Good evening everyone. And it's like the call is very robust meaning to order. Madam Clerk, may you please call the roll? Certainly. Mayor Ramos Herbert. President. Council Member Lopez. Yes. Council Member Tarantino. Here. Council Member Peters. Here. Council Member Asa Royay. Here. Council Member Ken. Here. And Council Member Stern. Here. Thank you so much. Did you need me a welcome to the May regular legislative meeting? I'll put a little bit so much. Good evening and welcome to the May regular legislative meeting. Bumped up a little bit this month, but still as exciting as always. I'm pursuing to our charter. I'm going to read a statement with respect to, well, I'll just read it. On May 10, 2025, former Mayor Vincent Rippa, who served as Mayor of New Rochelle from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1979 passed away. In honor of the life and leadership of Mayor Ripa, I'm pursuing to chapter 151-3, capital D, number one, little A of the New Rochelle City Code. The City of New Rochelle Flag will be flown at half staff for one week, beginning May 12, 2025 until May 19, 2025. The City of New Yorkshire's flag calendar adopted by this council on February 18, 2025 calls for the flying of the Republic of Haiti flag from 5 p.m. on May 15 through 5 p.m. on May 22. The Republic of Haiti flag will fly on the flag pole that traditionally flies the city flag. When flying other country flags, it's been the practice of the city to remove the flag entirely. In order to continue flying the city flag at half-mast in honor of May, Europa, the city flag will be moved to the flag pole on the Hamilton Avenue side until May 19th. Many thanks to our staff for helping us work the nuances as we honor our history and our culture in our city. Moving on, we have a few things on the agenda for this evening. Items 1 through 11 are all items that were previously moved and seconded to the consensus agenda. Are there any questions about items 1 through 11? Hearing none, may I please have a motion and a second to adopt items 1 through 11, K and Aishin Loye. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Moving on to item number 12. One second is to treat myself here. Who's going to chat with us today? Commissioner Gazzola, W. Commissioner Neil Reynolds. A request for Fort Forfeiture of Fund for IT hardware. Hi. Good evening. So we need to update the hardware as other platform computers. They cannot operate Windows, update some Windows, and that creates an issue with security across. So it's unexpected expenditure, so I'm looking to use sportswear. Any questions or comments on item number 12? What are you doing with the old hardware? Bobby? I think it'll be disposed of. Everything is minimum six years old. And one support. Could it be refurbished and donated? We can take a peek into it. Please believe the stuff we have is so far home. Please. It's a meeting. That was it. OK. Any other questions or comments on item number 12? Before they leave, I just wanted, this morning was a really nice program. So I just wanted to commend the commission or a deputy commissioner for the annual police memorial and award ceremony. It's of course always good to remember all of our officers who passed away in the line of service, but it's really nice to hear some of the stories that don't make the news and really see the community and the kids and the parents and civilians. So thank you for, I know it's a lot of work. We appreciate the average. Of course, thank you. I know further. that don't make the news and really see the community and the kids and the parents and the civilians. So thank you for, I know it's a lot of work, we appreciate the average. Thank you. I know further questions may have been motioned in a second to adopt item number 12. Lopez and Kay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you both so much. Moving on to item number 13, which is a proposed amendment as your deputy city manager, to the 2025 Capital Budget Deputy City Manager. Team up. number 13, which is a proposed amendment as your deputy city manager, coming to the table to the 2025 capital budget deputy city manager. So this is another one of our cleanups looking at, we've been working on the project link schedule which is a look at through our audit. We found a number of old projects that were holding cash that we are moving around or just putting back into our bank account. We are also killing some projects that were not needed and also realizing scope of projects and just some locations coming down on your projects. Just really a clean up that we've been trying to continually do. Thank you. Questions or comments on item number 13? Hearing none, may I have a motion to end a second to adopt the amendment to the 2025 budget? Okay, and Stern, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you so much to be the same manager. Moving on to item number 14, which is a proposed, I think Commissioner Ritter, this is your item. Propose the amendment to the city charter into number two regarding change of the taxable sense. This was subject of a public hearing last week. I see our assessors well. I don't have any questions, anything you wanna add? So item 14. No, no. Shake the point. Questions or comments? My colleagues at the table? Okay. I have a motion then a second to adopt. Item number 14. Lopez and Stern, on favor say aye. All right. Any opposed? Sorry for the walk. Thank you. Great. Moving on to, okay. These are fun. So stay with me, friends. Item 15 is a vote this evening proposing lead agency status regarding thank you commission revaca regarding proposed amendment to chapter 331 of the zoning code regarding massage establishments. 16 introduces the ordinance and 17 sets the public hearing. We only vote on 15 and 16. Oh no, 15 and 17. Even though 18 and 19 are also released this same topic, please talk to us about this. We had some issues with respects to some of my slides established ones. We took great care of him to try to change the provisions of the code to have a better level of oversight prior to these establishments opening. The existing established winds that are already open will go through a licensing process, similar to cabaret. And the ones that have that open yet, we'll go through a planning board process. But this required information that has to be submitted from the planning board, and then the special permit. We need edits to every commercial district that we have to make this a planning board, site plan approval, respectable, sorry, special permit process for these type of uses. I caught it. I don't know why. So 15, 16, and 17 are relating to zoning ordinances. 