of years, and the traffic has increased quite a bit, primarily at the south end of that because of commercial development in the northern part, three quarters is residential and. The last part is commercial and. It's also used primarily by one of the commercial things at the South End is Lakewood Regional Hospital. And we get a lot of traffic going down there for the city of Compton uses Lakewood Regional Hospital as their for their emergency services. I hear sirens all the time. Coming down there. It do. There's a market actually at the intersection that we're talking about. And many times when you come down down the avenue, you will find people trying to cross the street there. And it's very common to see that they're trying to dart between cars. And there has been problems with accidents further down where I live, we do have a problem getting on to down the avenue because of the traffic there and you kind of take your life in your own hands to get onto that street. So. And those are for those reasons, I think we really need to address that street, you know, traffic control and that particular street for those issues. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I have lived in the ninth district for 42 years and right off of Downey Avenue numerous times I've heard accidents. Even just the short distance that I'm away, we measured Downey Avenue between Artesia and South, and it's a mile. I have seen where Bellflower, the city of Bellflower, put a speed limit sign of 40 miles an hour, and you go barely one block and into Long Beach. And it's changed to 35 and they just don't recognize it. I personally have had an accident at that intersection just a year and a half ago. There was another one where an ambulance was tipped over, but somebody trying to come out on Tony Avenue. So I'd really appreciate anything that the city can do to help control our speed on that particular street. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the council. My name is Laverne Duncan. I represent the Andy Street Association and I'm here this evening. First, I want to say that I came downtown from up in North Long Beach because I feel that if we just send our comments in, we can't see how you're reacting to what we're saying . So I really appreciate the fact that you guys listen and hear what we have to say. I represent a lot of residents that may not necessarily come downtown or may not have a voice yet. And that's the voice I want to bring here tonight in support of this agenda item. Our council member attends all of our association meetings. We cross, attend each other's meetings. And this particular problem has come up many times in the last couple of years, especially. We now have a WinCo that's in Lakewood, actually, but it's on the corner of South and Downey, and that has increased the traffic tremendously because people come from all over to go to WinCo from other cities. And so we have a tremendous amount of traffic. We have kids that come from Collins that get off the bus. And because there are no traffic lights and any traffic crossings, there is that major potential for kids to be harmed. So I'm a youth advocate as well as for the elderly in our area. We really, really need some type of traffic signal because that's a very long stretch and people just continue to speed down that freeway and that makes it harmful for everyone. I just want to encourage all of you to take a take a ride up there and see exactly what it looks like. I know some of you, especially your new members, are very much data oriented. I appreciate that. But take a look at what we're doing. I know our mayor knows what I'm talking about because he's been a great supporter of of of Andy Street and what we've done. So I just want to encourage you guys to please, please support this, because there is a human cost, not just dollars and cents. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Dale Utterback, the Ramona Park Homeowners Association. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for doggedly pursuing this. For the last three years, I've been in the resident of the area for five years and I've seen the small business on the corner. It's a. Market there. Wall has been destroyed three times. There's actually I believe there was a fatality of a pedestrian at that intersection. I'll just echo what my. Fellow participant said. We need to slow it down. It's a safety issue. Thank you. Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I do appreciate, first of all, Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. Pedestrian traffic safety is a very important role for this council and for the city. Safety for residents is is our primary responsibility, I think. And I appreciate the residents for coming down and adding a human touch to this this this item I did. The thing that I'm going to support this, number one, because, you know, Councilmember Richardson is putting forth and contributing a significant amount of resources from his own discretionary infrastructure funds that are limited to this and to to this particular community, which he should be commended for. You know, that money could go toward fixing sidewalks or, you know, getting new treat new streets. But he's he's committed it to the to the Ramona Park Andy Street communities for for safer pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But I'm concerned about the the the sheer cost or the lack thereof from the city of Bellflower. And, you know, it would be really great to see the residents in that city who are just across the Downey Avenue organize the way these residents are due to go to their city council and demand the same. You know, because I think there is there should be a shared responsibility. And I think Councilmember Bridget Richardson raises some some significant issues in terms of border cities and, you know, our shared responsibility. So with that, I had a few questions, but I'm going to leave that alone for now and support this item and urge my council colleagues to do so as well. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. I also just had questions for the city manager. I want to thank you first for bringing this up because I know sometimes we have to do what we have to do in order to make sure that safety is the first and main concern. But what is the city of Belfast? And perhaps this was mentioned when I left, but what is their take on all of this and their stance? And why aren't they involved? In discussing with the city manager. He didn't feel there was enough of a need at his level to initiate this, and that could have been represented that maybe Bellflower doesn't have the the quarter million dollars to build a traffic signal to. Sure. But but certainly he made it very clear that they were not interested in helping to fund this. Okay. Thank you. By Mary Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to. And I'm sorry if this question was already asked of the city attorney. In terms of liability, I have a limited understanding of what conducting a traffic study would do in terms of where it places us on the liability spectrum. If we can if we conducted the traffic study and installed the traffic light. The Vice Mayor The way I. Understand the amended motion is that the City of Bellflower would be requiring us to conduct the traffic study in a maybe shared or not shared cost. I'm not clear. And then if the traffic study indicates that a traffic signal needs to be installed at that location, the city of Long Beach would have to fund that. And that, I believe, is the motion this evening. So if there was 175,000 and whatever the additional costs above 175, the city tonight would be approving our commitment to fund the entire requirement of the traffic study. And the reason I think Bellflower is requiring that is if the if we do it, they have knowledge of a traffic study that requires some sort of mitigation or traffic calming measure, and they don't do that. It could potentially expose them to liability while the city this isn't in the city of Long Beach, so there would be no liability to us. Mr. West, I have a question because I am wondering. It appears that there's probably been advocacy in the past for this intersection from the community or from the council. So I know it's been our practice that when there is advocacy on certain certain intersections, that we include those in our annual CHP book, and then we get those through the budget process. And I'm just wondering, is has this been on the on staff's radar? Is why is it not been in the past possibly allocated? And is there an intention for it to be included in the future? Is there any comment on that? Or maybe I don't know. Mr. MALONE If I can comment or if you can comment on that. I'm. You want to comment on that? Absolutely. We need. To visualize. This intersection that, you know, there's a map that was submitted. But basically this intersection, 75% of it is in City of Bellflower. Only 25% is in City of Long Beach. We cannot initiate a city project in another city unless the council direct us. So. So you're saying that that 75% of the project is in the city of Bellflower. Okay. I think for from traffic purposes, there are four legs to this intersection. And if you can see the city boundary line, which is basically at the curve face of westerly side of. The street. There's only. Let me look at this. 64th Street is the only street that it's in city of Long Beach. So the entire Downey Avenue is in City of Bellflower. The. That's at the bottom corner. Mr. Maloney, you're essentially saying that in the past it appears that there's maybe been some discussions about this intersection, but because a portion of it is in another city, we couldn't add it to our side people. Correct. But I'm under the assumption that. So we couldn't even in the past have added a traffic study in through the CIPA process or through the general budgeting process, or has that ever been considered? I just want to make it clear that if to do a traffic study, Vellfire is requiring us to build the signal that the traffic study says there is going to be a signal signals necessary. I mean. That seems be very honest, just completely unreasonable. So we wouldn't initiate that on our own without knowing that the city council's ready to fund the quarter million dollars. And I'll also just say, regardless of what happens tonight, that I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the mayor, you know, tomorrow or the next day. Because if it's if at the management level or not, it's not you know, it's I would think that the elected officials would be a little bit more open to hopefully working with us. It seems completely unreasonable that this community is not able is suffering because of an issue that is being. Kind of stopped because of another city. And just just to add to that, Mr. Mayor, and I want to be clear, like, I don't want to have to spend hours Long Beach money in a different city if we don't have to. I want to like the city staff has indicated to me they're stuck at a place where they can't continue negotiate until we give them some direction and appropriate the money. I think they've set the range 175 to 250. I'm willing to put up our 175 so that they can continue to negotiate and that we're in a position to that we should commit to building it. So that they they don't have to come back to us and keep checking in about this awkward situation. And you're absolutely right. It's been unreasonable. There's been outreach to the residents on that site. On one side is single family homes and the other side is apartments. And it's more difficult to engage them to engage their their council representatives. There's been outreach to the council and there's been numerous discussions, staff to staff, and I've had discussions with council members as well as the city manager when I was chief of staff. So some of these, again, we border Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, just around this area. If you go to more blocks now on both sides of the street or in Long Beach, so it's literally just awkward intersection that we can't we can't study. And we're stuck in this place until we give them some direction. And that's my understanding. And I wouldn't have brought this the city council, because I feel I personally my position was that our one time dollars could have been used on a study because there's a nexus on that area. But they're at a place where they need direction, right. They need to bring it to the city council in order to continue this fight. Okay. Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I completely understand the advocacy on behalf of the residents in the community. And and I'm glad for the question regarding the capital improvement project and understanding which corner belongs to us and and the other city. I think from a from a precedent standpoint, I struggle with this because it is applying general fund dollars toward. A project that's in some part not in our city, regardless of the benefit. And in those situations I'm looking to Mr. the city manager. I have observed circumstances where the COG or some other regional agency would step in and and offer some opportunity to conduct perhaps not a traffic study, but there have been other circumstances where it's multi-jurisdictional. Maybe just two jurisdictions are involved where it's not one city that's on the hook for the resources. Have you observed that in recent memory? A For a. Traffic signal, an entity like the Gateway Cities Council of Government would not get involved. They wouldn't look at this as a regional issue, and they certainly don't want to get involved. Between a scuffle between two municipalities, unless it's a regional issue. So I think this is probably the. The. Best advocacy that I'm hearing would be for the mayor to reach out to the mayor of Bellflower and see if, indeed the elected officials feel that way. And I would agree with that approach as well. I, I want this to be resolved for our residents. It becomes a very, very. Undesirable precedent setting standard, and one that I don't believe this council should be willing to exercise because then it it obviates the responsibility from other jurisdictions. And I struggle with that. We have similar issues for services such as language transit. They have they go beyond the city of Long Beach, even if they want a bus stop in a particular location outside of the city of Long Beach. And we would want to fund it. We don't fund it because that's that's a bad precedent. And the when lobby transit goes outside the city, that. City funds everything for for Long Beach Transit. Absolutely. And the and the benefit isn't just to the residents of that city or our city, but there is a mutual benefit there. And in keeping with that spirit, I'd like to support that effort. I'd like to support the mayor's reaching out to the council members and, and going forward. Mr.. Mr.. MALLOY And even if the project is only a certain percentage in the city of Long Beach, could you not include in your cap consideration when you bring it forward to council a notation or a request that there is there is an interest because my interest would be to make sure that we keep in line with how we budget and and make sure that we come through a budget process and that these requests are considered with the larger context, within the larger context of our entire budget. And so if there's a mechanism to do that going forward, that's something we would look at. I still do not support funding this from General Fund. My first option would be to go through the route that the mayor suggested. Let me make a comment to go out to Councilman Richardson. So I just want to make also very clear, I think, Councilman, what you're doing because is the right thing. I mean, you're you've hit a wall. These neighborhoods these neighborhoods need relief here. And so we're try to come up with a solution. Just to Mr. West, I would think that moving forward also, I understand there was a roadblock in the budget book that you'd council approval. But this would be I would I would think that regardless of whether part of it's in Bellflower or not, we have a responsibility to still try to fix the problem. And so I would think that in through the budget cycle or moving forward, if there's issues like this arise, I think those could be brought to us through the budget cycle and let us know, by the way, this is an important intersection. We've got it. We need a light. But if we, you know, we need additional approval because part of its in Bellflower or what have you and I think I think the council would probably you know, we don't know yet, but it sounds like that's something that we would be very, very supportive of. So I, I'm not sure where everyone's at on this. I'd be happy to have some additional conversations, but I think this issue has got to get resolved. And clearly this intersections are a problem for us. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So. So a couple of things. So I want to thank you for your suggestion or your your your offer to reach out. And I would hope that I would want to include that as a part of this. But secondly, I want to just chime in on the precedent. So, Mr. City Attorney, are we engaged in any any agreements with other cities about signals? As a question. Have we done that in the past? And we have done that in the past. Okay. Can you give an example? Well, the example that I'm aware of is at the on Carson Avenue, when we built the town center, we reached an agreement, I believe, with the city of wine gardens, but not I'm not sure if we've agreed to build a signal 100% of it for any city. So so for me, what this is, is it they've been very clear with us that you cannot conduct this study. We don't know if that even warrants a signal. You will not do this study unless you commit. You are prepared to build this signal because we have no will to do it. So what I'm saying is I'm willing to put up our our my district nine resources. If it if that is tapped out, then bring it back in the context of the CERP, the traffic CIP in the next budget, which is in line with what Vice Mayor Lawndale said. But I want to give them I want to give you the ability to go negotiate. I want to give the the city manager the ability to go negotiate and let's get this done so we don't have to come back at every incremental point in this. So that's it. I mean, I want to continue the main motion. I think that I think that we can accomplish what I think we want to. I don't know if I need to say it because it sounds like you're going to do it anyway, which is good. Do you need me to put that in the motion for you to engage the city? I think I'm going to I'm going to talk to Mr. West and we're going to, you know, okay. Think about it. And just to be clear, if you don't have to spend our general fund dollars, don't. But I just after going through this for 2 to 3 years, I know what was at the bottom. You know, at the end of the day, this is going to be on us to do that. Just to clarify, Councilmember, I think are you asking that that that this item be considered through the CIP general fund budgeting process access? Yeah. If if 175 doesn't get us there. The rest of the rest the rest would be done through yet through the separate. Three CFP budget process. Well that is the general fund. That's what they mean by general fund. No, Mr. City attorney wants to chime in and then I'm going to go to Vice Mayor Lewis. I want to clarify my motion. Yes. If if for some reason that's not enough, then yes, it would go through our CFP process. And I had that conversation with the city manager about what would that look like? You know, how long would that take, considering we're not asking for a quarter million dollar signal after 175 hours spent , we're talking about, you know, whatever the gap is, 25,000, 50,000, 75,000. So that was just I just wanted to clarify that. That's my intent. Okay. Mr. City Attorney. My point or. Clarification for the council members motion is that at that point there'll be there'll be no obligating, there'll be no opportunity for the city council to say no. The only thing you would be doing at that time is allocating finding where that additional money would come from. Tonight, as I understand, the maker's motion, you're committing to building whatever is required there. So the and I don't know where the estimates came from, but if it's $175,000, then you have completely funded the project. But if it isn't 125 or if it's more than 175,000, the city is going to be contractually obligated to pay that difference . And what would come back to you is whatever that difference was, is where the council would like to take that money from. OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal. In fear of sounding redundant. Councilmember Richardson The 175, as stated in your agenda item, is coming from Discretionary Infrastructure Fund. Your motion tonight is not requesting any general fund support. Is that correct? Outside of adding it to the CHP for the next fiscal year, which is a process that I would support. But tonight tonight I want I. This will be a better question for the city manager, because they're the ones who brought it to me and said, we're stuck. This needs to go to city council. So I need to find out what action they need tonight. This recommendation, this motion was, you know, submitted and consulted over. If I want to make sure what we vote on tonight gives them what they need to go negotiate with Bellflower. So let me ask this. Mr.. Mr. West, Vice Mayor, if I may. So, Mr. West, how can we what's your suggestion to craft this in a way where where we can work together and come up with a solution, and so that this community knows we're moving forward on this and this issue. Mayor Councilmembers, again, this is a supplemental item. So it really came to us yesterday. So we've been noodling this since yesterday to try to come up with an opportunity where we would come up with an extra potentially up to $70,000. So going forward right now would lock us into spending the 0 to $70000 and do the the signal. So my conversation with the city manager of Bellflower was yesterday and again, I don't want to delay this or anything like that. But it would be nice to have a chance, a letter to the city, to the city. Manager, asking him for to take this to his city council. So that the city council looks at it or something. Because right now I'm just dealing with the city manager. I don't have the ethical opportunity to talk. To his council members. I can only talk to the council, to the city manager. So it stops at that level for me without sending a letter or something like that and raising it to that attention. Okay. Councilmember Austin. Yes. Thank you. And I do appreciate the the the robust conversation here. Again, Councilmember Richardson has has committed a significant amount of his discretionary infrastructure funds to set aside for this project, including a traffic study. And I'm not exactly clear what his original motion was, because it sounded like he had modified the with what is written here on the in the agenda item to say instead of coming from the general fund for construction that it would be B laid over for the CHP. The question I have regarding CHP, there is a priority list in terms of CHP projects that have already been approved. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. And so and if we were to approve this in this this the way it is laid out before us or has been presented in this motion, which I seconded, it would would that somehow leapfrog the did the list. Or will it put. Priority on this? Again, if the traffic study mandated a traffic signal, yes, we would be required to find the 0 to $70000, which would could leapfrog a list and or do something like that. But we would be required to bring to you a $70,000 solution during the fiscal year 16 budget. So. So if Councilmember Richardson were to to say and I want to get to a solution that that is that is responsible here today, fiscally and fairly for for all parties involved. If he were to instead of saying committing the CHP budget, instead say he's committing his infrastructure budget for for FY 15, would that would that would that be better or more? More, I guess, responsible way to to do this? I don't understand you for his thoughts. So instead of CHP it would be infrastructure dollars for future for future year for for ninth district. We we. Would. Given what the council's talked about, we would love to have the opportunity to sit down with our public works director, our traffic engineer, to look at other opportunities, maybe to backfill the general fund money and go for Prop C or some other funding source or gas tax money that would do a traffic signal. Look at the priorities of the traffic signals that are supposed to be funded this year and next year. And look at all that. That would be nice to have the time to do that. So. So council. Richardson would you be open to just using the or committing the $175,000 of your discretionary funds to fund this traffic study and committing that toward the the the the signal? And then if there's anything above that. That's my motion. It would come back in the C. But you're saying skip which, which, which. Is what we approve every year in the budget. I had a conversation today with Tom Modica, who indicated that there's one and a half million dollars that's already allocated this year. This would have to come in a subsequent year. Are you comfortable with that? Yes, Mr. Assistant City Manager, absolutely. And I know also that just saw this the other day. I've got an email from my chief of staff to our Malloy in agreeing on the motion, the recommendation. So this is a lot I mean, this is I'm really surprised that this has taken this. Turn what this this issue. And I think the only thing reason I bring this up is that the cap has been voted on. It's been approved that that list is approved every year. And there are, I'm sure, a number of our districts that that have traffic studies that need traffic signals. I know of three of mine that I'd like to get on that CLP list as well. I think this is this isn't because this traffic signal hasn't been and this isn't in the city of Long Beach, Holly. It hasn't been considered on that VIP list in the past. I think you're asking for for some consideration. But what I'm hearing is that it would it would take priority, you know, over other over other projects. Future years haven't been established yet. So this year is already budgeted. This will not knock any any of the of the traffic signals that are in that one and a half million dollar fund. None of those are impacted. So I know a lot of the council was was out of the room when I opened this up. But the first thing I said was, there are two things I took in consideration. And one of them was like, How will we pay? How will we pay for this? Is there a signal fund? I knew that this would be an issue where it would potentially be put lower down on the rail. That's why we committed our funds. And we're saying if there's anything additional, put it in line, take it to the CHP, put it in line for that, but make it an official project. Next, I have Councilman Mango. I want to say that I really appreciate the dialog. I think that what I'm hearing from Al is something that I really agree on, which is while I would it is an unsound fiscal practice to commit future dollars, especially from the AP. Right now, oil prices are very low and we're not sure what kind of one time moneys are going to come in. And the Budget Oversight Committee has a process to review each and every one of these. And so while I appreciate the dialog between you to what I'm hearing from Councilmember Richardson does not match what I'm hearing from city attorney parking, which is where I'm having a big challenge. And so until I have a resolution of that, I have to vote no because I'm uncomfortable committing general fund dollars outside of the budget process. And as my colleague said, frog jumping or lily pad in other projects that have been in the queue. I completely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also am very uncomfortable with this city taking on quote unquote unfunded mandates. This is us being given a mandate by another city stating that if we do work on behalf of our constituents, we are going to be stuck with the responsibility to pay for their traffic signal. If they were willing to put up their share of the traffic signal, of course we would want to partake in that. But my district borders several cities, Lakewood, Home and Gardens, Los Alamitos and more. And so in all of those areas, when those cities aren't willing to pay their share, that that's not acceptable. And I reach out to those councilmembers and I'm excited for the mayor to reach out. So I'm open to moving this to a future agenda item after the mayor and the city manager have been able to come back. You've been with this item for three years. Your commitment and dedication to the residents is appreciated. In the same way, I hear commitment and dedication to the projects that are already scheduled in our district and I'm sure and many others. And so thank you for bringing the item. And from what I'm hearing from City Attorney Parkin, this is a commitment of general fund dollars, whether it's next year or this year outside of the process Connex have. Councilor Richardson, did you have additional comments at this time because you're next queued up? So is the is the issue the gap between 175? And what the what the cost of signal is? Is that what is that? The discomfort that I'm hearing is that folks might think that this might stop an existing project in their district since this wasn't eligible to be factored into the CIPA discussion, does it not? And is that in general what it is? I and someone else jumped in. I think what I've heard from the counsel one is there's a there's a concern about something coming out of general fund dollars, not through the general budget process. And so I think we have an annual budget process we go through where those dollars are set aside. And I think that what I've heard is that there's some concern from some council members that this is outside that process. And then I think the other concern I heard is this idea of the other city having to pay or being or being part of paying a fair share of their portion of of that. I don't know if I missed anything else, but that's at least what I have heard so far. Okay. So what I would say is. My motion is $175,000. That does not impact anyone else's projects. If it's above that, it would come in within the budget process. Within the budget process, which means there is a need throughout the year. Departments all the time come across a need and established need and they factor that into their budget process. This would be adding to that list. There's a there's millions of dollars of projects on that list. And then if for some reason, you know, it factors into CERP and I'm five years out on the list that's on me to figure out what's my priority for the next if I want to move it up by using my my one time dollars in our district, because the priority that at least allows us to do that, we don't have any more red tape from Bellflower. My priority tonight is getting where we need to be, so we have a path forward entirely within the city, along beaches, wheelhouse. And so my motion, the motion that I set out, just to be clear, it's to get it entirely in our wheelhouse, give the city manager the ability to go, negotiate an agreement, be as aggressive as you need to. But we need to be prepared to move forward on this agreement. And yes, we border a bunch of different cities and these agreements, again, this is not precedent setting. We have these agreements in a number of cities. One of them was cited tonight and in Hawaiian Gardens. Okay. So just to I know that Mr. Parker, I wanted to wanted to chime in. And so the motion that I'm hearing from Councilman Richardson right now is different than the motion that was originally presented as you laid it out. So I want to make sure that we're all clear. So what I'm hearing, which sounds reasonable, is but as Councilor Richardson would like us to, he would like to dedicate 100 so 175 from his dollars to this project. Then he would like this project to be added to the CHP book list of projects which we do all the time and not he's not asking for it to, you know, jump ahead of the project. He's just adding he's asking for it to be added to the CHP book as a project to be worked on moving forward . And in the meantime, the city manager and I and whatever else are going to engage in a conversation to see if we can move this project forward. That's what I've heard. Mr. City Attorney. May or members of the council. The only issue that that I would raise with that is the way I understand where the City of Bellflower is, is if the city commits to the traffic study. We are legally. Committed to install the traffic light. So unlike other projects on your city list where the council can prioritize those and approve those, you're going to have a legal obligation to pay that. Know what I'm hearing the councilmember say is there may be other sources of funds and. We're not and we're not. I think what the motion is now is we're not going that step yet. He's setting aside the 175 for this project and and the city manager are going to have some conversations and then the project is added to the scrapbook or. Councilman Richardson. So I would say I want to be able to give the city manager what he needs to go begin negotiation now and to continue the process. At the end of the day, the study might come back and say there is no no signal. We can't even have a study without agreeing to with the City of Bellflower to do this. So, like I said, if, if, if, if the real concern here is falling in line with the city, I would ask the question city the city staff, based on any research that that's been done, where would this fall in that the list as of today, because I know there's been some preliminary research done. So I'll take a first shot at that. When you asked us to take a look at where this falls in terms of the CHP process, you're correct. We do have about $1.5 million with the projects that are currently funded in our CHP. In our initial discussion about this today, the thought was that it would not impact that 1.5 million. Those are already projects that are allocated. We haven't allocated projects for FY 16 yet. We don't quite know what those resources are going to be. And so that was the concept and that's how any typical budget process would work within the city of Long Beach for our projects. I think what the wrinkle is that the city attorney brought up today on the floor is that essentially by by providing that direction to do the study and given what we know of City of Bellflower as constraints, they are going to require us to sign an agreement to say we will fund the entire allocation. So it may not be even 75. It may be more than that. It may be less than that. And so by providing potentially, you know, the 175 that you're providing and given the direction of the manager to go discuss with them, that would give us the ability to negotiate. But it is that extra step of saying every single or that we need to complete the project is what puts is what changes from our normal budgetary perspective, you know, our process. So just a quick. Question So what in terms of a timeline, if they were to say you have to do it, if they were to say you have to do is met your mandate to build this signal. And our study concludes, you know, after the budget process and we don't revisit this until the 2017 budget. Are we do we have a gun to our heads to get it built right then? Or can we say we don't have the funds allocated right now? But when we do. I'm I'm going to turn this over over to Ana. So I guess it would depend on the severity of the traffic study. That's correct. It becomes a liability issue for both cities. I mean, if if Bellflower is now been given notice that this study shows that you have to build a traffic signal, then the traffic signal needs to be built. And in case there are accidents during that period, then there's liability on that side. But also we need to negotiate or have a clearer understanding of who maintains this traffic signal and what portion of it, as far as liability goes, who's going to maintain. And who's going to absorb the. Liability. So in a typical situation, let's say we have a neighboring city and if three sides of an intersection belongs to another city and we. Own one, so it's one. Quarter or 25% of the city of Long Beach, we would be liable for 25% and they'll be liable for 75%. And also the same way we will split the maintenance cost. That would maintain 75%. Of the traffic signal and we will maintain or will be responsible for 25% of it. So, yes, the traffic study, if it comes positive, then puts everybody on notice that there is a need for that traffic signal. And this city of Bellflower will not allow us to do the traffic study unless we have a contract with them that says you will build this you shall build this traffic signal if the traffic study comes positive with the results. So it's it's it's a zero 200%. There's nothing in between. So either we do the traffic study and we pay for the whole construction of it, or we cannot do the. Traffic study period. Based on Bellflower comments. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to restate my concern about. The potential of expending general fund dollars. I agree with Councilmember Austin in how he had articulated the piece on the cap, which I know has been resolved. What I understand, Councilmember Richardson, is your intent not to set back any other projects in. Q but in hearing Mr. Parkin's opinion, I am leaning toward favoring that leaning toward making my decision based on his opinion, which is that legal imperative is what guides us as opposed to our intent to solve the problem and solve it by not impacting other projects in. Q So I'm taking my direction from the city attorney's comments, which I firmly believe are accurate. And I think he perhaps, if I might just ask one one more clarifying question of you. Mr. Malloy. And so there is no in-between. It's either zero or 100%. And so one of the alternatives that Councilmember Richardson had suggested is that he would assign 175 from his discretionary infrastructure dollars. Would he be able to assign the rest if there were future discretionary dollars? And I believe the answer, while technically is yes, it doesn't help in this situation. That's correct. My understanding is that council members objective is to be able to come live here tonight with a project that the city can move forward with. It's my concern is that we're legally committing to a part as to some amount of money that's unfunded at this time and legally obligated to pay by us. Thank you. And that's and that's my concern as well. Mr. West, where are you going? Mayor Councilmembers. One of the an option might be and again, this is all up to Councilmember Richardson rather than we the the motion the basic motion doesn't give us an option to negotiate. It just says do it. So if given the fact, if I if I can go to the city of Bellflower with $175,000 that Councilman Richardson is putting on the table, that gives us an opportunity to negotiate. And I firmly believe if I'm sitting in that city manager shoes, it's going to you know, I would say. Yeah, absolutely. We'll go ahead and do that. It's a good gesture. And we then Bellflower will cover everything above the 175. But I think if I have that opportunity to go and negotiate that, talk about that, then that gives us an opening to talk about liability as well. And I can come back as quickly as possible to meet the councilmembers needs there. But $175,000 is nothing to sneeze at for a traffic signal. And it, as the councilmember pointed out, it very may well be, you know, close to that 175 and not be above that. But I think that might give me the opportunity to negotiate with the City of Bellflower. Along with that. Public works director, to use their property dollars or their gas tax dollars. To do that. And that shared responsibility and shared obligation approach as well as action. I would. Negotiate. Yes, absolutely. And as opposed to us saying we're going to fund it no matter what, there's no incentive on their part. And Councilmember Richardson, if you would be open to that, to changing your motion to that, I would reverse my my no vote to a yes vote. Absolutely. Okay. So the motion, just so we're clear, the motion is to direct the city manager to your city manager to negotiate with your Bellflower on this project and to set aside 175 as from from his infrastructure dollars to as a starting point for the city manager negotiate a price. And I'd like to say to protect councilmembers. Richardson's wallet up to 175. Right. Okay. And then as and as part of that. And. As part of that, I'd like to ask that. Councilor Richardson, you're okay with me sending a formal, formal letter over to the mayor, and we'll have a conversation about that. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor. I'd love to go to a vote counts from your end. Could you have another comment on. This discussion when exactly as they wanted it to go? Okay, great. Okay. We've done public comment. Councilmembers, please cast your vote. Okay. Next motion carry a general. Nexus item 25. We're going to jump to 25 because we have some folks here for that. Did you say 25? Yes. And Mr. Mayor, I've been advised by the city attorney that I should recuse myself from this particular vote because I serve on the board of the Fairfield Family YMCA. And so I need you to do that. Oh, okay. No. Not yet. 25.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 3100 Cherry Creek South Drive, with reservations. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates land at 3100 East Cherry Creek South Drive in Council District 6. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-20-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 6-18-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0414

So I'm going to read this finding, as you said, Charlie, finding a solution for completing the middle section of Cherry Creek South Drive between University and Colorado Boulevard has been quite a challenge for many years. But as Albert Einstein once said, You never fail until you stop trying. During the past few months, the residents of Cherry Creek Tower have been able to enter a successful dialog with the city, a process that's been defined by each party's ability to use some old fashioned skills. The ability to listen. The willingness to negotiate. The wisdom. To accept compromises that allow each to feel that its legitimate needs will be met. There are many people in this city to thank for supporting Cherry Creek Tower as the association has confronted the ramifications of losing a large number of our parking spaces. Among those people are Dennis Araghi, now retired from Public Works and apparently walking around with a golf club in his hands instead of his briefcase. Thanks, Dennis, wherever you are. Dave Hunt, Singer and Public Works is proving equally supportive as our new contact going forward. And the civil engineers and landscape architects working with us on behalf of the city have made the process of fleshing out all the necessary details, both a pleasurable and a creative experience. The entire project has a firm direction now, and we would like to express our appreciation for the city's willingness to engage in what I will call a creative win win solution to a long standing dilemma. It reminds me of something else that Einstein once said Creativity is intelligence. Having fun? In closing, we'd like to thank Charlie Brown for all his efforts on behalf of the city and its constituents and for the opportunity to be here this evening. Thank you so. Much. Thank you, Frank. Thanks to all of you. And thank you, Madam President. And congratulations, Councilman. Councilman Nevitt. Under bills for final consideration, you called. Out Council Bill. 402. What would you like to do with this Bill? Yes, ma'am. I need to offer two minor but important amendments. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, will you please put this bill on the floor? Thank you, Madam President. And move that bill for order to be published. Actually, it's final consideration. Oh, it's consideration. Okay. The place upon final thought. I'll do it again. I believe I move that council bill for it to be placed upon final consideration.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2162 South Grant Street in Rosedale. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-TU-B (single to two-unit), located at 2162 South Grant Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.

DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0424

12 Eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-0406 has passed. We are now on the homestretch. Our final public hearing tonight. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 424 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash zero 4 to 4 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 424 is open and I see we have Libbey here for the staff report. Yes. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay, great. I'll share my screen. Okay. So I'm Louisianans with community planning and development and I'll be presenting the Map Amendment application at 2162 South Grant Street. This application is located in Council District six in the Rosedale neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to resign from UCC to YouTube, which allows the Urban House building for a duplex tandem house and then as well as accessory dwelling unit accessory building for the site is located on Grant Street, just in the block south of Evans Avenue. As stated previously, the existing zoning is urban single unit C, so this allows for the Urban House primary building form on a minimum zone, lot size of 5500 square feet. You can see it just on the west side of Grant Street. The zoning is YouTube. And then when you move to the east side of Grant, it's mostly us. You see, with the exception of the property directly north, which was rezone from UCC to YouTube in 2020. The Washington Park View Plan is applicable to the site with maximum heights between 95 and 98 feet, and which will impact any future development as that's greater than what the proposed YouTube would allow. Existing land use is single unit residential. And you can see this area is kind of a mixture of single to unit and then multi-unit residential. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. This is one of those sites where the building was constructed on the very back portion of the lot. AS That's why you can't really see it in the picture. And then it just south there's a single unit home and then one of the duplexes across the street. This application was complete in the middle of January, and a postcard notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on January 22nd. The planning board heard this application in early April and unanimously recommended approval on the consent agenda. And to date, staff has not received any public comment letters. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adaptive plans, and there are three that are applicable to the site. The proposed rezoning meets several of the strategies in the comprehensive plan. It will increase development of housing close to transit and encourages quality infill development where infrastructure and services already exist. And Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is urban. These areas are mostly single and two unit residential areas with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout. There's regular block patterns with alley access. The future place type is low residential and these are predominantly single and two unit residential uses on smaller lots. And then Grant Street is a local street, which is also also most like mostly characterized by residential uses. Blueprint also provides further guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone from a single unit, stone district to a two unit zone district. And this request depends upon three things small area plan guidance, neighborhood input in existing zoning patterns. So I'll discuss the small area plan guidance in a bit. And the applicant received mostly support from neighboring property owners, which you can find in the application that was submitted. And then we've discussed that there is a pattern of the two unit zoning in this area as it's all along the western side of great and then directly north of this street. And there's also more criteria for when you're proposing to rezone to a district with a smaller minimum zone size. So in this case, going from the C size to the B size. And for that and there needs to be a pattern of smaller lots with similar uses. So this map shows kind of the average lot size in the area. And you can see that it is mostly smaller than what the C district is and maybe more consistent with a B. And then the growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 20% of new housing and 10% of new job growth by 2040. And so a rezoning to a two unit district would allow for a minimal amount of growth in density consistent with this growth area strategy. This area is a half a mile from the Evans Light Rail Station and it's also included in the Evans Station area plan. So while the actual site is not on the map, the urban residential concept area in the plan does include the area that goes all the way between the alley, between Grant and Logan Street. And so that would include this eastern half of the block along the eastern side of Grant Street. To the western half of that block. And it describes urban residential areas as appropriate for single family duplex accessory dwelling units and row houses. So a rezoning to a two unit district to allow a duplex would be consistent with the urban residential guidance in the EP and station area plan. Star finds that the Arizonan meets the next two criteria. It will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily by implementing adaptive plans and allowing greater density in close proximity to a light rail station. There's also a justifying circumstance and changing conditions. I mean, the guidance and blueprint Denver on when it's appropriate to rezone to a two unit district with a smaller minimum zone that size, as well as changing conditions in the area, including new development near the Evans Light Rail station, as well as the rezoning just next door directly north of this site to a two unit sound district. And lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhoods context, the residential zoned districts purpose and then the specific intent of the You TV Zone district. Therefore, staff recommends approval based on finding that all five criteria have been met. And that concludes my presentation. All right. Well, thank you, Libby. And thanks for folks staying with us with us this evening. And counsel has not received any written testimony on counsel Bill 21, Dash 0424 and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we will go ahead and go to Nathan Keebler Slingo. Nathan Keebler Slingo. I am the applicant. I own the property at 2162 and currently lives here since 2004. And I appreciate and agree with everything that Libby is presented. And available for questions. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Nathan. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 424. All right. Councilmember Flynn. Libby. This is about 6/10 of a mile from Evans Station. So what are what is the proximity to transit criteria being gauged on? Is it the Broadway bus corridor? Is that are we saying that people will now walk 6/10 of a mile to to a light rail station? Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I think usually within the half mile buffer. So a quarter mile is like the comfort level for typically walking. But a half mile is something that I think we do consider. You know, it's not as close as a half mile is a five minute walk there, but it may be definitely walk or a shorter or a longer bike ride. You could say. Mile, half mile is usually about 1012 minute walk. Mhm. This is like this is just a little greater than a half mile. And I'm also concerned that you use the Evans Station plan even though technically this parcel is not in the Evans Station plan area. You said something about the half block between Graham and Logan. Can you explain that again? Yeah. So even though it's not in the map in the Evans Station area plan, if you read the description of the urban residential area, it describes that area as encompassing everything up until the alleyway between Grant and Logan Street, which would include this property. Okay. Okay. I did pull the Evans Station plan up while you were talking, so I'll look at that if there are any other questions. Although I don't see any other questions, so maybe I don't have time to do that. All right. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seen any other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 424. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Council President. I do believe this application meets the zoning criteria as well as fits well into the existing community context. So I'll be supporting this application this evening. All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Flynn. Hey, Madam President and Councilman Cashman. I concur. It appears to meet the criteria, although I'd quibble about conformity with districts, with area plans when it's not in the area plan itself. But I just want to express an ongoing concern with UPS zoning in single unit neighborhoods to two unit of zoning. When I looked at this particular neighborhood, I have seen where duplexes have gone up, prices have gone up. We are not preserving affordability by adding density in these neighborhoods. It's just not happening and it's very troubling. I think the assessed value on this particular parcels, about $450,000, the duplexes across the street are assessed at 600 and $700,000 . Some of the older homes built in the thirties, forties that are on these blocks in Rosedale are some are on Zillow for, you know, 400 or 500 middle 500. But the new duplexes that are taking their place and they're gentrifying the neighborhood are selling in a six and seven hundreds. And it's a troubling trend that is displacing displacing neighborhoods. I agree that it meets the criteria, but I think sooner or later we're have to come to grips with the displacing factor of this scrape and building expensive duplexes in their place. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and seen no other hands raised. I do believe that this does meet the rezoning criteria and I'm happy to support it tonight. And I guess the only other thing I would throw out, Councilmember Flynn, is that increase in price, though, also houses more people in our city, which we know is a necessity as well. And so much more conversation I believe we need to have, especially with host involved, to determine when we are up zoning, what that really means for the broader community. And so with that, Madame Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 424, please. Cashman. I. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Heinz. I. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Counsel build 20 1-0424 has passed. There being no further business before this body this evening. We appreciate everybody staying with us. This meeting is adjourned. Hey. It's so good to be back. You sit and you try to figure out what's going to succeed. No. Sees a. It is time. To seize this. Does. I didn't realize he had given me.

Amends the contract with United Airlines by decreasing its unused leased space in return for an additional 10 years to the lease term. The total United lease term will be a total of 40 years expiring on 2-28-35 (XC 2X000-07). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends the contract with United Airlines by decreasing its unused leased space in return for an additional 10 years to the lease term. The total United lease term will be a total of 40 years expiring on 2-28-35 (XC 2X000-07). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-19-14.

DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0686

As I understand it, the United Airlines lease is actually dependent on our restructuring the debt, even if we are taking action on it. First, when this proposal was before the Business Development Committee, I asked the position of other airlines since United Airlines gets far and away the most benefit from this package. Since that time, I've had occasion to talk with a representative from Southwest Airlines. Southwest was very complimentary about their working relationship with DIA and Kim Day. Despite any concerns at this point, they want to be team players and are not opposing this ordinance. That being said, there are reasons I have decided to oppose it regardless. I say this acknowledging United Airlines is crucial to the well-being of DIA and I value their presence. Valuing should not mean continual financial concessions. However, since I've been on council, we have made concessions to United numerous times. I'm going to say about five or six two years ago. We relieve them of obligations and in turn received guarantees. Those guarantees were enforceable by financial penalties if they did not deliver, and indeed they've been paying penalties. This contract wipes out those penalty agreements and as a practice it seems DIA negotiates, gets agreements and then subsequently renegotiate the deal and loses the benefits it formerly achieved. It's hard for me to to get too excited about anything that's being put forth as getting in this deal, because history shows it may be very short lived. Second, to be a level playing field among carriers is important. The portions to come later dealing with restructuring debt and modifying amateur resolution are what benefit all carriers proportionately. The total package, including this least change, is worth $45 million of airline benefit per year. For major airlines, United's scores, 35 million of the benefit. Southwest 4.5 million. And Frontier 2.5 million. A bit lopsided for a level playing field. Lastly, I discovered a troubling issue concerning timing. DIMIA gave the details of this agreement to other airlines. The Friday before council's Tuesday meeting. Needless to say, corporations need more time to evaluate such important changes if they're to have opinions or input. No matter what happens today. I urge DEA to involve their member airlines on such significant changes weeks or months earlier so they can actually have input before final decisions are made and certainly long before proposals are brought to council. That's only fair. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. President. I love to bring up Patrick just to answer answer some of these questions. Obviously, I think that this is a tremendous opportunity for that airport to extend the lease of United Airlines from 2025 to 2035. But but, Patrick, perhaps a couple of questions. One, you can talk briefly about the SCOOP and Chuck financial method by which we're doing this and other airlines will benefit. And specifically addressing Councilman FATSIS, concern of the disproportionality of the payments, because I believe that's because of the proportion in which they use the airport. But go ahead. Yes. Thank you, Councilman Brooks and members of council. My name is Patrick Heck. I'm the chief financial officer for the airport. In regards to the to the second part of your question regarding the proportionality benefits, when you look at how carriers operate at the airport, they're different sizes. United has about 40% of our market, for example. And so when you they also lease approximate, they pay about 50% of the airline revenue that comes to the airport. So when you do anything to change the financial structure of the airport, that positively affects the carriers. They're going to have a larger impact from that just because of the way it's structured. That's the proportionality that Councilwoman Ford's parts mentioned in United's case, though, however, United's been at the airport. They signed a lease in 1995 to help the new airport at that time get off the ground, get it financed and get it open and united. Signed a 30 year lease in order to do that. And as a result, they have legacy airline costs from 20 years ago that other carriers haven't had the burden of. And as you all know, the airline industry has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. This is a reflection of the airport being financially successful because of that long term lease United signed and us recognizing that in order to keep them here, we need to change to adapt to the changing airline model. And so that's that's what this leases is really about. The first part of your question regarding this group and Chuck, we have debt associated with the regional airport of about two and a half billion dollars. That is still outstanding. That debt is scheduled to be paid off in 2025. As a result, our payment on our debt goes down dramatically in 2025. This scoop, and Chuck, as we call it, is taking some of that debt now and chucking it out past 2025 to take advantage of that debt fall off so that we can deliver benefits to the carriers now. I think you all know money now to the carriers is much more important than money, say, ten or 15 years from now. So this allows us to leverage that debt structure and provide savings to the carriers now. And another question, Patrick, is I think it's important to set for the public and folks for counsel to understand the climate in which we're at with United Airlines downsizing in some of these other hub airports, for example, Cleveland and things like that. And so maybe Cincinnati. Yes. Set the tone there a little bit. Certainly, the airline industry has gone through a massive amount of consolidation in the past 4 to 5 years. Delta combined with Northwest, United and Continental, Southwest and AirTran, American and U.S. Airways. So we have fewer players and fewer players means that there just needs to be less of these hubs. And I could rattle off Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Memphis, Raleigh, Durham, you name it. The list goes on and on of cities that once formerly had large airline hubs that have lost them. And there cities that if you look at that list are not too dissimilar from us in a lot of ways, medium sized cities that don't necessarily have a large international traffic base where airlines make their money. And so when we look at that, it's incumbent upon us to make sure we as an airport and I want to stress this is airport funds and airport financial capabilities that are doing this. No taxpayer dollars involved here in order to keep United Airlines happy and investing in the Denver market. And that's what this deal is about. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Brown. What questions have been asked? Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brown. And the questions or comments from members of council. Scene on Madam Secretary. Oracle Fox. No carnage. Layman Lopez. Monteiro Nevett. I. Ortega. I. Rob. I. Sheppard. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 12 eyes. One name. Both eyes one day. 686 has been ordered published. Let's go ahead and tee up the next one, which I believe is 684, called out by Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Ortega, what would you like to do? I have a question. I'd like to know if we have someone from Parks and Recreation here that can answer my question. Hi. Patrick Wheeler with the city attorney's office. I'm here in place of Fred Weiss, who happens to be off in Italy right now. Patrick, I have a question and this is for its approving the use agreement for something called the German American Chamber of Commerce that is going to be held at Skyline Park. And my question has to do with a process that the city had set up called. I can't even remember what it stands for now. Special events and permitting. Special events and permit. And I want to know if this is one of the events that sort of came through that process, because I remember sitting through a couple of meetings and was told that we weren't going to be permitting new things or new events because that sort of overtax our various city resources, whether it was police

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.210.B, 2.01.340.B, 2.01.370, 2.01.390, 2.01.420, 2.01.810, 2.01.1010, 2.01.1030, 2.01.1210, and 2.02.010; by adding Section 2.01.395; and by repealing Sections 2.01.330, 2.01.350, 2.01.610, 2.01.620, and 2.01.730, all relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and Campaign Disclosure Statements, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0926

Is a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statements read and adopted. Kim has been in motion in second. Any public comment on the item? Please. Yes. If the AMCU AMCU board wondered where that stench was coming from, I think we know. At least I. You should never put it. This puts the council on a war footing. With the voters. If the voters pass this, then you should have the intellectual integrity. To go back to the voters and say, look. This is in your best interest. Revise it. If you if your candidacy is legitimate. And you're doing a good job. You shouldn't have a problem raising money. Capital of the people supporting this. Or one of them said, well, it makes it easier for us. With all due respect, it's not you know, you're not here to have an easy job. It's tough, no question. Or integrity, in my view. And I think in the view of many people, if you've got you know, if you've got a case, put it forward like Martin Luther nailed it to the door. Say, this is what we want to do. Don't try to sneak around at the last minute. At the end of the day or at the end of the first reading, this was what the distant from the majority of the council people. Citizens. The odor. You know, the odor is. But it's the stench will linger too long. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. As you know, the public comment members, please cast your vote. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Thank you. Next item.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach health orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02152022_22-0157

I. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. 23. Item 22. I'm sorry. Item 23 report from City Attorney. This required two votes. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to temporary enforcement of Long Beach health orders related to COVID 19. Declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately read and adopted as read citywide. Brownian Motion the second. Sorrow and sun. Thank you. And do we need two motions in 30 seconds, or can this count for both? Do we need to move on the second one to correct it? Was that a roll call vote on the first? Well. We'll go to common. No public comment. That's right. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial name. See. Now, that concludes public comment. Right. All right. Roll call vote on the first vote. Councilwoman Sandy has. I. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman So. But now. I. Councilwoman Mingo. I. Councilwoman Sarah. I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. Hi, Vice Mayor Richardson. I. The motion is carried nine zero. All right. So back then, that's our business for the evening. Do we need another vote? That's right. Another vote. Late 5 hours in. We need a motion in effect. Okay. Emotions and they are back in sorrow. Do we need to public comment again or just. No? All right. Roll call. Councilwoman Cindy has. All right. Councilwoman Allen, I. Councilwoman Price, I. Councilman Sabino. Hi. Councilwoman Mongo. County Councilwoman Sara. I Council member Oranga I Councilmen Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried nine zero. Fantastic. Now, that's the last vote of the evening. So we have to we have closing public comment. Any member of the public would like to address the body. Raise your hand or press their name.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the entitlements for the revised baseline programmatic requirements for the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center, incorporate the recommendations from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and to increase permanent, indoor spectator seating from 650 seats to 1,250 seats with an additional estimated cost of $4.7 million, for a total estimated project cost of $103.1 million. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0856

