Hypothetically Speaking: Scenario 001

[Since I have not continued on with the "No Title Set" series for a time, due to partying, I am going to be occasionally entering other articles and series that come up from time to time.  

In this series, "Hypothetically Speaking," what i will be presenting are ideas and thoughts on how to address questions that come up.  I'll present the most likely scenarios, from my perspective, as they can potentially play out.

These range from simple ideas as "what if," to "How can 'we' [insert idea]?"  These scenarios don't reflect any accuracy as to represent intent, but how could one go about it, if they so choose to.]

Scenario 001:
Over the weekend the BHNC held it's Rules & Elections Committee (REC) Meeting at the State Street Park Recreation Center's Community Center.  What has prompted this article was items 8 and 9 of the agenda.

 "8. Discussion and possible recommendation to fund up to $5,000 towards the cost of online voting and vote by mail for BHNC’s April 2019 elections. a. Description: Online voting and vote by mail will increase voter turnout, in 2016 turnout was less than 400. 
9. Discussion and review of BHNC’s bylaws regarding creating a committee. a. Description: Review BHNC bylaws and recommend creating a standing rule or bylaws amendment to include how to create a committee outside of PLUC. "

While item 8 lead in to a discussion regarding whether the BHNC should pursue or could pursue, online voting. (It was generally agreed that the BHNC was not ready for this - and who wants to be a Beta tester).  Items 8's concerns regarding ensuring that "BHNC Stakeholders" participation is not usurped by "Stakeholders" did carry over in to Item 9.

[While on the subject of Item 9, I am going to be referring to BHNC Bylaws from c.2015, c.2017 and c.2018 (the most recent).]

So the Question that came up was essentially regarding a technicality in our bylaws.  One that, by default, allows for all Stakeholders to participate in the Committees, unless specified in the Bylaws otherwise.  So how do you ensure that only BHNC Stakeholders, that is people who live, work, own property or have an ongoing participation within the Boyle Heights boundaries, are the only ones on the committees.  Thus ensuring that the BHNC is represented by Boyle Heights Stakeholders.

Stakeholders, (as it stands alone) refers to ALL Stakeholders within the City of Los Angeles.  A very broad range/pool of people.

BHNC Stakeholders, refers to those Stakeholders that are contained by the BHNC Boundaries.  To give loose definitions.

Article VII, Section 3 (c.2015)

Now, I said that by default the BHNC Bylaws (as structured by the City), refers to Stakeholders and not BHNC Stakeholders specifically per the c.2015 BHNC Bylaws.

"Committee Structure - Unless specifically stated in other parts of these bylaws, committee members shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. Committee membership shall be open to all Stakeholders, and all committees shall have a minimum of three (3) members."

It is from here that I (I was the BHNC REC Chair in 2017), drew the new language.  The purpose here was not to redefine the definitions, but to clarify what was already there.  And i was getting backlash for trying to clarify/include the term "BHNC Stakeholder."

So what I did was expand, ever so slightly, the wording so that the Bylaws looped back on themselves to create a situation where the existing language is strengthen but allows for further clarification via the Committee Chair.  Which remains for the c.2018 Bylaws.

"1. Committee Structure -
(a) Unless specifically stated in other parts of these bylaws, committee members shall be appointed by the Committee Chair;
(b) Unless specificed in Article VII (Committees and their Duties), Committee membership shall be open to all Stakeholders, including non-BHNC Stakeholders;"

Article VII, Section 3.1(a) & (b) (c.2017)

In regards to what is "specified," take a look at the Executive Committee (EC) & the Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUC):

Planning & Land Use Committee

Article VII, Section 1.3(b) (c.2018)

"i. The PLUC consists of seven (7) persons, all elected by a simple majority vote of the Board to include: 
ii. The chair; 
iii. Two (2) non-Executive members of the BHNC Board; 
iv. Four (4) non-Board BHNC Stakeholders that have formally communicated their desire to the BHNC to serve on the PLUC and can commit to serving on the PLUC for at-least one (1) year."

Eexcutive Committee

Article VII, Section 1.3(a) (c.2018)

"i. Consists of nine (9) BHNC Board Members: 
1. The six (6) Executive Officers. 
2. Three (3) Non-Executive BHNC Board Members, selected from the thirteen (13) Non-Executive BHNC Board Members and elected by the thirteen (13) Non-Executive Officers, following the selection of the Executive Officers."

As you can see, these are clear and specific.  With the Neighborhood Committee you are also specified, but at a Minimum Requirement.

