City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

It's 10 o'clock in the morning. The council will be in session. Mr. Sikowsky, Mr. McAllister, all in turn, we have four members present. We need six more for a point. Thank you.

Thank you. Amen. ¶¶ Well, that's a normal thing. Thank you.

Will the council please come to order? Let me point out that this is a meeting of the City Council for the City of Los Angeles. On the 17th day of December, 1999, there are 15 council districts in the city. The regular meeting days are Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and we are currently being viewed by cable subscribers throughout the Los Angeles area on Channel 35, and we're also being monitored by council phone. Chair recognizes Ms. Sikowsky.

One of the nicest traditions we have here around City Hall, particularly at the holiday season, is to be visited by the madrigal singers of Palisades High School. They are here again this year with Linda Badron, who's been their musical director for many, many years. And I know that we look forward to them, and I'd like to welcome them forward and give us a little bit of their Hollywood cheer.

Thank you.

Alleluia!

Alleluia!

Alleluia! Alleluia!

Ding-ding-dong! Ding-ding-dong! Ding-ding-dong!

Ding-ding-dong! Ding-dong, where we are high, in heaven, the bells are ringing.

Ding-dong, where the sky is blue, and angels singing. Whoa!

Gloria, gloria, gloria, gloria.

Pre-o-ri-o-ri-o, where people will be swung in. And the o-ri-o-ri-o, where priests and people sung in. Gloria, Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis. Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis. Gloria, gloria, gloria, gloria! Pray you to fully prime your mountain-shiny ringers. May you be the holy one, your peace has come, ye singers.

Gloria, gloria, gloria! Hosanna in excelsis! Gloria, gloria, gloria!

Hosanna in excelsis! Gloria! Gloria! Gloria! Gloria! Gloria! Gloria! Sing!

Sing! Sing! Sing, sing, oh sing, sing, sing the Christmas, sing the world, sing.

Rock-a-bell-a-bell, sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet-sweet.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

One thing to hear, words of a cheer from everywhere, filling the air. Oh, holly, how graceful, how glorious, how beautiful, how scary.

Oh, holly, how graceful, how glorious, how beautiful, how scary.

Oh, holly, how graceful, how glorious, how scary.

Unchained that is the blood's work, our soul can be the praise of God. The praise of God, the praise of God, the praise of God. Glory to his name forever, his soul on high, his soul to reign, hallelujah.

is is Oh

I want to thank Ms. Misikowski for bringing that choir in today, and thank them. They were wonderful, and we appreciate them coming every year. Call the roll.

Birds and Chick, Fiery Galantra, Goldberg, Hernandez, Holden, Misikowski, Pacheco, Padilla, Ridley-Thomas, Fornish, Wax, Walters, Farrell. Ten members present in the quorum, Mr. President.

Okay, as I pointed out, this is a meeting of the City Council for the City of Los Angeles. We do have some presentations, and so first order of business. Approval of the minutes. All right, Mrs. Waller's moves. Mr. Padilla seconds. If there's no objections, unanimous vote. The next item.

Commendatory resolutions for approval.

No objections, unanimous vote. Mrs. Waller, do you have a presentation?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. It gives me great pleasure to make these presentations this morning to a very fine group of young people. Dave Griffith? You bet. All right. Ms. Oppenheim, if she's here. Ellie Oppenheim, general manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks. Council members, these youngsters are here because working through the Department of Recreation and Parks, They are going to ride horses, pack horses, in the Tournament of Roses parade this year. And along with their camping coordinator, He's going to be there too. This program brings the excitement of camping and environmental education into neighborhood parks. The kids who will be in the Rose Parade will be the youngest equestrians ever allowed to ride in the parade. WOW, the name of this program, Wonderful Outdoor World, originated in 1995 under the direction of the former general manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks. And the thrust of the program is to introduce inner-city youth to outdoor recreation and to foster an understanding and respect for the natural environment. And part of the way that they do this is youngsters camp out in urban campsites in our parks. We had a group I think in 95 that camped out right down here in Pershing Square, did we not? Absolutely, it was great. WOW has expanded to the states of Arizona and Colorado and is supported by the Coleman Company. the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, the Recreation Roundtable, USDA Forest Service, USDA Bureau of Land Management, USDA National Park Service, and the Walt Disney Company. The department has just completed its fifth year of the program involving over 1,200 youth per year for 32 recreation centers throughout the city of Los Angeles. These young riders from various Los Angeles communities were selected for the WOW Equestrian Team based on their outstanding performance on a High Sierra Pack trip this past summer and on their commitment to the WOW ideals of enjoying and protecting the outdoor environment. Two of the adult riders and walkers will represent the public agencies which initiated and continue to support WOW. I would like to extend my congratulations and I hope you'll join me to the WOW Equestrian Team and wish them the very best where I know they will be a wonderful, this will be a wonderful New Year's Day experience for them. And now I'm going to introduce the young people by name and present them with a certificate. Anthony Grimaldo. Anthony?

All right. Here, you get over here so they can see you.

Now they can see Anthony. Claudia Marroquin. Thank you. Thank you.

Enjoy.

Dave Griffith.

Oh, my gosh. Yes. Happiness is.

Thank you.

Working with kids. That's terrific. And he's doing a fantastic job. Ina Zilber.

Let's get you over here by Anthony so folks can see you.

All right. James Plummer. All right, James, so I'm going to give his to Dave. All right. John Ochoa. Kenny Rison.

She's not here.

Okay. Shelby Stracinka is not here, but Mr. Griffith will see that she gets it. And last but certainly not least, Virginia Clifford.

Okay. Thank you. Enjoy.

All right, and Ms. Oppenheim is here, and I'm sure she'd like to have a few words to say. This is a great experience for the young people, and I certainly am going to be watching from home to see how it goes. Thank you.

Thank you so much and good morning. This is a wonderful program. We're thrilled to be a part of it. We're delighted to have our terrific partners involved as well, from Walt Disney, from the Coleman Company, with the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Game. But mostly we're really proud of these young people. And they do a terrific job. We're going to be thrilled to death to be watching them. And it's really going to be an experience of a lifetime. And it's a good example of when we in recreation and parks really do our best work. We're able to touch people's lives and provide opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise have in very, very special ways. And we know they're going to have just a terrific time at this. And we hope you'll join us in enjoying it and congratulating them. And we thank all of you, and particularly Council Member Walters with her leadership with Arts Health, for your support and encouragement so we can work together in these ways. Thanks.

We have a shirt for each one of the All right.

Council members, Mr. Griffith tells me he has some shirts for each one of us so that youngsters will come around.

Thank you, Mrs. Walters. Mr. Hernandez.

What's your last name Mike?

