Remarks by Ellis Raskin
50 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
All right. So, Clean Harbors Environmental Services Incorporated is a client of my law firm, Hanson Bridget LLP. Neither I nor Hanson Bridget have any financial interest in this contract whatsoever, but to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it will be recusing.
Yeah, for item 12A, I'll be recusing from this item. My law firm, Hanson Bridget LLC, represents Outfront Media, a Company that operates billboards in the city of Santa Monica To avoid any appearance of impropriety. I will be recusing and to be clear neither Hanson Bridget nor I Nor out front have any financial interest in this matter.
Yeah, I'll go ahead and make this quick. I just have a few questions about the after-hours amendments. Sure. Does that part of it go through AB 130 review?
Yeah, I mean, if we wanted to change it, for example, would that potentially jeopardize AB 130 review with the rest?
Got it, okay. I saw that we're removing the 500-foot notification rule for that. Are there other portions of the code that would require notification, like within 300 feet? I know there are other notifications.
Got it. I just got two more questions. I'd be curious if there's a way in our electronic permitting system to still enable some form of solicitation of public comment on these types of things before they actually get approved?
Okay, just last question. If somebody wanted to do after-hours construction that didn't fit within these categories, would the pathway be like an alternative means and methods application?
Hold on, hold on. I'm going to make a substitute motion. Sorry. Sorry guys, I think 100% in support of the 10 notifications for these methods. I'd like us to take a pause and explore options for notification for the after-hours construction. If we're deleting notifications for people within 500 feet and an opportunity to comment, I heard that there might be an option to build that into our system, but I'd like to pause and take a look at that before we move forward with the ordinance for the after-hours construction. So my motion would be everything except let's hold off on the first reading…
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but as it's written, we'd be deleting the notification requirement within 500 feet.
Well, so as it's written now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the process is you have to solicit public comment before the after-hours permit is approved, right?
Yeah, it does make sense. I agree with that. I'm worried about, well, I'd like to understand better how we can have an opportunity after the application is submitted to then notify the public and then solicit feedback. If that process hasn't been developed yet, I'd I'd like to explore that more before we jump forward with approving the ordinance.
Okay. Well, how about this? I'll withdraw the substitute motion and ask, just as a friendly amendment, that we give direction to incorporate that into the administrative guidance.
Yeah, and the process of notification and soliciting feedback after an application is submitted I think makes sense, and I'm supportive of that. What I'm understanding is we don't have a process developed yet for notification and for soliciting feedback, but we could potentially in the future.
Okay. So just so I'm understanding, so we're taking the same process we have now, just moving the timeline of it?
Yeah, I'll echo the thanks on this. This is some really groundbreaking work, I think, and stuff that really has a tremendous impact on people's day-to-day lives. As council members, sometimes it feels like people come to us as a safety net of last resort in our community. I think we'd all echo that we get comments from people all the time with things like my My landlord hasn't turned on electricity in a week, or my mother is on Social Security and has no other source of income. And these types of programs have a human impact on the ongoing affordability crisis in a way that I think is really…
Yeah, I'm going to make a substitute motion. I think we should go ahead and move forward with the option of the first reading the ordinance. Mayor, you said that it's a solution in search of a problem. We have a problem. This is a solution.
Yeah, I mean, there are other ways to tackle it. I mean, we've already talked about it.
And, Chief, before you begin, with all due respect to the, I'm sure it was excellent staff report given the late hour, I'm going to make a motion to waive the staff report. Say again? I'm going to make a motion to waive the staff report, though if there are specific things you'd like to tell the public to be aware of for El Nino, perhaps this is an opportunity.
Yeah, I spoke regarding this matter with Nina Fresco this last Sunday by telephone, and I have also visited the location several times most recently this last, well, actually, I pass it pretty much every day.
Thank you. I've just got a few questions. Councilor Perjola asked a few of them. But I want to press on something here. So criterion four, and I'm reading this off the staff report, not the code, but it says in relevant part that A qualifying structure is one that is a rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type valuable to such a setting. So it doesn't say that it has to be a once prevalent design, right?
Okay. So where are you getting your interpretation from?
Okay. Yeah, I'm not sure. Not sure I agree, but we'll get back to that. For all of our understanding, can you tell us who HRG is?
And can you tell us what their qualifications are?
All right. Dan asked all my other questions. Thank you. Dan asked a question.
Yeah, I just got one question that Dan didn't get to ask. Would you agree that the application accurately characterizes the events that occurred at the property?