Article VII, Section 1.3(c) (c.2018)

What we are looking at here are these three sub-sections:
"ii. Consists of, at a minimum, the four (4) Area Officers plus the Chair. No more than five (5) Board Members, including the Chair, may serve on this committee simultaneously. With the exception of the President who acts as ex-officio member of all committees."

but more specifically:

Article VII, Section 1.3(c)(vi) & (vii) (c.2018)

"vi. Non-Board BHNC Stakeholders may be elected or selected to the Neighborhood Committee by a simple majority of the Neighbrhood Committee at an established Neighborhood Committee Meeting. 
vii. Non-BHNC Stakeholders representing other neighborhoods, or other neighborhood interests, may be added upon a majority three (3) vote of the four (4) Area Officers and the Chair."

This clearly sets a specific and clear minimum requirement for Committee membership, and then gives a clear means for adding Non-BHNC Stakeholders (the definition should be clear for this).  It should be noted that this kind of "discrimination" (if it can be called that) is legal.  It is already set up by the City Charter regarding neighborhood councils.  With the default Bylaws having paved the way. i.e "Unless specifically stated in other parts of these bylaws."

So where does that leave the other Standing Committees?  Or the Ad Hoc? 

Well that falls on to Committee Chairs.  Per Article VII, Sec. 3(b) "Unless [specified] in Article VII (Committees and their Duties), Committee membership shall be open to all Stakeholders, including non-BHNC Stakeholders;" BUT per Article VII, Sec. 3(a) "Unless specifically stated in other parts of these bylaws, committee members shall be appointed by the Committee Chair;"  this is done at the Chair's discretion.

So, in theory.  If the Chair only wishes to appoint BHNC Stakeholders to the Committee, then so be it.  We leave this up to the Chair (instead of the Board) under the presumption that "the Chair would know what is best for the Committee," as that person is working directly in what is needed.  Essentially making a range from arbitrary to specific.

Now, what could aid in Transparency for this.  Aid in Clarifying if the committees will allow for Non-BHNC Stakeholders to participate, is in creating a Standing Rule that while does not require the Chair to exclude Non-BHNC Stakeholders.  Requests that they define the method of how they will determine who is appointed, and this could include language that prioritizes BHNC Stakeholders first, and upon the creation of a functional committee, allow for consensus vote as to determine if additional membership is necessary or needed.

[The Chair - Public Access to Information/Minimum Majority] - Title Not Set [5/X]

This post is going to be a little lite.  I am working on the next section(s) of topic and it requires time to prepare.  So what I am going to cover here are Chair specific topics that Committee Members should be aware of.  And the public at large has a right to know.

1. Public Access to [Agendized] Information. - This includes any item that has the potential for discussion at a Committee Level, or Board Level public meeting.

2. Minimum Majority - Also known as "Board Member Participation at Committee Level Meetings."


Public Access to Information

As you may be intuitively aware, ALL information that the Neighborhood Council (NC) deals with falls under the realm of Public Information.  This includes (and check with your Freedom of Information Access lawyer), any document received by the NC, and e-mails dealing with NC matters.

Here though, we are just talking about the documents received.  Specifically, without getting in to the details of, applications.  All applications sent to the City fall under the realm of public information.  This means that every person has the right to request a copy of that application.  You pay a fee downtown (I believe at the City Clerk's office) and you receive a copy.

When an application is submitted and falls under the NC's jurisdiction or is available for them to review (on behalf of the neighborhood's public interest) they receive a copy of this as part of the "City family," at no charge.  Aiding in the Chair's determination of bringing the subject matter to the Committee and then the Board.

This is where things get tricky.

The NC system is not a distribution center.  So while it is technically possible for them to distribute this application information, the legalities of it are questionable.  (There are case studies online about this - no I don't have the links right now, so I will summarize what i remember).  This is the providence of the City of Los Angeles (City Clerk's Office? DCP?).

The NC's themselves while not being a distribution center, become a de-facto public center through their offices, where Community Members can go to to review the application in person. 

The other part of this situation, is that once an item becomes agendized, the NC's are allowed to make these applications available to the public.  [Including online/via their City sanctioned website]. As any document that the NC's are discussing MUST be made available to the public for review.  With at least one physical copy made available at the Committee or Board Meetings. 

These are the rules of the Brown Act.


Minimum Majority

NC membership fluctuates.  This adjusts the maximum amount of Board Members needed for a majority vote.  However, quorum for an NC, is a set number in such a way that it sets a "minimum majority" needed for a affirmative vote.  In the case of the BHNC, this number if 6.  Based on a Quorum of 10 Board Members.

So this is where it gets tricky.

The Brown Act under section 54852.2 and section 54852.6 set limits on how many Board Members can be in congress, speaking on NC issues.

The two specific lines [in section 54852.2] are:
"“meeting” means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, "

and

"The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and noticed meeting of another body of the local agency, or at an open and noticed meeting of a legislative body of another local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled meeting, business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. "

and in section 54852.6 is:

"As used in this chapter, “action taken” means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance."

What this means that for NC's is that their ability to take action can fluctuate between the minimum majority (in this case 6) to a maximum majority (or true majority), in this case 10.  Effecting the Board's ability to "take action." And for Committee Chairs to determine which number is appropriate before Board Participation (including Board Members on the Committee) violates the Brown Act, is to be aware of what is the total number of official Board Members.