Mr. President, members of the council, One of the reasons I want to be in here today is to make these two presentations, but I shouldn't be here. I think I'm pretty sick. I don't know. Trying to recover from this flu is not working very well. But we keep on bringing before you colleagues, graduates, uh... from a very important program and it's not the l a city's powerful program working with that uh... uh... it's a job training program and then you cut kawasaki who's here who's the general manager of environmental affairs was her department that basically got the grant to provide this training which you have behind me right here are fourteen graduates of both the job training program This is the third class that graduates, and they've completed 12 weeks of training, including skills in carpentry, lead, and asbestos abatement, and working with other types of hazardous materials. And the intent of training them is to prepare them for jobs as apprentices in construction trades and working to clean up brownfield sites. Again, this is a partnership between the city, the Alameda Transportation Corridor, the Carpenters Union, Los Angeles Conservation Corps, women in non-traditional training roles, and others, as well as the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Iowa Community Development Department. So again, I just wanted to recognize the graduates, congratulate them, and hopefully we can get you that job right away. Okay? And good work. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Brownidge? Is Paul Brownridge here? Yes. Okay, here he comes. The next presentation is to basically one of my constituents who lives up in the Mount Washington area. You know him as our city treasurer. This presentation is to J. Paul Brownridge who's ending nearly a decade of public service as the city's treasurer. He was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley in March of 1991 and unanimously confirmed by the city council. He previously served as public financial official in Chicago, Illinois, Denver, Colorado, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, and was elected in 1989. to the Executive Board of Government Finance Officers Association for the United States and Canada. Mr. Bowdrich has led the city's fiscal management efforts with respect to innovative state-of-the-art programs such as credit card usage for payment at citywide facilities, airports, zoo, recreation and parks, and convention center. and has implemented numerous other fiscal innovations that bring substantial cost savings and generate additional revenue to fund city services. Just recently, you need to know it was under Mr. Brownridge's leadership that we put together the bank linkage ordinance that basically is going to serve a much greater purpose throughout the city in holding our banking institutions more accountable to our communities. Paul Brownridge has served with distinction on many boards and committees. the task force to rebuild l a to look like to keep them in the room management leadership team group of the greater los angeles uh... i have a resolution here that's a little bit much dot but by myself but also cuts present dot for our customer real walkers councilmember nate holden as well as councilman joe waxing councilman bruce collector and uh... basically uh... i just want to which was about rich uh... thank him for his decade of public service to the city of los angeles extend best wishes of success future endeavors and i just want you to know that this resolution basically the last therefore says be it resolved that by the adoption of this resolution los angeles city council does hereby commend and congratulate jay paul brownridge on his nearly decade-long public service to the city of las angeles and extend best wishes for success in your future endeavors again thank you very much thank you

Thank you, Councilman Hernandez. I'm a proud member of, actually I live in downtown in the first district, and I'm very proud to be a downtown taxpayer and citizen. I want to thank the council for the opportunity to have served all of this decade except for 15 months. It's really been a privilege and an honor to serve in this great city. I want to thank the councils for that nine years. There's been changes every two years or so. So I want to express my appreciation to not only the group that unanimously confirmed me in March of 91, but everybody who served on this body since that time. I always want to give thanks to the people who make you look good, working the salt mines, and a few representatives are here today, and I appreciate the staff members who came over to share this very special day with me. I also want to thank my colleagues, the general managers and the assistant general managers for making my job easier as we serve the various departments in the city, the various commissioners over the years, and especially the police officers who have taken care of the treasury security of the treasurer over the years and two or three of them are here today who come by and help us protect our interests fairly in the morning and afternoon. And especially a last thanks to the leaders of this city and the community, my pastor Reverend Murray in particular. But we thank everyone who's been so supportive. I did my best council for these nine years or so, and I was fortunate enough so that I was able to help with this great city staying in the black, the bond rating going up and the deficit staying down. But as a single father, I want to thank my daughter, Lauren, here. Lauren, she's at Cecil Murray Education Center for putting up with me leaving 6 or 7 in the morning and coming back 8 or 9 at night as I reached out into community over the years. Now, she probably has mixed emotions now that I'm at home all the time. But I will let her know and you know that's for about 18 months. It's a sabbatical. I'm not retiring. Brown Ridges don't retire. They fade in their 80s and 90s. And I hope to return in some new capacity in 18 months. I thank you. Happy holidays and God bless.

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Pacheco.

Mr. President, colleagues, thank you. I want to bring up two young individuals in my community who have really put in a lot of time and effort into improving the community based on their own desire to make it a safer place to live. After the Columbine incident with the youth, Brendan and Chris were really interested in not just complaining but actually doing something positive for the community. So they organized and hosted a forum in Eagle Rock titled The Students and Community of Eagle Rock Speak Out for a Nonviolent City. So let me bring up Brendan and Chris. Come on up Brendan. This is Brendan Sullivan and Chris Fonseca. Brendan and Chris really are concerned that similar incidents are going to occur here in the local schools. So they've asked various elected officials and leaders to come to the forums in the community. The most recent forum they had, it wasn't the first one, but the most recent one, they invited and had Assemblymember Jack Scott and myself give presentations as to how at a statewide level and how at a city level we are working to make the community safer. Both Jack Scott and I gave presentations and took questions from the audience. They organized the whole event themselves. They have shown an amount of leadership that many of us seek in our residents and our community. And I want to commend them personally for all the work that they've done to make the city of Los Angeles a little safer and for raising people's consciousness. Captain Kyle Jackson from the Los Angeles Police Department, the Northeast Division, was also with us and worked and commented and gave information to the community. So let me present a little token of our appreciation for their great work. This is for Brendan Sullivan. Let me present to you a certificate of commendation from my office on behalf of all your great work for the community and for making it a better place. So Brendan, let me present you with this. Thank you so much for helping us. And for Christopher Fonseca, I also want to commend you for all your great work and for showing leadership at such a young age for both of you and for showing the adults that kids do care about their safety and you acted on it. So thank you so much, Christopher.

Chris and I would like to thank Councilman Nick Pacheco for his support of our efforts. We would also like to thank the entire City Council for this special recognition. We appreciate the efforts that the Council has made to make Los Angeles a nonviolent city. We also appreciate your individual efforts as California and U.S. citizens to promote nonviolence in our schools and cities. Thank you and Merry Christmas.

good morning everyone good morning everyone thank you for being here I'm asking you to help us improve our communities and schools to make a better future for all of us thank you

Thank you, Mr. Pacheco. Mrs. Chick.

Mr. President and colleagues, I have two very special certificates to award to two very special people, Julie Jaskal and her husband, Brian Lewis. And some of you might remember Julie from her time here not very long ago as a staffer to one of us, to a council member. But the reason that I've asked both of them to come here today is because together and in conjunction with city staff, especially Al Nodal of our Cultural Affairs Department, They have produced this marvelous book called City of Angels, a book on Los Angeles that is especially written for children, for our youth. And the illustrations are so knock your socks off that before the morning is over, I'm going to find out if there's any way to translate some of these into posters, because I think these are marvelous posters to have hung on the walls of City Hall and elsewhere. But City of Angels details special sites throughout the city that children can enjoy, especially with their families. The book was done in cooperation, as I said, with our Cultural Affairs Department. And it really is a true travelogue to the city of Los Angeles. For instance, some of the areas featured are Olvera Street, the San Fernando Mission, Exposition Park, the Museum of Tolerance, Mariachi Plaza, Little Tokyo, Watts Towers. And quite frankly, it's not just a book for adults, I mean, for children. It's very much a book for us. I think we could read it and learn how to enjoy our own city better through the eyes of these two authors, their illustrator and the eyes of our young people. So I'm hoping that a lot of families get their hands on this, us included. And I wanted to say thank you very much, Julie and Brian, for producing a book that makes Los Angeles proud and puts the proud face on us that we deserve. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate this. And on behalf of our illustrator, our partner in this, Elisa Clavin, I want to thank you for everything you do for this wonderful city. I particularly want to thank some of the people who helped us in our research, Councilmember Ridley-Thomas, Al Nodal, Tom LaBonge from the Mayor's Office, some city staff, Linda Barth, Phil Orland, Mark Greenfield, Cindy McNaughton, Katherine Rice and Cook Sunu, who was at the CRA. And thank you so much, Councilmember Chick and her wonderful staff. And everyone has one. And there will be a quiz later. So thank you very much for this honor. Thank you. And thank you to Councilmember Chick's staff, Lynn and Karen. Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Council. And don't forget, you all have one on your desks.

Thank you, Mrs. Chick. The next item.

Mr. President, item number 56 on the continuation agenda requests to have that matter continue to January 4th.

If there's no objections, unanimous vote.

Next item. Mr. President, items number 1 through 5 and number 8 on the regular agenda are items for which public hearings... We have somebody that wants to be heard on 2 and 3, so we'll call those special.

