Oh sorry. I am calling to order this meeting. This is a legislative meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's the 20th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd 2025. The time is 12:40 in the afternoon, and we are in room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building. This hearing is available on the council's website, www.dcconsil.gov, and is also being um broadcast live on cable television. Uh we um always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. Sometimes I use this moment when we're about to have a moment of silence to make a comment on our reflection. On today's agenda, we have a ceremonial resolution and ceremonials are unanimous consent and are therefore not debatable. Uh this one honoring the two National Guard members who were shot, one mortally wounded last week by an individual who appears to have come to the district solely to perpetrate this violence. It was a horrible act. It was a It was horrible to assassinate someone who was here for peaceful purposes. And it was horrible that the lives of people so young were permanently altered or ended. And we want to honor them. But I also must note that these young adults were not alone. Unfortunately, young people are murdered every day in this country and in this city. Lives with decades of future opportunity are snuffed out. This is there is too much violence in our country, including our city. The violence last week should remind us of this and that our society has yet to come to grips with this problem. If we could have a moment of silence. Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds. >> Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Freeman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George. >> Yes. >> Here. >> Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nadau >> here. Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you, Madam Secretary. Uh we have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member McDuffy. >> And I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's report. >> There's been a motion to wave the reading of the report. Is there discussion on the motion to wave the reading? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it. Uh, we also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. Again, I will recognize chair prom, Mr. McDuffy. >> And I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. >> A motion to wave the reading. Is there discussion on the motion to wave the reading? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. We have the consent agenda before us. Are there any changes to the consent agenda which is pages 1 2 3 4 5 and half of page six. Hearing no changes to the consent agenda. The vote will be on the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Beginning on page six, the non-consent agenda, uh, we have a number of nominations to the Commission on Human Rights, PR26-264, PR26-265, PR26-266, PR26-267, PR 26-270, PR26-272. Uh, in order for us to consider them, there has to be a waiver of council rule 231C, which requires committee the whole processing. Uh, if there's no objection, now is council member NDO to move the waiver of council rule 231C and block for those resolutions. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Discussion on the motion to wave. Hearing none. On the motion to wave rule 231C. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh I'm going to ask Council Member Nadau to present the resolutions in block. Uh I should read what they are first. Uh Commission on Human Rights Sim Singh Atarola confirmation resolution of 2025. That's PR26-264. 265 is Commission on Human Rights Alexis Gardner confirmation resolution at 2025. BR26-266 is Commission on Human Rights Carmen Mareno Sans or SANS confirmation resolution of 2025. PR26-267 is Commission on Human Rights Sha Norman confirmation resolution of 2025. PR26-270 is commission on human rights Jasmine Scott confirmation resolution and PR26-272 is commission on human rights Isabelle Vladu confirmation resolution of 2025 council member Nidau >> so moved just kidding okay uh thank you Mr. Chairman, as requested, I'm moving these measures in block. These resolutions would confirm six nominees to the Commission on Human Rights. They were approved by the Committee on Public Works and Operations on November 18th, 2025 and were timely filed with the Office of the Secretary. PR26- 26-264 appoints Mr. Sim Singh Utar Walla to the Commission on Human Rights. He is the director of the anti-hate program at the Asian-Americans Advancing Justice. He leads national efforts to combat hate-based violence and discrimination, particularly against Asian-American communities. A civil rights advocate, attorney, and policy expert. He's worked extensively on advancing racial and religious equity, including serving as director of the DOJ's Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, where he helped shape federal initiatives to counter hate crimes, religious discrimination, and systemic bias. PR26-265 appoints Miss Alexis Gardner to the Commission on Human Rights. She's an assistant federal public defender in DC with a career dedicated to defending marginalized communities. She helped launch Still She Rises in Tulsa, the nation's first public defender's office for women, and later built a private practice with a perfect jury trial record while continuing to take on indigent defense cases. Since joining the federal public defender in 2020, she's balanced her advocacy with mentoring future lawyers. PR26-266 appoints Miss Carmen Moreno Sans to the commission. She is a Spanish teacher at Winston Churchill High School and a passionate human rights advocate. Guided by her humanist philosophy and background in linguistics, she uses the power of language to challenge injustice, amplify marginalized voices, and promote social justice. Through both teaching and advocacy, she works to foster empathy, diversity, and human rights awareness with experience supporting refugees, advancing gender equality, and combating discrimination. PR26-267 appoints Mr. Shawn Norman. He's a deaf queer advocate and community leader in DC serving as president of the DC association of deaf and chairing the deaf deaf blind deaf disabled and heart of hearing subcommittee for world pride 2025. He's also a substitute teacher at the Laurent cleric uh n national deaf education center and has held roles with the mayor's office of deaf deaf blind and heart of hearing and the national association of the deaf active in both deaf and lgbtq plus communities. He's worked as deaf interpreter at DC Pride and helped launch the first ASL team in the Stonewall kickball league. PR26-270 appoints Miss Jasmine Lee Scott to the commission. She's a community support worker at the Healthy Place with a background spanning firefighting, emergency services, education, and community engagement. A former DC fire and EMS firefighter EMT, she has dedicated her career to supporting families and underserved communities through direct service, outreach, and nonprofit work. She's currently working to launch her own nonprofit to empower youth and families in DC. Finally, PR26-272 appoints Miss Isabelle Vladu to the Commission on Human Rights. Miss Vladu is an international human rights law specialist and founder with the US Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights. With over a decade of experience, she's trained more than 15,000 people on human rights, anti-Dei trafficking, anti-trafficking, DEI, and global security, sharing her expertise with policy makers, government officials, and international leaders. Recognized with the president's volunteer service and lifetime achievement award, she's also a best-selling author and organizer of global summits at the United Nations and beyond, fostering dialogue and collaboration on pressing human rights issues worldwide. With that, I move these measures and block. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you council member. We have the six resolutions before us. Is there discussion? Uh the vote will be on the six. I'm not going to repeat the numbers. I said them before. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Turn to page. Oh, I have to do the clearance. I should have done the clearance before the vote. Uh, madame general counsel, are these six measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> And madam secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> And imagine bud madam budget director, since these are confirmation resolutions, there is no fiscal impact. Correct. >> Correct. >> And therefore it complies with council requirements. Uh, thank you. Uh, we are now on page eight and we have bill 26-460, the juvenile curfew. Second temporary amendment act to 2025. Uh I think I said bill 26-460 uh before us. This is final reading on the temporary bill. Council member Pinto curfew. What's that? >> We on juvenile curfew. >> Yes. >> Great. Okay. Um, so this amendment makes two minor changes to the underlying temporary bill. It clarifies the language around the mayor's authority to extend juvenile curfews and ensures that the mayor can't do so indefinitely through successive orders, but instead cannot exceed 30 days. And the amendment also adds a specific timeline for the temporary legislation to expire on April 15, 2026. This timeline ensures that the council has a better picture of what the mayor has put forward in the budget for youth programming and also gives uh the council time to consider what we are doing. Um, we have heard a lot of calls for the need to do more to support our young people in the city over the last several months and really over the last several years. And by April of next year, my hope is that we'll have a better picture of both what the mayor has proposed in her budget and also what the council has done to move forward in many of these investments. I put forward several youth focused bills as part of my Prosper DC plan several weeks ago. I have a bill that expands banking access to youth that's in the committee on business and economic development and I hope that council McDuffy can hold a hearing on this bill by the end of February. I have a bill youth links that connects young people to paid flexible job opportunities and was referred to the committee of the whole and I hope Chairman Mendelson will have a hearing by the end of February. I have a bill that expands summer youth employment program to more young adults. That was referred to the committee on executive administration and labor. We have a bill that establishes new teen centers across the city that would create safe and fun spaces so that many young people who have asked us to provide these spaces um can be a part of the programming they want to see. That was referred to the committee on facilities and I hope that we can have a hearing on that bill soon. Um and I have a bill to create youth villages to provide wraparound services for young people that was referred to the committee on youth affairs. Um, so I mentioned these bills as part of our continuing effort as a council over the next several months to make sure that we are responsive to what we're hearing from the community that yes, we need to authorize the chief to have this um enforcement tool, this preventative enforcement tool to make sure that if we have data and intel that there's going to be a planned issue at a certain area that they can act and prevent that violence from happening. But we also need to move forward these other interventions that we're hearing from our young people in particular to have access to fun space, safe spaces and job opportunities um that are going to put cash in their pockets. So I hope we can all continue our collective group effort um to make these interventions and to uh move some of these ideas or hopefully all of these ideas forward. Uh with that I move the amendment. Uh thank you, Council Member Pinto. Uh so we have the amendment which was uh circulated I had it in front of me a second ago. It was circulated yesterday, I believe at like 5:57 p.m. So members have it. Uh the amendment is before us. Is there discussion on the amendment? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended before us. Is there further discussion on the bill 26-460 as amended? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh we have uh PR26-299 first responder retention efforts emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to say with a straight face that I would like to move to postpone this measure until the LA next legislative meeting. >> Could we say to the January 6th legislative meeting? >> Sure. >> There's no objection. Uh and hearing none, it's postponed to the January 6th legislative meeting. The next measure is PR26-410, Board of Elections Ranked Choice Voting Needs Assessment Declaration Resolution 2025. Council Member Felder. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw uh this amendment into our next meeting. >> Um, so the measure is withdrawn. >> I think you'll have to notice it for the next meeting. Uh the next measure is PR26-412 streetery program endorsements and protest process emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-412 council member McDuffy. Yes. >> 412. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh, the affforementioned measure would permanently codify existing emergency legislation that allows shre endorsements through December 31st, 2025. Uh, as of January 1st, 2026, the bill would prohibit establishments from selling, serving, or permitting patrons to consume beer, wine, or spirits on a streetery unless the establishment obtains the appropriate endorsement or license from the alcoholic beverage and cannabis board. Uh on November 18th, 2025 at its committee the whole meeting, the council placed bill 26-147 on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Before the measure takes effect, it must complete council mayoral and congressional review, which could take several months. To assist our local establishments in transitioning to the permanent shre endorsements process after December 31st of this year, it's imperative that legislation authorizing businesses to obtain a shy endorsement or license from the board to operate a shreery take effect immediately. This would allow lences to have ample time to register with the board before the deadline. So move. >> Uh thank you council McDuffy. So we have the uh declaration before us. Is there discussion? H >> I got a question. >> Uh council member Tran White. >> Yeah, thank you. I want to ask a question of you council McDuff as relates to this legislation. I know we had a lot of conversation about the street program um and the different requirements to keep the street program. And I guess my questions was originally to do about the lost in parking spaces in DC to fit this program. And to my understanding, it was initially uh to address COVID uh early on in creating space and separating space so people can still eat out without uh being subjected to the virus and now it's becoming a more permanent thing in the district. Council member uh McDuffy, can you walk us through what the appetite is from the business and the public to make it more permanent in the district and not just a temporary co thing? >> I'm I'm happy to. I think the concerns you might be raising though are more related to DOT's role. My my role in terms of being chair of the committee on business economic development is through adversite of uh ABKA the alcoholic beverage and cannabis administration and the endorsement process for street. So I'm happy to do that. Uh I can tell you from my experience with uh businesses uh and from feedback that we've gotten from the community that streeties have generally been a welcome addition. uh that did start to your point under the co uh pandemic but have survived the co pandemic because they've been really become part of the fabric of of these businesses and communities and their operations and revenue. Um, not every shredery has gotten a ringing endorsement from the community and so I think overall uh the process recognizes the need to make sure that ANC's still have a process to provide great weight that protest process still exists for endorsements through uh the APKA uh board. uh but that all in all uh revenues in restaurants have really not really gained uh I think regained where they were pre- pandemic in many instances and because of some of the other external factors on the federal side mass uh layoffs of federal workers uh and reductions in federal spending not as much foot traffic downtown we've seen our restaurants still struggle uh in many instances and so the streeteries have become a fixture uh in certain communities and really a lifeline for restaurants that are still trying to make the revenues to keep workers employed and to keep that segment of our economy uh moving. >> Thank you. >> Uh anything further with regard to this? Um, we have the declaration before us PR26-412. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill. Bill 26-500. Council member McDuffy. >> So move. >> Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is PR26-426 streetery program emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Council member Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um picking up on the theme that we just shared with the previous emergency. Um, we know, as we just discussed, the pandemic was very challenging for restaurants in the district. So, while social distancing helped slow the spread of the virus, it also discouraged our residents and visitors from visiting restaurants and bars. So, as we remember back in June 2020, the district department of transportation began piloting a street eery or now as we call them, streeteries, which allowed a business to set up an outdoor dining in public space on the curb lane. And the temporary program proved to be a massive success. And given its popularity, DOT then began to develop a permanent version of the program. I think that was important to help bring some order and sense to the rules and regulations around them. So around this time last year, the public space committee adopted DOT's permanent streetery guidelines, which provides a more specific set of rules for streeteries, including which businesses qualify for a street installation, where they can be located, how they have to be designed, fairly reasonable. The proposed rulemaking for the program was issued in May of this year. The proposed rulemaking established a $260 street permit fee and then outlined a $20 per square foot annual public space rental fee. Initially the streetery guidelines adopted by the public space committee were scheduled to take effect on November 30th 2025 when all temporary streetery permits expire after that date would be able to take enforcement actions against non-compliant streeteries. So, in the last several weeks, a significant number of restaurants, advisory neighborhood commissioners, members of the general public, all expressed concerns around their ability to comply with these new guidelines. They share the rules as proposed would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs. The city would see a loss of millions in tax revenue, and neighborhoods would lose additions that add to the vibrancy of their corridors. They also shared specific concerns, for example, around how the new restrictions on the installation of eeries could impact if they're near an alley or a tree, the inability to fully enclose a streetery for year- round operations in the winter, or the cost of that annual public space rental fee. So, the emergency makes several common sense adjustments to the program in light of that feedback. First, the emergency reduces the public space rental fee from $20 per square foot to $15 per square foot. It's a more reasonable component of the cost to our businesses. For a point of comparison, DOT charges $5 per square foot for an unenclosed sidewalk cafe and $10 per square foot for an enclosed sidewalk cafe. So, this still is an increase in steps up to 15. In furtherance of that policy, the bill encourages the public space committee to grant exemptions for certain program requirements if such exemptions don't create an undue risk to pedestrians or other roadway users. Those requirements include the minimum distance required between a streeter and curb cuts, driveways, alleys, or trees, for example. the restrictions uh also on fully enclosing streeteries as well as maximum seating capacity. And finally, to give our businesses more certainty, a clear date by which they can expect enforcement to begin, the bill clarifies that DOT cannot assess fines or fees for non-compliance with the regulations until January 15, 2026. Uh so with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the deck. >> Uh thank you, Council Member. Um we have the declaration before us. I understand there are a couple amendments, but that'll be to the underlying bill. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have to amend both. >> What's that? >> I have to amend both. >> Okay. >> Ah, yes. I think I remember now. Uh, Council Member Nado. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I'm glad to co-introduce these emergency measures and thank Chairman Allen, Council Member Allen and his team for their strong oversight on the issue. I plan to move a brief amendment to the underlying bill. It requires a corresponding amendment to the emergency declaration resolution. So, I'm going to make my remarks now. This amendment makes a small addition to the Public Life and Activity Zones Amendment Act or Plaza Act, which was introduced by Council Member Allen and passed at the end of last year. The amendment specifies that 18th Street Northwest and Adams Morgan will be included in the list of corridors DOT is required to study for more frequent pedestrian activations. This is responsive to the pending removal of the DOT streetery pilot on the same stretch of 18th. Those streeteries are unique in that it is the only location where the infrastructure itself was designed and built by the district government. This added another layer of complexity on top of the broader concerns that this emergency bill addresses. I had serious concerns about the negative impact their removal would have on community vitality and heard from residents over the past few weeks expressing similar concern. After discussion with DOT director Kersbomb, she and her team committed to maintaining a curbside area of about 10 feet to be used for sidewalk extensions, parkletits, bike and scooter parking, and for new streeteries should the businesses choose to pursue them. This space will be located next to a reestablished parking lane to address needs for commercial loading and short-term parking. We discussed the necessity of more robust planning for this corridor to follow through on the streetery pilot in addition to other efforts to create more pedestrian space. Thankfully, the robust planning process is already outlined in the Plaza Act. After my discussions with DOTT, neighborhood stakeholders, and council member Allen, we determined that including 18th Street in the Plaza Act is the most appropriate follow-up to the Adams Morgan Strutary pilot. With that, I move the amendment and hope it will be accepted as friendly. >> And Mr. Chair, I'll accept it as friendly. >> All right. It doesn't work quite that easily. It is. If there's no objection, it would be accepted. amending it. >> Uh but you are making it clear that you don't have an issue with it. Is there any objection to this amendment? This is an amendment to the declaration. If there's no objection, I'm not hearing any. Then it is um approved by unanimous consent or without objection. Uh so we have the declaration as amended. Is there discussion >> on the declaration PR26-426? All those in favor say I. >> Wait, Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Pinto, >> it's just the >> on the declaration. >> Okay. Thank you. Just making sure. >> Uh the vote is on PR26-426, the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-516. Council member Allen. >> So move, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm going to say discussion and then council member Nidau, you have an amendment and after you I'll recognize council member Pinto. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No, council member NDO. Oh, I'm sorry. >> After her. Council member Pinto. >> Um, at this time I am moving my friendly amendment. Um, with no further remarks. >> Hope it will be accepted as friendly with no objection. >> And if there are no objections, it would be accepted as friendly. Is there any objection to the amendment from Council Member Nadau? Uh hearing none. It is accepted without objection. Uh Council Member Pinto, you just circulated an amendment. You circulated by hand on the deis. Do you want to speak to it? >> Um Mr. Chairman, >> I have an amendment that I'd like to discuss, but we um just circulated and got some feedback from OGC about a piece that we are going to take out. And so, could I ask that we pause on this vote and come back to it after the other emergencies? Just I think that'll be cleaner than moving an oral amendment to my amendment just so everyone's on the same page about what we're doing. If there's no objection, uh we'll put this measure aside, which I think technically is called uh tableabling it uh until uh the end of the >> emergencies. Uh give me a second here. All right. So, we will uh we'll come back to that um at the end of the emergencies. So, number five is sensible pool building emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-430. Council member Tran White. >> Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I introduced this emergency legislation today to ensure that the people of W 8 are heard. Uh, historically for the la in the last 15 16 years, DC has closed down at least nine recreation centers here in W 8. Uh, the the fact remains that W 8 has more youth than anywhere else in Washington DC. And the lack of access to recreation for youth and adults, especially our seniors as well, has been uh detrimental to the community, uh has played out in many different ways. Uh the violence in the community, the lack of mentoring, the lack of programming, and youth and young adults just having nowhere to go. Uh we've been meeting with the community since 2017. In fact, on this particular recreation center in Congress Heights, we put money in a budget from a 2017 meeting. Uh we put money in the budget in 2018 which was 17 million. Then it got bumped up to reprogram to get I'm got bumped up to get more money to 22 million then 36 million. And so we were told by the executive that that wasn't enough money to get it done because the price of construction and time has passed and it kept increasing. So we figured that we kept meeting with the community and the community always said that they wanted a pool and every meeting I that I attended. Uh this recently I learned that the pool was not included based on uh legislation that the council enacted to get to vision zero to ensure that there was no energy used uh that overseed the amount of energy consumption that was generated by the design building and that held back the project. Um, based on timeline, I remember that council member Janice Lewis George asked DG DGS and DPR how much was needed to ensure that Wardy had a pool at Congress Heights and the answer was 5 million. She then put additional 5 million. It took us up to 41 million for this one pool. Mind you, there's no other recreation center in DC that ever been spent $41 million been spent on. So, this is a large investment. Um, and I didn't get another update that was accurate from DGS until 8:00 this morning. So, we've been working back and forth, arguing back and forth with the mayor's office about what the community wants. Uh, we had a meeting in Ward 8 last week at Rahobath Church and what was told there was not what was told today. We was told that we the DC got denied three times when in fact DC got denied two times and and the the last proposal um to GBback was the green building advisory board was accepted that included a pool. Now it's a new narrative that we want a splash park. The community never said they wanted a splash park in the meetings I went to. And this is a opportunity to put uh put money where our mouth is. We talk about equity and inclusion all the time. We talk about uh making sure that communities have what they need. The people in war have spoken time and time again and this is an effort to remove all the barriers to this to ensure that community have what needs. In fact, if I can get 30 more seconds, chairman uh DPR's argument is that Wy has a Furby hope pool and what has Blue Pool. That is true. But let me also note that when Furry Oak pool opened that the pool was leaking water while residents was attending the pool. We had to shut the pool down. Let me also note that uh they were arguing that the community could not use Blue Pool for the community because it needed additional door. I put additional $1 million in the budget to create a door and guess what? Today Blue Pool is closed. And so we are getting several different narratives uh from the administration about what we need. And when we put action in place to get what we need, the needle moves again and people are still left out of recreation activities and not just the pool. We got to note that Douglas w supposed to get was supposed to get a gym is not in the but it's not included that they were supposed to get congress supposed to get a senior a senior center inside the wreck. Uh it's not included in this proposal. So, it seems to me that the the administration is doing what they want and it's our chance right now to correct it in this budget. Thank you, Chairman. And I do we ask for a roll call. >> Uh thank you, Council Member. Uh further discussion on this, Council Member Lewis George. >> Um thank you, Chairman. Um and Council Member Trey, I I appreciate and respect you uh fiercely fighting for W 8 residents. Once again, um I hear you and I believe you when you say the Congre Heights community um can uh benefit from this indoor pool. Um I want Congress Heights to have their pool, too. That is why when I was told the project's budget was a barrier to building a pool that was compliant with the greener government buildings acts with the support of my committee and colleagues, I invested 5 million from the executive sports plex into W 8 so Congress heights could have the district's first net zero pool. I'm concerned that this emergency legislation however will not accomplish our shared goals but will create an un unmanageable precedent. When the community learned the long expected pool was taken away, they were told it it was because the executive is unable to build a net zero pool and the green buildings advisory council did not approve an exemption to allow a non-netzero pool. But unfortunately DGS and DPR didn't tell W 8 residents everything. The truth is while the project was denied for exemption four requested exemptions in December 2024, this February this project came before the GBACK again and didn't seek any exemptions because DGS and DPR designed it to be net zero and fully compliant with the GGBA. When I was told the pool was taken away, we asked during our aquatics oversight ran table why that happened and we were told DPR's utilization data indicated the current indoor pools in the area are not highly utilized and their community feedback process showed a preference for a splash pad because the splash um because there was a splash pad desert in that particular area and there were nearby pools uh in the area with low utilization but also an opportunity for residents to utilize those four nearby pools. So it actually it is not infeasible to design a pool uh with the standards of the GBAC. The executive did it uh it was approved and the Congress pool wasn't killed by the green building advisory council. It is a front um to again undermine the green building uh advisory council as has been done time and time again. Um, it was approved with flying colors by the GBAC without any exemptions requested, granted or denied the final time. And DPR made a policy decision that it wanted that was based on their impertation of community feedback around wanting a splash pool, not a pool, and also allowing for other space to be utilized uh by the recreation center for other uses for the community. I expect uh regardless of whether it was net zero or not. Um I suspect these truths are why neither uh DGS nor DPR have been able to guarantee that project will include a pool if this emergency passes. DJs said they can go back to the design process to include a pool, but they don't really need to. They already designed had a design that they submitted to the GGBA that was approved with a pool. Uh chairman, can I have an additional minute, please? >> Without objection. >> Thank you so much. Uh but redesigning the current plan with non-Net zero pool would reduce programming and amenities and also adding a regular pool on top of the current design would need additional funds and again we would get additional funds and it would cause more delays. Further the leg goal version of the pool required by this bill is designed that does not exist and it is not funded. The 5 million cannot be used for anything other than net zero infrastructure. Both lack of design and funding could cause additional delays. So now that we know DJs can bring back a pool, the pool should be net zero as it most recent design was compliant and funded. But either way, no pool or net zero pool does not require the changes this legislation makes. The GGBA process worked exactly as designs. Agencies presented a design. GBAC's experts knew they could go further to meet our environmental standards. Agencies took GBAC's feedback and came up with a final design that not only was greener, but in this case fully net zero and compliant. We do not want agencies and developers coming to us when they disagree with GBACK's decisions or want to avoid GBACK altogether. We don't have time nor the expertise and that is not our job. In fact, if anyone has the job of substitute GBACK, it is the mayor who has the authority to overrule GBA's recommendations when there is evidence of practical infeasibility or hardship to meet a GGBA standard or a determination that the public interest would be not be served by complying with a standard. So that already exists. Council member, I I will continue this fight with you and use my committee to once again advocate for Congress heights and its long expected pool, but I won't be voting yes on this bill and I ask my colleagues to do the same because this isn't a precedent we should set and it's not something we should allow the executive to put us in a position to do. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, is there further discussion on the declaration? Council member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. I'm I'm just trying to make sure I understand this and I I heard the discussion in the bre breakfast meeting and just now, but um is there the the utilization um data caught me? Is there uh council member Trayon White, do do you have a different understanding of the the need for the pool and utilization of the existing nearby pools? >> Uh um yes. Uh as as mentioned some of the pools that they talked about um Furby Hope utilization was down for a season because the pool was leaking water. So he had to do the pool all over again. The other pool that was mentioned was Blue Pool. First of all, um DPR did a poor job of advertising um that it was available to the public. I tried to do what I can to get the word out. In fact, I did swimming in the morning and recorded and got it out there. And then now they telling us the pool is closed because of budget restraints. And so we put all this money, time, and energy into these resources. Now they're saying it's underutilized. I guess it is if it's closed. >> And um do you have a So is the the money for was the money taken from the pool project and put toward the Southeast Tennis Center? Uh we just got a letter last week to take money from the pool Anacostia pool and Congress Anacostia pool and and Congress heights wreck to supplement the tennis and learning center. >> Okay. >> Shortfalls in the budget >> and I think this is my last question. Do you have a sense of whether the pool will get built? Uh let's say and I think the chairman made this point at the breakfast meeting but I didn't catch the answer. Um it let's say the disapproval resolution passes. Did do you believe the pool will the mayor will build the pool? >> I'm optimistic. Uh they say one thing to do three other things. And so I know they they explained to us that this was one of the barriers to getting it done. And so we have been diligently working with the community. We had several community meetings, several conversations. Hundreds of people came out over the course of the last couple of meetings. And I'm as a legislator, this is the power that I have to invoke legislation to move the needle forward. >> Okay. I appreciate it. Uh then I guess the only the the thing I'm still struggling with is um letting the