It is not against the Brown Act for more then a majority of any kind [of Board Members] to be present during a Committee Meeting.  However, the number will effect if these Board Members can actually make comment of ANY KIND. (While retaining eligibility to partake in Board Meetings.  i.e. vote or be present).

As the Chair does not know how many Board Members will be partaking at the actual Board Meeting.  The best practices for PLUC Chairs is to limit the number of Board Member participation/discussion to 5.  Land Use items are especially sensitive items, and will result in explosive and potentially legal reactions. 

This does not mean that Board Members can't sit in on and quietly listen to gain further information on the project.

[Council File Research/Unresponsive City] - Title Not Set [4/X]

Consider this.  On the last article I mentioned that I had requested information from the BONC, regarding a direct link to download the audio.  If I didn't mention that, that was one of the bits of info I requested.  The BONC representative replied by with a link to the page containing the Agenda, Minutes and Audio Stream.  Not the direct link.

* Note, a BONC representative at the August 7th meeting mentioned that at a previous meeting they had discussed this item as well.  Go look for it.

Here you need to take in to account that different operating systems, and browsers, display information differently.  Including mobile devices.  This means that the person on the other end, may be sending you to a site that from their perspective does in fact contain a downloadable link.  Where as I did not see such a one. (Of course I also have plug-ins and other such simular programs that can do a proper site-rip).

It should also be noted that because of the nature of this information, it is completely legal to use such audio downloading tools to obtain these recordings.  Or use the minor hack that I suggested to obtain the direct link.  These hacks do not fall under the category of security, and the information you are retrieving is public.

And this is the point.  Why you need to learn how to do things on your own to find this information.  When you contact the City, you will need to be specific and blunt.  They are not really all that interested in holding a conversation, other then to save being polite.  And when they don't know what you are looking for exactly, don't understand how to help you, they will pawn you off to a generic response and leave you on your own.

Don't get too upset at them.  They are just staff.

So Continuing on CF 18-0467, as they related to BONC, there are twelve points listed on the agenda that were expanded on via supporting documents.

1. Re-branding the Departments to Clear Up Confusion

2. Clearing Up Confusion on 'Eligible Voter'

3. Ensuring Neighborhood Council Board Members are Elected, no Selected

4. Building Stronger Neighborhood Council Boards

5. Choosing a Voting Age

6. Training for Chairs and Vice Chairs of Planning Committees

7. Allowing Neighborhood Councils to Hold on to Funds

8. Allow Neighborhood Councils to Accept Donations

9. Same Day Elections

10. Allow Neighborhood Councils to Use City Space

11. Share Best Practices with All Neighborhood Councils

12. Develop a Point of Contact between Neighborhood Councils at City Departments.

There are a lot of topics and in June, the BHNC decided/voted to have each Committee hold part of their meeting for addressing each, every, some, or none of these items as it applies to them.

What we are looking at here, is number 6 (From the description): 

Training for Chairs and Vice Chairs of Planning Committees

"This reform would require Chairs and Vice Chairs of Neighborhood Councils planning and land use committees to take a planning and land use training so that they can be informed and empowered to make the best decisions for their communities.

* Reform text: Recommendations and next steps for developing and adopting a planning and land use training required for all Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Neighborhood Council planning and land use committees"

As you can see, the description is very vague, and obviously lacks input.  Well at least, there is no feedback to the community at large on this point.  What we/you need to do is help them develop this, cause remember.  THEY... Are... Just.. STAFF.  They are not experienced on what works or doesn't work.  What you did not get/understand.  And what you need, training wise.  Etc.  So This is the reason behind this series.  

That even if they fail to deliver, or delivery takes a year or two years, you have something to reference.

[Council File Research/Audio Look-up] - Title Not Set [3/X]

Moving on from "the beginning," we have another situation that Committee Members, and Chairs need to use.  Where a Council File (CF) has existed for some time and now you are just catching up.  In this case we will use Council File 18-0467 "Neighborhood Council System Reforms."  The reason why I am writing these articles.

On May 25th of this year, Councilmember Ryu put forth a motion/proposal to address comments recieved. Complaints! They were complaints.  Enough with this polite shit.  I'm not an NC member any more.

People where complaining that things weren't working right in the NC system.  Training for one thing, things like Planning 101 did not prepare Chairs for their role.  Budget stuff, definitions, Community Interest Stakeholder in particular, and etc.  Point is that the motion/proposal is to address and tweek things.  Summarized here: http://empowerla.org/city-council-introduces-proposed-neighborhood-council-reforms/

But what we are specifically looking at in terms of that motions and these articles is "Develop an ongoing compendium of best practices generated from Neighborhood Councils and share those on a periodic basis with all Neighborhood Councils and include "how-to guides" for accomplishing those best practices"


So from here as we investigate this CF, we need a few things.  First off is the "official" history of the file, which you can find using clerk connect.