Uh-huh. One through five, did you say? Okay, well, we haven't gotten to that. So we have before us, we need a motion on one. Mr., do we have... Motion by Mr. Burnson on item 1. Any discussion on 4 or 5? 1, 4, and 5. Mr. President.

Nobody wants to be heard.

Public hearing is closed except on 2 and 3. Prepare the roll on 1, 4, and 5. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

Is that a nightclub? Those are approved. Noel, let's hold the ordinance. I think Ms. Galanter is coming in, so we'll hold that ordinance. Okay, the next items.

Items number 6 through 26 on the regular agenda are items for which public hearings have been held.

Okay, we want to excuse myself from 7.

We're going to call that special. We have cards on 8, and public hearing is on 8, so we'll call that special. Yes. So we have 6 through 26. Are there any specials by council members?

21B, which is? 21B.

I'm not going to vote on it. We call it special.

Oh, I'm sorry.

What about 17? We have a motion to adopt A. Mr. Hernandez, you want to adopt A. OK. All right, we have six. nine through sixteen, seventeen A, eighteen through twenty, twenty-one B, and then twenty-two through twenty-six. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

Eleven ayes.

Those are approved. Next item.

Items number twenty-seven through fifty-five on the regular agenda or items for which public hearings have not been held.

Okay, we'll... 27 through 15. Well, wait until we get to it again, Mr. Bernson.

27, 28, 29 are ordinances, so we'll hold those on the desk.

We have cards on... Mr. President, can we... 55. Mr. Brunson, just wait, please. Anybody want to be heard on any of those items other than the ones I called out? Seeing none of the public hearings. You call 39 special?

Mr. President, I believe there's some folks who wish to speak on item 49.

We'll call 49 special. Item 40 is special. Any other specials? If not, prepare the roll on 30 through 55, with the exception of 55, 49, 39, and 40. I mean, yeah, 40. Prepare the roll. Tabulate to vote.

11 ayes.

Those are approved.

Next item. Are you ready, John?

What do you want?

I'd like a reconsideration on 25 for a technical amendment. They left an account number off of what was passed.

All right. Is there any objections to reconsideration number 25? Seeing none, the matter is before us. What is your amendment?

It merely adds the account number to the file, which was left off on it.

Okay, there's no objections to that. It's reflected as item 25A now.

Yeah, 25A. So we have 25A and... It's 25 as amended by 25A. Right.

Okay.

It deletes the fourth paragraph and adds a new fourth paragraph. Okay. You got that?

25A is being adopted.

25 as amended. So prepare the roll, tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Next item. Mr. President. Mr. Holden. Forthwith with 14.

We're going to send everything forthwith today, Mr. Holden.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The next item.

On the continuation agenda, items number 57 through 59.

We have a card on 57. Anybody want to be heard on 58 or 59? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Any discussion on 58 or 59?

If not, prepare the roll. 57, 58, 59, special.

Okay, those are a call special. All right, the next item.

Item number 60 on the continuation agenda is the item for which public hearing has been held.

Any discussion on item 60?

Special. Special.

60 is called special. Next item.

Item 61 on the continuation agenda is an item for which public hearing has not been held.

Is there anybody in the audience who wants to be heard on 61? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. It is an ordinance, so we'll hold it on the desk. Next item.

Item 62 through 64 are closed session items. That brings you back to item number 2, which is called special.

No, let's do the special agenda now. We'll recess the regular council meeting and go to the special agenda.

I call the roll for the special agenda.

Okay.

The special agenda, we'll go through the agenda, please. Items one through five on the special agenda are items for which public hearings have been held. Are there any specials by council members?

Any specials by council members? One, two, three, four, five. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Prepare the roll on those items. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

Those are approved. Yeah, we're going to send everything forthwith. Okay, the next item. Item 6 is an ordinance, so we'll hold that on the desk. The next item.

Mr. President, item number 9, there's a request to refer that matter back to the IGR committee.

Is there any objections to that? Seeing none, that will be the order.

Next item. Items number 7, 8, and 10 through 15 on this special agenda are items to which public hearings have not been...

Anybody want to be heard on any of those items? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Any specials by council members? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

Those are approved. Next item.

Item number six, which is the ordinance, is the only item left on the special agenda.

Okay, well we'll recess the special agenda and go back to our regular agenda. Next item.

Mr. President, item number two on the regular agenda is a matter called special.

Okay, we have a Diane Wiley or Is there Diane something, Yuppie or? On item number two, Diane A-A-D-A-P. Is she here? Don't need to? Okay. Item number two, is there any discussion on that?

Yeah. Report. This is a matter in Councilman Wax's district. It came to planning and land use management, and we made the changes consistent with revising some concerns that the appellant had had, and I think there's now all agreement, so I just move the committee report.

Okay. Any further discussion? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

11-9.

That is approved. Next item.

Item number three on the regular agenda is item called special.

Yeah, we have cards on that. We have Norma Cardenas and Jahal Hadian. Would you take the center microphone, please?

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and President Ferraro. My name is . I'm the Director of Foundation for Early Childhood Education. I'm here to appeal for extension of our funding. We are one of the two programs that we are in the city facility, and we are non-funded at this point. We served the community of Echo Park in the last 20 years. With not having the extension fund for the next few months as the end of December 31, 1999, we are going to end up sending...

I think...

I think you already said yes.

I think that that was on the special agenda, which has been approved.

Yes. So I don't need to plea anymore at this point.

Okay. Thank you. It's not this item three, which is on a regular agenda. But the other has been approved, and you're both in favor of that, so you didn't have to.

I didn't have to speak.

Thank you very much. We'll make your cards part of the file. Okay. All right. Any discussion on item three?

Mr. President, a motion is required to approve or deny the application.

Sergeant, would you move those people out and tell them to go out in the back if they want to be able to talk? What do we have now?

Item number three, a motion is required to either deny or approve the application.

Mr. President, this is NCD 11. I move we approve the Caldera findings for this. They had a zoning administrative hearing yesterday, and it was subjected to reasonable conditions, and so I move this finding.

All right. Prepare the roll on item number three. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Good. Okay, we have item number four. No, you didn't. Four were approved already. Item number five and six are ordinances. And then we have ordinances 27, 28, and 29. Prepare the roll on those. Five, six, and 15 minutes for us. Five, six, 27, 28, and 29. Tabulate to vote.

12 ayes.

That is approved. Now let's recess the regular council agenda and go to item six on the special agenda.

Mine's all the same.

Prepare the roll on item six on the special agenda.

Tabulate the vote. 12 ayes.

That is approved. Now that completes the special agenda?

That does.

So we'll adjourn the special agenda and go back to the regular agenda. Next item.

I'd ask that we reconsider item 26 for technical amendment. This should be 26A. It merely identifies the grant fund numbers which were left off the original report. So I'd ask reconsideration on 26 and adoption of 26A as an amendment to 26. All right.

Is there any objections to reconsidering item 26? Seeing none, the matter is before us here now. You heard the motion by Mr. Bernson. Is there any discussion on that? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item number eight called special.

We have some people that want to be heard on that. We have James Fleck. James Fleck, then Larry Straw, Trevor Grimm, and then Clyde Hill. Well, there's going to be three of us going to walk out.

Do you want us up there?

No, no, no.

Speak where you are. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're a package here. I'm Trevor Grimm, General Counsel, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and we come here today in opposition to your adoption of the permanent code enforcement ordinance. You've already received written statements, written complaints from Jim Fleck. He's going to emphasize one of them. As for this permanent ordinance, your city attorney has told you that you must follow the rules and regulations provided by CEQA.

Pull that microphone up to you so we can hear you. You are not shy, are you?

I'm not shy. I don't have to start over, do I? Anyway, you've been told that you have to follow the rules concerning CEQA, and Larry Straw, who's the lead attorney in the lawsuit we now have pending in the Court of Appeal against the interim ordinance, is here to tell you why you haven't complied with the rules for this permanent ordinance. Larry.

