Remarks by Ellis Raskin
50 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I was conflating the identification of the property here with other, well, I think we'll have some discussion about that definition of the term property.
Okay councilor Raskin Thank you One issue that has come up at least tonight in the discussion is understanding of what should be considered the property or rather the definition of landmark in our ordinance and given that the parcel has evolved over time and that there's a rather robust history associated with what was a larger parcel. And I'm curious what your position is with respect to how we should understand the broader understanding of what the property is.
Yeah, thank you for coming tonight. I know it's sometimes intimidating to come in front of a body like this, especially given the late hour tonight. I'm just curious if you've spoken to any design professionals who can advise on updating the property in a way that's consistent with standards for landmark buildings.
When talking about criterion two, you said something along the lines of the fact that that criterion is for unique or artistically interesting buildings.
I'm just trying to understand if that characterization of Criteria 2 was your editorializing of it, or if that's something that the Commission found.
Okay. But you would agree that this is one of two extant airplane mugglers in the city?
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
New speaker I just want to clarify for the record. hopeful that we can incorporate the findings that were submitted to us by the applicant because the historic record that was submitted was really extensive and to the extent that that needs to be incorporated into a story that's brought back in the future, I would hope we can do that.
I trust you've read it and I hope you'll support it.
I don't know how you guys want to handle this, but I would like us to be able to hear public input on that item when it comes up. I mean, we're in the middle of public comment on non-agendized items now.
I am. I also have some recusals, which I think we'll do after we... Yeah, we'll do that after the public input.
I don't see it on my end, but that's fine. I'll make the motion that we suspend the rules to hear public comment on agenda item 4N. I'll second.
If you want it, I hope you come up with it tonight.
Yeah, I'll state my reasons for recusal on 4A and 4H. On 4A, Tetra Tech, which is one of the proposed parties for the contracts that issue in this item, is a former 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, I will recuse from that item. And for 4H, I live within 1,000 feet of the proposed contract. subdivision, per the FVPC rules for proximity, I'm going to recuse.
Yeah, that's more comments and discussion, but can you just walk us through? What's coming up next if we were to hypothetically adopt this ordinance and? You know through the sbc9 implementation process What flexibility we have in terms of developing our own 2d zones as part of the seventh cycle housing element process and what flexibility we have in? through that process to choose a different mix of units through all the TOD zones.
Yeah, we've talked about this a lot. I don't want to be a dead horse too much. But I think that it's important to recognize this has been an emotionally fraught issue for a lot of people in the community. And it is worth recognizing that the Goddard Park neighborhood has historically been through a lot. You've got a freeway tearing right through it. You've got your metro rail yard right to the north. You're just downwind of our city yards. Yeah, I mean, it's not something we take lightly. I think the core thing for me, when I'm looking at this again, talked about it before, is that R1 has…
I just got back at the queue to say that that direction or that amendment is at least friendly to me. I'm fine looking at it. I mean, I think, you know, I have some skepticism as to whether or not a non-contiguous zone is something we can find a rational basis for or whether relying on subjective judgments about displacement is something we can find a rational basis for basing a zoning ordinance on. But I'm fine looking at it.
Thank you, and yeah, thanks to you and Mark for great presentations, very informative as always. One thing that we often hear in the social media world is, oh my God, look at this gap between housing and what's available. I think that one important piece of this puzzle that's missing, I'd love for you to take a moment to explain, is the process of a will serve letter is issued before any building permits are approved. Can you just walk us through what that process is?
Right. And there's more detail on this in the the name now, but it was the report that was attached, our water conservation master plan. But in the event that there is periods of shortage, there's a whole series of events that are triggered and come into place, right?
Okay. I think the last question I had, sorry, I'm going to flip through my notes here. No, that's all the questions I've got. Thanks. Sure.
I assume there will be intermediate updates along the way. Yes. I'll second that.
Thank you. I'll echo the thanks that people have said so far, and just acknowledging our fire department team in the back there. Thanks for your great work. Just touching briefly on some of the recommendations that are related to something that's of great interest to me about potentially reimagining the 10 Freeway. One of the things that's interested me in transforming that into a surface boulevard is potentially restoring north-south connections through the city and how that could potentially interact with opening up evacuation routes on a north-south basis. And so to the extent that that…
I brought it up because there are some very granular recommendations about, like, slope management on the ITAN and things like that. So to the extent that we're I don't know, thinking in terms of long-term route planning. I'd like to see that.
I supposed to say this before we take the vote. In the past, councilmember Hall has brought up some concerns about weaving the specific portion of the city's peer fee In retrospect, I I think I share those concerns about that specific portion of the fee for the reasons he's previously articulated You know, this is this is it's a great city event the challenge I'm having here is that it's You know if we were taking this money and donating it directly to Hila Bay supporting a Nonprofit endeavor like that. I I think that's one thing I think backfilling operating costs for events that are not…
I mean, as Dan said before, we have had this signature event program for a reason. And I'm very supportive of the event. I'll spend my money there. I mean, I'm struggling to reconcile how our event framework fits in with this particular event.