Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat up Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Call the RO. Madam Clerk, >> Alakon, Alator Tory, Bernson, Czech, Furer, Galant, Glober, Hernandez, Hola, Miss Cowsky, Billy, Thomas, Aornish, Wax, Walters, Ferraro. 10 council members present and a quorum, Mr. President. >> All right. First order, business madam clerk. >> Approval of the minutes. >> Without objection, the minutes are approved. Next order, >> commendatory resolutions for approval. >> A unanimous vote. Next item. >> Items 1 through 11 are items noticed for public hearing. >> All right. Um, all right. I have requests for public hearings on items six, 7, 8, and 10. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to be heard on any of the items 1 through 11 uh that I that I did not call? If so, I would ask you to uh fill out a card. If not, we'll call 678 and 10 special for a moment. Are there any specials members of council u 1 through 11? >> Mr. President, items two and three should be received and file. I need a motion from the floor in as much as the assessments have been paid. >> All right. If without objection, items two and three will be received and filed. Is there any specials on one, four, five, 9 or 11? >> Five is to be continued to March 31st. I need a motion from the floor. >> All right. Is there any objection to continue item five until March 31st? >> If not, that'll be the order. Which item is this? >> Which item is this? >> Okay. >> Then open the roll on item one, item four, item nine, and item 11. >> Close the role. >> 10 eyes. All right, those are approved and we'll go to item number six. Item number six is a public hearing. Uh the first uh person requesting to be heard is Mr. uh Richard Weiner, our winer. >> What is he whispering here? Can I go in? Thank you very much. Um, I'll make it brief. My name is Richard Winer representing the Melrose Action Committee. Mr. Chairman, the major issue that we have with the parking project is that there is no parking, no adequate parking as required by code. The applicant is presented a written agreement with a parking company and not with the owner of the property. And there is no written agreement between the parking attendants and the owner of the property. So that we have really a meaningless uh agreement, one that is really a month-to-month agreement rather than an agreement for any length of time. And that is our objection to the project that there is not adequate parking and can't be without a written agreement between the the project and the owner of the property. All right. Um, is there anyone else wishing to be heard on item six? All right. Um, is there anyone on the council wishing to be Excuse me. Do you wish to be heard on item six? I see you raising your hand. would you come forward? I didn't get a card from you. So, would you come to the microphone and please state your name and your address for the record? Uh, yes. Thank you. My name is uh Patrick Panzerello and my address is 8001 Gro Street, Sullen, California. And I've been uh I'm here to represent the project uh for the applicant and the property owner. Um, this is an existing $4,400 ft² restaurant and is fully developed with an evaluation of about $500,000. The applicant, Mr. Herskowitz, has invested over $100,000 into this location since in the past year and a half. The restaurant was first constructed in 1968 and has been existing at this location for over 30 years. for 15 or the last 15 years of that restaurant's operation, they had a full alcohol license and also a live jazz entertainment license also, which is the same use that we're applying for now. When the restaurant was first constructed, there was no parking required for that use. No parking is required for that use now for it to reopen, even with live entertainment. The only way to mandate parking for this use is allow the alcoholic beverage use to go through. The restaurant is already licensed for live entertainment with the Los Angeles Police Commission. This location has never had a problem or nuisance to the community. As a matter of fact, most of the community wants to see this restaurant reopen. All the immediate neighbors and property owners in the vicinity have signed off on this use asking it to be reopened again. Several have even submitted letters to the BCA committee and this and this committee also asking for the restaurant to reopen stating that it is important for the community and also since it was closed this restaurant became a blight to the neighborhood. At the BZA case they put over 32 conditions on us and are requiring us to have free valley service with over 130 parking spaces. This is three times the parking required for a normal restaurant to reopen. Plus, at the BCAA hearing, they gave us this use for a two-year probationary period with an automatic six-month review to gauge the impact of the parking and the impact on the community for this use. Uh, the restaurant cannot even open until the zoning administrator has decrieded that the parking is adequate for this use to open with. All we're asking for is an opportunity to operate this restaurant and to prove ourselves to the community. And I think that the uh BZA case should be sustained and all the findings and that this restaurant should be allowed to open with the alcoholic beverage license. Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Sir, do you want to come forward and state your name and address? And one moment, please. Um members of council, item number eight, for the benefit of the people here is going to be continued for a week at the request of Councilman Ferraro and myself. So the people who are here needn't stay any longer. And item 8 will be back before us one week from today, which is the 3rd of March. Go ahead, sir. Would you give your name and address, please? >> Hi, my name is David Harshkovitz. I'm the owner of JRC Restaurant. Uh my address is 14405 Valley Vista, Sherman Oaks, California 91423. Now, Mr. Richard Winer, he stated that the uh that the parking is not true and not valid, which is this is totally a false uh accusation. I have a lease with a uh with a United parking who sub lease who actually leased the parking lot from uh Mr. Gats who owns the parking lot which is adjacent to our parking to our restaurant sorry and uh we also signed a sub lease with United Parking which states that we have 55 exclusive parking from 5:00 till 2:00 in the morning. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard? If not, that completes the public hearing. Uh, I understand that there are representatives from the police department that wish to be heard on this. If so, would you come to the center desk, please? You're you're your family here, so you just come right up to the center table. Um, Mr. Fur, I believe this is CD5. >> Okay. All right. Uh, for the record, would you identify yourselves to the council and then give us whatever testimony you'd like to give? >> Yes. >> Sure. I'm Captain Bill Fiero, commanding officer of Hollywood Support Division. >> I'm Lieutenant Tammy Tetro, the officer in charge of the Hollywood Advice Unit. Uh I would like to briefly address the council on from a criminal perspective and the issues that we have there and we've been dealing with on that RD Melrose uh Melrose Avenue. Uh in the past 2 months we've had over 80 car involved crimes. Um I personally had to redeploy some footbeats, bicycle details, and undercover officers to deal with the issues of parking, to deal with the issues of an oversaturation of of clubs, late night hour issues that are going on. and uh to add another type of uh business that would uh open up and extend night hours and place the vehicles in the community because parking is at a minimum. That would be another stressful issue for the police department to deal with. 80 crimes in that short time period uh to me is unacceptable and uh we have traced it back to the fact that there is no adequate parking uh as well as uh having to valet vehicles and park them back in the communities. With that, I'd like to let Lieutenant Tatro speak to the issues of the valet and the uh parking. The >> the police department opposes this project based on the overconentration of the already established ABC license locations in the area. For example, the census track 1920. The number of license allowed is five. The existing number of license is 24. Regarding the parking um issues, it's been our experience that the valet service is not a solution to a no parking uh lot for the establishment. Throughout the division, we've had multiple complaints with various valet services because they um they cause traffic problems during the business hours. They park not only in um parking lots but adjacent street areas. increases the burglary and theft of motor vehicle and the um the quality of life for the residents is greatly impacted. >> All right. Thank you. Um I have uh let's see this is from the plum committee. It's Mr. Fur's district. Which of you want to speak first? All right. Chair recognizes Councilman Bernson. >> Yes. Members of the council, uh the only problem or one of the the most serious problem we have with this particular uh uh type of business is the fact of uh having adequate parking and there seems to be some conjecture as to whether it has been adequately documented. It needs to be documented as well as papers presented. Uh there are a number of uh of things that uh the council office has talked about and that was uh uh the hours of operation and I'll let I'll allow Mr. Furer to discuss that part of it. Uh none of us have a problem. I think the neighborhood wants the restaurant seems to be a good operator. Uh the main question is the impact on the community as far as parking and uh I am going to move that uh this be continued with the uh with the u consent of the uh extension of time by the operate by the applicant because otherwise we'll have to turn it down and then have to start all over again. So, it's advisable on everybody's part to continue this and for them to agree to to an extension of time where they can actually document the parking spaces that they are providing. They will bring a lease that shows that those parking spaces are going to be for their use. It'll be determined that these parking spaces are not already counted as somebody else's during the same period of time. so that we understand that