Thank you. will uh... tell you and he's already told you in his written uh... presentation there was no research or consideration of possible environmental consequences from the proposed ordinance prior to the time the notice of exemption was prepared the case law says that whether a project is categorically exempt is a part of the agencies in this case the city's preliminary secret review process excuse me would you identify yourself for the record please oh larry straw your honor thank you mr chairman uh... straw and goff 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, LA 90025. Case law says that whether a project is categorically exempt is part of the agency's, and in this case the city's, preliminary CEQA review process. And that process involves an initial study. The city's CEQA guidelines call for an initial study to be a comprehensive analysis of potential environmental consequences. In this case, there was no such study performed. Once it is determined a project may qualify for a categorical exemption, the law requires an agency, in this case again the city, to consider possible exceptions to the exemption. Such exceptions may be unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or impacts upon historical resources. In the case of this ordinance and the notice of exemption that was prepared by the city, none of these were considered. furthermore the notice of exemption was presented to the city council last week failed to meet the requirements of law the law requires a description of the project uh... to be complete the description of the project in the in notice of tension is superficial it did not for instance number of units to be affected it didn't know that the ordinance would cause the generation of hazardous waste and it didn't mention the possible generation of ghost towns furthermore the conclusory statement in the notice of exemption that the project would not have any direct or indirect impact on the environment is the type of statement that has been rejected in the past by the courts. In the case of this ordinance and the notice of exemption, there's three strikes against it and it should be out for the count.

Mr. President, James C. Fleck, head of Jescor Research and the Department Association of Greater Los Angeles, is one of my clients. I've submitted this particular report, which I hope you all have, which indicates we've found problems with the Brown Act, CEQA, and the Costa-Hawkins Act with this particular proposed ordinance. The issue that I'm going to address is the problem of the form, as it's filled out by a gentleman whose name is Charles Ekstrom of the Los Angeles Housing Department. He signed the form that was submitted to the council on the environmental problem, and he found there was no environmental consequence. I know something about this because I used to do these forms for you. When I worked for the housing department years ago, I signed dozens and dozens of these negative debt forms and we never did any research and I called Mr. Ekstrom because maybe things are different now and I called him and asked him if he had any research, any facts, any information whatsoever that led him to come to that conclusion and he told me over the phone, none. He had done nothing. He simply signed the form just like I used to do, and it's simply not adequate for the Environmental Quality Act. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, one final comment. You may think this is sort of bringing up nitpicking type of arguments. However, they're set by the rules and in the rules, and there's nothing more nitpicking that apartment owners have found than the types of inspections we're getting now, uncomplained about conditions, where an inspector can go through and find a myriad of conditions that are expensive, sometimes ruinous, to comply with or to repair. So it's not nitpicking to us at all. This is a major disaster for many owners, this ordinance. Thank you.

All right.

Item number eight, the public hearing is closed. Is there any discussion on that? Mr. Holden?

Mr. President and members, the gentleman who just spoke to us admonishing us not to go forward with this amendment to the ordinance are going to finally be correct. We have lost the case in the appellant court regarding the legality of this ordinance, the assessment of inspection fees for apartments throughout the city of Los Angeles. We are assessing apartment owners even though we're not uh... inspecting those facilities so we're not is not fee for service if we're a fee for service it would be legal but since we are taking the money we're not inspecting the facility then it reverts to a tax that's the argument they use in court uh... the appellate court supported the argument of the plaintiff department owners association uh... the thing that troubles me is that there's an organization that's lost here that should be protected And that's the rights of the tenants because the fee is being passed on to the tenants. Initially, everybody was encouraged to vote for this. They talked about the apartment owners association paying. That's not the case. The tenants are paying. And sometimes the tenants are paying when their apartments are not up to code and they're not being inspected. So this is illegal in more than one way. It's something that we're overlooking. There's supposed to be a sympathetic ear for tenants in this council. It has not been demonstrated in the past, nor is it being demonstrated today, because they're paying for fee for services not being rendered, and their apartments are not being maintained in some cases. In other cases, department owners just have to do the paperwork. They don't like that either, and I don't blame them. Just leave it alone, and we should go out in those cases where we have legitimate complaints, and the apartments are not being well maintained, we have enough laws in the books to have the landlord bring them up to code. So once again, Mr. President, I'm going to vote no on this issue. I think the court will support my position as well as the plaintiff in this case. It's unfortunate that we have to spend this money and then lose the case, and they have to find millions of dollars in the future to reimburse the tenants and also the landlords. It's just the misuse of our time and our resources.

Mr. Pacheco.

Mr. President and colleagues, I'm always amazed that non-lawyers talk about the court. Let me just say this, that when we're talking about the legal dispute in this issue, it's really about the fee. It's not about the ordinance, not about the enforcement of our codes. and we could end up losing that debate in court but the net result is the same from our position at least my position that these codes need to be enforced and i would come back and ask the council to look at providing uh... support and funding for this from other sources instead of the fees But I still am optimistic that we will win that debate in court. This ordinance is not against the law. There is a legal issue about the money, but that's secondary to the goal and the mission of the program. I also want to state that The issue with CEQA, we did have the findings put on the record as to why we're exempt from CEQA in this program. So I do want to, at some point, move to adopt the findings. Actually, I'm making the motion right now to adopt the findings and include that in the approval of number eight.

Okay, is there any further discussion on this? If not, prepare the roll on Mr. Pacheco's motion. Tabulate the vote.

Eleven ayes, one no.

We're going to send everything forthwith. That's the third time I've told my colleagues that, but some of them don't listen. Next item.

Mr. President, item number seven, a request to continue that matter until January 4th.

Yeah, there's a problem on a quorum. if we can't act on this today, so we'll continue until January 4th, when all 15 members are expected.

Can we leave it on the desk for now, Mr. President? We do have some deadlines.

Well, we don't have the votes.

Nobody else is expected today?

Huh?

Nobody else is expected to return today?

Mr. Bernson, Mr. Fuhrer, and myself will have to disqualify ourselves, and that would leave...

Okay. If you give me a minute to discuss this with the city attorney...

You know, fine, you can have an hour or so. The next item.

Item number 39 on the regular agenda is item which Council Member Fuhrer called special.

Mr. Fuhrer. Huh? You're satisfied? Okay, any discussion on 39? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

Thank you.

Eleven ayes. That is approved. Next item.

Item number 40, called special by Council Member Misikowski.

Ms. Misikowski.

Thank you, Mr. President. This, I just wanted to call the Council's attention, is a contract we are approving. The DWP has already approved it. We're just confirming it. This is the DWP's proposed five-year contract with Giltronics Associate and AeroVironment to build and market a battery-powered, backpack-mounted electric leaf blower for the L.A. market. Mr. Hernandez and I have been working on this, and I think, I don't know if Adrian Alvarez is still here, representing the uh... gardeners association who've been working with the department water power but uh... this is something that is positive it was the outgrowth of the city's uh... rather contentious uh... battle a few years ago where we did ask dvp they work with an uh... environmental manufacturing firm locally and are going to be able to produce and have on the market by the fall a leaf blower that is electrical, that has no emissions, and is something that has been working with the gardening community to make sure it works well, works effectively, is lightweight. And so I just wanted to call to your attention that sometimes over time we can accomplish some good things from our contentious battles.

Okay, before we continue the discussion, we have, it is a public hearing item, and we have Nancy Steele and also Adrian Alvarez. Do you want to be heard on this item? I also, before you start, Clyde Hill, you had a card in there to speak on a special council meeting, item number three. That's been approved, and I think you're probably in favor of that, so I don't know if you're still here or not. Okay. Okay. Nancy Steele.