18 and 19 is the local law. That's like the bifurcation of all of these items. So part of this is to change the code, the zoning ordinance for the special permitting. And phase two is the licensing of existing established. Okay. Understood. Let's, we have to vote on 15 and 15, 16, 17 is the triplet. We vote on 15 and 17 this evening. So any questions or comments on 15, 16 or 17? Councilmember K. I just want to say thank you. I talked about this some time ago. It's been a while. It's been a while. I'm really glad that you were able to do this. Any other questions or comments on this item? 15, 16, 17, Councilmember Stern. Can you just explain the different, the thinking behind moving into a special permit, like what, what, just kind of a elaboration of differences. Sure. So, typically if you wanted to propose one of these establishments, it's a B occupancy. You would file an application with us. We would vet the application zoning lines wise. We would vet it, doping code wise. And we'd issue a permit. We've had some issues with some of these looking, some of the establishments. And we decided to tighten it up and make a special permit process. It'll be just another level of review prior to getting that permit, which I think is warranted and required. So what's different about the special permit process that's the additional review? The public will have a chance to opine on these applications. They'll have to give us a little more information. We'll limit their hours of operation. And it'll be a planning hearing. Instead of just a ministerial act by one of the planning exammers. If you've been following the news in the Tri-State area, this is becoming an issue all over the place. Not just here, as far as up is Woodbury. I read an article this week, which is at the beginning of Route 17. Edithson, New Jersey. I just wrote an article online. Got some issues there. So in order to protect our citizens, the folks that work in these establishments, I think it would be better to be a type of special permit process. I remember, Kate. Who would you be able to result the license if you find illegal activity happening on the premises? Yes. We will be hearing but we can revoke the license if you find a legal activity happening on the premises. Yes. It would be hearing, but we can revoke the license. That's another... That's the whole process of the license. Yeah. Comments, Karen Tugou. Yeah. You know, we've just been ongoing problem obvious that we've talked about this many times in downtown and other areas. And you know, in recent years, so we've closed down quite a few places that were operating correct. Yes, yes. And you know, one of the things that was the concern was is that the process to close them down sometimes is a long process. With these changes that we're making. Will it expedite the... I think it'll be a more straight forward process. Now that we have a licensing component, it written into the licensing part of this code. There's we can have a hearing. If they're found to be doing illegal activity at that location we can provoke their license. Okay, and that would then ultimately just shut them down at that point. Yes. Okay, because of the past and- Well, we'd have to have the hearing first to do process and then- Right. Because in the past what has happened and we've had places that we're getting numerous complaints about, it took a while to be able to close them down and it gave the appearance that we were working on. We didn't have any teeth in them to rectify these problems. And there were in some areas that you really, you don't want them anywhere, but there were, in areas that were, you know, a lot of children walking by and things of that sort, so it was a little concerning. So look, I'd like to tell you folks that every one of these places was properly licensed or from a soft therapy or acupuncture, but they weren't. And I'd like to tell you folks that there was a prostitution going on in some of these places, but there was. So these are the administrative components that I can think of to try to make this a better place for our population. Councillor Monepider. In terms of licensing, is this in any way connected to the state in any way? So yes, Councillor. Any person that puts hands on another person for a massage, they either have to be a licensed massage therapist or they need to be a licensed acupuncturist. know know, there are, we still have some ongoing things going on with other agencies, with respect to some of the locations that we visited. We did find one license in four locations. So we reported that to the Department of State and they're doing to and their thing. That's all I can really say about that. Thank you. So item number, come for sure. I said one particularly question. This is section 18, item 16. Can you skip the packet number? Yeah, page 58. And I'm looking at number four, whereas if an owner, proprietor, manager, operator, or employee of a massage, actually has some message, establishment engages in illegal activity and conjunction with the establishment to use the special permit, shall be for it. Just reading that it feels a bit broad. I mean, I understand the intention of it. I'm just wondering if you're using may instead of shall or. Well, the owner, the manager, and the employees, if you are a licensed massage therapist, you know what you're supposed to be doing and what you can't do. So, we wanted this to actually have teeth, and we don't want to go through this exercise again. We will probably have to go through it again at some point. But I'd like to spend a minimal amount of time on this because this is taking out a life of its own. You know, we had folks just come in and open up places that were not legitimate in any way whatsoever. I saw a hole in the system, but I gotta