Item 20 is a report from Parks, Recreation, Marine and the city manager's office with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with revised requirements for the proposed Belmont Shore Beach and Aquatic Center for additional estimated cost for estimated cost of $1.3 million. Mr. WEST. Mr. Mayor and Council members, one of the most painful decisions I've made as city manager was closing the Belmont Pool in January 2013 due to seismic safety concerns. What followed was an amazing commitment from the Long Beach City Council. Within 30 days, they voted to unanimously fund and construct a new 50 meter temporary pool and begin the process for a new permanent pool complex. This began the long journey to get to the point we're at today. It's important to remember Belmont Pools ceased being a 50 meter pool sometime in the mid-eighties because of the bulkhead. Only ten months after the Belmont was closed, we once again have a 50 meter pool. The first 50 meter length in 30 years. I can't emphasize enough the incredible commitment from the Long Beach City Council. While initially led by former Councilman Gary DeLong, the pool has seen fantastic and exceptional leadership from current councilwoman Susie Price. Recognizing the commitment and leadership from the entire mayor and city council, both past and present, it is important to recognize the early input of many residents. Early on, leading the charge were people like Eric LaBounty, Richard Gilday and Rich Foster, who chaired the city's efforts in hosting the 2004 Olympic swimming trials. If you're here, please stand up for a second. Rich, I know you're here. We have incredible user groups who daily motivate, train and teach our youth in all things aquatic. Dr. Theresa Pascual, who for decades has been leading Long Beach swim team to create Long Beach champions. Hank Wise, former Olympic trials swimmer and as rocket fish program for early age youth and a master's program for those not so early aged and Long Beach Olympic water polo star Chai Cadel leading perhaps the most successful youth water polo program in the country. Shaw Aquatics. Chai Sara, I believe. And then Debbie McCormick from a famous Long Beach diving family with deep roots in Long Beach, teaching future divers in both springboard and platform. Now it's important to recognize our Belmont Poole Stakeholder Advisory Committee, who have taken their turn at the head of the lane line the past several months. First off, we've had representation from the USA groups. I don't believe they're here right now. But Frank Busch, the national team director for USA Swimming. Steve Foley, the high performance diver, direct diving director for USA Diving, Cathy Hatty Drum, a Long Beach Olympic swimming champion who competed in the 1976 Montreal Games. And Long Beach resident Ryan Bailey, graduate of Millikan High School right here in Long Beach. Ryan is a four time Olympic water polo star. He competed in the 2000 2000 for 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics. Raquel Bartolo, a Long Beach native and graduate of Wilson. Raquel is a competitive diver and a state champion who competed for the University of Hawaii. John Norris, a recreational swimmer all his life, jumping into the Belmont pool every morning at 530. Now retired, he hits the pool much later every morning at 7 a.m.. Lucy Johnson, a masters coach and former competitive swimmer who is active and enthusiastic about aquatics in Long Beach. John McMullen senior, a former Stanford champion swimmer in the early seventies who has raised quite an impressive aquatics family right here in Long Beach. Shawn Ody, a former Long Beach lifeguard who remains active in aquatics and the community. Kiah Headland Kiah has been active in aquatics throughout her entire life and was very active in the 2004 Olympic trials here in Long Beach. Susan Miller, a member of the Belmont Shore Residents Association that is dedicated to issues concerning residents of our unique Long Beach, California, seaside community. Susan de Rossi, executive director of the Belmont Shore Business Association, which works to promote, protect and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore community. Dick Miller isn't here, but he's a former Long Beach lifeguard chief and board member for the aquatics capital of America, which serves to communicate and promote Long Beach as an aquatic destination for businesses, education, sports on a local, national and international basis. And finally, George Chapman. He's our director of Parks Recreation Marine for the city of Long Beach. George represented the interests of the public recreational users. And he will be charged with scheduling, managing. And maintaining the pool. So at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Deputy City Manager Tom Modica to go through the rest of the report. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council want to give a kind of a brief overview of where this process has come from and where we are today before we get to the recommendation. Essentially, we have the opportunity to create a facility that really is unlike any other municipal aquatics facility on the West Coast . It needs to be a facility that is in harmony with the neighborhood. We want it to employ an iconic and sustainable design. We want it to meet the needs of our local residents from all districts in the entire area of Long Beach. We want it to support the Coastal Act and we want it to be able to support competitive events as necessary. And so, as the manager mentioned over the past several months, the city is engaged in a collaborative stakeholder process to review the project and make modifications to meet those goals. This is essentially where we are in the project development process. Down and Blue returned to the Council for approval of a baseline program. But essentially a lot of work has gone in over the past year and a half to really get us to the point that we are today with public input and public meetings. And we were back at the City Council on June 17th and the last time, and then we have a number of steps on the right and we'll talk about those a little later in the presentation. But we have a long way to go in terms of the environmental review and the design in more public meetings and and planning commission and city council. But today is a very important day in the project. So want to talk a little bit about the site. It is a very complex site. I think we all know kind of where it is. But when you look at it from this perspective, you can really see that it is right on the beach, that it is it has so it has coastal issues. There's seismic, an earthquake issues to deal with. It is surrounded by two parking lots. It is surrounded by a business area. It has businesses right across the street from it. And most importantly, it is right in the middle of a neighborhood with houses in residential, the predominant use all around it. And so one of the most important things we need to bear in mind is the role of the California Coastal Commission because of its site down right near the beach. It is in the original jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. And so while the Council is going to have a significant role in developing this project and approving a project, it ultimately has to be passed and approved by the Coastal Commission who have the final say. And so anything we do, we need to really bear in mind what the Coastal Commission is going to be looking for in a project. And so the Coastal Commission really provides their mission is to provide public beach access, maintain beach use and provide recreational amenities. It's very important to them that any project maintain beach views and contain and minimize the building footprint. They have given us a definition of what they're looking for. And essentially, it is a public facility where the entire facility is primarily for public recreational use that can accommodate that private use when public recreational demand is low. And so they've told us very clearly that the design of the building should not be primarily for private and exclusively use, and that they place a very high priority on free or low cost public service and public use rather than exclusive use, which could be anything from a competition to even having some of our great competitive programs out there that teach swimming, that in their mind is a competitive use or a private use as opposed to kind of an open recreational swim where kids come in or seniors come in just to use the pool. That really is where their focus is. So in June 17th, we came and we talked about the baseline programmatic requirement. And you essentially see the design here that we presented to you in in June, and this is what it looked like on the first floor. So it essentially had an integrated 50 meter pool on the left that was inside a building, had a teaching pool, had a 5000 square foot restaurant on the right. It had an outdoor 50 meter by 25 meter deep water pool, had a recreational pool down at the bottom, had a banquet facility. And this was at a project cost of approximately $99 million. And at the top it also or on the second floor, it had 1250 seats indoor and 1250 seats outdoor. And you see the banquet facility there. And so what occurred on June 17th is the council took that design, that initial concept, and asked us to go out and work with a stakeholder advisory committee to hold some workshops, very specific workshops representing the aquatics, but neighborhoods and residents and businesses and have everyone really come together and be represented and really dove into the details. And so that stakeholder committee was formed. The manager mentioned the names 14 members confirmed to have no financial incentive in the project and really there to represent all of those stakeholders who who are really interested in this facility. And their goal was to make recommendations to Long Beach on creating that high quality aquatics facility within our end identified resources and constraints. And they held three working sessions through July and August to get to where we are today. This is just for the file. We have the names and all the groups that they represented. Again, they were designed to represent everything from the different disciplines in aquatics to businesses to residents. And there were a number of stakeholders who represented everybody, so that everyone had a chance to to have a voice. So I wanted to do a side by side comparison just to give a sense of what's changed. On the left, you see the June 17th design, and on the right you see the stakeholder design. And so, for example, one of the big issues was a separated diving. Well, that was not in the first facility. It is now included in the second facility. You'll see here the moveable floor is in the first it was in contemplated it in the June design but was really incorporated as a compromise in the stakeholder design to ensure both competitive deep water and the ability for recreational use. The restaurant was about 5000 square feet. It is now 1500 square feet. The training pool was over here on the left side and now it's over here down near the water. So it's not impeding the deck space. In the indoor facility, there was a banquet room that was there and also there were some comments about the shape of the outdoor recreation pool. It now has a new shape and there is a new banquet facility there as well. The banquet facility is gone excuse me. At the banquet facility has now been deleted under the stakeholder design. The original design had 1250 indoor seats and 250 outdoor seats. And the committee really felt strongly that it should have 150 seats, but essentially ran out of money. We asked them to come in with a $99 million and and they did that. And this was their design. But it came to about 650 indoor seats with the request that if more funds were available to look at the additional seating, we also, beyond the stakeholder committee, once they were done with their work, brought it out to the public and had about 150 to 200 people show up at a public meeting to talk specifically about this. We did speak up Long Beach and received comments via email and on the website and did a public engagement tool. We have a matrix of all those comments included in your packet. Essentially the common concepts we heard were, you know, the need to increase seating. There was discussion about the merits of a 25 meter versus 25 yard width of those 250 meter pools. Some concerns about loss of open space, mitigating the impacts to the residents, ensuring access for public recreation, support for building a world class facility that has a design that we can be proud of and concerns about the overall cost of the facility as well. One of the things the council asked for was an economic impact study. And so through the Convention and Visitors Bureau, we have contracted with Joe McAdoo, you know, to do a study of the economic impacts, essentially, of a 650 seat facility and the 1250 pool. Essentially, what he found is that 650 seats, you can host some competitions, mostly regional and local, and it'll generate up to $3.7 million in annual impact. However, if you invest in a larger facility with the seats, you can get up to $30 million in annual potential impact. These are things like hotel stays, food, lodging, and also includes some direct tax revenue, such as TOT and sales tax. And so what he really found is that the financial impact increases as the ceiling increases. And additionally, every fourth year, there are some there's some additional competitions that can potentially be held that would bring you 13 to $19 million. And so what we found is the impact on seatings really does the seats available is impacts the number and types of events the facility can attract. But 650 is for local and regional events, and 1250 can accommodate the larger competitions and is the recommended minimum number. There was some discussion about 25 yards versus meters and the pool width, and the stakeholder committee recommendation was for those 250 meter pools and then kind of the best of both worlds. One was in yards, one was meters. And that is the recommendation in front of you today to make both pools 25 meter wide. There is a cost to that. It costs an additional 1.9 million to grow the building. And one thing we did is we looked at all the pools that are out there and about 31 pools that we looked at or are under construction or built in the last five years. Only two are those 25 meter wide. And so before we look at the final design and have our architect go through it, the recommendation from city staff is essentially to approve the recommendations of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. This is supported by Parks and Rec staff who are going to be the ones to actually run this facility when it's completed. And we recommend modifying the location of the indoor therapy teaching pool, modifying the conceptual shape of that outdoor recreation pool, and include 1250 permanent indoor seats. And we'll cover a little bit later where the funding for that will come from. And so I'd like to turn it over to Brant Miller, our architect, to talk and walk you through what the baseline programmatic requirements are. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and fellow council members. Let me walk you through what's been a phenomenal process with the city and the advisory committee. And this really represents a lot of work from everybody, a lot of expertize, which I'd like to commend the advisory committee on all their input over the last several months. And the expertize that they've brought to the process has made this project much better than it was when we first started out. So we appreciate everyone's input. Starting off with the site planning, you know, over the past year we really did set guidelines and priorities of how we were going to site the building. Those priorities have still stayed very similar to what we have been showing throughout the process. And once again, they are driven by certain components, the California Coastal Commission and then obviously input from our advisory committee and public outreach throughout the process. An important part of the connections through the through the project was the boardwalk access that we felt from an urban standpoint, this connection across the board access tie in to the front of the facility. So we wanted to maintain that connection. Another important aspect and what coastal is really driving is that we minimized the footprint of the facility on the site. And so we've done our best to to minimize that, that footprint. Obviously, the views are incredibly important to California Coastal. They have a designated view corridor which runs down Termino. And so you can see how our building is pushed over to the east and doesn't impede the view corridor. The other concern that Coastal has is just general views to the beach and to the ocean itself, and that is from the public side of the project. And so by turning the building north south versus east west, we really have provided an increase in the views from the city side of the project to the beach and so forth. Another important piece of the siting were the views from the interior of the facility and the users of the facility. By providing the pools and this orientation North-South, you can see that the users of both pools can now enjoy views out to the ocean and to the beach itself. Another important critical component that we heard early on was that from the outdoor pool, the sense of when you get out, you have very strong wind in Long Beach , that gust quite often. And to protect those. Swimmers and divers out in that facility and users of the outdoor pool to protect them from the wind. So the prevailing winds, you can see it coming really mostly from the west across the site, the way that we've located the outdoor pool on the east side. The structured indoor pool on the west side really does create a natural wind barrier, really allowing to take the best advantage of the site from a viewpoint and from wind throughout the throughout the field facility itself. Next. As we start to look at a little bit more detail of the plan itself, we have the main entry, which is right off that area that was aligning with the Boardwalk Access. You would enter into a main lobby. This piece here that I'm outlining is the building component. So everything here is an indoor part of the facility. And so as you would come into the main lobby, you then come down a dry corridor. We have support facilities, multipurpose rooms and offices off to the side. But really leading you down to a series of locker rooms from these locker rooms, users would then exit to either use the indoor pool or the outdoor pool or down through to the teaching pool or to the outdoor rec pool. The other piece of this is the exterior 50 meter pool, as Mr. Modica noted earlier. We have the 50 meter by 25 meter on the outside and the 50 meter by 25 yard pool on the inside. Here's a separate dove. Well, that we indicated was a result of the advisory committees suggestions, the diving platforms located at the North End. We have a small whirlpool that really is for general public use. But we do find is that divers within their programs, when they dove into the water and they get out, there is a cooldown period. So we want to make sure that their bodies stay warm. So there's a warm pool for divers at this end and for the general public. The teaching pool was relocated, as Mr. Modica noted, from what was really to the side of the pool down to the end. And that came from a variety of input so that the teaching pool could actually be in a separate room itself. It might be open during different hours, but it really needed to be in a separate area from the main auditorium itself. As you can see, the small restaurant, the 1500 square foot component on the left hand side, also within the teaching pool area is a little bit larger. Whirlpool, probably an 8 to 12 person whirlpool. And then outside the outdoor rec facility, which would really be a lot of family enjoyment, would have a mixture of short or shallow water to mid depth water within that within that facility next. So as we go up to the second floor, the lobby at the front below, you can either take stairs up or take the elevator up to a raised area that would then enter at the back of the seating. The 1250 seat that would allow a viewing of competition or just general viewing of public into the an auditorium itself. This is open all the way through to the beach side itself. We would hope to be able to open this wall up with windows and so forth so you could maintain views to the outdoor pool, to the east. And everything that you see in this half tone is actually down at the bottom lower level. It's really just this area here that would be accessed at that second level itself, and that is the basic general arrangements that have been put together at this point. And I think once again, it's been a phenomenal effort by the advisory committee and public input process to actually get to this point. Mr. McCann. So what we just want to show here is essentially this facility can meet any real aquatics need that is that is needed. And so the outdoor and the indoor pool have tremendous flexibility through the use of bulkheads. It can accommodate virtually every use and it will be a facility that that really is unique among facilities built by cities and on the West Coast as well. And so we believe that the facility proposed tonight enhances those view corridors, enhances beach access, has the maximum flexibility of water space for all of our recreational uses. Users can accommodate virtually all competitive events at that 1250 indoor seats. And it has the right size restaurant and beach snack bar, which is now at 1500 square feet and has an outdoor seating but has a fully commercial kitchen so that it can be a quality restaurant, even though it's a little bit smaller and just has outdoor seating now. One thing we want to point out is the open space comparison. The original. Today's building has a green space out in front and it has a lot of inefficient space for open space and it has about 113,000 total open space, although we're building a larger facility there. The team has been able to identify 120,000 of open space for the new facility. So you actually grow your open space. The existing vegetated area is about 60,000 square feet of that 113. And as we go further in the design process, we'll be working through the entitlement process to determine how much of that open space will be vegetated, will be green space and balance that with with plaza and and other types of open space. So to talk about the funding, the pool essentially is we've set aside approximately $60 million in cash. This just shows you kind of the five year work plan. And you'll see in FY15 that there's $39 million projected for the Belmont pool that gets us to the $99 million. And then we'll talk a little bit about the enhancement that's being proposed. I just want to point out that pools essentially do not pay for themselves. There will be a public necessity to to pay the difference between the operating cost and the revenues. Our old pool essentially brought in about 300,000 in revenue and costs 1.2 million an expense. The new pool is expected to bring in about $1,000,000 in revenue, even with some of those leases and and facility or events, fees and costs approximately 3.2 million. And so it will be more operating costs to operate and maintain. We will be including those costs in our long term projections for tidelands operating and make modifications as necessary to afford that. I do want to point out that the $99 million and the entire five year capital plan is really based on the price of oil. So the oil is assumed at $100 a barrel for those five years. Unfortunately, as of today, oil is actually at $77 a barrel and that's a 23% decrease. And it's seen a pretty rapid decrease over the last several months. And that $39 million we're hoping for 15 is really based on a $100 a barrel assumption. And so city staff will be developing a strategy to address the potential revenue shortfall. We plan to come back in December with some projections, updated projections and some options about what would have happened to this project, what would happen to other projects, what are some of the impacts? And it will likely be necessary to delay projects or reassess previously funded projects if oil continues this trend. So we do have to find $4.7 million to increase the seats up to 1250. What city staff are recommending is first to reduce the restaurant to 1500 square feet, which saves approximately $600,000 in project cost. Then we need to identify 4.1 million in cash in additional funding, and we're suggesting that 1.55 million come from unallocated projects. And that way 16 that 1.2 million are basically reallocating some extra project funds from other projects that are no longer needed. And then 1.3 million, three 5 million is essentially delayed or downsized projects. In the staff report, we have about 366,000 and projects yet to be identified, but I'm happy to share that this week we believe we've identified about $600,000 in money from a county bond that is specifically earmarked for Belmont Pool rehabilitation. And we believe working with our supervisor, we can ask for that to be dedicated towards new construction. So that will require some approval. But we believe that that'll be part of the funding mix and help not impact some of those delayed or downsized projects. So the next steps, if the council moves forward tonight, that gives us direction to move forward with the Environmental Impact Report, the design, the actual design of the facility and release it for public comment. And then we expect that to happen over the next six months. Will then be conducting community meetings and planning commission and Parks and Rec and a number of other meetings on the project and. Through a planning commission review, council review and approval, Coastal Commission review approval and essentially being ready to construct at the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016. And so just in summary, we think through that collaborative process that the Council asks us to do through the Stakeholder Advisory Committee with with Councilmember Price and with our committee and with our stakeholders and with all of the public that have really been involved in this. We think we've got a facility that really will be unique among aquatics facilities, something that we can be very, very proud of provide. It's going to provide sufficient water space to meet nearly every aquatic need you can possibly imagine. It will enhance recreation in Long Beach. It'll support use of the city's coastal area. It will be that facility that provides some economic development benefit. Approximately 10% of our hotel room nights is what we expect for an increase at maximum capacity, and it will continue the very proud tradition of aquatics excellence in Long Beach. And with that, we're available to answer some questions. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I do have some questions, but before I ask my questions, I'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation. Again. Thank you. The motion in a second. Mr. Modica, I have a couple of questions that I want to ask you, so if you'll be patient with me. I did read all of the comments from the residents that's attached to this. And as you know, I've been very involved in this project since April. So as a result of that, I want to have some answers to some questions where I believe there's some serious misinformation that I think we should clear up tonight. So in regards to the funding, the $99 million is the amount of money that we had budgeted for this project, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And in order for us to accommodate the additional seats, that would have been the preference of the stakeholder committee. We need additional money. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. In regards to the attachment that you've included with the staff report attachment F, it appears that there are several projects that are identified as either being downsized and or delayed . Is that right? Yes. There are certain projects that are that are identified that could be either downsized or delayed. Okay. And I want to talk about those projects, because all of these projects here they are third district projects. Am I reading this correctly? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So I want to go through them because we've gotten a lot of emails just today from people talking about major projects in the third district being delayed or deferred in order to make this pool a reality. And I just want to talk about that a little bit. So in regards to the Colorado Lagoon restroom, that's one of the projects that's going to be downsized. Is that correct? Yes, that's a facility that was originally planned for for teardown and and reconstruction. And we believe that while still putting aside some money, we can renovate the restroom. Have we done successfully with some others and still provide an upgrade, but at a reduced cost? Now, this is a particular restroom that we had discussed renovating as opposed to replacing long before talking about funding for the Belmont Pool, because this particular restroom is at the Colorado Lagoon and has some architectural features that are unique to that, the time period where the restroom was built. And so we had talked about that before. And is this 350,000 the amount that it would take to renovate that bathroom? Yes. And you're right that this had been talked about for a long time about what's the best way to address the need there? Is it to replace it completely and you lose that historic character or do you renovated? And so, you know, this would be a recommendation to renovate it instead. And renovating it would cost 350,000, replacing it would cost 600,000. The I believe it's 250,000. Yeah. That there's $250,000 to, to renovate it and you get a savings of $350,000. Great, great. That's right. And then the Belmont Pier restroom. Could you tell us what the city has done in regards to the restroom situation over at the Belmont Pier? So that's a project that we completed. It's actually up and functioning and it's working very well. When we had originally planned this budget or this item, it was to construct a brand new restaurant. I'm sorry, restroom out there on the Belmont Pier. The Belmont Pier is in pretty bad shape and is going to eventually need to be either fully renovated or torn down and replaced. And so what we did there instead was we actually put a trailer out there, a very nice trailer for the restroom, instead of building a brand new facility. So this is $400,000 that is already available. It's it's not impacting any project. And that restroom is there. It's just it's a savings from the different type of construction. And similarly, I see Marina Vista Park Restroom as the other project that is going to be delayed. The one other project that's going to be delayed. Can you tell us a little bit about that project? Yes, this is a restroom that really is only not available to the public on a normal basis. It's really just open for special events. It's actually directly across from another restroom that, you know, so it is directly across there. And so this is one that we think can be delayed without really any impact on the public. And I have to tell you that I've been out there prior to today's meeting to check out that situation, and I agree with you on that. And in regards to this, then, in order for us to be able to accommodate the additional seats, there will be no new projects funded in FY 15 out of Tidelands for the third District, is that correct? I believe actually it was no new projects in FY 1605 16. That's right. I wanted to ask you a few questions about. Noise mitigation. As you mentioned, this is a project that's in a residential neighborhood. And I would like to know what efforts or what proposed plans we have to mitigate the noise that would come from the facility, specifically the outdoor pool. So as we go through this design process, you know, that will definitely be one of the things that we will be looking at. There are construction methods that can be employed to do things like sound walls that can do light, you know, ways to read to, you know, to have light shine in a in a way that's not going to impact the residents. There are systems we can explore. There's some experimental ideas out there right now about underwater whistle systems, not yet in development, but maybe by the time we're constructed here that we can be looking at. And so there are a number of things that can be done for that outdoor pool to mitigate against sound. And I'd actually like, you know, those are really the the those are the construction items. But there are also programmatic things that can be done. And I'd like George Champion to talk a little bit about what we've already done and what can also be done in a in a new facility. Good evening, Councilwoman. Mayor and council. We have. Limited the use of the facility. For water polo. After seven. There's no. Water polo. We've issued whistles to all of the user groups that. Are about 90 decibels versus the 115 decibel whistles. And it makes a dramatic difference. In what the neighbors here. We've also been working with the groups to make. Sure they keep their noise level down when they're leaving, when they when they've stopped. Using the pool, because people have a tendency to kind of loiter and talk loudly. So we've done that as well. And we've also turned the overhead lights off during the summertime to mitigate the the light impact to the neighborhood. So we've turned those down as well. So but we may have to turn those up during Daylight Savings Time, but those are. Those lights were designed for low. Impact, as low as as illumination as you can possibly get by the designers of the temporary pool. And I understand it's probably premature at this time to talk about programing for the new pool, but will the staff make it a priority to think about programing in a sense that is most conducive to residents? Absolutely. We will now have an indoor pool, so we will try to mitigate as much of that inside the pool and Indian indoor pool as much as possible. Is there anything at all, based on the research that you've done, both of you and any member of our design team that would preclude our water polo players, our water polo teams from practicing indoors in the evenings? I don't think so. No. That's something that we've really looked at as we looked at the 25 meter versus 25 yards. And, you know, both of those can be set up for a practice court course for water polo, for games. You require 30 meters. And so 30 meters you always are going to do in the lengthwise of the pool. But there's a lot of flexibility as we showed on that slide before that you can use anything from the diving well to the to half the pool to a quarter of the pool. There's a lot of different flexibility that you have to be and that George would be able to program whether you do it inside in the in the facility or outside in the facility. Now, while we have any stadium seating outdoors that would disrupt the residents. The the plan is proposed does not include any permanent outdoor seats. In regards to the open space around the pool. We currently have some large open space around the existing Belmont pool. Will we have the same amount of open space or more? Once the new pool is built. We'll actually have more open space than we do today. So it's approximately 113,000 square feet worth of open space in the current model and the new in there in the in the current project, in, in the new project that is being proposed will have, I believe, 120,000 square feet worth of open space. And can that open space be used? Part of that open space be used as greenspace so that people can walk their dogs and take walks and enjoy the outdoors? Certainly, and exactly how much and where it will be and what it'll look like, that'll be through that design process and through the environmental process where we're getting feedback about what are the features that people want out in those spaces and how to make it really an active, you know, plaza that people can benefit from and use . As we realize, there's not a lot of green space in Belmont Shore in that area, and that's going to be an important public space. In regards to the diving. Well, I, I know first of all, I want to thank the stakeholder committee who's here. They worked incredibly hard on this. And the recommendations that are presented tonight are as a result of them working together, really as a community, to do what's right for the city as a whole. So I want to thank them for their service. But going back to the dove, well, well, the pool at the dove will be able to be used for other programing functions. Or is it exclusive to competitive diving? Absolutely. It will be used for other function. In fact, in order to pass muster with the Coastal Commission, it will have to we will need to be able to show that they and the Coastal Commission is, as we mentioned, very cognizant of the fact that every pool needs to be available to the public. And so we will have to show an. I believe we will show that we can use that facility to do that, to do many different things. It can do swim, it can do water polo, it can do dove classes. We can have our junior lifeguards jump off the tower and do and do trainings there. We can have police and fire using that facility through their training. It can be diving, it can be a competitive diving, it can be public diving as well. So there's a number of different uses for that pool and it'll have to be kind of a shared space. Now, in terms of the project we've heard and again, I think this is probably something that's going to be addressed more in the air process. But we've heard a number of concerns about the number of mature trees that will have to be removed in order for us to build this new facility. Have you considered that? And what is the city's plan to replace those trees and make sure that no nests are destroyed? Yes. So that would definitely be something we look at very closely in the air. You know, we already have an arborist on staff that is out there through the demolition process and we're doing an assessment of all of those trees. It will be yet to be determined about whether or not we can move some of those trees and replant them. Whether or not they need to be replaced, where they would be replaced, but where the new project would definitely have trees in it. It hasn't yet been determined whether they'll be reported or remove or replace those trees or whether they're actually going to be transplanted. And finally, you talked a little bit about the $39 million being premised upon a $100 per barrel per barrel oil price. Was that a correct conclusion? Yes, that's correct. And if, in fact, there continues to be fluctuation in the oil market and we are asked to go back and look at our five year plan for Tidelands funding. I want to make sure that that staff, as is clear, that in my opinion, this is a city wide asset. In fact, last week we approved a an agenda item which will allow children throughout the city to be able to swim at this pool for a dollar. So given that this is a citywide asset, I want to make it very, very clear that the two major safety projects that are in the third district, Naples seawalls and the marina rebuild will not be delayed as a result of any future plan with the pool. And I just want to make sure that that's clear and that staff understands. And if you have any concerns about that, perhaps you can share those with us now, because if those projects were going to be delayed, that would obviously impact my support for the pool. So that direction is actually very helpful as we come back in December. We're going to need to have some ideas from the council about what are the highest priority projects and which ones are going to be more important to fund first and which come other come later. And so we'll be looking comprehensively at projects that are currently already funded, looking at projects that haven't yet been funded and and bringing you some scenarios. And so that direction will help us as we, as we craft that plan. And then the Council will have the chance to make those decisions about, you know, which ones go where. At the end of the day. And so, you know, that direction actually is very helpful for us. And well, when will we expect to see staff come forward with some planning in regards to fluctuation in oil prices? So we expect by the end of the year that we'll have a better handle on whether this is a temporary drop in oil or if it's going to be prolonged. You know, some of the analysts are expecting it to be six months. It might. You know, oil is very mercurial. It goes up and down. And so we're not quite sure exactly how long it will last, but by December, we believe we'll be in a better position to give some estimates and then determine what that possible impact may be. I want to, just for a moment, acknowledge Councilmember Austin. I had a chance to talk with him briefly about this project. And, you know, I want to say that I think he and many of my colleagues understand the the citywide resource that this pool will be. And he has expressed to me early on his support of helping financially do whatever we can to make the citywide asset a reality. And and I know many of my colleagues share that. So I want to thank staff for preparing this report. And and I want to thank council former council council member DeLong for really starting this project and allowing me to be involved as early as April in this. I think this is going to be a great project and I envision that there are a few kids here today, tonight, but all those kids that will be going to college on swim scholarships will be able to proudly tell their college, college dorm mates and swim swim team, you know, swim team colleagues that they grew up in the LBC and swam in this amazing pool. And it will be a source of pride for them and not a source of embarrassment. So I'm very proud of that. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Thank you. And I you know, I, I mostly appreciated your comment that this is a citywide project. This is an asset that every district will use, and it's an important asset. You know, people might think this is political. This isn't political. This is absolutely good policy to rebuild this pool. But it's also personal. It's personal for me. It's personal for a lot of you. My own kids learn to swim in that pool. And I know many of your kids now swim that pool. Some you swim in that pool. I see the newly minted commissioners who want to try out there who's there probably every day of the week with his own kids, his own five kids out there, you know, involved in water polo and a lot more. And again, this. Proposal. Is largely consistent with the vision that was laid out in January. So I thank the committee for their input. And the way I look at this project, this project will benefit kids in our community. This is a long term investment. And this is important because I hear a lot of people leaving this community to go to other communities where they have amenities such as this. This is economic and it's about building families and about building community. So this is significantly important, more important than City Hall, quite frankly, because a lot more people are going to use this pool on a daily basis than that. And what I mean is residents coming to visit. I want to thank Susie Price for jumping into this. You know, Gary did a good job and you picked up on it. There's also a couple others I want to thank, shy crowd also out there. So I give everybody a wave. He's very passionate about the pool. He's very passionate about swimming. He's passionate about the kids that he teaches. He makes Long Beach a better place because of what he does, his commitment to our kids. My own kids have swam underneath him before and without him tonight, quite frankly, without him in the past, being active on this issue, engaging early on tonight, we would be talking about one pool because that was the original concept. And so he and I talked and we leaned on some folks. And I'll tell you what you want to know. A gentleman that can bring out a lot of people talk to him and he does a good job because he's passionate about what he does, and that translates into the kids. And so without your help on this, you know, we would again be talking about just one pool tonight. So you've done a wonderful job in advocating for our kids and ultimately our city. So thank you. Some others, Rich Foster. You know, I sat down with him and we heard his comments many a time. He's a quiet guy, but he has played a big part in getting us to where we are today. And I should also mention, Sheri Bath. I went in to get my teeth cleaned how many years ago? And I walked out and she had my cell phone number. She never let me alone since. And that's Sheri Barth. We love her because she loves, you know, really what her family does. Right. And this is just a much, much about what she what's important to her as it is to all of us. So thank you, Sheri, for staying on me. And she's very passionate, too. And we went and met with some folks at Long Beach State when Long Beach State was playing games with water polo. And, you know, she's done a lot of groundwork on this, so I appreciate that. With regard to the plan, the layout of the pool, I've heard some comments about moving the pool. So the inside pool would be where the outside pool is. Is that possible? Can someone respond to that? Do you need me to detail that question any further? No, no, sir. I think I understand the question. So our architect, Brant, covered that a little bit, but that's the concept of how best to situate this poor to, you know, to do what it needs to do and to satisfy the majority of users. And so our team really spent a lot of time looking at all different aspects and rotating it 90 degrees here and there. They took wind readings, they took sun readings. They looked at the shading, they looked at noise and looked at what coastal was really looking for as well, which is, you know, the view quarters are incredibly important to them and they've been very, very clear that a building that, you know, that blocks views is not going to pass coastal muster muster. And so at the end of the day, you know, the recommendation is to have it instead of being an east west orientation, to have it be a North-South orientation, as is the plan . So we have we realize that's an idea to turn it so that you mitigate some of the noise. We believe that there are other ways to mitigate that noise and to work with the residents so that they're not hearing the noise and still being able to use the pools. And just, you know, say, I hear with regard to the lights, have you put shields on the lights? So they are shining more in a downward direction and aren't, you know, creating light, light, if you will, that bleeds into the neighborhood, councilman. I believe they were designed that way so they really don't shine into the neighborhood. That was part of the mitigation measure for the temporary pool. And with regard to the temporary pool, is there any way to make that permanent as part of this project? So we get that question a lot, too, is can we keep that pool and actually have three pools? And what I think we would all enjoy more water space. The Coastal Commission was very clear when they gave us the permit for that pool that they want their space back, they want the parking lot back and they're sitting on about 129 parking spaces. So unfortunately, we will have to give up that temporary pool and have and have the two poles that are seen here today. Mm hmm. Yeah. The only, you know, I guess you could always go back to the Coastal Commission, but that's something we can discuss at a later point. And that parking lot could stand to be activated, quite frankly. As you know, I used to work in Marine patrol and I was in there a lot of a lot of days. And what we could do to activate that parking lot a little further might might be good. But anyways, that's something down the road. And with regard to to third district funds, walk me through that. There was some some conversation behind the rail here and in the last couple of days with management about, you know, any any dollars over $99 million only coming out of a third district projects. You know, this isn't a district project. This is a citywide project. So can you walk me through what the solution proposed solution is there? I have a real problem with saying, hey, third district residents, whatever you have on schedule, be at seawalls or otherwise, you know, they might have to be held off. Is that true? What's going on there? So we absolutely agree that this is a citywide project and it does have citywide benefits. Historical practice, however, in the Tidelands has been to to the extent possible, the council has given us direction to invest equally in that area. So yeah. I have never heard that. If there's a look at the pier we're talking about rebuilding that the seawalls are very expensive. They're a third district project. But you know, the. Well, I am a little concerned about that. I really don't think that's the direction year to year. You're going to have an expensive project in one district and maybe the next year will have an expensive project, another district. But I don't think on an annual basis we should be splitting the dollars evenly. The infrastructure isn't the same. And that's certainly the direction that we can take from the fall city council past practice has been, you know, you do have those large projects. For example, when this one was funded, it didn't come just out of District three, it came out of the tidelands pot. However, on a go forward basis, the past practice has been that wherever possible to equally invest in both. And so as we look for that $4.7 million, we first looked within District three and we're, as the councilmember mentioned, we were able to find those funds with very minimal impacts to existing projects. I think if there had been larger impacts then yeah, I think that would have been something we would have had a different recommendation on. Okay. Well, as we go. Forward and look for for more funding because this is going to exceed the $99 million mark, I just hope that we'll think more broadly and recognize that this is a citywide project for an entire city. And I would say the same for a project in any district. No district is an island. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So I just want to start by saying I've watched this discussion for a number of years. City Manager West Tom Modica great job on bringing us all the way to this point. I was wondering how many people would be lined up and ready, but I see a lot of smiles here, so that means somebody has done something right. Secondly, the the Pool Stakeholder Advisory Committee, I know that a lot of time goes into this. This is what civic engagement looks like. So congratulations on the work that you've done. And then I just want to go back and just talk a little bit about purpose. I've watched this from the beginning, and every council district participates in this discussion. And I want to make sure that and I want to I'm going to, you know, ask a question of the city manager. But I want to make sure that I'm clear on what my purpose is and what this council's purposes for doing this. And one of the major outcomes elements is to provide a world class resource, particularly for our youth. There are a number of stakeholders here, but when we have this asset of a Tidelands Fund and we should think about how we can really use this unique asset to bring something special to Long Beach families among these youth. So, so that said, Mr. or Mrs. City Manager, I know we've talked, we've spoken. And we talked about the last time this agenda item came up. But just walk me through the next level of discussion where we go into detail on how we make sure that the whole city connects to this and understands the value of this pool. Mayor Councilmembers Yes, this definitely will be a pool serving all 52 square miles, all 480,000 of our residents. It's certainly enough water to do that. There's deep water for competitive uses or shallow water to learn to swim and for recreational swimmers. One of the most important things happened was just last week when the City Council directed us to reduce the cost of the pool. Time for youth under the age of 17 at the Belmont is $3 per use, and now it's going to be $1 at Silverado and an MLK. It's two, it's $2 now. It'll go to $1 as well. The council also directed us to work with Long Beach Transit to develop a pool bus, so to speak. So we'll create a pool bus system working with Ken McDonald, Miami Transit, so that we will work with the council offices. I mean, but I don't want to presume where the stops would be and things like that. But once we had a commitment on what we can do, the funding sources that we can have to get a bus to or busses after school during the winter hours or all day long during the summer hours to get youth from all areas of our 52 square mile city to this wonderful resource. Those are things that the Council directed us to do last week, and we'll be doing those. And I just wanted to say that, you know, the more we can emphasize that lanes, when we speak about this in the public, I think the better off we are in reminding our residents that, you know, the next Michael Phelps or whoever world class driver is, they can live, they can go to Jordan High School, they can go to Poly High School. They're here and they're going to have access to that because we're taking these steps today. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank staff and the community for the process that we went through to get here and the amazing product that you have delivered to this council. I know you've all sacrificed your time. Many of you are not public servants in the definition that we are and probably did not sign up for that level of engagement to get something done here, but it is well worth it and I'm very thankful and I think everyone's done a great job. Councilmember Price has been working on this for some time, even before she was sworn in, and I'm very thankful for her leadership on this as well as Councilmember De Long's leadership on the funding. I'm very glad that we have come within the budget that the Council has has instructed and and indicated that we should add any overages . I'm glad that staff and the council office was able to make up that gap. I do want to share, while it's very important for us to get this city wide asset built, their sacrifices made throughout the Tidelands area. And I've been on this council for eight years and I think many of us remember significant city wide projects that have been stalled for very important projects such as the seawall and other priorities. And so I wouldn't want any of the new council members here to be left with the belief that the downtown or the downtown area or the second district area of the Tidelands has not sacrificed. The Convention and Visitors Bureau brings in about $300 million in economic development. That is a city wide asset. We have forestalled many projects several years in order to have the seawalls built, in order to have things built in the third district, which is very important to us . And so we have made sacrifices throughout and and those have been investments so we can make this pool happen. And I want to be very clear about that. I'm hearing some buzzwords about some folks chipping in and some folks not. I have numbers here exactly with the history of Tidelands funding, and that is the benefit of having served on the Budget Oversight Committee for eight years. Yeah, we we have a track record of contributing to make sure these projects do get built and, and the visitors, the CVB projects are not ones that we can afford to put off any longer. And so I'm thankful that Staff and Councilmember Price have come up with a way to to make up that gap without asking these other projects to be put off any longer. The public restroom facilities and all of they're all very important. But what's most important is that collaboratively this got done. And if the oil price does continue to go down, I want to remind all of us that while we may have the intent of wanting to chip in, it does affect our one time funding. We would have nothing to chip in with, and so that's important to remember to it. Those one time dollars that that each of our council districts is able to look at right now would also go away or at least be greatly reduced. And so we are all willing to chip in. And if anyone is interested, I'm happy to share with you all of the projects that have been forestalled so that we can make this pool come to fruition from the second District. And I do count that as our investment in our commitment to this. And so I'm very proud of that and I'm very glad that we're moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. I want to start off with a couple of thank you's. I want to thank each and every person who served on the committee. Each and every person who diligently emailed our office week in and week out with examples of things that will help us make better decisions here for you today. We appreciate those comments. We know that each of you want to make public comment as well. But I think that for me at least, I have a lot more time to think through the comments that you e-mailed in advance. So I just really want to thank people who took the time to sit down and thoughtfully outline their ideas in a comprehensive way so that I was able to, in advance of this meeting, have those dialogs and discussions with our city management to make sure that all of your concerns were addressed. Additionally, I do want to comment on the idea of this is a citywide project. This is something that we will all be very, very proud of. This will be a world class facility. We will be known around the world. Quite frankly, we are known around the world already for so many great things. It's just one more fantastic thing to add to the list. As one of the most experienced budget professionals in the room, I would like to say that in terms of discussing contributions of different types of funding, it's often important to remember the practice that most restrictive funding should be allocated first. When you have funding that is available for anything, you want to use that lasts. So an example of that is within infrastructure dollars. In the city, we have certain funds, whether they're measure funds or measure C funds, that can only be used on certain types of infrastructure. And if you look at the policies on a global level and the cities and counties and states that have done the best over time, they look at their most restrictive funds first and they allocate those to the needs of the city that fit in those categories so that they have more flexibility and balance both for good times and bad. And so I appreciate the methodology used by the city. I think it is that of the best practices of the country and has proven as well in good times and bad. And so I want to thank everyone for that and I am excited to support such a great world class facility here in Long Beach. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Speaking of funding, there were in the comments that we received, there were some issues that I think we need to clarify right now in regards to those who may be watching at home, are reporting about this tomorrow. Are we using general fund taxpayer dollars to build this pool? No, we are not. The source of funding for this project is 100% what are called tidelands funds. And those are funds that actually belong to the entire state of California that we hold in trust. And so those are funds that are generated in the beach area, and it's primarily from oil revenue that is actually it's entirely oil revenue that is generating those funds. So there are no taxpayer dollars in this in this pool. No, no tax. Tax. Like property tax. Sales tax. So some of the comments that we received that I'm sure you've seen as why not use this money to hire more police officers, for example? We can't use this money for other services, correct? No, we can't use this money for any services outside of the title in the area. Now, when I started learning about the pool, the first question I had was, how in the world is it going to require $99 million to build a pool? I mean, that to me, that seemed like an outrageous number when you look at the square, the price per square footage of this pool. Is it comparable to the cost of pool construction throughout the United States? It is. That's something the council has to look at to make sure that we were getting a good value for the pool. And our team put together a very good analysis. I believe off the top of my head we looked at about nine different pools that were built at different times and we basically adjusted for where they were built and how they were built and the facilities that they had. And if you normalize for all of those things, what we found is that this pool is essentially, I believe, fourth out of fourth out of ninth in terms of cost per square foot. So definitely not the highest right in the middle part of the curve. Now, in terms of the temporary pool, with the given the understanding that it's going to have to be disassembled, it's a Murtha pool and it's going to have to be disassembled at some point. Can it be resold? Yes, we believe it can be resold. There are a number of ways to to do that. It can be resold to a government can be resold to ourselves. It can be resold on the private market. It could also potentially you could do a contract for someone to remove the pool and have that be part of the compensation for removing the pool can also be reused somewhere else. So that's something that will be continuing to look at over the next couple of months. Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I also want to thank the community for being here. It's often it's just great to see that community can build consensus. Stakeholder meetings that are organized and that folks are really coming together to discuss this very important, you know, citywide project. It's wonderful. What I, I did have a couple questions. I guess I am not clear on the operating costs for the recommendation of the staff's recommendation and where that will be coming from. So the operating costs are also not general fund because it's in the Tidelands area, it will be Tidelands operating. We essentially separate our funds into two different kind of buckets. One is our operating funds and one are capital funds. So the 99 million plus now the 4.7 is going to be paid for out of capital. But then our operating fund will need to basically absorb the cost of operating the pool. And so that's a long term projection. We won't see those costs until the ports open. Most likely, I believe in F y 18 and will be doing long term projections about how to either make reductions in other services or if there's potentially revenue or how to make that balance work when the pool is open in 518 and 1419. Okay. Thank you. And I see here that the annual economic impact. So what we project for this would be about 30 million. And it's a total of up to $30 million if we were to receive all of the events that we had identified as this facility being able to host, which essentially is just about every event except for Olympic trials, those now are so popular that they aren't held in these types of facilities. They're held in like an arena that holds 20,000 people, and you import a pool into the arena. But essentially the $30 million is annually what we think we can expect an annual economic impact of which tot and we're going to receive some hotel bed tax and some additional sales tax if we were able to get that that amount. And it's an estimate. It's it's not a hard projection yet, but it's an estimate. Okay. And then what is the can you clarify the 600,000 in the Belmont pool rehabilitation funds for that requires county approval. Oh, councilman, that is from the 1992 property issue, park bonds. So back in 1992, you had to identify certain projects. That would be funded. So these are monies that. Come in from the county, from our tax dollars. It was for rehab rehabilitation of the Belmont pool. We've checked with the county. We believe we can have that designated for new construction. It's a it's a process that we'd have to go through with the county county board of Supervisors. And the Parks District. But we believe we can move that from rehab rehabilitation to mill construction. We thank you. And then I would just reiterate with what Councilmember Richardson said, because I think accessibility is very important for many of our districts who don't see water in their district at all. And so this is a city wide asset. But we certainly I'm certainly very proud to know that, you know, there are going to be, you know, strides taken to have that accessibility open for all of our residents. And our last council action last week certainly proved that. But, you know, continuing that that mission and that message, like Councilmember Richardson said, is very important. So thank you. And Councilman Price, great job. Thank you. And just one comment on that is we absolutely agree it needs to be for the entire city. It actually needs to be for the entire region as well. So because this is a these are tidelands dollars, it it really is in the definition of title and dollars that this is available for people outside of Long Beach as well. And that's something we need to bear in mind. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. I wanted to just clarify one thing regarding the moveable floor. I know that the Stakeholder Advisory Committee did something very prudent, which was to recommend setting aside some money for maintenance to cover the costs of the moveable floor. Can you comment on that a little bit? Because some of the comments we've received are that, you know, how much is that going to cost us and that's going to, you know, break the bank. And we've actually taken a conservative approach in regards to that. We have I think we came down to a very good compromise. There was a lot of reticence on behalf of the committee and and frankly, on behalf of city staff as well, that if we had a movable floor, how do you make sure it doesn't stick? We've had that bulkhead stick in the middle of the Belmont pool, and we haven't had a 50 meter pool ever since. But how do you make sure that doesn't happen with the moveable floor? And so what the committee did is they pre-funded the maintenance. So to make sure that we have enough maintenance money already, you know, guarantee that it's going to be there so that this floor needs, for example, divers to go underneath and maintain it once a month. And so it is a cost that we need to budget for. And I think it was very prudent that the committee set aside money to do that. And finally, you talked a lot about the Coastal Commission, and we met together. We met with the Coastal Commission early on in this process. How important do you think it is to the Coastal Commission and in the approval of this project that we're actually replacing a pool, that we're putting a pool where a pool was before because some people have said, well, why can't we put this pool next to the Queen Mary or next to, you know, the convention center or somewhere else? How important do you think that is? You know, given the conversations that we've had with Coastal Commission staff and that your expertize in that. Based on on our discussions with them and it really is kind of a feeling from all of our discussions with about this. The reason we get to do this project, the reason we get to have this idea is because we have a pool there already. The Coastal Act really doesn't envision this was you know, this facility was built before the contract was in place and doesn't really envision putting, you know, those types of facilities on the beach. But because we have one already, I think we get a very unique opportunity to replace it. I think it would be a very difficult proposition to ask the Coastal Commission to place a pool where one does not exist currently. I think they would they would have some issues with that. Now, with the 1250 seats, will we be able to host NCAA tournaments here? Yes. PAC 12. Yes. I think it's yes. And we can't host Olympic trials because we would need about 20,000 seats. So that's not even an option there. Correct. There remains to be seen potentially for diving. We can potentially have some work for have some trials there, but not for swimming. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. So I think most of the questions have been dealt with in. But I wanted to also thank the stakeholder advisory group, the committee, the community. When this process started several months ago, you you helped sell this vision to this council. And. You know, I think many of us were skeptical originally, but as we have seen this kind of process matriculate to where we're we're believers now and we see the value of rebuilding this pool to be a world class pool diving facility. And and, you know, the presentation here was was very, very encouraging. I'm optimistic about the future. I do want to congratulate and commend Councilmember Price for really taking the leadership on this, picking up a difficult issue as a new council member. Picking up where Gary DeLong left off and not missing a beat. And so you've done a great job that thorough questions are greatly appreciated, I know, by this council, but I'm sure by the public as well. And as far as the Murtha pool, the temporary pool, I have a recommendation. We will sell it to you. Okay. For $1. We'll take it in the eighth District. We have we have plenty of room for it. So thank you very much. Thank you. We're going to go to public comment here in just a minute. I also want to just say, if you think he's one, I want to start by thanking the committee who I know worked incredibly long hours and a lot of discussion on this issue. Believe it or not, Mr. Modica and Mr. West have been briefing us almost on a weekly basis on the status of what's been going on with the poor. I think I get a pool update from Mr. Modica. It seems like multiple times a week, but it has been great to see a real community process happen. And I want to commend Councilwoman Price for leading that community process. And I think that when she came on board this, it's very difficult to come into a a situation where a project has the process has somewhat begun. And to have the first thing kind of on your lap as you as you began, it was a lot of emotion behind an important project, as it should be. And so I want to commend her. I want to commend the community and also want to commend Mr. Modica and our city team, because they've done a great job at getting this thing to this point today. And in conclusion, this is this is an exciting project for the entire city and the region, as was said earlier. We're going to build a a historic world class facility. And it's going to be a point of pride for all of Long Beach. It's going to be used by people from all over the city. We're going to encourage that as someone that has on multiple, multiple occasions use the facility to swim and for recreation. It's a very special place with a lot of history, and it's going to be exciting to see the future of of the art space. So thank you to all of you. And with that, I'm going to open it up for public comment. Good evening, counsel. And please, as you come forward, if you can just identify yourself for the record and then we'll begin. Good evening. My name is Susan Miller. I live across from Belmont Pool. The cost of the Belmont Pool plant continue to increase. The projected oil revenues may not be sufficient to sizable construction costs of the current plant are due to the location, the liquid vacation, soil geological makeup and the sea level. Rising construction costs. Building in another location would reduce and eliminate these costs, construction cost and ease the impact on the tide line funds. Dollars realized from eliminating the underground stabilization costs needed at Belmont Plaza could be used to fund more seating. Urban quality facility changed to another location mitigate the Harry Bridges Memorial Park, the Queen Mary as a new location for the world class aquatic facility. When the current Belmont pool is demolished, Belmont Plaza is eligible for open space to replace the Harry Bridges Park near the Queen Mary. This mitigation is in compliance with the California coastal. Locating the aquatic facility to the Harry Bridges Memorial Park doesn't have the negative environmental impact of the Belmont Plaza location. A key factor for the California Coastal Commission approval is the Environmental Impact and Aquatic Facility. Downtown has been an ideal, an idea for a long time. In Long Beach, as in any good Master City plan, there are main elements that should be the nucleus core of the downtown. Locating the aquatic facility downtown is a good strategy for the city. A world class aquatic center is a good idea for located in the right location and built at a reasonable cost. Aquatic facility of Queen Mary makes sense for logistics, infrastructure and Smart Master City Planning. The Harry Bridges Memorial Park of the Queen Mary has infrastructure and the land space. The location has public transportation, freeways, parking, hotels, restaurant, the Shoreline Aquarium. The world class facility should be located there to be the crown jewel for Long Beach and bring in all the world class aquatic events. Plus, the world class aquatic facility could be featured every night on Channel seven Eyewitness News opening webcam shot of the Queen Mary with our world class aquatic facility. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Dr. Garcia and members of the council. My name is Lucy Johnson. I live in the fifth. District and I've been. A an advocate of this project from day one, or probably even well before day one. I was one of the first people in the pool in 1968 when it opened. My team was brought down here with our coach, who was a five. Time Olympic coach. And I. Wanted to add one thing that city manager. Was sad about. Cathy had a. Drum. She actually when she made the Olympics, it was in Belmont Plaza Pool in the 1976 Olympic trials. Unfortunately, our most recent Olympian, I think, in swimming is Jessica Hardy had to leave the city to train because the facilities here were inadequate. Couple of points. Councilmember Pryce, I want to. Thank you for. Towards the end here on talking about the difference. Between the general fund and the title. It's on a lot of the comments I've seen on our Web page or Facebook page and on other Facebook pages about Long Beach have said, why are we spending this kind of money on school streets, tree trimming and everything? And I think Councilmember Price and Mr. Modica. Addressed that very well. It is not. General Fund, it is Tidelands Fund can only be used in that area regarding the pool operating cost. And also like to point out that when you say fiscal 12, all pool on the expense in revenue, please keep in mind that that. Was 150 meter pool. A 25 yard, six lane pool outdoors and then a little wading pool that is almost never used. And the little outdoor pool got used. It was actually almost abandoned for a number of years until some of the club teams went in and. Started using it. So you're getting essentially five pools, you're getting. To 50 meter pools, the recreation pool. The therapy pool and the diving pool, the deep water pool that is used for many more things than just diving. So for the same, for that 3.2 million in expenses, you've gone from essentially one functioning pool to kind of to five. So I think that's a tremendous. Advantage to our city to have that kind. Of of additional. Pool space. One of the things I've lived here now in the city since 1980, partly because I was swimming and training at Belmont Plus Pool. And one of the things that's been a shame in a city of our size that there's only. Three public pools in this entire city. And in the summer, Jordan is open and Millikan is open, but not during. The winter to the public. So I think this is a tremendous advantage and I'm really. Pleased to hear about. That, working with the transit to luggage transit to try and get additional opportunities for people to come down from the other parts of the city. Lastly, regarding the diving pool, I was on vacation this past week, three weeks, two weeks. And came back with a call. Sorry. But I was talking to a gentleman that lives in Charlotte, North. Carolina, and he kayaks. And he uses a deep water. Pool in his hometown for kayak roll. Training, rolling over and getting back up. So there are many other things besides. Thank you. Time's up next. Speakers, please. Thank you. Hi. My name is Elaine Nasser. I am 11 years old. I started diving with the McCormick. Team. When I was eight years old. My dream is to be on the University of Indiana's diving team because they have an amazing Dove facility and a wonderful team. Another one of my dreams is to go to the Olympics and win the gold medal. Your vote today will help me achieve my dreams. Thank you for considering making the Belmont Pool a. Great diving facility. I can't wait to dove on the new platforms. The Belmont Pool will provide formal. Thank you. Excellent. Last few Olympians come out of USC right here in SoCal. That's right. You don't have to move far. To. Make speaker. Hi, my name is. Drew Coons and I want to thank city. Council members for supporting the sport. Of diving. I have two sisters who also have been dating for four years who also thank you. I've been diving for over three years and got to dove at the old Delmar Pool for about two of those years. I didn't get to jump off the platforms very much at the Belmont Pool because I was only eight years old and pretty new since being at the King Pool. I don't get to dove off the platforms because there aren't in this. Last summer I went to a diving camp at the University of Indiana and got to dove off those platforms. It was so much fun. Then this last year I went to a diving meet and so lots of kids my age competing off the platforms. I felt like I was missing out. Now that the new Belmont. Will have its own separate pool for diving in platforms. There will be a day where I can really be at a world class pool. I want to thank all of you and the advisory committee for helping kids like me work towards my goals. Thank you for building as our own pool and platforms. Thank you. I'm not sure how I can top that, except that I'm glad that they're going to go to IAB Indiana University. My son went there and it's a fantastic school, so hopefully they make it. Anyway, I am a resident living in the neighborhood that surrounds Belmont Plaza Complex. And if you can also just identify yourself for the record. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. My name is Ellie Harlowe, and I live directly across the street from where the outdoor pool is right now. And speaking of the noise, I want to thank Suzy Pryce first for bringing up all the questions that I know her residents or her constituents have been sending her, because I'm quite well aware of what's going on, and I thank you for bringing that up and talking about them. However, the noise problem is still the noise problem. It's not going to go away. As long as you have competitive swimming and in water polo, any kind of competitive aquatics will make noise. It will not go away if it's outdoors. That has to be all indoors in the new pool. You cannot have any of that outdoors. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that all the city council representatives are aware that this project decimates the only local park in the area. I'm here to talk about the park. This park includes grass paths and shade trees. And I mind you, these are old growth shade trees. And all they talk about is removing the trees and transplanting them. I'm sorry. You can remove palm trees, but you cannot remove old growth trees. They will die. And there were about 20 of them there. Come and see for yourself. It's a beautiful little park. Anyway, it's in a high impact neighborhood, devoid of greenery. Most people take for granted there are virtually no yards and absolutely no parking strips of any on the streets surrounding the pool complex. In June at the stakeholders meeting was was formed to make sure that the development plans meet the needs of the multiple interest. Interestingly, the vast majority of the committee members, 64% or nine out of 14 were those with only aquatics interests and only one. Commune. Committee member was a resident living in the immediate vicinity of the project. At the community meeting on September 17th, where the plans to eliminate the park were unveiled. We were told that we had an opportunity to give feedback which would be taken into account. Since then, multiple residents have expressed their desire to have the park preserved. To the committee, to the third District Councilwoman Susie Price and the city manager's office. Amazingly, the plans before you today are pretty much exactly the same as presented on September 17th, meaning our desires have not at all been incorporated into the development plans only the desires of the special interests aquatics groups. There are multiple. Solutions. Which would provide an excellent swimming and diving facilities while maintaining all or a significant portion of the existing park. Some that come to mind are eliminating the. Outdoor pool. Altogether. And thank you so much. The pool to another site. So, distinguished representatives, I'm asking you to represent us where our own council works. Thank you. So stakeholders and advisory committee are not. Thank you. Hello. My name is Diana Reed. You were in a good shirt there. Oh, thank you very much. Yes, my name is John Reed and I am a product of Belmont Poole. I started with becoming divers when I. Was ten years old and I went on to Long Beach Poly and I was able to dove and compete for them. I won a lot. Of awards. While I was there and I was able to go to Duke University from my first two years because of diving, came to my senses and I'm now at USC. But without diving, I wouldn't be able to do any of the things that. I do now or have any of the competence that I have. Now. And I know this new pool would definitely be able to offer the same opportunity to other other kids who stumbled upon diving like I did. I didn't know anything about diving. I kind of saw and thought it was cool and I was like, I want to try that. So because of that, I was able to accomplish. All of these things that I've accomplished. And I think that this new pool will be able to open up so many opportunities for other kids in the city just like me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, City Council, City Management. My name is Richard Foster. Been a long time local, national, international aquatics person, also vice chairman of the Aquatics Capital of America Committee. As some of you know, I had some misgivings about this pool design, but I can tell you I'm very much in favor of it. I think Mr. Westen, Mr. Modell, that very nice job of presenting a competitive pool that also functions very well as a recreational pool. I recognize that the number one use of this pool is going to be recreation, but competition is also very good for the city. Economic impact, the impact it has on our children. Watching the Jessica Harvey swim, watching the Tony Acevedo play water pool, the Ryan Bailey's play water polo. Well, he's retired now, but I'm a little concerned. And I would urge Mr. West and Mr. Modica to look at the seating issue a little bit more carefully, because the seating right now is like the minimum. We've got $105 million facility, we've got 1200 seats. I don't know if CIA is really going to want to go to a sea meet there. I think we need to expand that. And then socially with no seating outside, we just I just urge it in this development process, I totally support your project , but let's see if we can do a little bit better job on the seating. One small point is Belmont Plaza pool is rich in tradition. It's known across the country, and we're going to call it the Belmont Beach Aquatic Center. I mean, it just doesn't. Let's let's keep that history. Let's keep the legendary, iconic status. Let's call it Belmont Plaza Pool. I mean, our community deserves that. And third, I know I do know that some of the residents are very concerned about the noise factors. And I can understand that the water polo whistles especially. But if we can do something to try to negate that the noise factor even more than we've done in the past, I think we can make the water pool people happy, the swimming people happy and the residents happy. So my congratulations, everybody just it's going to be a fantastic facility. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Dennis Dunne, the city manager, enumerated some advantages, but mostly they were redundant. What he did admit, however, was pools do not make money. Now, Mr. O'Donnell said it sounds like good economics to me. That sounds like debt to me and not fiscally sound policies. But then again, what city would buy three helicopters to deter crime when it takes many in the field to do that, maybe we should buy a fourth helicopter. I want to address myself to the reason required to the proposal of having a diving well. The pool is problematic. I won't get into some of the problems I have with that. However, the the diving pool diving will seem to me and extravagances are just not needed. Millions and millions of dollars are going to go to the construction of this diving. Diving? Well, now it's just not needed. Boys will suffice buoys in the water to separate the divers from the swimmers. You also have lifeguards to separate the divers from the swimmers. You also have swimmers who don't want to hit the divers who will separate themselves from the divers. Yeah. The separation. Occurs because they're there, mindful of the catastrophe that can. Happen. But what is a catastrophe going to happen? The worst thing to happen is a diver hits a swimmer in his dove. However, the water cushioned the fall and there would be no damage really made. And this would be very rare indeed. There's no injuries ever been listed. The deaths that that diving was responsible for any injury of a swimmer. I'd also like to add that the diving will also be used. People do not like to get out of the water. It's cold out there. I've been in competitive swimming, so I have some expertize. It's cold out there to wait for a dove. To wait to dove. And it does take some expertize. I mean, the diving board wouldn't be used much. Now, what I am saying is this do not eliminate, eliminate diving. I would never do that. But eliminate the diving well, which is going to cost millions and millions of dollars to make. Now, you know, it sounds very. Great and wonderful, but as I said before. Afford will take you for it is all you need to do to take you somewhere. You don't need a Rolls-Royce. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Council and Mayor Ann Cantrell. I find that tearing down a usable structure because of earthquake concerns and then spending millions to rebuild in the same location. Ludicrous. I believe that finding another location such as the events part next to the Queen Mary or even at the pike, remember, the plunge makes much more sense. However, tonight you're being asked to throw money at this project. So I will quote John GROSS, your financial advisor, which nobody mentioned in the staff report. He said, quote, In this even more uncertain oil revenue environment, it's beginning to appear likely that there may not be enough funding available in the short term to fund the proposed Tidelands budget and capital plan. The argument that competition will bring millions into the city does not address the possibility that these competitions may choose to go to other facilities. Nor the possibility that swim meet visitors may not spend as much on lodging and food as tourists do. The Coastal Commission has told the city that this pool must serve the public, not just those who want it for competitive swimming, diving, water polo and other sports. The staff report states there's a tradeoff with public versus private use. While the economic development aspects of the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center are not inconsequential. They do do come at a cost, reduce public access to the facility. And this is from your staff report. Using the facility as a tool for economic development involves reducing public access. Like many other public versus private issue, the decision of speeding issues uses is to be made by our elected official. That's that's the staff's end of quote. This means it's up to you to be fiscally prudent. Denied this request for additional funds and find a better location for this aquatic center. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm Debbie McCormick. I'm a member of the acquirer capital of America. I coached the McCormick divers in Long Beach and has been at Belmont. I meant to say thank you, and I really meant to say that they first the advisory committee and the council members. I said it all along. I'm sorry. Okay. Anyways, and before I start, I did this again. I wanted to introduce Dr. Sammy Lee. Dr. Sammy Lee won the Olympics in 1948 and 1952. He was on the President's Commission for Physical Fitness under five presidents and won the Sullivan Award as well. Two Olympic gold medals. Dr. Samuel Lee Sammy has been here. This is the fourth time Dr. Lee has been here to support the diving. I'm so thrilled that you guys are doing all the right thing. I know a lot of people aren't real happy, but you really made my day. Today just happens to be the 19th anniversary of my husband's passing. And Glen McCormick was such an icon and very well loved by everyone in the sport. A little over a year ago, some of you that were on the council before had received letters from all over the world, from diving. You had a petition with 1500 signatures and one and a half days. The world of diving is so excited that you're doing this. They will come. U.S. Diving has pledged that they will want to come for all these meets as long as the pool is built correctly. And you do have an opportunity to have Olympic trials for diving. So that's not out of the question, which is millions more to the city. So I know. I had a cousin that could do it for one and a half, and I thought he was the coolest thing since sliced bread. And I want to learn to dove I a little boy that was going to talk to you tonight. He was six years old. He fell asleep, so he had to leave. Sorry, but if you're not exposed, he saw a splash on TV and he said, I want to dove. So he was so excited by watching it on television and he just loves the sport and dived in his first meet this weekend. Anyway, the Olympics is a dream that everybody can attain, but there are so many kids out there with dreams and hopes and you're going to give them all the opportunities to do something with their lives and you're giving them everything. So swimming, diving, water polo, we applaud you for doing the right thing. And I've never worked so hard in my life for anything, and I feel really good right now. Thank you, Susie and Gary DeLong and Lucy Johnson for everything. And Patrick, you were there from the beginning and helped make this happen. And I am very emotional right now, but thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Larry good you clerc as the address. I support this project wholly and in this location. It's just some random notes here on the trees. I'm not an arborist, but I like trees. And I know when we redid in 1995 a rebuilt the Pete Arthur Rowing Center, we had had a tree that Pete had planted out front back in 1968, and we, the city, found an arborist and relocated that it's now growing five times better. It's down next to that restroom that that Colorado gone. Secondly, in terms of seats. I don't know what the exact seating capacity is of that facility now, but I know the Coastal Commission would probably hold about to be required to have no less the amount of seats combined seating that there is there now. They would do that just as they do slips or parking spaces along the coastal area, i.e. you can't reduce the number as long as they're there. Although I do, I do support the the thinking that they probably would not support a little relocation to another area of. The last thing. Obviously, the dollar amount of this is enormous. And so you've got to ask yourselves, you know, is it worth the money? How do I make that decision? And it brings it brings to mind my experiences in the 1980s, where I spent half my life, a business life down in downtown L.A., sitting across a desk and talking to CFOs of of every Fortune 500 company in most companies. Wanting to know, well, how can I justify spending that amount of money on the largest Xerox, that Xerox base? One of the biggest the biggest blue applicators. And I'd always responded and was pretty successful in getting the right response from the customers. You've got three fundamental decisions you have to make. One, you have to evaluate the cost. Of your initial acquisition to evaluate the cost. The operation. And three, most important of all. Evaluate the cost to your reputation. For having made the decision. You did. And I think the best way the best decision here is to rebuild and follow the plan as it is now rebuild in that location for all the reasons that have been earlier stated. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodhew. Thanks, Speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Steve Everly. And I'd like each of you to think back in your history being in a public facility like this. And seeing some kid. Running around the pool deck. Her behind the bowling alley. Looking for mischief. Looking for trouble. When I was six and a half, seven years old, I was that little boy. And I woke up in the morning and said, What can I destroy today? Came from a family, ten children. My mother got a lifeguard job. We all got ushered to the pool. And I asked her one day, I said, Mom, did you get that lifeguard job so that you could. Watch over us closely. She didn't give me a straight answer, but that was answer enough. One day I saw the divers diving off the diving board and I gravitated toward that diving board, and the head guard stopped me and said. You need to be able to swim. I said, okay. So I took swimming lessons. The next summer, I tugged on a shirt and said, I'm ready. He says. Did you take intermediate swimming? I said, No. He says, Go take it. So I did. So about eight years old, third summer, I approached the lifeguard and he says, If you can swim the deep end, you can go off the diving board. To this day, I remember the first jump off the board. 26 years later and diving, reaching international status. Somewhere during that time. I woke up every morning. Passion. Passionately pursuing excellence. If you make this decision to go forward, you will change lives, countless lives, and make them productive. Leaving behind an economic benefit that's not quantifiable. In closing, I'd like to ask you to and I'll even volunteer to spearhead a committee or whatever is needed. But I'd like us to take a look at the revenue generating potential of a building like this. And I'm not just talking, naming, naming rights to a building that are glittering lights, like in Las Vegas. But at the granular level. At the granular level. You can sell seats with naming plates on them. Concession stands with people's names. Branded. To whet your whistle just a little bit. I'd like you to notice that. FedEx field. The Washington Redskins scans $7.6 million annually. Contract goes to 2023. Ford Field, Detroit Lions $1 million annually, Mr. Bailey. The list goes on. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Billy Day. I want to thank you all for everything you've done. This can be a huge project and it's truly appreciated in the diamond swimming community. I had the pleasure of diving with Dr. Sammy Lee over here, and I also had the pleasure of diving with Glen McCormick. Dr. Sammy Lee was a phenomenal coach and Lynn McCormick was a phenomenal coach as well. And he started the legacy at Long Beach, as far as I'm concerned. He was a remarkable human being. He was a very much a father image to anybody that crossed his path. He had a passion for the sport. And because of this reason, I truly believe down the road after the pool is built, that the diving world should be named in his honor. He had several Olympians that he coached. He was responsible for many scholarships that for like myself, that came along for the opportunity that he created. People were able to attain. And he was just a wonderful man and a phenomenal coach. And I truly believe that it would be a travesty not to name the diving well in his honor. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Day. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Shai Cordell. I live in the fourth district. Patrick O'Donnell, thank you very much for those kind words earlier. Suzy Price, Patrick O'Donnell. Thank you very much. And Councilmember DeLong. When he was here, you guys have worked so hard to get this thing up and going. Patrick West Thank you, George. Thank you very much. You guys have done a wonderful job. And also the committee, you guys have done an incredible job of putting a beautiful complex out there. During the last couple of weeks. I've met a couple of the residents in the area. We had some nice conversations about how we can lower the noise and and all that for the upcoming complex out there. But I really hope that we can also do something about the noise for the residents who live right across the street , because I do know that that new outdoor pool is literally going to be right across the street instead of another hundred and 50 feet down the road. But it looks it looks wonderful. The kids, we don't have them here tonight. It was a school night, 7:00 meeting. It's it's too hard to get them here. So but thank you very much. And also Councilmember Al Austin, you said if that pool is able to move over to your area, call me. Thank you. Isn't it still 7:00? Hello. Roberts Haven from Argon. What I want to mention your opening statements. You mentioned that you want your goals were to service all the residents. And from the comments, it doesn't sound like the water. Polo residents are being served. If you're going to stop the practices outdoors at 7 p.m., I understand you're doing a lot of mitigation with sound so far, the whistles and the lighting. It seems like they're not quite working. There are future plans, but they're not available yet. Your other opening statement mentioned the. To make harmony with the residents. So again, the sound, the big solution here that seems if you change the indoor pool to the 25 meters, go from the 25 yards to 25 meters. It sounded like a $1.9 million difference. This project's going to go over budget and definitely it's not going to stay here. That's what, one 2%, less than 2% of the total cost. And you can have the water pull indoors. All of your residents will be served. Long Beach is known for its Parks and Recreation. If you're not. Servicing. The water polo, you're not servicing all these people. As a father, my eight year old daughter, she just started playing water polo. So definitely want to make sure that the pool is available for her. My son. My youngest son, he's four, Rex. He's an avid swimmer. He's got Down syndrome. He's the one that Rex Fest is named after. That's Rex Fest Foundation. And we just want to make sure that this will be available. Also in addition, I manage an apartment on Argon and during the Olympics. Brenda Villa. I talked to her earlier today and she said that I could mention her and she was actually living in our one of our apartments at the time. That she was practicing. She already had the bronze and the silver medal, and she was practicing here in Long Beach when and living here when she got the gold medal and she said, go ahead and free flexi this. Feel free to mention my name. It would be a shame. To not make the Olympic sized water polo pool so much water polo history and Long Beach. I'm sure you as water polo would. Love to host events there and bring spectators and tourists. So thank you very much. And I encourage you to reopen the planning and try to make the an indoor pool large enough for. The water pool. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hey, I want to learn more about RECs Fest. Some info about what you say. Good evening. Council members, mayor, city staff. I'm Hank Wise and just so pleased to be here tonight to be at the threshold of this big, big moment. I grew up in Long Beach. Went to Long Beach schools. Born and raised in Long Beach. And as my parents were to Belmont Plaza was a part of my youth and part of my teen years, went on to Stanford University and then came back and went to Cal State Long Beach to get a master's degree in recreational leisure studies because 49 years and anyway, just just want to just want to mention just that I am overjoyed at the what we have here in front of us. This is amazing. Nothing short of completely amazing the amount of joy and learning and progression. And, you know, for adults, for kids, for just the whole public is is just it's it's wide open. It's just so wide open right now. And, you know, I like the idea of the I really like the idea of the bus service, you know, the pool bus. That's just that's awesome. You know, United States swimming. I'm a member of the United States swimming as a swim coach myself, member of USM as United States masters, swimming as a swim coach. And, you know, United States swimming is making a big push for make a splash. And you might want to look into that and make a splash is something wide open to teach swimming to all communities and wide open. So you might want to take a look at make a splash and everything that that's a part of the plaza is known formally nationwide as the Belmont. Just one word. When we talk about rock stars, we usually use one name, Cher, you know Bono, right? Okay. I mean Madonna. Right. So it's kind of like Belmont continues, you know, and it not only continues in the way it has in the past, it continues with five. And then there's that little room, that little Jacuzzi in the corner. So there's five bodies of water, plus a tasty little Jacuzzi. Isn't that just too much? No. Yeah. I mean, it's just it's just so great. And I. I totally hear the residents and, you know, city staff at Belmont is continually on top of us as the coaches out there and, you know, just please keep it down. And they're talking to us, and we're we're we're doing we're making those necessary shifts in our coaching. Anyway, there's the yellow light. I just want to say how grateful I am. Thank you so much and have a great night. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. City Councilor, Staff I'm Jessica Payne. I'm the president of the McCormack Divers Boosters Club. I've been involved with Belmont Plaza Pool since 2000, when my son walked through the locker room to join the recreational diving program. He saw the ten meter tower and said, I want to jump off of that. And now he, at 20 years old, is a diver at USC with Diane who was here earlier, fight on diving, got him into college diving. He's been diving with two different Olympic coaches because of Debbie McCormick. What I wanted to say is, thank you so much for doing this for Long Beach. Regardless of how you vote tonight. This is a huge gift to the aquatics community and we're all going to love it. Thank you so much, Patrick O'Donnell, for listening to us. You and Gary DeLong got this spearheaded. Thank you, Susie, for picking it up and running with the banner. Because around the world, as you said earlier, people know Belmont, people know Long Beach in the aquatics community. You say that you dove in Long Beach. They said, I went to Belmont once. They said, I know Debbie McCormick, they know people. The aquatics community is such a tight community and they will come. It's a gift to us. And if we don't add the extras, it will be what people fear it will be for a small community because it will lock out all of those people from outside. If we do it right and we build it with the right amount of seating, with the right diving wheel and the moveable floor, we will bring in that extra money, that $3 million in operational funds. When we rent out the pool for our events, we pay some of those operational fees besides bringing the tax dollars and everything into the city. So it helps to bring it into the community. It will help kids to be able to take that bus and to be able to swim there for a dollar. If you let us if you build it right and you let us bring in these events, we will help build a community. And for the next 50 years, when people here, Long Beach, they will still think of Belmont and they will love it as much as we do. So thank you so much. Thank you. And I'm going to actually close the speakers list unless there's anyone else that's going to get in line for the speakers list. Anybody else seeing none. Then the gentleman in the end is to be the last speaker. Please. Hello. Hi. Thank you, Mayor. Suzy Price, Tom Madoka and the rest of the advisory committee. It's been really fun working with everyone. My name is Raquel Barlow, and I grew up swimming at the Belmont Pool. I started there. I think Mommy and me classes. And then I graduated into diving. I played a little water polo. I hate labels. I would say I'm much more than just the diver. My mom was a world champion surfer. I'm an avid surfer also. But I'll say. Right here, right now, Belmont Pool is where everything started for me. And, you know, I think I'm from the third district, but I'm not sure I am. I heard I am. Okay. Okay. But, you know, hey, this pool, it's just like diving. Okay? That diving. Well, right there, it's not just the diving. Well, it's got everything in there for water polo players practice swimming, synchronized swimming. Who knows? Whatever. There's tons of stuff you can use. Water aerobics. It's an extra body of water. I'm really happy with this project. The architects did a really good job, and I think this is something beautiful that we can be proud of. And I'll tell you right now. I've had a lot of awesome opportunities happen to me and without without the ability to have all these coaches and amazing coaches teach me throughout my life . Like, you know, Klaus Barth and I worked for Hank for five years at the Long Beach Yacht Club, and I feel really privileged to have these mentors and coach coaches and teachers in this facility that's world class facility is only going to bring better teachers and better mentors to our city and build build this community. And I'm just I can't tell you how excited I am for this project, and I just want to say thank you. And I think this is going to be really awesome. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I would make it short and sweet. I just want to say thank the council for all your help, especially patent. Suzy worked with you guys. Thank the advisory committee here. They've done a wonderful job. Thank the parks and RECs department. Especially Lori and Todd and their group. They've done a fantastic job while they've maintained that facility. While we've been there, whether we've been there for practices or whether we've been there for high school games, I mean, we had our first high. School games there about a little over a month ago and it went off without. A hitch. And everyone that showed up there. Were just they were just in awe of that facility and just can't wait until we build a crown. Jewel. But everyone. Walked out of there with smiles on their face, going, God, you guys get to play water. Polo. Here. I mean, in all honesty, I mean, people that came up from Coronado just this last weekend. I mean, we had people from all over. So something for you all to be proud. Of and just wanted to say thank you very. Much for. All of your help and all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Name for the record. Pete Zuanic. Thank you. Commissioner. Good evening. My name is Bill five. I'm in the third district. I know I'm there. I want to say that I know there's a lot of planning that's going into this and there's still a lot more planning to go. This is not the end of it. I'm definitely on the indoor pool being 50 meters long by 25 meters wide. That keeps the city of Long Beach on the world stage. Whether it's regionals, nationals or world competitions, that's going to bring the revenue into the city, utilizing the pool, restaurants, hotels, everything. It keeps it going for swimming, diving, water polo. We can maybe get the girls in and do synchronized swimming, introduce water, aqua yoga aquatics into the group. Haven't done that before. There's other cities doing that. I believe that some of the comments made about the busses going to the pool, I think that's a great idea. But I don't want to see Martin Luther King pull neglected. I don't want to see sort of auto pool neglected because they serve their uses in the communities where they're at. I'd also like to see Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Garcia, if you guys can reach out to Ms.. Connelly at Cal State Long Beach and see what they can do to up the level of the facilities at Cal State Long Beach to make the city a powerhouse in water polo, a powerhouse in diving, and a powerhouse in swimming. I think we need to bring the entire city, including Cal State, Long Beach and Long Beach City College, into this mix. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And let me just tell you, we did reach out not too long ago and there was a change in the president's there was a change in attitude at the school. And they're much more accommodating with regard to the water polo and swimming uses over there. And they've opened up their pool more hours. So there is there is seeing more use by the community rather than just the college folks. It's not sitting dormant like it was for for a couple of years there. It'd be nice if they could bring back the diving that they had at the smaller pool at Cal State. Long Beach. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to thank everyone for the comments that they made tonight. And I want to I want to just take a moment to really. And I know she's talking, but I wanted to make sure that he I wanted to respond to some of the comments. I want to thank our aquatics community for coming together and understanding that there had to be some compromises that were made in order to make this project move forward and make it something that we could really say was in the best interests of everyone. As you heard tonight. And really the comments you heard tonight are just a fraction of the emails that I get every single day about the pool every single day. And as a result of that, I think the staff can attest that, you know, I have spent countless hours researching the size of pools around this nation, the size of pools that would be required for competitions and really making a decision that was in the best interest of everybody. And despite what what Ellie and Susan have to say, I've responded, you know, met with them several times, responded to emails trying to really do my best. And despite what they've said, one of the primary reasons that the sizing of the pool is what it is now as being recommended is because anything else would increase the footprint, and anything else that would increase the footprint would reduce the number of greenspace areas that we have available for the residents. And that was a major factor that we took into account in terms of determining what we were going to do. And as a result, before I walked into this room tonight, I called the USA representative for diving, swimming, water polo. I contacted pools around this nation. I sized up exactly how much they are everywhere. And I can tell you that we are one of the only facilities in the United States that's going to have one of each size pool, and that is phenomenal. We are going to be able to host almost every competition more than most other facilities can, and we will be able to practice in every single pool. Is it ideal for everyone now? Everyone is having to compromise a little bit in order to make this happen. And that's what happens when you're a city. That's what happens when you're a community. Everybody gives a little bit. And so I want to thank the aquatics community for uniting here tonight and understanding that this is a $100 million project and it's a big deal to the residents of this community. And if we can come together and collaborate in a positive way, we can make it a very successful project for all of us going forward and to all those kids. I mean, if you're a parent and you drive your kid to South County so that they can compete in club activities at these amazing facilities all over South County, and you think, why don't we have that in Long Beach? Every decision we make in this city should be about what's best for our kids and for their kids and for generations to come. And this is a step in doing that. So. Thank you. Believe there is a there's emotion on the floor and public comments included. I don't see any more council discussion. Again, thank you all for being here. Let's go to a vote. Motion carries nine votes. Okay. We're going to go ahead. And at the request of Councilmember Andrews, take item 19 real briefly.