we're not going to get a duplication and really not get the parking places. And uh in addition to that, I'll let Mr. Fure. So, I'll move the ex the uh the continuation. How long do we need on this? 2 weeks, 30 days? What do we need? Um Michael, >> why don't we do this? Why don't we Why don't we >> Why don't we get a 30-day extension? But if they can provide the documentation on the parking spaces earlier, then we can deal with it earlier than that. Are you willing to extend 30 days? >> I'm asking the question. Are you willing to extend 30 days? >> What? Two weeks. Mr. President, >> we'll need a date certain on that. >> Why don't we make it 30 days? If we can deal with it in two weeks, we'll get this. We're not We're trying to work. >> No. Uh the clerk says on this one, we need a date certain. >> Date certain. >> Better to do it two weeks and then continue it again. If you need continue it and go work backwards. Are we going to be in session in two weeks from today? >> Uh, you will be in session March the 11th. March the 10th you'll be in recess. So March 11th uh would be good. >> March 11th. Is that a Wednesday? >> Yeah. >> Yes, it is. >> That's a Wednesday, huh? I'm not sure I'll be here, but okay. Um, that's fine. And I I want you to understand what we're asking you to do so there won't be any question about it. >> We understand, Mr. B. >> You do understand. We want to also make sure that those parking spaces are not what is already given somebody else to operate. >> We have a notorized lease with us today. >> The leases are not the important part here. Somebody can give you a lease, but if those spa spaces are already being counted as permission for somebody else to use for their use, then they're not valid spaces. We need to know that these spaces are exclusively >> for your use during the period of time that they're going to be used. >> Yeah. Uh, >> thank you, Mr. Brunson. >> Yeah, thanks. I'm going to now allow Mr. Fur to express what he wants done as far as the other conditions. >> Chair recognizes Councilman Fur. >> I want to thank Mr. Bernson uh who has I think very well stated the fundamental problem here. Uh the applicant I think is in the process of memorializing and writing their acquiescence in a continuence which is necessary here. I want to say to the applicant, excuse me, Gail, I want to say to the applicant and his representative, there are three things on the table. First of all, the leases need to include the signature of the owner of the underlying property. Anybody can say they'll provide you with a parking service unless the underlying property owner agrees it isn't worth anything. So, that's one key component here that is necessary. Pending the two weeks that we're going to come back here, it's important that we also have a further conversation about hours and about the length of time during which the CUP will be in place pending a further review. Those are the three things to discuss. But if you're agreeing to a continuence of two weeks now, correct? Well, with that in place, I m Mr. Wax, I will second Mr. Bernson's motion. There's general acquiescence that there should be a twoe continuence. Let's just do that and we'll come back and address the specifics then. All right, then without objection, I think that will that will be the order and we'll better to deal with this uh two weeks from today and see where we're at at that time. >> The applicant is going to give us a letter to attach to the file to that effect on the continuence consent. >> Yes. Uh did you understand that, sir? The applicant you have to give a letter consenting to the to the continuation. >> All right, then that'll be the order and next item madam clerk. >> Seven. Uh you had a card on a hearing. All right. I have a request. I have two cards here to be heard. Um, Mrs. Irene Beer and Jay, I believe it's Bulmash. Uh, would you like to come forward, please? Um, I'm Irene Beer, 20311 Fullbrite Place, Chhatzsworth, and I'm here to ask the city council to deny Mr. Moyf's appeal to continue to ranch ostriches and emus on his property. I represent more than 30 families that live in the neighborhood. For four and a half years, we've been coming to all your hearings and boards in order to um to express our opinion that ostriches and emus are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods. The um smell from these animals is incredible. I think right now he wants to have baby ostriches, but these are not cute little ducklings. They're large animals and um they're just not compatible with a nice residential neighborhood. So, I hope you will deny his appeal. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Beer. Mr. Bulmash. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the council and, uh, Councilman Wax, first of all, this is an A1 property. Even though there are residences built on this A1 property, the maintaining of ostriches and emus is permitted under the A1 zone and therefore the activities are legal. I have one question before we start. Uh according to the resolution draft of the resolution on the count uh council's calendar, you propose to deny our appeal. However, in that same resolution, you limit or apparently limit the effect of the resolution to ostriches and emus only. Whereas the BZA specifically included ostriches, emus, and all other ray tites. Uh, if you're modifying the BCA's decision, then you have granted our appeal in part or am I correct in stating that you are denying our appeal on all grounds and that the BCA corrective conditions apply. Before I go on, maybe we should discuss that and I can cut this short. What? Uh, one moment. Is Okay, Mr. Burns, are we going to complete the public hearing? Then I'll have this, >> but I'll have the staff respond to that. Normally, our procedure is to have the public hearing and then the staff will respond to the questions you raised. So, >> would you like to raise some additional questions, sir? Or >> we have submitted uh to the BZA and to the plum committee uh declarations and various evidence. I've submitted another declaration to you just today uh concerning my client's desire to work within the framework of the city municipal code. We believe that the action by Mr. Janvichi in the zoning administrator's office is punitive. We filed with this council a deposition of James Crisp, a former associate zoning administrator. Uh we were asked to file this deposition by Judge Robert O'Brien. In that deposition, Mr. Chris relates the fact that Mr. Janovichi assigned a zoning administrator and investigator who could not find any reason to hold a hearing on my client's property. There was no nuisance. He assigned another investigator who could not find any reason to hold a hearing. There was no nuisance. Finally, by a stroke of luck, I guess, he was able to find Mr. Green who would hold the hearings and impose these conditions. The fact that he at the BZA changes his conditions is obviously punitive and is obviously meant to chill the appellet rights of any applicant before the BA or the city council. It's a warning that if you challenge our judgment, we'll be even more harsh on you than we were before. That's wrong. All we're asking here is a 4month trial. If the zoning administrator's original decision is upheld, within four months, we will have to schedule another public hearing. We are also willing to limit the number of adult ray tites to 24 as set forth in the modified findings with the provision that we can maintain their chicks in an enclosed structure. So that will prevent odor and noise and dust until they are 3 months old or 10 pounds the size of a large chicken. Uh the fact of the matter is the reason for this necessity is that if you move chicks before they're 3 months old and we've submitted veterary evidence to the zoning administrator, they will probably die of stress. So by limiting the number of ray tites to 24 and taking not into account the fact that these ray tites have chicks from time to time, you are effectively putting Mr. Molof out of business. It is you who have deemed him commercial and now you are putting his commercial venture out of business. I would submit to the council that this started four years ago. Here we are back at square one. The court of appeal sustained our appeal, ordered the city to pay our costs. This has cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars and it could be obiated by simply following the law and procedures and allowing us to operate under the zoning administrator's original decision and then have another public hearing to be noticed within 4 months. It's as simple as that. And I would submit to the council that it's really a waste of taxpayers money to continue this punitive oppression and that the law should be followed. Thank you. U before we continue the council discussion, could the staff respond to Mr. Bulsh's question that he had asked you earlier? >> Daniel Green, associate zoning administrator. I conducted the original hearing and I've been to the site. Uh there are currently 24 ratites on the site. I believe it was the board's intent may not have been expressed artfully, but the intent was clear that they were trying to regulate the number of ratites which includes emus and ostriches. And so as far as that issue, I believe the term ratite is all-inclusive and is the intent of the board. The board's action to reduce the number to 24 from a number of approximately 800 which had been on the site was the board's decision. They considered the testimony of Mr. Bullmash and others. They considered the testimony that there were 24 on the site in October of 1997. and they felt that at uh that number of 24 it would not constitute an ostrich farm which is otherwise first permitted in the M2 zone. Um in the Moheil declaration of February 23rd which the council may have copies of uh it's incorrect that I testified that I got information through the internet. There was testimony from the audience in that respect. Approximately half of the property of 3 to 4 acres is used for the keeping of ratites at approximately eight per acre. That would give a total of 24. The board in its most recent action imposed five corrective conditions including a limitation of 24 animals on the property. The board's action was sustained by the uh playing and land use committee on February 10th. Uh the board in response to the court's order uh rescended its original decision