try and close that hole. No, I understand that. And I think what I'm just a little concerned about is the phrase illegal activity being broad enough that and combined with the special perfect shall be forfeited. I could see opportunities for abuse or a means of closing a place down that we've for comparatively minor things that aren't related to the intent of this legislation. Obviously trying to prevent prostitution, trafficking, et cetera. If there's like a's like a noise violation or something, you know, obviously that's not good, but may, you know, remove that special permit gives a certain amount of flexibility. So, okay, so I suppose we could, I can review that with cooperation council. Yeah. Let's see if it requires any editing. Our intent was what you just said, if there was that kind of activity and we have a hearing, we're going to have a hearing, we'll be a hearing officer, and we'll make that determination. I would find it a little hard press to close a facility based on a noise violation. But the other stuff, we just don't need that in our car city. So if it's revoked, there's a hearing. It's on an automatic navigation of the permit. So they have to show evidence. We'll have the hearing and then the special permit will get revoked and the license will get revoked. Because even if it's an existing location, the new ones will have to get a special permit, but they'll also have to follow for that license. So it's a two-pronged process. And the existing ones... I can't force them to go for a special permit, because they're already in operation. They're legally operating. But we can do the licensing portion, which also has a bit of teeth behind it. I just want to reiterate what Matt said. I think the broid interpretation can be a complicated subject to riding a bicycle that can emerge depending upon circumstances situations. Although I understand the intent, some glad you're indicating that you'd like to confer with counsel. So what I'm hearing you say is that there's a planning board process for this now in addition to when there win there is a violation there will be a hearing in the way she tries to do several steps included in this in order to come to a final determination. Yes, that's the that's the intent. Thank you. Thank you. I guess my other question is the word shall only because I Is that conforming to your practice? Like of municipalities of you, shall as opposed to me. I just I mean I don't know. Okay. Other way to suppose have this exact. Yeah. Here this was by us but most of this stuff has you know iterations of other. Yeah. We just curious about this again as Paul was saying, you know, there is a hearing process and I think the key word for me is illegal. Yeah, so it's really defining the use as opposed to what they write, as opposed to a general violation. I'm only worried about weakening it. I kind of wanted to be as stringent as possible and this could just be a pure bias, gender bias thing on it. But I'm worried about making it easy to get to stay open. We know that they should be closed, like full stop. So one of the issues that the PV will run into is if they try to go after somebody for prostitution and usually gets knocked down to something else and then it becomes a violation. So we got to treat this as a case by case basis. So with that in mind, the people are like, oh, well, you know, that was not down to this. And why am I being closed? And then we're going to perpetuate the same cycle that we're trying to eliminate. Yeah. And this is because I'm not a lawyer, but you're saying violation doesn't meet the bar of illegal activity. Is that what you're saying? when you say no, your example is a noise violation. And now in it, I'll legal activity. Proceed. and meet the bar of illegal activity? Is that what you're saying? Well, when you say no, your example is a noise violation. Yeah. And illegal activity. Correct. So that's illegal activity. Right. We have our code regulations. And if it's a violation of the noise ordinance, that's not a crime to the violation of an ordinance. It's not going to be penal law, illegal, say, for yes. What's going around the table and I feel that, you know, for the things you don't want to do is weaken what Paul is attempting to do here. And, you know, I know Paul's being very careful what he says here and how he says it and I understand it, we're on TV, but this problem is quite serious in their show. I mean, the level, and I know some of the places that we've had that we complained to Paul about and waited for quite a bit of time before they were finally taking care of. You were seeing cars pulling up in front of these places at 5 a.m. in the morning, 4 a.m. in the morning where people sitting in cars waiting for them to open up to go into the Yusuf Paul spa. I mean it was obvious obvious that these were, you know, this prostitution going on in these places. And, you know, we're talking about rebuilding our city and making this great place out of it. Well, you're not gonna do it with that kind of thing going on in downtown and in another area. So I think that, you know, whatever we do, we have to make sure that we don't weaken their ability to control this because the other laws you know let the prosecution law really doesn't close them down all it does is slap them on the hand and tell them don't do this you know we need something from the city side that you know yeah you can get slapped on the hand in the hand on the courts, but we're going to shut you down. We're going to close your location down. And that stops the problem from spreading. The licensing issue is big. We can use that, and we have used it. We also need inroads, and I can call it in inward, but we made connections with the office of professions. We turned over some information to them, and they were doing their thing. So, um, let me turn back to standing here and turn from the state. Of course, I'm a bit of a superficial license. I was doing a reason for my question around that to my degree. Interesting. in terms of the state. That was a bit of a superficial license. That was the reason for my question around that, to what degree is the process embedded in the state regulations in law for people to