the the issue of the green buildings uh requirement. Um I'm I'm cautious about making that the the scapegoat here uh because that's something we've been working to to stand up. And so I want to make sure I support the ward member and getting this pool built. Uh but I don't want to see us go against we've done so much work on the uh the the green buildings requirements. Um how can we find a way to or how could I as somebody who wants to support you in this find a way to support you without getting caught up in um uh dismissing the green building requirements which could set a precedent. Well, like one of the things we can do is force the mayor to do what she said that she was going to do in those community meetings was her commitment to the residents. Uh, mind you, I started this conversation three directors ago, the director for DPR, not even the director we had when we first started this conversation and they made a commit commitment to community. So, I I know that Murray Baza is uh the mayor now and she should hold a commitment to the residents and we can use your political influence to do that, which I hope all our colleagues do to ensure we keep our commitments to the residents of District Columbia that we made promises to. >> Um the the last thing I'll say, I know I'm over time chairman, is um I'm struggling with this today. if if if this were postponed to address the the green buildings issue, I I I could be with you on this. Um I'm struggling with that aspect of it, which isn't to your point. That's not on that's not on you. That's for the administration to figure out. >> Yes. And I'm not going to even if it doesn't go through today, I'm not going to stop. We're going to go through this process to the end. >> Um even if that means stopping development until the people get what they want. Um my tracker improves as much in Ward 8 like so we'll be back on the 16th but I'm going forward with this today and if I have to do another one I'll do another one but we going to d our sword. >> Okay. Um uh thank you very much. Thank you chairman. >> Uh further discussion on this >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh Council Member Allen. Um, I appreciate I guess I I kind of want to associate myself with my comments and my colleagues and that as a board member, I certainly want to try to help you realize what you're working toward in terms of building um for that community. I am concerned that this emergency as crafted is going to undermine the law that we have around our green building commitments and requirements in a way that I think sets a precedent beyond just what we're trying to accomplish and what you're trying to accomplish here. So, I I don't feel like I can support this legislation. I do want to, like my colleagues have said, find ways to help support you in realizing what you're trying to help get and deliver uh in terms of the pool, but I I would ask my colleagues to see that this could potentially be something that I think the administration often hides behind these net zero laws to not get done what we want to get done. So, I I don't support this emergency here. And I know there's another bill in a little bit or another larger effort around the reprogramming, but I I just want to make sure I kind of associate myself with the comments I think have already been said of trying to work to support the goal that you're trying to create of the pool, but I do not believe we should be undermining our green buildings and net zero requirements in the process. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Chim. >> Uh thank you. Just anybody else who has not spoken on this? Council member Pinto. Um, I just want to note and kind of reiterate part of the conversation from the breakfast meeting, which is that we cannot have this continued circumstance where the council allocates a budget for a specific project and then for whatever reason um the agency determines that the costs have actually shifted. We understand, of course, that the reality is costs do shift, but we need to know what the universe of options are um before DPR just makes a decision about what they can and cannot afford um without without public input or without our input. Um, and so I'm going to support my board date colleague today on this measure. Um, and hope that we can continue working towards a better process in place that these budgeting decisions are not um, you know, highlighted for one reason or the other when we all just need to be on the same page of what is actually the true costs and to be responsive of what the community is calling for in their rec centers. >> Uh, thank you. Um, Council Member Trayon White, second round. >> Yes. I want to respond to my colleagues. Um, the comment been made that this uh we don't want to undermine the net zero requirement. Well, there can be another narrative that net zero is undermining the will of the people. Uh, when you look at it, uh, people want what they want in their communities and been waiting and meeting and conversating and hopeful. This started in 2017, it's 2025 and they still don't have it. And so we have to do what we have to do to ensure that, you know, both parties are met. The the laws that we create after the fact that that affects projects, but also uh what people want to see happen in their community, especially in W 8 that historically been undermined, uh disenfranchised, uninvested in, you name it, we have it. And so this is opportunity for us to fix it. It seemed like every time it's an opportunity to fix it, we're undermining some legislation. No, it's the other way around. the legislation is undermining what the people want in their community. Thank you. >> Uh I'm going to speak briefly to this. Of course, when people say they're going to be brief, they're anything, but but I'm going to try. Um I don't see this as a ward issue at all. And let me note that the uh issue with regard to budget is the next measure, not this measure. This measure is a broad exemption from the green building act for natiatoriums except it's for W 8. That's not a ward issue. That is what we're doing with citywide policy and then we're going to say, well, but we're going to carve out a ward. I don't think that's a appropriate way to look at this. Now, at the breakfast, Council Lewis George said that she's going to have a hearing in January with regard to this issue with regard to natitoriums across the city. I think that's appropriate. And it may be, I'm not convinced, but it may be that we want to exempt or have a different standard with regard to natitoriums in their construction. But we should approach that citywide instead of well, we're going to have a citywide policy, but then we're going to carve out a ward. And I don't think that's a W issue. Um, and I also think it's a very bad way to do policy. So, in my view, this is not about W 8, even though and and I also think that this is just not good policy. If it if it is that we want to exempt, uh, we should do that broadly. We should not just do that for one council member. Um, so needless to say I will not be supporting the declaration. Second round council. >> Second, I just want to um note budget implications here though do exist if we do vote yes on this because I want to highlight that DGS has improperly allocated our $5 million net0ero enhancement for a non net zero purpose. So allowing a non-net zero pool under this emergency will take away $5 million from this project's budget as the law prohibits this money from being used for other purposes. So if DPR changes their mind and brings back a pool, which again is not a guarantee, uh DGS plan to use the 5 million for the non- netzero pool would not be allowed um under with our $5 million enhancement because it would be for a non net0ero purpose and a non- netzero pool would require millions more dollars while the net zero pool is already funded and designed. So you that that implication al also exists in this situation which could lead to again unfortunately for the WA community further delays and another additional dollars needed for design which is what my colleague is literally trying to avoid with the shenanigans that are happening and and again I'm with him in spirit so and we should not be in this position and this is why we need a government That works better. Thank you. >> Uh, we have the declaration before us. Uh, there was a request for a roll call. Madam Secretary, >> Council Member Henderson, >> uh, no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George. >> No. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy >> present. >> Council member McDuffy will be recorded as present. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Housewoman Nadau. Yes. Housewoman Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker >> yes. Council >> member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto. >> Okay, I'll come back. Council member Robert White. >> No. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon White. >> Yes. Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen. >> No. >> Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds. >> No. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman >> no. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Pinto is absent. Mr. Chairman. There are four yeses, seven nos, one present, and one absent. >> The measure fails. Uh the next uh item before us is PR26-427, Department of Parks and Recreation Funding Reprogramming Request number 26-97, disapproval emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Council member Trayon White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh, I filed a disapproved resolution uh to move funds from Anacostia Pool and Congress Heights Recreation Center to support the new uh developed uh tennis learning center in Ward 8 uh where there has been some great programming and great activities happening at the current tennis learning center. There has been no great appetite from the community for a new tennis center. Uh but that's water on the bridge because the the project is already going forward and I support it in spirit whatever that means. Um but today I do not agree with taking money from other locations because somebody has political influence and political connections when everyday people are expressing to the government what they want to see happen in their community. Right. Um, there are football teams right now, including the Woodland Tigers, needing housing for their organization with over 500 kids. There are other football teams don't have nowhere to practice and when it rains outside, they have to go inside or cancel practice. I get these requests. I know the DPR gets these requests and I think I don't think it's good public policy to take from one community to give to another community because of political connections. And so I think that I heard council Jenice Lo George say that she was going to find money to help uh fund this additional $7 million pitfall that came out of nowhere. We knew how much it was going to cost to build and all of a sudden we can't do the project but for another $7 million. I don't know where that came from, who invented it, um but we need to find another source. And so I hope my colleagues will support me and the people of W 8 um in not taking money from this pot to fulfilling the need to finish the new tennis and learning center in W 8. >> Uh is there discussion on the declaration? Counc Lewis George. >> Um I just have a clarifying question. Um, I want to confirm that if this emergency bill does not pass, the separate disapproval that we talked about this morning at the breakfast that uh that was filed will still remain in effect >> and keep the reproing pending until after the next legislative meeting. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. >> Uh, so I've consulted with the secretary. Um, the uh there two measures. There's the emergency before us and there was a regular non-emergency that was filed. And the emergency, excuse me, the non-emergency that was filed is what will remain operative. And therefore, the time was extended for this disapproval or excuse me, the time timeline the time deadline the reprogramming was extended. My understanding is it was extended until December 19th. Okay. Which is after our next additional legislative meeting. >> Okay. So, we still have time. That means we still have time because one of the issues um that we noted this morning is ensuring that none of the non the net zero funds would not be a part of the reprogramming. Um and we need to clarify that. Um and so I just want to make sure we do that um before we take action of any nature. Thank you. >> Uh further discussion uh council member Fman. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Chairman, I uh on the previous bill, the previous bill didn't really go to the question of pool or no pool because the the money for the pool is there and it's been approved as a net zero project and so we didn't we didn't need to make an exception to net zero in order for the pool to proceed. This one is the pool no pool question and it does strike me and I had the same question that council member Lewis George had about whether or not the existing filed disapproval resolution would freeze things at least through December 16th, which it would, which means that we have two weeks to try to come up with a solution here. And I think we should try to use that two weeks. I don't want to approve dis vote for the disapproval resolution now. I might vote for it in two weeks if it if I concluded it was overriding council designation of dollars for net zero and if some other kind of resolution couldn't be reached. But I don't think that's a decision that we need to make now. I think that's a decision that we need to make on December 16th. So I wish that this would be withdrawn and put forward on December 16th and if it is not I won't be voting for it. >> Uh further on the um council member Tran White uh you would you withdraw this? >> Would you say chairman >> would you withdraw this? >> No. Uh, we have the declaration before. >> You got a comment though, Jim. >> What's that comment? >> Uh, let me recognize council member Pinto first. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to highlight that as we consider and we've had a conversation earlier about some of the youth programming that's needed in the city, the work of the Southeast Tennis and Learning Center is really doing transformative things for our young people and offering programming for seniors. Um, and I think is an important part of our policy consideration as we think about um what this disapproval would mean to that expansion. Um, which is why I can't one of the reasons I can't support this emergency measure today. >> Um, I have a line up here. Council member McDuffy. Okay. I wanted to just uh ask council member Tran White. I guess for me I I'd rather not have to sort port a disapproval resolution in order for W 8 to get the amenities that it needs and deserves. uh in the same way that you know I don't think you want to pit communities against one another in order to achieve that goal of getting um you know the pools and the other DPR facilities that other parts of the city have. Uh my hope is that we wouldn't have to support a disapproval that would keep uh the investment in the Southeast Tennis and Learner Center from happening um at the expense of something else that's a priority for you as council member of W 8. Is there not a way that you could postpone this briefly to try to figure out how both things can happen? And I mean cuz ultimately if the funds can be used to invest in the DPR facilities that you want and that the constituents and what they want, but also the investment can occur at the Southeast Tennis and Learning Center. Why not have both through uh through the chairman? Council member White. >> Council member White. >> Yeah. Uh again, I am in support of both, but not at the expense of the other. And I do want for for clarity. Uh I did not put any communities against each other. These projects was fully funded. Um we got a request last week saying that this project cannot go forward but for an additional additional $7 million. And so, uh that created a situation where the administration had to pick where to get the money from. And as we know, when there's money needed, we say we don't have the money. We're tight to budget this. Found the money from somewhere else at the expense of another community. So, I didn't do it. My job is to make sure uh the whole ward 8 is cared for in a special even Washington DC. I don't say ward 8, but um I think that I didn't create this monster. >> Right. >> Right. And I think that there is if not for this hearing and not for this legislation, we we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. the money would probably would have been transferred and been moving right along like nothing ever happened. >> I appreciate that. And so let me be clear. I didn't I wasn't insinuating that or implying that you were pitting communities against one another. So I appreciate that you made that clarification. That wasn't what I intended. I guess what I was saying is that if if if ultimately the time between today's meeting and a additional meeting on the 16th can be utilized to try to identify a way that the funding could occur both for the Anacostia pool project as well as the Congress Heights Rec Center and and still get the money transferred in order to improve the Southeast Tennis and Learner Center. Why not take that time and try to do all >> I do in the case that both uh all wrecks are satisfied. Douglas wreck Anacost wreck southeast Tennessee learner center congress he wreck all these wrecks are equal to me. In the case that all are satisfied I'll work with my colleagues. If not then I'll just fall on my swirl. >> Got it. Thanks. >> Uh thank you. Council Tran White. You wanted to be recognized for second round. Um, yes, I did want to uh note that in the council breakfast, the budget office did explain that it is uh not possible to take money allocated for that we allocated for net zero to be used uh for the Southeast Learning Center. So, I'm not sure how we can continue on with this particular uh request to transfer funds if it's not even legal. So, I encourage my colleagues to support me on this measure and we look forward to come back on the 16th to work out the other differences we have to ensure that all uh recreation centers are made whole because people participate and go and c celebrate at at all of our facilities. >> Uh thank you. Uh so I will speak briefly. Uh first of all what the uh budget council said was that the law prohibits reprogramming and council enhancement unless the mayor provides an explanation. Point one. So there's not a flatout prohibition and what's before us that is the reprogramming request is not simply illegal. Second of all, as uh the executive has informed many, if not all council members, I'm looking at a text I received confirmed with Jenny Reid, this reprogramming is not the net0. Second point. Third point is that I think most of the members felt at the breakfast that there was enough confusion about what money was needed and what money was being reprogrammed that it was better to put this off for a couple of weeks. Um, and point four is that uh, Council Member Tran White, in your notice that you circulated for this emergency, you said there's only one scheduled legislative meeting within the period of 30 days that we have to consider this reprogramming and that legislative meeting is on December 2nd. Well, as we all know, there will be a legislative meeting on December 16th. So, acting on this today is not necessary for that reason as well. Uh so I'm uh and then I the last point I want to make is that the mayor put in writing in her letter to us today that um she intends to restore funding to the Anacostia pool project replacement project um as soon as uh the they work out further adjustments uh that are necessary. And she said separately the Congress Heights Recreation Center is expected to yield a $2 million surplus upon its completion. So that suggests that this money is available. And the last point I want to make is that the data that the um that council member Lewis George's committee circulated indicates the existing pools in Ward 8 are right now underutilized. That's not a bad thing, but why do we need to have two more pools? I think one of the pools works out to 30 people a day. Compare that with Wilson, which is on the other end of the spectrum. No, I think the pool is called Wilson and uh I don't have that right in Well, yes, Council Member McDuffy introduced a bill. We'll rename the pool. But the uh Beloo is 120 customers a month. That works out to four a day. And uh actually Tacoma seems to be larger, like 10,000 a month. I can't do the math. That's a lot per day, hundreds per day. Uh so for all those reasons, um I don't think we should be moving forward with this reprogramming today. There's no further discussion. Council member Tran White, did you request a roll call on this? >> Uh chairman, I did have a comment on that. >> Uh do you want a third round? Huh? >> Third round, I guess. Um I did want to say this chairman to your point um you mentioned some of these recreation centers that are underutilized. Uh in fact I don't know how accurate that is even because I know that they were partnering with other schools including uh Simon and Hart to utilize the pool for some of their classrooms. Um, and in fact, I made a point that the pools that that we're talking about at times did not even have access to the community for extended period until we put money in the budget to build a door. So, a lot of people didn't even know the pool was open to the public. I think my mic mic is getting lower as I talk. Um, I think that a lot of people didn't even know that the pool was even open. And now we're talking about access to a pool that's underutilized that's indeed closed. Um Furby Hope pool was a a big pool before we redid it and they could probably fit about 50 to 100 people comfortably in that little pool that's a baby pool. So let's just I mean we got to look at the whole totality of the picture and not pick out things that work for our narratives. Say we don't need a pool. >> Thank you. right now. If in the spirit of working with my colleagues to ensure that we can come with a happy solution, I'm going to withdraw this uh bill right now in good faith because if not, we going to be back here doing the same thing again. I have no problem with it and then eventually we'll just stop the construction and I don't want to do that but it happens. Thank you all. >> Uh thank you council member. So the measure is withdrawn. Uh the next measure is Um BR26-429 District of Columbia Boards and Commission's Financial Reporting Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. In September, a year ago, the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, adopted a rulemaking identifying approximately 45 boards and commissions as containing members at Bega considered appropriate to file annual financial disclosures. Uh this was 45 that were not previously disclosing 45 boards and commissions who were now being added. The council acted in May of 2025 to delay the implementation of these expanded financial reporting requirements until the council could take an opportunity to consider the issue more fully. Uh legislation has been introduced and the committee as the whole will have a hearing on that legislation in January. So this um emergency is necessary to avoid a gap in the law. So moved. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The declaration is approved unanimously. The underlying bill 26-518. So moved. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is Porchfest permitting emergency decoration resolution of 2025 PR26-413. Council member Lewis George. Uh thank you chairman. Uh Porchfest celebrations are some of the most highly anticipated community events of of the year in neighborhoods across the district. Uh if you've never been to a porchfest, you could come to Pworth in April and take the sounds and sights of Pworth Porchfest where volunteers open their porches like Council Member Henderson to local musicians and neighbors st who stroll from porch to porch. It's community at its best. This bill is the emergency version of the permanent bill I introduced earlier this fall. Currently, residents seeking to host these intimate musical performances on their own porch uh have had their block party permits denied just because they are a part of Porchfest. Uh this emergency bill, like the permanent version, makes a simple change to the block party act to make it clear that these free neighborhood performances residents are eligible to utilize the block party permitting process. Both Pworth Porchfest and Adams Morgan Porchfest are in the planning phases for their spring porch fest events. And without this change, the porch porch celebrations that are the heart of uh Porchfest are in jeopardy. So, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. Um I believe my colleague um council member Allen has an amendment that I am accepting as friendly. Um and with that, I move the declaration. >> Uh thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. deserve discussion. >> Uh, Mr. >> Yeah, thank you very much. So, I mean, I love porchfest and go around generally on my bike, so street closures aren't such a big thing, but I am curious. The mayor's letter talks about the impact on an overall safety evaluation and for portra say it's in Pworth. If there are 10 applications for block parties when DOT evaluates the third, do they and each subsequent one, do they look at traffic impacts in the area generally such that the mayor's concern about failure to look take into account the response of our first responders is dealt with by DOTT in fair evaluation or is it simply that they look just at that block and grant for just that block? Do you follow me? >> I understand what you're saying and my understanding is yes. Um and we just dealt with this uh this past Halloween where multiple neighborhoods wanted to have block parties and DOT uh and and the determination was made yes to some and no to others and that's because they do look at the totality of the impact it could have on emergency vehicles and traffic etc. So in in in general when we look at the the permits offered to different streets we take into account when it's at multiple times uh in a neighborhood in a particular period those things are taken into account. >> So then as a practical matter that kind of public safety evaluation would still happen even if it was a oneoff block byb block. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh further discussion on the declaration. The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> No. >> Uh the eyes have it. Uh we have the underlying bill 26-501. Council member Lewis George. So moved. >> Uh, Council Member Allen, you have an amendment. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh, moving a small amendment related to the definition of Porchfest that's in the emergency and temporary bills based on feedback from the District Department of Transportation. Specifically, this amendment simply changes the definition of PorchFest to include distributed neighborhood music festivals that take place on public property abuing a resident's private property. The current definition only accounts for events taking place exclusively on a resident's private property. However, some porchfest related activities may cross the boundaries of private property and into public space or for a property that has a public space immediately adjacent to it. Uh, this amendment changes the definition of porchfest to align with that practice, which is what DOT tells us has been kind of their practice uh with some of these porchfest permits in the past. And so, it also preserves, however, the goal of the underlying legislation. Um, and I hope that would be accepted as friendly. And I move the amendment. If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Council member Bonds. >> Yeah, I thank you very much. Um, Chairman, um, to Council Member Allen, I just have an inquiry. Would this in any way include the public space that is maybe an alley which abuts your backyard? >> Um, that's a great question. I believe on a plain reading of it, it would as long as that alley abuts a private property which is going through the permitting process. I might look to to councelor Lewis George if at least from an intent perspective that's kind of the intent. I I believe though as long as it is a budding the private property that would be uh that would apply. I don't since we don't have a porchfest in W 6. Uh so I don't know what it's looked like, but for my friends that have had the porch fest, I'm jealous. Uh but also maybe you could kind of help outline how you've seen that work between the private and public property with that example. >> Well, it's not in the backyard, so I'm not I don't I don't I I'm trying to understand the question in response to if >> I think we're overwork. The question was whether this could be on an alley and the ant >> I think the practical real is that most porches are on the front of the house not the back of the house and so the >> the music is oriented towards the front and the street. >> Yeah. >> Not the alley but again >> yes >> to the mover maybe they could explain. >> So council member Bonds you got an answer. >> Yes I did get an answer. And I guess I'm thinking about the young men that live next door to me that from time to time do their jam session on their rooftop and wondered if they might want to expand to the alleyway and bring more musicians out. >> Well, I don't but I don't think that would meet the definition of a porchfest. >> Well, they that there is look a porch is a porch. It can be in the front, the side, or the back or rear of a home. They happen to have a porch in the rear. Just curious as to what this really means and how it can be applied or what's the applicability for the residents of the District of Columbia. >> Thank you though. >> Okay. If there's no further discussion, >> what's the >> what's before us is council member Allen's amendment. Council member Allen's amendment would change wording so that it would read on a resident's private property such as their porch or yard or any abuting public property. And if there's no objection, council member Allen's amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it's accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. Is there any further discussion on the bill as amended? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Uh, hearing none. Hearing no nos. I already asked for the eyes. Are there any nos? Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. I vote no. >> The eyes have it with council member McDuffy being recorded as no. Um we had uh put off the streeter. So we will go back to streeter. Where we were is we had bill 26-516 before us, the streeter program emergency amendment act. Council member Nado had moved an amendment which was accepted without objection. Council member Pinto had an amendment that she had circulated. Um and she said she was making some changes to it. I think what you need to do is withdraw the amendment that's on the floor and to move this new amendment. >> Okay. So, what I'd like to do is withdraw the amendment that's on the floor and move this new amendment which I've circulated to everyone. Um, and let me just explain a little bit about what it does. And let me again thank Council Member Allen for your work on this this issue and all the the conversations around it. Um, streeteries in many locations have become a very important part of how we use much of our public space. They can activate neighborhoods and improve public safety. They generate additional revenue for struggling small businesses and they strengthen our community. And they've really become a big part of the dining experience for many residents and visitors to our city. There's also an important need to have clear rules and regulations for these structures to ensure that aesthetics of neighborhoods are maintained and that the pedestrian experience of neighbors are considered. This emergency legislation today makes important changes to clarify the enforcement timeline, reduce ownerous costs for small businesses, and allow DOT to make exceptions that are needed in some cases to allow streeteries to operate. Well, many of the streeteries that we have in the city are in W 2 and many of the streeteries we have in W 2 have a lot of community support. I've also had conversations with residents over the past few years who are concerned about structures that are not properly maintained or where there are changes in the surrounding public space. There are some streeteries, for instance, that have led to safety challenges or created other health hazards. And it's important to consider public input on this use of public space, especially as these uses continue. The DOT process is an important one to ensure that there's consistency to the rules and clarity to the public and the businesses about what they can expect. I've heard serious concerns from residents about a lack of faith in DOT's plan to enforce these rules. And I want to clarify that DOT will be enforcing streeteries that are non-compliant with their new rules or that don't meet an exemption. But to address these concerns, I'm moving an amendment to this emergency bill today that requires streety permit holders who have applied for an exception to apply for a permit renewal through the public space committee every two years. This is important to ensure that we are both responsive to any issues that arise with streeteries that might not have been maintained properly in those two years and that we're adaptable to other public space needs and priorities that we may have as a city. It should not be that someone gets an exemption once and then they have that in perpetuity, which is right now what the regulations allow for. To reduce confusion, the amendment also removes language that requires the old Georgetown board's role in reviewing Streetery applications in Georgetown. Mr. Chairman, may I have another 30 seconds? >> Without objection. >> I want to be very clear though about this. Georgetown goes through a very different streety application process than other neighborhoods in the city. Um, and that's because in Georgetown, there's the old Georgetown board that reviews all of these. All applicants in Georgetown must have their designs reviewed by the old Georgetown board to ensure that they're keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. OGB, as we call it, recommendations have already played a significant role in shaping design requirements in Georgetown. For instance, streeteries in the neighborhood are not allowed to be covered or enclosed. And the old Georgetown board will continue being deeply involved in shaping the design requirements for the permanent program and they should. That is the law. By removing this language that I had initially worked out with council member Allen should not in any way be construed as us undermining OGB's infor authority. It is in fact to make clear that the current rules that require this review to stand. I didn't want there to be any confusion. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that I think is a reasonable change that ensures that we're both promoting the vibrancy of our public spaces and properly balancing the needs of our businesses, residents, and broader community. So, again, the only thing this really does now is say that if you've applied for an exemption, you go through a public space review committee uh review and if they grant it, then every two years you need to apply for a renewal. That's what this does. I think it strikes the right balance. Um, and I ask for my colleague support. >> Uh, so again, I sound like I'm repeating, but the amendment that you are moving is simply uh amending that paragraph three to read as follows. The correct answer is yes. Yes, but it also removes the amended section nine. >> That's not what you just circulated. >> Yes, is the answer. >> It simply amends this paragraph three to read as follows and then gives the language. Okay, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, yes, Council Allen. >> Thanks. Um, thank you, Councelor Pinto. I I did have a couple of questions I want to make sure I understand because the language of this particular section is different than the one from an hour ago. So, I'm trying to make sure I understand what we're trying to accomplish with this and and I have a couple of questions. So, you talked a good bit about and I I want to be as differential as possible as you're talking about Georgetown and working in that space within W 2. This section, however, would apply citywide, not just to Georgetown. Yes. >> Okay. And then >> not about Old George Board of course, but if a restaurant applied for an exemption was granted it, then yes, every two years you would need to go for a renewal. >> Okay. So as I understand the process from DOT, so a restaurant that applies for a strutery permit that then needs a public space committee exception goes through that permit. Let's assume in this example they apply for they go through public space committee process which is inviting comments and then they go through and they approve that exception. every year they have to come back and renew that permit because it has a public space exception attached to it. They are having to go through that renewal of both the permit and the public space committee exception. So I'm trying to understand if we're saying they've got to go through a renewal every two years. I believe the intent of what you're trying to do is try to make sure there is a a review taking place, but it because of the annual permit renewal, there already is an annual renewal of the permit and the public space committee exception that goes through through that. The language says they shall apply for a streeter permit renewal. Are the restaurants having to reapply? So my understanding of the annual process from conversations with DOT is that every year there will be a fee that is due um but it's not my understanding that it is a significant actual review process. There is no public comment. There's no opportunity to consider facts that have changed on the ground. Um, I don't even think DOT has authority to revoke it unless maybe someone didn't pay their fee or there was some other >> well if there compliance with a permit they can revoke it. >> But if that permit is being granted in perpetuity, I think that's a policy judgment that goes too far that we're saying this is public space. We are allowing for this public space to be utilized for a much reduced fee because we want to promote streeteries, but that shouldn't take place in perpetuity. That shouldn't be a restaurant has this space forever. They should every two years reapply and say, "Hey, I should be renewed." And many of those I expect will go on the consent agenda for the public space committee that don't have additional issues. But some of them that they do, it allows for public comment or ANC commissioners to say, "Hey, facts have changed on the ground. Maybe we want to build a bike lane here or maybe there's a this has been improperly maintained." Um, >> but the the thing is they're not issued in perpetuity. They're issued for one year. That's it. And they have to be renewed. So the I've heard some people say that somehow these are in perpetuity, but they're not. They're for one year, then they have to be renewed and so they have to go through a renewal already for one year. >> VOTE has not given us any answer of any basis that they're considering a renewal other than the payment of a fee. So I don't know any other metrics that they're considering in just regranting a permit that has already been approved. And facts on the ground could change in a two-year period. >> Agreed. Which is why it's renewed annually. So it's once a year is the permit is renewed once a year, which gives DOT the ability. If they wanted to build your bike lane you're talking about, they'd be able to do that. If they wanted to make changes, they could do that because it's a one-year permit that gets renewed once a year. So, what I'm concerned about is if if they have that tool in their toolbox to be able to evaluate it after one year and renew it or not renew it. I'm trying to understand what we're accomplishing by saying that we're going to have the public space committee, which is already has it as part of an annual renewal, now review it every two years. >> I guess I'd say two benefits. One, it allows specifically to invite public comment in the public space committee, which right now DOT, my understanding, does not have a vehicle to receive public comment and to consider it, whether you're resident or an ANC commissioner or a civic association or otherwise. And two, the renewal is limited to those applicants that have applied for an exception. So, it's making clear that if you have been granted an exception to DOT's rules, you're going to need to reapply reapply for a renewal through that public space commission process every two years, which is is not what the one-year fee renewal offers. That's for every that's for every street. >> So, the way that I understand the practical impact then of this is that for that restaurant, they will need to pay a new application fee every two years. they will have to come back and do all the architectural designs, all the things that they've had to do for a full permit, which is not inexpensive. And so now they're going to have to come back every two years to pay for all those permit fees, pay for all the architectural drawings, pay for all of that every two years, which they don't do right now. Under the current regime, they're having to renew every year, but that's a renewal is very different than applying for a new permit every two years. Uh yeah, it is it is different. I would say for most streeteries, I would imagine there won't be much changes. If you've already had the architect uh triggers design and applied for the exception, you can really copy and paste a lot of that. And as I said, if there aren't issues in the community, that will go on the consent agenda for the public space commission and it will likely be renewed. But if there are issues, it allows for an opportunity to have residents be part of that process because otherwise I worry that the renewals just every year never really invite public comment ever again. >> I guess my experience has been and I know we're well over time. we are and >> my my ANC's in W six for example weigh in on public space committee issues every all the time. So if there was a operator that they had problems with there was a safety issue, there was something else, they're able to communicate that to the public space committee as part of their renewal process of every permit. And since this goes through an annual permit review, I'm I'm just I part of this is just having to only take a look at this just recently. I want to try to work with you to help understand what we're trying to accomplish. I I am concerned that this is actually going to significantly increase the cost for the businesses and I'm not sure what we're adding because we already have the ability to have an annual permit review and renewal process in which our ANC's are able to weigh in. So, you are way over your time and I'm going to inject here that um I think this language is a little bit unclear which is why I'm hearing different interpretations. Well, this is just simply a renewal. You just simply apply and you get your permit. Well, no, actually this is a review process. This language is not clear with regard to that. I would note that this is an emergency. There is a temporary with it. We could always uh try to come back on the temporary and clarify, but the language before us sort of reminds me of what I discussed at the breakfast about that congressional bill and uh deference to agency interpretation and there's a this is not so clear and so there would have to be agency interpretation and that agency interpretation could be well you've got to fully apply and present new plans and I have heard businesses complain that's very expensive or maybe it's just as simple as a permit renewal and there's no review um and it's with the public space committee you said it could be on the consent which means there wouldn't be much but maybe it's not on consent there'd be a lot um so this is striking me as uh needing um more precision in the drafting or we will rely on the agency to interpret it any way we want Mr. Chairman made a difference to agencies, >> Mr. Chairman. Yeah. >> So, um, Council Member Bonds was, you know, Council Member Bonds is has more seniority than most of us. So, I'm going to recognize her first and then you, Council Member. >> Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. And um I just wanted to add that if um Council Member Pinto's amendment provides for public input, I definitely will support this. I think that's very important. But I had a question also and I wanted to know if within the DOT um regulations uh they've given attention to the fact that sometimes a restaurant um closes quickly. In other words, they may have a license or a permit for a year, but what happens when when they close? Even if they have this permit, let's say they close in 9 months, what happens and how is the situation managed? That's what I really am curious about. >> You're asking me that question of >> to Charles. >> Yes. >> So, you're asking me what DOT would do if a restaurant that has a streeter permit closes. >> Yes. >> The streetery would be removed. >> Is it automatic? That's what I'm asking. >> Well, I mean, if >> what what do the regulations say? What do the regulations say as to how they would handle that situation? >> I don't think the regulations speak to the hypotheticals of of that. If if the business no longer exists, then the permit holder no longer exists. So, the permit would be revoked >> and so the streetery would go away. >> I don't know if you need regulations to spell that out because the the permit holder itself closes in full, you know, I'm asking the question because with, you know, a liquor license, you can pass it on. And I'm wondering if this means that the um structure remains in place for the new owner of the facility because new owner of the restaurant, you know, the frontal, the kitchen, the whole thing, and then into the sidewalk and then into the roadway. You know that structure I'm talking about here? >> Do the Okay. >> The the equip the the the thing that's built, the equipment, the tables, the chairs, right? That has to be removed if the building if the restaurant closed. >> Okay. That was I just wanted to make sure and I'm asking is that part of the regulations that DOT puts in place or has in place? >> Yes. because there shouldn't be a permit holder any longer at that point because they've gone defunct. >> Thank you. That was my question. I didn't think it was really complicated, but thank you very much, >> Council Member Fman. >> Thank you very much. So I mean earlier we talked and it's a increasing theme of what should be done on emergency and what shouldn't be done on emergency and this one I am actually genuinely wondering whether it can effectively be done on emergency because and temporary it's a renewal every two years so that would be in effect for 90 days or 225 days when the two years came up, it would no longer be the law. Shouldn't this be something if it's going to be done be done in permanent legislation? Because I think it's an expression of a intent in an emergency and temporary but has no practical impact unless I'm missing something. >> Yeah. I may I think that was a question to me. >> Oh, go ahead. >> So, great question. So again, we're in this awkward position where DOT is going to be putting forward their final rulem. We are always able to either codify rulem or amend regulations, but we are putting this in place for this period of time as you noted through the temporary. We are expecting the Department of Transportation to issue their final rulemaking by the end of this month. I certainly have indications that they will align those final pieces with what the council moves forward with. But if they weren't, and we've done this plenty of times, of course, we've changed regulations any numbers of times on probably every agency that everyone here oversees at some point. So, we have the ability to do that. Um, but that is going to be ultimately a choice we could make about do we want to codify rules and regulations or do we have the agency put those forward. But so I take it from that that your impression is the whatever was put on the table this morning, you have a good sense that DOT will incorporate it in the regulations and it will then have effect, but this is a new twist, a two-year renewal. And do you have the sense, does anybody have the sense that DOT would incorporate that? And if they did not, what did we do with an emergency and a temporary? >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. In that regard, because this is so new and we've only had this in front of us for about an hour, I don't I can't give you a confident answer on that. So I I fair point. I can't speak to that element here. I would say because we have the emergency and the temporary and we will have another legislative meeting where the temporary will be back in front of us and there