The summary lists a few things of note such as the date introduced (May 25th, 2018), date of last change (which is the last time the Los Angeles City Clerk has entered a file in to this case "official document."), and which City level Committee it is currently in (Health, Education & NCs - aka HENC).

You will also note that there are two listings of files/documents.  One in the upper right corner and one in the wider "main summary screen."  These two sections contain pretty much the same information but just formatted differently.  You will occasionally see items appear in the upper right section that differ from the main summary window.


Each of these sections are scroll-able to reach the files for download.  However, please note that on some mobile devices it is less than obvious as there may not be a scroll bar (use your finger).

Under the "File Activities" selection, each file is marked by a pdf icon that can be used to access and download the supplemental files.  Meaning not just the CIS, but any document "official" attached to that CIS should be accessible/retrievable here.  Though, it may not.  Some of these files are never submitted to the City Clerk (such as those attached to agendas) and thus do not appear here.

For that... well you have to dive deeper.  Even though this file is listed as being aligned with HENC, doesn't mean that other Committees or NCs haven't taken up these items.  To research that (NCs), look at the CIS's and see which dates did they vote on.  Take a look at their agendas, websites and see if they have audio/video on their meetings.  Check if any documents were submitted.  What comments. ((We are gonna skip that here)).

What we are interested in is what City Departments have weighed in on this.  And you can either do a google search, and skim through all the titles, or think about it.  Obviously, HENC would be holding hearings on this so go search and grab their agenda(s) from (http://cityclerk.lacity.org/councilagenda/ or at https://www.lacity.org/your-government/meeting-audiovideo/council-committee-meeting-audio).  This part takes a while to search through agendas.

But secondly, and more importantly, Councilmember Ryu is "requesting Neighborhood Councils and Neighborhood Council Alliances to provide feedback and /or Community Impact Statements (CISs) to the Health, Education and Neighborhood Councils Committee within 90 days" (ending about August 20th I think), and this would interest the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC).

BONC oversees the NC system, to put it simply, and has been holding meetings on this subject matter.  The last one on August 7th, in Boyle Heights.

The way that I would come across this information, was that some time ago, while on a seperate agenda sign-up page (https://www.lacity.org/your-government/government-information/subscribe-other-meetings-agendas-and-documents/department-commissions-committees-boards) I scrolled to the part where it stated that "Neighborhood Empowerment, Department of" with a place to put a check-mark next to: "Board of Neighborhood Commissioners Agendas"

At this meeting, the BONC was taking public comment as Agenda Item #11, and specifically here I gave comment on the section in reference to 11(f).  "Adopting policies for training of Chairs and Vice-chairs of Neighborhood Council land use committees."

Attached to this Agenda, was information contained on what the BONC has as supporting documents.  Which you cannot find online.  To get that information, you will need to have either been there OR contact your BONC rep, or as listed on their website as Commission@empowerla.org. (I put in request for that information.

Here I will note, that while gathering this information, and before we go further.  I was attempting to gain a copy of the Audio.  The BONC has a website (http://empowerla.org/commission/policies-and-meetings/) where you can download the agenda "packet" and listen to the audio via streaming.  But not exactly download the audio.  For that you will have to do some minor hacking (I'll get to that in a second).

If you are on a desktop, you will see the page divided in to two categories, "Meeting Agenda Packets" and "Meeting Minutes."  These too items may/will appear different on some tablets.  With the Agenda packets being listed first and the Minutes being listed far below in a linear order.


The Minutes them self will not be uploaded until approved and the audio files won't contain a direct download link on most systems I have tried.  Nor will right-clicking work.

 To get the audio link for this file (in this case), or any audio file on this page, you are going to need to view the page source.  Go learn how to do that on a youTube video or something, specifically for the device you are using.  Once in the course do a search for the meeting you are looking for (in this case "August 2018"), and there you will find an mp3 link within a few lines of code. You don't need the whole link file name, just up to .mp3.

and boom: http://empowerla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BoardofNeighborhoodCommissioners080718.MP3

You can now use any number of programs from your browser's default settings to download this.  This is just one way to do research.  And what you want to do, is to gather this info, to work offline. And just listen to what people are saying.

I'll go further in to this council file tomorrow.

[Finding Council File Numbers] - Title Not Set [Part 2/X]

So now that you have the pdf of new motions, in order to track what or where these files go.  What new additionals are made to them.  What public or NC comment has been made, you need a Council File number.

What I have witnessed over the years is that this part is less publicized.  The exchange between new motions to council file gets a bit lost and you can't wait for the announcement of these file numbers.  It usually only takes 1 - 5 days (including weekends) for a new motion to get a file number.