not be to conform with the license? But what I'm here, you say, is that in terms of the city, and what I'm here in my councilman to say all of them was seeking the kind of process that's a deterrent to the kind of behavior that we're describing. We're attempting to stay inside the box and think outside the box so we can try to quell the illegal activity. Yep, governmentally. Sorry, I'm sure it's the, you know, most of the time you fight these, I would only be guessing whether I'm assuming most of the time you've had these interactions, the person that owns the business and the individual massage therapists, quote unquote, are acting in collusion. But what about scenarios where like the business owner, the general business is actually on the up and up on one particular or maybe two particular massage therapists come in and do their own side business. Is there space for that to get to the person that's actually the bad actor? So the manager or the owner of the business, first of all those massage therapists, you have to have their own right? But the owner or the manager of that premise has to keep control of his premise for her premise. And if they can control their employees, well, that's their issue. So tonight before us is a vote on proposed lead agency status. Item number 15. We're going to propose amendments to chapter 331 of the zoning code massage establishment. I have a motion in a second. That's a weekly status K and Lopez on favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. 16 is the introduction of the amendment. 17 is the proposed public hearing regarding the proposed amendments to chapter 331 of the zoning co-ed massage establishments public hearing will be set for Tuesday June 10th and motion in a second to designate the public hearing please. K and Lopez all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to item number 18, same topic, different jurisdiction if you will. This is related to local law. 18 is the introduction of the amendment, or the proposed law, and 19 is the resolution directing of public hearing. Do you have anything to add to Khrushchevaka? I may have covered a lot. I don't know, but if you have any questions. Yeah, of course, of course. Any questions for my colleagues on item number 18 that proposed local law council members started? I want to ask about penalties. Because these are being, the penalties are currently directed towards any person violating this chapter. What page are you wanting to pack it? On page 79. And I guess I'm wondering about instances of human trafficking and prosecution and who has held it accountable in those and earlier in I think section seven, it lists all the people who are eligible to be on the premise, like the owner of, you know, whether it's a corporation or an individual. And I'm wondering if we can be more precise in who penalized or, you know, receives a fine. the fine so that we are not potentially imprisoning or finding victims of human trafficking. Okay. So we will look into that as well. I'm going to tear it to that because I think that we're clouding the line between place enforcement, the courts, and the building department. Building departments job is to make sure these places, if they're doing things illegally or shut down. I think the issue about the human trafficking and things of that sort are the courts determination that decide whether or not they're willing to use source sue. That is way outside my scope or purview. Human trafficking. Now I just want to make it clear that there's a very distinct line between those two. That would be the way it's just a kind of DA's office and or end or the Department of Homeland Security. So who would be the conjunction with DHS or the DA's office to go after those type of crimes? That is not a DLP issue. Well, if Pratt that's tricky not to jump ahead. Councilmember Cerny is that the language here says the police department and buildings department are charged with enforcement. So if you're in charge with enforcement, are you the one issuing the fines? No. No? The fines would have to go through the court system. Those are the maximum fines and minimum fines You will receive a court, but I, I, yeah. Yeah. I would find it hard press to actually get those numbers. Upon conversion. I'm found. Those are the maximum fines and minimum fines you will receive in court, but I, I, yeah, I refined it hard press to actually get those numbers. I think, I think, um, I think, um, I think he's talking about the distinction. I think that's part of the complexity of all this, right? So certainly there's a straight line between our, our, um, different departments relationship to what they can do and will do and will be involved in. The issue that emerges in the conversation, for me, when I think about this, since we're getting interested a bit around, and we're trying to keep it in the light, is that people become their victims that are perhaps emerging in some of these circumstances that we think might happen. So we don't want to, and I think that's why we're kind of getting into some of these details around it. We don't want to forget that. I think it's not the other side of this too, just to be that our example. So I know you didn't mean anything by it, but when we started, think about the emerging circumstances and situations socially that happened for people, and people's desire to take care families and other things. And when we mention Homeland Security, as you didn't mean anything by it, but it's important that we don't, this is part of what can happen, right? That we don't think about these organizations. And because when we think about some of these organizations, it also draws a direct line to who these people might be. And that's the broadness of what can happen with this. So I agree with what my colleagues are saying, and at the same time, I think that we need to create some sense of education, music, and around this, for our partners and the likes. So that is not just a straight act associated with some sort of sense of what's going on, because once it hits the courts or hits other places, you know, just place the regulation or anything on those lines, it can really impact a whole, many, many different