and imposed the 24 limitation. Uh yes, Michael Kleener, deputy city attorney. With respect to the question Mr. Bulmash uh put forth dealing with the wording of the agenda, um I haven't seen it. However, the appeal here is uh from the determination of the board of zoning appeals. Your um motion in denying a um the appeal um would be in conformity with those conditions, findings and that were recommended by to be imposed by the board of zoning appeals and it would be your final resolution on this matter that would control u legally the the the language. the the chair recognizes Councilman Bernson. >> Yes. Uh members of the council, uh this has been going on for a long time. This is not a new case. Uh at one time there were literally hundreds of of these uh uh animals at this this particular location. uh these are within the Monter States area. It is a residential area. This essentially is a business. Now, this is goes a little beyond the home occupation business because uh I can tell you that the impact on the odors and on the noise and screaming and so forth that it emits uh from these animals, these birds uh does have a tremendous negative impact on this residential community. Uh I do support the uh committee's report. I was unfortunately I was ill and not out for that uh for that particular meeting but I think that the uh vice chair Mrs. Sakowski and and Mr. Hernandez did a excellent job and I fully support the report and I would ask uh that the committee report which denies the appeal uh be approved. Thank you very much. >> Um Mr. President, I would like to correct one thing that is seemingly being confused here. There is a difference between a commercial operation and whether um the condition of 24 uh ratites would adversely affect Mr. for Mov's um economic interests and the evidence um and in the court of appeal commented that there was no evidence showing that uh his economic interest, his business interests since uh they were in other locations would be adversely affected by limiting the number of rat tites. Um whereas you can have a hobby that could be deemed commercial because of the extent of the activity uh at the site. >> You know u members of the council even in other types of animals uh horsekeeping for example uh people are are allowed to have by right a certain number of horses of their own. if they're operating a boarding stable or doing it for commercial purposes, it does require a conditional use permit. And that is not the case in this particular case. There is no conditional use permit. This is a business. It does have a very negative impact upon the surrounding neighbors. And uh I would again ask that u the planning committee uh report which denies the appeal be supported. Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilwoman Msikowski. >> Thank you, Mr. President. As was indicated, the Plum Committee did hold a hearing on this uh and took testimony and to clarify, we did uh deny the appeal, recommend denial of the appeal and sustaining of all the conditions and the corrective actions that were taken by the board of zoning appeals. Uh there clearly uh this was legally um heard. It was a matter based on a a revocation hearing uh initiated some years ago uh to abate a nuisance that was there was dramatic evidence of in the neighborhood. And so based on that action uh we are recommending adoption of the planning and land use management committee report. >> All right. Is there any uh further discussion members of council? >> If not open the roll. Close the role. 11 eyes. >> All right, that matter is approved. Next order, madam clerk. >> Item 10, required hearing, building and safety department appeal council district 13 on Alessandro Street. >> All right. I have a request uh to be heard by uh Charles, is it Janelle? Okay. >> Oh, my name is Char Janelle. My address is 1118 Kawinga Boulevard, Los Angeles 90038. Um, I'm here objecting uh to this assessment because u the assessment has been uh already paid to the city by FEMA. It has been made by money that has been given to the city by FEMA. So the city has no expenses in that uh in that assessment and so since they have been paid one time uh I don't see why I should pay a second time because an invoice can only be paid twice. This has been paid by FEMA because the city told me uh that uh that was the case. So if they have been paid already reimbursed then why would I pay a second time a bill that I already paid and the city has been uh of no cost in that. So I'm objecting to be assessed and pay a second time this um expenses that already paid by FEMA. That's all I have to say. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Chinhill. Would the staff like to respond? >> Uh yes, Mr. President. My name is Angel Calvin with the LA Department of Building and Safety. Uh we have met with uh the gentleman, the property owner on this and we've tried to explain what the financial arrangements were. Uh the work was paid with funds from a block federal block grant through community development department. Uh it was not FEMA money. It was a block grant. As part of the agreement through CDD, the city must uh make all efforts to try and recover the costs that uh for the funds that we expended. Failure to do that could result in an audit and uh having the city have to pay back the money to the federal government. That is why we're requesting the assessment. All right. The chair recognizes Councilwoman Goldberg. >> Yes, my staff and uh building and safety staff has met with the owner. The real problem is is that the um title company failed to notify this gentleman, isn't that correct? Of the assessment that from his point of view, that's really what he's upset about as I recall. Uh well, I had discussions with a gentleman and what uh ended up happening was that he ordered a preliminary title report in January of 1997 and the property closed escrow 6 months later and he didn't request a second report. >> But in any case, uh the unfortunately uh he did not call for which many people do a final look at all of the assessments. I think that is a problem between the owner and his title company. The city should go ahead with its assessment. If it does not reimburse the block grant, uh then as as has already been mentioned, we have some problems meeting the federal guidelines. Uh and that money is only intended to front the money, not to pay the costs so that they get done and we don't leave nuisance buildings and nuisance properties up in neighborhoods where they cause problems. So, it's a revolving fund and nothing revolves if there's no assessment. Uh, and I'm sorry that this has all happened to the gentleman that he didn't know about it, but it is a cost of doing business in terms of his property that he's recently acquired. So, I will move that we uh adopt the report as it's written before us today. >> All right. Is there any further discussion? If not, open the role. Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> That's approved. Next order, Madam Clerk. Items 12 through 21 and 37 are items for which public hearings have been held. 12- 21 and 37. Members of council, are there any specials on 12- 21 and 37? 12 through 21 and 37. If not, open the roll. 12 through >> 21 >> and 37. >> Oh, okay. Open the roll. Close the ro. >> 11 eyes. >> Those are approved. Next order, madam clerk. >> The ordinances on 12 and 37 will go over one week. >> Fourth with on uh 14, please. Without objection, forth with on 9,4 and 18. >> Also 23. No, we haven't gotten to 23 yet. >> It's a good It's a good try, Mr. Savo. >> 21 and 22 forth with Mr. President. >> Without objection. Uh well, on 21. We haven't done 22 yet. >> Okay. Next order it, Madam Clerk. Items 22 through 36 and 38 and 39 are items for which public hearings have not been held. >> All right. Well, then those are all subject to public hearings. Let me We're on for the people in the audience on items 22 through 36 as well as 38 and 39. I have requests cards to be heard on 25, 34, 36, and 38. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any items other than 25, 34, 36, and 38? If so, I'd ask you to fill out a card and give it to the sergeant. Meanwhile, we'll go back to members of council. Um, do members of council have any specials? Uh, 22 through 36 or 38 and 39? 36 I know is a special >> 36F. >> Okay. >> 6 C and F. All right. Then we can open the role on 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 39 Close the roll. >> 11 eyes. >> Those are approved. >> Mr. President >> without objection forth with and 39 Miss Walders. >> Uh I'd like to ask for a correction in 32. It lists it as CD14. It is not. It's CD9. >> All right. The clerk >> her staff has already advised us of that. >> All right. Then we're now at item 25. 25 a public hearing item. I have request to be heard. Mr. Leonard Shapiro. >> Mr. Acting mayor of the city of Los Angeles and members of the city council, I rise to speak on item 25. >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Spir, which concerns $9.1 million loan on a development that only consists of 62 units. When I was speaking to officials of the uh CRA, I asked him, "How come you're involved in sort of low and moderate income housing and you're and you're building this for $140,000 per per unit?" He says, "Well, they got the loan, they got the thing, they got the loan from the government and it's being okayed and we didn't put up too much money, so as far as we're concerned, it's a good deal." Well, it's a question of what you mean by too much money because they put up $1.4 $.4 million in a pre-development loan and they put up and they put up another $2 million in a gap loan. The point is the CRA is doing its usual working to make sure that things are happening in the city of LA and they're using government money and government loan money, not to its proper capacity and not the way government money should be used. Well, if you talk about $9 million deal and you're talking about only putting up 62 units, then somebody isn't doing their homework. Even if they're getting the loan from the federal government, there should be loans available for at least 200 units for this kind of money. If $9 million is available, then throw it out for 200 units and reject this other one. Don't go along with them just because they want to put up expensive housing and you say you're going to try to make it available to low and moderate income renters. Yeah, you're going to make it available. First of all, you don't know if you're going to make it available for them for lowcost rent, then there's going to be a big continuing subsidy that the federal government have to subsid sub subsidize. I say, ladies and gentlemen, to the city council, this is not the way to use CRA and federal money. Mr. President, >> thank you Mr. Shapiro. That closes the public hearing. Members of council, any discussion on item 25? If not, open the role. Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> All right, that's approved. >> Next item is number 34. I have two requests to be heard. Mr. Howard Watts and Mr. Leonard Shapiro. Item 34. Mr. Watts. Thank you, Joe. I mean, I'm sorry. I should have said something better. He is the mayor of the city of Los Angeles. >> Jesus. >> And Joe, you may not believe it, but I would love to see you just stay there and let the other guy that is the absent mayor go to Asia and stay there. Now, I want to make it clear. I saw this agenda item and I could not believe when I was talking to some city employees that this is going to affect you and it's going to help you. The the city is trying to find parking spaces and parking needs for fleet vehicles, employees returning city hall and city hall east visitors. That's the public and maybe you know people that are coming in as tourists and commercial users identifying satisfactory locations at which these parking needs may be met. Let me make a statement. There are a hell of a lot of empty spaces in city hall parking structure that council members hold that they do not let their own constituents use them. There are a lot of parking spaces there that can be turned over to the people who wish to use those spaces inside the parking structure of this city hall. I want to make it clear, $40,000 in a study by general services is not needed for this issue. the fact that we got another transfer of 200,000 210,000 from account G20 2011 which I don't know what it is within a special parking fund to to the newly created account and I noticed under fiscal impact statement none submitted by the department of transportation neither the city administrative officer nor the chief legislative analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report, then why is it here? If the CAO and the CLA haven't done their financial analysis, why is this coming before you? Is it because they are too lazy to come down with a financial report and find out analysis of that report to find out what can be done? And I want to make it clear, this city is in bankrupt. You have been bankrupt for so many years when you got debts as big as yours is. I hate to find out why you allowed another debt to occur and that is the mayor going to Asia. >> Thank you, Mr. Watts. Uh Mr. Leonard Shapiro, Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I agree with half of what Howard Watts said, >> I I think it's interesting that to have $40,000 that's going to be made available for this study and they're going to use another 210,000. So, a study they're going to do for 250,000 bucks. It's still a lot of money. When you figure the DOT is a pretty big department, they understand what's happening in here. They put it down here. What's happening? You say uh they're going to build a new 91 facilities. It's going to be located on the site of the existing police parking structure and then they're going to move displaced vehicles from this structure to lot 7 and then the vehicles from lot 7 are going to go the other location. They don't know yet. So it's beyond them. So they say please let us make a study of $250,000 that we're going to spend and then we'll find out what's going to happen to the parking situation. There is nothing going to happen to the parking situation around city hall that the people in the DOT don't know. You don't need this extra extra people coming around here. I believe the DOT is very capable and very knowledgeable when it comes to determining what the structures around when it becomes to to find out what's going to happen where you're going to build a facility for 911 here. You were going to build it in Westchester. Now it's here. Now you're not sure it's going to be here. It's going to be some other place. And then the parking's going to be changed. Well, yes, under those conditions, you need help. And they cry, "Please help us. Let us get an outside firm. Give them a quarter of a million dollars and they'll tell us what to do." Well, they'll raise more questions than they're going to answer. We have a tremendous parking situation here in the city of LA. And a little study of this type is not going to solve your situation. You got to know where you're going to go. Where you going to build this 911? Where you going to build this new parker center? How are you going to fix up this city hall? Are you going to build across the street? Are you going to build a Department of Justice building which has been given away by this county? You got to do something. But still, you're stumbling along and this is a continuing stumble. $250,000 down a drain. >> Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. That closes the public hearing. Members of council, is there any discussion on this item? Go back to 36. >> If not, uh, open the roll. Close the roll. >> 11 eyes. >> All right. That's approved. Next order, Madam Clerk. >> 36 C. Mr. President. >> All right. I have several requests to be heard on 36 um 36E 36F. Um, I have a card here from a Mr. burn back but it didn't is do you know 3 uh 36 uh it doesn't indicate which item on 36 you wish to speak about F. All right then we'll get to that in a moment. >> I believe there's an amended motion on 36C that's being distributed. >> All right. Uh the specials on 36 are C, E, and F. I believe >> that's correct. >> All right. Then first uh open the roll on 36 A and B. Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> All right. Those are approved. >> Without objection. Fourth with an A. Now 36 C. There should be an amending motion. Uh members of council should have and the chair recognizes Councilwoman Chick and then Councilwoman Missowski on item 36 C. colleagues. Um when the swiftwater rescue program was originally set up in the late8s, it was understood that these waters that are creating raging rivers in the city of Los Angeles and are creating public safety problems, public safety problems unfortunately because we seem to across the region from time to time have people, young people and adults, who don't listen to wisdom and get too close to our flood channels and our river runoffs and who need to be rescued. Fortunately, our fire department and working and our fire department working with other city departments like our police department and other regional government agencies has really perfected swiftwater rescue techniques as we all saw fairly recently the wonderful job that our fire department did in rescuing two young girls. This is the first year since the inception of this program that the fire department has had to come back and ask for additional funding. And I would like to ask our fire department staff to come to the center table if there are questions. I had asked the fire department when I introduced this motion on their behalf uh to make sure that we had adequate funding currently in our storm abatement fund because as you know we took an enormous amount of money from that fund um in accordance with uh the mayor's budget recommendation in prior year there is adequate funding and I think that we absolutely must move forward today in supporting this uh fire department is out there every day now in the rain and yesterday I was briefed out in the valley about their procedures and was very very impressed and I welcome my colleagues uh council member Msakowsk's amendment because I think there might be ways to obtain reimbursement for some of this funding. Uh, I would like the fire department to just briefly tell us why it is that you need the increased funds and what they are going to be used for. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Uh, my name is Assistant Chief Dean Kathy. I'm assistant bureau commander in the Bureau of Emergency Services. Uh, the Swiftwater Rescue Program comes under my supervision uh when we have it in place each year. Uh why we are here today is the fact that as a result of the El Nino conditions that we've been experiencing this season where we have normally allotted in our swiftwater um budget uh through the storm water pollution abatement fund uh a average number of deployments of about 15 per year as a basis for some of the funding for that program. In this particular year to date, we have had a total of 29 deployments, almost double what our current uh what our expectations have been based on past experience. Um those 29 uh deployments started when the rains began to fall back in late September. Um and they're based upon a certain prediction of rainfall. We normally deploy these teams in various areas of the city uh for 12-h hour periods uh beginning in the morning and concluding in the evening. In some cases, we continue those deployments around the clock when we believe that there's a need to keep them in place. Uh those 29 deployments in this current uh period have resulted in seven successful rescues of people who have found their way into the channels uh in the Los Angeles area. Um, in the history of this program, we have uh been funded under the storm water pollution debatement fund uh with the approval of the city council and that started back in 1992 as a result of a very tragic incident that occurred out in the San Frernando Valley. uh every year since that time we have uh received funding adequate to to manage the program and in fact in in every year except this year have reverted funds back to the storm water pollution abatement uh fund uh in were in excess of what we needed to fund our program. Uh that's essentially why we're here and be happy to answer any other questions uh regarding the program andor our costs. Is there anyone else at the table that wishes to add anything at this time? >> Yes, my name is Mike Caner. I'm with the Bureau of Engineering Storm Water Management Division. We've had some additional time to take a look at the account to uh take this funding from and we found a more appropriate account number. We would like to change to account L391, storm