First, there are multiple ways, such as by title, or keyword.  But what I find easiest with new motions is using the date of their introduction.  Take Council File 18-0748, with the title of "State Office of Historic Preservation / 2018-19 Certified Local Government Grant / HistoricPlacesLA" and Dated 08/10/2018.

In the first article, this was included as a new motion for Thursday, August 10th (http://ens.lacity.org/clk/councilmotions/clkcouncilmotions3508123603_08102018.pdf), and as of today (Monday) now has a council file #.

So this is how you/I quickly find/found it/them.

You know from the file that it was introduced on August 10th.  So head over to "Clerk Connect" and in the search bar, enter the date as "08/10/2018"
Clerk Connect: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect

You will get a list of several items introduced to the Clerk Connect/City Council file system.  And here is where you have to know something about the motion(s) you are looking for.  Because what you are wanting to do is to track them by signing up for e-mail notifications on any changes made to the files.

This includes being assigned to specific Committees where public comment will be taking place.  It includes public comment entered in to the case, such as Community Impact Statements (CIS) from other NC's.  It also includes public comment card records.  There are a few other things, but these are what you will mainly see and focus on.

Knowing this helps you judge how much time you have to bring it before your NC or Committee, or make individual public comment, or to notify someone or group that you know of that may be interested in following this topic or weigh in.

Once you click on the Council File link (https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=18-0748), you will get a general overview screen, with links to the pdf motion and any other documents.

As you can see from that screen, the item is listed under "File Activity" as being tentatively scheduled for an August 17th, City Council Hearing, where... Well I do not know yet.  I'd imagine public comment, but whether it will simply be approved by City Council or forwarded to a Committee for review... I do not know.

You can also see that there is a listing for "Council Vote Information."  This will contain a toggle-able list of how Council Members have voted at during the various motions.  There are none listed here as this is a new motion, but if there had been multiple motions made over time, an clickable arrow would allow you to toggle through them.

If you have signed up to receive City Council Agendas, you will get notification/confirmation about 3 days in advanced of the meeting as to if it will be discussed. (Go back to the link in the first article and sign-up for those too).

Here though, you can click on the e-mail link at the top center of the page to receive the e-mail notifications for this Council File. If you are a Chair of a Committee, this is especially important, as you will need to grab information quickly, as those files pile up.  Your e-mail search engine works a lot better at that then coming back to Clerk Connect to re-group.  And you may want to sign-up to receive the supplemental files as well, if you want to follow any changes to the Council File its self.

These files can go on for years, and sometimes Council Files are combined and the file number changes, causing you to lose your place, and wonder why there has not been further notification.  Meanwhile, the issue has been going on under another Council File, and could be close to a determination without your input.

Again, you will receive an e-mail notification.  Confirm it.  And that's about it.  you have now cut out more of that "panic mode" that occurs when someone "didn't tell you about..." something.  Where you are scrambling to find out info before it is "too late."

I am not sure what article/subject I will touch on next.

[City Council Motions] - Title Not Set [Part 1/X]

If you are like me.  You have been going to City Council Meetings for four years now, and have been watching City Council meetings for 30 years on TV.  You also have taken the Planning 101 training, and have well found it lacking (as well as DONE training).

Over the past four years I have compiled a list of quick links and sign-ups that feed in to my needs, reducing the amount of time i spend physically researching any given topic with the City.  What I am endeavoring to do in this "Title Not Set" series is to address the needs that Council File 18-0467 vaguely asks of the NC's.

While I am no longer part of the BHNC, the two years I was on, led me to believe that the axiom of "teach them how to think, not what to think," or in this case research, is necessary.  Because what you will find in the NC system is people or groups, such as the Mayoral initiatives, or DONE, to put forth topics of interest to them.  And while this is totally understandable, it does not however aide in doing research for your own peoples.

What I am covering with this first article is the [introduction of] "City Council Motions."

As I have mentioned, I have been watching Los Angeles City Hall's City Council since I was about 8 years old.  And I wondered about how new motions get introduced.  I eventually found out that they get posted on a Board at City hall, making it kinda difficult to get to read, at 8 - 10 years old.  Even if they are mentioned during normal proceeds, you can't really sit and read them anywhere.

So you go down to City Hall and can't find them.  Turns out, you are told, that they are posted on a board inside Council Chambers.  So you go inside and spend time trying to find this Board that is on the far side of the chambers.  Great! you just spent a fuck-load of wasted time.  And then you find out that you can sign-up online to recieve e-mails about these new motions.  "Great!  ...where?"

"i dunno..." is the typical response, followed by "go to the City's website..."

So here we go.

After each City Council Meeting, and e-mail is sent out by end of day, that contains scanned copies of the new or amending motions made at that council meeting.

This is important, because essentially this is where most Council Files start.  They have no number, and you will likely get lazy responses when you inquire on these topics, but it gives you a heads up on what is coming down the line 3-months, 6- months, 2 years.