people. So I'm not trying to, well I'm not going to promise what I'm saying, is that I think this is a, this is an issue that on the face of it we need to fix and at the same time on the face of it we need to have some clarity on which we're really asking to support. Just, um, yeah, I'm sure it's all it and then I think, Councilmember Sonai interrupted you, so I want to make sure you finish and then, K, the you just sort of talk about the enforcement. So when our office is going to the salaries, it's like this, and then they have the women who work there, except if we just return to office, also have someone available. And they do look at human trafficking. any it, as a matter of fact, we have conducted a couple of different operations at the end of last year, with part of a human trafficking task force within the district department. And the idea is to sort of call out the people who made the victims of human trafficking as opposed to the people who are propping from that. So that's what has really looked at it, that's what this retarding is for all this. And I appreciate that you are thoughtful and coordinating that appropriately. I just want to make sure that the language of our ordinance kind of reflects that same care for the victims. and this is purely potentially me just not understanding exactly where this fits in our different tools that we have but what you had mentioned John was that only after conviction being guilty of misdemeanor then your subject're subject to that fine. Still page 79? In prison. Yeah, once in a minute. And in prison, is that a building violation? I mean, that sounds like what we're talking about, is a criminal violation. Well, this is in the licensing procedure. Well, in offense to the licensing procedure, we could bring a court appearance and then they would be held up to the courts to determine the fine. Typically any arrest, any violation that's committed has to go through, it gets adjudicated through the court. You wouldn't define, yes, but the fine is an use bios, it's a genetic aid through the court. You wouldn't, the fine, you know, the fine is a good use by us as a jury to get through the court. So, thanks. I'm sorry, I think one, it's K and then Luke has him back to your genome, it's during his time. Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's any disagreement that we want to avoid analyzing, you know, people are being trafficked for, you know, I just want to make sure that totally understands what the legislation is being imposed and that we are making the language that both gives you the flexibility to enforce the law but in a way that doesn't unintentionally So you can track these up. These are excellent. Much too. Yeah, that's all right. It's a good source. Just like. unintentionally entrapped. You know, those dangerous traps. These are maximum. Much too. Yeah, that already is a court. So it's just like, you say, pet waste in this office. It says up to the $200.5. Yeah. It's the courts in the scar. I don't know if I understand that. That's correct. Council Member Kaye, then Lupus, back to Tunjian. One additional thought is is I've seen in other cities where they've posted flyers up in like airports or hotels that provide resources that if you've been a traffic king here to contact. Could we require that as part of the licensing or special permit that they have to pose to sign like that in the work area? I hope so, why we couldn't. It's great. Do you have a photograph or maybe we can try and find a little bit at the time, but I imagine. I think it's a Florida. It's common. Well see what we can find. Thank you. Councilmember Logan. No, I just wanted to say that it is my understanding that the police department plays a very, very important role here. And even when it comes to trafficking, you are very, very, you know, purple and making sure that it goes to the proper channels. It also when it comes to children's, to, you know, to the Department of Social Services, yeah, making sure that the victim gets the help that they need. So that I have known that they have been very, very strong. Very strong advocates. Thank you. Council Member Jarek Tena? Yeah, no, I just want to go back to the legislation. I think that, you know, we're, and I understand the concern about, you know, the issues with what's going on all over the world really. But I think that what we need to clear up in our minds is that the legislation is there, not to put anybody in jail, not to do any of those things, but please, if they see something as wrong they have to decide what they want to do, the attorney's office decide what they want to do. But I think that what Paul's bringing forward to us is a tool to shut the places down so it can't continue. So the person that might be, you know, being dealing with human trafficking, this will eliminate them from operating an operation that allowed that. So I think the legislation has to stand on its own. It's not about arrest, it's not about putting people in jail or homeland security. It's not about any of that. It's just about the ability of the building department to have a tool to close the place down so they can't continue doing what they're doing. But I would argue it does that and it creates clear penalties including jail, jail time and fines and so on. Not agree about that. But you're not saying anybody in jail. It doesn't necessarily. For operating, you're going to pull their license. He can't put anybody in. Well, not prison, but it does actually say $2,500 or 15 days in prison, or both. That's entitled to help spaces to judge. And again, just so we're clear, we're not. Sorry. No, no, no, no. You're saying. We're not against the legislation and the spirit of the legislation but throughout the history of this entire country including in Neuroshell we have seen legislation have a disparate impact on specific populations so we want to make sure that we're not contributing to that long legacy of impacting those populations negatively, even as we address this duly overdue issue that we're finally addressing, and I'm glad that we're doing it. So we're going to walk through and have the questions about the $2,500 fines and the 15 days of imprisonment because that