no one's going to be coming through a renewal an annual or a bannual renewal in the next between now and the next meeting if we are trying to find ways to work with colleagues on language perhaps if we withdraw the amendment on the emergency and then I commit to working with you on any other tweaks for the temporary because no one's going to come up for a renewal, an annual renewal or a bannual renewal in the next 90 days. It would only come after. Perhaps that's something we can do to help land this and make sure the the legislation or the language for the issue you're trying to address in Georgetown can work with here and not have other unintended consequences on something we just haven't had a whole lot of time to work with. >> Yeah, I think it's a reasonable request. I guess I would say to Council Member Fman's point because DOT is in the middle of finalizing those regulations like other pieces of this emergency that are declarative statements about the district's policy priorities. This would not just signal to them but be the law that this is what the council's intention is and so then they can therefore include it. all of these pieces of the emergency in their regulations. Um, that's that's at least how I view why this timeline is really important. Um, and and to counselor Allen's point about unintended consequences throughout the city, yes, it is true that I have heard most concerns from Georgetown residents, but I will say like I as just a general principle, I think it is fair to suggest that this is public space. This isn't no one is entitled to this space. We want to support streeteries in many certain different locations across the city and we're giving we're essentially discounting that space in many ways and we're saying if you've if you've met a exemption for it every two years you should apply and there should be public comment on it just like we would do for any of our other processes for liquor licenses and anything else we establish in a in a public space. Um, and the liquor licenses, sorry, aren't even on public spaces. Those are in private spaces. So, I it just it feels appropriate to me citywide to say every two years you're going to reapply for this exception to the rules that DOT has spent 18 months promulgating. >> Uh, so that means you're not going to withdraw the amendment. >> Yeah. And that reminds me, I didn't respond to your comment, chairman, about the your perceived lack of clarity in the language. I guess I'd say what I'm trying to do is provide clarity. Like when councelor Allen talks about the one-year process, that is true that every year there's a fee, but we have not gotten any clarity from DOT about what that process actually looks like and if they have any tools to consider community input. I don't think they do. If I had comfort that they were doing that every year, that would be great and I wouldn't need to move this amendment, but that is not my understanding of DOT's current plan. >> Mr. Chairman, >> you know, I don't know if I'm paying attention to the clock any longer. Uh, I think this would be second round. Council member Allen, >> thanks. Couple things. I'm going to push back again on the false narrative that somehow a permit that has to be renewed every year is in perpetuity. They this is something that the agency it's an annual permit and so it has to go back through that process. And in terms of public, in the same way that we have public space complaints, and I've confirmed this with DOT, the public can contact DOT about public space violations at any time. I think the public contacts DOT all the time. Um whether it's a dumpster that doesn't have the correct permit or something else that is blocking public space. They have public space inspectors that go out and look for compliance, issue violations if they're out of compliance. So again the suggestion that somehow the public is cut out of this also is not true. We have public space inspectors who go out and do this every day of the year in terms of checking public space. So if the idea is that we want to say every restaurant when you every sidewalk cafe now every year you have to not just go through a permit renewal, we want you to reapply every two years for every single chair and table that we see on the sidewalk. Is that what we're asking for? That's public space. That's I don't think that's what we're asking for. I think we want DOT to be able to say you apply for a permit. You go through that permit. You go through if if there is an exception, you go through a public space committee process. If the public or an ANC or any other group wants to be able to contact DOT and say, I have a problem with this public space. I think they're out of compliance. I think there's a safety issue. They are able to do that. And our public space inspectors do that. To say that there isn't a process is not correct. There is a process by which we all make public space complaints all the time. This is no different. To say that this permit is in perpetuity is not correct. These are annual permits that go through that process. So I I just want to push back and clarify on that so that people understand what the permit is but also what it is not because I have heard things said that just are not true. I think I'm out of time. Mr. Chair uh >> we have the um amendment, Council Member Pinto's amendment before, Mr. Chairman. Council member Parker. >> I'm to the camera hasn't panned to the side of the DES in a while, so I I'm gonna jump in here. Um, no, in all seriousness, I will be brief. I do plan to support this amendment. one, I tend to try to defer to ward members about things in their um communities, but also it is to my understanding from conversations with DOT as recent as today that uh DOT's annual renewal process will not include a robust public engagement. Um, and yes, the public can submit complaints and DOT can investigate, but I do think it it holds merit that this amendment would provide residents an opportunity to not just voice complaints, but also to vive for changes andor be a part of the process. Um, and we need to do more of that as a government. So, I just wanted to add my uh note to the discussion. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Parker. Uh we have we second round counc a question I mean on this on the pricing there were comparisons to different other kinds of permits in the public space to what extent are sidewalk cafes and other permits for businesses subject to periodic renewals or is it just the whatever to what extent is there something similar for other settings like a sidewalk cafe >> thanks through the chair. Uh it would be the exact same every year. Every year, not in perpetuity, your permits have to be renewed by DOT. So your sidewalk cafe, for example, is $5 per square foot. A covered sidewalk is $10 per square foot. You go through that process every year. But so I mean I I was an ANC and when sidewalk cafes were first reviewed the ANC weighed in but I don't recall ever weighing in later in the process after a sidewalk cafe had been there for a year 5 years there was oversight of correct >> the process but there wasn't ANC weighin every couple of years the way there is on a liquor license. Correct. >> Yeah. It's not like you start fresh every year, right? So it's it's a renewal. So ANC's could weigh in, public could weigh in, but it is they don't start the whole application process all over again. That's you're correct. >> All right. I'll just close up by saying, you know, kudos to council member Pinto for invoking a bike lane in the colloqui with council member Allen. >> Can I have your support? Council member Fman. Um, if there's no further discussion, the vote is on Council Member Pinto's amendment. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose say no. >> No. >> Roll call. Mrs. >> There was a request for roll call. >> Council Lewis George. >> Yes. Council Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy. Yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. >> Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. >> Council member Nadau. >> No. >> Council member Nado votes no. Council member Parker. >> Yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto. >> Yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Robert White. >> Yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White. >> Yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> no. >> Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, >> yes. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are nine yeses and four nos. >> Uh, the amendment is approved. Uh, is there any further discussion on the bill? So, what we have before us is the Street Program Emergency Amendment Act of 2025, Bill 26-516, amended by Council Member Nado several hours ago and council member Pinto just now. Uh, the vote is on that. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, uh, I've been trying to find the least disruptive time to move to, uh, reconsider bill 26460, the juvenile curfew bill. I, uh, meant to, uh, as to be recorded is is voting no. >> So, you're asking to reconsider bill 26-460, the juvenile curfew second temporary amendment act, for the purpose of changing your vote. >> Yes. If there's no objection, uh, we will reconsider the bill. Hearing no objection, the bill's before us. I will say so moved. Uh this is the bill as amended by council member Pinto. Um is there any further discussion? >> Vote is on the >> Yes, council. Uh I I just want to clarify why I'm uh voting though, which is my my concern that a um a quick fix effort will take the city off the hook for creating a plan, which is what I believe we need. We're seeing a lot of issues happen not inside a curfew zone time, but outside of the curfew time. Uh and I think the curfew sends to the public a sense of relief without a plan that's actually going to give relief. uh while I keep hearing from residents for the need for more uh trade and vocational programs, mentoring programs, youth opportunities and I think we don't have enough focus there and uh passing uh this youth curfew lets us off the hook for for doing that work which I think is going to be critical for reducing juvenile crime. Thank you, chairman. >> There's no further discussion. We have the bill before us. Again, the bill includes the amendment by Council Member Pinto. All those in favor of the bill say I. I >> are there any opposed? >> Uh, no. Please record me as voting. No, chairman. >> Chairman, can you please record me as voting no? >> Please record me as voting no. >> That is changed in 30 minutes. >> Um, the eyes have it with uh three members being recorded as voting no. Uh, we will turn to uh temporaries. So looking at the agenda, number one was postponed, number two was withdrawn and number four, the emergency failed. So that leaves numbers three, five, and six. If there's no objection, we'll consider those in block. That would be bill 26-517, Streetery Program Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, reflecting the amendments uh that were uh moved by council members NATO and Pinto. Bill 26-519, District of Columbia Boards and Commission's Financial Reporting Temporary Amendment Act, and Bill 26-502, Porchfest Permitting Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, including the amendment that was moved by Council Member Allen. >> And just to confirm, the Streeter Amendment is incorporated into the temporary >> I just said that. Um, madame general counsel, is that clear? >> Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. So the temporaries reflect the emergencies and there's no objection to the three being considered in block and I am moving them. Is there discussion? Hearing none. The vote is on those three. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. That would be the streetery, the boards and commissions and porchfest being approved. first reading. That's going to conclude the business of this meeting. Uh there will be an additional meeting in two weeks. The agenda will be limited, but through the course of this meeting, we've been adding stuff to it. There will be, just a reminder, the budget submission requirements resolution. So, if there's something that a member wants included in the budget submission, please contact the budget office and do so in the next few days so that the resolution will reflect that. The time is 2:34 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.