DONE will eventually provide you with this information in the form of a weekly legislative report.  However, that report may be focused on your general area, such at the East Side, Beach side, etc.  Having this information raw, lets you decide that if there is something focused on the west-side, or a pilot program taking place in the San Fernando Valley, may interest your community.  Or effect it a year or two down the line.

What you get is pretty simple.  A standardized text message, with a pdf to download.  But this is the mid-end result.  What you need to know is how to get here.  Because if you don't get here.  You are pretty much automatically set back by a week.  These motions do not have a Council File assigned yet, and can take about a week to get one, or assigned to a Committee.

The long way around is to go to www.lacity.org and click on "Meet Your Government," which leads you to https://www.lacity.org/your-government and then scroll down to "Council Votes" and click on the link for "Subscribe to Council Meeting Agenda" and then fill out your name and e-mail address, click on "Council Motions" and hit subscribe.

Or you can just skip all that and go to:

https://www.lacity.org/your-government/council-votes/subscribe-council-meeting-agendas

You'll get a confirmation e-mail and that's about it.  You confirm and from now on you will get periodic e-mail on new or amended City Council Motions, when ever the City Council meets.

It really saves time on getting ahead of any given topic.  And since you are [potentially] already following these topics there is less need to "catch up" at the 11th hour.

So that is how you get the motions.  Next article?  Since there is no Council File yet... How do you keep track.


[Post Script]

Oh yeah.  Almost forgot.  If you click on the "Council Motions" link on the subscribe page, it will take you to the "Early Notification Agenda Table of Contents," which contanis the pdf file its self.
Here's the link: https://ens.lacity.org/ens.cfm?catid=3508

BHN General Board Take [null] Stance of Alcohol Licenses

Last night, the BHNC Board (@ the monthly General Board Meeting) decided to not vote in [Support] of Birrieria de don Boni, or Purgatory Pizza's request for a new Alcohol License, but did not vote to oppose them either.

Birrieria de don Boni, which has existed along the first street corridor next to Mariachi Plaza for the past 45 years, having begun construction on their expansion recently. As part of this they have filed with the the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for a new license.

Purgatory Pizza, which has existed on the Boyle Heights Flats on first street across the street from Mendez High School for the past, approximately ten years, has also filed with the the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for a new license earlier this year.

Due to Birrieria de don Boni, close proximity to multiple alcohol licenses between Boyle and the 5 freeway. There area 7 similar existing licenses within two blocks. It can be considered that that there is an undue concentration of licenses, and compounded by that the census tract they are on may have reached it's limit on licenses.

Dis-similarly, Purgatory Pizza does not face the Census Tract issue, but face an issue regarding "sensitive uses." Within 600 feet, there exists schools, parks, churches, AA meeting locations, as well as the area its self being known as sensitive to alcohol. (The Community on the Flats has been working over the past 30 years to remove alcohol from the area see Council File: 17-0117 the "Alcohol Restrictive Use Sub-district (ARUS)" https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0117 ).

[see previous article for details:https://walkingeastofla.blogspot.com/2018/07/2018-07-12-pluc-meeting-in-review.html ]

What these two have in common, is the need to local support.  This comes in two fronts.  Signatures from the local community them self, showing that they are ok with this.  Or via their representatives in the community, the BHNC.

The BHNC has historically been shown to oppose new licenses, while voting in support if there is a removal of one from the over all community of Boyle Heights.  Yet, one of the situtations for Purgatory Pizza in particular, is that in the past, the BHNC has voted to support the ARUS (8-2-2017 Minutes: http://bhnc.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/8.2.17-BHNC-SPECIAL-MINUTES-General-Board-Meeting.pdf) citing the Flats in particular as a reason for support.

Purgatory Pizza stated that out of the 308 signatures of support collected, 234 were from local residents.  It is unclear if this will be enough evidence to overturn past BHNC recommendations, or the proximity to sensitive use designee.

On the vote, which was unclear as all evening the Council was not properly reading of what the vote count was, was:
For Birrieria de don BoniMotion to Support [...?] (Daisy/Rafael) 
Vote: 0 [yes] - 6 [no] - 4 [abstain]
* There was no further motion taken (WHAT THE FUCK!!)

For Purgatory Pizza
Motion to [support...?] (i don't have who made the motion or seconded, Myra/Daisy?); followed by a "friendly amendment" by Carlos or Vivian?
Vote: 1 [yes] - 6 [no] - 2 [abstain] - 1 [ineligible] (???)
* There was no further motion taken.

So before i go in to what this vote means, let's get in to the oddness of the vote.  

Rafael Chayoga, whom was also voted as new PLUC Chair, was voted on to the Board earlier in the meeting, and may or may not be eligible to vote.  It is required by the City that Board Members have taken the Ethic requirements prior to voting.  It was unclear if he had already, which means that he can comment, etc as a Board Member, but makes any previous vote null and void.  