water management program. Uh that would allow us to uh not affect our emergency on call contractor's account. >> All right, Miss Chick, have you completed? All right, then the chair recognizes Counciloman Makowski. >> I do that. >> Okay. >> In addition to that change on the line account. My motion uh is a friendly amendment just to indicate that uh in in addition to the extraordinary response that that I think the council has seen by the the team that since we've now declared a local emergency and will be subject to for reimbursement that we'd like to have these services able to be reimbursed uh from the federal government when that declaration is declared. So that uh this is just an amendment to ask that the CIO uh make sure that these are accounted for so that the storm water abatement fund can be uh refunded from the funds after the uh accounting is completed. >> The chair recognizes Councilwoman Galanter. Let me start by saying that I have the overwhelming admiration for the people who do this work and I congratulate everybody on getting them out this year because I mean we're all really upset when when we lose one and we haven't lost anybody yet this year and that's because we have a really terrific rescue setup and we have a really terrific fire department that doesn't. Now, having said that, my first problem is I don't think the fire department gets enough respect in the budget um in the regular budget. And I believe that this unit ought to be funded by the city as part of the fire department's budget. I don't mean you should cut back on something else. I think that this belongs in the fire department's budget because they do the work, they train the people, and they're wonderful at it, and we can't afford not to have it. I do have a problem, as I do every year, with using money that has been earmarked for pollution abatement for other purposes. There's no question that this is related to storm water. You know, there's I have absolutely no problem with that. It's obviously a storm water related problem. It's not a storm water pollution related problem. And I believe that the money is coming from the wrong place. So, I certainly support Cindy's amendment, which would at least get some money back from an emergency response fund, which is where it ought to come from. Um, and I certainly want the department to get paid for this because I want them to be able to keep doing it. But I think we ought to remember that what we're looking at here, as we have for the last four years, is another raid on a fund that the public agreed to because it was going to abate the pollution, and we're not using it for pollution abatement. So, if I were in charge of the budget, I would give the fire department enough money in the first place to do the job that we depend on them to do. And I think it belongs in the fire department's budget. it does not belong in storm water pollution abatement. Um I appreciate the staff's work and I mean you've you've really done well in finding another place to pull it out of so that it's not actually coming out of money that's already being spent on abatement. The problem is we're not spending enough money on abatement because we're spending it on all these other things. So I guess I have two questions maybe the staff can answer and they really shouldn't take very long. One of them is um just clarify for me. Did we ever fund this out of any other source or did we only start it when we had the pollution abatement fund to raid? >> This this activity has been funded with storm water uh money from from it. Yeah. If we didn't fund it with storm water, we wouldn't have it. >> What a rotten way to run a city. >> Well, I mean it belongs in the in All right. So, I guess that's what I really wanted to know and uh there's really nothing further to be said. I'll skip my other questions. >> All right. Chair recognizes Councilman Alone. >> Uh my my concerns are in the same vein as uh Council Member Galanter just expressed. Uh but but I also recall that last week we had a matter before us uh that was uh designed to address a shortfall of $6 million in the fire department's budget. And what that did was transfer funds for disaster preparedness uh prevention services into other civilian positions uh and and other positions in the fire department. Is that not correct? >> Yeah, that that is correct. I might >> Well, doesn't this fall more in the category of disaster related services? Uh I think >> and storm rot water services. >> The disaster preparedness services are primarily community outreach and training and and safety programs. >> So it includes uh river response training. >> It no it doesn't. That's an operational training. Uh >> but it's it's related to all disaster preparedness. I mean the fact is we cut out $6 million worth of disaster preparedness services. >> Yeah. Those services >> is that is that that's the fact, right? And last last week uh the council supported a reduction of uh or and a transfer of all this personnel into non-d disaster related services. Right. >> Um well the probably the easiest way to describe it is the functions of disaster preparedness that we're talking about are public trained. >> But I'm not asking that. I'm just asking about the that that we actually took disaster preparedness services and we we moved it into other categories. So we have no disaster uh preparedness service program anymore. >> We have a very minimum capability between now and the end of the year. >> So so colleagues I think we need to be very careful on this one. It's not about storm water. It's about why are we uh reducing by $6 million our budget for disaster preparedness, moving th those personnel into non-d disaster related services and then coming back the next week. mayor told them to cut their budget >> and and the next week coming back asking for money out of our storm water fund that is designed to be anti-pollution and I mean the the the more correct procedure I believe would have been to come and ask for more money uh to finish out our disaster preparedness budget our program because we are in the midst of a disaster this El Nino driving around yesterday. If anybody had any doubt that this is a disaster, um they were not driving yesterday. And so I I think the the appropriate thing to do is get the money back into our disaster preparedness program. Uh recognizing that uh detail by detail, it's not the exact kind of money, but that seems to be the more appropriate way to go. I think we need to have our disaster preparedness training services back online. I'm concerned that there they may not be fully funded in next year's budget and I want to know where the money went in the first place. Why did we not have enough money to cover the year? >> All right. Does anyone wish to make any comments that you you can or cannot at at your desire discretion? >> Okay. Any further discussion, members of council? >> Well, there we just spent $400,000 sending a whole lot of people overseas. week, >> which I believe only Miss Walters voted against. The chair recognizes Councilman Bernson. >> Told me this was coming. >> Okay, members of the council, am I recognized, Mr. Wax? Um, I don't know what the uh what the management uh problems are, if there are any with the department. I just know they do a terrific job. I know they're there when we need them and count on them. I know that they've done yman duty during the uh problems we've had with El Nino and the special rescue things. Um if they're asking me to support funds that they need to continue to do the job they're doing, I'm going to do that and I hope we all will. I'm going to support the amendment and the motion. Thank you. >> The chair recognizes Councilwoman Chick. >> Yes. Well, I'm pleased we're going to go forward with this, which is an immediate emergency need in regards to all of the budget issues that have been raised. Uh, I agree with my colleague uh Ruth Galanter that we should take a look at giving uh more adequate resources to the fire department and that we need to engage in that productive and difficult task for the upcoming budget. uh what was before us I believe last week was quite a complex package of moving money around that had gone to our budget and finance committee and in fact passed so quickly here in council first thing in the morning without any discussion that chief pomatri didn't have time to get here uh to address us as he had been planning to do later this week council member Goldberg and I have a joint personnel and public safety committee meeting where we are going to be looking at a variety of issues regarding the fire department and very much asking questions about not so much going backwards because we are in a very difficult budget year and if we wanted to give the department adequate resources and not have them cut make the cuts they just made to the tune of $6 million we'd be hardressed to figure out where we're coming up with that $6 million. I think we have to engage in that very difficult task for next year and that what we have before us in terms of this crisis is a clear example of what a key role LFD plays in public safety for our communities and to make sure that they're adequately resourced. Uh but we need to go forward today with it as it is. And I also want to express my gratitude to all of the fire department staff that do this very difficult and dangerous work. Thank you. All right. Um, is the open the role on 36 including uh Council Msikowsky's amendment to it >> and the verbal amendment on the fund. >> Yeah. Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> All right. That's approved. That objection forth with um 36E. Uh Mr. Leonard Shapiro. Mr. President and members of the city council. First of all, Mr. Wax, I'd like to excuse myself for raising my voice before. You know, I got used to the fact that you're Ferraro and he's not here anymore. There's no reason to talk loud. >> He'll be back. >> We have a friendly environment. On 36E, we're talking about renewing the reward for information leading to the ID ID and apprehension of Willie Litmanovich. Now, I've spoken about this reward system that the city has instituted for the last 10 years, and I've told you many things that I consider wrong with them, but nobody lifts a finger to help it. Now, if you have a heinous crime or you had what they say here on May May 5th, 1995, you had an especially disturbing crime and therefore as a matter of public policy, the city offers as an added inducement to renew this reward which you already had on. Now, you're renewing it again because this is especially disturbing. Now, I say this, you know where your rewards are advertised? They're advertised in the classified section of the LA Times. Now, who reads the classified section unless you're in in looking for a job or for a used piece of furniture or something that's got a direct benefit to you? You don't use it. So, the net effect is anything worthwhile is worthwhile doing well. If you're going to back up all these rewards, put an ad in that people can see. Put an ad in a regular section there. Wanted, dead or alive, heinenous crime. and you might get some answers. Right now, there's been three years have gone by and nobody has claimed a single reward. And instead of saying that we're going to do something to make this benefit worthwhile, you're saying no, we don't have to advertise in a proper place, we'll have a regularized ad to classify it. And if people want to look at that fine print and see what's written wr written in there, then we'll go ahead with it. I say in addition to advertising, let's get into flyers. Let's get into posters. Let's get let's get if it's worth doing, let's do it right. To me, it's idiotic for you to continually vote $25,000 for what you call heinous crimes because the LAPD asked you to do so and you do it. It's years ago, you haven't got any answers on it, and you're still persistent doing it over and over and over. If you're going to DO IT, DO IT RIGHT. STOP THIS CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING. >> A chair recogn Yes, Mr. Furer has Chair recognizes Councilman Furer. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to point out for our viewers uh that at least this this arises from a crime that was committed in my council district before I took office and we were indeed requested by the police department to renew it. Uh these rewards are frequently effective. Uh people might recall uh what turned out to be an alleged murder for hire regarding the silent movie theater in the Fairfax area. Uh the reward is what led to the apprehension of the alleged perpetrators. Uh there was you might recall a death in the hillsides recently on Maul Holland. The police department reported to us that it was directly because of the reward that was put on the table by the city council that they got a confession. So, I think that we recognize that sometimes these rewards are very important tools for law enforcement and our job here is to pursue what our police department asks us to and what frequently results in the right result. >> All right. Um, any further discussion? >> Open the roll. Close the roll. >> 11 eyes. >> All right. That's approved. Item 36F, uh, Michael Bernach. >> Good morning, Mr. President, council members. Michael Burnback. I'm here representing myself. I'm a resident and businessman. greed, corporate bribery, lawyers, lobbyists, commissioners, and shams, or integrity, equal opportunity, fair play, citizen advisory boards and committees, and government. Apparently, the Department of Recreation and Parks is for sale. I take my hat off to the staff of Rex and Parks because it's very clear that they are not for sale. But I would like to ask the people at home and I'd like to ask the press to ask the mayor for an explanation as to the actions of some of his commissioners and how those actions could possibly be to the benefit of the people of Los Angeles. Well, then you have the duty today, I understand, to stop the perception of this sale. You must preserve a fair and open and incorruptible bidding process so that Rex and Parks will never become for sale again. my family, friends, and business colleagues. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Burnback, Mr. Leonard Shapiro, and then Miss uh Lori Oberg. Uh Mr. President and council members were talking about the shenanigans that are happening out in the Balboa Encino golf course. At the last meeting, I happened to speak to one of the staff members of the golf advisory committee or no actually Brecken Parks who was making the determination. Uh Mr. Hal Sullivan is his name making the determination as to who's going to get what contract. And he said, "I'm getting sick and tired." And I said, "Can I quote you?" He says, "Certainly." He's I'm getting sick and tired of making these recommendations and then getting them overridden. Now, why is Pete Soberof off going right in there and overriding every recommendation that they made like he did in this case? He picked out a little in insignificant item that we did on this interim basis. We didn't guarantee any minimum rent. Instead of doing it, he threw it all out. Let's come back in again. And now you're being asked to prop five the thing because this is not the way for any committee or any commission or department to operate when they're under your jurisdiction and you can have the right to assert yourself and I think you have the right to assert yourself on Prop Five here because they're not operating properly. They this is the second time it's been done and the second time this contract has been thrown out and yet and has to do something about it. Why is it so difficult for anybody to come in bid on a contract and the low bidder gets it? And yet when American golf bid and they were rated fourth by the wreck and parks department commissioners, not commissioners, the employees who know how to study this thing and set up their own rules and they rated American golf fourth. Not first, not second, not third, but fourth. And all of a sudden Pete Sob says they got it because I don't like this little shenanigan again. And now the same thing is being done here. They couldn't get the contract again. So throw it out. Now I also hear that American golf understand situation better than you do. They withdrew their application for the interim golf uh thing and hope that you won't assert your jurisdiction. I think you should assert jurisdiction of the city council over this matter because this commission under the leadership of Peter Sorough who hopes to become the mayor in a little while under his leadership we're being subject to these kind of disgusting escapades. I don't like it at all. I don't think any member of the council should like that. Mr. President, Miss Lori Oberg. Good morning, Mr. President and council members. Can you hear me? Um, my name is Lori Oberg. I'm sorry I have to read this because I'm too nervous to remember everything. >> That's quite all right. >> Um, first I wish to thank uh all of the members of the council who have made it their business to keep an eye on this process. In particular, Cindy Mskowski and her staff led by Michael Jimenez on this issue. These golf courses are in the councilwoman's district and every effort has been made to learn the facts and work with the interested persons as well as to second the motion to prop five. In addition, I want to thank Rita Walters uh because at every opportunity she's spoken up, she's challenged and questioned when all else has failed brought forward this Prop 5. Thank you and your staff Rodney Collins. In addition, I want to thank the department, the general manager, Jackie Tatum, and her staff who just keep on doing their job through it all. Uh, I was involved as a non- voting member in the original interview committee for this golf concession for all the golf concessions at that time. That was two years ago. And two of those bids, Rancho and Enino Balboa, are in the process of going back out to bid for the 10-year contract again. It is hard to believe that we are no better off at some courses than we were two years ago. Capital capital improvements are still not made. Higher percentages to the city are still not in place. So these delays cost the city enormously as well as the golfing public who are forced to put up with inferior conditions until these contracts are awarded. I urge you to take jurisdiction over this matter. And once that is done, I would hope you will approve report number 91-98 and award the interim contract to Family Golf. Uh, as of this morning, I understand American golf has withdrawn on this interim bid, which without your help may have been the only way in my opinion that Family Golf would have been awarded a contract by the Reckon Parks Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Oberg. Uh, that completes the public hearing. Is there anyone else that didn't fill out a card that wants to be heard? Uh, for the record, would you give your name and address since you didn't fill out a card on this item? >> Thank you, Mr. President. Council members, this is why I come to council meetings to see what that you do the right thing. And I believe you'll do the right thing today and proping this. Thank you. >> All right, that completes the public hearing. And the chair recognizes Councilman Walters. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. President, council members. I was very disturbed that, uh, we had to come to this point and prop five this decision one more time. the motion here before us today. The bottom line says that I move upon assertion of jurisdiction and we have done that as coun the council approver or we are doing that approve uh report 9198 and instruct the staff to issue a 30-day revocical permit to family golf centers incorporated beginning March 8th. This is the most bizarre I think uh uh instance of a single contract that I have experienced since being on the council. the uh family golf in the bidding that uh went out uh initially family golf came in number two and as the practice uh elsewhere in the city they really should have been given the contract when number one dropped out but uh no the commission as uh was stated determined that the number four bidder should have it which was in error and it was at that point in December when we met at the Rancho Park that uh we propived it then and and Mr. Fur held uh an arts, health, and humanities committee uh meeting and sent directions back, suggestions back to the uh commission uh the Reton Parks Commission that they should uh rebid the interim uh contract and that they did and they followed uh the staff set a whole new panel to review this. It wasn't the same people and uh Mr. Mr. Sobberough had insulted Mr. Sussing House and wanted him removed from any jurisdiction over it. Um, but the bottom line of this new jur new panel uh that sat in judgment on these applications was that family golf was still superior. American golf didn't come close. And now when it the commission decides to open that bid uh well the staff opened it recommended family golf and then the commission wanted on some technicality that was not even relevant to give the contract to American golf. I'm glad that American golf has recused itself and I urge you to vote to take jurisdiction and to give this contract to Family Golf. Chair recognizes Councilman Furer. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh when I first heard about the possibility of uh pursuing Prop 5 on this matter, uh and I had a limited understanding of what had taken place subsequent to our action, I was not enthusiastic. But the more I heard about it and the more Miss Walter staff informed us about what had taken place and we did our own investigation, I think that this is well worthy of support. Um uh the Miss Walters bottom line is that we have to at some point have a straightforward clear process where we focus on that which is relevant, dismiss that which is irrelevant and move forward already. And she's right. uh in in this matter. I hope we have unanimous support for Miss Walter's motion and finally get this golf contract business straight because it's a very important issue to a number of of our constituents who want to pursue golf as a recreational activity. It's very lucrative. So, it contains the potential for all kinds of things to take place. We have to get it right and be done with it and provide some certainty to the operators, but most importantly certainty to the constituents. All of us serve our unanimous approval for Miss Walter's motion. >> Chair recognizes Councilman Bernson. This is uh is getting to be a little repetitious, I think. um the question and I think I I'm prepared to support the motion to take jurisdiction today but I think before we do that I think I mean after we do that I think there are some if we're going to take jurisdiction and make the award then we need to find out why certain things were done. Uh I've not been privileged to the uh uh to the staff's thinking on this nor I have been privileged to what the commission has done. It seems to me that there seems to be a great deal of of justification uh for taking jurisdiction and I'm prepared to do that today. But I'm a little reluctant uh until I know all the facts to say why, for example, why was a minimum rental figure not placed into the bidding process or was it an ignored? I don't know the answer to that. Uh I know as a former business person before I was a uh a public uh servant or public employee that uh if I were executing a lease on any type of property uh even though it may be a percentage lease I would never and I think if you talk to people who are in property management that leases are never extended on a straight percentage basis. So, I would I would like to know a little bit more about that before we u get the choo choo chain running too quickly here. Uh I I I can't question the fact that if it was fourth in the bidding and it was awarded and then they went back and then it was uh recommended by the staff and overturned that probably there is a valid reason for the council to look into this and I'm prepared to support that today. However, I am going I will not support taking an action today other than that until we get some answers. I personally would like to know what the staff were thinking about when they recommended family golf for the first first position. I would also like to know from the commission what they were thinking about by taking the fourth best bidder and awarding them the contract and over and overlooking what the staff did. So, uh, I'm prepared, Miss Waler, to support your motion today, but I hope that we can all look at this and get some background on what we're going to be doing in the future before we just rush in and award a contract for, you know, on this thing. So, I would ask, >> if I may, Mr. Bernson, this is not rushing in. This has been going on for >> Excuse me. We're still in my still We're still in my time. Okay. Uh, if we're going to try to make an award today, if we're going to try to make a an award today without some consultation, then I'm not going to vote for it. But if we will give us a week and allow the um both uh the staff who made the recommendation and uh the commission who overturned it to come in, then I will probably do what you want. But I think we owe it to at least to the constituents and the people of Los Angeles to just get the facts on something before we before we rush to it. So I'm prepared if you'll give me can I uh can I make a an amendment to this? Is it possible we have to take jurisdiction first? So, uh, okay. Well, I if we can continue this for a week after at least one week after taking jurisdiction, I'm prepared to support that today. >> Joel, uh, chair recognizes Councilman Msikowski. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. President. This is in the 11th council district. And Mr. Bernson, just to clarify, we are not awarding the major contract today. This is only the interim contract. This is the one that was only between two biders and one bidder, the one that the uh Reckon Parks Commission had recommended has now withdrawn. So, we only have one on the table. There's no reason to delay. Uh we this the bidder who has withdrawn from the interim interim contract has indicated that they will compete on the competitive bid for the long-term project. Um but I think in awarding it today, it's it's been too long belored. Uh we have uh the we would affirm the involvement of the uh golf advisory committee who is recommending the uh family golf to whom the re motion is made today. Uh we had a four out of four raiders in the city panel rate family golf on this interim contract. So I think that it should just remove the cloud so that we can get on with asking the questions on the long-term bid. And as I think as one of the testimonies today indicated, it's an in significant increase of revenue to the city, even on the interim award. Something in the um in the range of of $200,000 uh a year more than we've been getting now, even under the interim for however many months it will go on. So, I strongly rise in support of the motion to assert jurisdiction and award it on the interim level to Family Golf and then get on with the long-term contract. Chair recognizes Councilman Ridley Thomas. >> Previous question on the time, Madam Mr. President. >> Um, open the role on the previous question. Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> All right. The previous questions approved. The first item is whether or not to assert jurisdiction. Uh, open the role on uh on uh F1 on whether or not to assert jurisdiction. >> Close the role. >> 11 eyes. >> That's to assert. All right. Now, now that's before us. Now, uh F2 is to approve the staff report uh to issue a 30-day revocable permit to family golf. And um >> Councilman Bernson moved to continue the remainder to >> I think it is relevant that I I do have a letter here from the general council of American golf saying that we believe it's in the best interest of all parties concerned to withdraw from the bidding on the interim permit at Inino Balboa. >> Okay. Well, that makes it pretty unanimous, doesn't it? I I'll remove I'm not going to make the amendment. >> This was sent to Council President Ferraro's office and they have made that available to me at this time. All right. Open the roll on F2. Close the roll. >> 11 eyes. >> That's approved. Without objection. Fourth with next order. Madam clerk. >> 38 was called special. Mr. President, a card was submitted. >> All right. Thank you. 38. Mr. Howard Watts. On item 38, >> I would like to uh say one thing here, and I'm not sure when they're going to do it, but before we had the rain and this storm. We had a lot of holes in the streets all over the place. Now I'm finding even deeper holes. I'm going to give you an example. On Broadway, all up and down Broadway, there were many, many potholes there in in the first place, and nothing was ever done. Now, with the rain, those potholes are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And as we ride the bus, those holes are where the wheels get into, and we get a big bounce. And I want to know when this city is going to do something. Not only because of the weather problem that we've been having, but when are we going to have something done about these darn potholes on all of part of Broadway from 9inth through all the way up to Caesar's Chavez's uh street or boulevard. It is important that these potholes get covered up. And I'm can't believe that this city is not willing to do something about that damn Broadway, which is a messy, messy street up and down that street. I also want to say anybody who has been hurt by this storms that we've been having, I think the city should pay their their damage because it's a city problem, not the storm problem that has caused these mountains and hilltops to sink and the homes are crashing down to the bottom. It's about time that the city takes responsibility for all of those homes that are crashing down. >> Because if it wasn't for the city, they would have made sure that these homes were put on concrete or steel when they're built up there around that that very loose dirt. And it is obvious that the city has to do something and take control of this activity. I'm glad I'm in an area that the only flooding we have is in our apartment building, but not in our apartments itself. But I want to say that this rain is horrible and I hope we get five days of driving out because I can't take any more of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Watt. That closes the public hearing. Any discussion. Open the role. Close the role. >> 10 eyes. >> It's approved. Next door to Madam Clerk. Without objection. Fourth with >> this is time for comments from the public on non-aggenda items. >> All right. Comments on non-aggenda items. I have several requests here to be heard. Mr. Richard Robinson, Mr. Leonard Shapiro, and Mr. Howard Watts. Mr. President, members of council, the appointed charter reform commission meets tomorrow in the Davidson Conference Center at the University of Southern California. I don't want to get you. >> Anyone needing information should call the executive director at 213 3675234. That's 213 367 5234. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Leonard Shapiro, >> Mr. Acting mayor and members of the city council, I'd like to talk about an item that I wrote about on November 27th and followed up several other times since then and spoke to you and the board of supervisors on several occasions. I'm talking about the quote river of flowing gasoline that's underneath the intersection of Adams and Fairfax in the city limits of Los Angeles pool of flowing gasoline that when they found it, they didn't know what to do with it. So, they covered it up. They didn't drain it out. They didn't take away the contaminated uh uh ground. They just covered it up. They said it could be coming from anywhere from five or six sources and they covered it up. Well, I contacted somebody who's very active on the state on the California regional water quality control board and I got this letter back. My inside person tracked down your complaint and found that there's no one inside the water board who is interested in pursuing this unless there's pressure exerted. I recommend that you apply pressure if we want to clean up a condition that in one day is going to cause a catastrophe at Fairfax and Adams. It's really going to blow. They admitted in their letters that it's going to blow up, be a terrific explosion. It's going to contaminate the groundwater that we have under here. Contact the Jim Ross from the site cleanup unit or the groundwater cleanup section, Hank Yakob 2132667522 or the executive officer Dennis A. Dickerson. If we want to live with the source of contamination, a pool of flowing gasoline both in the ground and in our groundwater will do nothing because they got it on the list and they're going to do it. They're going to do something about this in the next hundred years. But if you want something done soon, within one to five years, then these people must be contacted. The city council can pass a resolution and turn it over to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. We don't have to have situations like this to continue to ex exist in the city of LA when people are and people and organizations are supposed to by law clean them up when you know you got contaminated pool of flowing gasoline in the water table. Somebody can't just walk away and say there's nothing we can do. I'm telling you one more time, do something. Pass a resolution. have your employees contact us the California Water Board and do something about it. We shouldn't live with this kind of po with this kind of hovering catastrophe waiting over our heads. Mr. President, >> thank you. Mr. Mr. Howard Watts, >> Mr. Mayor, >> that sounds good. You know that. Joel, would you do me a favor up there? You got a telephone up there that John Farrell always >> Stick to the subject, please. >> I am uh the the telephone up there should be taken out so the John Paro can't be doing any more talking on it when he comes back. I also want to make it clear and I'm not too sure where LA CES is uh stationed in what council district. It's a school in the LA Unified that the LA Unified was asked to get a gymnasium or a um um I forgot a gymnasium or a um auditorium or something like that over there. >> He's not John is still in town. >> He is not in town. >> He is in town. >> He is not. >> You mean he didn't go to >> that he's in town? Well, wait until I get done, will you? Please. Come on. You guys can't fight among yourselves here. >> Boy, you know, some people are too much. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, now you're all sorry. I'm glad John Pal is not observed. Um, I also want to say to um the new congressman in the Jane Harmon district, if he makes it, that is. Why do you have a CAC in your area of San Pedro instead of a pack a project area committee? I have item number 66 that says that you're going to have the 15th district 15th district to determine area problems, identify potential solutions. Well, why don't you do it with a pack? Let the pack get elected. you have nothing to do with it. Let them advise you instead of these so-called appointed advisory committees. The other issue I want to uh state very succinctly, the unions around here do not have to face me in front of PERB, public employment relations board. I want you to know that the unions under the LA Unified and LA Community College are violating public notice on initial proposals. We had the opportunity to go after the unions when they're supposed to present their so-called negotiable items uh in the public. And I would love to see somebody do something in the legislature that says we can do that very same thing here on all negotiable items. That way the public will have a chance to say to the unions in this city, hey, we want to know what the hell you're going to negotiate about. We want to make sure that you're negotiating something that we want, not necessarily that you want all the time. And I want to say that all of the uh $20 million that the taxpayers are paying extra for taxpayers sewer service fees because of a franchise fee that was attached to sewer service charges supposedly in an effort to help balance city budget shortfalls. according to this is a hell Burnson motion to try to stop this activity uh in the near future at the budget and finance committee and thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um very very quickly because you had one chance. >> I just like to say I'm sorry I called you Mr. Acting mayor because Mr. Ferraro is in town due to sickness in the family. He didn't go and he's still back here. He'll come back when he has a chance. >> Thank you. That stands corrected. Uh that closes the public hearing. Uh madame clerk, we still have a close session item. >> You have item 40. Yes. Closed session. Staff is in the chamber waiting for you to >> All right. Could the sergeants prepare the room for executive session on item number 40 involving litigation of Karter versus the city of Los Angeles. >> Mr. President, while you're waiting for the chamber to clear, yes, you have motions for posting and referral. >> Okay. Duly posted and referred. >> Excuses on the desk. Councilman Bernson has requested we excused personal business March the 11th. Vacation March 29th through uh June 2nd and the 10th. All dates meet council policy. >> All right, those are approved. >> Council member Walters has a request to be excused Friday, May 15th. City business meets council policy. >> That's approved. >> Council member Goldberg has request to be excused personal business to leave at noon on April the 3rd. Meets council policy. >> That's approved. >> And Councilman Aliator has request to be excused uh from today's meeting due to illness. A motion is required. >> That's approved. All right. Can we now uh have the staff come to the center table? All right. Can Can we go back to open session? Can we open the council chambers? >> All right. We're back in open session. Are there any other items before us, Madam Clerk? >> The desk is clear, Mr. President. >> All right. Would the audience and the council please rise for adjourning motions? Mr. Alicone. >> Council members, I have two adjourning motions that I'd request. Uh, first of all, a very good friend of mine, and I'd like to ask Council Member Bernson to join me on this one. Uh, Elsie Walter is 77 years old when she passed just Sunday. Um Elsie is the mother of my sister-in-law uh Patty Reyes and u uh was very involved uh in the uh elementary school that I attended Holy Rosary um having raised her six kids and I think all six of them went to Holy Rosary at one point or another. Uh and then it just so happens that her daughter married my brother-in-law. Um, in any case, she leaves um six her six children um Martha Weiss, Eddie Weiss, uh uh Marie and Joe Kremer, uh George um um Walter, uh and Joe Walter, um and Bob and Patty Reyes. Um also, uh and of course, she leaves her husband Joe um who was also very involved at Holy Rosary. Um, I'd also like to adjourn in the memory of Robert Bankhead. He passed on uh February 14th uh Valentine's Day at the age of 63 uh from heart failure. He was the owner of the San Fernando Appliance Service Center, a resident of Lake Terrace uh uh and the Pquima area for over 40 years. Uh he was a member of the Valley Bin Christian Church, very active community member. Uh he leaves his wife Annie Pearl, two sons, six daughters, uh 12 grandchildren, uh one greatg granddaughter. Um and I forgot to mention that the Walter family, they leave uh 26 grandchildren and uh six great-grandchildren. >> Mr. B. Mr. Bernson, >> I'd like to announce that the Plum Committee will meet uh at 1:30 in this room. Is that okay, Cindy? >> Mr. Swinich. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the council, it gives me a great deal of sadness uh to adjourn in the memory of Marie Bonisuch who passed away on February 19th. She was born April 6th, 1925 in Chicago, Illinois, and was a 36year resident of our area. She has survived by her husband Andrew, sons Franklin and Gregory, daughters Andrea and Cynthia, brothers Anthony and Frank, and a sister Francis, and sister-in-law Dorothy, grandchildren Heather and Daniel and Seline. Uh, it is just 30 days ago that I had the privilege and honor, Mr. present members of the council to present to Marie Bonisuch and her husband Andy a 50th wedding anniversary certificate on behalf of all of you. Uh on February 25th uh coming up uh tomorrow on January 25th was their 50th anniversary. Um she was diagnosed uh with cancer and passed away in three short weeks. Um she was a very loving woman. I always remember her for her sense of humor and her devotion to her family and to her friends. And it's people like Marie Bonisuch that touches one's life and makes one's life better. Uh her services will be held this Thursday and she will be sorely missed by one and all. And she was truly a wonderful friend. >> Miss Waldress. >> Yes. Um, I'm doing this on behalf of Councilman Holden, uh, who is absent, and he wishes us to adjourn in memory of Clara Ali, who was a longtime resident of the 10th Council District. She passed away uh, February 20th, and she is survived by her husband, James Lee. Funeral services will be held this Thursday at 11:30 at Angela's Funeral Home. >> All right, call the role, Madam Clerk. Council's adjourn. Heat. Heat.