Good morning Mr. President and members of the City Council. My name is Nancy Steele. I am here from the California Air Resources Board to offer support for this item. As we have found, the major pollutants generated by leaf blowers are dust, noise and exhaust emissions. This electric leaf blower has zero exhaust emissions and a reduced noise level. thus reducing or eliminating two of the three pollution issues. Reducing exhaust emissions and noise will benefit leaf blower operators, as they're the ones standing right there next to the leaf blower, and bystanders who often complain about the noise and the pollution, and will help clear the air for all of us. So I wanted to come here and tell you that the California Air Resources Board supports this contract. Thank you.

Okay, we have Adrian Javarez.

Good morning, Mr. President, city council members. I'm here to say that the direction that's been taken by this project is positive and is showing good faith along the lines of what we wanted, cooperation by everybody. I just want to stress that The proof of the success will be once we get the machines out in the field to see that they work and that they're accessible for gardeners. So I'm hopeful that we'll see the day when everybody's happy and we're all working together. The other thing just that DWP might consider allocating part of the funds that are going to be generated to help out set up training centers for gardeners and things of that nature so we educate everybody on the proper use and certification and things of that nature. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That's all the cards we have so the public hearing is closed. Mr. Bernson, you're next.

Yes, you know, members of the council, this is, I'm glad to see this coming before us, but I think there's one slight omission. And that slight emission is, right from the Air Quality Board, this solves two of the three problems, but not all three. Now, if you recall, when we debated this subject, one of the things that I asked for was that it be, instead of an exhaust, it would be a vacuum. Now that eliminates the third thing, which is the dust, which is equally as bad as the noise, in my opinion, and the emission from the burning of gasoline in the small engine. Now if we're going to do this, why can't we also eliminate the dust which also is a health hazard and a problem. And I would ask that we also amend this to include development of one that is a vacuum as well as the exhaust type that meet this criteria. Therefore, you could kill all three birds with one stone instead of just two. We're still going to suffer from the dust. I hope some people are listening. We're still going to suffer from the dust if we just develop one that only blows. We need one that vacuums and accumulates the dust so it doesn't circulate all over the place into the air, onto neighbor's property and everything else. And I would move that as an amendment that we ask them to also develop a criteria for developing that type of instrument as well. And that would be my motion. Mr. Hernandez.

Mr. President, members of council, why doesn't Mr. Bernson move that we just clean all the air? And I take your amendment very seriously. I just don't want to lose sight of what's happened here today, what we brought before us today. And I want to remind us where we were when we were dealing with the whole issue of gas blowers. And the fact of the matter is that as a city, We took an issue and we brought our department that we felt had the best expertise to deal with the issue. And they've come up with a solution. It's not the perfect solution yet, but it's in the right direction. No, no, and again, I'm willing to, again, continue in that direction. I don't think we want to stop it, but I don't want to take away anything from what we've accomplished. Yeah, I don't want to take away anything from what we've accomplished, and I wanted to make sure we understood that the city of Los Angeles played a critical role through its Department of Water and Power in basically advocating for non- gas blower that basically does not have emissions of the type that pollute our environment. And it didn't come from the private sector, it came from the public sector. It's something that nobody else has done. And we have done that, and I think that that's to our credit. And at the same time, it took time. And we have to recognize that because I think that we're about a year behind schedule from what we perceived we would be able to do it in. And I think that this is the direction we want to continue. I also would advocate for some kind of a vacuum system, and I think that now we have a mechanism in which we can continue in that direction. And as Adrian mentioned, now we need to see how we can get this tool that we've created into the hands of the people who use it. and how it is that those people can improve in their industry and provide a more environmentally conscious work environment, not only for the people where they work, but for themselves. And I think that that's part of the task. I just thought that the fact that this has gotten this far, we have a local company that's going to manufacture it in Los Angeles. It's a minority-owned firm. It was basically stimulated by our departments and we basically have a lot to be proud of. And again, it's the direction we as a city want to be known as headed. Thank you.

Ms. Galanter?

I would like to say that I think Mr. Bernson's amendment is a good idea, but not to this contract. And I'd like to see it come in as a separate motion for a separate project DWP would work on. This is a asking us to approve a contract that the DWP Commission has already approved, which will allow us to move forward now with solving, as you put it, two out of the three problems. I do think that it would be useful to get DWP and everybody else who's been involved in this started on working on the final piece that Hal has suggested, but I think that Because the final piece isn't in, there's not a good enough reason to delay this contract. No, I know you don't. So what I'm suggesting is that we take that up as a separate item and that we approve this contract today.

mister benson yeah i have not last thing i do is the light and uh... if it's necessary to make it in a separate separate uh... uh... separate item that's fine but it would seem to be an item and number one i want to commend everybody who worked so hard on this uh... it i mean it's not to be taken lightly as a major major step But I just think that we can go one step further, and that's to remove the third element, which is the dust. And it would seem to me it would be relatively simple because all you have to do is reverse the engine and put a bag on, and you accumulate the dust instead of blowing it out into somebody else's face or somebody else's yard. So I definitely want to move forward with this. I'll make that a separate motion and ask them to work on trying to enhance this in the future so that we can have the elimination of the third problem.

Okay, anyone else want to be heard? What do we have before us?

Mr. President, motion 40A, Bernstein-Miskowski, to instruct DWP to work on the development of criteria for vacuum-type blowers.

Okay, prepare the roll on that. I vote. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Now we have 40 as amended. Prepare the roll on 40 as amended. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item number 49 called special by Councillor Padilla.

Mr. Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. President. I believe we have some cards on this item. No, we don't. I know there's a couple members of the audience who would like to speak on this item. I defer to them to speak first. Let me call them up, Mr. President. Mr. Fajardo, Mr. Esparza.

I see.

Seven has been continued.

Correct. No, this is for item 49.

We put them down for seven and 49, and apparently I put under seven.

Okay, go ahead.

Mr. President and members of the City Council, my name is Richard Fajardo. I'm with the Law Offices of Richard Fajardo and Corporate Counsel for Buena Vision Telecommunications. We want to speak to the motion that has been offered by Councilmember Alex Padilla, and I want to thank the Councilmember as well as Councilmember Nick Pacheco for their assistance in bringing these issues to the attention of the City Council. and for their constructive comments in trying to deal with some of these issues that we've brought to their attention. Rather than going through my written remarks, what I'd like to have is permission to offer the written remarks for the record, and I'll just make some quick comments. Buena Vision Telecommunications operates a franchise that was developed about in the 70s. This franchise was developed at a time when there was no Latino representation on the city council. As a consequence, the franchise that was developed for the East Los Angeles area, Boyle Heights in particular, was a very small franchise. It was only about 20,000 households. And when you eliminated the public housing, it's only about 16,000 households. On the other hand, many of the other franchises that were created were anywhere near from the next smallest was 40,000 households and had as large as 150,000 to 200,000 households, which were very, very different. These unequal conditions have created a situation as mergers and transfers of larger franchise have continued. It puts us in the precarious predicament of where we're in a, the Buena Vision Telecommunications franchise is in a very difficult position to compete. We've been around for a long time. We've provided specific targeted services for the Latino community. Programming for the Latino community was specific to the Latino community and we want to be able to continue to do that. We also want to continue to make sure that the city council keeps in mind how these telecommunication services, whether they be Buena Vision or any other franchise, meets the needs of the minority communities that they serve. So what we wanted we wanted a commenda again the the the Councilmember Padilla and ask that you support an effort to re-look at the lines of how the franchises were drawn so that we have equal, at least equality in the manner in which the competition and the ability to operate firms and the ability to deliver services to the Latino community and to the minority communities is taken care of. So with that, I want to offer your support for the motion of Mr. Padilla. Thank you very much.