Order for a hearing on the state of Boston's non-governmental, nonprofit social sector and charting a post-pandemic recovery.

BostonCC_03302022_2022-0436

04360436 Council as Council agreed and offer the following order for a hearing on the state of Boston's non-governmental, nonprofit social sector and charting a post-pandemic recovery. The chair recognizes counsel Braden. Counsel Braden. You have the full. Thank you, Mr. President. Since the onset of the pandemic two years ago, it became clear how essential our city's community based, non-governmental, nonprofit organizations are. Many of these social sector organizations quickly adopted their direct services to meet the moment from a rapid dissemination of information, food and PPE and serving as mutual aid networks reaching thousands of our Boston neighbors. The nonprofit sector is also often known as the third sector because they fill gaps to reach underserved communities, often overlooked by private and public sector services. The past two years have shown the importance of local governments coordination with community based nonprofits to collectively need meet the needs of our residents. While many community nonprofits stepped up to serve our city, the entire nonprofit sector across the country has drastically taking a hit. With smaller, locally based organizations. Serving disadvantaged communities are often being most impacted. The country is experiencing what economists have dubbed the great resignation. Historic rates of workforce voluntarily leaving their jobs due to wage stagnation, rising costs of living and inflation and outdated workforce. Culture with smaller community based social services nonprofits being particularly impacted. The pandemic exacerbated many of the existing stressors with real estate speculation. Long standing nonprofits have struggled to remain in their office spaces. For example, the Brazilian Worker's Center in Allston is threatened because of increasing rents, among many others. I'm sure many of my colleagues can cite other examples. Meanwhile, support from from the philanthropic sector often limits foundation grants to specific programmatic work rather than general operating overhead costs, like rent and paying employees a living wage suitable for the city. In January, the Treasury Department issued the final rule, which outlined the specified eligibility uses eligible uses of ARPA funds to include charitable nonprofit organizations as both recipients of assistance, as well as providers of assistance to others on behalf of the city. That means our goals of achieving an equitable recovery must conduct and maximize impact through partnerships with nonprofits who have existing infrastructure as trusted messengers to hard hit communities. With federal funds, we have an opportunity to strengthen partnerships by supporting the incredible and incredibly important work infrastructure that is important infrastructure the community based nonprofit organizations in our city provide while also establishing infrastructure for long lasting, transformative government nonprofit partnerships that could be sustained beyond recovery dollars. This is an essential step toward equitable and sustainable relief, recovery and transformative future. And I look forward to holding a hearing to discuss envisioning that process for all for intentional investment in our city's nonprofit sector. I also just today and on a similar theme related related to this issue. Mayor Wu has just announced today that 38 million of a $3,038 million to support nonprofit organizations to provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness through by supporting 15 nonprofit organizations that deliver critical services to support our unsheltered residents. The homelessness and housing instability is one aspect of the work that our nonprofit sector does. We have many nonprofits working on supporting families, supporting food access, literacy and job training. There's a whole range of of different purpose, different functions that our nonprofit sector does, that I and our nonprofit sector have been providing essential support for our communities over the past two years. And at this moment in time, it's a timely opportunity just to reflect on what they have done and how we can support them going forward. Thank you, Mr.. Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Bret. And would anyone like to speak on this matter? Through the share. Recognize this council. And here, council me. Here you have the floor. I just wanted to rise and thank Councilor Freedom for her intentionality. You know, our office during the height of COVID, ended up working with a lot of nonprofit organizations, many of which were small mom and pop shops, oftentimes under-resourced and really doing the work without any real capacity. And I think when we're thinking about equity and we were thinking about making sure that we're supporting folks, we also need to be super mindful of who gets on that list and who's getting that support. And I think that that is an area that we may need to lean in a little bit more to ensure that organizations who oftentimes are doing more with less have an opportunity to build their capacity. And I also think that in terms of some of the work that we've experienced and it's not just there are a lot of folks who are running organizations that don't know how to speak English but have managed to create miracles during COVID. And I think that as we think about how we support folks, we I always go back to this information, just the situation I'm in, making sure that people understand what's at stake and that we're doing our due diligence to build capacity. And so we're really looking forward to the hearing and leaning in and welcome any way that we are able to support. And please add my name as a spot in the sponsorship. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman here, please. That councilman here. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? But anyone else like to add their name? Please raise your hand. Mr. Clarke pleased. Councilor Arroyo. Councilor Bach. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Fernandez. Innocent Council. Priority Council. Borough Council. Regional Council. Member Here Council. Murphy Council. Round. Plays out the chair. Talk of 0436 will be referred to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Mr. Kirk, can we go back to zero four, three five? I want to see if any of my colleagues want to sign on as a co-sponsor. Going back to docket 0435, I neglected to ask if anyone would like to add their name to that docket. If you would like to add your name. Would you please raise your hand? Mr. Kirk, please add Counselor Arroyo, please add Counsel of Counselor Edwards. Counsel of Clarity Counsel. LRA Counsel. Murphy Counsel. We're all pleased that the Chair. Thank you. Mr. Clarke, please read your. 404370437 Council upgrade and offer the following resolution in support of House 38 Senate 1874 and relative to payments in lieu of taxation pilot by organizations exempt from the property tax.

Recommendation to declare the City-owned property located at 550-572 East Vernon Street and 2515-2545 Atlantic Avenue, Assessor Parcel Numbers 7208-006-908, -912, -913, -914, -915, -916, -917, -919 and -920 (Subject Property) as surplus, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement, with DIDM Development Corporation, a California corporation, or affiliate, for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $700,000, and accept Categorical Exemption CE 16-192. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_08162016_16-0758

Thank you. Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. Thank you. Number 19 Please. Report from Economic and Property Development and Development Services recommendation to declare a city owned property located at 553 572 East Vernon Street and 2515 through 2545 Atlantic Avenue as surplus and execute all documents necessary with the IDM Development Corporation for the sale of the property in the amount of $700,000. District six. Thank you. Thank you. Anchor Mr. West and Mr. Conway. Yes, sir. Mike Conway. Vice Mayor Richardson, members of City Council. This item relates to a former redevelopment property located at the southwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and Vernon Street. The RDA was in preexisting and near-final discussions with the IDM Development Corporation for the purchase and development of the property. And the IDM has expressed interest in proceeding with the purchase of the property for affordable housing for seniors. So staff request that City Council declare the property surplus authorized city manager exceed all, any and all documents necessary for the sale of the property except a categorical exemption. C 16 Dash 192 and this concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Conway. Councilman Andrew Hay Thank you. I'm hoping that Amy and Mr. Conway will say this is a good thing, but I do know the pride of this situation here because I am very glad that despite the setbacks, this item is finally up for purchase sale agreement. You know, this project is very dear to. Me as a seniors housing. And in desperate need, not only in the sixth District, but in the entire city. The project sales agreement is only another way to keep this project on track and keep it aligned with the details and goals that are going to benefit our community. And I'm hoping that the providers here and letting them know that this is it, we have to get this off the ground. We must get this done, because this is very important not only for the society, but for the city of Long Beach. And I'm hoping that he is here. He's here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Councilmember Yanga. I want to echo Councilmember D's comments. It's a very important project and I hope that we can get accomplished. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Will the council please cast their vote? Thank you.

Recommendation to receive and file a staff report on Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and 2017 Workforce Gender, Age, and Ethnic Diversity Report. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10242017_17-0974

Motion carries. Thank you. Number 19, please. 19 is a report from Human Resources. Recommendation to receive and file a staff report on Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and 2017 Workforce, Gender, Age and Ethnic Diversity Report Citywide. Thank you, Councilman Braga. Yeah. I'd like to move that. We delay this report until the 14th. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any public comment saying, members, please cast your vote. Oh, wait, we have one public comment to make. Yeah, just want to. Okay. This I don't I don't know a lot about it, but in the name of Jesus, I come. Robert Okay. But the thing. Let me turn this around. Okay. Okay. It says recommends that nation to receive. I mean to receive and file staff report on equal employment opportunity plan equal to equal opportunity employment plan. I don't see that out here. I don't I mean, but I hope it. Just just Mr. Pitt. And you won't lose your time. Okay. Does the only need speak to the motion to continue. The motion on the floor is just to continue the matter until November 14th so that we're not discussing the merits of this item. So you just. You speak to. The motion to comment on a motion would be whether you want to continue it. Or not to another date. Fair is fair. Well, can. Okay. Well, I'm happy. Can I say one thing? Go for it. Okay. And I said sure. 15. This didn't even ask a question. He said, Comment, boom, man. Why is he using black folks to get money for the city? I don't know what that's for. 15th Amendment. I know about that. We got our rights to vote and everything. I'm pretty sure that's not connected. So you know more about me. Ask later. Oh, thank you. I'll try. Maybe I'll make it, you know. But I want to be enlightened. Thank you for your time. Right. Members. Go ahead and cast your vote. Yes. Which increase. Thank you. That concludes the city council agenda. So now we have. I know. What can I say? So next we have a second public comment period for any, you know, any items on the agenda, please come forward. This is General.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to enter into an agreement with Art Center College of Design, a California private nonprofit educational institution, to develop a campaign related to unhealthy behaviors surrounding HIV and STDs, for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, for an amount not to exceed $80,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12132016_16-1095

Which increase. Okay. Let's go ahead in here seven real quickly so we can get to the study session. Madam, quick. Item seven Recommendations to Authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with Art Center College of Design to develop a campaign related to unhealthy behaviors surrounding HIV and STDs for an amount not to exceed 80,000 citywide. Great. Mr. West. Yes. Our Health Director, Kelly Colby, will make a quick presentation. Good evening, Mayor. I'm mayor and city council members in the city of Long Beach. We have been seeing an increasing rate of STDs and HIV infections. In fact, we've seen rates increasing by 47% for chlamydia and for syphilis, 97% and gonorrhea up to 115%. The rates have been really going high, as well as an increase in infections in HIV, though some of those are some of the highest in California, second to San Francisco. So we know that we are really doing a lot of great work. And we've been working very closely with L.A. County in its work around bringing Prep, which is a prevention opportunity for HIV, as well as doing a lot of outreach campaigns. We have a grant in right now to L.A. County to also connect to, you know, to bring in additional resource for HIV outreach, connecting, testing and moving forward . So we have a lot of the work going on, but clearly the weather patterns are right now that we need to be doing some additional systems, doing some shifts in the work that we do. So what the screen allows for as we're requesting to work with design matters, which is at the Pasadena Art Center, and basically they pull together experts in the field and students in innovation as well as part of our team to really start to look at different ways and different opportunities to reverse the trends that we've been seeing. So we'll be working closely with them and our community partners, including the care clinic, the center being a star and others to really to sit with Pasadena Design Center, to really come up with a new and innovative approach. It will be starting in the spring and move into the fall and will be coming back with a with a new a new campaign process to move forward. So we're very excited about this opportunity and we look forward to working with our team members. Councilwoman Gonzales, anything to your motion? Councilman Austin. Councilman Price. Just real briefly, I know we have a busy meeting tonight, but I just wanted to commend the health department. And Kelly, with your leadership, this is a tremendous opportunity to think outside the box and be creative. I can't think of a situation where we've partnered with a group like this, a design, a creative entity like this, to help us deal with a public safety public health issue that's affecting our community. So I'm very grateful that you're doing this. And it's it's a great intro for an item that I will be bringing your way via council in January. So thank you very much for this collaboration and for bringing this idea to the council. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Case C nonmembers, please go below. I have a public comment. I'm looking for the up here. I'm up here. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. I think the money should be better. Used to look into why it is that when the gay rights movement at the end of the 1970s was raising end to power, and then all of a sudden somebody created something called AIDS HIV. I think the money should be spent to investigate how it is. This appeared out of nowhere. They lied to us and said a monkey bit somebody. What a bunch of nonsense. You know, the truth of the matter is, is that there's a holocaust going on in our country and it's against LGBT people, and they really need to find the real reason and the real people behind making people sick and killing all these thousands and thousands of innocent people. It reminds me of what Hitler did to the gay people in Nazi Germany. Only they're not rounding them up and putting them in gas chambers and burning their bodies. What they're doing is they're poisoning the virus and the virus can be spread to anybody. And what they need to do is find out how it is this virus magically appeared when the gay rights movement was raising up into power at the end of the seventies. And the truth of the matter is, we're going into another dark time with Donald Trump and his dictators who are going to he's picking out a cabinet of the most anti-social or anti-gay people that I've ever seen. If we think we have a problem with HIV and AIDS, what they need to do is find out, yes, educate people about their health. We all know that. Okay. But we have to do that. But the thing of it is, is that there's something very wrong in our country where we all complacently sit around. And, yes, I'm against an international airport, but what about the lives of people? Isn't that a little more important? It seems like money has become our God and people are worshiping the almighty dollar rather than finding the real problems in our society. Why it is that people are having trouble surviving in our society and how to do better, and that somebody has to stand up and speak out against it because it's not going to correct itself and pray. And the gay away doesn't work. They've tried that for thousands of years and they also, by the way, burnt witches and gay people in the Inquisition. And as far as I'm concerned, AIDS and HIV is just something manufactured by some sick human beings who knew how to manufacture viral warfare . Yes, that's what that is. We have the capability of killing everybody many times over with the amount of poison that this country has generated. And if you don't know that, Google it. And the thing of it is, is that we're heading into another dark age. Thank you, sir. Time's all up. Sorry about that. Thank you very much. That concludes the public comment on item seven of the last item on the consent. No other public comment. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance renaming Barnum North Park located north of 6th Avenue/U.S. 6, west of Federal Boulevard and east of Knox Court as “M.L. ‘Sam’ Sandos Park”. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Re-names Barnum North Park (between West 6th Avenue, Knox Court and Federal Boulevard) to “M.L. "Sam" Sandos Park” in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-29-16.

DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0474

And he always worked with both sides. Even if you didn't even if he was on opposing. He always would go to the opposition and shake their hands and would talk to them. So that was Sam. He was he I just can't tell you how much I appreciate and love Sam. And so thank you for naming. The park. After Sam. Thank you. Thank you, Debbie dryly. You know, as I said a minute ago, the drilling family met Sam because he became the councilman and she was browbeating him to work on the park. And Saturdays were spent with their family and our family cleaning up trash with that park. And Sam was a lifelong friend of Lucille's. Ethel has just been a wonderful, wonderful neighbor and helper with my brother in law that still lives there. You know, the parks and so forth wouldn't be there. Sam has a huge legacy. We participated in the Christmas basket, and if any of you have never participated in the Christmas basket, you need to do that one year. It is absolutely, completely amazing. We put together boxes. We were part of the group. She talked about that. We're delivering to people that couldn't. Lucille always had a list of neighbors that were a little bit less fortunate, and we would take the boxes over to them because most of them were elderly and couldn't drive. So again, we've been friends with them for all of these years and I am. Proud to support. The renaming of that. Ballpark. For Sam. Thank you. Thank you. Bill dryly. Yes. Thank you. Sam Santos and Ethel Santos were great friends of my mother, Lucille, and they worked together to help the community. Every day. Every day they could. My mom would have a problem. She would call Sam. He'd be over there running, and Ethel would be with him most of the time. They're just the greatest people. And I'm so proud to stand here and say that. I hope you named this park after Sam. Thank you. Thank you. Paul Santos. I'm gonna start with that. Of course I'm the work force, so I got to come up there first for the family. Thanks, Mom. This is part of the project that you have. I am of the proud principal of Lester Arnold High School and a lifelong educator serving children, much like my father and mother. For most of my adult life in Denver, public schools as well. Who is my Sam Sanders and why is he deserving of this park naming? Manually Sam Sanders was born in Denver, Colorado on June 16th, 1927, the son of a Greek coal miner and a Hispanic mother. He was a lifelong resident and community leader in Denver's West Side. In 1941, you do the math. Now we know that in World War two, the age for induction was dropped to 16, but Sam was 14. In 1941, he lied about his age and joined the Army's 82nd Airborne as a paratrooper. He sustained crippling injuries at the Battle of the Bulge, resulting in several decorations for valor, including the Purple Heart and Silver Star. While recuperating, he met and married Ethel Mae McCants, and they raised nine children in the Villa Park and Barnum Park neighborhoods. They built a home in Villa Park where they raised their children and sheltered 14 foster children over the course of 40 years. Sam served on a plethora of boards and committees. His love of the Airborne Rangers and the military led him to be part of the American GI Forum. He worked tirelessly for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and for the American Legion. He loved effortless countless efforts for projects, especially want to admit scholarships for children. Westwood Community Center, who worked tirelessly for a lot of boys clubs and girls clubs of Denver. Sam was an amazing my dad. I never called him Sam in my life. What a problem I got. And Manuel was an amazing speaker on how to interpersonal skills. He brought a lot of money into Denver from state and federal coffers, including the National Summer Youth Sports Program. We knew growing up that our father's work was very important because of the people he worked with. We understood Martin Luther King. My father had worked with them. We knew Hubert Humphrey. He brought him home to have tacos. The best in Denver made by his Irish wife, of course. Tim Wirth. Schroeder often visited us and we played catch. Many people don't realize, but the Baltimore Colts used to have their training center at the Colorado School of Mines. He brought Johnny Unitas home and we got to play catch. But it wasn't those folks that turned his clock. It was his constituents. And I know how to count some of my family. What kind of hours you guys keep? And those incessant calls that come at all the wrong time and the doorbell being rang all at the wrong time. We shared our father with his constituents. Thank you for considering him for this. Thank you, Tim Sanders. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm going to go to the next page, which is actually a very telling page. It was my father walking with young people, leading a march back when they were much more militant. Young people were getting their voice, and it was the first time that they felt that they had an opportunity to talk about their culture, their people, where they're at. So you see the picture there of my father looking like the gruff man he used to be at times with a cigaret in his mouth. At that time. What he was doing is helping young people understand how they could be a part of their community. They could express their voice. Unfortunately, during these times, he had to be there because many times people were attacked and he was there to protect the young people to ensure that there was safety. So I'm here to talk about the community activists and commitment to children and families that this picture portrays, but as it's specific to what was part of their culture, what we used to call the goalie at the time. Why did they decide to work on the Gulf to change the environment? Well, my brother mentioned that I've got seven brothers, two sisters, 14 foster brothers and sisters. Quite frankly, we needed some place to play. And so I also want to recognize, because we're speaking about my father in such eloquent terms, that it was really my mother who drove my dad to do the things that he did. So it was my mother who would say, Well, then, Sam, you need to do something about it. And there's that their filled over there that nobody's using, they dump trash. Why don't we talk about going and cleaning this up now? This was prior to being on the Denver City Council. So, again, you know, 14 Sanders kids in the back of the van go in, clean up the gully and wear a gulch and use it for baseball fields and four soccer fields. It was really creating a quality of life for the kids in the neighborhood and giving us an opportunity, some place not only to play, but to be proud of. So we combine that with the Mayor's Commission on Youth to create summer employment, and it used to talk to us all about, okay, we're going to work hard, we're going to clean this up, but then we're going to play hard too. So we got to have the balance in life and understand that if you give, you get back as well. Those were the key lessons that were being taught to each and every one of us in the family and in the community. Then he decided at one point that he could do so much more if he was elected to the city council. And as my brother mentioned, he was elected in 1975 and served 12 years on the Denver City Council. Channel nine News did a story talking about Barnum, and they said Barnum features a heavy Hispanic influence both in business and presidency. Denver's first Hispanic City Council representative Sam Santos, elected in 1975, represents District three, which includes Barnum and Barnum West. He served for three terms, and this is really the most important points of nine news story. He was a preeminent leader in building relations between the white and Hispanic communities. If you remember the early seventies, it was a time of turmoil. There was not a lot of people who are willing to step into that void to create commonality among people. My father was one of the first. So we come to the legacy and the legacy of the things not only that he did then what he taught his children and what was touch of the rest of the community . So these things wouldn't stop when he passed away, but his work would continue on. And so I'm looking forward to hearing from my brother Dan, who will share a little bit more about those things. Thank you very much. Thank you. And with that Segway, Dan Santos. Thank you. Thank you for entertaining us tonight and considering our presentation. I want to. Thank the Honorable Paul Lopez. As well as Adriano and his suits for everything that you guys have done. You guys are incredible. I'd like to thank Happy Haine. She's been a family friend of ours forever, and I appreciate you carrying the ball happy. I'd like to offer my congratulations to Ruth. Darling and her. Family. She was incredible. And you guys. Are deserving of what. You've done. I want to talk about just a couple of things, the SAM Sandals website, Health Health Center. I know all of you guys know about that. I don't have to tell you about how great it is and what a tremendous community asset it is. What I do want to say is thank you, because I know you guys work your butts off and I know that after a tough day, after a tough week, after a tough month, you're sitting here wondering, man, what am I doing here? Am I doing any good, guys? The West, South, the west side, the Sam Sanders West Side health centers is is testament to what great. Work you guys do. So thank you. I'm going to tell you about two nonprofit 501 seat threes that our family runs. One is the Hispanic annual salute. I am the president of the Hispanic and Salute. We are in our 37th year of providing scholarships that reward that recognize and reward volunteerism for high school seniors. It's important for us to do this because as Tim talked about, there's a few things that our father left for us in terms of legacy and the legacy and volunteerism is one of them. He believed and so do we, that if we find our community's brightest and best volunteers, if we hold them up and say, look at what these tremendous human beings are doing, it will inspire others to do more community service work. If all of us in this room today did one more thing for our community, how great would that be? I want to tell you that that. Process works, that that. Organization does a great job of doing just that. We recognize high school seniors that perform hundreds of hours of volunteer work throughout the year. We believe that those high school seniors are leaders today. We believe that they're going to be leaders in college. And we believe that they're going to be leaders after they finish their education and transition into their professional lives. Guys, we want to give those kids a little help up. So we give them a couple of years of scholarships and a computer. We do everything we can. We're an all, all volunteer organization. All of. Our profits fund, our. Scholarships. The second 501c3 that I want to tell you about is the Sam Sanders Christmas Basket program. Many of you know about this. The pictures that you'll see here represent a lot of the people that do the work. What you'll see there is Ruth driving spirit. You'll also see some of Ruth Grayling's children because they've been coming forever. In addition, you'll see some leaders from from our community the governor, the mayor, the honorable councilman Paul. We've seen Mr. Flynn the past couple of years. I want to thank Mr. Espinosa and Debbie, because these people have supported us forever. So when you look at that picture, guys, I want you to see what I want you to look at, what you're really seeing. What you really see is Denver. Tim talked about legacy, our legacy as a family, as volunteerism, but our legacy as a community is this organization and what it has done. We provide 2500 families with baskets per year on an average. Out of those baskets, the family can get ten meals. That's 25,000 meals multiplied over 40 plus years. It's a tremendous effort. And we're very proud of it. And we know that this. Is our legacy. But what I want to tell you all, you are all owners. This is really Denver's. Legacy. With the amount of work that we're doing and the amount of good that we're doing is really this community's legacy that we get to operate every year. So with that, I want to thank you. And I look. Forward to seeing you all again at our Christmas Basket program last Saturday before Christmas every year. We'll be there. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Ethel Sanders. Here I am again. I'm so glad to see all of you here. Some of you I know. Some of you I don't know. Some of you are too young to have known Sam Sanders. And so I'm going to tell you just a little bit about him. I mean, my kids have already said just about everything. What else can you say? But Sam Sanders was in the military at age 14, like the kids said. And they didn't say that when he was in the military and was a paratrooper, he jumped into the back of enemy lines and was frozen from the hips down. And he spent over a year in Fort Carson Hospital recovering from those injuries. So anyway, the funny thing was he finally was able to get a bus and come to Denver to see his mom and one of the neighbors seen him out there and decided that he must be a draft dodger because he had to be at least 18 by then. And so he must be a draft dodger. So they called the Department of the Army. And so here they came in their big car. And how surprised they were to see Sam Sanders standing there in uniform and on crutches, they were a little embarrassed because people, you know, are really eager to say bad things. Now. Sam was. He wasn't a saint, but I kind of think he was. I go to Mass every morning at 630, and the other morning there was a little old lady, a little older than me. Nobody's older than me. But anyway, her and her daughter were coming across a lot, going into the church. And so she came and started hugging me and talking in Spanish. And I heard her say something about Santos. Well, I knew I wasn't a saint, so she must be talking about Sam. Well, her daughter came and said, You have to forgive my mom, but she thinks that your husband is a saint as well. I kind of do, too. But anyway, he had saved her house at one time. And all of the things the many things that he did. He did so much for so many people, such as I don't know. He was I think he was a great city councilman. And I think that he probably was a saint. But over our years, we we were very poor. I mean, he made 21,000 a year. You guys make a lot more than that. But he made 21,000 a year and paid his own aid. He was the first one to do that. But we didn't have a whole lot of money, so everybody had to participate. And I am so thankful for my children. You can see what great people they are. Pat isn't here tonight, but he took over the Christmas basket program when Sam died and and Dan took over the Hispanic annual salute where we give scholarships to many young children. And you should hear the things that they say. They're so appreciative of help. So and then a lot of things happened over the years. And a priest we know and I thought he was a friend. I'm not sure now, but he came by my store one day and he said, Ethel, I just dropped off two Mexican boys aged 17 at your house, and they don't speak a word of English. I said, Father, I may have to kill you. I said, Sam's in Washington, and I don't speak a word of English. He says, you'll you'll think of something. Well, of course we did. We always thought of something because we were survivors. And I can't thank my children enough. You know, little kids, they. They took these guys aside and explained what we were having for dinner and and all of that. And so it was just just a wonderful thing. And then after Sam and I were married, I don't know, a couple of years and still poor, I had my my diamond ring for a down payment on a house, and I went and done all the paperwork on the house. And on Saturday, we were to do the closing. So we went for the closing. And of course, Sam worked construction then, and he worked without a shirt and he was brown is a very and so when we went in the office, this great big guy stood up and he said, We can't sell you that house. And I said, Why not? I gave you the money for my ring. He said, Well, because it's a restricted area and we don't sell to Mexicans. I said, Well, but he's half Greek and I'm Irish. And he said, I don't care. He still have Mexican. That was the first time I'd seen my husband cry. We both sat down on the curb and cried our hearts out. But we finally got to know their house, so it was even better. So it all worked out all right. We went through lots of lots of trials. Sam was well, he was a volunteer from the heart. And like Joanne told you that he'd call you any time of the day or night because he needed help with this. And he worked on both sides of the aisle with the different city council. And then we got to be friends with all of them. After 12 years, of course. So anyway, I appreciate you listening to us and to our stories and thank Paul for following her by harassing him. And of course, Debbie. We loved Debbie. And I know that Happy Haines is part of my family. Has always been. She just so wonderful. And then we adopted Kevin Flynn because he is my new councilman and we're happy and pleased. And I want to thank all my children for doing what they've done to support me. Sam died way too young. He was 60 years old, and so he died way too young. And he hadn't finished all the projects that he had started. I guess that's why you have children to finish the projects that you never had time to finish. Thank you so much for your concern. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the Council? Councilman Espinosa. I sort of just having to ask, can Dan and Tim or whoever come up and just say where you can find out more information about both charities if you want to donate or support in any other way? You're very kind. And one thing we'd like to point out, thank you for the request, Councilman Espinoza. Both of these organizations are 100% volunteer, and we raise all the money for those ourselves or with our volunteers. So there's not a penny of contribution coming from any other nonprofit or other organization or source that set down one. And we depend on volunteers, 700 plus volunteers for the basket program alone. So it's a tremendous outreach. We. WW W Sam Sanders Christmas Basket program dot org and WW W Hispanic Annual Salute. Georgie And both those websites are operational all the time and we take contributions forever year round. So if you know anybody right now and I would add one other thing, we participate in Cinco de Mayo, September 16th, selling sodas and beverages to generate revenue for our scholarships and our Christmas basket program. We do that every year. So thank you for more volunteers. Please volunteer. Yeah. The if you want to be humbled. Look at the kids that received these scholarships. They really all make you feel like you're not doing enough. But so thank you for both organizations. And I'm glad that the Sam Sanders Christmas baskets are are based in district one and continue to be and and looking forward to being there this last Saturday before Christmas. I'll see you guys there. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. The public hearing for Council Bill 474 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, it is an honor to be here and to see this come up in front of us. You know, when when I think of, you know, I made my comments to Councilman Santos and his family and in the park, but I'll wrap both up and the excellent time that we have here that you're seeing in front of you. You can't be what you can't see. And for Sam Sanders for a lot of us in the community. Sam Sanders, Carpio Rubin Well, there's a lot of those folks in our community. Were that which we could see. But it doesn't surprise me. To hear the story and it messes with my heart every single time. And tears rushed to my face. To think of the fact that Councilman Santos was turned down. Because of him being Mexican. And it hurts because I know that that's still happens. I know that it's still happens. I know what that feels like. And it happened to me as a councilman. It. Is happening to people all over our city. And you look at the national politics and when you happen to catch the convention or some of the comments that that Mr. Trump is saying, you would think that a mexican is a very horrible thing to be. And they're doing a very good job of scaring the heck out of everybody of us. But what is there to really be afraid of? Mm hmm. The fact that you want to improve the neighborhoods we live in or represent them and represent them with integrity, represent them with. With courage. And yes, with great because these are the politicians. These are the leaders that had grit. They weren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and make it happen. But most of all, with love. And you know, this this March, Debbie and I kind of looked at each other, and I did this with one of the Sanders, uh, men, the one where the counselor was leading this march. Apparently, Che Guevara was in there and talking with him. There's a guy in a beret, had long hair look like Che Guevara. And very rarely do I ever I will quote because I think it's a very important quote in saying that a true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. At the at the risk of seeming ridiculous. The true revolution revolutionaries guided by great feelings of love. And that is what the Santos family is about. That's what Councilman Santos was about. There are some people in our community, in our world that draw these circles around themselves. And there are some that draw their circles around themselves, in their family. And then there are others who draw a huge circle. And in that is their entire people. Their entire world. And that's the kind of person that Councilman Santos was. And, you know, I. Councilman Santos was born in the same time my grandfather was. They both served in the Army together and probably maybe ran into each other. But my grandfather was from old northern Colorado. And, you know, there are some of us who. For whatever reason, the father role was played by somebody other than the father. And for a lot of these kids and a lot of the folks and to know that 14 foster children in and out of 40 years. The dedication and the love. You have to have to be able to do that to raise them. To shape them. You're basically raising a community. And what a better what a more better opportunity than this park, which he helped create. And like Ruth dryly, I like Ruthie. We had nothing. There was nothing. There wasn't a park to be played in. And they made it. They turn a goal, a turn, a gulch filled with tires and shopping carts and muskrats and crawdads. To this day, I cannot eat crawdads. You know the crayfish? I can. They just look the same. And I've named all of them. And you're not supposed to name them, but. They made it happen and we are continuing to do that. And yes, it's sad that that Councilman Santos could not see that some of his project projects complete are completed. But guess what? They are being completed this last week here on this dais, we implemented the Westwood Neighborhood Plan, the first one since Councilman Martinez and Sam Santos, and they worked on it. The first one since the now 30 years. For the first time in 30 years, we've had three new parks open up in the district. The first time in 30 years was Ali's councilman Santos, with a scourge of his own. He wanted them paved simply not with diamonds or concrete, but with asphalt. There paved those streets for the first time. Every single street and that district is paved right and one right in front. That's right. Every single one of them. And it's those things that build communities. These are community builders that we are honoring. These are city builders that we are honoring. And, you know, it's not when people say they're proud of Denver, it's not with a sense of nativism that it's mine and not yours, because that's very dangerous. That line of thinking is very dangerous. But it is. It's this neighborhood for everybody. Right. And it's a sense of of of selflessness and to to say, you know, there's this protection of Denver and the what makes us this is it's our roots. It's these stories. It's it's these these legacies. And that's the reason for these two naming. And the reason that we're renaming and Barnum North to Sam Sanders Park. Right, because these kids who are playing on this ball field, these adults who are playing on these ball fields, these teams that are playing on these ball fields. Owe it to folks like Senator Sanders and the fact that you have so many kids now benefit benefiting from scholarships. You have one kid who remembers a Christmas basket coming to his door because they were too poor to afford it. That was me. We were in that program, we were on that list. And then to be able to give back, I played on that playground. As a matter of fact, the first time I chipped a tooth was on this playground. And that's when when playgrounds were fun because they were a little bit dangerous. All right. And it was actually the street where I chipped it right in front of it. But that's where we would play. That's where my daughter played. And the reason why we are working the way we do, we never forgot. We never forgot the ask of of a Lucille drilling when she came and said, can you please name this park? Can you can you do that in my honor, I ask you very humbly, she said. There's no other flowers that would make me happier in this world. And when Ethel Sanders script on when we sat down says, you know, we have to do something about that, golly, you you have to remember this. You cannot let this. Fall by the wayside. We've wanted it for so many years. We wanted to honor him in so many different ways and to see all these kids playing here, we have to do something and it's being done. And tonight we will have two new names was shiny signs on those parks will not tonight, but we will install them . I wanted to thank those family members. Thank you to the Santos's for your work, for your dedication, for your volunteerism, for your grandchildren, your kids, everything that you do for our community. And thank you to the drilling families. Thank you both families for for lending your matriarch and your patriarch to not only just father, your families and mother, your families, but also to do that for our communities. It is a heck of a sacrifice. And families don't understand when a lot of people don't understand that, it really impacts the family. And it's hard. It's very hard. But at the end of the day, those circles are drawn around so many people and we have to understand that. So on on our behalf and on behalf of the City Council, District three, thank you. Thank you for that time away from you and with us. We appreciate it. And thank you to Parks and Rec. Right. Yolanda Quesada, who all of a sudden who had this huge workload. And we just came to her with a bunch of, hey, we want to rename a couple of parks or what? Yeah. Tell us how many signatures all about a lot of them or we're going to bring twice that many right and happy hands. Right. And we came to Happy Hands and Scott Gilmore, he's not here, but Scott really understood. And he said, okay, if you do the work, great. And you know, right away the Dukes go up, protection goes up because the last few park renaming have been highly controversial. Right. In the fact that we don't have any single islands, a country, we couldn't find one person who was and against against this. Right. And thank you to my staff, Adriana and his suits. You worked your souls to the to the ground to make this happen for our community. And, you know, on my behalf, right when we were out here organizing, pulling companies, clipboards out, it doesn't happen automatically. It happens with grit and it happens with that with those souls on your feet. So thank you. Thank you, everybody. And thank you to my colleagues. I am asking you humbly, on behalf of my district to pass this so we can. Give something for kids to see. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. This is this is really a West Side kind of nightlight, isn't it? The West Side. This is great. This is great because at one time it wasn't so easy to get to and from the west side over to town limit. I remember when I when I first came to Denver, the Colfax Viaduct was still one way you could get out of the west side, but you couldn't get back. Right. They closed off Third Avenue. You couldn't get across Third Avenue anymore. When the Valley Highway went in Sixth Avenue ended. Kind of kind of came around the rim of the of the of the hillside there. And you had to come into town on eight on the old eighth Avenue Viaduct. Right on the old. And that's before the freeway went in. And so it's much easier to get to and from the West Side anymore. And so it's great to see to remarkable people from the west side being recognized. I thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward, Ethel. I first met Sam sitting over at that table when I was covering city council meetings as a reporter for the News, Rocky Mountain News. And Sam was sitting, I think, at the site at the time he was sitting on that side. But so he had a sit with Paul Swan and John Silkier and people like that. And that's where I first heard, where I first learned about the culture of this body, about the customs, about the processes, about the practices and the issues, and seeing men like Sam and women like Cathy Reynolds and Cathy Donahue and others who came on board around that same era. In 1975, in fact, the two Cathy's were elected in the same election as Sam, weren't they? I learned so much about how this body functions from seeing that that group of people and and to have you, Ethel, come to me a little over two years ago and suggested that I run for office. What were you thinking? But I just want to tell you that it's. It was an honor to know Sam and to learn something about the about this body from watching him, watching him reach out to people like my predecessor, Ted Hackworth, and how even though as different as night and day in their politics, they could find ways to work together to accomplish what was right for Southwest Denver and to do good things together. And and I learned a lot of lessons from that. So I just want to say I feel that Harriet and I very much value your friendship and your support. And we love you. And it's a pleasure on behalf of the the residents of District two, of which you are now one that moved down to Brentwood. It's a pleasure for me to honor your husband this way and to Tim and Dan and the rest of the family. Thank you very much for. For lending your your husband and your father to this city's betterment of its civic life. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank Councilman Lopez and his staff for the work they did in bringing this forward and all of you who participated in helping to circulate the petitions. I did not know Ruth driving, but I want to congratulate the family in having the park named after her. Clearly. She left her mark in this city and touched the lives of a lot of people. I had the benefit of knowing Sam and working for Sal Carpio, who was the councilman that got elected at the same time that Sam did. And the two of them tag teamed on so many things, along with Bill Roberts, who have you Haines worked with. And I think we all learn from the best. You know, we learned what it was to truly be a grassroots leader, to mobilize your community, to get things done. And folks here don't know this, but our community development funds the block grant dollars. We get used to be administered by a group called the Mayor's Advisory Committee, and each council person had an appointee and Sam and Cell and Bill Roberts tag team to make sure that all the projects in their districts always got taken care of . Because, you know, the HUD criteria was you had to address slum and blight and you had to serve low income communities. And that was these districts, right? So they were notorious for tying up all of those dollars to take care of so many projects in these neighborhoods, whether it was trying to get, you know, alleys paved or , you know, sidewalks in some neighborhoods or in some cases it was a rec center or parks. But they really did an outstanding job in representing our community and. I just love Sam. I mean, he was just an incredible human being. That. And you're right. I thought he he did die way too young because. I can remember when he was in the hospital one time. He was actually took his paperwork with them and he was working from his hospital bed trying to take care of constituent complaints. Right. That's the dedication that Sam Sanders had in really trying to just always go the extra mile in representing the people that elected him. I had the benefit of serving with Tim, who then later stepped into his dad shoes and continued that legacy and the contributions that your entire family has made to this city. And I know there are so many people that are so grateful. And if you have never been to volunteer at the Christmas Basket program, it is such an organized machine that really has you show up as a volunteer and there's a role for you. And everything runs like clockwork. And it's it's amazing whether you're there to package the baskets or go deliver the baskets to the families. It's all very nailed down in terms of providing efficiency to the people who are there to volunteer and to get the product out to the families who who are in need. And I know that that program started out serving the West Side, but it serves the entire city and county of Denver now. And so, you know, I know people all across this city are grateful not only for that program, but also for the scholarship program that has been in place for for all these years. I can remember Sal and Sam also working very, very closely with our state legislators, Ruben Valdez, George Sandoval, Don Sandoval, Rich Castro. They would strategize on how to tie up both state and city dollars to address needs in the community, whether it was, you know, work on Eighth Avenue or I-25. They were working very closely together to make sure that, you know, the projects coming in were going to benefit the neighborhoods. And I just am. Honored to be a supporter of this park naming tonight because Sam really gave his life to this city. And I am grateful to the family for knowing the time it took away from you all. For him to be able to serve not only the constituents of District three, but the city as a whole, because when we sit up here on this dais, we vote on issues that deal with neighborhoods all across the city. And Sam was always very thoughtful. He was a good listener to the people who came here that were asking for support of whether it was a rezoning or something else. But he was just an incredible individual, and I'm just very blessed to have known him. So I will be absolutely supporting this tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. You know, certain folks in the city, when somebody says their name, it's with great reverence and you know that they were a great person and they did amazing things. And, you know, you try to try to figure out and learn a little bit more about them. But I have to say, it was amazing when, you know, kind of looking through the information and that he was the son of a Greek coal miner and a Hispanic mother. My grandfather was born of a Greek goat farmer and a Hispanic mother. And so just immediately having that connection and understanding and you talking about your family and about your dad and your husband and how I can only imagine that your home was very, very loud and full of great food and fun and people, and that when you're doing your life's work, it just becomes part of your life. And you really showed that tonight in sharing that information. And I just wanted to congratulate you on the naming of this park and and the other family as well, because what two great, great, amazing people. I'm honored to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. This has been a bit difficult for me. It's been an extremely emotional presentations, and it started early on. Mr. President, when you read the bill title and when you got to the part of naming Emil Sam Sandoz Park, I saw Tim's eyes get big and kind of choked up a minute. And and I get that. And because, you know, I grew up with the drillings and with the Santos family, except I grew up in New Jersey, and it wasn't the drillings in the sand, it was Mr. and Mrs. Briggs, and it was the ED Acts. And we didn't have a vice president or star football player at the House. But, you know, the cops were always there and the fire department guys, firefighters and you know, the mayor was my next door neighbor and it was all about community. And I loved when Happy started things off by saying that, you know, what you learned from Mr. Santos was not necessarily the most important thing being how to run a city government, but how to create community. And, you know, I'm thinking of our fire chief, Charlie Schilling, you know, who has a fire station in my home town named after him. And, you know, the Mr. Briggs has a Little League baseball field. And so when it's it matters to be a Santos or drilling because the stuff that your father and your mother and grandmother brought to the table, you carry with you, you know. So when I got out of college, I spent a few years doing what I thought I was supposed to do in the world of of business, you know, worked for for a couple of corporations. And then I got out on my own and the places I ended up. I ended up because of how I was raised and who was around me and hearing the things your family is doing and hearing the effect of your relatives on all of you. There will probably be a long, long time before, if ever before, there's no one walking the earth who hasn't been affected by Ruth drilling or Sam Sanders. So, Councilman, thank you very much for bringing this forward. And as my colleague said earlier, this is why this is worth the price of admission. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I wanted to ask. I didn't get to it. And you intended to do Councilman Santos, but I want to. I'll do this for you. Came up to me, and I wanted to ask those who are in favor to name that didn't speak or spoke. If you're in favor of the park renaming for Sam Sanders to please stand. Thank you. And so I wanted to do that on his behalf, and I forgot to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to be totally off the subject. But since we're talking about history and she might be watching. Um, Susan Barnes guilt. I found your portfolio here. There's a letter in here to Debbie Ortega in Happy Haynes, among other council members. District nine, District 11. So Susan is here. I could pick it up at District one office from 1996 as a 20 year old piece of case that's been hiding between novels in my desk. You're not making any fans in that room with that. All right, Councilman Espinosa, thank you. Councilman Ortega. I just wanted to make one last comment, and it's it's. Why does this matter? Why does this matter that we named Parks after people in this city who have, you know, made significant contributions yet so that future generations who go to these parks, who see these names, can learn about who these people were and what they did for this city. And you know, how I think in both cases, both Mr. filing as well as as Councilman Santos really helped build future leaders for this city in the work that they both did. You know, they were grooming young people to get involved, to be active, and to make a difference for their own communities. And that's why it matters. And I think it was just important to say that. And again, I just think being able to honor both of these individuals is an important way of doing that and continuing the legacy of the contributions they made in this city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. So a serious comment, actually. I didn't know Sam, but I have had the privilege of reading you all. And just based on that, he obviously must have been a terrific leader because you guys also are truly, truly committed to your community and leaders in your own right. So the legacy to me is alive and well, just through you guys. And so I'm happy to see this park naming. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. What an amazing evening to amazing people. And I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for coming out and sharing your stories and sharing these individuals with us as the city. And it's been a privilege to be a part of it, and I'll happily support this naming. With that, Madam Secretary, Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega Black. I Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Gillmor. I Cashman. But can each. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight as accountable for 74 has passed. On Monday, August 22nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 498, providing a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver zoning code preexisting small zone light parking exemption for certain projects for a period of approximately seven months , and a required public hearing on Council Bill 541, providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans in the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the garden court building form in the Denver zoning code for a period of approximately 12 months.