The BHNC needs to ensure that it has made clear what the vote count was at the meeting, and what the motion was being voted on, and follow through with proper procedure if a change has been made to the motion.

What this means - 
Essentially, what this means is that since the Board has take no position on this item.  As it stands, with Birrieria de don Boni, will face the Zoning Administrator without support from the Council, but without opposition either. It is a null stance. The PLUC Chair, or the designated Board representative can issue the concerns raises at the public hearing or with the City, however, they must also include that they took no position.


With their hearing tenatively scheduled for August 7th - http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MjIwMTIw0

With Purgatory Pizza, however, since their hearing is further (not actually listed as of yet) off and no decision being made. The BHNC can hear this item again, and come to a decision later. Further discussion and consideration and efforts to solidify this position can be made. http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MjIxNDQ10

[[I will Conclude this article with this.  I summarized.  I will be working on a longer version of last night's meeting and issue it later.  Here I was focusing on the hot topic issue.  Later, i will be discussing on the overall meeting.]]

[2018]/ 07-12 PLUC Meeting in Review

[Well, here we go. It has been a while since I have kept you up to date this way. My previous duties as a BHNC Board Member have not allowed for me to make proper commentary on these matters.]

"Neighborhood Council Board Member Oath

I pledge to represent my neighborhood with dignity, integrity, and pride.

I will encourage other points of view, even when they differ from my own.

I will respect, value, and consider everyone's opinion.

I will find the good in my neighborhood, and praise it and promote it.

To my neighbors, and to neighborhoods throughout the City of Los Angeles,

I pledge to do this to the best of my ability."

While the two main topics at last night's BHNC PLUC meeting were regarding Zoning issues on Conditional Use Permits (CUB's) for Purgatory Pizza (ZA-2018-3099-CUB) and Birrieria de don Boni (ZA-2018-1893-CUB). The main event was BHNC President Daisy Chavez, acting at Ex-Officio (chairing the meeting), over stepping her bounds of authority by having a heated/passionate scolding of the Purgatory Pizza applicants.

Under Rosenberg's Rules of Order (c2013), the primary parliamentary authority for the BHNC and default for Committees, the chair should know and apply the rules, while play a less active role in the debate and discussion then the other members of the body. 

Over use of the Chair's position to speak to a subject, in a setting with a limited time frame, can be used to quell any decent or objections with out serious debate. Further attempting to silence Committee members in this fashion do not and does not build an inclusive fashion or state.

Objections to this abuse of time can and should come from Committee members and if not from the Community Stakeholders themselves. As the text its self states: "For all intents and purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action. In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself."

It is further discussed in Rosenberg's Rules of Order that the purpose of the

meeting is to: "...create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum."

Ranting about one's personal position, or offense, as a Chair may be a eye turner. It is however lends to argument over discussion and fails at maintaining common courtesy. And while members of a Body, may be allowed to have spats of neglect. It falls on the Chair to hold and maintain special control over the meeting. 

It also further risks violations of Oaths of Office that I shall not address at this time, and subjects to Code of Conduct. 

Falling back to the meeting's subject matter's them self. The attendance was up from the previous PLUC meeting. Topping out at approximately 12 Community Members, 4 BHNC Board Members (Jose Pelico, Carlos Montes, Veronica Polanco & Dina Cruz). Of the PLUC Members, Drew Brauer, Tiffany Lam & Vivian Escalante were present, with Daisy Chavez acting as Ex-Officio/Chair to make Quorum.

Note: The total number of BHNC Board Members present was 6, meeting the "minimum majority," but not the number need for being in violation of the Brown Act.

Public Comment was given in regards to a request for the Committee to follow up with the City on the BHNC's decision to oppose the KIPP Charter School at the Former Lincoln Hospital on Soto St. And a Statement/Request on the block surrounding Purgatory Pizza's "red zone." (aka no parking due near the facility due to the curb being marked "red).

No Gov't official was present to give comment/presentation. Previously, Jovenes Inc had expressed interest in presenting before the Committee on a housing project that is being developed on the eastern side of BH.

In regard to the Purgatory Pizza presentation, they have collected approximately 182 signatures in support of the Beer and Wine license, 63 of which were from the area around the Flat's. In regards to concerns about their parking lots (on safety), they mentioned that they are working on a way so that cars could enter on first street and exit on Utah.

Other concerns from the Community/Committee raised, were if they had reached out to local community organizations which are known to oppose alcohol license, the issuance of a new license versus a transfer, the lack of outreach in Spanish (showing a disconnect with the adjacent community) and that fact that the location is right across from the school.

To address the school issue, Purgatory Pizza pointed to the entrance of the school being three blocks away with students not passing by his establishment. A boldfaced lie. While the google maps search will point the location mentioned, the school has a entrance exit to first street "right across the street" from the pizza shop.