could impact somebody's lives very disparately than the lives that we're leading. So yes, we need to walk through this. To answer your question, I don't have the ability to assess the fights or assess the imprisonment. Only a judge can do that. If we get to that stage, But if we had a repeat offender that did this five, six, seven, eight times, well then they should be fine and they might do some gel time. I find that a little hard-pressed, but who knows. I think the nuance is the person being trafficked as opposed to maybe the owner of the establishment, right? And making sure that whatever legislation we bring to the table doesn't disproportionately impact someone who's being trafficked. That's how reading the subtext of some of my colleagues goes, so yeah, 100% shut them all down. We all live here. We all are raising our families, have our families here, 100%. But just being hyper mindful of how this would shake out, I think, is so the spirit of where you're going to and how with that sort of impact, the only establishment versus someone who's maybe being who's a victim of human trafficking, and we've just set the foundation for jail time or penalties, that would have a disparate impact on them. I don't think spirit and the intent is to go after the folks that are operating in these facilities. Look, the first one of these, where there was real enforcement, was at the Cape only. Okay? DHS rolled into town, coordinated with our local PD, and then they got the OB involved. They were investigating this for quite some time that location. And they ended up seizing millions of dollars in assets and the guy owned more than a few spas in the tri-state area. So I mean it took a while but they did their thing and that has nothing to do with me. I went and found all the building code violations. Mm-hmm. Good. Um, you see eyes have done a tremendous amount of time. No, I think the human traffic element is worth, but probably going to be determined until after the process starts, right? So this is the first arrest or identification of the legal activity of that person goes through the process. I don't think the human traffic and elements identify that. There may not even be an arrest at that point. It's starting to get us to hate a situation. Right. So it's kind of subsequent. But I think this is a starting point, right? To fully activity be identified. And I think the human traffic elements are real, but I don't think it gets identified until after it goes through a clinical process. So I just have kind of information gathering questions because I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with the criminal justice system. So you mentioned a judge obviously they're the ones who kind of pose fines and gel time. Are they looking at this legislation when they, you know, what they use to determine what their options are? Obviously, I'm sure they might also be looking at state legislation or other things. Well, they'd be looking at our local code. If we wrote a court appearance ticket for these infractions, they could assess what they feel is necessary. It's...I would find it very, very difficult to get a $2,500 fine for an offense here. And the best of my knowledge and belief, no one has gone to jail on a building code violation in quite some time. We did have somebody go to jail on a contempt charge because he said, told the judge, I will never remove these sheds. And I don't care what you do. And the judge, the judge put them in jail for I think 45 minutes. You should have bought this story time, we love it. Go to it. For the next time. Not removing shots. And then, telling the... I think 45. We should have bought this during time we love it. Go take it. For the next time. For the next time. For the next time. For the next time. Not removing shadows. And then telling the judge, I will never remove that. And then she said, no, he said, I hold the, no. She said, I will get you a contempt. And the veil of took a moment like so. That's how to be easy. One possibility for a there and again, and purely just to start this conversation, I want to make it, you know, gel with the law. Right now this says on page 80, section B, on failing to comply with such an order. The person so ordered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, et cetera. I'm just wondering if we can be more specific and say something to the effect of the owner or manager or permit holder, you know, like some of these people who are clearly responsible for the business and provide some flexibility. So you want me to look into that paragraph? Yeah. And maybe I licensee. Because again, my concern, my only concern really is that you have somebody that comes in and wants to hustle like a licensee, and they want to catch up. And to catch up, they open up their book and business to other services as opposed to the to the business owner that. I mean we could say the business owner you need to control your employees but all if you have employees and I'm sure you understand that you can't control every action that they have all the time. But so maybe we're looking at the licensees as well and just creating all of that delineation in our language is to be very clear. Okay, onerous operating analysis. We will review that paragraph with the corporate accounts as well. And we could probably be comfortable with passing it with any amendment we would need to thank you. Well, we're only setting the public hearing seating, right? Which is for June 10th, which means it wouldn't even get back to us for a vote until the week after the public hearing. So we, the staff, the staff has had to review any knowledge about it. So can we still set the public hearing if we have to do? If you're going to have changes to, if you haven't had to, you haven't had to change for the, so we're just holding it. I mean, it's up to the council if you want to make those changes then we're going to hold it. Thank you very much. I just want to make those changes then we're going to hold on. So would we also hold on? I'm shifting. Right the zoning of an incident. Is there overlap in the delineation that you're expecting? Well, the changes that you're suggesting, I don't think, will have any effect on the