Okay, who's the other one who wants to be heard?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Moctezuma Esparza, and I'm the president of Buena Vision Telecommunications, Inc. First, again, I'd like to thank the city council members for authoring this motion and for taking into consideration historical disparate treatment that has occurred in the way that franchise lines were drawn some 30 years ago. At that time, I requested that the city equalize the size of the franchises, and in particular Boyle Heights, and we requested that 50,000 homes that were part of the South Central and not issued to anyone at the time be added to the Boyle Heights franchise to make it more economically viable. The city at that time declined our request without explanation. We feel that these historical problems have now aggravated the possibilities for equal competition in an area where the city has given the rights to do business to companies, and we are concerned about it, and we urge the support for this motion because there are many issues that go to the heart of the size of the franchise, like the availability of capital, the cost of capital, and the ability to provide equal services to all residents of the city of Los Angeles. Thank you very much.

The hearing is closed, and I'm going to call on Mr. Padilla first.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, the motion has a couple of different intents. First and foremost, it's to formally commence the negotiations of our refranchising process as it relates to the cable franchises in the city of Los Angeles. But I will call attention to the final... SEGMENT OF THAT MOTION, WHICH IS TO INSTRUCT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY TO REALLY LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF THE FRANCHISES, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF FRANCHISE AREAS, THE SIZE OF THOSE FRANCHISE AREAS, AND THE BOUNDARIES TO SEE HOW WE CAN BEST SERVE THE CONSUMERS, WHICH ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND I WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.

MR. HERNANDEZ?

MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, When I first got elected to the city council at that time, I was the chair of the Administrative Services Committee, now known as Information Technology Committee. And we held public hearings throughout the city of Los Angeles regarding cable service. And one of the things I clearly found out was that in my own district, I had a problem when it came to cable service. And most of my district at the time was covered by Century Cable, now known as Adelphos. that was also known as at one time Group W, another time Tata. The reality is this area has been sold and resold and resold always under the guise that they were going to improve the system. And the fact of the matter is the capital improvement never happened. What happened is that same company developed other franchise areas within the city of Los Angeles and upgraded their equipment. And yet right next door to us was Buenavision, the smallest franchise area in the entire city of Los Angeles, who upgraded their system much more than Century Cable had. Now why am I bringing this up? It's because when we talk to the department about the franchise areas, the department needs to understand that the city of Los Angeles has a responsibility to all its citizens to ensure competitive cable areas. And that means upgraded systems, because when we're dealing with systems like open access and that debate, some systems are ready to do it and others aren't. And it's because it's based on at what level has that system been basically capitalized, has it been improved to provide the service. And again, in the Mount Washington area, the Highland Park area, The Lincoln Heights area, I'm dealing with a system that still hasn't been upgraded to be able to provide those kinds of services. I'm bringing it to your attention because I think that this franchising is more than just getting the companies to make a commitment. It's rather ensuring that it's going to happen. And again, those companies that have a proven track record of wanting to do that and doing it should be rewarded for that. But I think that in at least franchise area H, that has not been the case. And I think that because that has not been the case, those boundaries should be reconsidered. And that should be out to bid, and it should be awarded to someone who's willing to do that. Now, when you look at the size of the franchises and the customer bases of the franchises and the arguments that we hear, there's a reason why Franchiseria Albuenavision is very limited. And it's because it's the smallest customer base. a council member for our just reminded me that when they put these franchises out initially nobody was going to bid for those areas and i wonder why uh... and i think that we as a council now have an obligation to correct those previous uh... misconceptions and try create areas that provide the same quality service for all angelinos throughout the entire city of los angeles and that we should be reviewing that on a very serious basis, and I need our department to understand that that should be the direction. It's not a question of getting a promise. It's a question of actually providing the service.

All right, Mr. Pacheco.

Council President, colleagues, I'm standing to speak on this issue primarily because some of the arguments I've heard about the re-franchising and the transfers and the overbuilds, all uh... seem to point in one direction that's continuing the prior history that uh... we have found to be sort of off balance in terms of serving the whole city and so i want to look at how we can devise a system that doesn't necessarily penalize the current operators, but in a way creates opportunities so that when we have over-billed opportunities that they facilitate not only the local business and the local entrepreneurs, but anyone else who wants to enter the market. Because the way it's designed right now with overbuild, if you want to enter a certain area, you have to overbuild the whole area. So maybe there's a way we can do this that does not penalize the current stakeholders, but same time creates opportunities for real competition. So I'm real eager to see what the committee does, what the department does, and what the cable providers show us in terms of options that would be beneficial for all the citizens.

the city thank you miss mrs. chick yes I'm very pleased that my colleague and chair of the committee that I serve as vice chair of has introduced this motion I realized in our last committee meeting when we were discussing the transfer of a franchise and some issues about boundaries came up that that is a discussion that very much belongs as part of this examination that the department and the city are going to be undergoing in terms of re-franchising. And I wasn't terribly excited when we had a discussion asking our technology department to explain what they were going to be doing in the process. This motion makes very clear recommendations that are needed. And I'm going to be very interested to participate in and keep track of the public meetings that we're asking for. Because I think it's very important to give a voice to all of those cable subscribers, and we are cable subscribers, I think all of us, to talk about our views and our experiences and to have the cable franchises hear those comments and to use it as an opportunity to make sure that there is both the best service being provided and equitable service throughout the city. I look forward to the process.

Mr. Padilla, did you want to say something?

Just to wrap this up, again, colleagues, I ask for your support on this motion. And if you can begin to understand just how significant this really is, although this is only the commencement of the negotiations for the new franchises, Mr. Hernandez made reference to the debate that we're having in terms of an open access policy in the city of Los Angeles. In my opinion, that's just the first of many to come as it relates to not just cable television but technology as a whole and what our role is as a city government to protect consumers to protect the customers because technology is changing and when we get over cable television today it's very very different than what we're going to get in five years and ten years down the road and again The more that we can do as a city government to make sure that there's competition at every level for our consumers, the better our consumers are going to be, not only in terms of the types of services and features that are provided, but in the quality of those services that are provided. And again, this motion, by making reference to the boundaries and asking for a review of the franchise areas, is fostering that competition that's going to be healthy for our city. So again, colleagues, I ask for your support of this motion.

Thank you. All right. We have Mr. Padilla's motion. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved.

Next item. Item number 55.

I don't... Diane Whealy, this is... Is she here? I think she... I don't think she... This is the same item that she... Is there anybody who wants to be heard on 55? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Any discussion on 55? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

11 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item number 57 called special by Council Member Walters.

Mrs. Walters, we have somebody that wants to be heard. Austin Kelly.

Morning, Mr. President.

Austin Kelly. Go ahead. Yes.

My name is Austin Kelly. I'm the architect of this proposal, representing the owners, David and Jan Altimus, of 2405 Ocean Front Walk. We are applying for a hardship exemption to the 30-foot height limit in order to add a 380 square foot sunroom to an existing family house, which would result in an overall building height of 33 feet 2 inches. This is lower than the adjacent structures, which are 40 feet, 40 feet, 37 feet, and 40 feet, respectively. We have photographs documenting this for the council. It is set back from motion front walk by 25 feet and set back from speedway by 45 feet. We have letters of support from both the neighbors and the Planning and Land Use Committee has approved the proposal.

Okay, thank you very much. Did you want to give us a report, Ms. Glanard? Go ahead. Will you want to report or you want to start talking? I know you do. Press your button. That would be nice, Mrs. Walters.

Okay, Gordon Hamilton from the Planning Department. What you have before you is a hardship exemption as provided for under the Venice Interim Control Ordinance with respect to height and setback of two properties on the Strand. I believe we're taking them one at a time. Okay, one property along the Strand that would allow the property to exceed the 30-foot height limit of the ICO to 40 feet. The additional feet... Oh, sorry. Excuse me. Okay, I'm sorry. The height restriction, the height limit here is exceeded by three feet. And this is provided as an exemption from the project permit requirements that would require anything above 10% of the ICO would require a project permit approval.