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the west division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC_05042016_2016-0220

Okay. So it'll be expedited, but not no consent. Okay. So the next two motions that are before us to 2016, oh two and nine and oh to 20, we're going to move those together. So would you please move both of those at the same time? Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm pleased to move adoption of 2016 219 and 2 to 0 to the full council unexpired basis Monday. And we've had a good discussion. We've had good interviews. I think members still want to have time to consider these qualified candidates and continue to check background and and resources and recommendations. And so at this time, I wouldn't expect to offer any motions to amend these two motions, but we've moved them with that recommendation today. And that would be fine. Any questions or comments? All right. With that clerk, would you please call for the vote? Thank you. Madam Chair comes from our beloved council member. By. Councilmember. Don. Gossett. Councilor Coles councilor in the. McDermott. House. Member of the Grove. Councilor I'm right there. I know. Chair The seminar is no nos in council members. On my cards. Excellent. With that, we have completed our work for today. County is very fortunate to have so many qualified individuals who are willing to serve their communities as a district court judge. And we are 4 minutes beyond the time that I thought it would take us and just we had to take a recess for our recess, friends. We were right on track. So with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Montclair. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-G to E-SU-G1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit) located at 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.

DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0116

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Sawyer Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 116 on the floor for final passage? I'm not going to do that. Based upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 116 is open and we're going to go ahead and get the staff report here in just a moment. We're trying to get our. Podium computer set up so that we can go ahead and have our planners share the PowerPoint presentation. I'm going to text. And we'll go ahead and welcome Fran with us this evening. Go ahead, Fran. Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Frampton Ifill and I'm a city planner with Planning Services. And today we are going to look at the rezoning request for 900 North Street Parkway. The subject property is located in Council District five. In the Montclair neighborhood. The request is to return to a district that will allow you in the rear of the property. All other forms and standards will remain the same. The property is currently shown ESG and the request is to respond to ESG one which requires a minimum standard size of 99,000 square feet and allows for the touch to you in the rear of the property. The site is 10,000 square feet and the current land use for the site is single unit residential and it is totally surrounded by other residential uses. As shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential and the subject property can be seen on the bottom left image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval unanimously on January five, and to date, staff has not received any comment letters from Orange or from the public . Now moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 loop in Denver and the East Area plan. A stated on the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals of the comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. The subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context blueprint Denver. And the future places map designated as low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Monaco Street Parkway is designated as residential arterial street type, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area enveloping Denver is other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Now the East Area Plan adopted in 2020 updates the guidance in comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver within the East Area Plan. The subject property is within the east. Within the urban edge neighborhood context. The proposed ESG one district will allow single unit development within and with an accessory dwelling unit in conformance with the urban edge neighborhood context. The East Area Plan designates the subject property as within the low residential single unit future place. The plan recommends this category in areas where single unit homes with accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Land use and build firm policy states that east area neighborhoods should inclusive, should be inclusive places and integrate missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units. The ESG one's own district allows for a single unit residential use with an additional dwelling unit accessory to the primary single unit use. Therefore, the proposed ESG one zone district is consistent with a low residential single unit. Place description. Stuff also finds that they requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a city adapted plan since the approval of the existing ESG zone district. The city has adopted the comprehensive plan in Denver and the East Area Plan, a stated through this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context, residential district and the ESU one zone district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding or review. But the area has been. All right. Thank you very much, Fran. This evening, we have one speaker signed up, Mr. Hunt. And we have that. Mr. Hunt will be in chambers. Mr. Hunt. Okay. Looks like we don't have the speaker and we don't have anybody by that name on the zoom either. All right. Well, that we do not have any speakers for this public hearing. Then questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 116. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council. Bill 20 2-116. Council Member. Sawyer Thanks, Madam President. No comments except to say that this is the lack of speakers and the lack of response from the community is clearly the results of the East Area Plan Process, which was three years worth of community conversations about what neighbors wanted to see in the East Area Plan neighborhoods, Montclair being one of them. And so, you know, those conversations were had and the East Area plan is reflective of that. So I'm not surprised to see that there are no speakers here tonight and no feedback from the community. This is well within the discussions of what we had during the East Area planning process and I'm supportive of it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and I agree it has met the requirements and happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 116. Sawyer, I. Torres. I black. I CdeBaca. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can teach. I. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-1 16 has passed. Thank you, friend, for being here this evening. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put council bill 20 2-1, two, five on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2016 Action Plan and the Second Substantial Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2015 Action Plan for the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnership Grant, and Emergency Solutions Grant Funds; and Authorize City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary documents with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive these funds, and execute agreements necessary to implement and comply with related federal regulations. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06232015_15-0570

Report from Development Services. Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2016 Action Plan and the second substantial amendment to the Fiscal Year 2015. Action Plan for the Expenditure of Community Development BLOCK Grant, Home Investment Partnership Grant and Emergency Solutions Grant Funds and execute all necessary documents with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive these funds citywide . Thank you. Can I get a motion, please? Oh, there's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on this item? CNN. Let me start with Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank staff for their hard work on this. I took a moment to just look through this item a bit on CDBG and a few things really just stood out to me. So I just have a couple of questions. So. So first, I see that there's a significant amount of documentation here around public outreach or public engagement, citizen engagement around this. Is that a mandate? Is that mandatory for us to track or to conduct public input on how these funds are allocated for these for this these funds? Yes, sir, it is. Okay. Are there any, like goals or benchmarks for how much engagement we should actually have? We actually have to do a five year action plan, and then every five years we update that action plan. But annually, we have to demonstrate that we are meeting the goals of that five year action plan. So it's an annual review of a five year action plan. And what's before you tonight is the fourth annual review of our action plan. We are required to have extensive community outreach. We are required to have two hearings. Those hearings were held by the Long Beach Community Investment Corporation, and we are required to do significant public outreach and demonstrate that we have done that outreach. We do translate this into different languages. We publish notices in different newspapers of different languages, and we hold community meetings and send out E notifies. So we do do quite a bit of extensive outreach when we do the five year action plan. Our outreach basically goes on steroids. And we we actually have surveys and try to reach thousands of people in our community outreach. Thank you. So just based on that, it sounds like, you know, every five years there's significant outreach and there's a little bit of outreach for each of the updates. What really stood out to me when we say substantial outreach or intense levels of outreach was looking at Appendix A where it says the there was a public hearing meeting with no public comments. There was a meeting at MacArthur Park with no public comments, a Washington neighborhood meeting with no public comments. It'll be CIC with no public comments. And when I look at this, you know, it's a significant amount of money. And I think we do a good job of budgeting it. But I think the city council is really set to set a standard now for how we engage and how we move forward and budget budget money and actually get input. Like for as a as an example, we did a pilot project for participatory budgeting. I know a number of other districts did as well. And to compare what we were able to do in a few months around a much smaller amount of money, I think this is millions of dollars. And what we did was, you know, for $250,000 for engagement, you know, while actually applying rules and all the standards to it, I think this is this this just shows us that we can just do more. So so I want to thank you for the hard work that that's taking place with this over over the years. But I, you know, next year, I'd like to see us do something a little more significant as it relates to HUD funds. And and, you know, I'm sure Fed legend, the federal government has actually said that that they'd like to see a city take on a participatory budgeting process for for CDBG. That's something I'm interested in exploring. I just wanted to chime in and make that comment. Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I would just echo what Councilman Richardson said in terms of public outreach. I think that is a really good point. It's he he really led the way on council for the PB process. I know District three and District one followed suit and the community engagement that we received and we were dealing with $75,000 in three , but we had, you know, close to 800 votes in a very short period of time and lots of people being engaged in the process. So anything that we can do to to help promote public engagement and public outreach, I think that's really important. And I think Councilman Richardson raises a good point that, you know, with the new leadership on. Council. We have a very strong focus on making sure that the public is involved in everything that we do and that they're along for the ride. I know that's very, very important to me. And so if we can get that that spirit moving, not that that staff's not already doing that, but we can improve upon it and perhaps use some of the energy of the new council in terms of outreach and getting people involved in allocating funds. I think that would be a great direction to take. Thank you. I would suggest this is probably very appropriate for when we update the five year action plan. But when we're in the fifth year of a five year action plan next year, we're really trying to meet our goals and objectives of the first plan. So if I may suggest that that's something that we would look at definitely for when we implement the five year action plan. Next. I have Councilwoman Gonzales. I know you just answer that, but I would just have to concur with the colleagues. I think participatory budgeting really opened up our eyes as to what was possible and in reaching a different group. You know, we have Washington neighborhood had group in the first district. But a lot of those, you know, they're not as organized. So with the participatory budgeting, we were able to get a lot more residents that normally aren't part of the process. So I would just have to include that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Thank you. See no other public comments? You no other comment on public comment on the item? Mr. Mayor, may I just add one item at the request of our city attorney for the housing development company. The excuse. Me, the Long Beach Community Investment Company that recommended action for designating the city manager to execute all necessary documents. That does include the request to actually expend the funds per the action plan. Okay. Thank you. Please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero 14. Report from Human Resources recommendation to purchase through an excess municipal liability insurance, airport liability insurance and aircraft liability and hull insurance for police helicopters. The total cost of all renewal premiums will not exceed $1,378,000 citywide.

Order for a hearing on the state of Boston's non-governmental, nonprofit social sector and charting a post-pandemic recovery.

BostonCC_05042022_2022-0436

Pursuant to the requirements of the RPA, the grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such state territory tribal government due to the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year of the state territorial tribal government prior to the emergency and docket numbers. 0436. Order for a hearing on the state of Boston's non governmental nonprofit social sector and chart charting a post-pandemic recovery. Thank you, Mr. Craft. The chair recognizes counsel, a chair of the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 Recovery Council. You have the floor. So much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the councilors who came to our hearing yesterday afternoon, including Councilor Flynn, Reid and Baker, Murphy, Flaherty, Fernandes, Henderson were all here, and it was a good first introduction to the administration's proposal on the American Rescue Plan funds 350 million. So Casey Brock Wilson and Jim Williams set up the Budget Office and she magically sought several. All joined us from the administration. As we discussed at that hearing. It was really just a kind of first overview of what they're proposing. And then, as I've mentioned a few times, my intention is to have a series of more kind of topic focused ones where we both talk about the details of their proposals in different categories like housing, public health, etc., but also put next to it the things that councilors have been filing and talk about the details of those and kind of hash out what makes sense from this body's perspective, since this really is this transformational one time funding that we're getting. And it's got to be an agreement between the council and the mayor as to what the most impactful way to spend it is. So that was the first hearing in a process. We also noticed it, as the clerk mentioned, on the $40 million revenue replacement docket that's really supporting the budget that's in Councilor Furniture, Edison's committee. And then as well, I've heard from a number of nonprofit leaders on the docket that Councilor Braden had proposed about sort of what the role of the nonprofit ecosystem should be in this space. And in particular, thinking about what are the ways that our funding and the program that we set up could could really strengthen the nonprofit sector as it recovers. And I think there was some really good conversation about that, recognizing that the city doesn't have money to bail out the nonprofit sector here. But are there ways that in our contracting with the nonprofit sector in terms of like making things intentionally available to smaller nonprofits, and then that really like thinking about how the quality of the jobs that we have, um, that we're supporting with these contracts and agreements look like could we help transform that sector to one that's more sustainable for the people who work in it and the people that it serves. So I think it was a really robust, good conversation. And it was and I want to thank in particular Councilor Brayton is she was the sponsor of that third docket. Um, but it was very much the beginning of the conversation. My, my office will have out today or tomorrow morning. Our draft information requests from questions that councilors asked. But as councilors have any questions that you'd like to add on to that? You can write back to our office with that. So we're going to try to wrangle that all by the end of the day, Friday, so that we can send it over, so that we can make sure that we've got the right information in hand in advance of the next hearing with the administration. We're also in the midst of nailing down and we'll hopefully have nailed down by Friday the exact schedule of those upcoming hearings so that people can know. But what I would encourage in the meantime is that colleagues continue to do what folks have been doing, I think, including in the agenda today, which is if there's something that you want put alongside the proposal and to talk about as a use of ARPA funds. File it in the council docket. With that mention of ARPA funds in the title so that we know that that's a conversation we're trying to participate in. And and we'll definitely be figuring out how to make sure that the time in those subsequent hearings is not just about the administration's proposals. It really is about what councilors are proposing. And I'm excited to keep hashing that out together. So thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I will ask that the dockets, all three, remain in committee. Thank you. Council Docket 0503. I'm sorry. The chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I would like to thank the chair of the. Of the the committee for holding this in and to. Listen to us. And our concerns. I made mine quite clear yesterday. I don't really see anything in here that speaks to mental health other than what's happening down in mass. And Cass and I believe we do need investments down there, but I don't think we need to invest in. Buying things like the Roundhouse. Hotel and things like that. I think we should be investing in. Our young. Kids that are going to bear the brunt of this, of this what's happened to us the last two years. Everything that's happened there, it's young kids. Just look at what's going on in our schools, the violence and the misbehaviors that are happening in our schools. It's all mental health driven. And I don't see one thing in this $350 million that speaks to that to speaks to youth development. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Counsel Baker. The Chair recognizes Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank the Commissioner for her leadership and chairing the committee hearing yesterday and allowing us to add our docket to the hearing to look at Boston's non-governmental, nonprofit social sector and how they and hear from representatives of that sector and how their fared during the pandemic. It's really it was a timely reminder that our nonprofit sector are essential partners for the city in delivering essential services in the sphere of housing and mental health. And so health and human services all across the board, we have 200,000 residents of Boston are actually employed in this sector, and very many of our smaller nonprofits dug into their financial reserves. And in the early days of COVID, to meet the and to meet the need thinking, it would be a short term challenge. It wasn't a sprint. It turned out to be a marathon, actually, probably a super marathon longer than the 26 miles. So, you know, I think it was a timely conversation. And I do hope that we will continue to consider how we might support the nonprofit sector as we consider how we might expend our ARPA funds going forward and targeted and mindful of expenditure in certain things will actually give us a lot more benefit going forward. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. And the chair recognizes counselor. Me here, counselor. Me here. You have the floor. Yes, thank you to the chair and to the sponsors for bringing this very important conversation to our chamber yesterday. I just would like to go on the record and echo the importance of making sure that we as councilors understand and recognize the important role that we play in determining how these dollars are going to get allocated and used. I always say that nothing about us without us is for us, and when we get presented things that we need to react to, it always feels like an afterthought. And in the spirit of the new administration and in the spirit of collaboration, I think that we have an opportunity to change the way we do business and making sure that we're listening directly, not to not only to our our council colleagues, but also to those who put us in this position. So I look forward to the continued conversation and being a loud voice in this process. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel me here. The chair recognizes Counselor Fernandez innocent. Counsel Fernandez, innocent. You have the floor. Thank you, Council President. I thank you, Madam Chair, for holding the hearing and to my colleagues for their express concerns. And I think that, you know, we have a long way to go in terms of like procurement and quantity contracts in managing BJP and ensuring that these processes or how we're contracting, employing people in the city of Boston is or not equitable. So I did hear that there was a plan for specific allocation to ensure to fulfill some assessments thereafter or some sort of metrics in monitoring how we're going to be equitable or how the implementation of these programs would be equitable. I did appreciate the ideas that the administration had. I think they're I think most of them for for are wonderful ideas. But I also think that councilors have 1 to 4 ideas. I also think that councilors have been planning and organizing and meeting and working and galvanizing and spending a lot of time and organizing toward their own projects or consolidation of community efforts. So I believe that we should probably go into conversations about how we are expanding on the proposal to include us. And so I look forward to that and I won't belabor this any further, but to say that again, when we look at our contracts and our records, we're not doing a good job. So allocating such a large amount to projects and say, okay, here's 5 million to ensure that it is equitable, I think it's concerning. And I think that historically, you know, the pattern so thus far historically and I and I know this is speak to the administration currently, but because there is a lack of trust, because the relationship has not built upon where we as people of color or counselors of color believe or feel that the equity has truly been solidified in city government, then the honest and sincere conversation should roll out where we are included. So lead by example to speak to council me here point. So I look forward to doing that and having those open conversations without without insult, without judgment. But to say, how are we doing this in the way that we say that we're supposed to be? Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Fernandez Anderson, would anyone else like to speak? Docket 0503050404364 Women in Committee Motions Orders in resolutions. Mr. Kirk, please read Daugherty. 05870587 counsel as Lara and Fernandes, Sanderson offered the following order for a hearing to discuss the impact of inequitable housing code enforcement. In Boston's proactive rental inspection program.

A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from General Fund Contingency, and making a cash transfer to and an appropriation in the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Fund. Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,300,000 from 2019 General Fund Contingency to transfer cash to the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Project Fund to purchase property located at 4280 Kearney Street, known as Tooley Hall Residential Reentry Center, a community corrections facility. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1341

in here, even if we have a few kinks to work out before we get it fully approved. But looking forward to that. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, I believe we're now on to 1341. And Councilman Ortega, I am correct in remembering that you are the one called out for a vote. That is correct. All right, Councilwoman Torres, will you please put 1341 on the floor to be ordered published. And move that Resolution 1341 be adopted? I think it's a bill, not a resolution. Madam Secretary, in that ordered, published, not adopted. Correct. Thank you. All right. So okay. 1341, Bill, 1341 to be ordered published. All right. We have the motion and the second comments from members of the council, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to explain my no vote on this. This is for acquisition of a property that has historically been used as a community correction facility in the city of Denver. As you know, we had a vote that changed the contracts, and I was in agreement with the policy issue of divesting from the two companies that run ICE facilities around the country. However, this is putting more money back into the same pockets of those companies, one of those companies that we are divesting from. I know we are working aggressively to try to solve long term solutions for through zoning and through the work of a work group trying to figure out what are those solutions. And I know this is part of one of those steps, but I'm not in agreement that we should be. There was no RFP process on this, and just because this one property became available, then we just automatically moved to acquire it. And so I'm not in agreement with the procedural steps that we've gone through. So I'm going to be voting no on this tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, call. Sorry. I'm waiting for my system here. Technology. But Channel eight has some pretty groovy music on right now though. Sorry for everybody was here. I'm so sorry. It froze. Okay. Sorry. Ortega. No black eye seat. Abarca. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I Hinds. Cashman. I can eat. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Mr. President, I. I'm secretary. Please. Because voting announce the results. One May, 11 eyes. One day, 11 days. 1341 has been ordered published. All right. That concludes the item is called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published except for 1176 and 1289, as council will hold a hearing and vote on each bill separately after recess.