zoning. That was adding. So yeah, unless you just want to hold them off, because they're kind of... Well, 16 has the question that comes on Mr. and me about illegal activity. That's just why I make sure we're being very clear as to what we want coming back, right? So we go through 16, you know, the page. So it was 15 or 8. Yeah, 16. We. We just took the safe, the cross reference one and other. So we voted. This is so much fun. All right. This is so much fun for Major Source Flyer. We voted. That's in the licensing. We voted 15 and 17 and so we have to do emotion. Sorry, I just want to be sorry because I'm going to be a little bit because this is, I don't want us to ding this procedurally. I need a motion that is an un-vote. Like, emotion in a second to take back, like a five-year-old. of motion in a second to withdraw our vote proposing lead agency status for item number 15. A motion in a second. Can you hold Paulin? Roll call it. Okay. Madam. I'm sorry. We did. I don't know yet because I got a lot of interruption. So sorry, one second, and I also didn't have lunch. So we're going to work with me nice and slow. We would like, what was the word recall? Emotion in a second to withdraw our vote, proposing lead agency status. It's going to go to a roll call vote, but I need a motion in a second to get to that part. We have a motion in a second on the item to recall our vote for item number 15. Aston Luey and Peters, roll call vote please, Madam Clerk. Council member Lopez? Okay, so I am somewhat confused. We too. I am assuming that when you give the ticket or the violation is to the owner to the person that has the license, not to the workers that are having a beer. So I don't see why we have to go, is the owner, is they're not going to go to the people that are working there? Who gave them the license? OK, I'm going to go to the license. Then you are to appear in court because A, B, and C. Then you have people that are working there and that's where the police department gets involved and says, okay, this to continue some piece, we have some victims here and they are the ones, so I leave it as how I got it before, I would you leave it? I just kind of want to throw it. Can I just say one thing, if you read the legislation as a whole and such legislation It's in towards owners and opponents So those provisions are also in towards the owners and operators How if you want yeah, we could obviously change the wording to make you feel more comfortable, but I that's the intent and the overall spirit of the legislation Let's take a step back what is it that you would want to see different? What is the directive we're giving to staff? I think it's to make more clearly make the owners and operators, managers, the ones who depart the targets of any sort of penalties. And if that is already the case, as like you're describing, describing in the legislation it doesn't appear to be but but again it is because it's you know what when you have a business and if I go to the store and I'm working for the store and they come and say there are violations here it's okay, I'm gonna turn my boss Sorry Office of Sorry. That's OK. So for the office of effect, that's why I'm going back to the state because when you get certified relative to that, you can certify relative to that. There's part of that certification. I'm not going to ask. Yeah. Where should you decide to make it? We should include a clinical clinical, but no one doesn't get another. Right? So the individuals they ensure themselves. I'm not to do that. If in fact they violate any areas associated with their original intent. I'm not sure they have insured. They give you mean by license? Once we put this in place, I think that they certainly would be available. But I'm wondering whether or not they can ensure that I'm entitled to check it. Because I know if you turn the social work here, you're getting you know, you're assuring yourself and you're thinking, oh, well, anything associated with you getting your license, you should not be engaged in it. So I'm assuming that we apply to something like this. Okay. Okay. Learning in real time. It's not recobble. I'm going to start with rewind the clock. I move, we reconsider our action relative to item number 15, which was designated proposed lead agency status. Emotion in a second, please. Before we'll call, we're gonna do roll call. 100% the last time I did roll call, I got things I need to do motion in a. So I got to like get a follow-all to roll call. Re-consider. Before you put the motion out, because if we have to re-say the way the motion is put anyway, I just want to clarify the intent. Just walk us through this a little bit. Yeah, let me just have this. The intent is if you got for good or commissioning aelle got for good, we all got called to happen tomorrow and there was a new leadership here, right? That the leadership wouldn't take the same legislation and then instead of just targeting the operator or owner, they're targeting everybody and the establishment has if it's some legal case or something like that. We have instances of the law where everybody in the car is getting a charge, as opposed to the people that are the actual culprits of an action. So are we avoiding that in this legislation as it's been? I believe that the intent of this is to go after the operators, not the individuals. And I know when you said you wanted to pull back lead agency, no matter what happens, you were the lead agency. Yeah. That's up to you, folks. And I gotta tell you what to do, but no matter what happens, you were definitely a lead agency. Well, you wouldn be able to designate the public. I'm just trying to, since we've been voting in as a pair, we should have balanced by our procedure, I guess. So, the directive is to make sure that the legislation is focused, and I'm not sure who I'm looking at, I'm not exactly sure who has the issue anymore. It's been a lot of words, a lot of English and a lot of jargon at 7 p.m. So the concern is to make sure it's going that the legislation targets the owner for prior to your manager operator. Is that the concern? That is the concern. But I'm cognizant of the fact that we want to be able to address this as soon as