Sorry.

I apologize, I've confused the two cases.

Okay, Mrs. Walters.

Thank you, Mr. President. I questioned on Wednesday what kind of hardship exemption this was, what justifies a hardship exemption. This is a variance for folks that want to build over the height limit, and too many people have built over the height limit already. They've exceeded their authority and encroached on the sidewalk. This is supposed to be a public beach and not a private country club. The when you say that the neighbors or someone said the speaker said that not neighbors have agreed. The people next door to them have agreed, but it's people behind whose view of the ocean is cut off and has been cut off. by these overly tall structures. This is going to be on the part of the beach that faces the ocean, right on the ocean. And I don't believe it's a hardship exemption, and I don't believe they should be allowed to get the variance. There are three lots here, 54-0. 15403, 5405. And one of them wants to enlarge not only the house, but wants to enlarge a deck. The other one wants an enlargement as well. And I don't know why, what constitutes a hardship here. There's no hardship here. They only want a bigger house.

Okay. I'd like to have Helen Bemis of our staff to address your concerns.

My name is Helen Bibas, LA City Planning Department. The property on 2405 Ocean Front, the excess in height refers only to the addition of a sunroom and this excess in height represents only three feet above the 30 feet height limit. The applicant explained to us that they have a problem of having light going through to the second story. That's why they wanted to add this sunroom. It occupies hardly 10% of the top. I'm talking just about the first case.

That is hardly a hardship. uh... what we have on two of these properties is the same uh... applicant uh... and i'm not sure it's not the same applicant on all three and so we've got three places he's developing two projects with the same applicant and the uh... one that's before you now is a separate applicant but it's next door to these other two lots it's closed yes uh... so you're going to have three lots adjacent lots right there on the front of oceanfront walk uh... being oversized and blocking out views of other people there's an interim control ordinance in effect there and it must have been put in effect for some reason to probably limit folks that had gone over these height limitations and now we want to make it official and I think we ought to vote no on this and provide we've closed off the beach has effectively been closed off to the public and now we're going to let these folks build all these high rises down there which effectively cuts it off for people who are living there

Thank you. Mrs. Galanter.

First of all, the issue in question here is a three-foot difference, and I just want to point out to you on this property, the council recently adopted the Venice Local Implementation Plan specific plan, which allows a maximum height of 30 feet for flat roofs and 35 feet for projects with varied roof lines. This is going to be a varied roof line, and the With the hardship exemption, it goes to 33 feet and two inches, which is less than the 35 feet that has already been adopted by the council. It is not an across the board, across the whole building, exemption it is only for the sunroom it complies with the new plan but this is a project that came in before we had adopted the new plan what we're doing here is cleaning it up and i would like to point out to you that uh... the reason i'm here is that this is very important in my district and it's not just a matter of my judgment it's a matter of or the immediately adjacent neighbors. Our Community Planning Advisory Committee, which includes people from all over the Venice area, not just the immediate neighbors, some of them as far inland as where I live, has approved each of these exemptions as a reasonable compromise to make sure that these projects that are caught in the transition can be built. Mrs. Walters, I've heard you say many times in this council that this is an issue in my district, meaning your district, and that you would appreciate the support of your colleagues on a matter in your district, and I feel exactly the same way. I think that this is a, these are the last ICO exemptions we are ever going to see because finally, after many years and many, really decades now, of negotiations, we have achieved the council adoption of a local coastal plan. So what we're trying to do here is let these people who've been caught in the buzzsaw between types of regulation get on with their lives. And I would appreciate your support and everybody else's support. This is not an issue of citywide significance. This one is a matter of three feet and two inches over 380 square feet. And the others, as the gentleman who spoke pointed out, in the same area include many that are at 40 feet. So this is not, 33 feet is not exactly a high rise. And the other two that are coming up where I know you have similar objections, all that will be granted a height exemption is a staircase basically, which is 10 by 10 feet in order to use space that already exists on the roof. And the front yard setback is consistent with a number of the other things that have been built in the area. And these are very small lots, so they can't build Nobody builds little houses anymore anywhere. Nobody can really afford to do that. They have very small lots. We have tried not to let these get out of whack with what is already existing in the area. And none of these is in any way going to interfere with the public's access. Nor have we had the neighbors complaining about their views, which is not an issue of citywide significance. So I'd appreciate your support on this. This is the last time you'll have to do it. We aren't going to have any more of NSICO exemptions.

All right, Mr. Pacheco.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. I am going to give my colleague my support, mainly because I have found very little guidance in this area in terms of what we define and what we expect from an applicant when we ask them to prove a hardship. It's not anything that I can put my hands around and put my arms around in terms of understanding what would be the threshold. Maybe there's people in the department who understand it, but in terms of the information I received, I don't think it's fair uh... to have applicants step forward be asked to provide information as to what a hardship is and there's no sort of guidance in terms of what would qualify as a hardship and i'm also very sympathetic and do share the same concerns that were raised by my colleague miss walters that when you're talking about a hardship it's all really relative in terms of what your expectations are and what you expect your environment to be and there are some individuals I know for a fact who in my part of town are not going to understand how we came about defining or agreeing that this was a hardship and maybe it was just a poor choice of words originally by using the term hardship so I am going to lend support to my colleague from Council District 6 mainly because it's her district she knows what is the community would want and respect and from what she's represented the community has no problems with what we're doing so I will be supporting the exemptions but not for the any definition of hardship because I just don't find that we have anything we can work with and I'm glad it's an interim situation and this is going to be the end of it. I'm sure with the final ordinance we will have some sort of process. That's a little clearer.

Mr. Brunson. members of the council and uh... particularly for next edification uh... word hardship is uh... is put into all icos and in all certain circumstances because you always every case is different and you have to have the flexibility to be able to deviate or to make small exceptions this is a small exception it's it's in conformity with what is the neighborhood around it and what's going to replace it so it's perfectly in order the committee unanimously approved it and I would urge an aye vote Holden yeah mr.

I think mr. Pacheco is inquiring about the hardship mr. Burson essentially explained it but when I had the same problem when I first selected but it's usually the case where the developers already has some initial financial investment when the ICO was adopted, and when that became the case, they provided exemptions. They could come forward and say, this is my expectation, here's what I invested in initially, and this is what I intended to happen, and it was mutually agreed because there's no provision of law which would have denied them at the time the right to build to the maximum best use of the property with the existing zoning at that particular time. The hardship was granted based on the initial investments. And Ms. Galanter very seldom ever deviates from the principle of supporting a person in their district. Now, I can name you a few occasions, but I don't even want to go back and do that. They'll just say that you are, Nate, keeping score. And I don't want to do that.

You don't keep score, do you, Nate?

Okay. So for that reason, I find myself going along with the person who represents the district.

Thank you, Mr. Holden. Before we continue the discussion, we're going to take item 58, 59, and 57 together. There is a Jay Stark that wants to be heard on 58, so let's hear him, and then we'll be able to take all of them together.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council. I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Galantin for her support and a clarification. We are building a 30-foot high building with a 10-foot accessory structure. And like I said, we are caught in between the two and we'll appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed. All right, Mrs. Walters.

thank you uh... mister president is going to spoke of it only being three uh... feet difference a three-foot difference that is the case in fifty seven but in fifty eight and fifty nine it's a ten-foot difference and it's allowing for story structures to be built right there on the beachfront and of course we understand that the beach is in uh... council district six council district sense six in the venice area does not on the beach it's not a private beach although they have done everything they could to make it a private beach it is a public beach to which all of the city has the right to use it and utilize it uh... to get to the lawful extent the same thing is is true of griffith park of airport these are major uh... citywide facilities for the use of the entire public and i know they're a number of council people who uh... adhere to that rule very strictly and there are others who who don't as we saw in uh... couple years ago in the issue of staples everybody felt downtown was their district it's one of those things that serves the entire city as does uh... the beach and we're letting this over building get out of hand. It's already out of hand there on the beach, and I will be voting no. All right.