As I mentioned at the meeting, because this location is adjacent to multiple sensitive use sites, the Zoning Administrator is going to be looking at two specific things in it's determination. Signatures showing community support, and Neighborhood Council support. Because the Flats are well known for it's history of alcohol abuse, and the community's fight against it, they are also likely to raise the 600 foot radius for community input to 1000 feet, and request or at least look for over 100 signatures.

In order for Purgatory Pizza to gain support from the BHNC, for a new alcohol license, they are likely going to have to show that there is a significant shift in the community of the Flats for the Zone Change/New License.

Vote info

Motion 1: [Daisy/Vivian] to Table the item until August.

Vote: 0 [abstentions] – 2 [yes] – 3 [no], the motion failed.

And just to clarify something:

Sorry Purgatory Pizza dude. You got that part fucken wrong! Don't be getting petty yourself bro. 

*part of the Chair/Purgatory Pizza (an Echo ParkNC member) argument was over whether motion should be one to table or to postpone.

Motion 2: [Drew/Peter] to Support w/conditions (further outreach to the local community, including in Spanish, and adjustment of the hours of sales).

*I didn't write down the specifics of the conditions properly.

Vote: 0 [abstentions] – 3 [yes] – 2 [no], the motion passed.

Birrieria de don Boni – The situation with don Boni, is a little different. It exists on a portion of first street divided by two census tracts, tracts 2035.00 & 2060.32. Between this 2 – 3 block section, you have a total of 7 On-Sale Alcohol Licenses that are currently active, with 2 (Eastside Luv & Palomas) on the tract that don Boni is on (ct2035.00).

You have two levels on concentration here, proximity (7 existing On-Sale Alcohol Licenses) & population density. 

"You" cannot have more then one [1] alcohol license per ever 1,500 people on a census tract. Census tract 2035.00 (as of 2016) has a population density of 3,065. Essentially, meaning that it has maxed out. The difference here, as opposed to Purgatory Pizza or other places requesting new licenses, is that Birrieria de don Boni, is a well established fixture within the Community, having been around for ~45 years now. It is well known that they don't have a alcohol license and many have wondered as to why (citing the expansion as the reason). And of the locations in this area, it is seen as the most deserving, yet due to the over concentration, unlikely approval.

Some of the concerns raised for this location were primarily in regards to the parking. The on-site parking is accessed via a back alley, not a street and may raise further concern as to general safety issues, as well as inebriated driving.

*note: time spent on this item was rushed do to aforementioned rant/scolding by Chair.

And while this is the case the Committee voted in Support

Vote Info

Motion [Peter/Daisy]: to Support, pending further outreach

Vote: 0 [abstentions] – 4 [yes] – 0 [no], the motion passed.

One of the things I would like to address at the end of this is that, while it is primarily the Conditional Use Permit/Alcohol License being sought here. The Committee and the Board are free to address any and all issues related to this request. It is up to those knowledgeable with the City rules, to bridge that gap with the knowledge of those in the Community. There is no one-size fits all situations Peter.

Both Purgatory Pizza & Birrieria de don Boni are tentatively scheduled for Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action for the July 25th, BHNC General Board Meeting @ the Boyle Heights City Hall.

[a last note.  As for the research I did on this subject matter.  Aside from my own contemplation in personal opinions, my research on both subjects was under an hour before the meeting started.]

Returning

At last night's BHNC General Board Meeting I announced that it would be my last Board Meeting. I posted this on Facebook this morning (typos corrected in brackets). More to come later.


"Morning all,

Last night was my last BHNC Board meeting. And while I have yet to put in my official resignation, I did verbally notify the Board of my intent that I will no longer be a Board Member. I will retain the title as a Board Member until I submit the [written] notification, and assist where I can until such time, which will be Monday (July 2nd).

I am, however, no longer the Planning & Land Use Committee Chair. My term for that was one year and it is over now. The BHNC has not selected a new Chair, and it is my understanding that the President or Vice President can act as Ex-Oficio to manage that Committee. Also, thanks to our newly approved Bylaws the PLUC membership can/does remain intact, as long as its members wish to remain.

I also provided the Board with a draft for the July PLUC agenda, so that they may continue with those as minimal [interruption]. And am making myself [available] should the Board need assistance with that.

I will also [b]e making adjustments to my facebook page and moving away from regularly posting there and reviving my blogspot "Walking East of L.A." which covers info and events that occur on this side of the river and effecting Boyle Heights.

I will also be taking a more proactive role on my youTube Channels "Boyle Heights Transparency" and "Thirteen Falls," which work to address failures in mainstream media information. [Including] raw and edited data of events, respectively.

I will also be placing data into archives and doing data purges of my devices over the next few weeks.

These things I have had to put aside for the most part over the last two years as I was bound by an oath of office that prevented me from providing commentary that could be seen as biased, unbalanced, hyper-critical, or insulting.

I will still be around to provide information and advice on data that I have accumulated over the past four or five years and you have my contact info."