possible. And if in practice, it's not an issue. It's always going to be about the owner, the operator. I don't want to just hold it up unnecessarily if that's going to be, You you know, Dislitting care problems. The problem is, you don't know who the owner, the operator, you don't know if one of the people that are working there and doing the massage also is one of the partners in the business. You don't know any of it. There's no way of knowing that. So by what we're doing is we're micromanaging everything and saying what if this, what if that, we can go around this table for the next three weeks. I never come up with legislation and I don't know if you realize but this activity has been going on in areas where we're renting out, they were renting out $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 a month apartments are being rented out, right next door to where some of these places are, we're operating that, some of them may have already closed down, but if we don't get legislation in place to be able to control this, You know, we'll be dealing with bigger issues than what we're talking about now. But there's no way of pinpointing who is the actual operator. I mean, I've talked to Paul about it. He have one operator has five places. All I can say is that I would equate this to an audience. Because every time you peel back another layer of the audience, oh, there's somebody else. Oh, no, there's somebody else. And you never get the actual person. We've had people come into the office, say, on the orange. I'm like, OK, I want to please officer Zestin, what's the name of your corporation? Yeah, I don't know. You don't know the name of your own corporation? Right. Then you're not the only, you're not a corporate officer of the corporation. You don't know the name of your own corporation. Um, we never saw him again, by the way. Never. Forgot. Sorry, time to move. I mean, no, we do. It's getting really confusing out. Yeah, the work is correct. So I just want to just put a problem on the table and just say, procedurally, it's a little messy right now. And I understand that 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are related. We did adopt 15 and 17. There's a motion that was for a second and to recall, I guess, technically procedurally. There's another word to just taking it back as just normal humans, taking Roberts rules. What is the directive to SAP if we're gonna hold this? Essentially, I'm concerned that we are micromanaging now. Like I'm going back on what I said earlier. Basically, yeah, because ultimately, we're gonna have to rely on the judgment of you know and the process has described by the commissioners so yeah unless there's a more specific director that we can get staff I'd relate I'm just I don't want to send you guys on a wild goose chase, you know, without Clarity from council. So No, just adding to that thinking my only concern would be the inverse But I'd rather see the legislation and we make an amendment on it if it becomes a problem as opposed to Holding up so in that sense, we'd be at 18, I believe. Would it, would it, hold on, Councilmember Tantu, you was trying to, that's just, this. Yeah, all I wanted to say was that, you know, like any other legislation that we've passed in, that invest. We've had issues where we missed something or something came up that would anticipate or anticipate it, but they know exactly what it would be. And this is no difference than any of that other legislation. We can always come back and tweak it legislation. I'm very sorry. You said that. I agree. The code can be fluid. It can be dynamic. It has to change from time to time. And then we're just trying to take a bad situation. It makes it. So it's absolutely bad situation. So it's a good job, chemical. So let's say I'm comfortable going with this for now. And if we need to adapt, you know, adapt it later, I'm going to do that. And Commissioner, you've been very good with bringing us, you know, the stories and the nuances of the different happening. So if we see something where we should make amendments in the future. That's for that. Thank you. Okay. So this is fun. We don't want to talk about it. We don't make it in motion. Yeah. You had a motion second on the table on the note. Yeah, responded. So I say we just move forward to number 19, which is designated the public hearing for proposed local law intro number three regarding the size establishment. Wait, do we vote on 18? No, 18 is intro only. Oh, okay. Remember earlier, I said there's a pair. Yep, sometimes I get it. 19 is a public, what? Motion in a second, does it mean the public hearing for June 10th? May I have a motion in a second, does it mean the public hearing? Tarantino and Loup has all in favor say aye. Aye. We have, I've been advised one matter that is the subject for exact session, would be related to the lease. Thank you both, commissioner. I appreciate both of you. related to the lease of real property. I do not anticipate coming back with the public session once the executive session is concluded. Madam. Thank you both, commissioners. I appreciate both you. Related to the release of real property, I do not anticipate coming back with the public session once the executive session is concluded. May I have a motion in a second to enter into executive? We have so. You said it would come back in public session. No, I do not anticipate coming back at the public session. Do you want to move in second the minutes so much? Oh, I forgot that. That whole part. There we go. So excited Mr. Jemda. All right. Thank you, Ms. Marylue. In the motion in a second for the approval of the minutes for the RLM, that was dated Tuesday, March 18, 2025, and the Cal Tuesday, April 8, 2025. Motion in seconds to adopt those minutes, Kay, and Stern, all in favor say aye. All right. And he opposed. for the meetings listed or if you can read them later. Motion and a second to enter into executive session for a matter related to the lease of real property. And do not anticipate coming back into public session at the conclusion of the exact session. Motion and a second, please. P-A-K and Austin Lue, all in favor say aye. Aye. And he opposed. Thank you. Enjoy the weather.