On the message and order, referred on February 16, 2022 Docket #0273, for a supplemental appropriation order for various departments for FY22 in the amount of Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Nine Dollars ($2,016,409.00) to cover the FY22 cost items contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the City of Boston and SENA. The terms of the contracts are October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. The major provisions of the contacts include base wage increases of 2%, 1.5%, and 2% to be given in October of each fiscal year of the contract term the Committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_02162022_2022-0273

Message in order for your approval, in order to reduce fiscal year 22 appropriation for the reserve for collective bargaining by 2 million. $16,409 to provide funding for various departments for fiscal year 22 increases contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the City of Boston and senior lucky numbers 0273 Message and orders for a supplemental appropriation order for various departments for fiscal year 22 in the amount of 2 million. $16,409 to cover the fiscal year 22 cost items contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the city of Boston and the terms of the contracts are October 1st, 2020 through September 30th, 2023. The major provisions of the contract include base wage increases of 2%, 1.5% and 2% to be given in October of each fiscal year of the contract term filed in the Office of the City Clerk on February 14, 2022. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. DAWKINS 0272 and and 0273 will be referred to the Committee on City Services in Innovation Technology. Mr. Clarke, will you please read darkened. 02740274 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $1,642,723.10 in the form of a grant for the fiscal year. Senator Charles Shannon Junior Community Safety Initiative, awarded by the Mayor's Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to be administered by the Police Department.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 5.57 related to the regulation of nuisance motels, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12172019_19-1269

Washing Karis. Thank you. Item 26. Item 26 is a report from Development Services. Recommendation to Declare Ordnance. The language is for code relating to the regulation of hotels and motels in the city. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Final Reading City. Do you want to? So should we start off with Stafford or. Mr. MODICA Stafford Port. Linda tatum will give a staff. Report for staff. Good evening, mayor and city council members. We will have our planner, the project planner, Alejandro Santos Lopez, that will make the presentation for this item this evening. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the City Council staff is before you today to present an ordinance to address potential nuisance motels and hotels in the city and establish a review process for all hospitality locations in Long Beach. In October 2017, the city manager directed the Office of Civic Innovation to coordinate an interdepartmental team to explore strategies to address nuisance activities of motel users that affect the quality of life in the city of Long Beach. The departmental team at that time consisted of staff in the city prosecutor and City Attorney's Office and the Departments of Development Services, Health and Human Services, Police, Fire and Financial Management. The team subsequently developed and tested a Nuisance Motel compliance plan at six select locations as part of a nine month citywide pilot program. Staff presented the program findings to City Council in November of 2018 with a recommendation to develop an ordinance to permanently codify this program. The ordinance before you today accomplishes this through four primary components. Firstly, it creates an interdepartmental city team, also known as the ICTY, comprised at its core by the Department of Development Services and the Health Department with additional contributions as needed from the City Attorney's Office, the city prosecutor's office, and the lobbies, police and fire departments. Secondly, it establishes a process through which the ICC can assess complaints against hospitality locations. Thirdly, it codifies compliance measures the ICC can enforce to reduce nuisance and or criminal activity at or near the locations in question. And finally, it is structured to complement the existing nuisance regulations the city already has in place. The compliance measures included in the ordinance largely fall under three main categories security, health and practices or policies. Some of the sample measures for each are shown here. For security measures. Property owners might be required to install cloakroom and televisions at entrances, have gated property access or install lighting improvements for health measures, and may be pest control requirements. Additional measures to ensure clean and working facilities and to ensure plumbing utility improvements work as needed and for business practices might be requirements to maintain 24 hour staff on site and or post applicable signage as needed, such as for human trafficking. To provide a bit more clarity on how the ordinance will work in practice. The following flowchart shows a process to follow. Personally, the Act will review any complaint receive through existing publicly available channels such as code enforcement submissions. From there, the ACT will review additional data sources including but not limited to calls for service history at the site in question and assess if there is sufficient evidence to open a case file on the establishment in question. If this is deemed not to be the case, the complaint will simply be filed and kept on record. However, if the act determines that significant issues are present, it will determine which of the available compliance measures, if any, will be required and work in tandem with the business to achieve compliance. As long as the business is in collaborative collaboration and complies with the improvements required by the ACT. No further action will be taken by the city. It is only when a business refuses to comply and or meet with the city that the city will apply additional enforcement measures such as citations or business license revocation. In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council approve staff's recommendation to adopt the proposed Nuisance Motel ordinance as presented. This concludes staff presentation and we look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Constable Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'll be quick. Thank you for this. This presentation, all the work that's transpired over the last two years on this effort. Just as a reminder, this came out of a long conversation about the nuisances on Long Beach Boulevard, and we found that there's a greater citywide issue associated with grandfathered nuisance motels. The pilot was the short term solution. We described the ordinance as the medium term solution, but really long term solution is land use and updating the zoning to make sure that we're actually, you know, addressing outdated, underutilized motels. That may not be. You know, conditions have changed. We may not have need for so many of those motels across town. So I so I certainly support this. I just want to say, you don't want to acknowledge that. I know that the article over the weekend about this highlighted a motel, a particular motel that was not originally a part of this, this pilot. And so that had nothing to do with the city. But I will say to that hotel, to that motel owner, you know, we apologize if that if that motel was highlighted there, it shouldn't have happened. And, you know, the press should have been more responsible and fact checking and before putting someone's motel up there. But I fully support this. This gives us an important tool to clean up some of our corridors, particularly Long Beach Boulevard, Anaheim. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Andrews, because it appears. I'll keep it brief. I fully support this. I look forward to having some conversations down the road about, as Councilmember Richardson mentioned, land use and what role the city might be able to play as some of these motels might be deemed not necessary anymore. Thank you. Catherine Ashton. Thanks. And I certainly support this as well. We have motels throughout the city that that need attention. I just want to be clear on on the definition of a nuisance motel and how we get to determining whether or not a motel is a nuisance motel. Because as was mentioned by my colleague earlier, we don't want to paint every motel with with a broad brush. Tonight, there are some responsible operators out there, and I think we need to acknowledge that as well. So can you just staff identify and help us identify what are the triggers and what would be constituted as a nuisance motel? Sure. So this might help to provide some clarity on the process. The pilot program illuminated that there's not a one size fits all definition. So while the program focused on calls for service and police data in general to kind of determine the effectiveness of the program, we realized through site visits and conversation with motel owners and operators that there's contextual factors that also have to be taken into consideration. And so part of the focus of the program is to not have a rigid definition or a rigid threshold and to leave it to the act to establish what may trigger the program on a case by case basis. We know that there's many factors that go into play, such as proximity to schools, proximity to other motels and other sensitive receptors. And so it'll be open to the staff's interpretation and to work with motel owners and operators to remain business friendly with the city. And finally, Councilman Sun has. Yes, I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to support such item. I think that this is a very important step and a very necessary step in moving in the right direction, especially because a lot of these hotels are in the first district. So I am happy to be able to support this item. Thank you to Councilmember Richardson Andrews for presenting this. Thank you. Thank you. And there's a motion and a second. We have we have two members of the public is Laurie. Laurie Raimi or Yogi Patel here? Do they want to speak? Please come forward. Both. Please come forward. Please. Hi, my name is Laurie Raney. I am a resident of the city of Long Beach. I've lived in the seventh District for over 20 years. I also work in the city of Long Beach. I work for Miceli for the I am the Director of Outreach Services for the Homeless Outreach Program. I oversee six outreach teams and we cover 23 cities. And one of those cities is the city of Long Beach. We work in partnership with the city's team. In this capacity, we place a lot of folks in some of these hotels, and I kind of would like you all to think about this from a different perspective. We often use these motels as a form of crisis housing, bridge housing to get people ready to move into permanent housing. Sometimes people don't meet criteria for hospitalization, but it's a place where we can maybe stabilize them. We use them in a variety of ways. Many of the folks that we put in these motels really don't have any other option. We have established relationships with some of these motel owners and they've been very open to working with us. They have our numbers. They call us when there's an issue. We come out, we work with our folks. So I don't want that broad brush to be used on all of the motels and just to kind of look at them in a different perspective, because they can serve a vital service for the city. Thank you. And Mr. Patel. Yeah. My name is Yogi Patel. I've been a resident of Long Beach since 1981. I run Colonial Motel for last 40 years. I partner with serious Long Beach to put the homeless people at my motel. Harbor Interfaith. Catholic Charity. Disabled Resource Center Family Solutions Center out of Los Angeles path mental health lonely just booked about and other charity organizers and. This whole issue came up because one of the councilmen had an issue taking the baby home and had to stay out of his or her house was locked down because of one particular motel luxury in. Last meeting, we were all here and everybody were pointing at looks at him. No other motel was mentioned. If you guys ever record, go back and check. Next day, I call the Andrew. Then what's up with this? Because he is my councilman and he never noticed any problem with my motel. And my motel was painted as Nuisance Motel. I am out there to help City to take people off the street and not create problems. But by doing this thing, by publishing our motel as a nuisance motel, we lost a lot of business. So we had to make up for business by getting more voucher people here. So is that what city wants? If you want people off the street, you need to work with motels, not Gordon. You done wood paneled and all that. Before going public, we should talk. What is the problem? If there is a problem, we need to solve the problem together. So that's what I'm asking for. I have contact with the city. If we need to move forward with the contract, I will need protection that down the line. City is not going to come back and use these weapons to close this down. This is our livelihood. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes. For actually you have to be on this list. That concludes public comment. I have two speakers I've signed up to speak. And so with that there is a motion and the second member is going to cast your vote. I really called public comment. People that signed up to speak. You have to sign up to speak with the clerk for certain items. First, please cast your vote. Council members have been. Bush and Kerry.

A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Axon Enterprise, Inc., f/k/a Taser International, Inc., to extend the term, increase the maximum contract amount and add additional terms and conditions for body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments. Amends a contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., formerly known as Taser International, Inc., by adding $15,996,615.10 for a new total of $22,097,650.10 and five years for a new end date of 12-15-25 to purchase body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (202054764). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-18-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember CdeBaca called out this resolution at the 11-30-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to Monday, 12-7-20.

DenverCityCouncil_12072020_20-1356

All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you for the staff answering the questions. The next item up we have is Council Resolution 1356. Councilwoman Ortega, we you please put Resolution 1356 on the floor for adoption. We've got you muted. But I just hit the button. Madam President, I move that council resolution 20 1356 be adopted. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to make sure that we do a vote count on this one. I received over 150 communications this weekend requesting that we either split this up and have separate contracts for the Tasers and separate for the body cams, or that we do not approve this tonight, that we should be waiting. People requested for us to wait until we have our report from the Independent Monitor investigating the use of the tools that we currently have. And so I want to go on record as a no for this this evening. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make note for folks that as a result, particularly of Senate Bill 217 this year, it's a requirement that we have body cameras. The current contract we have has already expired in June. And so to not approve this contract would put us out of compliance with the state statute that all of us supported the upgrade in the cameras. The cameras that they're currently using are five years old and they have poor quality, particularly at night. The new cameras, which are actually the minor cost of the contract, the new cameras have much better video quality at night under low light conditions and will be much better for our purposes. And again, I remind you that we're required to have them. And but the major part of the cost is the storage, which is managed by the vendor. So turning down this contract would leave us not only out of compliance with state law, but it would also leave us without a way to access the video that is taken even by the existing body cameras. So for that reason, I urge all of us to support this as we supported Senate Bill 217. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I actually have some questions. Since this has been called out. I wonder if I could. Get someone to answer. I'll just ask and then you can decide who to direct this to. So we had heard in public comment today a few people saying that the body cameras had never led to a charge or conviction. I wonder. I wonder if anyone can can comment on that, that that seems a little interesting to me, but just because it seems interesting to me doesn't mean that it is true or untrue. So someone else can provide some context. That would be wonderful. Great. It looks like we have cheese paisan cued up if if that's correct. To answer that question and I just want to remind folks as well, if we can stay on the topic of the actual resolution and the contract, it would be much appreciated. We've got three public hearings lined up tonight as well, so go ahead, Chief Payson. Thanks, Madam President and Councilman Hines. Again, the purpose of the body camera is to document the incident. The purpose is not for conviction in court. It's to document the incident. Use that as evidence that the evidence supports a conviction. And that's what the outcome would be. Of the video evidence itself. But to say that the fact that this that's not the purpose of the body. Okay. And I wonder if also this vendor is not from from Colorado. I don't think they're even based in the United States. Not that that's a huge deal. If we don't have a vendor that can perform the service in Denver. Do you know if if there is a locally based vendor, that that could perform the service? So we did look at it. We looked at different vendors five years ago, six years ago, seven years ago. And again, based on testing and evaluating the different body worn cameras, this is the one that that met our needs to unbundle. Something like this would be extremely difficult. Just it's a workflow issue with the data and the video storage. When we're talking about documenting the the incident, we share this information with the district attorney on criminal cases involving their office. It's shared with the city attorney on criminal cases involving their offices. There's 37 terabytes of information so that the data storage itself is quite extensive. And I think you and the. Is it possible to upgrade the existing body cameras or. And that's that's also something that I've I've heard from from people who are reaching out about this contract. So, no, there is not a way to upgrade the current BWC to the newer cameras, would provide better video footage, better coverage in those low light situations, as well as movement capturing the rapidly evolving situations. So I guess the best analogy that I could give you would be a cell phone. Obviously, there's cell phone upgrades, including cameras on cell phones that have taken place, upgrades in the technology. And it's not just purchasing a cell phone and you can have unlimited data. It is the service plan that goes with that. So that's an analogy that may help understand the costs associated with this. And then to try to put it into context, it's that 37 terabytes of data that needs to be handled, you know, to document when if an officer handles 20 calls for service in a day and a specific date, the specific time when a individual arrest or to document the evidence in a particular case, being able to retrieve that exact file for the district attorney or the city attorney. That's where a lot of the complexities in this type of data storage and management takes place. Thank you, Chief. One other thing that people were asking about was about training. I noticed in the contract that there there is a component of training and it appears that there are also some VR headsets for. I think I think the contract calls for empathy training. Can you talk a bit about the the training component associated with this contract? And can you talk about what what is this? What what is empathy training where the VR headset is meant to perform? So, Councilman, this is something that both the Denver Sheriff's Department and the Denver Police Department really believe in. Sheriff DEGGANS talks about leading with our humanity. We want to be more we want our officers and deputies to be more empathetic when engaging with our community again, to have a better understanding of where individuals are coming from. This is a technology upgrade that would help us in that endeavor from resolving a potentially challenging situation and de-escalating it. One from the officers perspective. But then you can utilize that exact same scenario from the individual who is in crisis perspective for that empathetic view. And that's something that is also part of this. Is it possible for the public to see that kind of training or to have access to the training manual or something along those lines? ABC News did a story on this national news. And you're welcome. I'll get you the link. Yeah. Thank you, Chief. And thank you. For. For being on the hot seat. I know the sheriff sheriff is also here. Thank you first for taking all the questions. And the the last question that I have is about. What happens if if there's a Taser? Taser has become axon. What happens if there if there continues to be a you know, what if they do that, I think was they change their legal name. But what if the the company is purchased? I guess two questions right now. Who owns the the 37 terabytes? Then second, if the company gets purchased, who owns the 37 terabytes? So City Attorney's office, do you want to weigh in? It's my understanding that the city of Denver owns the data. And that that's spelled out quite explicitly in the contract that if another country or excuse me, another company comes in and purchases a parent company, that that Denver would retain that. Right. So we have we have Steve promoted. Go ahead, Steve. Hi, this is Steve on at the city attorney's office. In answer to the question, who owns the data, it's very clear in the contract, the city and county of Denver owns the data, which is primarily, well, almost exclusively video footage. If the contract were assigned to someone else, those contractual provisions would carry over and the city and county of Denver would continue to own the 37 terabytes of data. So there's no there's no way for Nexon or Taser or some other company for while they happen to be storing the data. They're not they don't they can't use it for their own purposes or they can. Published snippets of any of that video footage or associated metadata. That's correct. If they did that as a last week, be in breach of the agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horne. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Hello to Steve Hunt's dog. My questions are probably more for Chief Payson. Chief, if you're still on. Mm hmm. We've got him. Okay. The funding request total. Maybe this isn't or I'm hoping you know this. The funding request total. This is not a supplemental funding request, is it? Or is this using existing 2020 funding from the department's? You are correct. This is not a supplemental request. Or Laura, would you like to answer that question? Yes, absolutely. Good evening. Members of Council Laura Walker, deputy. Director of safety. So this is subject to the annual appropriation. Within the general fund budget. And we currently do have our budget within the. Police and sheriff's general fund budget. And 2021. The 1.1 million of this contract. That's for a may invoice. Why was that overdue or not paid? And what was it for beyond the original contract? Yes, they are. Thank you for that question. So we had originally started all of the contract amendments. And the extension of the contract back in January. But due to complications with COVID. As well as understanding the Senate Bill 217 and incorporating Sheriff. Into the contract. Those conversations occurred. Throughout the summer. And so that 1.1 million we were invoiced and made for the additional body cameras. In the police department from 800 body cameras in the original contract to. 870. So that was all just part of the the police body camera contract. Okay. Thank you, Laura. So, Chief, I don't have an issue in sharp begins with the body worn camera request, but I do have a couple of questions about tasers, which are 3.6 million of the request our use of tasers. Part of the requirements of Senate Bill 217. No, they're not. The. How long has Deepdale been using tasers? We've been using Tasers for nearly a decade. Okay. Have. Have we? Well, in Denver, I know nationally we've we've seen deaths from Taser use. Have we seen any in Denver? I have not seen any incidents where a taser has been the cause of the death in our city. Okay. And then have we done a race or ethnicity assessment of Taser deployment? So our use of force and this was something that one of the use of force committee members brought forward. We publish on our website all of the use of force, including the demographics of the officer and the demographic of the individual that force would have been used upon, and that is published annually on or before February 1st of the following year. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Madam Chair. Madam President. I thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn. I think that the president just want to close the loop on a few things, chief. Paisan, is it the case that the new camera, this new upgrade includes a feature that would automatically start the video? Assuming the officer hadn't already started, it would start the camera or when either the taser or the firearm is on the holster by the officer. Correct, Councilman. And I want to make sure that we're really clear on this point. So thanks for bringing this up again. The city of Denver and the Denver Police Department were early adopters of the system. And in 2019, for example, we've had over 600,000 interactions with our community or calls for service and a fraction of a percent . A fraction of a fraction of a percent. The officer forgot to turn on the camera. I think 34 incidences out of the entire 622,000 potential calls for service here. What this additional technology does is it serves as a failsafe, doesn't change the policy. Officers are still required to turn them on per policy to include the arrest, documenting of evidence, all of the stated purposes of the body worn cameras. This additional feature that essentially works as a failsafe that correct those most critical situations. We don't want that to be the small fraction of a percent where an officer forgot. We need those to be turned on a body worn system for that accountability for what are demanding. What has been to 17 is requiring. We want to make sure that those are captured. Thank you, Chief. I wanted to be clear because some of the email that we were getting, it was a singular email that was being sent to us by by dozens of volunteers. And there was some information in there that wasn't quite what this what this contract actually is. The policy is always that the camera is on when there's public interaction. It's not the case that we only use the camera when when a taser or a firearm is on holster. Correct. You stated that. Correct counts, right? Okay. The reason I asked that, Madam President, was to address Councilman Himes question about whether you could split the contract up between the cameras and the Tasers. And because of this interaction, I would suggest that that would that would not be a very good thing to do, even if it were possible, because we want that functionality. The cost of the 60 million average is out over the five years to about $3.2 million per year. Laura And I assume that what you're saying is that this is subject to appropriation each year of that annual amount that we're not fronting the entire 16 million next year. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. Thank you. And just to correct one, one other misstatement that was in the email we got and was repeated here. There was at least one case that I know of personally where an officer was charged criminally with an assault using body camera as evidence. And that case ended in an acquittal. But there was at least that one case that I do know of. Sheriff Diggins, one other thing. One other reason for this expansion is that Senate Bill 217 requires us to equip certain deputies who work in the corrections area to wear body cams. And so we need to acquire more of them. And these are the ones that are now available. Can you tell us how many of your deputies expect you expect to be equipped with this? Ken, ultimately, at the conclusion of 2023, we expect that all deputies that have either public interaction or who work in a place where we have people in custody will be outfitted with a body camera. Senate Bill 2217 does call for both of those in subsection D of Section 24th, 31, 92 of that bill. It specifically states that any time there is an anticipated use of force, that a deputy has a body camera. And as you are all aware, that can happen at any time with our staff. So we're looking to be compliant with the provisions of the law by 2023. Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you, Madam President. Again, voting down this contract would put us out of compliance with state law. So I urge all my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have you back up. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. And just wanted to clarify that last comment. We already are in compliance with 217. This is upgrading cameras. And so I'm curious for Chief Payson, how many cameras are we do we currently have that we're retiring as we purchase this new technology? And what happens to those old cameras? So, Councilman, the cameras that we currently have are entering their service life and they would be returned to the vendor as we get the new cameras. And so how many is that? How many are we retiring and how many are we getting online? So the again, the requirement is that every officer and again, this is built out in compliance with 217 to get us all of our officers, the body cameras that they need. But let me just go backwards for a second. This is not just using this amount of money to go from the BWC twos to the BWC threes. It is similar to a purchasing a phone. So if you purchase a phone, it doesn't mean that you get to make phone calls or stream video or send text messages. You need that service plan, that data agreement. So much of the cost associated with this is associated to that data agreement. And the upgrade is just part of part and parcel of the contract itself. Do you have numbers of how many body cameras you're retiring and how many new ones are coming online? We'll get you that number. Councilman. Do you have an itemized breakdown of the costs for the cameras, the tasers and the evidence dot com service? Again, this is all part of the greater the greater amended contract itself, the data storage, the workflow process here. We do not have that breakdown for you. Do they just break down those costs or is that just something you don't have in front of you? They don't break down those costs, nor do I have that in front of me. Again, I can't emphasize enough about the data aspect of this that the agreement is about the data access, including the equipment itself. And a quick clarification. SB 217 requires broadly that the activation of body cameras in any service call or any interaction with the public happens by 2023. Did you say that we're already complying with that? Or do they only turn on when a weapon is holstered? We are currently in full compliance with activating on those and you can take a look at that in our policy manual that talks about when body worn cameras are to be turned on. Section 11910. It talks about the activation we currently do activate. Now, the issue would be if we do not renew this contract, we did not go with the amended contract, we wouldn't have the data. So we have a body worn camera, we'd have the camera itself. But you would not be able to have the video footage of that or access to that video footage. So I can't stress enough that this is more than just going from an old camera to a new camera. This is about that data, the video, the workflow, being able to access that. Know an officer would respond to, say, 20 calls for service. Today, they're being able to access the specific call that was involved in a criminal case or in a complaint. That's where you have to be able to manage that workflow, be able to access that and utilize the evidence that the body worn cameras had captured. And how about the tasers? How many are we retiring and replacing, or does this just add and how many does it add? Chief. I can answer that one. We are currently replacing 1000 Tasers in 2021. Got it. And do we anticipate upgrading any other weapons within the next year? There's nothing else in this contract. So just this contract, we're just upgrading tasers. Within this contract. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, your backup. Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to make it really clear that, yes, we would be out of compliance with 217 without this contract for the points that the chief subsequently mentioned, which is that we would have cameras, but we would not have the ability to use the video, which is, frankly, the more crucial part, having a camera that you can do nothing with, it's pointless. And what we need is the backdrop that action gives us with this contract. And as of now, the contract expired June 30th. So technically we already lack that. But we're we're in a bridge period right now. So, again, I urge people to vote. Yes. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, we'll be back up, but we're doubling back and we belabor this quite a bit last week. And so hope you've got a quick, quick question here and we can go ahead and vote on this. Never mind, Madam President. You sure you don't? We got them all here. All right. Very good. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. Now. Clark. I. Flynn. I think. I. HINES No. Cashman. I. Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced. Results to raise the Lebanese. 11 eyes. Council Resolution 1356 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 1416. Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put Resolution 1416 on the floor for adoption and remove the Council Resolution 20 1416 be adopted. Thank you.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Washington Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1450 South Humboldt Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0309

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members as a whole. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 309 on the floor for final passage? Yes. Council President I move the council bill 309 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. We've got a second by Councilmember Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 309 is open. And before we get your staff report, Fran, I was just told that apparently the presentation isn't loaded into our system. And so I have asked our. Staff or legislative staff to send it out to all council members. And so you should be receiving that in your inbox here momentarily. But in the meantime, Fran will go ahead go ahead and have you share the presentation. Here via your screen. And you see there, is that working? Yeah. We've got it. Good afternoon, Member City Council, Madam President, and from beneficial associate city planner with Planning Services. And I'm here today. To present an overview of the Map Amendment four 1450 South Humboldt Street and also in some technical issues. That's probably why Sex and the Road. But it's all good now. See. One. Subject property is located in the in District six with Councilman Paul Cashman. In the Washington Park neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows for accessory dwelling units. If approved, all other forms and standards would remain the same. The property is currently in the Urban Single Unit C Stone District, which allows for a minimum stone load of 5500 square feet. And it is completely surrounded by other properties that are also shown us, you see. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it is completely surrounded by other single unit uses as well as a public quasi public use, including a school one block to the west. Here. I'm going to back up a little bit and give you some background information. In 2013, the applicant hired contractor to build an accessory dwelling unit in the back of the property. When she tried to permit the structure to allow for the accessory dwelling use, accessory dwelling unit use, she realized that her USAC district didn't allow for the touch accessory dwelling units. She then tried to get a variance that denied, but the adjustments allowed her to keep the area for three years. After that, in 2016, she went ahead and removed the gas stove, plumbing and closets to be able to pair with the EU as an accessory structure without the EU use. So now the applicant is looking again at being able to have the access we use and that's why she's looking at rezoning. So now she's gone from asking if she can resign from us. You seem to you, as you see one, to be able to allow for the accessory dwelling unit use in the existing structure. And I'm expanding on these because we received a letter from an R.A. So I just wanted to explain where that letter came from. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the top, left and right and bottom left. Some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood. Now, speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 17, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 17 and if present one letter of opposition has been received from the Washington Park East Neighborhood Association. The main reason for the opposition is because the applicant got denied a variance back in 2060. The owner is not aware that in 2019 the applicant permitted the access restricted without the use. As you will know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria, the first one being consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of this tragedies and comprehensive plan 2040. For example, this MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. Now looking at Denver, the subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. This place type have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate on both. Street is designated as local streets street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested sorting meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implement the implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstance for the rezoning is a clear of the plan since the approval of the existing U.S. district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint, Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the area of a neighborhood context residential district on the new as you see one zone district. Stock does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, friend, for the presentation. And I believe council members, you should have the presentation also in your inbox. Council tonight has not has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0309. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris is our speaker. Go ahead, Jesse. That's good, he remembers. Members count for those watching at home. My name is Jessica Shaw. I'm Paris and I'm representing four black stars Exxon Mobil for self defense, positive action for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Frontline Black News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this 82 dwelling units for District six and Councilman Cashman's district. I just had a question about how this process works, because several times last week we heard from a gentleman who kept telling us that he was not able to get approved for his application in, I believe, was either Sunnyside or Chaffee Park in Amanda Sandoval's district. So if somebody from CPB could explain that process of how that works, I would greatly appreciate it. This may all of criteria. So I'm going to be in favor of this rezoning tonight. Uh, good. Good job, Casserly. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 309. Council Member Cashman. Thank you. Council President Fran. If if this bill passes, it allows for an ad you use on the property. But before this particular structure might be used for an idea, it would need to meet all other building code requirements, as was said. The stove was removed, so on and so forth. But it would need to meet any quality qualification imposed by our existing ordinances, correct? That is correct. All right. Thank you very much. That's all council present. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn. How about I'm president? Fran, could you tell me if you're aware? Does the existing structure that was erected without permits and and operated as an aid to you without the zoning, I guess, for a couple of years? The owner then was turned down at zoning board, but given until 2019. Could you tell me if the building form complies with all of the rules for setbacks and height and whatnot for an ADU in this particular zone district? Yes, that's correct. It complies with everything. And anyway, when she goes to get to get it permanent now, because she's going to like once she gets the rezoning, she's going to have to get a permit again. So they're going to check on that again. So they're going to have to check again. But she complies with all but but it does the current it does comply with the said but of building form and everything. Okay. Thank you very much. That's. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and thanks for answering those questions, Fran. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 309 Council Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you. Council President I certainly have great respect for the neighborhood group and understand the concerns. But in my looking at the history of this property, first of all, the building as as Fran tells us, does meet the requirements imposed on an ADU in this setting as it is an existing building, it certainly doesn't change the landscape of the community. And I see no evidence that the property owner had evil intent when this structure was built. And I think it was a case of a lack of understanding of the zoning code, which is certainly understandable. I still have work to do myself to become fully conversant with with our code. So that being said, I will support this ADA application this evening, as I do believe that it's clear that the criteria as presented in our code had been met, and I would ask my colleagues to support that. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I concur. It does meet all of the required criteria and I will be supporting it as well tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 309, please. Cashman. I. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Hi. I. Council president. I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0309 has passed. Council Member Clerk Will you please put Council Bill 310 on the floor for final passage?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634 Xenia Street in East Colfax. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x, located at 1634 Xenia Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1124

13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1123 has passed. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Council Bill 1124 on the floor for final passage? Certainly I moved the Council Bill 20 1124 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved again. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1124 is open. May we have the staff report? Okay. Let me know if you can see this one. All right. Okay. Is that working? Uh huh. Thanks, Fran. Okay. This is going to sound repetitive because it's very similar. So. My name is from Benefield, and I'll present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 1634 Cynthia Street. This one is located in Councilman Chris Herndon's District eight. In the East Colfax neighborhood. The subject. Property is only a block and a half north Jim Colfax Avenue and one block west from Yosemite Street. The city limit with Adams County and the studio Ferrara is approximately 6250 square feet and is currently occupied by a single unit dwelling. The property is currently in the urban edge single unit, the Exon District, and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban edge single unit d1s to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The ESU de one x requires a minimum standard of 6000 square feet and allows for the urban house suburban house on the Dutch expressway detached accessory dwelling unit building forms. The maximum height for the house is 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the detached 82. The subject property is stone. Yes, UTX, as I said, and the surrounding properties are stone PSU decks with some e RH 2.5 to the Southwest and some MSR five to the stealth. Site is occupied by a single unit dwelling and it's surrounded by other single unit uses. But we can see that there's some public possible link to the north and some two unit multi-unit, residential and mixed use and commercial use to the south along the Colfax corridor. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the top left and just some images to show the character of the neighborhood on the top right and the bottom left. In regards to the rezoning process and informational notice of the application was sent on July eight, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on September 14th. The City Council public hearing was properly notice on October nine, and as a result, no letters of opposition have been received or support. No letters of support for opposition. To approve a rezoning, it must be found. The request map amendment is consistent with five review criteria from the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is that the rezoning request must be consistent with adopted, must therefore adopt the plans that apply to the request. Rezoning. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver. The East Area Plan and the Housing and Inclusive Denver Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with a comprehensive plan because it will allow infill development that broadens the range of housing types available in an area where infrastructure and services already exist, consistent with strong and authentic neighborhood vision elements, as well as environmentally resilient vision elements. The rezoning request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver. The subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. This context is described as containing predominantly residential uses with single and two unit low scale homes on short walkable blocks. The future places map designates the subject property. A slow residential low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are provided. Sonya Street is designated as Local Street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is for other areas of the city. This area is anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And Housing Policy five recommends removing barriers to strengthening energy use as this rezoning would accomplish. The recently adopted East Terrier plan designates the subject property as urban edge future neighborhood context a low residential unit for your place. Consistent with Blueprint Denver the proposals eat as you would want. Exon District would allow for the development of an accessory dwelling unit that is consistent with the urban edge, future, neighborhood context and low residential future places. The proposed rezoning would contribute to the preservation of the neighborhood's existing character, while allowing comparable new construction and uses consistent with the recommendations of the East Area plan. Housing an inclusive Denver encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver, the East Area Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver because it will expand, expand housing options and allow the development of accessory dwelling units. Stuff also finds that they requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. It justified a circumstance for this rezoning is a client of the plan. Since the approval of the existing ESU de zone district, the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver that you stereo plan and housing in inclusive Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this class. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Urban Itch neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the purpose and intent of the ESU one district. This meeting that if criteria and conclusions does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 1124, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Maybe even a member of the council. My name is Justin Shoppers and live in district eight county district representative member homicide well black star action member for Self-defense positive action committed for social change as well. Party of Colorado and Mile-High News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I just had a question or two. I want to know what was going to be the aim item for this property in question. Because as you already know, and if you are aware, we have a housing crisis, we have upwards of ten to close to 20,000 people on the streets right now. And this is only going to get worse until we actually try to make a dent in our affordability crisis. So I would like to know what the AMA level is going to be for these properties. And if it is at all possible with the demographics of the people that are going to be occupying this or currently occupied this property. Ah, I would greatly appreciate if someone could answer those questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. Questions from members of Council on Bill 1124. Seen no questions of members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 1124 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I and I believe that this meets the criteria, and I would ask my colleagues to support it. I'm just excited to see the East Area plan is already being considered as we go through rezoning. So happy that that was approved and now we're using that as criteria in this area. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seen the criteria for this rezoning has been met. I will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 eyes. Counsel Bill 20 Dash 1124 has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put council Bill 1162 on the floor for final passage?

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Aramark Correctional Services, LLC to provide meal services at the Denver Detention Facility and Denver County Jail. Approves a contract with Aramark Correctional Services, LLC for $9,000,000 and through 6-30-23 to provide services of preparing and serving meals at the Denver Detention Facility and Denver County Jail (SAFTY-202158720). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-21.

DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0655

Councilmember Sawyer has called out Bill 572 for a vote. Under pending, no items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 655. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 655 on the floor for adoption. And move the Council Resolution 20 1-0655 be adopted? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council. Member State of Abarca. Thank you, Madam President. I caught this one out for a separate vote because Aramark is known for many of the things we just heard in public comment, including serving spoiled food to inmates. And we've heard from people inside of the department, as well as outside of the department who really do not want us to support this contract . And so I'm going to stand with them this evening and vote no. And I encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. We have Councilmember Hines. You're up. Thank you, Madam President. There's someone from safety here. I'd like to ask. Basically that. Oh, thank you. The question I have is, um, we certainly want our, our guests in our jails to eat, right? If we say no to this contract, does that mean that we will not have a way to provide food for our inmates? Thank you. Councilmember Hines, we have Vince Lane from the sheriff's department here. So we'll go ahead, Vince. Go ahead. And you can answer that question. Good evening, Counsel and Councilmember Hines, I appreciate your question. No, it doesn't mean that we currently provide food services internally. And certainly if this contract were to not move forward, we would continue to provide that service as an internal service provided by sheriff's department staff. Thank you. And thank you for all you do. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Haynes, and thank you, Vince, for being here as well. We've got Council Pro-Tem Torres. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. Chief line, were the complaints that have been made about. Spoiled. Food, were those in Denver, how is that kind of complaint or. The quality of the of the food. Overseen. Within the jail? Thank you, counsel. Council woman Torres I'm not familiar with any complaints at all related to Aramark from Denver. They don't currently have a contract with us, so they're not providing that service with DSD currently. So I'm not familiar with any Denver based complaints. To answer the second part of your question, we have put some what I would refer to maybe as some guardrails in place to ensure that appropriate oversight. Excuse me. Is main is maintained throughout the term of the contract. I'm one of those things that we've done is assigned an executive level of our command team, which is the major who currently oversees as the facility administrator, the county jail, where the vast majority of our food service functions occur. And part of his ancillary roles moving forward will be to oversee the contract and ensure that all things related to the contract and all things, quite frankly, related to food service are maintained. You know, meeting extremely high standards. That's one of the things that we've put in place. We also will have regular inspections and audits done. Some of those inspections and audits will be done by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And in fact, I believe Danica Leave from DDP. She is also on the call here and can speak specifically to the inspections that will be done by DDP as well. In addition to that, we maintain a couple of different accreditations here at DSD. One of them is the American Correctional Association and the other is the National Commission on Corrections Health Care. Both of those sets of standards require specific things be met related to food service. Those two processes come along with multiple audits and inspections to ensure that those standards are being met. So in addition to inspections being done by our own staff that work in the accreditations area, regular audits will be done by those two entities as well to make sure that we're continuing to meet those standards. In addition to, you know, executive command oversight inspections and accreditation, we also have a very formalized complaint procedures internally here at DSD, so that anyone in our custody that has any issue with anything related to food service, they can file those complaints by means of a grievance . And then we have a specific unit that reviews every one of those grievances and then makes assignments so that we can provide adequate responses to the inmates and that we can correct any issues that we find, any services that we provide. So that gives you an idea of the various types of oversight or guardrails that have been put in place to ensure that those high level of standards that we expect our continue to be maintained throughout the term of the contract. Thank you. And I do have one question about the price adjustments section of the contract. Is that something that you can answer cheaper or is there somebody else? We actually have two two other people on this evening that might be able to help with that. Troy Bratton is on from the city attorney's office that may be able to answer that. And then also we have Ian Dougherty on from finance that may be able to assist with that. So if either one of them are are suited, perhaps they can make it known that they can answer that question for you. All right, we've got them both in the queue. And so it's Trey or Ian, either one of you. And I'll just ask the question. The bill request goes through. Looks like it's June 20, 23 with. Uh. Extension years. Just wondering for the 9 million that's presented how the price adjustments are contemplated within that contract amount. Hi, this is Troy. Troy Brown from the city attorney's office. I'm going to go ahead and defer to an on on one and finance. Then I can ask answer any legal questions that might come up. But I'll I'll leave the pricing questions to the finance. Certainly. Thank you, Troy. Thank you, Councilmember Torres, for this question. In terms of the price adjustments. I believe with the way the contract is set up, with the terms ending midyear gives us some flexibility in if we need to request additional funds due to the due to the CPI increases that we we have that flexibility, we'll be able to use our our typical methods for, you know, youth analysis and projecting expenditures in order to be able to in order to meet those needs. But we we believe that that we'll be able to do that with minimal impact. So just and maybe it's a non-issue. But I was just I found it interesting. And when I ask the question, the price adjustment arrived at INS June 30th, 2022, but the contract goes through 2023, so it'll be adjusted within that first period of time. And just wanting to see that the 9 million covered a price adjustment. So you're contemplating a CPI and of a standard CPI. I? Yes, I believe if memory serves me, that is actually. Written into the contract. Okay. Okay. Nothing further. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. In. Q All right. Thank you, Councilmember Pro-Tem Torres. Up next, we've got Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Chief Line. I don't know if you are the person to address this. Or maybe Troy. Section six of the contract deals with termination. I want to expand a little bit on the earlier questions, the accreditation we have from the American Correctional Association and the other accreditation that they contain. They include standards for food service and food quality. The termination section of the contract, section six, we can terminate this upon a breach or default of the agreement, and that would include the scope of services, any breach in those food service standards that would imperil our accreditation. Is that the case? I'm just a little concerned that we don't have the right to terminate other than for breach or default. This is from the city attorney's office. That's correct. Counsel then slammed the scope of work as incorporated into the contract. So any breach of any of the standards in the scope of work would also give us the ability to terminate the contract as well under that termination clause. And, you know, our standard clauses allow for legal remedies administratively and through litigation. So the scope of work is incorporated into the contract as well. Okay. So Chief, could you expand a little bit on what you call the guardrails? I read the memo that you sent out earlier last week about how we are going to ensure that Aramark which serve food in this in our two facilities. That does not result in the kinds of complaints that we've seen with some of aramark's, other correctional facilities contracts around the country. How are we going to avoid that? Councilmember Flynn, thank you for that question, sir. I'd like to defer to Danica Lee from CHP. I believe she's on the phone as well and can help answer that question specifically about the inspections and audits that'll be conducted by by the health department. All right. Thank you. Great. Thanks for joining us, Danica. Go ahead. The first thing. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, counsel. Thank you for that question, Councilman Flynn. So we already conduct inspections in all these venues, the jail settings, and know part of what we do is respond to complaints, conduct inspections and take enforcement actions as needed. In terms of being able to avoid complaints. That's a very difficult thing to control for. But what we can do is make routine assessments, conduct inspections, assess for any issues, follow up on complaints will receive them, and then conduct three inspections is needed to verify compliance. And so that's a system that we use that you're likely familiar with in many different regulated food settings across the city, in Turkey, in Denver. And I'm happy to respond to any more specific questions, though. I thank you, darling. I didn't mean to imply that we would we avoid complaints. I think complaints are probably inevitable under any contract or under any condition. But how do we how do we handle them? How do we determine that they're legitimate? I know that Aramark serves over 400 correctional facilities around the country, and we've heard about some serious problems in some of them. So I don't want to be one of those one of those that has the complaints. I want to make sure that we have a mechanism in place so that we can actually terminate the contract if there is a breach. And I know that there's a period to cure a 30 day period to cure, but that's why I wanted to be clear. You also did EPA. She also does inspections right now under the the in-house program, do you not? That's correct. We do conduct inspections of whoever is in that role. Preparing and serving food. We had complaints about food quality under the in-house program. I'm not aware of any recently. Certainly going back in past years and visiting four or five years ago, I can recall a few, but nothing consistent or anything that's on my radar right now. Okay. Chief Lyon, can you elaborate on that? Are you aware of food service complaints under the sheriff's department program? Councilman Flynn, thanks for that question. And yeah, I can elaborate on that a little bit. It's not uncommon for us to get complaints from those in our care about either the quantities, if they believe that the quantities are too small, or perhaps they believe their meal was too cold or things like that. So we do occasionally get complaints like that, and when we get those complaints, they're typically done by means of a grievance. Those grievances that are forwarded to our grievance and incident response team, they then review those grievances to determine who's the best person to respond to those grievances, and then they get cataloged, farmed out, and reporting is maintained relative to those grievances so that we can respond to those. And if we have continued grievances, we can look into those things. There's also a procedure in place to elevate those to higher levels of command. So it's also not uncommon, although not frequent, for grievances to eventually arrive at my desk at each level. In the grievance process, we have the ability to investigate and we can go down, we can interview the inmates, we can take a look at the food quality and quantity ourselves and then make appropriate adjustments if we need to . So that's part of the internal complaint procedures, if you will, that we refer to as a grievance process for the inmates to follow if there are complaints. Okay. And of course, under the current program, we can't fire ourselves. Right. But we can terminate the Aramark contract. Are you. Are you aware of how our complaints have been handled before as a as a resulted in corrections to how we prepare our food under the current program? Yes, sir, I am. Typically, they are handled at the lowest level. If a if a deputy happens to get a complaint or receive a complaint from an inmate about an issue, there's some discretion at that level for them to take immediate action. If the inmate is complaining about some sort of food that they're served, then they can show it to the to the deputy and make that issue known. The deputy can can take some steps to remedy that right there on the on the scene and either or address the issue. Thank you. That's what I was driving at, because when you say they can file a grievance, that sounds like it's a very long process that would take longer than breakfast or lunch. So things can be resolved on the spot. Can they be resolved on the spot under this contract as well? Yes, sir, they can. The grievance process and complaint process won't change whatsoever. And if an inmate has a complaint, that can be acted upon immediately. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Madam President. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And thank you, Chief Lane and the team for being here to answer the questions this evening and not seeing any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. Oh, no, Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines, I. Cashman. I. Can I? Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. Two names. Nine I's. Nine I's Council Resolution 21, dash 20655 has passed. The next item up is Council Resolution 667. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 667 on the floor for adoption?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 21.67 relating to Inclusionary Housing, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0152

Great. Next the next item will be let's go through the four ordinances. And then we have we do have a report for the an end of year budget performance. So let's kind of quickly go to the first reading of the ordinances and then we'll go back to our final item. But the 24. Report from City Attorney Recommendation of declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to inclusionary housing. Read the first time and later to the next regular meeting of City Council for final reading and declare the ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to no net loss of affordable residential housing units in the city. Read the first time and later to the next regular meeting of City Council for final reading and adopt a resolution amending Resolution Number E. s-21-0006. Establishing automatic adjustments to the existing inclusionary housing in lieu fee citywide. It was a motion in a second. Any public comment on this? If any members of the public would like to speak on this item, please use the race hand feature or press star nine. Our first speaker is Ileana. I will be very quick whether there's time or not. I commend only liberate commend the Council for getting the inclusionary ordinance approved in its just in time. As was mentioned earlier, we are very concerned about the stability of the subsidized rent and the tax credit subsidized rents in the senior buildings. They are now, all of them, pretty much old enough to be coming to the end of contracts and covenants. And it is going to be very important that we have the protection of inclusionary. No net loss. Policy here in the city to. Protect and preserve. What we have in the way of affordable housing. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tiffany on Davy. Good evening. If you see my be. I just want to just briefly go over just a few numbers. When I'm thinking about affordable, I think about, you know, being a lifelong Californian, the energy and ability of that for a majority of the population, as well as those who seek services that make, you know, a living wage for some of those. I'll just highlight to recently online within the past year and a half buildings. One building in particular. Two bedrooms are renting for $15,945 a month. One year, that's $181,240. That ran over five years. 956,000. But it has a ripple effect throughout the city, changes the rest of the environment of when we're talking about rentals and what others see and believe the market to be, as well as the reaction when we're going through tragedy and. And again, it is a disaster that affected every resident within the city, whether they were businessmen or not, worker or not, those living on fixed incomes or those again. Being paid non-verbally wages. Another building that just went up recently. I believe that rent. Oh, let's see. As about 13,000. This is the three bedroom, $13,360 per month. That's one year, 160,325 years, $801,000. So when we're looking at development and these density bonuses, we do understand the structure historically. But where they are coming from and really the challenges for legislatures across the nation, if not those also adopting the rate development scheme, you know, are volatile. Thank you for the work that you all do. I know this isn't really something that any one of you created. However, we all do have a part in the solution. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes public comment. For this item. Thank you, gentlemen. Alan, give any comments? I just want to say that I'll be pleased to support this audience today. Thank you. Gotham Brosnan. Okay. Great. But please. District one. I district to. My. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. II. District seven. I. District eight. II. District nine. Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Item 25. And I do. I know the city attorney has a few comments at the start of the item and then we'll do public comment. And in a moment about.

Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for the Fastracks East Corridor to fund the maximum amount of $12,189,520 for the design and construction of the light rail station located at 61st and Peña Boulevard in Council District 11 (AR0A001-2). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for the Fastracks East Corridor to fund the maximum amount of $12,189,520 for the design and construction of the light rail station located at 61st and Peña Boulevard in Council District 11 (AR0A001-2). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 4-28-15.

DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0257

But then Council Bill 260 speaks to 35 million. And so I'm trying to understand what the total cost is on this project. It looks like the city via DIA is up fronting $17 million. Is that accurate? At least that's what I'm accountable to. 60 is saying. So, Stuart, are you the point guy or. Dan, would you mind coming forward and answering my questions? Council president and council members updated Perryman, the senior vice president of development at DIA. And to answer the specific question on cost, the total cost for phase one of the Penn Station Toad Project is 58.7 million, and DIA is contributing 38.14 million. The neighbors are contributing about 20.5 million neighbors. Meaning? You said the neighbors. The neighbors. You may remember that breakfast at this 400 acre Todd project in addition to these 60 acres. There's actually three other landowners of the fallen water company. Elsie Fuller Minor owns about 150 acres. They are the lead developer. Ferd Belz is here tonight representing Fuller Weiner. There's also the Smith estate, which owns an additional 150 acres. And there's a smaller piece, the same tea parcel. That's about 20 acres. There's also about 38 acres of open space. So these four owners have come together and process this Todd transportation oriented development plan over the last several years with a number of related agreements through council and have worked out now over the last couple years this plan of financing development for the Phase one infrastructure, as well as the Penn Boulevard East Line Station at this location and the connecting infrastructure and station together totaled a 58.7 million of which DIA is contributing 38.14 million upfront. Two things to remember. One is that DIA is projected to be completely repaid for that investment through metro district levies that are assessed on the neighbors property that I mentioned. And over 40 years, it's projected that we will be returned about $41 million, actually $42 million in total reimbursement. The other thing that's really important to remember is that this opens up for DIA a consistent and rather large non airline revenue stream that totals we're projecting somewhere between hundred. Let me just check my figures on that, between 132 and $194 million over a 40 year period. So we're actually projecting that the DIA investment of 38.1 million is repaid within a period of about 15 years. So to answer your your part of your question, which was within the financing concepts, the reimbursement that comes through the Metro District, repayments on the neighbors property, we actually those those are tied to specific interest rates against specific dollar amounts that are just portions of the total investment that was really done for financing purposes. But those two reimbursement amounts are 35.6 million and 6 million. And those total, the 41.6 million that's being reimbursed to DIA over time through these MIL levy reimbursement mechanisms. So then can you just clarify, you spoke to this being the first phase. So what entails any additional phases that will include additional cost to the city, whether it's from DIA or somewhere else within the city? The the phase one infrastructure as well as the station costs or the the lion's share or the great majority of the total development cost for this TOD. But there are some future phases that pertain to the installation, primarily of streets that go into expanding the development sites. At DIA's projected future phase, investments are in the range of about $6 million today. Which is the 6 million you just talked about. It's not directly tied to that, but we are projecting a future contribution required from DIA of $6 million, and that's generally generally related to installation of street cost. And again, that's strictly DIA cost, not not city of Denver General Fund. Okay. So the total cost then, is it 58.7? That is strictly for the phase one of this project, which as I mentioned, is the lion's share of the infrastructure. There will be minor costs, additional costs over time, but we anticipate that those will be a number of years into the future. Thank you. I appreciate you explaining all of that. I know you came to committee and sometimes, you know, the way the details are presented don't always give that full picture. So I needed to understand that as we're. Looking at all of these different bills before us tonight. So I appreciate. You're welcome. This is a complicated package with five agreements. And we were working on the closing today and we figured we can add up that there are actually 50 to 60 separate agreements and supporting documents that actually will be needed to support the final closing. And if you could just clarify one last thing. This is where Panasonic will be as well, correct? Yes. And these are the infrastructure costs that are necessary to make their site developable and they will actually be breaking ground on their side projected in October of this year. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right, we have one more, I believe, Madam Secretary, you want to tee that one up to 68, call up a member's thoughts and assessment? Let me first go to Councilman Ford. What did you want for us to do with that? I have some questions. Okay. And let me see. Councilwoman? Well, Councilman Brooks is chimed in to Councilwoman Sussman. Did you have questions or did you want to call for a vote? What did you want to do? I have some questions. Questions, will councilman. All questions. All right. We'll start it up, Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, the title of this ordinance concerns the sale of tobacco products. So that's the topic that we're talking about and and safety committee. We went down we were we heard testimony down one road about licensure. This is not a license. Your bill. This, as I understand it, was supposed to be conforming some of the definitions to state law. And so my first question is, is that the case? How does this fit with state law?

A bill for an ordinance approving the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI) 2020 annual programs and waiving further City Council approval of specific contracts implementing the annual programs. Approves the annual Public Works infrastructure program by waiving the requirement that contracts above $500,000 be individually approved by City Council. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-23-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-18-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03092020_20-0059

Thank you, Councilmember. All right. That concludes questions on that one. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens and Councilmember Sawyer, can you please put Council Bill 59 on the floor? I move that council bill 25 nine be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Santiago. Thank you, Mr. President. We had a very long, drawn out comment period on this last time and just wanted to go on record as still a no on this contract. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Raquel. CdeBaca A black eye for an eye. Gilmore I. Herndon High. Cashman I. Commit. I will take. Sandoval, I swear. No. Torres. I council. President. Hi, Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. Two days ten eyes. Two days, ten eyes counts. Constable, 59, has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.

A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from General Fund Contingency, and making a cash transfer to and an appropriation in the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Fund. Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,300,000 from 2019 General Fund Contingency to transfer cash to the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Project Fund to purchase property located at 4280 Kearney Street, known as Tooley Hall Residential Reentry Center, a community corrections facility. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12232019_19-1341

As Gainesville 1330 has passed and I did fail to mention back on 1313 for the Botanic Gardens that we will have a courtesy public hearing on final consideration of Council Bill 19 1313 on Monday, January 6th. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilwoman said, if you please put Council Bill 1341 on the floor. I move that council bill 19 Dash 1341 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. And Councilwoman, I take it, did you want this is the other one that was tied. Did you want to make another comment or. Okay. All right, then. Seeing no comments on this one. Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega. No black. I said Abarca, i. Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kinney Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. Torres, I. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 12 eyes. One name, 12 eyes. When they count, about 1341 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. Councilman Taylor Barker, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Vote for the following items. 19 Dash 1303 19 Dash 13 1019 Dash 1302 19 Dash 1340 219. Dash 1340 419. Dash 1340 519. Dash 1340 619. Dash 1315 5019. Dash 1350 120. Dash 1619. Dash 12 8919. Dash 1320 119. Dash 11 7619. Dash 13 1519. Dash 13, 28, 19, Dash 13, 29. And that is it. Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, said Ibaka, I. Flynn Hi, Gilmore. I turned. In. Hi. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings, this evening's scheduled council will not take a recess.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of an alley bounded by 15th Street, Wynkoop Street, Wazee Street and the Cherry Creek, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the public alley bounded by 15th Street and the Cherry Creek and Wynkoop Street and Wazee Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-14-17.

DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0153

Oh, yeah? Mm hmm. Madam Secretary. Let's do 153. Okay. This is the. This is the vacation in the alley. Okay. I've called out council about 153 regarding the eviction of Ali on 15th Street. Wynkoop Plaza in Church Creek for a vote. Councilman, Clerk, will you please put Council Bill 153 on the floor for publication? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 153 be ordered published. All right, it has been moved. We need a second. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. So this is a vacation. It's Kalispell 153. It's Vacation Alley, a portion of behind 15th Street and one Cooper Massey Street and Cherry Creek. And there has been a a ton of consternation around this by my neighbors. And I wanted to give the folks who are proposing this alley vacation the opportunity to speak to this and answer some pretty direct questions that we've been receiving from the public. So. Peter Aw, come on up here, introduce yourselves and then please, let's bring this up so everybody can see it as well. Members of council. You want to go to your audiovisual? Oh, great. We have a. Rather large screen in the back. That's going to do it for us. Thank you. Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Otten Johnson Robinson and Regan Eddy. And we represent Unico Properties, which is the owner of the property. The properties on either side of the alley. I'm actually using the cursor, which you can't see very well. We can show you all you can. Okay, good. To show you the properties. So it's the two surface parking lots on either side of the alley. And can you zoom in just a little bit to that picture? Sure. One more time. Great. Okay. Excellent. So orient us, explain what the project is seeking. And then I have a couple of questions for you. Sure, Mr. President. So Unico Properties is seeking to construct a new building which will go across these two service parking lots. The building is anticipated, just for your information, is anticipated to be a six storey building with a residential penthouse on top of it. And it will also have a feature, a pedestrian promenade along the creek, sort of in the area that I'm moving the cursor which will run between Swasey and Wynkoop streets and will extend the current pedestrian promenade that exists sort of above the retaining wall on properties all the way down to Del Gainey. Okay. We're not going to be doing anything to to change the ramp that goes down to the creek. This is about a 15 to 20 foot drop off this retaining wall. And so what we're seeking from you this evening is a vacation of this alley, or at least this portion of the alley terminate right here. So it would allow the building to go all the way across between wasI and Wynkoop. What how many feet is the portion of the alley you're requesting to vacate? It's about 1500 square feet. 1500 square feet, yes. Okay. A couple of questions. So there's a lot of concerns as you go into that alley right there. That alley folks can access the alley all the way to the river. And folks are saying that you guys are shutting off that alley is going to become unsafe. So is that private property right now currently where the parking lot is? It is. So is the alley shut off anyway? Are people just accessing it? It's a good question. The alley is shut off anyway. So right now the alley is has a dead end condition. The alley goes all the way down to the retaining wall and dead ends right here. Okay. Right now, there are chains on either side of the alley. So you could not, for example, drive a car out the southwestern end of the alley because either side of it is private property. And we also are hearing that you all are proposing an L-shape to to allow private access out the alley on to I believe that is was he is that true as well? That's not correct. So we've not we have not proposed an L-shaped. We've proposed the alley would terminate right where the cursor is. Yeah. And then there would be a garage door there that would access the back side of the building, the building still in the design phase. So the size of the garage door to be determined, but there would be an access to the building there. So the Hollywood dead end of the building. So the city is giving you 1500 square feet. What what are you what are you giving back to the city? What are you giving back to the public? Sure. So I mentioned the pedestrian promenade. The pedestrian promenade picture. Of it, by the. Way. I do. So here's here's an image of what the building would look like from the this is the creek side. So what you see down here at the bottom is the creek. You see the pedestrian walkway along the creek, the ramp, and there would be a promenade along the creek beach again between Wynkoop Emwazi, which would total approximately 3700 square feet. The promenade would allow for, again, pedestrian access all the way across the property, as well as the concept for the building is that it would have some type of first floor retail and restaurant space. So the promenade would allow for outdoor dining or, you know, outdoor sales or, you know, whatever would be what would go on there. What and I understand that CBD or public works. One of our agencies asked for that. Correct? Cbd's for the promenade. Okay. Okay. And it's 3700 square feet. Yes. We're giving you 1500. Okay. That's a question to have. Councilman, do. You just have a question of public works if they're. Here? Yeah. Angela. I think they're just wanted a public works reviewed this request. And did you have any kind of difficulties with this request? Nos. A pretty straightforward application. And we reviewed it as we review all of our applications for vacation. Okay. So drug the use of the dead in L.A. then. Does that cause any problems for trash collection or anything like that? There's there's no there's no problems with any of that. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Councilman Cashman. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. Whoever prepared to answer this? So the. The building to the north. Which my understanding is, while the lot that the developer wants to build on is now access to that property is blocked off. Historically, the neighbors to the north had had that kind of open as a cut through space. Is that about right? Yes. It's our understanding from some of the neighbors that that the I think you're referring to the use of the parking lot as a cultural space. Historically, some of the neighbors had used that as a cut through space. If you're on foot, you can obviously hop the chain and walk across to Osea or Wynkoop, if you like. And the chain was down for a long time, was it not? So the tenants to the north could cut through the property there? Through that lot. The current owners owned the property for the past year and a half and the chain's been up since the current owners on the property. We actually know the former owner of the property as well. The chain sort of went down and up and so there were certainly times when the chain was down and folks could access across it. But there were also times when the chain's been up when that access has been blocked. Okay. And then I guess maybe, Angela, if there's anyone here from the fire department, so by cutting that alley off, does that present safety concerns for the people in the building to the north? So when we do these applications, they're reviewed by several utilities and several different city departments. We did not receive we did receive a letter from the fire department saying that they were okay with the configuration of what what was happening here. And what is can you describe what the access then becomes for that building to the north? So basically, this is this is a 400 foot alley which will then they're asking to vacate about 100 feet of the alley. And so it will become a 300 foot alley. You know, it'll still dead, dead end at the 300 foot mark. Okay. So they have sufficient access and egress without this. Yeah. I mean, the challenge is, is that this was platted in I think like 1879 or 59 somewhere in there. And so, I mean, this isn't something that we would historically do today, but because of the way it's platted, that's that's what we're that's what we're offering here. Thank you. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Angela, could you rise again? You told me you are here and you can speak for Rob Duncanson and right of way as well. So you're knowledgeable of all that he's knowledgeable about. Okay. And he knows and you probably know that I am a map geek and an historian. So my lesson for today in question. In 1859, Boyd's survey showed this. All these lots, all dead ending at the Cherry Creek. In other words, 14th Street historically ended to the south of here. Just to disagree with Councilman Cashman and some public works folks about the direction of our downtown streets and the blocks farther north along the creek, always dead, ended at the creek and not at 14th Street. So all these have always been dead end alleys. Correct? Yes. Okay. And interestingly to me, if no one else, the three blocks, including this one, and then up to 16th and 17th between Wynkoop and OAC on Boyd survey were shown as city parks without an alley . But my understanding is that the surveyor Ebert came back and later filed the true subdivision plat and we all have these dead end alleys. Are you familiar with the historic uses on that block? If I if I asked you, for instance, were you aware that the entire frontages on Rosie and online coupe historically had been built up from lot line to lot line all the way from 15th Street to the creek? Do you know that to be true? Well, I do know that there have been several variations. And that the buildings that were there have been torn down, but they are still private property. Right. Okay. If we did not vacate the alley, the owner of the property on either side fronting on either street would be able to build from lot line to lot line. Yes. Without providing a an access out of the dead end. Right. Okay. That's all, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that historic lesson of the fine district nine and lower downtown. What else happened in 1859? That's pertinent. William Byars established the Rocky Mountain News. Okay, and allowed and allowed me to be laid off in 2009. There's one more big event that happened. Eight years ago tomorrow. Do you know the other event that happened? I believe it was the councilman's 10th birthday. And I'm going to leave it at that. This is the wheels are off the car here. Okay. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I was going to ask the same question that Councilman Flynn did, but just to reiterate it. So if two different parties owned it, if two different parties owned each of these parking lots, they could build up to the lot line and that would the alley would still that end. So what you're talking about is just still making it a dead end alley and it's going to be shorter. Right. So my other question is the building that is sort of to the northeast that has looks like an elevated parking. Does that go over the alley? Yes. Yes, it does. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. 1859, we became a city. I just thought that was important information, but. Okay. And Uncle Dick Wooten's saloon opened. Yes. Okay, I. I have another question for the. So. So, obviously, we're starting to understand a little bit that this is a private lot. And it's, you know, there's no technical qualifications for us to for me voting for this to deny it. But I am concerned about a alley that is blocked. A lot of cars go in there, met with some residents and they talked about, you know, having an alley that's going to be closed and not have that light come in. Are you guys willing to put lights in the alley to just make sure we have a well-lit alley? Yes, we are. Okay. And did you talk to the neighborhood about that? We did. We offered we offered lighting as well as that. We know that the neighbors also had some security concerns relating to vagrancy or whatnot in the alley. And we are also willing to put in security cameras and to monitor the alley. Okay. And the last question, we each have a huge, uh, I believe is a lawsuit on our, on our desk that we've been looking into. This is not a lawsuit against the city. This is a lawsuit with you and the neighbors. No, the neighbors have filed a lawsuit against both you, all the city and against us. It's in the form of Rule 106 action challenging the decision by the Lower Downtown Design Review Board to approve the maps form in context of the project. And the basic premise of the lawsuit is that the neighbors are alleging that they have a right of ingress and egress across Unicom's property and that by approving the maps form in context of the project, the Lower Downtown Design Review Board has interfered with that right of ingress and egress, as has been spoken to tonight. The neighbors do not have a right of ingress and egress across our our client's property. And so and they've never had a right of ingress or egress across our client's property. So we are currently working with your city attorney's office to defend that. Okay. But if I'm clear tonight, that lawsuit is not on this particular on council Bill 153. It's okay. All right. The it's been moved in, seconded all members of council. 153 is now on the floor. Madam Secretary, roll call. Kenny Lopez. All right. New black. I clerk. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I cashin. I. Mr. President. I Please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine Ice nine Ice Council Bill 153 has been ordered publish Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen, which is one I believe is 161. I move that council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor of council on Monday, March 20th, 2017.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Contingent Commitment Agreement between the City and County of Denver and National Western Center Authority, providing a contingent credit commitment to support a district energy heating and cooling system. Approves an agreement with the National Western Center Authority to provide contingent credit support to secure a district energy heating and cooling system for the National Western Center campus in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-3-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-23-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0603

Thank you. No votes. Okay. All right. That was more of a question, so. All right. Thank you. So we'll hold on that one. Madam Secretary, the next item we have up on the to put up on the screen, Councilman Herndon, would you please put Council Bill 603 on the floor for final passage? Yes, ma'am. President, I move that council bill 20.0603 would be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Very good. Thank you. It's been moved. May we get a verbal circuit? Like in. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. Questions or comments by members of Council Council Member State Abarca. Thank you. Madam President, this one was also discussed at length last week and still am a no on this very strongly opposed to giving this kind of credit support to National Western. I don't believe anybody in the city of Denver has access to be able to get the city to cosign on credit and not have to pay a dime back for 25 years. It's it just doesn't feel equitable to do that for a private entity, especially when we don't know the annual payments that we will be required to pay. And we fully expect them not to pay us back a single payment until at least the 25th year. So still a no on that one. All right. Thank you, counsel. WOMAN I've seen no one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Ibaka now. Far right. When I. Her lips. Are. Hi. I. Cashmere. I. Can each. I. Sandoval. I. Where I. Taurus, I. What I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. When May a Lebanese. And Lebanese Council Bill 603 has passed. This concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilmembers remember this as a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor, please. Yes, Madam President. I move that the resolution be adopted and the bills on file can be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Bear with me all series of 2000 2020 070407070650065105770578065206530657065806106270628062906300631063233063406350606370638063907050706060067205950625053705600561056405730604060606110655053905400541055205530624062605870615. Second. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And thank you for the second Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, did we get everything included there? That's. It's perfect. All right, very good. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. Hey, Peter. Barca. I for when. I. Earned it. I am. I Cashman. I can change. I. No, I swear, I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Well, Vice. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. We have a pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 528 changing the zoning classification for 5061 Perry Street in Regis. A required public hearing on Council Bill 524 Changing the zoning classification. Four 4353 Fillmore Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 538 changing the zoning classification for 3325 West 16th Avenue and a 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 562 approving a proposed mandatory funding project funding agreement between the city and county of Denver and Denver Urban Renewal Authority for downtown Denver Improvements. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up. During the recess of council and we are going to go ahead and take a 15 minute recess.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Amended and Restated Access and Demolition Agreement with Plenary Properties Long Beach, LLC, Mid Block Site Devco, LP, and Mid Block Demo, LLC, all of Los Angeles, CA, and any necessary documents or agreements, to address a change order to the Civic Center Project and the demolition of the old City Hall; and Increase appropriations in the Civic Center Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $375,000, offset by a reduction in the $6,375,000 receivable from Plenary Properties Long Beach, LLC, to $6,000,000 for early demolition of the former City Hall. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0440

District eight. District nine. All right. The motion is carried. Nine zero. Thank you. Next is 26. Item 26 is a report from Public Works recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amendment to the amended and restated access and demolition agreement with plenary properties to address a change order to the Civic Center Project and the demolitions of the Old City Hall District one. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Any public comment on this item? If there are any members of the public, they would like to speak on item 26 in person. Please sign up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. See. Now that concludes public comment. Roll Call vote. District one. I am district. To district three. I. District for. My. District five. District five. District six i. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Hi. The motion is Kerry eight zero.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the fiscal year 2016-2017, creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said fiscal year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2016, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_09132016_16-0825

And so she is someone that we will always miss very much. But I wanted to make sure I added to to that as well. So thank you. And our hearts are with the entire family at this time. With that, we're going to just jump back. We have the budget documents as prepared by directed by the counsel and prepared in front of us. So if we can please take the final motion. Mr. City Attorney, this would be number. Item 25. At 25, right? So, Madam Kirk, 25, please. Recommendation to declare the Appropriations Ordinance for fiscal year 17, creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds and for said fiscal year as an emergency ordinance. Red and adopted as red and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. There's a motion. I mean, the second, please. Okay. And before we vote, this is the last vote, right, Mr. City Attorney? Yes. Yes, it is. Come back for second reading next week with this kind of. Great. Let me before we take the vote, I just want to just take this minute to thank the council, but I especially want to thank Councilwoman Mongeau, who chaired the BFC committee. This is her first year chairing the BFC committee. It's an incredible amount of work. It's an incredible amount of discussion with staff. I know the many hours that she spent with Ms.. Eriksson and with Mr. GROSS and staff to try to come up with something that would get adopted tonight by the body. But also that was a list that was inclusive of what she was hearing from her colleagues. And I think I know she had a chance to meet with everyone, have those discussions, and she put in a lot of work tonight and as well as throughout the whole process. So I want to personally thank Councilwoman Mongeau. I think you did a great job in this process and and look forward to your leadership in the years ahead as we do this process. And so thank you, Councilwoman. And again, thank you to the whole council. It's been a lot of work. It's been nine community meetings, dozens and dozens of online responses from from from the community. A lot of blood, sweat and tears from the other members of the city council. And also, most importantly, I want to thank the staff. Jon Leah, to you. You guys were phenomenal. As always. Thank you for always answering all the questions and working so hard from Pat all the way down. This is the most important thing we do every single year is pass this budget. And so thank you all for being a part of that, including everyone that's still here tonight. And so with that, we're going to go ahead and take we only public comment on this. Right, Mr. City attorney? We already did public comment. So with that, please cast your votes. I'm sorry, Councilman Gonzales. Yes. I just want to make sure, because as we're looking at this. The stuff. Education. Where is that located? Oh, Councilwoman Gonzales. That was in the existing city manager's proposed budget for at 475,000. It's not being changed with this motion. Okay, I just. Wanted to make sure, but thank you very. Much. Except for adding 220,000 for enforcement investigators. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. With that members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Congratulations. We passed the budget. I think that is the last item. So is there any public second public comment period on non agenda items? Sing non. Thank you. Have a good night.