Ms. Galanter?

Well, I'm not surprised that you will be voting no, but I do want to point out that this is not a four-story structure. As I mentioned earlier, the 10-by-10-foot extension to 40 feet high is a stairwell. It is not an additional story on the building. The report is incorrect.

40-foot high, single-family dwelling.

The report is incorrect, as the staff pointed out to you and as I pointed out to you. Unfortunately, occasionally we get reports that are incorrect. I'm going to move the previous question.

Mr. Fuhrer?

I move the question.

All right. Any discussion on any objections to previous questions? Seeing none, the previous question has been imposed. So we have 57, 58, and 59. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

10 ayes, 1 no.

Those are approved. Thank you very much for being here. Next item.

Item number 60 called special.

10 ayes.

forthwith on all the items that we've discussed already, all the agendas. Next item.

Mr. President, items number 62 through 64 on the regular agenda are closed session items, so now is the time for public comment.

Okay, we have Irene Veldo, you want to be heard? And then Leslie Levy. Would you take the center microphone?

Good morning, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. I come here because I need your help. My mother is 99 years old. She's bedridden, and she can't get out of bed, so the doctor has to come to her. Now the doctor has not been able to come to her because in front of our home, it's not like a regular where we have a street where you can park in front. We can park in front but across the street. So far, the doctor has told me if I don't see your mother soon, she could slip away. Now, when I came here to plead with you, really, if the front of the house, which has been open across the street, we've been able to park there. Recently, a couple of months ago, it's been closed. They put a red mark on the curb.

Is this in Montebello?

No, this is in Hollywood.

In Hollywood? Okay, well...

It's in Hollywood. Do you want the address, sir? 5769 Foothill Drive, Los Angeles, 968. You'll have to excuse me.

A little hoarse. All right. Thank you. We have other people who want to be heard, so we only have a limited time.

All right. Could you please remove the red so that we can park in front? Otherwise, the doctor can't come to see her.

Will you talk to her? Yes. Okay, fine. This gentleman will talk to you. Leslie Levy and then Cece Verone.

Good morning. I'm grateful to live in a free and fair country where this august body can be approached about a matter that concerns me. I'm told that today is the last council session for the year, for the decade, for the century, and for the millennium. So it's an appropriate day to approach you regarding an issue that may seem as trivial or as momentous as the deliberations of government over time. I'm here today to request your sanction to march in the upcoming Chinese New Year parade as the goddess of democracy. The goddess has been a powerful and beloved symbol of human rights since she was first envisioned and unveiled by artists in Tiananmen Square in the spring of 1989. For the last three years, I have marched as the goddess without official sanction. In the year of the ox, I was able to persuade the clowns to allow me to march under the umbrella of their permit. In the year of the tiger, I requested a permit and was denied. In the Alhambra parade, when threatened with arrest, I marched on the sidewalk. In the year of the rabbit, I applied vigilantly for a permit but was denied. I marched in Alhambra San Gabriel without incident but was forcibly removed from the Chinatown parade where I was arrested and remained in custody for 48 hours. I was charged with three counts of battery on a police officer and those charges were dropped when I admitted to resisting arrest and now I'm on summary probation. The parade officials never pressed charges against me. It was the LAPD. The sponsors and organizers of the parade are the Alhambra and Chinatown Chambers of Commerce. Their expressed mission statement is to promote trade and foster a favorable business climate.

We have other people who want to be heard, so would you wrap it up, please?

I passed out letters. It goes on about one more page.

Is that too long? Yeah, it would be too long because we have five people who want to be heard.

Oh, well, in Alhambra they allow us five minutes.

Well, this is not Alhambra, and you can go to Alhambra any time you want, but not to. Okay, C.C. Verone.

Well, how can I address this aghast body if it won't hear me out?

I only have one more page, sir. You said you sent a letter. I did. I had the sergeant pass it around. All right, thank you very much.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gigi Verone. And I was fortunate enough to pass out some literature to some of your people here. And I do have additional boxes that I would like to have passed out to each council person. I'm here concerning the Sunset Millennium Project, which is really not before you at this time. However, it will be placed before you by Mike Feuer. And we are begging you, please, please listen to what he has to say. This project is against CEQA. It is in violation of the law. It will totally gridlock Sunset Boulevard. It will cause danger to all of the people who live north of the Sunset Strip. And we are desperately in need of your help. I'm making this brief. I want to thank you very much. And please let me pass out the rest of the things I have.

Thank you. Thank you. Theo and Nicopopoulos.

We're Nico and Theo Melanopoulos. We are 12 years old and live in LA. We have a brief holiday story to tell you. It's called The Night Before Christmas in LA.

Twas the night before Christmas and all through LA, the sound of gunfire would not go away.

The children were holed up way under their beds while nightmares of massacres danced through their heads.

Then, from their horrified eyes filled with fear, a city hall chamber began to appear.

It was filled with wise men and women, too, who make all the decisions for me and for you.

Goldberg, Fuhrer, Pacheco, and Wax, wonderful people and all sharp as tacks.

Ferraro, Misakowski, Galanter, too. Walters, Ridley, Thomas, and Padilla, who's new.

Okay, come on. Chicken Hernandez, who really is king when it comes to this whole gun control thing.

Savonovich, Holden, and Bernson, so kind. The best city council that any kids could find.

The kids went before them and told them of their fear. They listened and listened. They did something dear.

The very next day, they made a decision to stop the sale of the gun ammunition.

The kids of L.A. now had nothing to dread. They knew that next year there'd be less kids dead.

Newspaper headlines appeared the next day. World peace begins in the city of L.A. We wish you all happy holidays and peace in the new millennium.

All right. Thank you very much. We only have a couple minutes left. We have William Satt, Hank McCann, Eddie Pawlowski, and Michelle Hart. And I think they all want to talk about Sunset Plaza. Sunset Plaza. You better move faster because your time is running out.

I just endorse what Gigi said and wish you best for the new millennium. Pull the microphone up. May you make the proper decisions on all matters, not just the millennium, with regard to our lifestyle.

All right, thank you. Hank McCann.

Hi, I'm Hank McCann. I live in Los Angeles. The boxes that you're receiving right now represent signatures from over 2,000 peoples, but I personally represent several hundred people that live above sunset. And we are vehemently opposed to this project for a very simple reason. It's called life and death. So we ask that you please consider our case very carefully. My neighbor died two weeks ago. If the Sunset Boulevard had not been gridlocked, had the ambulances have gotten there two minutes earlier or four minutes earlier, he would be alive today. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Your name? I'm Gene Kapiloski. I live up in Hollywood. Right now it takes me three to four times as long to get from Sunset Boulevard to Collingwood Drive to say nothing of an ambulance, fire truck, or a police car. Thank you.

Okay, Michelle Hart. Okay, that's all the cards we have, so the public comment period is closed. We have a couple specials. Let's do those.

Mr. President, special one has been brought in. Findings need to be made by the city attorney.

Yes, thank you. On October 31st at approximately 8.45 p.m., a security guard was on duty in Westminster Park Plaza Apartments. He was approached by some people and shot with what appears to be an AK-47 type weapon. The police department has exhausted all its crews and they have called and asked that they put an award on this and a reward, and therefore the council would need to make the findings that the need to act arose after the posting of the agenda.

Okay. Prepare the roll on the findings. Tabulate the vote.

Eleven ayes.

That is approved. It's special one, so we have special one before us. Any discussion? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

Eleven ayes.

That is approved. The next item. Special two.

Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday, the Council Office 9 was informed that in Fire Station 14, a boiler which provides for heat blew up and is not repairable. General Services will not replace the boiler unless...